Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[DocHolliday]

That's deceptive.
(link)

So again, you're injecting your interpretation of the reality as the only possible valid interpretation, refusing to acknowledge and admit that reasonable people disagree with your gun-support-biased view of things. You want to try deceive others into believing that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't reasonable people, but they are. Your evading their results and insinuating that your conclusions are the only possible valid ones is nothing but deception.

Did you happen to notice that the study says "gun related deaths" instead of "murder", that's often a sign of cherry picked data to support claims of "gun violence".

From the "study": "In 2009, Vermont had the 16th lowest number of gun deaths per capita among the states. Yet even this relatively low ranking means that, in that year, 60 people died from firearm-related injuries in Vermont."

http://smartgunlaws.org/vermont-state-law-summary/

From the FBI's UCR. Vermont had 0 murders by rifle, 0 murders by shotgun, 0 murders by handgun in 2009.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...n-the-u.s/2009

This is a tactic often used by gun control supporters. You might even say "deceptive" when used in discussions concerning murders via firearm.

[DocHolliday]

I have a US military assault rifle from 1874. It is a single-shot rifle, each new cartridge must be loaded in by hand. I can fire an honest 45 rounds a minute from it, until I run out of ammunition. It can put a bullet through 3 inches of oak and 8 inches of sand backing at 3500 yards.

Would that be a .45-70 or .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield? 3500 yards or 350 yards?

[bae]

Would that be a .45-70 or .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield? 3500 yards or 350 yards?

There you go, though I was using the 1874 Military version of the falling block one for my test. At the trials, 3500, not 350, yards, pretty silly what those old black powder cartridges could do.

[DocHolliday]

But I do think a waiting period to purchase any kind of firearm is a good thing to have in place. Not only does it give time to do things like criminal and mental health background checks, any training and safety course that may be required, etc... but it allows for a cooling off period if someone is angry.

I hear that "cooling off period", but it makes me think that if a person doesn't have a gun at the moment and want to kill someone, that's where the knife, blunt object" hands and feet murders come into play. That seems way more likely than someone driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, going through the background check, driving back and killing the victim. If they did that, they just set themselves up for a 1st degree murder charge.

[Yossarian]

Is there any data on same day purchase/murders?

[DocHolliday]

The same shootings could have been done with other firearms almost as easily. So unless you want to institute a complete ban on ALL firearms in this country (and that includes anything used for hunting like a rifle or shotgun - heck even BB guns and crossbows!)

Saw a story yesterday from the town of Weston CT, that a selectman proposed a bill saying that you had to get a "permit of ownership" from the Chief of Police to own a rifle, pistol, shotgun, longbow, crossbow, or even...a slingshot...

[bae]

Saw a story yesterday from the town of Weston CT, that a selectman proposed a bill saying that you had to get a "permit of ownership" from the Chief of Police to own a rifle, pistol, shotgun, longbow, crossbow, or even...a slingshot...

How about swords, axes, machetes, spears, knives, clubs, ...

[bUU]

This is a tactic often used by gun control supporters. You might even say "deceptive" when used in discussions concerning murders via firearm.

Which is no different than the "deception" committed by gun control opponents. Because, like I said, and you continually refuse to allow yourself to admit: Reasonable people disagree. You want to think of your conclusions as "accurate" conclusions and conclusions you don't like as "inaccurate" conclusions. Tough. You're wrong about that. Get over it. Reasonable people disagree no matter how much you try to make it seem like the only "right" people in the world are the ones that agree with you.

Gun control opponents are trying to get what they want (and it is nothing more than that: "what they want") using the same tactics that partisans have recently used to try to get what they want with regard to opposing health care reform, and to get what they want with regard to opposing returning to fairer, more progressive tax rates. They have formed a coalition to try to get what they want, and have pledged themselves to the intractable position “‘no compromise’”. That's another thing wrong with our society - how some groups think so much of themselves that they think that “‘no compromise’” is a defensible approach.

[Gregg]

How about swords, axes, machetes, spears, knives, clubs, ...

Hammers?

[bae]

Hammers?

Cheater, you looked at the FBI data, didn't you? "Assault hammers" are indeed quite a threat.