Gun control: A gun registry should be a temporary fix until we rid our societies of all the killing guns.
Do it mean our gocernments need to take away all our guns? The answer is obviously yes!
If both Canada and Australia can reduce thr gun killing sprees, so can the USA if they bring in gun control and get rid of their killing guns.
All we need is love....bop-da-da-da-la....
Finally.
U.S. faces 'political split on guns'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/us-faces-political-split-o...
Good video in that link.
"The semi-autos used in the killing were banned".
"the magazines used in the killing were banned"
"It was a gun free zone".
Contrast the relatvely minimal carnage here compared to San Bernardino and you can clearly see why we need to rid our planet of all the "killing guns".
Leytonstone stabbing: Man charged with attempted murder as extra police are drafted in to protect Tube networkWitnesses claim suspected terrorist cried 'Blood will be spilled' and 'This is for Syria' during the attack
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/leytonstone-stabbing-extra-po...
All the more reason we require to have universal "killing guns" control until we rid ourselves of all these 'killing guns".
The "killing guns" were bot legally. What's not to understand about that?
Getting rid of the "killing guns" is gonna happen.
It is happening with climate change, it is happening with smoking, and it is coming soon to a "killing gun" shop near you.
The reason the NRA will eventually lose as they are fighting science. The NRA does not have a future and either do these "killing guns" merchants. If I were a stock market investor I would short the "killing guns" manufacturers.
No matter how bad you or anyone wants it "Banning guns" across the US won't work. You (they) need a plan B. There's litterally men women and children in the US who will die before giving up their guns. Every day people, militia groups, combat veterans and law enforcement officers. It's their "God given right" and sacred constitutional duty to keep and bare arms.
It's brave to suggest just goin' in there and takin' em away but it's not you in the cross hairs. Sherifs and other LEOs have blatently said they will refuse to do it. It'll be a blood bath.
They need to change their culture of violence+guns. They need to work on getting guns out of the hands of criminals and stopping the illegal gun trade. There is more to gun violence than these terror-inspired mass shootings. Yes someone who isn't redflagged or on a watch list with a criminal record CAN and WILL get accoess to a firearm (like Marc Lepine) if they apply (presuming they don't go black market).
In most of the cases of mass shooters in the school/work place context there are always workers or peers who come out afterwards and talk about all these warning signs and red flags that they never acted on.
Getting rid of the "killing guns" is gonna happen.
Normally the guns used in killings are taken off the street because they're retained by police as evidence. So yeah, for all intents and purposes getting rid of the guns used in killings occurs all the time.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-...
An Uber driver stopped a mass shooting with a legally owned handgun.
Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.
The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.
A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.
The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.
Custodio was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back, authorities said.
Custodio, of the 2900 block of North Ridgeway Avenue, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon charges. He was denied bond during the Sunday court hearing.
The Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Quinn said
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-viole...
Curious as to where Paladin ("Have Gun Will Travel") got these two sketchy sketches?
From the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Great bedtime reading, Paladin.
If you haven't heard of the AEI, which makes the Fraser Institute look like Occupy Wall Street, [url=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute]read about it here[/url].
Rather sickening to see shit like this on a progressive discussion board. But since we're talking about gun control in the U.S. (which will never happen), I suppose it's acceptable.
Curious as to where Paladin ("Have Gun Will Travel") got these two sketchy sketches?
From the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Great bedtime reading, Paladin.
Please don't encourage gun fanatics by engaging them.
So are you actually a part of this conversation or only jumping in at convienient times? We don't agree on firearms or gun control but I respect your opinion, think you're intelligent and have interesting talking points on the issue which challenge me to critique my own.
I don't think it's fair for you to tell other babblers to not engage me in conversation on this issue then turn around and do it yourself.
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-viole...
Curious as to where Paladin ("Have Gun Will Travel") got these two sketchy sketches?
From the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Great bedtime reading, Paladin.
If you haven't heard of the AEI, which makes the Fraser Institute look like Occupy Wall Street, [url=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute]read about it here[/url].
Rather sickening to see shit like this on a progressive discussion board. But since we're talking about gun control in the U.S. (which will never happen), I suppose it's acceptable.
Here is a source that says the opposite:
Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph
Then this:
Higher Gun Ownership Rates Linked to Increase in Non-Stranger Homicide, BU Study Finds
http://www.bu.edu/sph/2014/09/29/higher-gun-ownership-rates-linked-to-in...
