HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Do...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:47 AM

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to
1.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

rest of list at link

112 replies, 6860 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 112 replies Author Time Post
Reply 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down (Original post)
Botany Feb 2013 OP
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #1
slackmaster Feb 2013 #2
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #7
sarisataka Feb 2013 #9
G_j Feb 2013 #12
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #13
G_j Feb 2013 #15
sarisataka Feb 2013 #28
CTyankee Feb 2013 #19
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #20
CTyankee Feb 2013 #24
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #38
CTyankee Feb 2013 #46
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #47
CTyankee Feb 2013 #48
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #50
CTyankee Feb 2013 #52
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #63
CTyankee Feb 2013 #65
roxy1234 Feb 2013 #49
CTyankee Feb 2013 #51
roxy1234 Feb 2013 #54
CTyankee Feb 2013 #55
roxy1234 Feb 2013 #57
CTyankee Feb 2013 #59
DonB Feb 2013 #89
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #40
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #43
CTyankee Feb 2013 #56
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #62
CTyankee Feb 2013 #66
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #68
CTyankee Feb 2013 #69
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #70
CTyankee Feb 2013 #71
CTyankee Feb 2013 #72
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #96
guardian Feb 2013 #104
slackmaster Feb 2013 #95
rdharma Feb 2013 #87
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #90
rdharma Feb 2013 #91
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #92
rdharma Feb 2013 #93
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #94
rdharma Feb 2013 #97
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #99
rdharma Feb 2013 #100
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #102
rdharma Feb 2013 #103
sarisataka Feb 2013 #27
CTyankee Feb 2013 #34
sarisataka Feb 2013 #39
geckosfeet Feb 2013 #83
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #3
guardian Feb 2013 #4
awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #11
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #22
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #81
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #78
CTyankee Feb 2013 #5
Botany Feb 2013 #8
davidn3600 Feb 2013 #10
CTyankee Feb 2013 #17
DanTex Feb 2013 #26
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #29
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2013 #41
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #32
rightsideout Feb 2013 #61
rdharma Feb 2013 #88
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #35
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #37
treestar Feb 2013 #45
G_j Feb 2013 #14
CTyankee Feb 2013 #16
G_j Feb 2013 #18
Electric Monk Feb 2013 #42
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #6
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #21
Robb Feb 2013 #23
DanTex Feb 2013 #25
awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #33
ellisonz Feb 2013 #44
derby378 Feb 2013 #64
CTyankee Feb 2013 #67
derby378 Feb 2013 #73
CTyankee Feb 2013 #74
derby378 Feb 2013 #75
CTyankee Feb 2013 #77
derby378 Feb 2013 #80
CTyankee Feb 2013 #82
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #108
CTyankee Feb 2013 #110
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #79
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #107
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #30
Fresh_Start Feb 2013 #31
duhneece Feb 2013 #36
Drale Feb 2013 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #58
rightsideout Feb 2013 #60
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #105
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #76
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #109
samsingh Feb 2013 #84
samsingh Feb 2013 #85
libodem Feb 2013 #86
slackmaster Feb 2013 #98
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #106
graham4anything Feb 2013 #101
Dpm12 Feb 2013 #111
samsingh Feb 2013 #112

Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:49 AM

1. Actually there is some backing for most of them (unfortunately)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:53 AM

2. I stopped at #1 because there are bills in the California legislature to do just that right now

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:20 PM

7. And numerous DUers support bans, even as they deny the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:32 PM

9. Also MN and MO

...CT has a proposal to outlaw all guns except single shot.

To say there is no way to round up all guns is false, passing a confiscation law is a de facto round up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:45 PM

12. Uh...

you actually think they can search every basement, every closet, every garage, every house in America? wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:53 PM

13. You might want to research Washington state bill SB 5737

which proposed exactly that. "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Of course the Democrats who proposed it claimed it was a mistake when people noticed the language in the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:55 PM

15. I'm not an idiot

That's a joke!

