Off Topic Messages

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:48 am

jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


You failed to comprehend my post. The figure of 6000 represents just the teen deaths from alcohol. Another 11000 additional innocents are killed by people just wanting to be merry. The figure of gun deaths you're using is including suicides by the way. Why don't you think 17000 people each year dying on the highway should be prevented if possibile? Just ban alcohol and so many tragedies will be prevented. I keep forgetting the purpose of alcohol is very nice and innocent so I guess it's more acceptable.
Here is one thing to consider. My co workers wife's family are all in Boston. They don't have guns. Laws prevent the honest law abiding people from having them. During the manhunt the only thing those people were thinking was how much they wish they had a gun in the house.


17000 people dying in car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Accidents happen - not alot we can do about that, unless you want to go back to the days of horse and cart.

I NEVER said anywhere in ANY of my posts that Americans should not own guns. What I said was that people shouldn't own certain TYPES of guns.

But what's telling is that you completely avoided my very simply question, so I shall ask it once again so you can give your answer:

Explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home? Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?
Do burglars enter houses in America en masse? What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


So far you seem totally unable to provide an answer to the above.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:59 am

jungleroombear wrote:
ColinB wrote:Following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, the issue of the banning of hand-gun ownership was being debated in the UK.

Our very own figure-of-fun, Prince Phillip, added this nugget of wisdom:

"If someone went berserk with a cricket bat & killed people, would we ban cricket bats ?"

Completely missing the point that cricket bats are not designed to harm, maim or kill people.

Guns are !


If an intruder burst into your house and held a knife to your wifes throat whilst about to rape her, would you...

a. tell him the latest frankie boyle joke?
b. ask him how many sugars he wanted in his cup of tea?
c. grab a knife out of the kitchen draw and pretend you were more dangerous than him?
d. ask him to hang on whilst you check the wife's life insurance policy?
e. throw yourself under the duvet, curl into a ball and make reassuring humming sounds until he'd finished with the missus?
g. reach into the bedside drawer, pull out your loaded Glock 17 pistol and blow his brains all over the bedroom wall?


I don't think a gun would help me much in that situation.

Even fully armed & professionally trained law officers would find themselves unable to resolve such a situation.

The intruder could use his knife with deadly effect before I could pick up, aim & fire my Glock 17 pistol !

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:04 am

poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


You failed to comprehend my post. The figure of 6000 represents just the teen deaths from alcohol. Another 11000 additional innocents are killed by people just wanting to be merry. The figure of gun deaths you're using is including suicides by the way. Why don't you think 17000 people each year dying on the highway should be prevented if possibile? Just ban alcohol and so many tragedies will be prevented. I keep forgetting the purpose of alcohol is very nice and innocent so I guess it's more acceptable.
Here is one thing to consider. My co workers wife's family are all in Boston. They don't have guns. Laws prevent the honest law abiding people from having them. During the manhunt the only thing those people were thinking was how much they wish they had a gun in the house.


17000 people dying in car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Accidents happen - not alot we can do about that, unless you want to go back to the days of horse and cart.

I NEVER said anywhere in ANY of my posts that Americans should not own guns. What I said was that people shouldn't own certain TYPES of guns.

But what's telling is that you completely avoided my very simply question, so I shall ask it once again so you can give your answer:

Explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automaticy weapon in their home? Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?
Do burglars enter houses in America en masse? What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


So far you seem totally unable to provide an answer to the above.


Accidents? Those deaths are vehicular manslaughter. People are sentenced to prison. It's a crime.
I personally own many semi automatic weapons. My first gun was a Winchester model 190 when I was 8 years old. Thats a tube fed semi auto 22lr. It stayed in a gun rack on my wall until we went squirrell hunting. Growing up hunting and shooting with my family was wonderfull. There is no reason why people shouldn't own semi autos. I go to bed each night with a semi auto Glock model 21 45 acp on the nightstand. It's just like any other tool. It's better to have it and not need it,than to need it and not have it. I hope I never need it. Where I live,it might take 20 mins to get the sheriff here. We don't have a police dept where I livel We have to rely on county sheriffs. Ive also had to grab my semi auto rifle to kill rabid foxes at the house and a few coyotes that were feeding on our small pets.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:07 am

ColinB wrote:
jungleroombear wrote:
ColinB wrote:Following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, the issue of the banning of hand-gun ownership was being debated in the UK.