For police officers:
Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law EnforcementOfficers in the United States
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/274428440-Firearm-Pr...
And background on the first study I linked to:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-gu...
"Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire."
Suicide is an issue as well:
"The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be."
Now don't get me wrong statistitians can fudge the numbers to get what they want. There are other statistics that must be considered. One is age. Population age has an impact on these statistics as not all ages are as likely to use guns to kill people.
The study considered the following factors: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate.”
Interestingly the study did not consider one other obvious one: The same gun trauma on the same people in 2010 would produce fewer homicides than it would have in 1981. Advances in medical and surgical techniques are the reason.
What honest studies are trying to show is what the impact on gun ownership would be after isolating all the other variables and the story is the exact opposite of what Palladin has advanced.
That's going to take me a while to read through. I'll come back with some stats highlighting states that have CCW permits have lower crime rates when I get to my laptop.
In your opinion Sean is there a middle ground with firearm ownership and gun control or do you think they should all be banned from civilian ownership?
That's going to take me a while to read through. I'll come back with some stats highlighting states that have CCW permits have lower crime rates when I get to my laptop.
In your opinion Sean is there a middle ground with firearm ownership and gun control or do you think they should all be banned from civilian ownership?
Yes I think there is a middle ground. I agree with registration and licensing and I think that doctors should be able to pull the right to have a gun where fitness indicates they should. As well I think that partners of people with guns should be able to request an order that would have their gun beyond their reach in the event of threats or threatening behaviour. I also think that the families of gun owners ought to be able to know and respond to gun ownership including a petition that it be not allowed in their case.
You could say I support strict licensing and registration.
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on all your points. Half of my stuff is registered and it's never bothered me. If we DO end up registering all firearms I think it needs to be through the RCMP how handguns are presently registered and not a new, untested, 20 million+ system. There's already a system in place and it works why mess with it?
Doctors can already contact the CFO (chief firearms officer) and have someones licence suspended and firearms removed from their possesson. Also when you call the RCMPs firearms office you are given the option of pressing a button to put you in contact with someone to report a spousal safety concern; they act on it instantly. Family members can contact the CFO and likewise report concerns they have about family members.
When someone is iniitially applying for a firearms licence the CFO (actually someone working for them) will contact the applicants spouse and ex-partners to ask them if they have any concerns over the applicant having a firearms licence. Any concerns (real or imagined) are investigated thouroughly.
California shooter attended Islamic school whose founder lives in Canada
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/07/california-shooter-attended-islamic...
California shooter attended Islamic school whose founder lives in Canada
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/07/california-shooter-attended-islamic...
this is the kind of shit journalism that the Sun is famous for. Dragging the founder of an Islamic school through the mud by association. There is of coruse no evidence of a link between the school, the people at the school, or the founder and the violence but the association serves to make people wary of Muslims here. Shame on the Sun -- again.
I think there is a middle ground. I agree with registration and licensing...
No question that the USA could use a system of registration and licensing. Everyone who has a weapon should have it registered. We register practically everything else in this society. What has been introduced in this discussion though does not deal with safe practices and registration. There's the utopian, unrealistic ideal of an outright ban on firearms, except for the cops presumably.
I think there is a middle ground. I agree with registration and licensing...No question that the USA could use a system of registration and licensing. Everyone who has a weapon should have it registered. We register practically everything else in this society. What has been introduced in this discussion though does not deal with safe practices and registration. There's the utopian, unrealistic ideal of an outright ban on firearms, except for the cops presumably.
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.
That said my approach is based on compromise, understanding that if we cannot get rid of guns in our cities, it is better to achieve something than fail at something that is possibly better.
I do not think that guns in urban places are worth the harm they cause. And so I am sympathetic to a ban but I reach for strong registration and licensing since it is more in reach.
I think that practically you can't have a seperate regime for urban and rural and so whatever system has to work for both.
I see the middle ground and can advocate for it but I admit my sympathy is not for the middle. So gun advocates-- sorry but that's how I feel.
We register practically everything else in this society.
I'm not vehemently against registration, but honestly it does seem to me that gun registration is going to prevent gun deaths the same way that vehicle registration prevents DUI deaths.
Good news I suppose but the US approach to first controlling and then getting rid of "killing guns" is a farce.
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challen...
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.
Why is that? Is it because urbanites are somehow restricted to the confines of the urban environment, and as such they have no particular business in the countryside even if they happen to be hunters? Is there something about urban dwellers that is different than non-urban people when it comes to the safe ownership of firearms? If so, please describe what those difference might consist of.