Edit to add: more accurately, fear mongering

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:03 PM

28. Not a joke

It was claimed to be a mistake. The same mistake repeated verbatim in three separate bills. Hard for that to be an accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:46 PM

19. Norway has exactly that kind of regulation with regard to inspection of gun storage.

The Norwegians love sports shooting and hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:21 PM

20. Fortunately we have the 4th Amendment to protect us from illegal searches n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:41 PM

24. The searches are not illegal. They are part of the law in Norway.

Norway is a parliamentary constitutional democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:32 PM

38. I don't expect too many courts here in the US will agree.

Also kind of curious where you would draw the line on such searches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:10 PM

46. Oh, I think it is far more curious not to consider such a plan out of hand.

Why is it some want NO restrictions on the 2nd Amendment but live pretty happily with restrictions on the First Amendment? And the 4th Amendment? None of these constitutional amendments are absolute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:33 PM

47. Not that tired argument again

There may not be enough to make YOU happy, but there are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:37 PM

48. I haven't heard any proponents of any restrictions among 2nd amendment defenders here.

Do YOU defend any restrictions on the 2nd amendment? Is there any literature from your side on the advisability of such limitations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:46 PM

50. Of course

no felon, no one convicted of domestic violence, no one ruled mentally incompetent should be allowed to buy a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:55 PM

52. All right, you say that is reasonable. I say that regular inspections can be reasonable.

It is curious that people as gun loving as the Norwegians would tolerate such inspections, yet they obviously do and live with them just fine. And these are people who know something about being invaded by foreign armed force. As I recall from history books the Norwegians had a very strong resistance during WW2. Wouldn't you think they would be far more sensitive to inspections if they felt they could be used to curtail their freedom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:49 PM

63. I disagree

This is the United States, not Norway.

It's disturbing how quick you are to surrender rights that you don't think will have a direct impact on YOUR life. I wonder if you would be as quick to surrender your 4th Amendment rights for weekly drug searches or weekly searches to make sure you aren't abusing your children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #63)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:38 PM

65. there you go again...as I have carefully pointed out here, Norway is a constitutional democracy,

not a totalitarian state. I don't think the Norwegians have "surrendered" anything like what you are suggesting. Do you really think they are not as free as we are? If not more so, IMHO.

Do you really think our democracy is so weak that strengthening our gun laws will result in those dire results? If so, you have low expectations of our democracy indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:40 PM

49. You're kidding right

 

No restriction on the 2nd amendment in this country. You know we have dozens of laws regulating guns in this country. The problem is that if gun owners give in on one new regulation, it will not stop until we have a ban on anything semi auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roxy1234 (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:49 PM

51. I take that as pretty strong antipathy to gun restrictions.

Or maybe you just never met one you liked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:04 PM

54. I do support many reasonable gun

 

control laws but this myth that gun owners do not want ANY restriction on the second amendment is a lie. One that can be easily proven and yet you see it stated every gun control thread on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roxy1234 (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:09 PM

55. If that is true then you need a better PR strategy. You are obviously not driving your message

home. You could post a thread about all the restrictions you DO support and why you see the need for that support and go full tilt against all the folks who you say are denying it. Go on the offense with it. I think there are a lot of people. myself included, who cannot recall much in that regard. You do talk about gun safety at a certain level, but when we try to make this an argument about public safety, you guys tend to go all flaccid on us. Then we hear that the discussion is about the 2nd amendment, not public safety. And there goes the quality of the debate right there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:17 PM

57. For the record

 

I am not really a gun guy. I dont own a gun, I have never shot one or even touched a gun but in the same vein that I support gay marriage even though am not gay, I support the 2nd amendment. So I am not on a mission to educate people but I will from time to time correct people when they post wrong information about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roxy1234 (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:26 PM

59. just as I had to clarify what I see actually happening in these threads. The pro-gun side has

weak, if any, voices on public safety in this debate. They just don't come out with a positive message on restrictions. Now, my guess is that they really can't, because their ideology demands unanimity and falling into line. But our side isn't hearing it. And that's not "wrong information" or if it is it is because the pro-gun side has weakly expressed it.

