View Full Version : And the lawsuits begin (Bump stocks)
The bodies are not even buried yet, but no one will see that from the Brady Bunch as a problem always making sure to strike while emotions are highest:
Bump-Stock Maker Hit With Lawsuit Following Las Vegas Massacre
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawsuit seeking to represent the victims of the Las Vegas rampage, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, was filed against the makers of so-called bump stocks, which the shooter used to achieve a near-automatic rate of fire.
Cont:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-lawsuit/las-vegas-shooting-victims-file-lawsuit-against-bump-stock-makers-idUSKBN1CF2IC
The Right need to pay attention and start to litigate the left as they do to businesses that they don't like. The NRA needs to start to ramp up a ton of class actions suits and go after the media that incorrectly disparages all of us gun owners. We are libeled and Slandered everyday from those people.
ColtSeavers
10-11-17, 09:39
I don't see them winning. Maybe I just have rose colored glasses on and don't know it.
I don't see them winning. Maybe I just have rose colored glasses on and don't know it.
Don't have to win to put companies and people out of business.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
Lucky Gunner was sued after Aurora. The people who sued them lost and were ordered to pay for Lucky Gunner's legal fees. They now live in a Winnebago.
I bed the lawsuit would have to prove gross negligence. Something showing that the manufacturer knew that this guy would use it to kill people and still sold it to him. There is no way to legally prove they sold something to someone they knew was a psycho.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
Well if other non actual gun companies aren't protected then they could sue the ammo, optic, magazine, bipod and any other accessory company involved. I hope that isn't the case concerning this law.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-11-17, 10:32
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
From the article:
Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University and author of a book on gun litigation, said the lawsuit faced very long odds due to a law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields manufacturers of firearms, component parts or ammunition from liability if their products are used to commit a crime.
In the Aurora shooting they tried to sue, I think, the ammo seller. The victims lost and owed big money to the ammo company. I don't think that they collected.
It is a frivolous and bullshit suit. I think we all know that. Also, if you make a manufacturer liable for the use of a product by some nut job, asshole, or psychopath, then you now open up a door that should see every car company shut down, every brewery, distillery, every place that is making baseball bats, pipes, razor blades, rope, and about another 16 thousand other companies.
If they want to really fix something they should make lawyer liable for encouraging clients to bring frivolous lawsuits.
This is BS as stated, but the left's agenda is to do what they can to bankrupt firearms businesses. Having to hire good lawyers isn't cheap, and this appears to be something the NRA won't get involved with as indicated by their bumpfire comments.
SomeOtherGuy
10-11-17, 12:33
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
Not so fast. Read the analysis (I use the term loosely) here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/09/the-legality-of-selling-your-slidefirebumpfire-stock-according-to-gunbroker-the-plcaa/
I'm hoping that it is okay to post YouTube link below, hopefully someone else can post more on actual proposal.
Watch "Republican Turncoats Introduce Anti-Gun Law!" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/sCLoIorYguU
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf
Thanks for clarifying!
"to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"
This the the, at least in my quick skim, the section that is most troublesome. Mostly because it is so ****ing vague, or as Tim put it, Nebulous, that I can't even begin to figure just how far reaching that could be since the ATF has had issues with the idea of what constitutes manufacture in the past. Makes one wonder if they are going to be banning belt loops, sticks, rubber bands, fingers, and Jerry Miculek. Christ this shit makes my head hurt.
LMT Shooter
10-11-17, 13:09
If I recall correctly, Geissele markets (or used to market) their SD-3G trigger as allowing for faster follow up shots. I skimmed through the beginning of his bill, and I think the SG-3G would be a possible victim. I actually made this point to some friends a few days ago when talking about potential legislation to ban bump-fire stocks and such. This will be a slippery slope for us.
This is EXACTLY the “slippery slope” that Pelosi was talking about that she HOPES opens up.
Pretty nerve rattling turn of events here. The antis might have finally hit on a “winning” strategy in order to eventually ban all semi autos. That is unless the gun community comes together and gives these traitors another massive collective F that, not gonna happen on our watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MSparks909
10-11-17, 13:12
What scares me is "And any rate increasing device..."
So is my Geissele S3G at risk? Technically increases the "rate of fire." By the way, what is a standard rate of fire for a semi-automatic rifle? ****ing dumb arbitrary wording like that truly terrifies me and leaves the door open to interpretation by the ATF for what a "rate increasing device is." Is Jerry Miculek's trigger finger going to be banned? Dude can damn near shoot full-auto splits...
This is dangerous and irresponsible legislature and I hope all of you take the time to contact the sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill to voice your discontent. Also let them know that you are spreading the word and this support (or lack thereof from now on) will be voiced in the polls.
Actually, you guys are being too narrow minded. Forget triggers, think bout grips, VGs, brakes, weights, or just simple ergonomics. Slippery slope, it a straight ****ing descent.
BoringGuy45
10-11-17, 13:32
There's something worse than this going on. Recently, the 9th Circuit ruled that there is no constitutional right to sell guns (regarding a case in Alameda County about prohibitions against gun stores within 500 feet of residential areas). That is how prohibition was enforced: The sale, transfer, transportation, and manufacturing of liquor was prohibited, though not the possession of it. If the SCOTUS were to uphold this, a national law could be passed prohibiting the sale or transfer of guns, effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment.
They really dont want you to have guns.
Republican or Democrat.
Its a club, you ain't in it
ColtSeavers
10-11-17, 13:34
"to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"
This the the, at least in my quick skim, the section that is most troublesome. Mostly because it is so ****ing vague, or as Tim put it, Nebulous, that I can't even begin to figure just how far reaching that could be since the ATF has had issues with the idea of what constitutes manufacture in the past. Makes one wonder if they are going to be banning belt loops, sticks, rubber bands, fingers, and Jerry Miculek. Christ this shit makes my head hurt.
