Nicker on 17/2/2018 at 15:44
Florida. Seems like another responsible gun owner experienced an off-range discharge of his sporting arms.
While there was some loss of life and limb, these sacrifices are necessary to fill The Cup Of Freedom! We are all grateful that nobody's Second Amendment rights were or will be infringed.
The lesson here is that America needs to pray harder. God Bless the NRA.
Tocky on 17/2/2018 at 17:34
What we need is Gawd back in schools. If only we could replace our curriculum of actual fact learning with a five day Sunday school then things would go back to the old days when nobody ever did anything wrong because he was always smiting folks.
Renzatic on 17/2/2018 at 17:57
I'm stealing that, ffox. It's too good not to.
nickie on 18/2/2018 at 14:27
For the record, (
https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/) Snopes fact-checked (is that a word) the figure of 18 school shootings. It's technically true but it's kind of misleading to say 18 as if they were all mass murders. There were a couple of suicides, some accidental firings, one in a school that had been closed for a few months, one where the shooter was outside the school, etc.
Edit. I meant to say before but forgot. I very much appreciated catbarf's gun education efforts earlier in the thread - enlightening and useful.
catbarf on 19/2/2018 at 04:40
Call me cynical, but the most likely outcome I see is another round of nothing happening, with the second-most-likely being a new assault weapons ban (probably after Democrats win the upcoming midterms), like the one that had already been in effect for five years when the event they're memorializing occurred. Everything I've been seeing coming from elected representatives on both sides has been a retread of the usual soundbites and proposals.
Quote Posted by nickie
For the record, (
https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/) Snopes fact-checked (is that a word) the figure of 18 school shootings. It's technically true but it's kind of misleading to say 18 as if they were all mass murders. There were a couple of suicides, some accidental firings, one in a school that had been closed for a few months, one where the shooter was outside the school, etc.
Something similar frequently happens with 'mass shootings'. The Everytown project originally defined them as any event where a firearm was involved and four or more people were injured (not even necessarily by the firearm, and including the shooter), under which definition the overwhelming majority of 'mass shootings' are not what the public thinks of as mass shootings.
While it's deliberately deceptive, I can see why they do it. Mainstream America doesn't seem to care about suicides, negligent discharges, or gang shootouts. But take same events and add them to the tallies of 'school shootings' or 'mass shootings', the common terms for the only high-profile gun-related events that America seems to care about, and then people take them more seriously.
Quote Posted by nickie
Edit. I meant to say before but forgot. I very much appreciated catbarf's gun education efforts earlier in the thread - enlightening and useful.
Well, thanks, I'm glad somebody finds it useful.
SlyFoxx on 19/2/2018 at 12:39
Quote Posted by Starker
That sounds simply idiotic. Why would you classify guns based on cosmetic features instead of caliber, fire rate, etc? Nobody needs ineffective gun laws like that. But surely there are weapons and ammunition that have no business being in civilian hands? And surely nobody needs dozens of guns outside of collectors?
And as stated they have been taken out of the picture for some time now. As for the number of guns a person owns. It's called "The Bill of Rights" not "Needs". The distinction is clear.
Starker on 19/2/2018 at 13:44
As in, the right to have any gun?
SlyFoxx on 19/2/2018 at 14:05
Quote Posted by Starker
As in, the right to have any gun?
If you're going to be willfully obtuse, there's no need for me to comment further. Good day.
N'Al on 19/2/2018 at 14:59
I don’t think Starker was trying to be wilfully obtuse. I think it was a genuine attempt to clarify what your previous post is meant to say. His question could have possibly been worded differently, but I can understand why he asked it; personally, I don’t think your initial post is all that clear either. Would you mind clarifying, please?