Come to think about it, roxy, yours is a "new twist" on this whole discussion. I wonder if we'll hear more of this "coming up soon" in the gun debate. Hmmm.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

89. I've been reading

 

this forum for years and your / our arguments are consistent, well grounded, and reasonable. Unfortunately you are dealing with and opposite that speaks in absolutes where they don't exist. Five fascist members of the Supreme Court gave them the opportunity to argue for an unlimited non-regulated right that has never existed and they didn't even realize that their fascist court said that the States had the right to regulate. Not sure if roxy is just playing devils advocate or if he works for the nra propaganda machine or if he's just a right wing jerk but it doesn't matter all that much. I think that your and many other common sense arguments will win the day because there are now just too many people moving in your / our direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:58 PM

40. If the bill becomes law, the inspections will be legal.

You have no right to resist a legal search.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:17 PM

43. Do you really think a law allowing warrantless searches

will hold up in court? I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:13 PM

56. Is a regular inspection always a "warrantless search'? We have various public health inspections

at random times of restaurant kitchens in the interest of public health safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #56)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:44 PM

62. Don't think the courts are going to view that way n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #62)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:41 PM

66. oh, c'mon, you haven't answered my question. Have the courts said that restaurant

kitchen inspections are unconstitutional? We can regulate many things. You are just going to extremes to make a point...geez...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #66)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:56 PM

68. There is an enormous difference between a warrant-less search

of a private citizen's home and the a health inspection of a public facility serving food

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #68)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

69. Oh, dear, again with "warrantless." If the law says inspection is legal, how can it be

warrantless?

that was really my point...please...if it is a health and safety regulation...as I was trying to point out, there are constitutional democracies abroad where people can own and use guns and can have sensible gun regulations. Same as with what we accept like food inspections. Hope you can keep up...not every advanced country in the world has this reasoning (and they are not totalitarian states like China)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #69)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:16 PM

70. Moot point

the politicians who put into the bill were very quick to remove the language from the bill when people noticed. Guess they either didn't think it would hold up in court or were afraid of being voted out in the next election.

I also don't think it would hold up in a court case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:24 PM

71. I see. what a great thinking group of citizens in our democracy. how wonderful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 09:39 AM

72. It is difficult for me to discern whether you are exultant about this "moot point" or

whether you are despairing of it. Upon further reflection, from my point of view what you have described is a kind of dead end (in more ways than just rhetorically). In reading the history of the rise and fall of nations I have serious problems thinking that a nation that shrugs off and does nothing to stem the slaughter of its citizens on a regular basis is headed for a glorious future. And IMHO the slavish devotion to an outlandish and outmoded proposition, such as the 2nd amendment, in today's world is leading to more ignorance, more violence, and less critical thinking.
It is, as Barbara Tuchman wrote many years ago, the "march of folly."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:50 AM

96. They won't be warrantless.

Do you actually think the law would be written by morons that ignore constitutional protections, in order to deliberately fail in a court challenge?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:38 PM

104. Yeah that would be almost as ludicrous

 

as warrantless wiretaps, killing American citizens without due process, waterboarding torture, rendition, lying to start a war, etc.

Nope. That could never happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:42 AM

95. Another excellent reason to vigorously oppose gun registration

 

They can't inspect the guns if they don't know where the guns are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:10 PM

87. Washington state bill SB 5737

 

That sheriff inspection verbage didn't even get into the introduced bill!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:54 AM

90. It was yanked out when people noticed and started yelling. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:22 AM

91. Like I said...... wasn't even in the original bill nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:02 AM

92. Do try and do some basic research before posting,

it might lend your posts some credibility:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html#.USEXugbndv1.facebook

"The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn't be in there,” Murray said. "

I think one of the primary sponsors admitting the language was there in the original bill and that it was "probably unconstitutional" should be sufficient proof.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:26 AM

93. Go check the ORIGINAL submitted bill!

 

The bill was never submitted with that verbiage. Go to the bills history.

It wasn't removed with an amendment...... it was never in the ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BILL.

No need to get hysterical preemptively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:37 AM

94. You're the only one getting hysterical

The primary SPONSOR of the bill said the language was originally in there or did you even bother to read the link?

Now if you want to ignore what the state senator said, that's fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:50 AM

97. "bother to read the link?"

 

I read that link a couple of days ago. That's why I researched the ACTUAL bill to see why the gun nutters were getting so panicky over verbiage that never reached the originally submitted bill.

