Irrelevant to the discussion or the article. Bringing in another countries is always the last refuge of those who can't disprove the actual data. - - - Updated - - - Law was used in the sense of the body of law in this country. Never said or made any reference to the Brady bill.
CourtJester Go Ahead and supply us with the actual study. I assume you must have read it in it's entirety to be so knowledgable. QLB post#14 Actually I did read it. A Johns Hopkins review called it poor science about laws that haven't been implemented. The lead author is also an anti-gun activist. Next.
1. Quarantine Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and NYC. 2. Quarantined zones become their own city states independent from the USA. 3. ? 4. Profit
stop the blood clot crying and fibbing. You clearly said there was a loophole and I am pointing out that you are making errors and you have been educated prior to that You know that there are no such loopholes because the law never was intended to apply to private sales by those who don't have a license that allows them to engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE
Hey, I have an idea! We can introduce 'common sense' alcohol control and reduce alcoholism by 80%!!!!
As opposed to bringing in countries that supposedly support the claims about what will and will not work? Then why did you ever bother referring to the notion of a loophole that allows individuals to purchase firearms without undergoing a background check? - - - Updated - - - They are already devoid of legal access to firearms, meaning the only way they can acquire them is through commission of a felony offense.
No, what I'm saying is that if there were physically no weapons at all, it would be elementary. That way you'd eliminate many homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, etc. How realistic it is depends on the mindset of the country.
Please, either you or another lib identified the lead author as a man. I corrected him/her. The lead is a woman.
How Double Dare They!!! Don't you know it is an international conspiracy to disarm America by discussing guns on the internet!!! The cheek!1
If they are truly wanting to then means are still available but research, multiple research has shown that reducing immediate access to firearms reduces the impulse suicide rate - especially of middle aged white males
Still waiting on a stat from you to show what percentage of suicides are truly impulse suicides. I think your strategy would only apply to a small percentage of cases. Also as was pointed out, safes and trigger locks are still considered immediate access since it takes only seconds to access the firearm. An unsecured gun upstairs, would take longer to access from downstairs than a secured one downstairs.
I come from a country where even one life matters Rather proud of that But here is a whole website devoted to this subject http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
Let me put things to you without the evasive BS that we get from Banoids and the Banoid movement I like shooting. I am really good at it. I went all over the world and the country shooting. I got lots of positive press in College for being an All-American I shot my way out of a mugging because of having a gun. The best times I spent with my late father and some of his deceased friends was in hunting or at the gun clubs. I am not going to give up this sport I enjoy to make people like you feel better. I am not going to have my enjoyment taken away even if it might mean that there is a one percent more chance that some nut case won't kill himself. Get it? I don't give a damn about what you want. and while people like you will call me and those like me "selfish" the real selfish individuals are people like you who want others to pay for your schemes that don't have any real chance of doing anything positive
And I am not asking you to do anything However a response like this seems to indicate uncertainty about the science surrounding gun deaths
I spent 30 years as a prosecutor-24 of them in what is really the best of the best here in the USA. the DOJ. and I suspect I forget daily more about the facts surrounding gun deaths in the USA than ANYONE in your country. and I know that the solutions people like you want are based on the facade that what you want will decrease gun deaths in MY country-the one I served for decades, the one I pay lots of taxes too and the one that has a constitution that TWICE I took a solemn oath to defend against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic. And yet I find your facade to be specious and having dealt with the Banoid movement for decades as well, the obvious intent of this movement is slaking its vengeance on us gun owners when we initially called BS on the pandering the Democrat party and those who think like it did in the 60s to find off claims that Democrats were weak on violent criminals since then, the gun ban movement has been all about Left-wingers attacking those of us on the right
So you are wanting to place legislative mandates on an entire population to possibly save one life.. Got it. It looks like you are placing your agenda above public safety.
That is what has happened here - and we are happy with that. Are you willing to overturn speeding laws because they are restrictive? Same difference. You know I keep being told how "responsible" gun owners are but time and again on this forum what I hear are bleatings of people who do not care what happens so long as THEY can do whatever they want whenever they want That is not responsibility
sorry, I don't buy that. I don't believe those in the banoid movement even care about saving even one life. That's the facade they put up for the benefit of the slow witted or low information masses in the hope those numbies will buy into the anti gun agenda. But those who actively campaign against our rights aren't motivated by something as worthwhile as saving innocent life If that was their motivation, they would be targeting much higher causes of innocents to die rather than legally owned guns
Who said the omission was due to "error", let alone a "clerical error"? Not me. Here's a reminder of what I actually said: "Your definition is erroneously limited to "ambiguity". A loophole may also be - and most commonly is - an error, omission or inadequacy in a law, contract etc." In this case, the loophole is caused by omission, plain and simple. Practical/physical considerations played no role in causing it. Nor are they a factor today, as evidenced by states which do regulate private firearm sales and the range of vehicles available to facilitate such. Furthermore, the argument that they can never be "realistically enforced" or "stopped" lacks merit - the same can be said of almost all laws.
Because the body of laws requiring background checks have significant loopholes. - - - Updated - - - Wow now that made a lot of sense. - - - Updated - - - Read the article I posted!
To you... it is the same difference. To us, we enjoy our Bill of Rights that have nothing to do with speeding laws.
I couldn't agree more. However in Bowerbirds case, coming from a healthcare background, I think she naively believes that the US should become more like Aussies. She seems genuine to me. She just doesn't, and never will, understand our culture. She can't fathom the thought that government actually has restrictions place upon by the people.
