The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

OK. Please do try to make an effort at comprehension this time.

Firearms are dangerous. Whether the weapon is in the hands of a trained law-enforcement professional, or a toddler, or a highly experienced civilian enthusiast, or a deeply disturbed adolescent.

As we've seen from this regrettable story in LA, the countless other stories of accidental discharges, the steady drumbeat of active-shooter stories, the decimation of two generations of African-American men, and now this timely data showing that U.S. hospitals admit 7,500 children for gunshot wounds every year, being in close proximity to a firearm increases the likelihood that you will be injured or killed.

Again, and to the chagrin of the NRA's marketing campaign, it does not matter who is holding the firearm. Being near a firearm makes it more likely that you will be injured or killed by a firearm. It is simply an epidemiological fact. Arthur Kellerman been demonstrating this fact for 20 years now, for anyone wishing to have an evidence-based discussion.

Interesting that you completely blew by buttslingers point regarding his homeowners insurance. Insurance companies have no interest in spin, they just want to maximize profits. Actuarial tables are completely non-partisan. Insurers are simply looking at clear data showing showing that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that they will have to pay out a policy.

Because firearms are dangerous. Period.

---

Where did I say firearms aren't dangerous? Your comprehension and lack of firearm history is lacking. Have you ever watched the video of the BAFTE agent shooting himself in the leg after claiming that he was the only professional one to handle a firearm? It was a very popular video for years. My comment was a quip. Ultimately, in the AR-15 discharge case, it was the officer fault for the gun to discharge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Where did I say firearms aren't dangerous?

---

Well, you've been arguing for several weeks now that the answer to gun violence is more guns. If you're finally ready to acknowledge that firearms are dangerous regardless of who wields them, then you've rendered your prior argument nonsensical. The way to reduce violence is to commit more acts of violence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Your comprehension and lack of firearm history is lacking.

---

LOL

Meanwhile the violence continues as a shooter kills a TSA worker at LAX and injures others

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ng-others?lite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Well, you've been arguing for several weeks now that the answer to gun violence is more guns. If you're finally ready to acknowledge that firearms are dangerous regardless of who wields them, then you've rendered your prior argument nonsensical. The way to reduce violence is to commit more acts of violence?

---

What are you talking about you? I have never claimed that they aren't dangerous. I have called them a tool but I haven't said they aren't dangerous. Your whole post is nonsensical. I haven't called for mandatory firearm ownership to combat gun violence. I have favored responsible ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. For example, self-defense from bodily harm or hunting. :confused:

Quote:

---

I have favored responsible ownership of firearms for lawful purposes.

---

So you favored legislation that attempted to limit the sale of firearms to only responsible buyers? You favored legislation that sought to require background checks and eliminate loopholes? Or have you spoken against laws that encourage responsible gun ownership? :shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So you favored legislation that attempted to limit the sale of firearms to only responsible buyers? You favored legislation that sought to require background checks and eliminate loopholes? Or have you spoken against laws that encourage responsible gun ownership? :shrug

---

+ Legislation requiring trigger locks when not in use? Legislation requiring guns be locked in safes when not in use? These always seemed like reasonable laws that every proponent of responsible gun ownership would be behind.

So while browsing Twitter this evening, this happened in New Jersey. SMDH...

http://rt.com/usa/new-jersey-mall-shooting-218/

At 2:30 in the morning nineteen year old Renisha McBride (who worked at Ford Motor Company) needed help. Her car was in a ditch and her cell phone battery was dead. So she walked up onto the porch of the nearest house and knocked on the door. No answer. Giving up, she turned to leave when a load of buckshot blasted through her head and killed her on the spot. A neighbor, speaking for the shooter said he was scared and that he thought the girl was going to break in.

Apparently some American’s believe the castle doctrine gives them a double O license to indiscriminately kill (or discriminately depending on your definition). I’m sure the shooter thinks of himself as a responsible gun owner. If this quiveringly fearful, responsible gun owner had only thought to call 911. After all, that’s all Renisha wanted. Before you’re allowed to own a gun, you should first prove you own a functioning brain.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/0...-neighborhood/

^^^So awful. Heartbreaking, awful, senseless, stupid, and obscene. Unless more facts come to light (I don't expect them to, but we are all obviously held to drawing conclusions only from what we read), that has to be murder. Shooting someone seeking help after phone and car trouble?

Thank you for sharing that Trish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

At 2:30 in the morning nineteen year old Renisha McBride (who worked at Ford Motor Company) needed help. Her car was in a ditch and her cell phone battery was dead. So she walked up onto the porch of the nearest house and knocked on the door. No answer. Giving up, she turned to leave when a load of buckshot blasted through her head and killed her on the spot. A neighbor, speaking for the shooter said he was scared and that he thought the girl was going to break in.

Apparently some American’s believe the castle doctrine gives them a double O license to indiscriminately kill (or discriminately depending on your definition). I’m sure the shooter thinks of himself as a responsible gun owner. If this quiveringly fearful, responsible gun owner had only thought to call 911. After all, that’s all Renisha wanted. Before you’re allowed to own a gun, you should first prove you own a functioning brain.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/0...-neighborhood/

---

I saw this article online, and immediately thought about posting it here. To me, at this moment, it's about people living in a spirit of fear. There is a well known Bible passage which reads; "God did not give us the spirit of fear, but of a sound mind." In this case, a sound mind would have been to consider possibilities, before using deadly force. I can't help but reflect on how Jesus, used the the example of helping a stranger, under stress, as the example of a godly person, in his story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Than there is "love thy neighbor, as thyself". We have been sold this bill of goods called fear. It is not a good thing.