• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Deacon923 said:
just because I know it will drive the Tea Partiers nuts, here's the org chart of the DHHS. You can pick which agency you want to do the gun research. :D

orgchart041612.jpg
Click to expand...

The one I agree with at the point the research is performed?
 
Stop letting your kids watch WFU games :noidea:
 
elkman92 said:
So, I post some stats from the BJS, someone else posts stats from Bloomberg that include suicides, and you take that as gospel? As Cris Carter would say, come on, man...
Click to expand...

Gun related suicides are still gun deaths. We've been over this before, you don't get to ignore those deaths because you qualify them differently (for some stupid fucking reason). Those people are still just as dead, and if they had been flagged as having a mental health issue in a more comprehensive background check (that a whole bunch of idiots with money oppose), maybe they would be alive and getting the help they need instead of purchasing a quick ticket out.
 
Last edited:
If guns had to have serial numbers that couldn't be eliminated and we had a law that if a gun you sold was used by a felon in the commission of a crime, you are considered to be an accomplice and face the same jail time, I bet many violent crimes wouldn't happen.

elkman brought up the DUI laws. This would be very much like the laws many states have holding bartenders and bar/restaurant owners responsible for the action of over-served patrons.

But of course, elkman thinks it's just fine and enough that a violent felon can walk into a gun show in many states and tell a "private seller that he's never been convicted of jaywalking and buy any weapon.

To elkman the seller of a gun from his home has no responsibility to the community if he sells his weapons to gangbangers as long as the criminals say they are honest law-abiding citizens.
 
Guns don't commit suicide. People commit suicide.
 
BuzzFeed News ‏@BuzzFeedNews 1m
Chicago authorities say at least six people have been killed in weekend violence and at least another 11 wounded


Weeeee

Say it with me now,


RAHM EMMANUEL
 
(CNN) -- Text messages sent from Trayvon Martin's cell phone the day he was killed show he had been arguing with someone on the phone and was "hostile," attorneys for George Zimmerman wrote in a recent court filing.

Did Zimmerman hack his cell phone while pursuing him? Greta Van Whatever and Nancy Grace get a raise.

This is a tremendously stupid move by his attorneys as it takes stand your ground/self-defense off the table.
 
Last edited:
tau06 said:
Why does it take it off the table?
Click to expand...

Great Samaritan protecting the neighborhood, maybe, but it implies he had knowledge of the encounter he initiated was dangerous. Not "self"-defense.
 
(CNN) -- A Marine based in North Carolina died during a gun battle with police in Texas after authorities said he killed one person and wounded five others in a shooting spree.
 
But of course, elkman thinks it's just fine and enough that a violent felon can walk into a gun show in many states and tell a "private seller that he's never been convicted of jaywalking and buy any weapon.

To elkman the seller of a gun from his home has no responsibility to the community if he sells his weapons to gangbangers as long as the criminals say they are honest law-abiding citizens.



This is fantastic if this is the best you can do.
 
This is a question then for all. Should I be a felon for handing my father in law a shotgun so we may shoot clays on my property in NY, even though he is a resident of FL, and I am a resident of NJ? Chuck Schumer would say yes, is that right?
 
I think that by and large guns are needless in society and generally owned by paranoid people who get off on killing innocent animals but if you look at the list of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country you'll see that they're in very restrictive gun control areas. I'd bet that if all guns vanished the same 25 neighborhoods would appear on the list. I also bet that if you gave the residents of those neighborhoods enough money such that every person made the average per capita income, the list wouldn't change.
 
elkman92 said:
But of course, elkman thinks it's just fine and enough that a violent felon can walk into a gun show in many states and tell a "private seller that he's never been convicted of jaywalking and buy any weapon.

To elkman the seller of a gun from his home has no responsibility to the community if he sells his weapons to gangbangers as long as the criminals say they are honest law-abiding citizens.



This is fantastic if this is the best you can do.
Click to expand...

By opposing background on those sales, you de facto support the sale of gun to felons and terrorists by private parties at home, in gun shows and out of the backs of their cars.

The paranoia that you and your masters create cause needless crime, deaths and injuries. You protect the criminals' to arm themselves.

It's as crazy as your position that limiting magazine capacity is unconstitutional. You want the 2nd Amendment to be taken literally except you need to stretch it to fit your batshit crazy idea.

Please show us where in Constitution magazines are mentioned.
 
RJKarl said:
Please show us where in Constitution magazines are mentioned.
Click to expand...

Great one, RJ.

Folks from all sides of the political spectrum could go to town with your "Please show us where in [the] Constitution ____________ are mentioned" logic to attack something they don't like.
 
92, elkman said laws against magazines was unconstitutional. I'm asking him to prove his point.

He believes in the literal reading of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not the one who brought it up. If said the same thing, I would expect you to ask me to prove it.
 
RJKarl said:
92, elkman said laws against magazines was unconstitutional. I'm asking him to prove his point.

He believes in the literal reading of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not the one who brought it up. If said the same thing, I would expect you to ask me to prove it.
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate, because I am not a strict constructionist, but the 2nd Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think the argument would be that any restriction on the right to keep arms (whether that is guns or bullets) does infringe on that right to some degree. Obviously there is plenty of case law that says the right is not absolute and can be regulated, but the question is what crosses the line into too much infringement. I personally don't think magazine limits would be unconstitutional, but I don't think there is any way to "prove the point." It will depend on the opinion of the 9 justices sitting on the Supreme Court when the question is presented.
 
It doesn't infringe on your to keep and bear arms. You can still have the same guns, You can still have as many bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top