• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maedar

Banned
You made the claim that he "hated" guns. It's up to you to prove it. So far, no proof. Conceding the point?

LDS, in your previous posts, you have proven yourself capable of using a dictionary. You have also proven yourself capable of understanding slang terms.

So why is it that you seem incapable of grasping concepts like "figure of speech" and "exaggeration used to emphasize a point"?

I'd like to see them try to put that many people in jail. I wonder which of the actual criminals will get released to make room for these people?

You must admit, that many armed protesters is more dangerous than the ones in Rev. Kings nonviolent marches and sit-ins, or even the OWS movement. (And I really did not like the latter, seeing as I had to work downwind from them.)

Are you not going to try and justify why important political people need armed guards while us lowly citizens aren't allowed to defend ourselves?

Seeing as King was assassinated, having a bodyguard seemed justified, don't you think? Most "lowly citizens" don't have to worry about that.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
LDS, in your previous posts, you have proven yourself capable of using a dictionary. You have also proven yourself capable of understanding slang terms.

So why is it that you seem incapable of grasping concepts like "figure of speech" and "exaggeration used to emphasize a point"?
What "figure of speech" did you use? An "exaggeration" is also called a lie. So are you now claiming you were wrong about MLK hating guns and are conceding the point?

You must admit, that many armed protesters is more dangerous than the ones in Rev. Kings nonviolent marches and sit-ins, or even the OWS movement.
Seeing as how none of those "armed protestors" have commited any crimes or caused any problems, unlike OWS(rape, assaults, etc), I see no need to admit any such thing.

Seeing as King was assassinated, having a bodyguard seemed justified, don't you think? Most "lowly citizens" don't have to worry about that.
We just have to worry about the burglars, rapists, killers, kidnappers, and the random crazy person. When an unimportant person is killed, it's just called "murder." You do realize there is a logical disconnect there?
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, but anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. - See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/p...eve in gun control..html#sthash.b6k3HVKB.dpuf

Edit: Phrase it more like: Important people get armed guards because someone might try to kill them but the average citizen can't have a firearm because it's paranoid to think someone might try to kill you.
More lies from the media

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/25/MSNBC-HBO-Scold-NRA-NSSF-Over-Kids-And-Guns

On February 24th, MSNBC's Chris Hayes was joined by HBO's Jon Frankel to report that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) fight to allow "young kids to access guns."

To make this case, Hayes opened the segment by focusing on the NRA's failed challenge of a Texas law prohibiting "the majority of 18-to-20-year olds from carrying a handgun in public" with a concealed carry license. Hayes said this court challenge on behalf of "teenagers" shows the NRA "apparently believes everyone should be allowed to carry handguns."

Hayes then brought in Frankel to discuss how the legal age to be in possession of a firearm varies from state to state, but they did this without differentiating between ages for legal possession for various gun types.

For example, Hayes and Frankel focused on how Virginia law allows a 13-year-old to possess a .22 rifle, without mentioning that the same 13-year-old is barred from possessing or transporting "a handgun or assault firearm." Instead, the message was that teenagers too young to get "a pornographic magazine" or "beer" could get and/or possess a .22 rifle.

They pointed to seven states with "no minimum age for solo hunting" and criticized Illinois for allowing children as young as four to take "a gun safety course."

Instead of noting the genius of teaching gun safety to kids early and having laws in place that allow them to possess some guns but not others--depending on age--Hayes and Frankel contend that state laws that do anything less than bar gun possession to anyone under 21 are proof the NRA and NSSF view "the children of today ... [as] the consumers of tomorrow."

Edit:

Short video on the media myth about assault rifles.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/02/26/Copy of Exposing-The-Media-Assault-Weapon-Myth

Moms Demand Action campaigns against guns using racist ads and they violated at least one gun safety rule as well.

http://www.****edupblog.com/?p=341

Moms Demand Action has created a campaign that is blatantly racist while using comparisons equivalent of apples and oranges. It is without question that these “moms”, Shannon Watts, Founder, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, Melissa Brooks, Co-leader and their minions, are not thinking clearly. Logic or fact has no place to reside where emotion has consumed every particle of oxygen in the room.

