Another CO shooting.

otisptoadwater wrote: Comrade Fred, please cease and desist. Your implication that the Gubment is going to take your weapons is entirely unfounded, trust us we are the Gubment and we are here to improve the quality of life for all in the collective.

p.s. - Hand over your guns and any other weapons you might have (besides, it will be against the law soon so we are doing you a favor, you don't want to be banished to a work camp), the Gubment needs to ensure you can't resist or fight back. It's for the good of all so comply or suffer the consequences.

Have you ordered your "tin" foil hat yet?

Just a few more deaths in Aurora...Big f'ing deal...

4, 40, 400, I guess it just doesn't matter unless it motivates the left... [sarcasm]It's just dead people, what's the big deal?[/sarcsm]

Thanks LJ, your true colors shine for for all to see (ps - what a lame ass attempt to call it sarcasm many posts later).

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: According to the FBI, more people were killed by hammers last year than rifles, including assault weapons, less than 500.

That's not even close to being the truth.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homici ... onstab.cfm

You're welcome.

So that is the best you could do, nothing but a lot of very old information, here more update stuff for you folks that can't or don't want to really find the truth. Rifles and automatic weapons are not even the most sought after and used firearm. It is the Handgun.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

Not that it matters, a murder is a murder regardless of what instrument of choice was used. Its a shame though, that it proves that the Liberal knee jerk reaction was just that, screaming about how automatic weapons were the weapons that need to be banned cause they are the weapons must used, NOT. Wow imagine that. Now I am sure some out there in liberal land will turn it around to meet thier needs, and I am sure that some will even say the chart is fake cause it did not come from the liberal media. Regardless what you think, handguns are the choice of firearm for violent crimes, no surprize here.

archer wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: Comrade Fred, please cease and desist. Your implication that the Gubment is going to take your weapons is entirely unfounded, trust us we are the Gubment and we are here to improve the quality of life for all in the collective.

p.s. - Hand over your guns and any other weapons you might have (besides, it will be against the law soon so we are doing you a favor, you don't want to be banished to a work camp), the Gubment needs to ensure you can't resist or fight back. It's for the good of all so comply or suffer the consequences.

Have you ordered your "tin" foil hat yet?

Tin foil huh? Seen the other western democracies and their forms of responsible gun control?
1) First register the guns.
2) Mandate safe storage at shooting ranges and out of the house
3) Then declare semi-autos are illegal and confiscate since you have all the responsible gun owners in your database, (but not the bad guys guns ironically.) And all the guns are stored at the gun ranges.
4) Then declare all handguns illegal and confiscate them.

This has been done in Britain, Canada has a registration program, Australia has a confiscation program.
Sorry, check out Obama's record as a state legislator, he was very anti-gun. He "evolved" to get elected but he is a Rahmite and will take advantage of a fictional "crisis".

This could very well backfire on the Dems in the mid-terms. I know many gun guys who sat out the 2012 presidential election because both candidates had a record as anti-gun politicians. Now the NRA could become the TEA Party of 2014. Every day more and more people are buying "assault" weapons and even low information/moderate voters at my workplace are concerned about losing their new purchases.

And the NRA is aquiring many more new members and donations then the Brady Bunch.

otisptoadwater wrote:

Just a few more deaths in Aurora...Big f'ing deal...

4, 40, 400, I guess it just doesn't matter unless it motivates the left... [sarcasm]It's just dead people, what's the big deal?[/sarcsm]

Thanks LJ, your true colors shine for for all to see (ps - what a lame ass attempt to call it sarcasm many posts later).

I didn't need to specify it was "sarcasm" until it became obvious that some people [self-admittedly] aren't swift enough to take it as such, so I thought I'd better be more clear....

If it takes a [sarcasm]-label for you to just now get "my true colors", when I've been posting for quite a few pages now about the gun-wacko insensitivity about the number of victims of your fetish for hanging on to your assault weapons, then you are dumber than I thought. (And that's saying a LOT.)

Does this ring a bell:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, to protect them from the wackos that break into schools WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE. (Kinda useless against head-shots, wouldn't you say? I mean, if you're going to kill a 1st-grader, you should shoot them in their little heads, right? Then you get the "full splatter effect.")

How's that for "showing my true colors"?

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: According to the FBI, more people were killed by hammers last year than rifles, including assault weapons, less than 500.

That's not even close to being the truth.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homici ... onstab.cfm

You're welcome.

So that is the best you could do, nothing but a lot of very old information, here more update stuff for you folks that can't or don't want to really find the truth. Rifles and automatic weapons are not even the most sought after and used firearm. It is the Handgun.

Exactly. You'd have to ask Fred why he limited the argument to rifles, but I'm guessing it's because of the very reason you stated and I pointed to.

FredHayek wrote: According to the FBI, more people were killed by hammers last year than rifles

I wasn't limiting the argument to rifles, what I wanted to point out is that while the AR-15 is being villified, more people are shot by handguns, yet you are only seeing hi-cap mags and assault rifles being discussed right now.

Just another example of media slant. Instead of risking a fine showing a hi-cap magazine, David Gregory should have shown a cheap lo-cap Hi-Point pistol that has been shooting many more people in Chicago than AR-15's have been in Newtown.

Back in the 1930's when the automatic firearms were being vilified as gangster weapons, more people were dying from cheap revolvers yet once again sensationalism won out over substance. Congress did find enough support to make fully auto weapons highly regulated and taxed because of biased press coverage but weren't able to get enough votes to do the same thing to pistols.

FredHayek wrote: I wasn't limiting the argument to rifles, what I wanted to point out is that while the AR-15 is being villified, more people are shot by handguns, yet you are only seeing hi-cap mags and assault rifles being discussed right now.

Really, Fred?.... How could you possibly miss the part where I said:

LadyJazzer wrote: I'll ask again... I wonder how many deaths there are if you add the Glocks with 31-round magazines, and the Uzis, and the Mac-9's and Mac-10's, .... How many were slaughtered with semi-automatic/rapid-fire killing machines, Fred? Does that work out to more than "hammers"????

Since those are considered handguns, what part of that did you not think was being "discussed"?


No, Fred, what it really boiled down to is that it was just easier to copy-and-paste the usual crap-of-the-day from the gun-wacko echo chamber than it was to do any research and post a link to any verifiable source information. But thanks for playing.

I haven't seen anyone argue that assault rifles kill the most people, or that high capacity mags are responsible for the most gun related deaths.......if I missed that argument from someone, could one of you please point it out. What I have seen is the argument that assault rifles and high capacity magazines allow an individual shooter to do the most damage in the shortest amount of time.

The legislation I am seeing is for assault rifles and magazine bans. Why aren't we seeing legislation for handguns?

You could even point out that handguns shouldn't be considered as part of the 2nd Amendment since pistols aren't a primary militia armament. There was a famous case in the 1930's where a couple of yahoos were busted for owning a sawed off shotgun and the courts ruled against them saying a short-barreled firearm wasn't a militia weapon.