|
SedanChair posted:It is possible to use a gun to defend yourself. It happens from time to time. It is, but generally not in the way that they believe it will happen, and not as often as they claim. The way the NRA portrays it, we already live in some sort of pseudo Mad Max society where only the use of firearms ensures the rule of law and that generalized chaos will happen without easy access to firearms.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The thing is that we have such a silly number of guns here, over 300 million, that banning the sale of new guns would just piss off legal gun owners while not doing too much to stop criminals because you still have a metric fuckton of guns around. You would need to implement a buyback program on an unprecedented and massive scale to really put a dent in gun access. The whole idea of banning firearms won't work in the US, any confiscation (the mandatory "buy-backs" talked about) is going to get a pile of old hunting rifles/shotguns, which are rarely used in crimes. The confiscation program Australia enacted got a pile of guns, but less than 3% were semi-automatic firearms, most were old single-shot rifles and shotguns that people didn't want to go through the hassle and paperwork of registering. You can see that from the big cities that have done buy-backs, they crow about getting hundreds of guns "off the streets", and then show a small table with a clapped out sks and a couple of cheap hi-point pistols. That's because those were the cream of the broken .22 rifle and break-open shotgun crap crop. Most handguns (which are what are used in the vast majority of crimes) are going to not be turned in or vanish into a black market that would likely sustain itself for the better part of a century. To get any appreciable amount of firearms you would have to convert the nation to a veritable police state with door to door searches of every home in the country. And besides, we have a country bordering us that is very adept at smuggling in illegal materials. CommieGIR posted:You are not John Woo/Agent 47/Neo and just having a concealed carry is not a surefire protection, in fact you'd more likely freeze up unless you've actually experienced a combat situation and have drilled how to react. Range time doesn't count. Is that why there are many defensive gun uses per year, all these people freezing up? And having the possibility of "freezing up" somehow means that a person doesn't get the right (or the chance) to be able to defend themselves in your eyes? Retracted. SedanChair posted:It is possible to use a gun to defend yourself. It happens from time to time. https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/new/ A lot more than "from time to time". RoboJiggolo fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Ban all guns but legalize the monk's spade, three-part staff, and other weapons. Then make Shaolin training mandatory for everyone starting from age 6 to 21. Now there are no guns and everyone can defend themselves with kickass kung fu skills. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
it's pretty clear that white masculine american culture is sick, violent, and beyond repair. these people worship guns and fantasize endlessly about putting 'bad guys' to death in a heroic and extrajudicial manner. gun control isn't the solution though. given that you as an individual are most likely to shoot yourself, and beyond that shot by someone you know, the answer is more guns, not less
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:Most handguns (which are what are used in the vast majority of crimes) are going to not be turned in or vanish into a black market that would likely sustain itself for the better part of a century. No you wouldn't. First of all any such buyback program would have to have supermajority support among Americans to get enacted in the first place so there's already a supermajority willing to register or turn in their firearms. Second you don't have to do door-to-door searches that's absurd, we ban all sorts of things now without busting down doors. Being caught armed with an unregistered weapon is a crime, arrest those people. Offer them plea deals or whatever to reveal their source or narc on their buddies. You know, police work. No one is suggesting we wave a magic wand and guns disappear at the stroke of midnight, that's just a strawman. Third, stopping new gun sales means people without criminal connections can't easily get guns: Dylan Roof bought his in April 2015, a gun ban after Sandy Hook would have prevented that shooting for example. Or hell just extending the NFA to all firearms, I doubt a weirdo like Roof whose friends all thought he'd never go through with his violent fantasies would have gotten an okay from the chief of police. RoboJiggolo posted:And besides, we have a country bordering us that is very adept at smuggling in illegal materials. That is irrelevant. Drugs are smuggled in because they are produced abroad. The guns are manufactured here. meristem posted:Could you link the data? I'd like to play with them a bit. http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/new/ Reddit: The Reputable Source. RoboJiggolo posted:Is that why there are many defensive gun uses per year, all these people freezing up? Nice Ad Hom. Cite some ACTUAL sources on defensive gun use, not a reddit thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Speaking long term, I wonder if making fun of gun owners would make a difference. Kind of like what radio shows did to the KKK in the 1930's (not equating gun ownership to racists). Take something people think is cool and masculine and change the perspective to silly and unnecessarily dangerous. I mean, gun ownership is not terribly logical - at least outside of something for home defense. It's pretty fertile ground for making fun of poo poo. Do that enough and highlight the really stupid examples (like the 'good guy with a gun' shooting the carjack victim in the head) and perhaps you move the cultural attitude towards guns in a different direction. Not really a short term fix, but I don't think we have any short term fixes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