This.
Don't have to win to put companies and people out of business.
So painfully true.
This is all because the NRA said that bump Fire stocks should be reviewed..
IMHO, the NRA stepped on their dicks and RINOs are on board.
Call the NRA too. I’m on hold now.
The NRA survives on threats of gun control.
I'll leave this here.
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4493
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-11-17, 13:52
The 'meat' of the bill:
manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle
So the NRA wants to punt this back the ATF where they would have to greatly expand their power to interpret the law to outlaw the bump stocks, at the same time we are getting new laws that are so widely written that when combined with the new ATF interpretations could lead to real problems.
Seems to be that you need to tighten this up or put exclusions in it. Tightening up as in using words like 'exterior modifications' and 'harness recoil energy' to pull trigger. On the exclusions make it so replacing or modifying the trigger group with non-automatic firing parts is kosher.
The 'rate' is where the thing becomes a real minefield. Hell, a red dot makes it easier to shoot accurately faster... Jerry Miculek can shoot and reload a revolver faster than most people can shoot a Semi pistol.
Outlander Systems
10-11-17, 14:05
My wife is a litigator.
People go after the manufacturer because it's the "low-hanging fruit."
The NRA survives on threats of gun control.
I'll leave this here.
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4493
Just got off of the phone with the NRA. They are scared. I expressed my displeasure and they knew better than to ask me for more money.
Basically, they promised they are doing everything they can. They doubled down on their original strategy.
They then reminded me that they also did everything they could in the 90s to stop the Clinton ban, but were unsuccessful. The feeling I got from the person I talked to was“Hold your nose, we’re in deep sh+t”.
I left off promising that if this bill passed I was going to cancel my membership and find another cause to donate my money too.
Bottom line, there are enough progressive RINOs out there sporting a (R) after their name that it just might not matter who actually controls the house and senate on this issue.
The guy on MAC has a point. If Ryan let’s this get to the floor,it just might pass, and I’m not sure our president will stand up and veto it if it does.
BTW.. Poor move merging the thread. It was a completely different topic.
From the article:
In the Aurora shooting they tried to sue, I think, the ammo seller. The victims lost and owed big money to the ammo company. I don't think that they collected.
I've been suitably corrected and I apologize. Bad on me for absorbing some poorly written articles on FB. Looks like the precedent from Aurora might help them out considerably.
If this passes no more NRA, no more voting Republican, and they can kiss my ass
ETA If I was bumpstock, I'd counter sue for her being too fat to miss, too slow to hit the deck, and too dumb to not give incoming fire the right of way out of pure, heartless spite.
I feel sorry for people up until I don't
BoringGuy45
10-11-17, 15:26
Could be a tactic. Most of the GOP reps who are sponsoring this are the RINOs and "centrists". They can put forth this vague bill knowing that the more conservative reps are not going to support it without clarification. With more pressing matters going on, the bill gets pushed to the side before it goes anywhere. These RINOs can turn to their liberal constituents and say "Well, don't say the GOP didn't try to do anything about the gun violence..." and keep their seats.
Keep letting the NRA know how you feel. I haven't given up on them yet (but I'm damn close). Maybe they will be letting the RINO's know how we feel in private.
Could be a tactic. Most of the GOP reps who are sponsoring this are the RINOs and "centrists". They can put forth this vague bill knowing that the more conservative reps are not going to support it without clarification. With more pressing matters going on, the bill gets pushed to the side before it goes anywhere. These RINOs can turn to their liberal constituents and say "Well, don't say the GOP didn't try to do anything about the gun violence..." and keep their seats.
Definitely a tactic to keep the heat and pressure on, give the media something to talk about, etc. and the "we tried" by the gun banners.
I don't see them winning. Maybe I just have rose colored glasses on and don't know it.
Define winning.
They are done.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt they are protected by the same rules that protect the firearms manufacturers from liability. They are screwed.
They are, but it will not matter.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-11-17, 18:05
I've been suitably corrected and I apologize. Bad on me for absorbing some poorly written articles on FB. Looks like the precedent from Aurora might help them out considerably.
They still had to mount a defense, so there is the cash outlay of that. Maybe not everyone could afford enough of a defense to get to the point that they eventually win. Or they go easy on one manufacturer to get a 'win' on the board.
They then reminded me that they also did everything they could in the 90s to stop the Clinton ban, but were unsuccessful.
Yep, another problem of their own making, because you cannot ban semi-autos unless you first ban full-autos.
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf
Isn't that the same bill feinstein released the Monday after?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-11-17, 18:41
The protection is not without limits. I forget the wording, but isn't there a clause in it about not selling military guns or something? I know there is a clause about not being protected if you sell something to someone you know shouldn't have it. I can't find that anywhere now.
The protection is not without limits. I forget the wording, but isn't there a clause in it about not selling military guns or something? I know there is a clause about not being protected if you sell something to someone you know shouldn't have it. I can't find that anywhere now.
It is short and to the point
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105
The protection is not without limits. I forget the wording, but isn't there a clause in it about not selling military guns or something? I know there is a clause about not being protected if you sell something to someone you know shouldn't have it. I can't find that anywhere now.
Even that being so, how would a manufacturer know if a person is or is not righteous to have the item if they are not the direct seller? If Slidefire, or who the **** ever it was who sold the dumpstocks, ammo, rifles, ect, wasn't the final seller than how can they define if the person was a reasonable, responsible human begin, if there is even such a thing? Unless you can prove that the manufacturer sold to the person "Knowingly" and "intentionally" with at least the assumption that they may use it in an unlawful way then I see it as a frivolous suit and both the dumb mofos and the lawyers should be held accountable, for all costs to the courts and those who brought the suit.
If the rate is not defined, how can you prove it increased?
How can you be convicted by this? ( talking about new bill)
If the rate is not defined, how can you prove it increased?