No. It's not me getting hysterical. Amused....... yes. Hysterical........no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:43 AM

99. Your research skills seem lacking

Both the reporter and the primary sponsor have stated the language was in the original bill. I find them to have far more credibility then you.

If you had read the newspaper article you would have seen in the sixth paragraph the following:

"(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)"

Here is the link that was in the above paragraph: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/604969-senate-bill-5737.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #99)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:26 PM

100. language was in the original bill.

 

In the draft. Not in the original bill. But continue to run in circles doing the "willy nilly"! I don't want to spoil your fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #100)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:45 PM

102. It's lots of fun watching you avoid facts n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #102)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:16 PM

103. "It's lots of fun watching you"

 

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Errrr merrrrr Gerrrrd! Theirrrrrr kerrrrmin' terrr terrrk merrrr gerrrns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:01 PM

27. Given the choice between

A obeying a law which might be unconstitutional
B refusing to follow the law and becoming a felon if caught

What would most gun owners do- remembering the vast majority obey the laws...
I don't think every nook and cranny will have to be physically searched. For those that don't immediately comply, an ATF run Waco-like lesson would bring most passive resistors into line. Before discounting such a scenario, do remember that DU posters have advocated "killing gun owners and their families" by police action or using drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:36 PM

34. where is that documented?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:31 PM

39. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1980588

I recall a discussion in RKBA where a poster had no problem with the killing of innocent family members in the course of apprehension of a person accused of a gun crime. My search-fu is weak tonight and have not been able to locate that specific thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:43 PM

83. The laws in many states that enforce bans under penalty of law disprove #1 off the bat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:05 AM

3. Sorry, that's just bs propaganda.


They are coming for guns. The effort in DC is purposely vague and some states are going after more than just "assault rifles."

And no matter how many times it is said otherwise, guns are inanimate objects. They don't do things on their own. People use them to do things.

Take the guns from the criminals. Prosecute gun-crime severely. Leave law-abiding citizens alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:12 PM

4. Believe that bullshit

 

if you want. The article is full of lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:39 PM

11. Care to tell us what the lies are? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:27 PM

22. See my post #21 in this thread.

There are many flat out lies in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:40 PM

81. Your "post #21" has been completely and thoroughly debunked:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:34 PM

78. Name one. I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:16 PM

5. funny how so far nobody is addressing the article's first paragraph:

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Now why would they not want research and data collection/sharing for a study of gun violence? I would think that if this article is b.s. some data to back up the argument would be useful.

Oh, wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:25 PM

8. I hunt and own guns but the NRA and the gun lovers want to deny one simple fact ....

.... the more guns you have per capita the more gun deaths you have per capita.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1302gundeath.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:36 PM

10. Then why isnt Switzerland the wild wild west?

They have more guns per capita than we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:05 PM

17. Tell us about Switzerland's gun control laws vs. ours...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:00 PM

26. Wrong. Switzerland does not have more guns per capita then we do.

How is it that so many people get brainwashed by false NRA talking points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:03 PM

29. #1: it's not full of Americans

we lead the world in belligerent armed idiots per capita.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:09 AM

41. What you mean to say is we lead the world in belligerent idiots... and some of them are armed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:24 PM

32. Several points

1.- Switzerland does not have more guns per capita than we do.

2.- care to check Swiss gun laws, including using all the ammo you buy at the range, not being allowed to store ammo at home, unless you are a member of swat, and having to account for each round.

3.- Did I mention unannounced inspections?

So what were you saying?

Next on tap will be Israel...which also has very strict gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:43 PM

61. Switzerland is the Wild West in Europe

They have more gun deaths than most European countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:14 PM

88. Switzerland also has 100% gun registration. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:02 PM

35. Duh! Just as pool drownings logically rise with proliferation of pools.

What everyone fails to actually admit is that there isn't anything special about gun deaths because dead is dead.

I swear some wouldn't care one bit if the number of deaths and overall violence tripled as long as guns weren't used. That is why they must harp on the suicides and ignore the list of countries with strict gun control with higher rates.

It is the guns not the deaths, the deaths are just sacrificial lambs for the agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:16 PM

37. I don't think those who "harp on suicides" are contending that the guns CAUSE the suicides.

They certainly FACILITATE SUCCESS in attempting suicide impulsively.

