Go to hell whitlock.

[A Salt Weapon]

Yes I am a noob here, but after hearing that whitlock just blamed Belcher and his girlfriends death on lack of more restrictive gun laws.
You are a true classless piece of shit, using this incident to push your anti-bill of rights agenda, **** you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[HonestChieffan]

Back to JW.....the guy has become more and more irrelevant since the Star dumped him. Even then he was making a few very badly executed attempts to use his sports writer position morph into some sort of editorial writer or OpEd guy. So its not hard to see him try to springboard from the killings to a statement about guns, or something. His talent for sports writing again gets overshadowed by his poor attempts to regain some position on the larger stage like he once had.

[Dallas Chief]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I would get a kick out of someone trying to invade the south. The military could stay home.

Actually, if you were going to invade the USA that would be the way to go to quickly grab as much turf as possible. No serious weather concerns, i.e. cold, plenty of entry points due to water access from the Gulf and Atlantic, no shared foreign borders, no super dense population centers. See what I am getting at? Maybe not...

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by -King-

Um... where the hell do you get that 100 million number? You really think 25% of the people in the country own guns?

And I'm sure if an army has gotten through all our defenses, they would be able to get through small arm owners.

We had to order ours. Since the election gun sales are hitting record highs. There are back orders for handguns here. Dealers are moving hundreds of guns a week. One store sold 65 handguns the Saturday after the.election. same place I bought our new.ones.

[Terribilis]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Whitlock was correct in many of the facts and assumptions he posits as fact. I still disagree with his political and policy conclusions and suggestions.

Just to be clear: I will grant that a handgun ban will probably result in decreased gun violence AND decreased overall violence and deaths. They wont all grab a knife instead, I do agree that having a handgun may make it more likely for some people to shoot in a flash of rage. Banning guns probably will result in fewer deaths overall.

Despite all that, I disagree with increased gun control or any form of handgun ban.

Handgun ownership and legalization comes with a price that must occasionally be paid in blood. No matter what, crazy people and hotheads will always have a gun if its widely available. And trying to dismiss that with "oh, they'd just stab instead" is not really intellectually honest in my mind.

We should stop fooling ourselves, accept the fact that the freedoms we have re: gun ownership means more violence, and state clearly that though we can try to minimize the violence without infringing on our freedoms, we are OK with paying that price because giving up handgun ownership is unacceptable.

I am a proud lib. This is pretty much my position. I think gun control has become a third rail issue. At this point, no one is going to change their mind.
Its pretty obvious to me more guns= more gun violence. Alnorth's point is pretty damn rational, and hard to disagree with imo.
Democrats have pretty much conceded this issue politically.
As someone earlier pointed out, a congresswoman was shot in the head, and no bills were introduced to limit gun control.
I think conservatives should at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that it would be easier in a fit of rage to shoot someone then knife them if you have a pistol on your hip.

[alnorth]

I forgot about this poll. In 2011, self-identified gun owners reached 47%. That might be higher today.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

You just issued me a 150+ year old beatdown.

And you recognized it! Good job.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The number of guns owned by civilians in the US is over 270 million.

So? They can't all be fired at once so it doesn't matter how many guns are owned. You may own 10 guns but you can only fire one or two at once max.

Those who don't own guns often know a family member who has several.

In the hilariously unlikely event that someone goes all Red Dawn on us, I'm pretty sure the weapons that are privately held will be spread out among those who want to fight.

We are still talking about a highly trained army vs. a largely unhealthy and untrained population, the majority of whom wouldn't be able to hit the target at a shooting range if you gave them 500 rounds.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Dallas Chief

Actually, if you were going to invade the USA that would be the way to go to quickly grab as much turf as possible. No serious weather concerns, i.e. cold, plenty of entry points due to water access from the Gulf and Atlantic, no shared foreign borders, no super dense population centers. See what I am getting at? Maybe not...

You want to invade south Dakota?

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by -King-

So? They can't all be fired at once so it doesn't matter how many guns are owned. You may own 10 guns but you can only fire one or two at once max.




We are still talking about a highly trained army vs. a largely unhealthy and untrained population, the majority of whom wouldn't be able to hit the target at a shooting range if you gave them 500 rounds.

City slicker

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Terribilis

At this point, no one is going to change their mind.
.

/thread

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

City slicker

His assumptions are funny.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by -King-

So? They can't all be fired at once so it doesn't matter how many guns are owned. You may own 10 guns but you can only fire one or two at once max.




We are still talking about a highly trained army vs. a largely unhealthy and untrained population, the majority of whom wouldn't be able to hit the target at a shooting range if you gave them 500 rounds.

We're not going to line up in orderly rows, British redcoat-style. I think Afghanistan and Iraq, countries with far few gun owners and guns than this one, have shown us how bloody even a poorly-armed insurgency can be. Invading the US, even without our army, would be a total losing bloodbath for anyone.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Terribilis

I am a proud lib. This is pretty much my position. I think gun control has become a third rail issue. At this point, no one is going to change their mind.
Its pretty obvious to me more guns= more gun violence. Alnorth's point is pretty damn rational, and hard to disagree with imo.
Democrats have pretty much conceded this issue politically.
As someone earlier pointed out, a congresswoman was shot in the head, and no bills were introduced to limit gun control.
I think conservatives should at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that it would be easier in a fit of rage to shoot someone then knife them if you have a pistol on your hip.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/06...-straight-year

Gun ownership is growing rapidly.

odd isnt it

[Dallas Chief]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

You want to invade south Dakota?

You said the South. Not South Dakota.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/06...-straight-year

Gun ownership is growing rapidly.

odd isnt it

When the economy is booming, crime tends to decrease.