How can you be convicted by this?
While you, and I , and any reasonable person might understand this. You have to figure that those who might decide to make you a felon will do whatever they can to make it appear that any gun should not be able to fire more than one round every 10 minutes. because a slow, dumb, asshole needs at least that to hit a target at 10 feet because his eyes are shit, and he can't hold his own dick still. Also, remember you are not judged by a jury of your peers, but by twelve of the dumbest mother****ers who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty and who will assume you are innocent until proven guilty.
We do not need more laws, we need more enforcement of the laws that we have, and a healthy, or at this point, a very unhealthy dose of common-****ing-sense.
If the rate is not defined, how can you prove it increased?
How can you be convicted by this? ( talking about new bill)
ATF will declare certain devices to be rate increasing, and others not. Just like flash hiders vs brakes during AWB. If you are in possession of a device declared rate increasing, your SOL.
LMT Shooter
10-11-17, 21:48
ATF will declare certain devices to be rate increasing, and others not. Just like flash hiders vs brakes during AWB. If you are in possession of a device declared rate increasing, your SOL.
Exactly right. Legislation like this would likely be arbitrarily interpreted by ATF, and we would be at the mercy of said interpretation.
Is there federal precedent for a gun law, or any law where there is no grand fathering?
I are you meant to know some item you have in you basement of unused gun parts makes you a felon even though you legally bought it.
Is there federal precedent for a gun law, or any law where there is no grand fathering?
I are you meant to know some item you have in you basement of unused gun parts makes you a felon even though you legally bought it.
No grandfathering on any drugs, child porn, etc., made illegal.
Some states have no grandfathering for guns/mags, can't think if a federal gun example.
If the rate is not defined, how can you prove it increased?
How can you be convicted by this? ( talking about new bill)
A carefully selected expert will demonstrate in civil court, on video, that the rate of fire can be increased through the use of a bump fire stock. They will also likely bring up the fact that many gun clubs do not allow the use of a Bump Fire stock on club property and the reasons stated by said clubs.
In criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence, which is easier to prove.
It wasn't a matter of if, but when a case against the company that manufactures Bump Fire stocks would face a plaintiff in civil court. Most felt a civil case would have been the result of a mall ninja hip shooting zombie targets at 5 yards on the rifle range of a local gun club and rounds leaving the range and striking a motor vehicle, hiker or residence. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, a plaintiff's attorney will find it easier to gain support and a favorable ruling from a civil jury.
A carefully selected expert will demonstrate in civil court, on video, that the rate of fire can be increased through the use of a bump fire stock. They will also likely bring up the fact that many gun clubs do not allow the use of a Bump Fire stock on club property and the reasons stated by said clubs.
In criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence, which is easier to prove.
It wasn't a matter of if, but when a case against the company that manufactures Bump Fire stocks would face a plaintiff in civil court. Most felt a civil case would have been the result of a mall ninja hip shooting zombie targets at 5 yards on the rifle range of a local gun club and rounds leaving the range and striking a motor vehicle, hiker or residence. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, a plaintiff's attorney will find it easier to gain support and a favorable ruling from a civil jury.
I am not arguing with you specifically, but rather pointing out that depending on the interpretation by the judge, lawyer, ect. Beyond a reasonable doubt can mean anything from 99% certain to as low as 70% certain depending on how one may wish to define it, I've have also heard as low as 51% from so to mark beyond a reasonable doubt. Or one's opinion. At least in the classes I have taken. Basic point it is subjective. Go figure. For preponderance of evidence, some will define it as high as 80% certainty, and as low as 51%. Which can be kind of scary when you stop to think about it. Actually both can be, especially considering that most these days look at guilty until proven innocent.
If I were the defense I would be making a lot of points that the device was used not by the manufacturer, but by the end consumer. A third party who has control of the device, not the manufacturer, and that the device was given sanction by the government, and that that manufacture in X number of years has never had an issue even with Y number of units sold, has never had a situation like this where the device was used for nefarious purposes can not be held accountable for the misuse of the device, murder being a definite misuse. Just like a manufacturer of pressure cookers can not be held accountable for the misuse of their device by the end consumer. Unfortunately, while myself, and you, and most here understand this, they are likely going to be dealing with a jury made up of a set of the dumbest mother****ers that are too stupid to get out of jury duty and who are going to think more with emotion.
I hope nobody here expects POTUS not to sign a gun control bill, should one come on his desk. If you do, you're gravely mistaken!
Dist. Expert 26
10-12-17, 00:14
Given that CNN is already back to bashing Trump over Twitter, I don't think this bill will go anywhere. The Republicans want to stay in office after all.
The NRA survives on threats of gun control.
I'll leave this here.
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4493
Given what I've heard of past actions, and what I've seen myself, I wouldn't be surprised.
