As an engineer you are also apparently unable to make clear real life correlations.

Here l0l0l0l000l0l0l0lll000ll00l0ll00l00l00l0l0l0ll0l0l0ll0l0l0l00l0ll0l0ll0ll0l0

Basically, there is a correlation between bullet count and fire power and innocent death from accidents and psychos. Since those guns are not a necessity and there is this correlation, we should regulate them better. Luckily we don't have to guess. We know it works already. It's just a matter of doing it.

I never said there shouldn't be background checks as well, there should be those. There background checks are about as difficult to pass as getting into a house party.

You can't trust anything Joe describes. On a spin rating from 1-10 he's a 10 on the far far right.

I've no doubt he's completely misrepresented what the law actually says.

I think I made my actual stance on the subject fairly apparent in one of the replies here.

You don't need anything that holds more than a few bullets and shoots more than a bullet every couple seconds or so.

Stating that no one needs a magazine that can hold lots of bullets or a riffle that can spit out a lot of bullets in one minute is besides the point.

No it isn't. That's the exact point. You don't need them and you can't keep them out of the hands of psychos. So you shouldn't be allowed to have them. There aren't psychos stealing Lamborghinis and driving them into schools or buying Lamborghinis and driving them into schools. They are with assault rifles though.

Sure. That should be part of it.

And gun sellers should do background checks and when they don't and a crazy person buys a gun and kills people the seller should be an accessory to murder. You should also be allowed to sue the gun maker when this happens to you.

We won't do that though because along with a brainwashing campaign to make people like you think you're safer with a gun than without, even though every statistic says otherwise, they also have a money campaign where they pay lobbyists to make sure no measures that will save lives ever pass, because to that group you apparently worship since you spew off their points nearly word for word, cares a whole lot more about the money their guns make them then the lives their guns take.

Right. That or I'm simply making sure the small small minority of crazy gun nuts can't shout out the vast majority of sane people who know the difference between reality where you don't need 30 bullets and a semi-automatic for anything on earth and letting people buy them only leads to more dead people, and imagination where they think they need to defend from some black helicopters or whatever.

There's no reason for citizens to have those kinds of guns.

You have the right to defend yourself, with a normal gun. A normal gun works just as well.

And the point is they will be able to kill less people. If this guy could not have gotten his mom's arsenal he would have found a normal gun and killed 4 or 5 kids instead of 20.

You don't need those guns with all those bullets for anything, and restricting them saves lives. So too bad. Live without it. Quit being a baby.

The point is you can kill less people if you have less bullets and don't have an assault rifle or other high powered military gun.

You have no use for a shitload of bullets or a gun designed for a war zone.

Therefore there is no reason to have one.

Will crazy people kill people? Sure. But they will kill less people.

Why's this confusing to you?

Yeah, you can't arrest someone for saying stuff no matter how big a dick he is. It should be easier to arrest a husband or a boyfriend for physical abuse though, and to do so without the other's consent because long term abuse makes it too difficult for them to speak out against the person in question.

Nevada does a descent job, they could do better I'm sure but any sign of abuse and the officer can arrest the guy on the spot (or the girl for that matter) they don't need the word of the other person. If there is a domestic violence call even from a neighbor they don't need permission to enter, they can bust in like gangbusters. I like it. It probably saves a lot of lives. Those relationships usually end very tragically.

That's not really a fair assessment of the situation.

If for instance a 300lb lineman for a professional football team decided to abuse me, I for one would not be able to stop him with an arm lock regardless of the training I had. I could probably run from a 300 lb man, but what if I couldn't?

Usually these cases are something like this. Usually no amount of kung fu is going to allow her to overpower him and he's faster anyway.

That is not how these things work though. There's an element of psychological abuse that slowly over time takes the will to fight away. Over time it even convinces them that doing nothing is better than doing something, "because then he'll get really mad."

I'm 100% for very strict laws against this and giving law enforcement the ability to put more people who do this in jail. It's very hard to arrest a husband or a boyfriend in most states if when you get there the bleeding and crying women says "No, it's okay, it was my fault" which she almost always does, because of the psychological aspect of long term abuse.

I'm not for the ability to arrest based on words only though. It should be based on physical abuse, but it should be easier to arrest them based on this.

You are completely wrong and this has been proven a hundred times and all over the world and in every state.

There are 0 facts backing up this claim you are making. Only NRA flyers... you know the NRA's sole purpose for existence is to sell more guns right? They don't care how many kids die.