What IS clear is that Ms. Watts, Ms. Brooks and others involved with this disorganization sat down at a planning table. They planned out the PSA campaign “strategy”. They clearly chose to put a WHITE CHILD in every campaign picture as the “shooter” with the gun. They clearly chose to put alternating children of different ethnicities in the campaign photos as the “innocent” child holding an item that is banned for whatever other ridiculous liberal reasoning it was banned for (the subjects are dodge ball, “Little Red Riding Hood” book, and Kinder Eggs).

Edit:
Yet another attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...tes-seeking-to-ban-gun-sales-on-social-sites/

Private sales aren't taking place. Advertisements are taking place. Transactions occur in the real world and are still bound by that state's laws.

Edit:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/26/11-Year-Old-Girl-Shoots-Cougar-To-Save-Brother

An 11 year old with a gun saves her younger brother from a cougar. The large cat, not an older woman. This helps prove my point that there are children responsible enough to handle firearms.

Edit:
You know how gun control groups like to claim that the NRA got firearm research halted by denying funding? Yeah that's a lie as well.
The number of articles and pages stayed about the same and even doubled in 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ative-on-firearms-research/?intcmp=latestnews

A forthcoming study is challenging claims, repeated over and over in the media, that federal restrictions effectively froze gun research over the last two decades.

The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.


Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote.

The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.

The report challenges not only the media narrative but also the notion that researchers need a constant flow of federal money in order to thrive.

CPRC’s study takes it as a given that researchers always want more funding, but suggests that even without federal funds, academics are spending more time on these projects. It also points to a rise in private research funding.

Federally funded gun research was originally restricted through an amendment to Centers for Disease Control funding in 1996. Lawmakers, and the NRA, at the time voiced concern the money could be used to specifically promote gun control.

It read: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In 2003, that text was amended to add the words “in whole or in part.”

There is room for argument about what the latest data actually shows.

According to the study, the number of firearms-related articles and pages held relatively steady. Sixty-nine articles were published in 1996 – the number then averaged about 62 articles a year through 2012, before nearly doubling to 121 in 2013. As the study notes, there generally is a three-year lag between funding and publishing research, so the spike in 2013 could not be due to the recent approval of new federal funding.

The study, though, acknowledges that “firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research.” In the relevant period, the total number of published medical journal pieces has climbed from about 450,000 to 1.1 million a year – gun-related articles did not increase nearly as much.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
LDS, remember how you said that the revolutionaries in the Ukraine overthrew the government using guns?

Well, now those revolutionaries are in big trouble, because the Russian army, who they are cowering in fear against, has bigger guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/01/putin-russian-troops-crimea_n_4880076.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/ukraine_n_4884390.html

This is the real end result of a rag-tag, unskilled militia trying to reform a nation by force, saying, "I've got guns, what are you gonna do?" They got a dose of reality, and I doubt they'll get the Second Amendment they wanted.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
LDS, remember how you said that the revolutionaries in the Ukraine overthrew the government using guns?

Well, now those revolutionaries are in big trouble, because the Russian army, who they are cowering in fear against, has bigger guns.
Cowering in fear? No where in either article does it mention the Ukrainians "cowering in fear."

Both of these articles cover the same events in Crimea. An area in the Ukraine that was ceded to Ukraine by Russia in the 1950s. It consists of a large number of people who speak Russian and identify strongly with Russia.

This is the real end result of a rag-tag, unskilled militia trying to reform a nation by force, saying, "I've got guns, what are you gonna do?" They got a dose of reality, and I doubt they'll get the Second Amendment they wanted.
One area that is made up of former Russians does not equal the entire country. They still kicked out their horrid gov't, they still did so against military forces.

Any chance you plan on actually debating anything? MLK "hating" guns? Your wild west theory and why that result would be bad? The claim that the study I posted is wrong somehow? The fact that guns are used to STOP crime more than they are are used to cause crimes? Anything related to any of the claims you've made and then abandoned?
 

Maedar

Banned
Cowering in fear? No where in either article does it mention the Ukrainians "cowering in fear."