And now once again we have to fight defensively over some dumb toys because this crappily written law is too open ended to *not* lead to further "re-interpretations" down the road... :rolleyes:
On a more helpful note, I cannot confirm the accuracy of this info, but here's a list I saw elsewhere online of representative's contact info:
**Carlos Curbelo (Rep-FL 26th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 1404 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-2778;
->Miami office: 12851 SW 42nd Street Suite 131 Miami, FL 33175 Ph#1(305)222-0160;
->Key West office: 1100 Simonton Street Suite 1-213 Key West, FL 33010 Ph#+1(305)292-4485;
->Florida City office: 404 West Palm Drive Florida City, FL 33034 Ph#+1(305)247-1234
**Peter Thomas King (Rep-NY 2nd district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 339 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-7896 Fax#+1(202)226-2279
->Massapequa Park office: 1003 Park Boulevard Massapequa Park, NY 11762 Ph#+1(516)541-4225 Fax#+1(516)541-6602 Email: pete.king@mail.house.gov
**Leonard J. Lance (Rep-NJ 7th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2352 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-5361 Fax#+1(202)225-9460 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM(Eastern Standard Time)
->Flemington office: 361 Route 31 (Unit 1400) Flemington, NJ 08822 Ph#+1(908)788-6900 Fax#+1(908)788-2869 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM(Eastern Standard Time)
->Westfield office: 425 North Avenue East Westfield, NJ 07090 Ph#+1(908)518-7733 Fax#+1(908)518-7751 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM(Eastern Standard Time)
**Patrick Leo MeeHan (Rep-PA 7th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2305 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-2011 Fax#+1(202)226-0280
->Springfield office: 940 West Sproul Road Springfield, PA 19064 Ph#+1(610)690-7323 Fax#+1(610)690-7329
->Amity Township office: 2004 Weavertown Road Douglassville, PA 19518 Monday: 9am-2pm
->Paradise office: 2 Township Drive Paradise, PA 17562 Tuesday: 9am-2pm ->Whitpain Township office: 960 Wentz Road Blue Bell, PA 19422 Wednesday: 9am-2pm ->Honey Brook office: 500 Suplee Road Honey Brook, PA 19344 Thursday: 9am-2pm
**Edward "Ed" Randall Royce (Rep-CA 39th District)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2310 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515(3rd floor) Ph#+1(202)225-4111 Hours: 9:00AM-6:00PM(Eastern Standard Time)
->Los Angeles County office: 1380 S. Fullerton Road, Suite 203, Rowland Heights, CA Ph#+1(626)964-5123 Hours: 9:00AM-5:00PM(Pacific Standard Time) ->Orange County office: 210 W. Birch Street, Suite 201, Brea, CA Ph#+1(714)255-0101 Hours: 9:00AM-5:00PM(Pacific Standard Time)
**Christopher "Chris" Henry Smith (Rep-NJ 4th District)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2373 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-3765 Fax#+1(202)225-7768
->Monmouth County Constituent Services Center office: 112 Village Center Drive, Second Floor* Raintree Shopping Center Freehold, NJ 07728 Ph#+1(732)780-3035 Fax#+1(732)780-3079 Hours: Call for hours of operation, an appointment or for more information
->Ocean County office: 405 Route 539 (Pinehurst Road) Plumsted, NJ Ph#+1(609)286-2571 or +1(732)350-2300 Fax#+1(609)286-2630 Hours: Call for hours of operation, an appointment or for more information
->Hamilton District office: 4573 South Broad Street Hamilton, NJ 08620 Ph#+1(609)585-7878 Fax#+1(609)585-9155 Hours: Call for hours of operation, an appointment or for more information
**Erik Philip Paulsen (Rep-MN 3rd District)**
->Washington D.C. office: 127 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-2871 Fax#+1(202)225-6351
->Minnesota office: 250 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 230 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Ph#+1(952)405-8510 Fax#+1(952) 405-8514
**Ryan Costello (Rep-PA 6th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 326 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-4315
->West Chester office: 21 West Market Street, Suite 105 West Chester, PA 19382 Ph#+1(610)696-2982 Fax#+1(610)696-2985
->Wyomissing office: 840 North Park Road Wyomissing, PA 19610 Ph#+1(610)376-7630 Fax#+1(610)376-7633
**Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen (Rep-FL 27th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2206 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-3931 Fax#+1(202)225-5620 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM
->Miami office (Main office): 4960 SW 72 Ave, Suite 208 Miami, FL 33155 Ph#+1(305)668-2285 Fax#+1(305)668-5970 Hours: Monday-Friday 10:00AM-1:00PM & 2:00PM-6:00PM
**Charlie Wieder Dent (Rep-PA 15th district)**
->Washington D.C. office: 2082 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Ph#+1(202)225-6411 Fax#+1(202)225-0778 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM
->Lebanon County office: 342 W Main St [Front] Annville, PA 17003 Ph#+1(717)867-1026 Fax#+1(717)867-1540 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM
->Dauphin County office: 250 W Chocolate Avenue, Suite 2 Hershey, PA 17033 Ph#+1(717)533-3959 Fax#+1(717)533-3979 Hours: Monday-Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM; Friday 9:00AM-12:00PM
->Berks County office: 61 N 3rd Street Hamburg, PA 19526 Ph#+1(610)562-4281 Fax#+1(610)562-4352 Hours:Tuesday-Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM
->Lehigh Valley office: 3900 Hamilton Boulevard Suite 207 Allentown, PA 18103 Ph#+1(610)770-3490 Fax#+1(610)770-3498 Toll-Free#1-866-861-2624 Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM
This is the group that was instrumental in the overturning of Washington, DC's "good reason" CCW clause.
Take the time to read this...
“I must, however, say one thing, and I deeply dislike having to repeat myself like this,” Patton said. “No matter what kinds of weapons Mr. Paddock had. No matter how many he had. No matter the sizes of the magazines, the caliber of the bullets, the color of the guns, or the style or design, the guns had no choice, for guns are not living creatures. A gun cannot choose to refuse to fire if the action is illegal. They’re just machines. I hate having to defend inanimate objects yet again, but I know that once again they will be low-hanging fruit for those who project their anger and fear onto them.”
Entire statement can be found here...
http://www.pinkpistols.org/2017/10/02/difficult-questions-from-above-says-pink-pistols-speaker/
This is the group that was instrumental in the overturning of Washington, DC's "good reason" CCW clause.
Take the time to read this...
“I must, however, say one thing, and I deeply dislike having to repeat myself like this,” Patton said. “No matter what kinds of weapons Mr. Paddock had. No matter how many he had. No matter the sizes of the magazines, the caliber of the bullets, the color of the guns, or the style or design, the guns had no choice, for guns are not living creatures. A gun cannot choose to refuse to fire if the action is illegal. They’re just machines. I hate having to defend inanimate objects yet again, but I know that once again they will be low-hanging fruit for those who project their anger and fear onto them.”