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.Why is that? Is it because urbanites are somehow restricted to the confines of the urban environment, and as such they have no particular business in the countryside even if they happen to be hunters? Is there something about urban dwellers that is different than non-urban people when it comes to the safe ownership of firearms? If so, please describe what those difference might consist of.
Please read the quoted statement I made. After a few times I am sure you will get it. Just think of the meaning of each word.
This study is a bit old, but according to StatsCan:
Handguns are the firearm of choice in big-city homicides
In 2005, just over one-third of all homicides in both large urban areas and rural areas were committed with a firearm, compared with less than one-quarter of homicides in small urban areas.
Handguns were the weapon of choice in large urban areas, used in 76% of all firearm homicides. In rural areas, rifles or shotguns were the most prevalent; they were used in 65% of firearm homicides.
So it kind of sounds like urban areas need to primarily concern themselves with handguns, and rural areas with long guns.
The interesting question is why Canada's already restrictive laws covering handguns seem to be doing SFA. It's almost like criminals don't even care what the law says.
Trump is quite the charmer, eh!
Donald Trump calls for ‘complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering the U.S.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-shutdo...
Fantastic.
Maybe the USA could change.
After all if 2 major newspapers in New York City are calling for some sanity as opposed to the insanity of the "killing guns" mentality there could be hope after all.
Fighting fire with puppies: N.Y. Daily News launches new, ultra-sarcastic assault on ‘NRA & cowardly pols’
The New York Daily News is focussing its combative covers on U.S. gun laws, attacking what the paper calls the NRA’s “sick gun jihad” and political “cowards” who, the paper says, “hide behind meaningless platitudes.”
Its Monday front page responded to those who, the tabloid says, have “been offended by hearing the truth about our nation’s gun scourge,” (sarcastically) proclaiming “Everything is AWESOME!” between photos of puppies, a kitten, a fawn, and a playful polar bear.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/fighting-fire-with-puppies-n-y-daily-n...
San Bernardino killers took target practice days before attack
Thousands of San Bernardino County employees went back to work for first time since Syed Farook, and wife, Tashfeen Malik, massacred their colleagues.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/07/san-bernardino-killers-took...
But don't let getting rid of "killing guns" get in the way of sheer stupidity.
Isis terrorists in Iraq and Syria 'may be using weapons exported to the Middle East by the UK'
Assault weapons sent from Britain to Iraq in the wake of 2003 invasion may have ended up in Isis's hand
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/isis-terrorists-in-iraq-an...
Just like when they see strangers acting out families have to address issues when they see family members acting out.
San Bernardino shooting: Attacker's father says son was 'Isis supporter''He shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic State'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting...
Please read the quoted statement I made. After a few times I am sure you will get it. Just think of the meaning of each word.
I did, but it remains up to you to explain the difference you're courting with that statement.
Gun control: A gun registry should be a temporary fix until we rid our societies of all the killing guns.
To paraphrase people should register their firearms so that the government can bann them all together and know who's house to kick the door in to take those guns away.
We register practically everything else in this society.I'm not vehemently against registration, but honestly it does seem to me that gun registration is going to prevent gun deaths the same way that vehicle registration prevents DUI deaths.
That's a major issue I have. Gun registry is being largely sold on people to prevent crime. As you say it will prevent crime like vehicle registration prevents DUIs.
Assault Weapon is a loosely defined term coined by the media, it'll be interesting to see what Justin trudeau comes up with for a definition.
The sad thing is I have not heard one word from advocates of "killing guns" that makes any scientific sense whatsoever.
It is just mumbo-jumbro nonsense to avoid addressing the issue of how we can rid our society of "killing guns".
Just for context I wanted to post the rough cost, time and process of someone legally buying a hand gun for the first time in Canada. It's not a quick or cheap process.
Be 18 years old or older.
Find a Canadian Restricted Firearm Safety Course instructor who is running a course. It's on their own time and their own schedule, sometimes it could be a few months before a course is run. Apply for the the course, get accepted and pass the course. Prices range from $350 to $500. You can no longer challenge the test, you need to take the course which is a few days.
