More Christmas Market Shootings

[sodthisforfun]

Statistically erroneous. Even the FBIs own statistics confirm that the majority of gun crime occurs in gun free zones. States that allow conseal and carry are some of the safest in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
Top three states for highest gun death in the USA all have a relaxed gun law. Open & concealed carry, no permit.

 

[sodthisforfun]

I know what you're saying but the argument is no stronger than the one I made and the local loony can hop in a car and now over the local town.

As for the pulling a gun out of the sock draw, that's an example of carelessness but not one for the prohibition of gun ownership.

I don't think you do understand what am saying.. soz.

 

[SammyInnit]

I don't think you do understand what am saying.. soz.

Very compelling.

 

[noseall]

To protect yourself from the police.

Lol.

You seriously believe it is a good idea to carry a loaded gun in order to protect yourself from the police? I'd like to see you try that out Hawk. Please, PLEASE video it.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Lol.

You seriously believe it is a good idea to carry a loaded gun in order to protect yourself from the police? I'd like to see you try that out Hawk. Please, PLEASE video it.

Natural selection at work or suicide by cop?!

 

[durhamplumber]

There is no point arguing with Hawkeye - he does not have a single scrap of rationality in his febrile brain.

Shedzy is in top form tonight with his aggression and insults.Must of fallen out with his lass.

 

[Notch7]

There is no point arguing with Hawkeye - he does not have a single scrap of rationality in his febrile brain.

I must admit Im struggling to understand how gun ownership provides protection from the police.

I think he might be an anti establishment radical

 

[noseall]

might

LOL.

 

[HawkEye244]

the majority of gun cromes do not occur in gun free zones, that research was done by the pro gun lobby.

Here is a non partisan view:
Corcoran said, "Most of these mass shootings take place in arenas where you're not allowed to have a concealed weapons permit."

Corcoran cites research by an advocate for gun rights who used a strict definition to define places where guns were not allowed. In reality, there are places where concealed weapons are permitted, places where police or security officers openly carry weapons, and places where concealed weapons are not permitted. Additionally, there are different ways to define mass shootings.

We found that advocates for more gun control analyzed the data and reached different conclusions.

Our assessment is that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of the perpetrators of mass shootings or whether they are influenced by gun restrictions. We rate Corcoran’s statement Half True.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/...do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

You haven't even read your own link.

Let's see how many more gems you can pull from an internet search bar to try and corroborate your bias, as though it matters what you think anyway lol.

 

[HawkEye244]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
Top three states for highest gun death in the USA all have a relaxed gun law. Open & concealed carry, no permit.

Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed study. It is written by Joe public and is deeply biased in places.

 

[HawkEye244]

Im not clear if that is a proven fact or not.

Clearly some migrants are criminals, some are dangerous. We do need however to be clear whether illegal immigration is used as a scapegoat for crime, or whether there really is a major problem.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/whos-really-crossing-us-border-and-why-theyre-coming
Despite what the president says, the situation at the border is much more nuanced. There’s not a flood of people racing across the border. The majority of migrants aren’t dangerous criminals. Many are women and families—and many are fleeing gang violence rather than seeking to spread that violence farther north.



Its a confusing argument to say it only possible to be a free society if there is easy access to dangerous weapons.

Guns are dangerous, so a society without them is more free, not less.

What do you know about it ?


The founding fathers took self-defence so seriously they wrote it into their constitution and the primary reason to bare arms is protection against government tyranny, not to hunt. So you are calling everyone that agrees with self defence and gun ownership mentally ill and an extreme fanatical, you are right and they are all wrong. Take a good look at yourself.

 

[Notch7]

What do you know about it ?


The founding fathers took self-defence so seriously they wrote it into their constitution and the primary reason to bare arms is protection against government tyranny, not to hunt. So you are calling everyone that agrees with self defence and gun ownership mentally ill and an extreme fanatical, you are right and they are all wrong. Take a good look at yourself.

I must admit the risk of government tyranny is awfully high.

So you believe gun ownership would be protect against government tyranny...............well its a view

I must admit, I do lie awake at night worrying about government tyranny........oh no, wait a minute. Thats you

 

[Notch7]

It's concreted into the US Constitution you nut job, written by men a lot braver and a lot wise than you and me

Im sure they made a wise decision in 1792.

In 2018, the pro gun lobby are still spouting '2nd amendment' carp as an excuse to continue with the carnage.

But hey as long as you are happy with 30,000 deaths a year from guns in the US, on your conscience, thats fine.

 

[durhamplumber]

What do you know about it ?


The founding fathers took self-defence so seriously they wrote it into their constitution and the primary reason to bare arms is protection against government tyranny, not to hunt. So you are calling everyone that agrees with self defence and gun ownership mentally ill and an extreme fanatical, you are right and they are all wrong. Take a good look at yourself.

Times change

 

[Doppleganger]

Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed study. It is written by Joe public and is deeply biased in places.

If it is written by Jo Public, it is a peer-reviewed process, per se