Entire statement can be found here...
http://www.pinkpistols.org/2017/10/02/difficult-questions-from-above-says-pink-pistols-speaker/
Men kill men. You can make it more difficult, but you can't stop it. Gun control has always been about control of the populace, never about making a nation "safe."
RetroRevolver77
10-12-17, 09:20
When they finally realize you don't even need a device to simulate bump fire is when they will just push for an outright ban on semi-auto.
Brilliant words from an unlikely source. Thanks for posting this.
......and nobody will listen to them.
Dems see them as deluded traitors and Repugs see them as pillow biters.
That's where we are. That's us as a nation. Deviate from your box and you are a nobody
When they finally realize you don't even need a device to simulate bump fire is when they will just push for an outright ban on semi-auto.
They do now, and this new legislation will open that door slowly.
Well, our back stabbing friends the Republicans are on the move.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/ten-republicans-sign-on-to-house-bump-fire-stock-ban-bill/
It seems to me that something like this would be unenforceable. What is the definition of ROF? What is the standard ROF for any given semi-auto? Since things like the BS can't, as far as I know, out run the mechanical operation of a semis action or make that action go faster than one pull/one bullet is the standard that the BS is faster than my finger alone? Or is there going to be a standard BATFE finger?
Dist. Expert 26
10-12-17, 11:03
This is a poorly disguised attempt to regulate every semiautomatic weapon in the country.
If it passes the Republicans will get absolutely slaughtered for the next several elections and things will only get worse.
Write, call and email your representatives NOW.
This is the type of dumbassery we are up against. Saw this on Instagram ....
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171012/17b85de31f59aefe615deb3579d29fea.png
Part of me hopes the original post was a joke. People can’t be this stupid, right? [emoji20]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ban handguns, the primary tool used for gun violence, and over ten thousand lives would be saved.
SomeOtherGuy
10-12-17, 13:26
This is the type of dumbassery we are up against. Saw this on Instagram ....
Part of me hopes the original post was a joke. People can’t be this stupid, right? [emoji20]
Betting on joke. My bookface friends are circulating a "Moms Demand Action" series featuring Gianna Michaels and a few other ... ummm... actresses that some people on this site (hey beemer-driver!) might be familiar with.
Ban handguns, the primary tool used for gun violence, and over ten thousand lives would be saved.
Actually, if we really want to stop needless deaths we should just ban death. Would save millions of lives.
Actually, if we really want to stop needless deaths we should just ban death. Would save millions of lives.
Kidding aside, few people suicide well with no access to handguns. Ban them and more will live. Of course, those door-to-door confiscations might get dicey...
SomeOtherGuy
10-12-17, 13:54
Kidding aside, few people suicide well with no access to handguns. Ban them and more will live. Of course, those door-to-door confiscations might get dicey...
Hard to say, choice of means is guided by what's available. Unavailability of firearms might just mean drug overdoses and inert gas asphyxiation takes their place. Not as likely for impulsive suicides, but already common for planned ones.
This is kinda like saying that other countries don't have mass shootings, then ignoring the nightclub arsons (typically more deadly than any shooting prior to LV, and some have been more deadly than even the LV shooting) and the recent truck attacks.
Not on your case, we're on the same side, but I would not give one inch on any RKBA issue.
Kidding aside, few people suicide well with no access to handguns. Ban them and more will live. Of course, those door-to-door confiscations might get dicey...
Why not ban people over 60? If we would do that all of those poor people in Los Vegas would still be alive.
This shit is exactly why I can't feel sorry for people.
"Oh my god, some lunatic shot us. I'm bloodied but alive. I am hurt"
Oh you poor lamb. Some people are just cruel and mean-spirited. Here, let me give you a hug. What can I do for you to ease your sadness?
"I want millions of dollars and all your guns banned! Whitman Lottery, baybeh!!"
......Go **** yourself.
Yep....my sympathy becomes a shrinking violet more and more with each passing day. But if you really want some, it is in Oxford's between Shit and Syphilis.
Hard to say, choice of means is guided by what's available. Unavailability of firearms might just mean drug overdoses and inert gas asphyxiation takes their place. Not as likely for impulsive suicides, but already common for planned ones.
This is kinda like saying that other countries don't have mass shootings, then ignoring the nightclub arsons (typically more deadly than any shooting prior to LV, and some have been more deadly than even the LV shooting) and the recent truck attacks.
Not on your case, we're on the same side, but I would not give one inch on any RKBA issue.
Actually, studies contradict your assertion. The majority of gun deaths in the US is a result of suicide by gun, and suicides are often an impulsive decision. About 90 percent of gun suicide attempts are fatal, compared to about 3-4% of attempts from drug over dose. Countries, and US States, with lower gun ownership rates have substantially lower suicide rates. Further, data suggest that the vast majority of individuals that survive suicide attempts usually do not attempt another suicide. Removing guns, especially handguns, from at-risk persons would significantly reduce the suicide rate. There you have it.
ETA: The difficulty lies in finding ways to limit access to firearms when someone is experiencing a "mental breakdown," if you will, because that is the only modifiable manner by which we can reduce suicides by gun - all whilst not violating the 2A.
Why not ban people over 60? If we would do that all of those poor people in Los Vegas would still be alive.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have laws because people don't obey them?
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have laws because people don't obey them?
No, I am saying that if we are going to come up with stupid laws we might as well not stop at removing our Second Amendment rights. Banning firearms has nothing to do with saving lives. It is all about controlling lives. If it were about saving lives all of the anti-gun people would be anit-car people or even anti-poison people. But they do not give a SH#$ about saving people, just controlling them.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/gun-vs-traffic-accident-deaths-getting-the-data-straight/
And from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Actually, studies contradict your assertion. The majority of gun deaths in the US is a result of suicide by gun, and suicides are often an impulsive decision. About 90 percent of gun suicide attempts are fatal, compared to about 3-4% of attempts from drug over dose. Countries, and US States, with lower gun ownership rates have substantially lower suicide rates. Further, data suggest that the vast majority of individuals that survive suicide attempts usually do not attempt another suicide. Removing guns, especially handguns, from at-risk persons would significantly reduce the suicide rate. There you have it.