Our very own figure-of-fun, Prince Phillip, added this nugget of wisdom:

"If someone went berserk with a cricket bat & killed people, would we ban cricket bats ?"

Completely missing the point that cricket bats are not designed to harm, maim or kill people.

Guns are !


If an intruder burst into your house and held a knife to your wifes throat whilst about to rape her, would you...

a. tell him the latest frankie boyle joke?
b. ask him how many sugars he wanted in his cup of tea?
c. grab a knife out of the kitchen draw and pretend you were more dangerous than him?
d. ask him to hang on whilst you check the wife's life insurance policy?
e. throw yourself under the duvet, curl into a ball and make reassuring humming sounds until he'd finished with the missus?
g. reach into the bedside drawer, pull out your loaded Glock 17 pistol and blow his brains all over the bedroom wall?


I don't think a gun would help me much in that situation.

Even fully armed & professionally trained law officers would find themselves unable to resolve such a situation.

The intruder could use his knife with deadly effect before I could pick up, aim & fire my Glock 17 pistol !

Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:40 am

jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:48 am

jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


You failed to comprehend my post. The figure of 6000 represents just the teen deaths from alcohol. Another 11000 additional innocents are killed by people just wanting to be merry. The figure of gun deaths you're using is including suicides by the way. Why don't you think 17000 people each year dying on the highway should be prevented if possibile? Just ban alcohol and so many tragedies will be prevented. I keep forgetting the purpose of alcohol is very nice and innocent so I guess it's more acceptable.
Here is one thing to consider. My co workers wife's family are all in Boston. They don't have guns. Laws prevent the honest law abiding people from having them. During the manhunt the only thing those people were thinking was how much they wish they had a gun in the house.


17000 people dying in car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Accidents happen - not alot we can do about that, unless you want to go back to the days of horse and cart.

I NEVER said anywhere in ANY of my posts that Americans should not own guns. What I said was that people shouldn't own certain TYPES of guns.

But what's telling is that you completely avoided my very simply question, so I shall ask it once again so you can give your answer:

Explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automaticy weapon in their home? Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?
Do burglars enter houses in America en masse? What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


So far you seem totally unable to provide an answer to the above.


Accidents? Those deaths are vehicular manslaughter. People are sentenced to prison. It's a crime.
I personally own many semi automatic weapons. My first gun was a Winchester model 190 when I was 8 years old. Thats a tube fed semi auto 22lr. It stayed in a gun rack on my wall until we went squirrell hunting. Growing up hunting and shooting with my family was wonderfull. There is no reason why people shouldn't own semi autos. I go to bed each night with a semi auto Glock model 21 45 acp on the nightstand. It's just like any other tool. It's better to have it and not need it,than to need it and not have it. I hope I never need it. Where I live,it might take 20 mins to get the sheriff here. We don't have a police dept where I livel We have to rely on county sheriffs. Ive also had to grab my semi auto rifle to kill rabid foxes at the house and a few coyotes that were feeding on our small pets.


Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:05 am

"Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired."

Im sorry I didnt make myself clear about the cars. I know this is an emotional issue.As Paul said,we will have to agree to disagree. I know we both agree that the loss of so many lives no matter what the cause is awfull.I wish there was an easy answer to all these problems.
I keep a semi automatic rifle with a 10 shot clip always loaded in my house. The semi auto gives me a better chance for a followup shot on a moving target. The bolt action is just to slow and they are of much heavier calibers. Weve lost three pets to the coyotes including the terrible sight of a small dog being carried off.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:06 am

paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:14 am

jak wrote:"Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired."

Im sorry I didnt make myself clear about the cars. I know this is an emotional issue.As Paul said,we will have to agree to disagree. I know we both agree that the loss of so many lives no matter what the cause is awfull.I wish there was an easy answer to all these problems.
I keep a semi automatic rifle with a 10 shot clip always loaded in my house. The semi auto gives me a better chance for a followup shot on a moving target. The bolt action is just to slow and they are of much heavier calibers. Weve lost three pets to the coyotes including the terrible sight of a small dog being carried off.


OK. But earlier you were talking about the freedom to own firearms in order to protect yourself. But why would you need "many" semi-automatic weapons? How many can someone fire at once?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:17 am

Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:24 am

poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:"Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired."