IMO it won't solve anything because gun violence is a symptom of a problem, not the actual problem. Like, if you could effectively eliminate all guns overnight, it would certainly eliminate gun deaths, but some of them would be substituted by other means, instead. And even that relies on a huge, impossible task. What would need to be done is a change in culture/society so that guns aren't perceived to be necessary for protection or rebellion, but of course that's more complicated than banning guns with pistol grips so nobody wants to talk about that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, they're the reason for the police to have guns. Preferably as special equipment to be called for as reinforcements, rather than day-to-day regular equipment. If an armed militia decides to hold me hostage for some reason I'm under no silly illusions about singlehandedly killing them all in a Wild West shootout if only I had a gun. If only you had a gun before you got captured in this fantasy you've constructed. *shrug* anyway the biggest armed militia i can think of that D&D rails against on the reg is the police(not to mention all the racist shitheel cops I've met personally living in the south) and yet i constantly hear D&D clamoring to live in a police state with less and less personal responsibility. If you can live with your own cognitive dissonance, okay, that's fine, just stop trying to change the constitution over it. Shoot a gun sometime. Preferably a big one. They're pretty rad and being able to own one is, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Speaking long term, I wonder if making fun of gun owners would make a difference. Kind of like what radio shows did to the KKK in the 1930's (not equating gun ownership to racists). To be fair the overlap between "gun owner" and "racist" is pretty huge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Speaking long term, I wonder if making fun of gun owners would make a difference. Kind of like what radio shows did to the KKK in the 1930's (not equating gun ownership to racists). Take something people think is cool and masculine and change the perspective to silly and unnecessarily dangerous. Lots of people already think they're dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:If only you had a gun before you got captured in this fantasy you've constructed. *shrug* anyway the biggest armed militia i can think of that D&D rails against on the reg is the police(not to mention all the racist shitheel cops I've met personally living in the south) and yet i constantly hear D&D clamoring to live in a police state with less and less personal responsibility. If you can live with your own cognitive dissonance, okay, that's fine, just stop trying to change the constitution over it. Shoot a gun sometime. Preferably a big one. They're pretty rad and being able to own one is, too. How is this cognitive dissonance, is a gun going to protect me from the police?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:To be fair the overlap between "gun owner" and "racist" is pretty huge. I was trying to be nice.  I'm sure that's one nasty looking VENN diagram. computer parts posted:Lots of people already think they're dangerous. I guess I'm more looking at the perception you need a gun. Or in the case of people who already have them - that you need more of them. Economic pressures through higher gun and ammo prices haven't done much to curb enthusiasm. Maybe societal pressures could. And I speak that as something who no longer likes guns much, but watched a Liam Neeson movie over the weekend so apparently I still think they're cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Reddit: The Reputable Source. Well, apparently you didn't even look at it, since it's not a thread, it's a sub that is just a continually updating list of news articles from various sources about defensive gun uses that have occurred. I guess the ACTUAL sources would be all the articles in it. The reddit part is just that all of the articles are gathered together. So I think that it shows that most people don't freeze up, and instead of what the other person posted, happen much more than "from time to time". More sources. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/bruce-w-krafft/dennis-henigan-on-chardon-clockwork-edition/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/bruce-w-krafft/the-costs-and-benefits-of-the-second-amendment-without-the-benefits/ I retract my insult, even though I still believe it, you know how you would react, and you are projecting that onto everyone else. But my question still stands: Does having the possibility of "freezing up" somehow mean that a person shouldn't get the right (or the chance) to be able to defend themselves in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:More sources. "The Truth About Guns" .....yyeeeeaaaahhhh. I'm gonna say that using a fully and admittedly biased source is not a good indicator of how 'Truthful' their stuff is. Although, I love that they ran a simulation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and proved that having a CCW was not going to save anyone. Every single one of their writers are avid gun owners, I'm not so sure I have any reason to trust them as a valid source either. I might as well go straight to the NRA. RoboJiggolo posted:I retract my insult, even though I still believe it, you know how you would react, and you are projecting that onto everyone else. The very website you cited demonstrated that in an