ETA: The difficulty lies in finding ways to limit access to firearms when someone is experiencing a "mental breakdown," if you will, because that is the only modifiable manner by which we can reduce suicides by gun - all whilst not violating the 2A.And then they will use a knife, or drive off a cliff, or drive into a store wall, or...
All your study shows is how effective a handgun is at its job as a tool.
Crazy will find a way.
Studys and statistics will show any slant you want. Im sure a good analyst will prove humans are a waste of oxygen. Whats next ban humans.
Lets have fun with the at risk persons can of worms. Who make the call who is the them or the us.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
It is a frivolous and bullshit suit. I think we all know that. Also, if you make a manufacturer liable for the use of a product by some nut job, asshole, or psychopath, then you now open up a door that should see every car company shut down, every brewery, distillery, every place that is making baseball bats, pipes, razor blades, rope, and about another 16 thousand other companies.
If they want to really fix something they should make lawyer liable for encouraging clients to bring frivolous lawsuits.
A-freaking-men!
Actually, studies contradict your assertion. The majority of gun deaths in the US is a result of suicide by gun, and suicides are often an impulsive decision. About 90 percent of gun suicide attempts are fatal, compared to about 3-4% of attempts from drug over dose. Countries, and US States, with lower gun ownership rates have substantially lower suicide rates. Further, data suggest that the vast majority of individuals that survive suicide attempts usually do not attempt another suicide. Removing guns, especially handguns, from at-risk persons would significantly reduce the suicide rate. There you have it.
ETA: The difficulty lies in finding ways to limit access to firearms when someone is experiencing a "mental breakdown," if you will, because that is the only modifiable manner by which we can reduce suicides by gun - all whilst not violating the 2A.
No. You have countries with higher rates of suicide than the US with much harsher gun control. Japan is one of the major examples. Also, Europe is considered to the suicide capital of the world if one is to take most studies at face value. Granted statistics can be skewed and made to lie, but the point with the general availability of guns in the US, the number of gun deaths are actually quite small compared to what some would make you believe.
As far as reducing the suicide rate, that is another discussion for another time and I am generally of the opinion that if someone wants to check out bad enough they will find a way. Just depends how creative they want to get and how much pain they willing to take in some cases. The gun is no different than the razor, a tool in this case.
Kidding aside, few people suicide well with no access to handguns. Ban them and more will live. Of course, those door-to-door confiscations might get dicey...
Pretty sure that the suicide rate in Japan is higher or equivalent to the USA. Guns are next to impossible to get. So how do they off themselves?
Sorry, but the whole suicide thing is a red herring.
If you want to stop needless deaths start with banning cars, doctors and a host of other root causes for needless deaths.
Gun control has never in human history been about safety. It’s always about control. Always will be.
Pretty sure that the suicide rate in Japan is higher or equivalent to the USA. Guns are next to impossible to get. So how do they off themselves?
Sorry, but the whole suicide thing is a red herring.
If you want to stop needless deaths start with banning cars, doctors and a host of other root causes for needless deaths.
Gun control has never in human history been about safety. It’s always about control. Always will be.
Johns Hopkins released a study last year ranking medical mistakes as the third leading cause of death in the USA.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
Johns Hopkins released a study last year ranking medical mistakes as the third leading cause of death in the USA.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
Damn. I have like 3 that I see regularly, not counting the dentist. I’m hosed.
Don't have to win to put companies and people out of business.
Exactly! Gibson Guitars is still struggling from the Obama attack on them and may never recover.
And then they will use a knife, or drive off a cliff, or drive into a store wall, or...
All your study shows is how effective a handgun is at its job as a tool.
Crazy will find a way.
Studys and statistics will show any slant you want. Im sure a good analyst will prove humans are a waste of oxygen. Whats next ban humans.
Lets have fun with the at risk persons can of worms. Who make the call who is the them or the us.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Firearms are very effective at ending lives, which is the main purpose of their existence, and is reflected in their design. Yes, really. Further, it's not unreasonable to remove firearms from the "crazies," to use your term, if it will help save the lives of those who may simply be having a bad day and, with proper intervention, are likely to choose not to end their lives. The aftermath of a suicide is costly, and negatively affects many individuals, including tax payers.
No, I am saying that if we are going to come up with stupid laws we might as well not stop at removing our Second Amendment rights. Banning firearms has nothing to do with saving lives. It is all about controlling lives. If it were about saving lives all of the anti-gun people would be anit-car people or even anti-poison people. But they do not give a SH#$ about saving people, just controlling them.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/gun-vs-traffic-accident-deaths-getting-the-data-straight/
And from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
First, the 2A, like all amendments in the BOR, is subject to reasonable regulation. Further, removing the 2A is perfectly feasible, and there is a process for how to do so outlined in the USC.
Second, a car, in contrast to a firearm, is not meant to inflict harm on living things, including humans and animals. There is no other consumer product associated with such a significant number of deaths that is not reasonably regulated. In fact, firearms manufacturers have operated without federal oversight for many decades, and are excluded from Consumer Product Safety Commission's jurisdiction. Reasonable regulation of firearms will lead to fewer gun deaths. And I believe this can be done whilst respecting the 2A.
No. You have countries with higher rates of suicide than the US with much harsher gun control. Japan is one of the major examples. Also, Europe is considered to the suicide capital of the world if one is to take most studies at face value. Granted statistics can be skewed and made to lie, but the point with the general availability of guns in the US, the number of gun deaths are actually quite small compared to what some would make you believe.