For me, it's the deaths. 30K total/year, 20K suicide, 10K homicide/accidents. They are a Public Health crisis unmatched in the "Developed" nations.

My agenda is reducing the number of American firearm deaths generally, and rampage shootings specifically. What's yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:11 PM

45. Pool serve another purpose

Guns make impulsive killing easier. Every other method of killing involves something that has others uses, is harder and takes more time to use and carry out - banning guns won't cause the number of homicide by drownings or stabbings to make up for it. The nature of guns create the increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:53 PM

14. What I find depressing is that most

probably know it to be true, but throw out all kinds of talking points, over and over again, in order to obscure the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:04 PM

16. I was wondering why I couldn't pinpoint what was so alarming about such responses here:

the almost complete lack of consciousness about what they had just read (IF they read the article). It is as if such information so jangles their brains that they simply cannot accept the words...it's strange, as if something has taken over their rationality, to keep these facts from seeping in (NO! NO! NO!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:28 PM

18. seems to be an automatic process

"must find talking point"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:16 AM

42. As if they were replies made by glib sociopaths, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:18 PM

6. Just watch out for the Morlocks here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:25 PM

21. Debunking the article

1. In the past few weeks there have been bills introduced to effectively ban gun and require their turn-in and authorize the police to inspect homes without warrants.

2. All of those gun murders still had a human pulling the trigger. There are more people killed by hands and feet than are killed by all rifles combined, which includes so-called assault weapons.

3. Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. That statement, from the article is a flat-out lie. The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks and publishes, online, the data. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Here is the data for 2011, for that offense:

Offense..................................................Total Convictions in TX.....Convictions of CHL holders...CHL Convictions as % of Total
Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon--2,765-----------------------------3-------------------------------0.1085%
Rates are similar for all other years.

In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. What they are omitting is that there has been an increase in justifiable homicides. IOW more criminals are getting shot while they are committing crimes. I do not consider that to be a bad thing.

4. Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 That is a lie. There have been several, at least seven that I know of. Yes, I can provide a list.
Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997
Edinboro, PA school shooting 1998
Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
New Life Church Shooting 2007
Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
Golden Food Market Shooting 2009
Plymouth, PA bar shooting 2012

5. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. That study counts only bodies. It does not count cases in which the burglar flees from the armed resident. I personally know several people who have pointed a gun at a burglar but didn't shoot as he ran away. That has happened to me. But article is not willing to accept those as valid self-defense.

6. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. That study does not separate out criminals from the law-abiding. Only people with CCWs can legally carry guns in public in PA. They never state if any of the people shot had CCWs. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in the air and home in on someone with a gun. So the person with the guns had to be someone whose behavior made them a target. Mostly that would be criminals settling disputes.

7. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. Again they don't separate out the criminals from the law-abiding. It is very dangerous for a woman to have a violent criminal for their signifigant other. Peaceful couples rarely suddenly murder each other. Almost alway they already have a history of violence.

8. Violent video games. I don't have any solid information on them, so I can't have an informed opinion. Personally I don't like them.

9. More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population. I haven't really cared about that measure, so again I don't have an informed opinion.

10. An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. All online gun sales have to be shipped to an FFL who must complete all Federal paperwork.
20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. How is a dealer supposed to know if someone is a straw buyer? All he can do is check ID and call NICS to verify legality.

I will be gone for the weekend. Back on Monday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:31 PM

23. See you then!

Pick up a dictionary over the weekend and look up "debunk."

I bet you'll be surprised!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:59 PM

25. LOL. By "debunking" you mean "repeating false NRA talking points".

I think this is the greatest number of falsehoods I've seen in a single DU post! Congrats!

In the past few weeks there have been bills introduced to effectively ban gun and require their turn-in and authorize the police to inspect homes without warrants.

Banning assault weapons is not the same as banning all guns. The point is, there is no threat to the second amendment or to civilian gun ownership.

2. All of those gun murders still had a human pulling the trigger. There are more people killed by hands and feet than are killed by all rifles combined, which includes so-called assault weapons.

Completely missing the point, which is that several studies have shown that more guns do result in more homicides and more suicides. In the US, well over 50% of homicides are committed by gun, and because of the gun homicides, the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. That statement, from the article is a flat-out lie. The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks and publishes, online, the data.