Once you pass the safty course you can apply for a Possession Aquisition Licence (PAL) which costs $80. I may be wrong but I believe you need a current police background check which is around $60 (which is redundent, you'll see why). When you apply for a PAL the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for your province does their stuff with your application. This includes asking your current and former partners if they feel there are any reasons you shouldn't have a firearm licence. The CFO will investigate you and check your history out (previously I posted a story of the CFO believing a woman was an accomplish in a hold up that the police cleared her in. His investigation cost her a job at the time and to be removed from a college course, she's curently suing for damages).
If the CFO doesn't find any problems with your application you're given a restricted firearms licence. I've heard stories of people waiting 6 months up to a year to get an application approved.
You find a decent quality handgun you want to buy, say about $800. In order to buy that handgun you have to belong to a gun club (that facilitates restricted firearms). Gun clubs cost a few hundred dollars up to a thousand dollars a year to join (lets say $600). There can be a long wait list too, in Kingston people have waited over a year to join a club. No club no gun. So once you join the club and pay the $600 most clubs will make you take a club run safety course which includes a number of supervised trips to the shooting range. So lets say $100 for the course plus you have to pay for your ammo. I had to go to the range 8-10 times where I had to shoot a box of ammo each time ($22 x 10 = $220) it was over the span of 2-3 months. Most clubs are now requiring members to get another current police check before joining, another $60.
Once you pass the clubs tests you can legally buy a handgun.
You go to a gun store, pick out the gun you want, fill out the paperwork then the store sends your information to the CFO to transfer the restricted handgun from them to you. This can take a couple of weeks but usually it's pretty fast. The store can mail you the pistol without a specific licence but if you want to pick the gun up yourself you need to call the CFO and get a one day authorization to transport the pistol from the store to your house.
Your pistol needs to be locked in a vault or container designed to store firearms. Even though you have a valid firearms licence and belong to a gun club you furthermore need an authroization permit to transport the gun from your house to the range and back home again. The recent changes by conservatives took that permit and attached it to your firearms licence, basically just saving time and hassle, but the liberals want to make it a seperate piece again- which won't prevent anything.
After around $2200+ and waiting a year (sometimes closer to two) you can legally bring your handgun to a gun range (and gun range only) to shoot paper targets. (If you want to use a holster it's another $300 approx for the special club-run course).
A major issue firearm owners have is that police officers and conservation officers aren't up to date on the rules and regularly screw up and confiscate 100% legally owned firearms. Because of a police officers ignorance of the law you can loose a $3000 rifle then spend thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to get your 100% legally owned rifle returned to you. I don't expect most members here to give a shit about that, not being firearm owners, but I suspect if the police confiscated your $3000 laptop because they thought 500 gig harddrives were illegal in Toshiba satalittes and it cost you $10'000 to get your laptop (and other computers) back you would be more bothered by it.
Please read the quoted statement I made. After a few times I am sure you will get it. Just think of the meaning of each word.I did, but it remains up to you to explain the difference you're courting with that statement.
Your response suggested that you completely missed the point. I assumed a careless reading so suggested you read again. You clearly either avoided the point or missed it by accident.
How the US gun lobby managed to lose a crucial Supreme Court battle
http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-the-us-gun-lobby-managed-to-lose-a-cruci...
Your response suggested that you completely missed the point. I assumed a careless reading so suggested you read again. You clearly either avoided the point or missed it by accident.
Well, in order to get the 'point' as you put it, you need to finish making it. What is the difference, as per your stated opinion, between urban, surburban, and rural gun owners that would cause you to say that urban gun ownership in particular is a concern for you? Because you did say that without qualifying why that is. For instance, is it because gun ownership in an urban setting implies a higher density of guns per square kilometer? Is it because the higher the density of gun the more chance there is of gun related incidents? Is there some other pecularity between rural and urban gun owners that you'd like to lay out so that we might avail ourselves of the point you were in the process of making, but hadn't quite finished making it? Other than a brief mention of the 'harm' they cause in an urban context, this statement of yours, ie:
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.
.....offers us no context whatsoever. Because illegal gun use carries with it the potential for harm no matter where such events take place. It's not a careless reading, it's a careless statement without an explanation of the basis for this personal opinion of yours, which, thus far you have refused to provide.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm
Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012
Some interesting stats in there.
Firearms are present in a relatively small proportion of all police-reported violent crime in reporting provinces and territories. Excluding Quebec, police reported approximately 5,600 victims of violent crime where a firearm was present in 2012, a rate of 21 victims for every 100,000 population (Table 1A). In comparison, the rate of victims of non-firearm-related violent crime was about 49 times higher, at 1,033 victims per 100,000 population.