I said that to be dramatic. Here's what I meant:

The Russian army has the Ukrainian soldiers cornered, some of them inside a barracks and the insurrectionists, who you said "overthrew the government because they had guns", can't do squat now.

One area that is made up of former Russians does not equal the entire country. They still kicked out their horrid gov't, they still did so against military forces.

My point still stands, LDS. The insurrectionists who "overthrew the government because they had guns" were efficient against the Ukraine's army, given the sorry state of their economy (one of the big reasons why the rebelled) but now that are proving helpless against a large nation's well-equipped and far-better prepared armed forces. This would be the end result of any similar attempt against the U.S. army that you keep warning against, because ours is even better.

You made the comparison, and now it seems the insurrectionists are in big trouble.

Any chance you plan on actually debating anything? MLK "hating" guns?

Still hung up on that, huh? MLK was a pacifist who preached nonviolence, LDS, I shouldn't have to debate the obvious. And btw, no.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I said that to be dramatic. Here's what I meant:
So you are exaggerating again. And hopefully you remember that exaggerating is also considered lying.

The Russian army has the Ukrainian soldiers cornered, some of them inside a barracks and the insurrectionists, who you said "overthrew the government because they had guns", can't do squat now.
No shots fired and most of the locals don't seem to have a problem with it.


My point still stands, LDS. The insurrectionists who "overthrew the government because they had guns" were efficient against the Ukraine's army, given the sorry state of their economy (one of the big reasons why the rebelled) but now that are proving helpless against a large nation's well-equipped and far-better prepared armed forces. This would be the end result of any similar attempt against the U.S. army that you keep warning against, because ours is even better.
And our civilians are better armed, better trained, we have a better infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. In a general rebellion against a corrupt US gov't, our civilians would do better than civilians in the Ukraine.

You made the comparison, and now it seems the insurrectionists are in big trouble.
Is the Russian army attacking the locals? Are they rounding up people and arresting them? Are they moving to oust the new president and put someone else in charge? Nope. They seem to be staying in Crimea.


Still hung up on that, huh? MLK was a pacifist who preached nonviolence, LDS, I shouldn't have to debate the obvious. And btw, no.

Well I did mention 3 other items you could have responded to. If it was obvious that MLK "hated" guns, you'd have provided proof by now. And the moderator did say you needed to either prove your claim, concede like an adult or get infracted. Frankly, I don't think you can admit to being wrong.
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
They haven't done anything yet. They aren't barbarians. However...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3&pLid=449880

At 5PM tomorrow GMT, we can settle this issue.

And again, you ignore crucial details in your links. The most important being that this unverified threat is against the military forces of Ukraine in the Crimea area.

Any chance you plan on debating your gun control claims?

Edit:

Interesting. Murder rates with primitive weapons shoot up when guns aren't available.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

A strong example is the recent incident in China.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...-Control-Makes-The-Vulnerable-More-Vulverable

Edit:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-such-a-small-number-from-a-former-navy-seal/

It may seem small, but according to former Navy SEAL Dom Raso, who’s also an NRA commentator, that number makes a big difference for concealed carry permit holders, especially in Florida.

“Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits,” Raso says in his latest opinion piece for the NRA News network. “Of those, only 168 people have committed firearms crimes. That’s .0000672 percent of the total amount issued.”*

Raso’s point is part of a larger message to businesses: if you make your establishment a “gun free” zone, you’re actually endangering yourself and your customers, as well as making yourself a target. Permit holders, he says, “are the last people you should be trying to keep out of your business.”

So permit holders obey the laws? Who'd have thought that? (sarc)
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
The Ukraine and Crimea are not two separate sovereign nations, my friend, it's been like that since 1992. (Contested, yes, but it is legally recognized as being part of the Ukraine.) Putin - and every other world leader, is smart enough to know that. In fact, that was the entire point of the revolution, it was a fight between a pro-Ukraine faction who wanted the peninsula to remain under the Ukraine's jurisdiction and a pro-Russian faction who wanted succession. This invasion by Russian troops is the result of Putin responding to a request for aid from the second faction. And his ultimatum was specifically made to the Ukraine, so Crimea river.