Anyway. That guy who killed all those kids could not have killed half as many if his mom did not have an arsenal of guns lying around. Maybe he would have killed some if there are no background checks (which there are not any real background checks and there should be along with an assault rifle ban) but that guy would have been able to kill far fewer kids.

That's a fact.

There is no way around that fact.

I realize you gun nuts have been brainwashed and this is like trying to explain to a cult member trying to catch a meteor that it isn't magic juice it's rat poison,

but whatever, just try really really hard to think logically.

Taking away assault rifles would and has decreased violence. We've seen this. We know it for a fact. You've no piece of evidence to prove otherwise. And since you still have every right to have a gun (though I'm beginning to think those so gun crazy, like yourself obviously, should not have any guns) your rights are not being "taken away."

It's a dumb argument. Like 85% of the country agrees. It's gun idiots and those getting rich from gun nuts (the nra and gun sellers), who care nothing that psychos are able to kill dozens of kids at a time instead of only 1 or 2 now, who think otherwise. Everyone else sees through you false patriotism and your empty and thoroughly disproven arguments.

Not even the NRA handbook has been able to twist the numbers to say this. Now you're just making stuff up. There may be equal amounts of crazy people attempting violence if mental issues are not also addressed, but they are unable to shoot a bunch of people, since they don't have access to a high powered gun with shitloads of bullets. Again, does your head hurt from this logic?

There are shootings all of the time in areas where having a gun is perfectly legal. Your theory this prevents violence is 100% incorrect, and frankly sounds like a child daydreaming about being a superhero.

The reality is that more powerful guns with more bullets for more people only leads to one thing, more dead people.

That is a fact.

All of your fanciful imagination doesn't change this.

No killer has ever not killed because they are afraid you might have a gun joe. That's not how it works. You're not dirty hairy.

So like when people have less bullets and less powerful guns they will magically be able to kill more people? Does being republican hurt your head? That's a lot of denial.

You know the internet has this thing called "porn" that you can look at. Girls like that? Completely naked. Crazy huh?

So don't worry joe, you can be a perv whilst also supporting laws that will lead to less dead people.

Must be Jesuit. Catholics haven't burned all of them yet?

Unless you're a human capable of thought. Then you are able to do really cool stuff that robots and monkeys can't, like consider individual circumstances.

Don't hurt yourself though, I know you're a republican.

That religious kid wearing that sign needs to chill out .

Did you even read the article? It makes Republicans look like they are enslaving workers to create the death star.

I mean, they are dicks and completely bought off by special interest millionaires, I'm just surprised the article makes you so happy

...or did you only read the "Republicans are winning" part?

The sensationalism of the article aside, let's review what Republicans have won:

They lost the election and lost seats in the most powerful representative branch, the Senate,

They lost the popular vote for House seats and only still have the majority there due to a lack of tea party psychos up for re-election and electoral map gerrymandering.

They chickened out on the fiscal cliff because they knew democrats would then be able to come back with the tax adjustments they really wanted.

They didn't get to continue tax cuts for the richest of the rich, which was only ever their true concern.

They didn't get to starve kids who need food stamps and old people who need SS to live. I know that's going to keep them up at night. They hate those lazy kids and worthless old people.

They are less popular now than they were when Obama was elected the first time.

Yep, keep on winning republicans.

I would go bar hopping and collect free alcohol in a large container while handing out fake numbers and making sure my boobs slip out constantly.

Then to avoid highly emotional states that I find confusing and frankly frightening,

I'd wait until I again had a penis to enjoy all my free alcohol.

"Evil" is a human construct. Useful. But just something we made up.

When whales catch a seal, and they toss it about basically torturing it for what is often hours, that is not evil, it just is because they do not have the capacity to feel for that seal.

However, us having that capacity, most and hopefully all sane humans would agree that torturing a seal for hours even if the plan is to eventually eat it, is "evil."

If there were an all powerful god, and if given that our capacity to understand the concept of evil is more complex than say a whale's, this means that like us to the whale, a god would have a completely different concept of this idea.

How very human our perception of what is evil is, more points to it being solely human. If there were some god to determine the nature of this phenomenon to us, it would seem alien to our small brains.

So no. It if anything strengthens the argument against any deity.

I actually agree with the general premise of much of the link, surprisingly.

But I see no evidence that those numbers in my links have been skewed, nor reason why they would be. The position that all government is always lying is ludicrous. Government is complex, and ours is made up of people. I should think it would "lie" no more or less then a corporation, a business, or a person. Some things they lie about some things they do not.

Independent studies seem reliable to me. The amount our healthcare costs compared to countries with universal healthcare would be impossible to fake on such a scale. The health of the population of those countries compared to ours would be impossible to fake.