Im sorry I didnt make myself clear about the cars. I know this is an emotional issue.As Paul said,we will have to agree to disagree. I know we both agree that the loss of so many lives no matter what the cause is awfull.I wish there was an easy answer to all these problems.
I keep a semi automatic rifle with a 10 shot clip always loaded in my house. The semi auto gives me a better chance for a followup shot on a moving target. The bolt action is just to slow and they are of much heavier calibers. Weve lost three pets to the coyotes including the terrible sight of a small dog being carried off.


OK. But earlier you were talking about the freedom to own firearms in order to protect yourself. But why would you need "many" semi-automatic weapons? How many can someone fire at once?


I enjoy firearms. Every gun is different and has its own unique purpose. Im an avid shooter for competition and recreation. I have spent up to $9,000 on a single handgun. I have collected guns all my life. Same reason somebody might have thousands of lp's or stamps. It's a hobby.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:30 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:35 am

ColinB wrote:
jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...


Of course. I didn't really think you were packing heat.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:43 am

jak wrote:
ColinB wrote:
jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...


Of course. I didn't really think you were packing heat.


He does when he's on the Alizee Pics thread.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:50 am

Pete Dube wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!


Yes, but this thread and the proposed changes were not because of gang crime but because of mass shootings killing innocent kids. Those killings are not done by gangs. gang violence is not the topic here.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:57 am

Pete Dube wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!


30,000 a year in total. So how many are only gang related?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:09 am

I cannot see why any sane American would be opposed to more stringent background checks before one is supplied with a gun. If you've got nothing to hide, you're gonna get your gun, right?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:17 am

Pete Dube wrote:
jak wrote:
ColinB wrote:
jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...


Of course. I didn't really think you were packing heat.


He does when he's on the Alizee Pics thread.


Now that's funny!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:24 am

Matthew wrote:I cannot see why any sane American would be opposed to more stringent background checks before one is supplied with a gun. If you've got nothing to hide, you're gonna get your gun, right?


I am already to subject to background checks. The bill that failed would have done nothing, Go to Google and type in Bloomberg gun control memo. You will find the memo from Obamas justice dept stating that the proposed bill would have little impact. It might surprise some of you since the memo is coming from the Obama administration,

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:27 am

paulsweeney wrote:
Pete Dube wrote: it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!


30,000 a year in total. So how many are only gang related?



You need to expand the related deaths to guns that are gang related
and to those that have been killed by someone who illegally possesses
a firearm. Adding those two together would account for a more accurate
percentage of the supposed numbers.

And if you did that and then ruled out gun deaths that were accidental,
you might be surprised at the number, or rather the difference between
what's being bantered around here.


As to the number of guns one owns. Jak hit the nail on the head, they
all have different purposes unique to the situation.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:39 am

Whatever the number, the US has a problem and more people die from guns than 99.9% of any other country.

I'm done. Enjoy your guns.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:05 am

jak wrote:I am already to subject to background checks.

Can you break-down for us what backgrounds checks you as a multiple gun owner are currently subject to?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:01 am

Matthew wrote:I cannot see why any sane American would be opposed to more stringent background checks before one is supplied with a gun.
If you've got nothing to hide, you're gonna get your gun, right?


But that would be an invasion of privacy.

Forbidden in their constitution...

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:41 am

Matthew wrote:
jak wrote:I am already to subject to background checks.

Can you break-down for us what backgrounds checks you as a multiple gun owner are currently subject to?


When purchasing a firearm you have to fill out a federal form for the weapon along with supplying you're photo identification. Then the gun dealer physically has to call the info in to a federal agent. The agent then runs a background check on you. The answer is either proceed,deny or further review concerning the purchase. I have had the answer be further review a few times. Once this happens another agent verifies you're info and gives the final answer. You're never told why they do a further review.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:27 am

jak wrote:
Matthew wrote:
jak wrote:I am already to subject to background checks.

Can you break-down for us what backgrounds checks you as a multiple gun owner are currently subject to?


When purchasing a firearm you have to fill out a federal form for the weapon along with supplying you're photo identification. Then the gun dealer physically has to call the info in to a federal agent. The agent then runs a background check on you. The answer is either proceed,deny or further review concerning the purchase. I have had the answer be further review a few times. Once this happens another agent verifies you're info and gives the final answer. You're never told why they do a further review.


So there is no check as to whether you are on some kind of mental health register then?