Firearm-related violent crime accounted for 2% of all victims of violent crime in 2012, a proportion that has remained stable over the past four years. For the large majority (81%) of victims of violent crime, there was no weapon present during the commission of the offence.1 A weapon other than a firearm, such as a knife or blunt instrument, was present in 17% of violent offences.
Although violent crime is generally decreasing, the rate of firearm-related violent crime is decreasing at a faster pace than violent crime that does not involve firearms. There were about 1,800 fewer victims of firearm-related violent crime in 2012 than there were in 2009, resulting in a 27% decrease in the rate of firearm-related violent crime (Chart 1).2 Since 2009, the rate of violent offences involving other weapons has decreased 9%, while the rate of offences involving the use of physical force, threat, or no weapon has decreased 14%.
If there ever was a reason to get rid of "killing guns" this has to be it.
Brilliant Americans, brilliant! 
Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapon...
So are you saying that if the U.S. military were to just go out in the field with, say, a sharpened stick, then ISIS would have no more guns to capture?
Then they'd only have their thousands and thousands of non-U.S. guns with which to defend against those sharpened sticks! Genius!
California Shooter Said to Have Planned an Attack in 2012
Plot abandoned when counterterroism arrests made in area, friend told investigators
http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-shooting-suspects-radicalized-bef...
Your response suggested that you completely missed the point. I assumed a careless reading so suggested you read again. You clearly either avoided the point or missed it by accident.Well, in order to get the 'point' as you put it, you need to finish making it. What is the difference, as per your stated opinion, between urban, surburban, and rural gun owners that would cause you to say that urban gun ownership in particular is a concern for you? Because you did say that without qualifying why that is. For instance, is it because gun ownership in an urban setting implies a higher density of guns per square kilometer? Is it because the higher the density of gun the more chance there is of gun related incidents? Is there some other pecularity between rural and urban gun owners that you'd like to lay out so that we might avail ourselves of the point you were in the process of making, but hadn't quite finished making it? Other than a brief mention of the 'harm' they cause in an urban context, this statement of yours, ie:
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings......offers us no context whatsoever. Because illegal gun use carries with it the potential for harm no matter where such events take place. It's not a careless reading, it's a careless statement without an explanation of the basis for this personal opinion of yours, which, thus far you have refused to provide.
I said that I did not have appreciation for guns in urban settings (location) and you went off talking about urbanities in the country or something. I was talking about context and location and you were talkign about people -- yes, you missed the point.
I expressed a desire for regulation -- I recognize rural use and desire for guns. I don't appreciate the value of them in the city and I said so -- it has nothingto do with the people and everything to do with the location.
The man who bought the rifles: Who is Enrique Marquez?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-enrique-marquez-rifles-20151...
Terror not the biggest threat to US
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_...
I said...
You said...a whole mess of bullshit. To have a 'point' it actually needs to be a valid one. So...you recognize rural use of guns, but not the urbanite who may just as well have a valid, rural application for keeping a firearm in their urban residence. Apparently a person doesn't have any business out in the sticks with a gun, negating the need to own a gun at all if your address happens to be in a city. According to this logic, everyone living in a city is supposed to remain in place, and as such would have no reason to own a gun, How foolish is that? Or, as the foolishness gets extended here in your reply, guns have no business living in the city on their own like that, because it isn't about the people who might own them as you put it, it's about the guns themselves.
If there ever was a reason to get rid of "killing guns" this has to be it.
Brilliant Americans, brilliant!
Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapon...
US weapons are finding their way into Isis hands so I shouldn't be able to teach my daughters how to shoot?
I said...You said...a whole mess of bullshit. To have a 'point' it actually needs to be a valid one. So...you recognize rural use of guns, but not the urbanite who may just as well have a valid, rural application for keeping a firearm in their urban residence. Apparently a person doesn't have any business out in the sticks with a gun, negating the need to own a gun at all if your address happens to be in a city. According to this logic, everyone living in a city is supposed to remain in place, and as such would have no reason to own a gun, How foolish is that? Or, as the foolishness gets extended here in your reply, guns have no business living in the city on their own like that, because it isn't about the people who might own them as you put it, it's about the guns themselves.
Wow a little sensitive when called on missing the point.. Next time someone calls you a nasty name perhaps you should listen carefully.
You still are missing the point. Still need directions?
Cracks are beginning to show in the NRA wall.