The statement is not actually a lie, you just didn't read the entire sentence (among Texans convicted of serious crimes...).

In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. What they are omitting is that there has been an increase in justifiable homicides. IOW more criminals are getting shot while they are committing crimes. I do not consider that to be a bad thing.

Another lie by you. There were two studies about SYG laws, and both found a significant increase in non-justifiable homicide. It might be a good idea to pop your head out of the NRA bubble from time to time.

5. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. That study counts only bodies. It does not count cases in which the burglar flees from the armed resident. I personally know several people who have pointed a gun at a burglar but didn't shoot as he ran away. That has happened to me. But article is not willing to accept those as valid self-defense.

Anecdotal evidence is no substitute for hard statistics. Studies have repeatedly found that a gun in a home increases the risk of death by homicide, suicide or accident, whereas, despite the fact that every gun nut worth his salt will brag about all the criminals that he has scared away with his gun, there is no credible statistical evidence that a gun provides a defensive safety benefit.

6. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. That study does not separate out criminals from the law-abiding. Only people with CCWs can legally carry guns in public in PA. They never state if any of the people shot had CCWs. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in the air and home in on someone with a gun. So the person with the guns had to be someone whose behavior made them a target. Mostly that would be criminals settling disputes.

Yet another lie. The study explicitly controlled for criminal history, as well as a host of other factors including things like drug and alcohol use. You should try and understand how epidemiological studies work before repeating talking points you found on a gun blog.

7. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. Again they don't separate out the criminals from the law-abiding. It is very dangerous for a woman to have a violent criminal for their signifigant other. Peaceful couples rarely suddenly murder each other. Almost alway they already have a history of violence.

A lot of people are "law-abiding" right up until they break the law. Again, anecdotal evidence and NRA talking points are no substitute for statistical evidence. The fact of the matter is that, despite the crazy right-wing woman testifying in front of congress about protecting her family with an AR-15, a gun in the home is a much greater threat to a woman's safety than a protection.

10. An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. All online gun sales have to be shipped to an FFL who must complete all Federal paperwork.

Wrong again. For example, if the buyer and seller arrange to meet in person, no background check is required. The internet has facilitated the exploitation of the private sales loophole.

20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. How is a dealer supposed to know if someone is a straw buyer? All he can do is check ID and call NICS to verify legality.

Good point. Looks like we need stronger gun laws, like for example the gun trafficking statute that many Democrats have been pushing for, or mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns, or a national firearms registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:27 PM

33. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:27 PM

44. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:52 PM

64. Banning "assault weapons" = banning guns

Sounds like a clear-cut threat to the Second Amendment to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #64)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:53 PM

67. Oh, I see. Whatever happened to your side and your vaunted "gun safety" concerns?

Upthread I hear talk that folks of yours really, really have been in FAVOR of restrictions if only those awful gun banners didn't misrepresent your views in "thread after thread on DU."

No middle ground with that response, cowboy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:32 PM

73. I have no idea what you're talking about

I opposed a semi-auto ban as far back as 1993 when it was first introduced, and I still oppose it today. So on that point, you're right, I won't compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:20 PM

74. why am I not surprised? That seems to be the face of the anti gun safety group on DU...

"sorry, no can do...nothing to see here, move along...no deal, no way...can't, won't, couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't...Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about...whatever it is, it is always "NO."

That doesn't cut it, IMHO...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:26 PM

75. Get your memes straight

"Gun safety" is a completely different ball of wax from "gun control," which you are obviously championing. I know you're not one of those who are deliberately trying to confuse the public on this issue. I give you more credit than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #75)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:33 PM

77. No. Let me be clear. When I say "gun safety" I mean "gun safety." You want to make it about

people getting training and storing their guns safely and that is fine. But it goes a LOT further than that and you know what I am talking about. Please don't try to snow me, I know your game.

gun safety is public safety and that is when your side breaks down. My side includes what used to be called gun control but I prefer to call public safety. When the statistics about public safety and gun violence is brought into the argument, your side LOSES. that is why you don't prefer to talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #77)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:38 PM

80. I was wrong about you...

You are trying to confuse the memes. Silly me - I thought my fellow DUers had more sense than that.