As far as reducing the suicide rate, that is another discussion for another time and I am generally of the opinion that if someone wants to check out bad enough they will find a way. Just depends how creative they want to get and how much pain they willing to take in some cases. The gun is no different than the razor, a tool in this case.
You're correct. I accidentally excluded "developed countries" when making the comparison. As you can see on the graph below, the US suicide rate far outpaces any other advanced country. I have plenty of other graphical illustrations, and references to the data, should you desire.
https://kenpacha.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/untitled4.png
If we truly want to reduce gun violence in the US -- and I am assuming most individuals here share that goal -- we need to restrict firearms based on evidence of dangerousness to self or others. Let's start with mental illness since many like to think the mentally ill are responsible for the gun violence epidemic. Unfortunately, the mentally ill are responsible for only about 4% of gun violence, and as a group, are more likely to be victims of violent crime rather than the perpetrators.
Instead, it would be much more effective to target new firearms restrictions at a group of individuals who can be classified as "pathologically angry" and has access to firearms, which is about 10% of the US population. Individuals in this group are significantly likely to meet diagnostic criteria for a myriad of mental disorders, such as alcohol and drug abuse, bipolar and anxiety disorders, pathological gambling disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, etc. Yet, despite clear evidence of psychopathology in this group, only about 8-9% of these individuals have ever been hospitalized for mental health problem, and only a small fraction were likely to be classified as a gun-disqualifying involuntary commitment, meaning these individuals continued to have access to firearms.
But the greatest progress can be made by targeting those at risk of suicide, which are mostly white men. In fact, simply owning a firearm, with no other risk-factors, increases your risk of suicide. On the other hand, licensing (yes, gun registrations), background checks, and waiting periods substantially lower the suicide rate, several studies correctly concluded. In fact, most tellingly, research studying the effects of the decade-long handgun ban in DC showed a very sharp decline in firearm suicides after the ban was enacted, but there was no decline in the rate of suicide by other means, and no such suicide reductions were shown in adjoining areas not subject to the ban. So, yes, handgun bans do work.
Gun regulation is coming to the US. In fact, as whites are replaced by non-whites, America will turn left (or commie, you might call it). Mr. and Mrs. America, get ready to turn those evil black rifles in!
You're correct. I accidentally excluded "developed countries" when making the comparison. As you can see on the graph below, the US suicide rate far outpaces any other advanced country. I have plenty of other graphical illustrations, and references to the data, should you desire.
https://kenpacha.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/untitled4.png
If we truly want to reduce gun violence in the US -- and I am assuming most individuals here share that goal -- we need to restrict firearms based on evidence of dangerousness to self or others. Let's start with mental illness since many like to think the mentally ill are responsible for the gun violence epidemic. Unfortunately, the mentally ill are responsible for only about 4% of gun violence, and as a group, are more likely to be victims of violent crime rather than the perpetrators.
Instead, it would be much more effective to target new firearms restrictions at a group of individuals who can be classified as "pathologically angry" and has access to firearms, which is about 10% of the US population. Individuals in this group are significantly likely to meet diagnostic criteria for a myriad of mental disorders, such as alcohol and drug abuse, bipolar and anxiety disorders, pathological gambling disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, etc. Yet, despite clear evidence of psychopathology in this group, only about 8-9% of these individuals have ever been hospitalized for mental health problem, and only a small fraction were likely to be classified as a gun-disqualifying involuntary commitment, meaning these individuals continued to have access to firearms.
But the greatest progress can be made by targeting those at risk of suicide, which are mostly white men. In fact, simply owning a firearm, with no other risk-factors, increases your risk of suicide. On the other hand, licensing (yes, gun registrations), background checks, and waiting periods substantially lower the suicide rate, several studies correctly concluded. In fact, most tellingly, research studying the effects of the decade-long handgun ban in DC showed a very sharp decline in firearm suicides after the ban was enacted, but there was no decline in the rate of suicide by other means, and no such suicide reductions were shown in adjoining areas not subject to the ban. So, yes, handgun bans do work.
Gun regulation is coming to the US. In fact, as whites are replaced by non-whites, America will turn left (or commie, you might call it). Mr. and Mrs. America, get ready to turn those evil black rifles in!
Dude, I have no idea where you are pulling your data on suicides, but you're still wrong. The USA average is about right. The rest, not even close. Per the W.H.O. Finland's suicide rate is around 14 per 100k, Japan's is almost 20. Australia and New Zealand who both have strict gun laws are higher than the US average as well. France also has a much high incident rate of suicide, along with Germany, Denmark, and others. Data below.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.sdg.3-4-viz-2?lang=en
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.sdg.3-4-data?lang=en
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_AS_suicide_rates_bothsexes_2015.png?ua=1
End point, guns don't cause suicide mate.
ETA: also, on the point of guns being effective at ending lives. Hmmm, no, they are actually rather inefficient if we want to get down to it, granted this is partly the end user, but even then. You want to kill a lot of people quickly, bombs, fire, disease, various types of gas(nerve, mustard, chlorine, ect), and other means are actually more effective. And short of a bullet to the CNS, we are actually pretty good at saving lives. Close proximity to a lot of bang, not so much.
Who let the troll in..? Reminds me of someone..
Dude, I have no idea where you are pulling your data on suicides, but you're still wrong. The USA average is about right. The rest, not even close. Per the W.H.O. Finland's suicide rate is around 14 per 100k, Japan's is almost 20. Australia and New Zealand who both have strict gun laws are higher than the US average as well. France also has a much high incident rate of suicide, along with Germany, Denmark, and others. Data below.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.sdg.3-4-viz-2?lang=en
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.sdg.3-4-data?lang=en
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_AS_suicide_rates_bothsexes_2015.png?ua=1
End point, guns don't cause suicide mate.