I'm sorry, couldn't resist. "Crimea river", that may have been a rejected category on Jeopardy

Seriously, YOU made the comparison, and said that the successful insurrection was an example of why armed civilians was a good idea, because they let you do something like this. I do believe that in a few hours, for them, it will prove a very bad idea.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
The Ukraine and Crimea are not two separate sovereign nations, my friend, it's been like that since 1992. (Contested, yes, but it is legally recognized as being part of the Ukraine.) Putin - and every other world leader, is smart enough to know that.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/03/crimea-caught-in-middle-as-russia-ukraine-drama-plays-out/

Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, when both nations were part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine naturally took Crimea with it in 1991, when it declared its independence following the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Yet, the 10,000-square-mile peninsula, with access to the all-important Black Sea, has existed as a semi-autonomous republic, with a 60 percent majority of ethnic Russians.

In fact, that was the entire point of the revolution, it was a fight between a pro-Ukraine faction who wanted the peninsula to remain under the Ukraine's jurisdiction and a pro-Russian faction who wanted succession.
No it wasn't. The President of Ukraine accepted an offer to join a Russia lead union instead of joining the EU. The Russians had the better offer.
He also instituted draconian laws that upset many people.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-play-cold-war-games-in-ukraine/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116362/understand-ukranian-protests-look-russia
Much of the country was divided east and west in how they responded as well.

Please provide proof for your claim that the peninsula was the cause of the revolution.

This invasion by Russian troops is the result of Putin responding to a request for aid from the second faction. And his ultimatum was specifically made to the Ukraine, so Crimea river.

I'm sorry, couldn't resist. "Crimea river", that may have been a rejected category on Jeopardy

Seriously, YOU made the comparison, and said that the successful insurrection was an example of why armed civilians was a good idea, because they let you do something like this. I do believe that in a few hours, for them, it will prove a very bad idea.

And again. you still ignore things in your own links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3&pLid=449880

Read the first line. "Military forces in Crimea."

At no point has Russia moved against any of the insurrectionists. Mainly because said insurrectionists are in a different part of the country. So you are making an invalid comparison.
Please provide proof for your claim that Russia has done anything against protestors or insurrectionists in the Crimea area.

Crimea apparently took a poll and appointed a leader of their own and asked Russia for assistance in becoming their own nation.

And I said that the insurrectionists succeeding disproved your own claims that civilians can't fight a military and win. There are any number of reasons why armed civilians are a good idea. Lower crime rates, more stopped criminals being two of those reasons.
Still waiting for you to defend your own claims.

Edit: Swimming pools kill more children than guns in accidental deaths! Support swimming pool control now! It's for the children!

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/03/04/your-neighborhood-pool-is-more-dangerous-than-a-loaded-gun/

Background checks do not reduce crime in any category.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Evidence-That-Background-Checks-Reduce-Crime

This is crucial information for gun owners and would-be gun owners who are constantly bombarded with the idea that background checks are good and need to be expanded to cover all sales now.

According to Lott, of the 76,142 background checks denials in 2010, many were cleared up after the "initial" denial, 44 were prosecuted, and "only 13 [people] were convicted of illegally trying to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so." And the 13 who were convicted were people "with relatively trivial records from years earlier that didn't realize their offense was covered" by a background check when they went to buy a gun: "hardly what one would call dangerous criminals."

Lott then adds the clincher: "There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime." He points to a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel that specifically concluded Brady Law background checks "did not reduce violent crime, not even a single category of violent crime."

Edit: Crimea and the Ukraine seem to have passed that deadline. Nothing happened. Go figure.
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
See this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/mitch-mcconnell-gun_n_4911948.html

Once again, a high-ranking Republican politician (Senate Minority Leader McConnell, no less) shows he knows nothing about gun safety, and this time, it's on live television.

This isn't making them look good, that's for sure.

Your link is a little sparce on details. What exactly did he do that was wrong re gun safety?

Any chance you plan on actually debating any of your claims?