attack, you are likely to be unable to respond. I love that a 'Website dedicated to the Truth About Firearms' includes firearms Gear Reviews and Accessories Reviews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sometimes, I guess. You're laying out the worst scenario, just like people with concealed carry fantasies lay out the best one. It is possible to use a gun to defend yourself. It happens from time to time. It does. It also fails to happen sometimes. And sometimes the wrong person gets shot because when multiple people are waving around guns it's real hard to tell who's shooting at what - which I think is honestly the most important problem with "defensive gun use" by far! People make poor decisions, and the long list of unarmed minorities that have been shot for being "threatening" is a chilling testament to why regular people shouldn't all walk around with the power to decree death "just in case". The recent terror wave in Israel has, I think, been a good real-world test of many gun theories and fallacies. For example, Palestinians have not surmounted Israeli gun control measures by building their own guns. Instead, they stab armed Israelis and take their guns, which occasionally gets them shot but usually succeeds and turns a stabbing spree into a far more deadly shooting spree. There have been a couple of incidents of successful self-defense with guns, but in most cases the gun not only failed to protect its holder but actually made them even more of a target. In addition, there have been several instances of an innocent person being shot by a well-meaning vigilante, typically based entirely on the color of the person's skin rather than any actual threat. Admiral Bosch posted:If only you had a gun before you got captured in this fantasy you've constructed. *shrug* anyway the biggest armed militia i can think of that D&D rails against on the reg is the police(not to mention all the racist shitheel cops I've met personally living in the south) and yet i constantly hear D&D clamoring to live in a police state with less and less personal responsibility. If you can live with your own cognitive dissonance, okay, that's fine, just stop trying to change the constitution over it. Shoot a gun sometime. Preferably a big one. They're pretty rad and being able to own one is, too. Then I'd probably be dead instead of captured, because one guy with a gun isn't going to win a fight against an armed, organized militia group which holds the initiative and the element of surprise. I don't believe myself to live in a superhero fantasy group where I would be able to use a single pistol to fight off a dozen guys with rifles who are attacking me out of nowhere. I understand that's inconvenient for you, though, because it's a lot easier to avoid looking at the role of guns or conservative rhetoric in me getting shot by a white people gang if you can blame me for it by insinuating that I wouldn't take "personal responsibility" for single-handedly fighting off criminals who attack me. And no, there's no cognitive dissonance. I wish police officers weren't carrying around guns on a daily basis either! Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:reddit source about proud amuricans enterprising dem rights I checked 5 random but consecutive reddit posts. I am going to be lazy and not quote: 1.Son shoots and kills dad after coming home intoxicated and threatens mom. 2.Homeowner shoots at ground to scare away intoxicated druggy away from his home. 3.Man in critical condition after trying to intervene with a firearm at gas station robbery. 4.Homeowner returns home to find him home burgled, shoots him. Unclear if he had any weapons on him. 5.Homeowner scares would be robbers armed with club and machete who were making their way into his home. I can only see one instance where use of firearm is justified, two if you're stretching it. For 1-3, do you really need a firearm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:I check 5 random but consecutive reddit posts. I am going to be lazing and not quote: I wonder if someone in the Reddit thread posted the 'Good Guy with a Gun' who shot the victim of a vehicle hijacking and then policed his brass and fled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"The Truth About Guns" Alright fine then, don't believe any articles that disagree with your viewpoint, even when they cite their sources from the cdc and the fbi uniform crime statistics report, and especially a site that is perfectly willing to admit when they are wrong (like the hedbo attack thing, where yeah, you aren't going to fare too well against people invading you office with actual assault rifles). And they aren't talking about a home invasion or a mugging in that study they did, so don't try to take it and make it out to be likely result of any attempt for a person to defend themselves. So go ahead an post an article from a liberally biased newspaper that is clueless about firearms and misrepresents facts like the New York Times: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/ny-times-keeping-guns-away-from-children-is-pure-propaganda/ Or some website like shooting tracker.com where the guy just comes out and talks about it being propaganda. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/auditing-shootingtracker-com-do-they-even-care-about-facts/ I just don't think you are willing to accept something that doesn't agree with you, you are just going to find a reason to reject it. I remember Stephen Colbert on his show saying (I'm paraphrasing) "I can take all your facts and statistics and dismiss them with a wave of my hand, what do you have now?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
