Wow, pretty strong promise, can it be backed up?Quote:
"Utah has a high suicide rate. If we want to prevent suicides in Utah, perform background checks," Holyoak said.
Printable View
Wow, pretty strong promise, can it be backed up?Quote:
"Utah has a high suicide rate. If we want to prevent suicides in Utah, perform background checks," Holyoak said.
Great video showing what could happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyCD2n6HAQ&sns=em
Wonder what the date of the video is?
Seems amazing to me that in 2010/2011 58 people were killed by guns in homicides. Total. .1 per 100k.
Interesting to consider the British situation. Not sure its apples to apples for us here in the colonies...
From the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England and Wales remained a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes.
In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.
By weapon type:
- Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
- Sawn-off shotgun = 202
- Handgun = 3,105
- Rifle = 74
- Imitation firearm = 1,610
- Unidentified firearm = 957
- Other firearm = 670
- Air weapons = 4,203
Only those items proven to be "imitations" (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main "live" categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live "handgun." "Other firearm" includes CS gas (223 crimes), pepper spray (118), and stun guns (149).
By crime type:
- Violence against the person:
- Homicide = 60
- Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 757
- Other = 3,317 (1,212 of which involved imitations)
- Robbery = 2,965
- Burglary = 151
- Criminal damage = 3,287 (2,916 of which involved air weapons)
- Other = 690[80]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU
OMG!!! This video is AWESOME!!!! Mow 'em down!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
This attachment I cannot 100% verify and am not willing to spend much time. If it is wrong or offends anybody, then disregard it
Attachment 64051
Another fake founding fathers quote...heavy sigh...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinio...-gun-quotation
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...bertyquotation
So you are using CNN and Monticello.org to refute a quote. I can't argue 100% that its a true statement from Jefferson, but if I was going to use something I would at least use Wikipedia. There you have at least a 50/50 chance of factQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Henry Waxman Facts:
HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Yea (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
HR 6842 - Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
S 397 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
HR 424 - Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
100%? My bet is you can't argue it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
The "fact" that Monticello has a page refuting it doesn't deter you from thinking its a real quote? Wow.
Attachment 64052
Monticello.org - good source. Reputable. Lays out the argument well, has footnotes to original sources. Hard to do better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Tom
I got back involved in this thread in a moment of weakness. Monticello could be, I don't know. It was hard to past the CNN referral though
Why are they called "assault" weapons unless they are intended to be used to assault people? :assault:
If you are asking a serious question... An "Assault Weapon" is a military weapon that is not easily avaiable to the American public... the term is applied by pro gun control groups to numerous semi-auto (hunting and sporting) rifles sold in the US to try and inflect fear and terror into those who are ignorant on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob L
:cool2:
So...assault weapon?
Attachment 64078
Says, "restricted military/government law enforcement/export use only". But, legally ownable by a civilian, yes? Its a Colt LE6920.
And, the clones of the above share how many interchangeable parts? 100%?
Are these, then, by your definition, "assault rifles"? If not, then, what's the diff?
Military version of the above is an M4? Has the same except, what, a couple parts (shorter barrel, auto sear)? Photo below?
Attachment 64079
Civilian version:
Attachment 64081
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it still only a kitten?
Ha ha.
The point really is, that even if it is a duck. How is banning them going to serve any purpose when these types of firearms really aren't even the problem?
Ahh..."the problem". Mass shootings? Which is the only demographic of homicide by firearm that hasn't seen a fairly constant decline over the last couple of decades?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Unfortunately, they kinda are "a" problem. Maybe not "the" problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4
That was stamped on all outlawed "assault rifles" during the last ban. The firearms covered by that ban were pretty arbitrary, but you already know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
The historical military definition of an assault rifle has always included full auto capabilities.
The Ford or Chevy you drive to work is not a NASCAR racer, even if it passes your walks and quacks test...
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3