Edit:
Let me amend that to "Do you plan to debate actual gun control issues rather than posting things about various people who may or may not be violating gun safety rules?"
Because I can post a lot of about that from the gun control side of things.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
LDS, come on. Why do you insist I provide written evidence that an ordained minister famous for being a pacifist and leading nonviolent protests hated guns? It's kind of obvious.

Are you so intent on smearing Rev. King's reputation by trying to make me admit he approved of their use? Is that it?

My link said he gave up his gun and opposed using them, and included a quote from the man himself saying that he couldn't relay his message if he used them. Why do you persist?

Can't you just admit that your story that claimed he opposed gun control was manipulated?

To answer you question, Mr. McConnell was carelessly waving a rifle above his head. THAT is a flagrant misuse of a firearm.

And I would think a rifle is not the best gift to give someone who is retiring because of terminal cancer. I know it's the thought that counts, but this kind of expresses the wrong thought.
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
LDS, come on. Why do you insist I provide written evidence that an ordained minister famous for being a pacifist and leading nonviolent protests hated guns? It's kind of obvious.
If it's obvious, then there should be some proof.

Are you so intent on smearing Rev. King's reputation by trying to make me admit he approved of their use? Is that it?
I have no interest in "smearing" MLK's reputation. I merely wish for proof that MLK "hated guns" and supported gun control. You need only admit that MLK never expressed hatred of guns or expressed support for gun control.

My link said he gave up his gun and opposed using them, and included a quote from the man himself saying that he couldn't relay his message if he used them. Why do you persist?
I persist because MLK expressed a personal opinion on his personal use of firearms. "How can he lead a non-violent movement and own a gun?" He did not say that no one else should. There was even a quote provided where he expressed support at one point for self defense in the home.
Can't you just admit that your story that claimed he opposed gun control was manipulated?
A story from the Huffpost was manipulated? How odd. If he supported gun control, then there would be some quote you could show? Where is it?

To answer you question, Mr. McConnell was carelessly waving a rifle above his head. THAT is a flagrant misuse of a firearm.
Odd. I watched the video and did not see him carelessly waving the firearm above his head. At no point was his hand on the trigger mechanism either. So what was the danger?

And I would think a rifle is not the best gift to give someone who is retiring because of terminal cancer. I know it's the thought that counts, but this kind of expresses the wrong thought.
That would be your opinion. Other people would think that what looks like an antique rifle would be a good gift.

Edit:

Interesting.
Gandi opposed gun bans.
http://www.storyleak.com/fact-even-gandhi-opposed-gun-bans/
In a major reality blast to those who tote gun bans in the name of Mahatma Gandhi and other famous leaders, it is actually a little-known fact that Gandhi himself was openly opposed to gun bans. In fact, he proclaimed a nationwide gun disarmament to be the ‘blackest’ deed of the entire British ruling period in India.

Not the same Gandhi you know? Gandhi has actually advocated the use of firearms in defense time and time again. Here we see it once more:


“Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor,” Gandhi wrote in his work The Doctrine of the Sword.
.
He continues to break down how self-defense is actually rooted in bravery:


“When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”

Part of what helped MLK win in his struggles was the media coverage that showed non-violent people being attacked with dogs, firehoses and by the police. What if the media had ignored the events? Or even lied about what was happening?

Why is it a "smear" if MLK didn't hate guns?
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/index.cfm?

Rule #1.

Edit: Here, I'll even expand on it:

http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/index.cfm?segment=true

What do you know? He broke #1 and #3.

(And so did Palin in that photo, for that matter. Plus # 7.)

You know what. This is a really stupid tangent you keep going off on. It has nothing to do with Gun Control laws in the slightest and seems to be just a part of your anti-Republican rants. You can not prove that the gun was ever pointed at anyone, you can not prove that the gun was even loaded or was a functional firearm. It looks like a muzzle loading type of rifle. The fact that you bring up Palin, again, and claim she broke rule #7, when she was POSING FOR PICTURES, is rather silly as well.

Do you have anything to contribute regarding gun control laws? The studies I've listed in the last few pages? MLK and his "obvious hatred" of guns? The statistics that point out that accidental deaths are far higher for any other number of items than guns? Anything to do with actual gun control topics?
 