And considering some of the statistics your side has propped up over the past few weeks, no wonder most pro-RKBA Democrats are feeling good about the current legislative cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #80)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:43 PM

82. No, you have the meme you want to cling to and not allow any further discussion of. What

are you afraid of?

You know, you are losing this argument with the American public. How long do we allow the people of this country to be slaughtered before we adopt some common sense safety to be enacted into law? THAT is the issue before the American public. Let us face it squarely and fight the fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:40 PM

108. You are not fooling anybody.

"Gun Safety" is the new euphemism for "Gun Control". The fact that your side has to change the name shows that you are having some difficulty selling your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #108)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:49 PM

110. gun safety is the real goal, IMO. Gun control is the means. We need more of it.

No other civilized nation in the world has the amount of guns and gun violence we have. There HAVE to be controls or we will continue to slaughter our citizens in senseless violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:38 PM

79. Ahhh, facts: they just continue to baffle our "pro gun progressives"*...

Excellent post:




*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:13 PM

107. Perhaps YOU should read the article.

Here is what they said about Texas:

Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

The claim is that CHLers threatened someone with a firearm 4.8 ties more than those without. I posted the link to the official Texas statistics. Here it is again: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm In 2011 there were over 525,000 Texans with CHLs. Threatening someone with a pistol is Aggrevated Assault With a Deadly Weapon. There were 2,765 convictions statewide, and only three (3) of them were by CHLers. But if you want to compare all all convictions of serious crimes we can do that. Same link. There were 63,679 convictions of serious crimes, statewide in 2011, only 120 of them were by CHLers.

Face it. As a group, CHLers are a select law-abiding group. Your attempt to paint us as dangerous to the general public is a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:14 PM

30. With some people (NRA etc.) myths trump reality nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:17 PM

31. K&R nt

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:15 PM

36. Love the list nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:59 PM

53. Wow I never realized their were so many stupid people on DU

who actually believe the terrorist organization known as the NRA's talking points. What does that say about the left, I though we were smarter than that? I guess I was wrong. Everytime I see a little hope in humanity, BAM some idiots pop up to destroy that hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:24 PM

58. Or: 10 Strawmen Shot Down. And you did so without even using the magic letters "NRA".

 

Maybe someone will do that for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:37 PM

60. Red States compared to Blue States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:59 PM

105. The problem with that chart

is that it makes an irrelevant point. It implies that those killed in "gun deaths" would still be alive if there were no gun, which is simply not true. You need to graph total homicides vs. gun ownership, preferably excluding suicides.

You could graph blue car deaths vs. blue car ownership and show a strong correlation. It means absolutely nothing about the effect of blue cars on public health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:33 PM

76. "Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" - And yet

our "RKBA enthusiasts" (see sig line) are constantly assuring us that if just everyone was armed, there would be no shootings whatsoever - except of "bad guys" or "goblins."

It's a strangely self-refuting argument, but you see it routinely right along with the Red Dawn fantasizing about taking on Uncle Sam.

Excellent list - irrefutable facts. Kick, Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:45 PM

109. There have been several rampage shootings that were stopped by armed civilians.

I posted a list upthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:01 PM

84. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:03 PM

85. myth #4

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

86. Thank you

For the sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:55 AM

98. LOL @ "No one in Washington is proposing this." How about Amitai Etzioni, Professor of...

 

...International Relations at George Washington University?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/gun-control-we-need-domes_b_2718536.html

I've visited George Washington University. It's in Washington, DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #98)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:08 PM

106. He's a "communalist" who thinks his way is the best way for everyone.

Interesting man, but I don't care for his ideas as regards how all of us should live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitai_Etzioni

Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:30 PM

101. We could get rid of guns in the streets, and still protect guns in the home

 

the pro-gun people always want to distort that.

One can still keep a gun in the house, for protection

wihtout the need to bring ANY gun in the street.

And, as even alot of pro-gun people are now against Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, getting rid of their tax emption, and their exempt from prosecution should be acceptable to 75% of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:53 PM

111. No, this is

inexcusable. This is bullshit. Guns help lower violence, not make it more common

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:54 PM

112. recommend these important facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread