Gun control

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Desperately wants to be ITK
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
10,892
Location
ITK
The only time I'll ever credit Piers for being sensible. It could happen though. Highly improbable due to the high emotional attachment to guns (materialism)
His point about more people being killed in the cinema massacre if everyone was armed was wrong though. I am quite sure that less people would have died. However, if everyone was armed then I would bet that one off murders would go up.

Lets not forget as well that 'massacres' only make up a tiny percentage of American's killed by guns per year anyway.
 

Wowi

Rød grød med fløde
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
8,406
Location
Denmark
Sorry if this has been answered before, but would it be possible (theoretically. I know it'd be practically impossible given the opposition) for one state to make guns illegal for everyone who doesn't need it for the job (policemen and such) or does it have to be outlawed from the White House?
 

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
5,452
Location
Wolverhampton
Sorry if this has been answered before, but would it be possible (theoretically. I know it'd be practically impossible given the opposition) for one state to make guns illegal for everyone who doesn't need it for the job (policemen and such) or does it have to be outlawed from the White House?
I doubt the whitehouse could do it, it would require a change in the constitution, the 'right to bear arms' is enshrined in the second amendment.

Of course, I doubt the second was originally intended to mean what the NRA have driven the narrative to mean now, and the biggest problem with gun control is that for at least half the country, carrying guns equates to being a patriot, and those that dont are somehow less american.

You have to deal with a century of that indoctrination before you can even begin to deal with the 200 million or so guns in the wild in the US.

Then theres the fact that 18 hours before the shooting, Michigan Republicans voted through legislature making it perfectly legal to take firearms into a school or kindergarten. And yes, you read that correctly.

You have a bunch of asshats who want everyone armed, at the same time want no mental healthcare provided by the state, and less government intervention in the poorest areas of society.

12000 firearms deaths a year is the result of that ideology.

Ignore economics, this is the shit your 'god fearing' fecks like Ann Coulter and the tea party think is a decent society, they dont grasp the consequences of taking their ideology to its ultimate conclusion because they are ensconsed in gated and guarded compounds and their kids go to schools with its own security forces. Its only the little people who have to deal with the reality of the richest nation on earth having effectively zero mental healthcare programmes and near unrestricted access to military grade weaponry.

To paraphrase Trey Parker and Matt Stone , America is fecked , yeah.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,831
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
His point about more people being killed in the cinema massacre if everyone was armed was wrong though. I am quite sure that less people would have died. However, if everyone was armed then I would bet that one off murders would go up.

Lets not forget as well that 'massacres' only make up a tiny percentage of American's killed by guns per year anyway.
If everyone had a gun how would people in the cinema know the difference between who was attacking them and who was an accomplice, and when the police arrived there would be the same confusion.

There would have been more deaths.

edit: I meant to say 'or an accomplice, and who was trying to help' but had a brain fart
 

mightberight

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
2,736
Location
Being and Nothingness
You are sick and so is your country.
No, what he is saying is a perfectly reasoned argument. America is armed to the teeth already - guns are so easily procured that gun control may indeed have little effect, even if you start registering and limiting their sales.

Might as well try though, but I fear the Yanks may have to go down a different path with this. And I fear they've fecked themselves already by not making amendments to their beloved constitution a century or two ago.
 

mightberight

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
2,736
Location
Being and Nothingness
If everyone had a gun how would people in the cinema know the difference between who was attacking them and who was an accomplice, and when the police arrived there would be the same confusion.

There would have been more deaths.
I do love some of the arguments you see - especially on youtube - is that "if I'd have been there I'd have dropped him in five seconds and prevented deaths." Like feck you would. You'd most likely end up shitting yourself, harming the innocent, or even worse, enraging the shooter even further. Just because you shot a stationary deer once doesn't make you John Rambo.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,831
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
yep, the one thing about these situations is the confusion over who is friend or foe. Unless there is some identifying feature- like I guess with the cinema guy he had a gas mask and bullet proof vest on, but there was no real means of communicating that between the people who were there.

One person takes a shot at the killer, another doesn't know whether it was aimed at civilians or not. The same thing happened with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting actually a man was almost killed by a wannabe hero because he saw that he had a gun, it was only that the shooter was in a different area by that point and people stopped him shooting that saved an innocent man's life.
 

Joemo

whistling in the wind
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
8,342
According to Obama's spokesman, today is not the day to discuss gun politics. Bunch of spineless politicians.
They're right. The deceased children haven't even been named yet, so it's hardly the time to start the major debate on gun politics. There will be a few days of grieving and fact collecting, and once the details have been found then will be the time to start discussing gun politics. If Obama wants to change the laws of gun control, he's got to time it well. He's got to let the initial storm of this event blow over, but do it soon enough for it to be in recent memory so that what could be a very hard law to pass won't be as difficult, given people's attachment to this incident.
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
His point about more people being killed in the cinema massacre if everyone was armed was wrong though. I am quite sure that less people would have died. However, if everyone was armed then I would bet that one off murders would go up.

Lets not forget as well that 'massacres' only make up a tiny percentage of American's killed by guns per year anyway.
Here, we're assuming that most people can keep their calm under such an emotionally charged situation right? It's hard to know but my guess is unless those people who are armed are trained and can maintain their composure, it would have been utter carnage. It's easy to say these things in the comfort of our own environment. When you're in shock, are you sure you can react sensibly?

I wouldn't even trust those lot if they were trained. I don't think you can say it was wrong. You have a difference in opinion littered with some underlying assumptions. How do we know for sure? The logic certainly implies more guns equals less crime but it's never really that simple is it?
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
No, what he is saying is a perfectly reasoned argument. America is armed to the teeth already - guns are so easily procured that gun control may indeed have little effect, even if you start registering and limiting their sales.

Might as well try though, but I fear the Yanks may have to go down a different path with this. And I fear they've fecked themselves already by not making amendments to their beloved constitution a century or two ago.
I do love some of the arguments you see - especially on youtube - is that "if I'd have been there I'd have dropped him in five seconds and prevented deaths." Like feck you would. You'd most likely end up shitting yourself, harming the innocent, or even worse, enraging the shooter even further. Just because you shot a stationary deer once doesn't make you John Rambo.
yep, the one thing about these situations is the confusion over who is friend or foe. Unless there is some identifying feature- like I guess with the cinema guy he had a gas mask and bullet proof vest on, but there was no real means of communicating that between the people who were there.

One person takes a shot at the killer, another doesn't know whether it was aimed at civilians or not. The same thing happened with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting actually a man was almost killed by a wannabe hero because he saw that he had a gun, it was only that the shooter was in a different area by that point and people stopped him shooting that saved an innocent man's life.
Well said lads. I fear for the Yanks. Obama is going to get a lot of opposition. Mostly because the love of money and guns will prove to very strong. They were saying on the news how NRA members are in favor of more gun control and safety but any time legislation comes forward, they begin to cower and change tact. Coincidence?

Mightberight, you make a great point about it being so late. It's so ingrained in their culture, they actually don't see the downsides.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,831
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
it's not even about keeping calm.

The guy threw a smoke grenade and opened fire on the audience, in the confusion there is almost no chance one person who has a gun will know who is the shooter and then everyone else with guns will know the man who is firing at the shooter is not a shooter.

The most likely scenario is that multiple people will pull their guns and fire at whoever else has a gun (that they can't identify).
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
Aye. It could get really messy. Those who propose more guns know this. They simply ignore it though. Sad state of mind.
 

JakeC

Last Man Standing 2 champion 2020/21
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
29,755
NEWTOWN, CT—Following today’s mass shooting that left 20 young children dead at a Connecticut elementary school, numerous sources across the country reported that their government-protected right to own a portable device that propels small masses of metal through the air at lethal rates of speed is completely worth any such consequences. “It’s my God-given right and a founding principle of this country that I be able to own a [piece of metal that launches other smaller pieces of metal great distances, one after the other], and if a few deaths here and there is the price we have to pay for that freedom, then so be it,” said Lawrence Crane of nearby Danbury, CT, who is such a staunch advocate of the portable deadly-pellet-flinging apparatuses that he keeps multiple versions of such mechanisms in his home, often carries one with him, and is a member of a club whose sole purpose is to celebrate these assembled steel things and the small bits of metal they send flying. “Sure, it’s sad that a few kids died, but it’s far better than the tyranny that would result if the government came and took away all our [mechanical contraptions that make a lot of little pointy chunks of metal go through the air fast]. Can you even imagine what kind of horrible world that would be?” The man added that if the events that unfolded today led lawmakers to question his ability to possess any such items of steel and lead, authorities would have to “pry the [wholly inanimate mechanical object, nothing more, nothing less] from [his] dead hands.
 

JulesWinnfield

West Brom Fan
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,501
They're right. The deceased children haven't even been named yet, so it's hardly the time to start the major debate on gun politics. There will be a few days of grieving and fact collecting, and once the details have been found then will be the time to start discussing gun politics. If Obama wants to change the laws of gun control, he's got to time it well. He's got to let the initial storm of this event blow over, but do it soon enough for it to be in recent memory so that what could be a very hard law to pass won't be as difficult, given people's attachment to this incident.
I think it's best for a debate to start whilst it's raw on the memory of everyone. Otherwise all that'll happen after this "grieving" time is that it will just be forgotten completely, the news will stop reporting, and no one will mention the need for regulation again. It was pretty much the same with the cinema shootings, give them time etc - gun regulation didn't even come up in the debates a couple of months later I believe.

One thing that really annoys me is this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing that all the pro-gun people without fail say. No, people use guns to kill people. By their logic clearly we should make all sorts of terrible chemicals and weapons freely available because its the people who are the problem.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Religionists get slated for sticking to centuries old revelations. Here the Americans are doing similar with their man made constitution which clearly has no place in today's confused society with technological innovations in firearms.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,187
Location
Interweb
Uber rant by Jason Alexander (guy who played George in Seinfeld) on gun control -

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the feck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,187
Location
Interweb
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,255
Location
Hollywood CA
Despite all the previous massacres like Littleton, VA Tech, and Aurora, this one seems to have legitimately pushed the gun connoisseurs on the defensive. Social norms are slowly changing in the US and the gun issue is next in the crosshairs.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
:rolleyes:

Pretty much what Glaston Spur predicted gun lobbyists would say in another thread. I won't be surprised if they advocated the kids of a certain age carry guns soon.
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8,134
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
All these Yanks blathering on about their second ammendment, does it not occur to them that anyone can have a bad day? Anyone can mentally decline? Anyone can be pushed into alienation or to the brink?
Give these people guns and the outcome is what we saw this week. What we see on a regular basis.
The gun empowers the physically and mentally weak, to commit acts that they would not be capable of. To escalate from a rant or assault to mass murder.
Yes criminals will always get hold of guns, but it is not criminals that commit these heinous acts.
It is the guy next door. It is the "nice guy, who kept himself to himself!"

If you want a gun for target shooting, keep it at the range.
Claiming you need one for protection begs the question, "protection from who?"
From armed criminals? How do they get their guns?
Some nutter with a gun? You fight for his right to have them.
Stop being so selfish.
If you feel vulnerable enough to need a gun for protection, get security, don't put yourself at risk.

How many of you have had to use one for protection? Precious few.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
19,092
Location
Reichenbach Falls
Despite all the previous massacres like Littleton, VA Tech, and Aurora, this one seems to have legitimately pushed the gun connoisseurs on the defensive. Social norms are slowly changing in the US and the gun issue is next in the crosshairs.
Hmmm...Meant?
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,701
Location
C-137
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
That was the obvious go to answer. Again and again and again. Just like how "if I was at 9/11 it would have gone down differently" or those that said if the "Norwegian attacks were in the US he would have been killed instantly."

Honestly these are dangerous idiots who have somehow become the most vocal part of America?
 

Scarlett Dracarys

( . Y . )
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
33,220
Location
New York
It's gotten way out of hand ..guns are too easily accessible and everyone who owns a good should have to undergo an intense background check and their family also. But then there is still the issue of illegal guns
 

Arruda

Love is in the air, everywhere I look around
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
12,584
Location
Azores
Supports
Porto
I don't even think background checks and safety measures address the base point, but well, it's better than nothing.

It just strikes me as wrong killing being too easy.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,287
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
Maybe make gun owners have to purchase liability insurance. Then let insurance companies decide who they will allow to own a firearm.
 

gooDevil

Worst scout ever
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
25,162
Location
The Kids are the Future
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
Talk about doubling down.

Wow.

"If you opposed guns in schools, you're a child murderer." That should play well.
 

Joemo

whistling in the wind
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
8,342
Maybe make gun owners have to purchase liability insurance. Then let insurance companies decide who they will allow to own a firearm.
If another event like the recent school shooting happens though, and the killer uses his own weapon (as opposed to a relatives) then I can see there being court cases taken up by the families of the victims as to why the insurance companies allowed the killer to have a gun. How would insurance companies differentiate on who is allowed a gun and who is not? Mental health records are a possible way, but many of these killers are undiagnosed before their actions. Should somebody have to have a mental health check before buying a gun? And do they have to keep being checked upon every so often?

I think you're on to something with this insurance method, but it poses a lot of quesitons as to how they would regulate who can have a gun and who cannot.
 

Maroon Lucifer

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
4,857
Location
Faroe Islands
In Virginia, they tried to tighten the law a very little, by making it a law that you can buy one gun a month maximum. But that was too restricting, so they scrapped it.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,449
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
Is that an actual quote?
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,054
Location
Centreback
Statement by Gun owners of America -

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

:lol:
Kinell. It is like a mental illness.

It would be like solving the war on drugs by giving free samples of class A drugs to children every monday morning instead of free milk.

It wouldn't but it sounds good. Probably.