I understand that guns are really important to Americans, and gun control won't help but I think getting rid of the 2nd amendment would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I understand that guns are really important to Americans, and gun control won't help but I think getting rid of the 2nd amendment would. Though the catch with that is that if you have the political clout to enact a constitutional amendment (never mind one that repeals a previous amendment) there are much more important issues that you could and should tackle first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:Alright fine then, don't believe any articles that disagree with your viewpoint, even when they cite their sources from the cdc and the fbi uniform crime statistics report, and especially a site that is perfectly willing to admit when they are wrong (like the hedbo attack thing, where yeah, you aren't going to fare too well against people invading you office with actual assault rifles).  I love that they and you cite CDC data despite the fact that the CDC is not allowed to run studies on gun violence and the NRA aggressively pushed defunding CDC studies that did.RoboJiggolo posted:I remember Stephen Colbert on his show saying (I'm paraphrasing) "I can take all your facts and statistics and dismiss them with a wave of my hand, what do you have now?" From a guy citing a website that doesn't even hide its bias. Nice. I think we need to discuss what counts as 'Fact' and what counts as 'Propaganda', since I think you are a little confused. No seriously, I can't get over the fact that your website is just a bunch of gun owners who review firearms products and then demonize anyone who is even remotely for regulation while decrying any such articles as propaganda. You can stop citing The Truth About Guns, its not a valid source and you should've known better from the start. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Shall not be infringed. Actually everyone supports their infringing. No regular gun nut believes that people should have access to weapons of war or weapons of mass destruction, or if they do, they don't say so. This means two things: One, they don't actually believe that access to deadlier weapons has a zero impact on death rates, otherwise they wouldn't care if hillbilly yahoos can pick up land mines and thermobaric bombs at the gas station. Two, reasonably enough, they're willing to restrict rights and ignore the "shall not be infringed" part if the risks and likely social costs are high enough. They simply have a higher level of innocent dead people that they are required to care about than normal people do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Shall not be infringed. Counterpoint: well regulated
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
RoboJiggolo posted:Well, apparently you didn't even look at it, since it's not a thread, it's a sub that is just a continually updating list of news articles from various sources about defensive gun uses that have occurred. Anecdotes != data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:I checked 5 random but consecutive reddit posts. I am going to be lazy and not quote: Reminder that 95% of killings with firearms are non-justifiable homicide, not to mention the vast number of firearms suicides. Gun advocates counter that, like in some of these examples, it isn't necessary to shoot to kill with a firearm to prevent a crime. What they don't seem to consider is that it's also possible to commit virtually every violent crime with a firearm except murder without shooting to kill. And in fact if we look at how many of these crimes there are vs. how many murders with guns there are, there are still about a hundred times more incidents per year of someone brandishing or wounding with a gun to commit a crime than there are examples of them killing someone with it. So we can't help but come to the conclusion that legal defensive gun uses are in the vast minority of violent uses of guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's pretty clear that white masculine american culture is sick, violent, and beyond repair. these people worship guns and fantasize endlessly about putting 'bad guys' to death in a heroic and extrajudicial manner. gun control isn't the solution though. given that you as an individual are most likely to shoot yourself, and beyond that shot by someone you know, the answer is more guns, not less I think this comes from roots in 1950s/60s media glorifying cowboy culture with its rugged individualists and self made men taking the law into their own hands. Ironically, it was precisely because government authority was so weak in the Wild West that isolated individuals had to use guns to protect themselves out of necessity from being marauded. Think Pashtun lands in Afghanistan outside of Kabul where people need guns to protect themselves from the Taliban and other mercenaries since the central government effectively can't do anything to protect them. RoboJiggolo posted:To get any appreciable amount of firearms you would have to convert the nation to a veritable police state with door to door searches of every home in the country. We are a net exporter of guns to Mexico, not the other way around. It is precisely because of the U.S. war on drugs with our demand for drugs and supply of firearms and ammunition that empowered the Mexican cartels to begin with and keep them afloat now. See: Operation Fast and Furious, etc The issue of Mexican cartels and American guns is as intractable as the Taliban is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You can't deal with the results of the former without tackling the issue at its roots in the latter, which will not be done because it is politically precarious and the government is unwilling and unable to do anything about it although the issue transcends national borders. Further, a large portion of the citizenry is sympathetic and supportive of the offenders which aggravates the issue. We are the Pakistan to Mexico's Afghanistan. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:I think this comes from roots in 1950s/60s media glorifying cowboy culture with its rugged individualists and self made men taking the law into their own hands. Not to mention that cowboy culture was a gigantic ripoff of Spainish ideas and ,ironically, has roots in Muslim occupied Spain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ban all guns but legalize the monk's spade, three-part staff, and other weapons. Then make Shaolin training mandatory for everyone starting from age 6 to 21. Now there are no guns and everyone can defend themselves with kickass kung fu skills. Problem solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Obviously that guy hadn't been conditioned to make use of hi qi properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
