There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Armor Piercing is just being used as a descriptor of the certain rounds that could penetrate body armor. They are already bullets that are available to use, but carry a special label. Honestly, probably not a big deal and may make dumbass criminals less likely to know which rounds to select if their intent is to go the California shootout route. As long as limitations on the rounds already banned for recreational use aren't changed, than I don't see an issue.
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
I actually use the ear protection than amplifies sound, but muffles gunshots. Best of both worlds. You can plug your music into them too if you wish! Howard Leight by Honeywell Impact Sport Sound Amplification Electronic Shooting Earmuff, Classic Green (R-01526) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001T7QJ9O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_nm-UzbC8E8EWB
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
Yeah I would say bird hunting definitely messed up my hearing. When a few pheasant or a covey of quail flushed there's a lot of shooting going on in a very small area. Growing up, I hunted with my dad and grandfather; I carried a 20 gauge and they both used a 12 gauge, it was loud! On a good day we could go through a box of shells but I would say the average was anywhere from 3-7 shots.
Like yourself I don't think I have every fired more than two bullets when hunting for deer. Does a suppressor impact the accuracy of a rifle or shotgun?
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
Yeah I would say bird hunting definitely messed up my hearing. When a few pheasant or a covey of quail flushed there's a lot of shooting going on in a very small area. Growing up, I hunted with my dad and grandfather; I carried a 20 gauge and they both used a 12 gauge, it was loud! On a good day we could go through a box of shells but I would say the average was anywhere from 3-7 shots.
Like yourself I don't think I have every fired more than two bullets when hunting for deer. Does a suppressor impact the accuracy of a rifle or shotgun?
Don't think I have ever fired at a deer more than once. Wild boars are a different story, takes a couple sometimes due to the thick bones...Don't think I have ever used hearing protection when shooting birds with a 12 gauge, but shotguns are nowhere near as loud as the rifles I hunt with.
There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.
I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection. Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening. I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those. I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.
Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell. A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.
I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).
Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well. Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
Yeah I would say bird hunting definitely messed up my hearing. When a few pheasant or a covey of quail flushed there's a lot of shooting going on in a very small area. Growing up, I hunted with my dad and grandfather; I carried a 20 gauge and they both used a 12 gauge, it was loud! On a good day we could go through a box of shells but I would say the average was anywhere from 3-7 shots.
Like yourself I don't think I have every fired more than two bullets when hunting for deer. Does a suppressor impact the accuracy of a rifle or shotgun?
Don't think I have ever fired at a deer more than once. Wild boars are a different story, takes a couple sometimes due to the thick bones...Don't think I have ever used hearing protection when shooting birds with a 12 gauge, but shotguns are nowhere near as loud as the rifles I hunt with.
I ve never fired twice with a rifle but definitely a 12 gauge with slugs or buck shot.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
When the starting position is "of course you're not going to get rid of guns", then there's hardly any point in continuing the conversation.
True. America's gun problem = America's gun culture. That culture might fade away someday, but it would take probably 200+ years, and probably will never happen just because of the same shit we see now. They're mired in it. It's very unfortunate.
Never ever will it go away it's in our society's DNA starting with Hollywoods glorification of guns ! I have no use for guns myself and don't have a problem with anybody wishing to own as many as they need to feel safe , I just don't socialize with such folks on any level ...
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
That was the era. The 70s wasn't noted for awareness.
Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
That was the era. The 70s wasn't noted for awareness.
Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.
I don't normally troll. But when I do, it's in the Gun Violence thread. /got a lot of bites on that one
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
That was the era. The 70s wasn't noted for awareness.
Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.
I don't normally troll. But when I do, it's in the Gun Violence thread. /got a lot of bites on that one
How very adult of you, true or not. Seems unlikely.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10% And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes. Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed. So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything. That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
I think it's ignorant to say "if you crack down on gangs you're being racist nowadays". Nearly every large city has a focused gang task force that gets more cop attention. Cracking down on gangs has been going on anlong time. Racism plays a role in how a department carries that out, and then also with the general public perception. Focusing on gang activity isn't racist, but the subject itself can reveal racism. If you're wondering whether someone is racist, just bring up the topic of gangs and see what they say.
Police have claimed to crack down on gangs, but it has been pretty ineffective in my experience, at least in the neighborhoods that need it the most. I didnt say if you crack down on gangs then you're racists. I said if you target gangs you run that risk of others claiming that. Chicago is one of the bloodiest cities in America. We all know where that violence is coming from, but people have been labeled racist and news anchors have been fired for blaming the inner black community and the gangs for the violence. There is little doubt that with the tensions right now, if police force began cracking down even harder on the Chicago violence that many would see it as another method for black suppression. I would disagree with that, but some will see it that way. And my point wasn't about race, its how politicians refuse to deal with the real problem. Gun laws are designed to target legal gun owners instead which isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence. Good example I feel are assault rifles. I don't really care for them, so personally doesn't make a difference. But typically less than 1% of deaths and violence are from assault rifles. But why do they get 99% of the focus when it comes to gun restrictions? Focus on what matters.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10% And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes. Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed. So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything. That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
That was the era. The 70s wasn't noted for awareness.
Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.
I don't normally troll. But when I do, it's in the Gun Violence thread. /got a lot of bites on that one
How very adult of you, true or not. Seems unlikely.
Well, I used to think I could come here for reasonable and informed conversation.
Turns out gun nuts are usually reasonable or informed, but rarely both.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
HAlifax: I have no problem with silencers since they suppress the decibels not silence them. When you shoot with one it is still loud. armor piercing bullets: I don't even know what that means. Is that based on caliber or grains? I am not versed in that area so I don't have an opinion. Armor piercing sounds like a buzz word simikiar to "hollow point".
Guess your neighborhood doesn't employ gun fire detection devices? Do some research on armor piercing. Body armor not uparmored humvees or vehicle armor. Go on YouTube and watch the California bank robbery shoot out to get a sense of the potential violence unleashed. You okay with that?
Something with metro California and Chicago...just cannot place my finger on it...Pretty sure all of the hunters in TX would have helped the cops in that robbery situation. Police departments are now better equiped to deal with those situations now too, like Robocop, lol No gunfire detection devices around here, but there are a lot of bird hunters here, so there is that.
You mean like they did at the biker shoot out? Or when that whack job went hunting for cops? Yea, police departments now need armored vehicles to respond to that because you know, a black president might get elected and come for your guns, LOL.
You've gone off the deep end. I don't remember the incidents that you discussed involving body armor as we were talking about...and what does a black president getting elected and "coming for your guns" have anything to do with anything except you trying to squeeze racism into this discussion? My comment was really about how hunters are able to use better bullets for large/dangerous game that would have dropped these armored thugs fairly quickly. Didn't the police have to go to a local gun store to get a gun to take down the robbers? I remember the situation, just not all that well.
How have I gone off the deep end? Please explain. The legislation before congress, on hold since the congressional baseball shooting, legalizes armor piercing bullets. In the bank robbery case and the Texas cop killing frenzy, that capability would have made a horrific situation even worse. Yet you claim it's necessay to take out dangerous game animals? Sure. The pro gun proponents such as yourself constantly point to more guns being the solution, that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur as frequently. Someone on here posted how all the armed hunters would have taken out the bank robbers, the baseball field assailant and I pointed out that the mass shootings perpetrated by the biker gang and the cop killer were not stopped in such a manner. All we heard from the NRA is how Dems will take your guns away, especially Obama because well, he's special or black. I can only imagine if that biker shoot out had been perpetrated by BLM or Nation of Islam gatherers. The Dallas cop killer initially shot from a position that muffled the sound and made it extremely difficult for responding officers to determine the direction of gun fire. Imagine if he had a "silencer?" Sorry these points are lost on you.
Yeah, more assuming. The silencer would have actually made it easier to have found the Dallas shooter as it still puts out a pretty auditable sound, just not a deafening one. But without one, you have to deal with sound echoing and bouncing off all of the surrounding concrete buildings. As for "armor piercing bullets", most rifle caliber standard hunting rounds will easily penetrate body armor, so limiting "armor piercing rounds" just sounds like a buzzword/dishonest way of trying to limit all ammo. There are some pretty well educated hunters around here that know a hell of a lot more about ballistics, so you may want to leave some of these technicalities for them to explain. You are simply wrong on so many fronts. You are starting to sound like that Colorado "ghost gun guy" trying to push legislation on something that you don't know shit about. You seem well versed and more interested in racism, so why not stick to the threads where that is actually actively being discussed instead of trolling here?
So why make armor piercing bullets legal? And what am I "assuming?" I guess Only hunters can possibly know anything about guns and associated hardware and legislation, potential or otherwise, or have an opinion? Ignorance is bliss I guess? What is actively being discussed in this thread? I thought it was America's Gun Violence. Sorry that I mistook it for the Only Hunters are Educated About Guns thread. Race factors into everything. Sorry I triggered you. What am I wrong about on so many fronts? Please correct me.
Others have pointed out why you are wrong on so many fronts. Have you actually read the legislation having to do with "armor piercing rounds"? Totally buzzword bullshit. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't assume that being pro-gun rights automatically makes someone racist, right leaning, or even republican for that matter. Everything is not always due to the "oh, but we had a black president" bullshit. That legislation would have been fought regardless of the skin color of the president. Some of you are getting ridiculously predictable. No offense to Godfather, but you have become the Godfather of the left. This thread is about gun violence, but you may want to read the context of the comments before just jumping in and spewing nonsense...I really think that you are just pissed that people are allowed to hunt or shoot guns at all...sorry...must be frustrating...
When did I ever state that I was pissed that people are allowed to own and shoot guns? Nothing of the sort. I just can't get over the gun rights crowd wanting more and more and more (less restrictions, accountability, etc.) or less and less and less (regulation), depending. Where does it end? The NRA and the right use "they're coming for your guns" to market and intimidate politicians as well as oppose or support legislation detrimental to combating gun violence. I have never advocated for banning all guns, certain types, sure, nor am I against them per se. The carnage caused by them? Should make you puke. The defense? Its always someone else's issue because you and yours claim to be legal, responsible gun owners. All those guns in Chicago and NYC? Straw purchases in Indiana and down south, the iron pipelines, perpetrated by the gun industry and supported by the NRA.
Police have claimed to crack down on gangs, but it has been pretty ineffective in my experience, at least in the neighborhoods that need it the most. I didnt say if you crack down on gangs then you're racists. I said if you target gangs you run that risk of others claiming that. Chicago is one of the bloodiest cities in America. We all know where that violence is coming from, but people have been labeled racist and news anchors have been fired for blaming the inner black community and the gangs for the violence. There is little doubt that with the tensions right now, if police force began cracking down even harder on the Chicago violence that many would see it as another method for black suppression. I would disagree with that, but some will see it that way. And my point wasn't about race, its how politicians refuse to deal with the real problem. Gun laws are designed to target legal gun owners instead which isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence. Good example I feel are assault rifles. I don't really care for them, so personally doesn't make a difference. But typically less than 1% of deaths and violence are from assault rifles. But why do they get 99% of the focus when it comes to gun restrictions? Focus on what matters.
Referencing "the inner black community" when talking about gang violence understandably will piss people off. The gang violence in Chicago is very localized to two areas. So why is it a black community issue? Blacks in Chicago that don't have anything to do with gangs are now more responsible than whites to work on the issue? As a white guy, I'm never called on to respond directly to whites committing violence.
Guns tie into the issue of Chicago gang violence because of lax gun laws in Indiana that make it very easy to get a gun. Maybe we could call on the "Hoosier gun dealers" to do something.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10% And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes. Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed. So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything. That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
not what I said. I've rephrased it about 3 times now and it keeps getting ignored, or some irrelevant meme posted instead. Why do the majority of anti-gun lobbyists and law makers focus on laws that impact only 5-10% of the problem, and ignore the 90% ?
No where did I state it can't be solved. But it wont be solved by focusing on the wrong issues and ignore mental illness, gangs and other criminals with guns.
So are you going to rephrase what I said and twist it into something I didn't say, post another meme, or respond to my point?
As I said, suicides make up about half of gun deaths. Criminals make up most of the other half. Why do gun laws focus on assault rifles (which is about 1%) and high capacity mags far more than anything else? I'm not necessarily against some restrictions on those. I just also believe they are meaningless if you don't impact the bigger problem. We used to be good an helping those with mental illness, but not anymore. Better programs for that first. Violent offenders and known gang affiliates should lose some rights, stop and search should be allowed for anyone flying gang colors. That is one images I had when I said gang crackdown will lead to racial criticism. But in my view, if you chose to join a violent gang and chose to advertise it, then that is the choice you made. I dont give a crap fif you get stopped 100 times on the way to the grocery store.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10% And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes. Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed. So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything. That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
not what I said. I've rephrased it about 3 times now and it keeps getting ignored, or some irrelevant meme posted instead. Why do the majority of anti-gun lobbyists and law makers focus on laws that impact only 5-10% of the problem, and ignore the 90% ?
No where did I state it can't be solved. But it wont be solved by focusing on the wrong issues and ignore mental illness, gangs and other criminals with guns.
So are you going to rephrase what I said and twist it into something I didn't say, post another meme, or respond to my point?
As I said, suicides make up about half of gun deaths. Criminals make up most of the other half. Why do gun laws focus on assault rifles (which is about 1%) and high capacity mags far more than anything else?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I'd say 90% of the problem is easy access to guns and the related proliferation of guns. More guns in the US = more dead people.
Stats that I see play that out. The number of owners has declined but more guns have been sold, meaning less people possess more guns but the death rate from guns, in almost every category, suicides leading the way, have gone up. A number that struck me was the most suicides by age were in the 65+ category. Another stat that strikes me is suicide by age, 14 to 45 being the majority. Access to guns = more gun deaths.
It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.
Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?
Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control. It doesn't resolve anything. Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that. Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either. And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Why not both? If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10% And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes. Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed. So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything. That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
not what I said. I've rephrased it about 3 times now and it keeps getting ignored, or some irrelevant meme posted instead. Why do the majority of anti-gun lobbyists and law makers focus on laws that impact only 5-10% of the problem, and ignore the 90% ?
No where did I state it can't be solved. But it wont be solved by focusing on the wrong issues and ignore mental illness, gangs and other criminals with guns.
So are you going to rephrase what I said and twist it into something I didn't say, post another meme, or respond to my point?
As I said, suicides make up about half of gun deaths. Criminals make up most of the other half. Why do gun laws focus on assault rifles (which is about 1%) and high capacity mags far more than anything else? I'm not necessarily against some restrictions on those. I just also believe they are meaningless if you don't impact the bigger problem. We used to be good an helping those with mental illness, but not anymore. Better programs for that first. Violent offenders and known gang affiliates should lose some rights, stop and search should be allowed for anyone flying gang colors. That is one images I had when I said gang crackdown will lead to racial criticism. But in my view, if you chose to join a violent gang and chose to advertise it, then that is the choice you made. I dont give a crap fif you get stopped 100 times on the way to the grocery store.
Are you sure criminals make up the other half? Are those the illegal guns, the convicted criminals that shouldn't be in possession of guns or law abiding responsible gun owners until they're not who make up the criminals responsible for the other half of gun deaths?
Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?
Comments
Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).
Welding glasses and ear muffs.
"Damn. Struck out again!"
I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening
On a good day we could go through a box of shells but I would say the average was anywhere from 3-7 shots.
Like yourself I don't think I have every fired more than two bullets when hunting for deer. Does a suppressor impact the accuracy of a rifle or shotgun?
It doesn't resolve anything.
Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that.
Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either.
And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.
Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays.
So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.
Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.
/got a lot of bites on that one
Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem? Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.
And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes.
Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed.
So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything.
That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.
Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.
I didnt say if you crack down on gangs then you're racists. I said if you target gangs you run that risk of others claiming that. Chicago is one of the bloodiest cities in America. We all know where that violence is coming from, but people have been labeled racist and news anchors have been fired for blaming the inner black community and the gangs for the violence. There is little doubt that with the tensions right now, if police force began cracking down even harder on the Chicago violence that many would see it as another method for black suppression. I would disagree with that, but some will see it that way.
And my point wasn't about race, its how politicians refuse to deal with the real problem. Gun laws are designed to target legal gun owners instead which isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence.
Good example I feel are assault rifles. I don't really care for them, so personally doesn't make a difference. But typically less than 1% of deaths and violence are from assault rifles. But why do they get 99% of the focus when it comes to gun restrictions?
Focus on what matters.
Well, I used to think I could come here for reasonable and informed conversation. Turns out gun nuts are usually reasonable or informed, but rarely both.
https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006094
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Guns tie into the issue of Chicago gang violence because of lax gun laws in Indiana that make it very easy to get a gun. Maybe we could call on the "Hoosier gun dealers" to do something.
Why do the majority of anti-gun lobbyists and law makers focus on laws that impact only 5-10% of the problem, and ignore the 90% ?
No where did I state it can't be solved. But it wont be solved by focusing on the wrong issues and ignore mental illness, gangs and other criminals with guns.
So are you going to rephrase what I said and twist it into something I didn't say, post another meme, or respond to my point?
As I said, suicides make up about half of gun deaths. Criminals make up most of the other half. Why do gun laws focus on assault rifles (which is about 1%) and high capacity mags far more than anything else?
I'm not necessarily against some restrictions on those. I just also believe they are meaningless if you don't impact the bigger problem. We used to be good an helping those with mental illness, but not anymore. Better programs for that first. Violent offenders and known gang affiliates should lose some rights, stop and search should be allowed for anyone flying gang colors. That is one images I had when I said gang crackdown will lead to racial criticism. But in my view, if you chose to join a violent gang and chose to advertise it, then that is the choice you made. I dont give a crap fif you get stopped 100 times on the way to the grocery store.
Really? One side seems to be proposing solutions
President Obama Targets Gun-Show Loophole
TRUMP OVERTURNS A MENTAL HEALTH REGULATION ON GUN PURCHASES
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle:
Senate Rejects 4 Gun Proposals Inspired By Orlando Attack
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/09/15/road-rage-a-bullet-to-the-head-and-the-frantic-effort-to-save-a-4-year-old/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_clevelandkid-730am:homepage/story&utm_term=.ebfd82ad785c
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©