In Washington State, where they have so few gun problems according to the lying pro-gun voices, this is the 4th "accidental death" in as many weeks.It was at a home on South Wenas Road that a young mother was shot and killed by her own son. But, it wasn't on purpose. The Sheriff's office says he fired accidentally.
The 17-year-old Selah boy got the nine-millimeter handgun as a gift. It fired while he was handling the weapon. After passing through a wall, the bullet hit his mom, Vonda Willis-Jean, in the head. She died shortly after in the hospital.
What do you think?
One a week? If so, take that and divide by the population of Washington. What you fail to understand is that we can't base public policy exclusively on the shock factor. There is no justification for making sweeping changes over numbers that are less than one percent.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, shorter Greg Camp; they ain't me, fuck 'em.
ReplyDelete"What you fail to understand is that we can't base public policy exclusively on the shock factor. There is no justification for making sweeping changes over numbers that are less than one percent."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Poorfesur Polymath Camp displays his keen grasp of, well, not much.
So, less than 1% of the U.S. population gets killed by teh gunz and it's not worth "making sweeping changes"?
Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty certain that a lot of people would get pretty upset at something like 3,132,170* folks getting killed wit teh gunz--every year. It would eventually solve the problem of our using too much of the world's resources.
We should prolly have a pilot program, starting in some state like Arkansas. If we found out after a couple of years that the numbers were unworkable? oh, well.
* Approximately 1% of U.S. population based on this link (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)
So what percentage would you accept? You want to violate the rights of a hundred million or more gun owners, give sweeping new powers to the government, and make huge changes to American culture because of actions that affect one one hundredth of a percent of the population per annum?
DeleteGreg, the "sweeping changes" would not be that at all. In fact, assuming you really are an honest and responsible gun owner, the changes I'd like to see would affect you very little. But, they sure as hell would affect the criminals and lunatics who so easily get guns now.
Delete"So what percentage would you accept? You want to violate the rights of a hundred million or more gun owners, give sweeping new powers to the government, and make huge changes to American culture because of actions that affect one one hundredth of a percent of the population per annum?"
ReplyDeleteNo, dumbfuck, I don't want to violate anyone's rights; even those of a sociopathic asshole like you.
"Huge changes"? enumerate them. Show me the proposed legislation consfiscating your guns or even requiring that your register them? Then show me when they'll get voted on, the chance that they'll pass and be signed into law. Good luck with that project. You and your histrionic gunzloonz palz invent strawman at an astonishing rate.
I'm going to address Mikeb here, but Democommie, do try to pay attention:
ReplyDeleteI've seen proposals for registration, background checks, mental health screenings, licensing, bans on carry, limitations of numbers of guns owned, banning of cheap ammunition, limitations on types of firearms that can be owned, long lists of prohibited persons, and on and on. Those are the things that your side wants. Those are sweeping changes.
On the other hand, none of you has addressed the fact that lots of illegal persons, products, and services cross our borders every day. People who shouldn't have guns will be able to get them whenever they wish. Until you can explain to me how you would prevent that, you don't have a case even for the possibility of your proposals achieving their stated goals.
But we do know that your real intention is to disarm good citizens. Deny it if you wish, but you can't deny reality.
No Greg, criminals would not have them if those restrictions were in force, not the way they do now. Sending your girlfriend to do a straw purchase is too easy. It should be harder. Breaking into homes which have no requirement to secure their weapons makes theft too easy. It should be harder. And the granddaddy of them all, private sales at gun shows or on the Craig's List.
DeleteYou're so wrong in this Greg. You should admit it.