somebody hasn't seen the 36th chamber aka the best movie
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Numlock posted:More projecting from the anti-gun side, what a surprise. It's really not projecting though. More than one Republican presidential candidate has perpetuated the fantasy by suggesting that a good guy with a gun could have mitigated many of the most recent high-profile shootings. When in reality that often ends up with the "hero" or more innocent people getting killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/ PLANO, Texas (CNN/KTVT) — Some Texas gun owners decided to stage a re-enactment of the Charlie Hebdo office massacre. They wanted to see what might have happened if the victims had their own guns. Two actors playing gunmen enter quietly. They’re on a set designed to look like the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, in this exercise, volunteers are taking turns in the role of an armed civilian inside. “He started shooting, and I started shooting,” said gun owner Linda Cruz. Time and time again, that armed civilian dies — shot by a round that marks him or her with paint. In only two cases, they were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process. “It’s interesting to see how people react under stress,” said gun owner Nick Leghorn. “It’s not what you’d expect people do.” A group called The Truth About Guns organized the simulation, hoping to learn how things might have been different in Paris — or any other mass shooting. “It’s the one people are Monday-morning-quarterbacking at the moment,” said Leghorn. Parks Matthew is a father of four and was curious to see what instinct would kick in. “If I’m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do?” he said. “I know now I’m not going to just fall on my kids and protect them; I need to advance on the threat.” He walked away armed with a little more information. “Still got killed, but did better than I thought I would,” said Matthew. In the end, only one of the 12 volunteer victims in the exercise survived. And it was because she ran away. No one was able to take out both mock shooters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder that 95% of killings with firearms are non-justifiable homicide, not to mention the vast number of firearms suicides. Gun advocates counter that, like in some of these examples, it isn't necessary to shoot to kill with a firearm to prevent a crime. What they don't seem to consider is that it's also possible to commit virtually every violent crime with a firearm except murder without shooting to kill. And in fact if we look at how many of these crimes there are vs. how many murders with guns there are, there are still about a hundred times more incidents per year of someone brandishing or wounding with a gun to commit a crime than there are examples of them killing someone with it. So we can't help but come to the conclusion that legal defensive gun uses are in the vast minority of violent uses of guns. But my free and inalienable right to become judge jury and executioner!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/ No, but see, I will be the successful good guy with a gun who doesn't get shot because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:No, but see, I will be the successful good guy with a gun who doesn't get shot because reasons. Shelter in place, but if the gunhaver busts through the door, shoot him with your gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The guns are manufactured here. Actually we import a lot of guns made all around the world. So you'd cut off domestic makes, I guarantee you there's plenty outside the country. Kind of the same with fireworks in my state. We banned them years ago because kids got hurt. People just smuggled them in from a state over. I think the biggest issue to any gun control is really basic. One side has everything to lose while the other side has the advantage. Gun control advocates push to take something else away and gun owners feel they need to dig in their heels and resist because they don't want to lose anything more. The issue's been brought up before that you need to compromise, but was quickly shot down by the extremes demanding all or nothing SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
I like my gun hobby, the smell of hot brass and burning powder. All the dead kids and poo poo are worth it every time I hit the bulls eye at the range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Kind of the same with fireworks in my state. We banned them years ago because kids got hurt. People just smuggled them in from a state over. I've heard worse reasons to wall off South Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Actually we import a lot of guns made all around the world. So you'd cut off domestic makes, I guarantee you there's plenty outside the country. If you removed the US market as a consumer, less guns would be manufactured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:24
|
|
