Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[VinBucFan]

The Congressman who just submitted gun regulations in the House, including a ban on assault rifles, quoted Heller as the authority for the proposed restrictions/ban. Lol, Buggsy is screaming from the other side of the street that the Congressman cited Heller because it was a "win for the 2nd!"

Lmao

[Biggs3535]

[Dolorous Jason]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

So are you back to arguing against assualt rifles alone again , or all guns ?? Because you made it clear it wasn't just about the guns that fire fast , and that's why your handgun links mattered . Make up your mind peanut-butter boy.

Also , are we back to talking about massacres  , which account for less than 1% of gun crimes , or all crimes ??  Most criminals goal is not to kill as many people as they can , it's to kill only as many as get in thier way , or one person who angered them. I can accomplish 99.9%  of any crimes I want with one gun that you deem legal under the 2nd amendment.

[olafberserker]

If only you could read like vincent p b can read

You sure are an angry little cuss ...

sure ....

Read Buggsy, read.

[VinBucFan]

If only you could read like vincent p b can read

You sure are an angry little cuss ...

sure ....

Read Buggsy, read.

Key difference: I was in a discussion with Buggsy on a subject that wasn't Buggsy. Thats why you had to edit out the rest of my comment. We know you like creative editing, right?

For you, you're so angry that most times I am the subject.

If only you could read like vincent p b can read

Like I said, angry little cuss

[olafberserker]

sure hypocrite ....

[VinBucFan]

Lol. Maybe it's time for a new hobby?

[spartan]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

There is no such thing as a 300 round magazine that I know of. Even so, you go buy 300 hundred rounds and pick them up. Now tell you can do anything useful with a gun with that amount of weight at the front of the gun. 30 rounds is about as good as it gets to be effective. Even so, you reduce it to say < 10 rounds, it takes about 5 seconds max to change magazines. Best case scenario it takes the cops 5 minutes to get there. Most (if not all that I know) of these mass shootings are pre-planned, so I am thinking lots of 10 round Mags is going to be oh so less effective than a few 30 round mags.

[VinBucFan]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

There is no such thing as a 300 round magazine that I know of. Even so, you go buy 300 hundred rounds and pick them up. Now tell you can do anything useful with a gun with that amount of weight at the front of the gun. 30 rounds is about as good as it gets to be effective. Even so, you reduce it to say < 10 rounds, it takes about 5 seconds max to change magazines. Best case scenario it takes the cops 5 minutes to get there. Most (if not all that I know) of these mass shootings are pre-planned, so I am thinking lots of 10 round Mags is going to be oh so less effective than a few 30 round mags.

I certainly don't know if there is such thing as a 300 round magazine, but I got that number from this:

http://noveskerifleworks.com/videos/

my point was not dependent on the precise size of a magazine

[Dolorous Jason]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

There is no such thing as a 300 round magazine that I know of. Even so, you go buy 300 hundred rounds and pick them up. Now tell you can do anything useful with a gun with that amount of weight at the front of the gun. 30 rounds is about as good as it gets to be effective. Even so, you reduce it to say < 10 rounds, it takes about 5 seconds max to change magazines. Best case scenario it takes the cops 5 minutes to get there. Most (if not all that I know) of these mass shootings are pre-planned, so I am thinking lots of 10 round Mags is going to be oh so less effective than a few 30 round mags.

I certainly don't know if there is such thing as a 300 round magazine, but I got that number from this:

http://noveskerifleworks.com/videos/

my point was not dependent on the precise size of a magazine

True . Your point was dependent on no one noticing how stupid it was.

[VinBucFan]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

There is no such thing as a 300 round magazine that I know of. Even so, you go buy 300 hundred rounds and pick them up. Now tell you can do anything useful with a gun with that amount of weight at the front of the gun. 30 rounds is about as good as it gets to be effective. Even so, you reduce it to say < 10 rounds, it takes about 5 seconds max to change magazines. Best case scenario it takes the cops 5 minutes to get there. Most (if not all that I know) of these mass shootings are pre-planned, so I am thinking lots of 10 round Mags is going to be oh so less effective than a few 30 round mags.

I certainly don't know if there is such thing as a 300 round magazine, but I got that number from this:

http://noveskerifleworks.com/videos/

my point was not dependent on the precise size of a magazine

True . Your point was dependent on no one noticing how stupid it was.

Curious how you would know that since you don't actually respond to my points? Usually you make up something I never posted and then knock it down -- sort of like playing with yourself.

[VinBucFan]

funny how angry it makes some of you when someone suggests that 310 million guns may be too many . . . lmao . . .  here, get mad at HARVARD for a little while:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[VinBucFan]

Or get mad at Australia for having a compulsory gun buy back program (following a mass shooting) that this report says dramatically reduced gun  violence:

"In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of  firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-
firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. "

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

[spartan]

  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

There is no such thing as a 300 round magazine that I know of. Even so, you go buy 300 hundred rounds and pick them up. Now tell you can do anything useful with a gun with that amount of weight at the front of the gun. 30 rounds is about as good as it gets to be effective. Even so, you reduce it to say < 10 rounds, it takes about 5 seconds max to change magazines. Best case scenario it takes the cops 5 minutes to get there. Most (if not all that I know) of these mass shootings are pre-planned, so I am thinking lots of 10 round Mags is going to be oh so less effective than a few 30 round mags.

I certainly don't know if there is such thing as a 300 round magazine, but I got that number from this:

http://noveskerifleworks.com/videos/

my point was not dependent on the precise size of a magazine

Neither was mine, if the goal is to do something practical about it of course.

[Dolorous Jason]

LOL. He still doesn't get it.

 Tell us honestly , Peanut , why do you still pretend to support the 2nd amendment ? It's a simple question , but one you can't justify in a rational way while holding your current position.

Is it simply self defense ?? Can't be. If guns are banned and no one has them , why would we need them for self defense?  Can't we just pass more laws and take away more rights whenever we need more protection ? Of course we could.


You do know the constitution allows for a process to repeal amendments , correct ?? Why isn't this your campaign ? Or do you just enjoy being a hypocrite ?