Da ebil guns...cuz we need to talk about them again.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

All concealed carry holders are bloodthirsty lunatics.
Well, that is what the Brady Bunch would love to have you believe.
Of course, they aren't solely for 'offense'.
And, finally, this is what most of those with no clue think it works like.

[severedDEATHelemental]

This isn't important. Naturally, the government will eventually try to control guns so as to further lock down the country.

[MollyGraves]

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

[severedDEATHelemental]

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

Somewhere, someone was talking s**t about guns. This is meant to draw them out.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

[MollyGraves]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Nyan_Derek

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

That, and the video is to make a point. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. There is only a 'disarmed law abiding citizen zone', or, in laymans terms, a shooting gallery.

[severedDEATHelemental]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

That, and the video is to make a point. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. There is only a 'disarmed law abiding citizen zone', or, in laymans terms, a shooting gallery.

Deaths due to robbery victims acting stupid and getting their brains splattered across the sidewalk would decrease if there were no guns for law-abiding citizens. People would know just to hold still and give up the money.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

severedDEATHelemental

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

That, and the video is to make a point. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. There is only a 'disarmed law abiding citizen zone', or, in laymans terms, a shooting gallery.

Deaths due to robbery victims acting stupid and getting their brains splattered across the sidewalk would decrease if there were no guns for law-abiding citizens. People would know just to hold still and give up the money.

Or we could tack an automatic ten year minimum sentence on armed crimes that is non-waiveble, rather than attempting to punish law abiding citizens and turning them into sheep at the first sign of a shitbag.

[severedDEATHelemental]

Old Blue Collar Joe

severedDEATHelemental

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

That, and the video is to make a point. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. There is only a 'disarmed law abiding citizen zone', or, in laymans terms, a shooting gallery.

Deaths due to robbery victims acting stupid and getting their brains splattered across the sidewalk would decrease if there were no guns for law-abiding citizens. People would know just to hold still and give up the money.

Or we could tack an automatic ten year minimum sentence on armed crimes that is non-waiveble, rather than attempting to punish law abiding citizens and turning them into sheep at the first sign of a shitbag.

Right, putting people in jail for a long time will fix it. Wait, when has that ever fixed anything?

[Wraith of Azrael]

Figured I'd post this.

National Academy of Sciences report on Gun Crime.
Just read the summary if you don't feel like running through the thing.

Here's a part of the major conclusions for those who are lazy

Quote:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

BAM.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Wraith of Azrael

Figured I'd post this.

National Academy of Sciences report on Gun Crime.
Just read the summary if you don't feel like running through the thing.

Here's a part of the major conclusions for those who are lazy

Quote:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

BAM.

No, all it does is show, in high density area's, it has some effect, but population density has to be included, and taking away peoples rights to defend themselves is one more step toward tyranny.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Old Blue Collar Joe

No, all it does is show, in high density area's, it has some effect, but population density has to be included, and taking away peoples rights to defend themselves is one more step toward tyranny.

Defending themselves from whom? This is what I always find the most curious. You've got a few situations. There's defending yourself from:

- The general public
- The government

Now, I've always looked at it thus: the general public only need a gun to be protected from if they also have access to guns. The government, however, needs far more than a gun to be protected from.

So in a society with no gun ownership and very few illegal firearms in circulation, who exactly are guns protecting me from?

[GunsmithKitten]

severedDEATHelemental

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyan_Derek

I don't understand the purpose of this post.

The two examples show that, unlike the Malissa woman who fired warning shots (which is called negligent discharge, and illegal), and the Zimmerman/Martin case, where no one really knows what happened, but it is obvious there were several very stupid decisions made by folks involved, drawing one's weapon is not grounds for shooting, but if you do shoot? You don't shoot in the air intentionally.

Makes sense. O.o

That, and the video is to make a point. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. There is only a 'disarmed law abiding citizen zone', or, in laymans terms, a shooting gallery.

Deaths due to robbery victims acting stupid and getting their brains splattered across the sidewalk would decrease if there were no guns for law-abiding citizens. People would know just to hold still and give up the money.

Yep, that's the answer, hold still and pray that the robber also doesn't want to rape or murder you as well.

No. ********. Thanks.

[GunsmithKitten]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

protected from.

So in a society with no gun ownership and very few illegal firearms in circulation, who exactly are guns protecting me from?

Someone bigger and stronger than you with a blade or club or bare hands eager to throttle your neck.

And given my size and physical limitations, that's a LOT of people.

But of course, you might of the impression that guns are the only weapons people use to off each other.