Maedar

Banned
You didn't even read my link, because now you didn't even deny that Mr. McConnell was violating gun safety guidelines, which I looked up for you.

And as for Palin, she was pointing the muzzle of the gun in an unsafe direction (at her face, breaking rule #1), she was assuming the safety would work and it was unloaded (breaking rule # 3) and not wearing eye and ear equipment on her supposed hunting trip (breaking rule #7).

McConnell, who was holding the gun over his head was pointing it in an unsafe direction and not even looking where he was pointing it (seriously breaking rule #1) and he was also falsely assuming it could not fire while holding it dramatically and using it carelessly (using it like a toy and breaking rule #3).

Again and again, the people who argue loudest against gun control prove that they shouldn't be allowed to own them.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
You didn't even read my link, because now you didn't even deny that Mr. McConnell was violating gun safety guidelines, which I looked up for you.
I am denying it.

And as for Palin, she was pointing the muzzle of the gun in an unsafe direction (breaking rule #1), she was assuming the safety would work and it was unloaded (breaking rule # 3) and not wearing eye and ear equipment on her supposed hunting trip (breaking rule #7).
And again, there is no FREAKING RULES ON WHERE A GUN THAT IS NOT BEING HELD SHOULD BE POINTED! Guns do not randomly fire. An outside force must occur to fire the gun. Either someone pulls the trigger or it somehow discharges when dropped. And even then that is rare. And most modern firearms go through drop tests just so people can't sue the gun maker. And if no one in the hunting group is actually shooting, but is instead TAKING PICTURES, then there is no need to keep the safety gear on.

McConnell, who was holding the gun over his head was pointing it in an unsafe direction and not even looking where he was pointing it (seriously breaking rule #1) and he was also falsely assuming it could not fire while holding it dramatically and using it carelessly (using it like a toy and breaking rule #3).
Prove it was unsafe then. Who was endangered? Prove that McConnell didn't check and clear the gun before walking on stage? It looks like a muzzle loader. There are a few more steps involved in loading one of those. Your link goes the paranoid route. "It could richochet or go through the ceiling!" What about the floor? There could be a floor of people below them! And again, contrary to the liberal media, guns do NOT randomly fire without a trigger pull. And again, rule 3 only applies if McConnell knew it was loaded or even TOUCHED THE FRIGGING TRIGGER!

Again and again, the people who argue loudest against gun control prove that they shouldn't be allowed to own them.
And again and again, the people who argue the loudest for gun control prove that they haven't a clue about what they are talking about.

Can we move away from this false argument and back to the actual gun control issues? People use guns to stop crime more than the cause it. The majority of people who kill someone with a gun, aren't supposed to be in possession of a gun anyway.
 

Maedar

Banned
And again, there is no FREAKING RULES ON WHERE A GUN THAT IS NOT BEING HELD SHOULD BE POINTED! Guns do not randomly fire.

Doesn't matter. A responsible gun owner never takes chances no matter HOW sure he is, because he KNOWS a gun can kill you.

You never leave a gun pointed at your face, no matter how sure you are it isn't loaded. EVER.

If you were to make your argument on a test to be an armed security guard and say "It doesn't matter if you know it isn't loaded", you'd flunk the class. No questions asked.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. A responsible gun owner never takes chances no matter HOW sure he is, because he KNOWS a gun can kill you.
A car can kill you. Should the battery, tires, and gasoline be removed before you put in on blocks? A knife can kill you. Should you dull the blade and wrap it in bubble wrap before placing it the kitchen drawer?


A loaded gun that is being handled by a person can kill you. A gun sitting on a shelf or in the corner or on the table untouched by anyone is not.

You never leave a gun pointed at your face, no matter how sure you are it isn't loaded. EVER.
Guns do not randomly fire. If you are the owner and you are okay with the odd display then it is your choice.

If you were to make your argument on a test to be an armed security guard and say "It doesn't matter if you know it isn't loaded", you'd flunk the class. No questions asked.
Thank god I have a better career choice than armed security guard then.

edit: Maeder, why do you support gun control? Let's try discussing your reasons.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top