ETA: also, on the point of guns being effective at ending lives. Hmmm, no, they are actually rather inefficient if we want to get down to it, granted this is partly the end user, but even then. You want to kill a lot of people quickly, bombs, fire, disease, various types of gas(nerve, mustard, chlorine, ect), and other means are actually more effective. And short of a bullet to the CNS, we are actually pretty good at saving lives. Close proximity to a lot of bang, not so much.
I think those numbers in the graph above are for firearm suicides. It’s likely that the USA leads in that stat. It’s the red herring all over again. If you can’t make your argument stick about how XYZ law would have stopped a criminal from breaking the law throw some emotional crap to the wall about stopping suicides and change the topic.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-12-17, 23:30
How many people have killed themselves with a bump stock, either attached or un-attached.
Frankly, I don't care if regulating guns did reduce crime or deaths. America is about freedom, not safety. Both is great, but if i have to choose, it's easy.
Oh and why specify gun violence? Is it any worse than other forms of violence?
Get out of here with your small minded garbage commentary. This isn’t CNN or NYT where you can just spew shit and have uninformed readers soak up every word.
As Megademic said, smart people care about violent acts, not stupidly focused on Only firearm violence. We don’t want friends and family run over, blown up, jets flown into their buildings, bludgeoned stabbed or shot. A mark of zero credibility is a focus only on firearms. Congratulations.
Nearly all mass shootings are committed by mentally ill individuals. The states seem to have NOTHING in place to remove such individuals from society. ANY talk of gun regulation without a real system in place to take dangerous individuals off the streets, be they psychotic mass murderers or violent street criminals, is a complete no go for anyone with a brain and interest in self preservation.
There is so much more to go into but I don’t do these arguments...I don’t think those politicians or voters calling to disarm the public have the mental capacity to analyze the situation...if you can’t remember history past the last 40 years or the basic math on genocide deaths, frankly you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed and not anyone who should be dictating policy.
I usually just say: Mexico has the gun laws you are looking for. Move there.
Kidding aside, few people suicide well with no access to handguns. Ban them and more will live. Of course, those door-to-door confiscations might get dicey...
Really? We're 7 for 7 in hangings very recently. No shootings. True suicide is a choice. Never doubt resolve. Spewing statistics is caused by reading too much. The real world is much different than numbers cooked to support a certain stance.
Firearms are very effective at ending lives, which is the main purpose of their existence, and is reflected in their design. Yes, really. Further, it's not unreasonable to remove firearms from the "crazies," to use your term, if it will help save the lives of those who may simply be having a bad day and, with proper intervention, are likely to choose not to end their lives. The aftermath of a suicide is costly, and negatively affects many individuals, including tax payers.
First, the 2A, like all amendments in the BOR, is subject to reasonable regulation. Further, removing the 2A is perfectly feasible, and there is a process for how to do so outlined in the USC.
Second, a car, in contrast to a firearm, is not meant to inflict harm on living things, including humans and animals. There is no other consumer product associated with such a significant number of deaths that is not reasonably regulated. In fact, firearms manufacturers have operated without federal oversight for many decades, and are excluded from Consumer Product Safety Commission's jurisdiction. Reasonable regulation of firearms will lead to fewer gun deaths. And I believe this can be done whilst respecting the 2A.
You're correct. I accidentally excluded "developed countries" when making the comparison. As you can see on the graph below, the US suicide rate far outpaces any other advanced country. I have plenty of other graphical illustrations, and references to the data, should you desire.
https://kenpacha.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/untitled4.png
If we truly want to reduce gun violence in the US -- and I am assuming most individuals here share that goal -- we need to restrict firearms based on evidence of dangerousness to self or others. Let's start with mental illness since many like to think the mentally ill are responsible for the gun violence epidemic. Unfortunately, the mentally ill are responsible for only about 4% of gun violence, and as a group, are more likely to be victims of violent crime rather than the perpetrators.
Instead, it would be much more effective to target new firearms restrictions at a group of individuals who can be classified as "pathologically angry" and has access to firearms, which is about 10% of the US population. Individuals in this group are significantly likely to meet diagnostic criteria for a myriad of mental disorders, such as alcohol and drug abuse, bipolar and anxiety disorders, pathological gambling disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, etc. Yet, despite clear evidence of psychopathology in this group, only about 8-9% of these individuals have ever been hospitalized for mental health problem, and only a small fraction were likely to be classified as a gun-disqualifying involuntary commitment, meaning these individuals continued to have access to firearms.
But the greatest progress can be made by targeting those at risk of suicide, which are mostly white men. In fact, simply owning a firearm, with no other risk-factors, increases your risk of suicide. On the other hand, licensing (yes, gun registrations), background checks, and waiting periods substantially lower the suicide rate, several studies correctly concluded. In fact, most tellingly, research studying the effects of the decade-long handgun ban in DC showed a very sharp decline in firearm suicides after the ban was enacted, but there was no decline in the rate of suicide by other means, and no such suicide reductions were shown in adjoining areas not subject to the ban. So, yes, handgun bans do work.
Gun regulation is coming to the US. In fact, as whites are replaced by non-whites, America will turn left (or commie, you might call it). Mr. and Mrs. America, get ready to turn those evil black rifles in!
WTF did I just read? Are you a commentator on CNN?
Frankly, I don't care if regulating guns did reduce crime or deaths. America is about freedom, not safety. Both is great, but if i have to choose, it's easy.
Oh and why specify gun violence? Is it any worse than other forms of violence?
This. Freedom isn't free, the currency that buys it is blood. There is no number of victims to justify disarmament of peaceful people.
Deaths are sad and unfortunate. Outlawing the tools of death does not get to the root of someone wanting to kill themselves or others. Want to stop death? Solve that problem.
Voodoochild
10-13-17, 07:38
Feline first and only warning.. Sto with the trolling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.