296 people unable to attend the NRA Annual Meeting

By that logic, I guess guns really should be perfectly okay with you, because people get shot and live all the time. Hell, look at Gabby Gifford - she got shot in the head and lived to talk about it.

I've been contacting my legislatures, going to presentations by the local state prosecutor's office and using Q&A time to let her know we expect enforcement, and working to get good judges elected (after the prosecutor FAIRLY complained that she could prosecute all she wanted, but it didn't' matter if the judges didn't want the law enforced).

Oh, and I've been pushing for decriminalization of a lot of things like pot - and the ability to shoot someone who threatens me or my family anywhere on our property.

Demiurge, Chad, Rick, etc. have won me over! Guns are indeed more lethal than clubs. Armed (no pun intended) with this knowledge, I feel sorry for robbers who get near me with a club when I carry one of these "guns" you speak of.

Everybody wins! The robber population decreases (saving taxpayer money on their inevitable incarceration time) I live another day (working and contributing to the tax base) and anti-gun people have insane orgasms because they can add another gun death to attest to their proof that guns kill people better than clubs.

That said, one robber shot would just be "anectdotal" so we need to start shooting every single one of them and examine the data.

And people who consider that "normal" are scared of so much else.

That's nice, but how about for once you respond to the actual argument being made with a cogent and reasoned argument of your own?

Impossible. A large segment of gun-lubbers are Me-toos. They're incapable of forming a cogent argument on their own.

What's the crux of the argument? Guns are more available in America, and guns are more lethal than many of weapons?

Keep using children as a shield, too, I'm sure that'll always work and never be seen for what it is.

You can try that card every single time and I will continue to point out that every time we on the pro-gun side "turn our backs" the anti-gun side starts talking bans or the things they want will lead to an eventual ban.

You can't cry foul when we call you a liar when you, Chad, Demi and et al. say you don't want to ban guns. Because history shows that people on your side do want to ban them and your willing to work on it over the long term.

And why would I say it to Barbara Boxer? First she's not from my state. Second even if I could get in a position to tell her she's not going to care.

You're a fucking idiot.

The reason armies switched to guns was because guns allowed them to attack the enemy at a distance. The lethal part had nothing to do with it because I guarantee that a sword to the gut is every bit as deadly as a bullet to the gut.

Especially given the state of medicine when armies where switching over from sword to firearm.

Also barring a hit to a vital organ most people can and do survive being shot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0

In order to "keep doing" something, one first has to start doing it, Vizzini.

No one here has ever said a gun isn't dangerous.

The point is for you stupid fucks out there that you think getting rid of guns will magically stop people from dying.

It won't.

Now, what can be done for the stupid fucks who still believe the argument is "getting rid of guns"?

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/

Those people aren't stupid fucks because they are right when they say anti-gun people, in particular leftists, want to ban guns.

It might take a generation but the left wants so many laws and regulations that one day we will all wake up and the guns will be gone.

The left just tried it in the Senate but because a bunch of DEMOCRATS who live in gun liking states got cold feet the bill died.

All it takes is for Obama to get one more SCOTUS judge that is hostile to the 2nd Amendment and you will then have the left using the courts to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Keep on shoveling your bullshit.....

You have been. Your use of that cartoon is just the latest example of it.

How many of them post here?

No. Go back and read it. If you can't understand what is being said, then you have no business partaking in this discussion.

Honestly Rick, I'm tired of talking about gun control. All I know is gun control is worthless as tits on a pipe-wrench here in America. Thank goodness the majority see it for what it is (feel-good bullshit).

You don't even live here, so why do you give a shit? Are you afraid us gun-slinging cretins will sail across the pond and unleash our plentiful and available guns among your populace?

I'm fucking glad that the Liberals will not and cannot put the gun genie back in the bottle. Hell, I think we should ramp up gun production and give vouchers for low income people so they can arm themselves.

There are a lot more hard-working law abiding people than there are criminals, so I think the criminals might get the shitty end of the gunfight game.

America is dangerous...I get it. But it's not so dangerous that much of the world would rather live and prosper here versus most other places that do not have guns.

So if responsible people want to own and shoot guns and level the playing field against those who will do them harm, why does that put your panties in a bind?

Do you have anything to back that up? Because there is at least one aspect of gun control which the majority supports.

The majority of our country voted Democrat for our nations highest office....fucking TWICE!
Being part of the majority doesn't mean much really.

That didn't take you long to go from praising the majority straight to condemning them. Apparently the majority doesn't agree with you.

You do know that the largest survey group out of the 5 I could see was just over 1,700? Since when is that even considered a valid public opinion?

Then don't, especially if all you're going to contribute is idiotic non-sequitor.

I do not limit my concerns to that which directly affects me.

Now, address the points that were made or piss off.

Yeah, and the margin of error across each survey ranged from 2.3% to 3.5%.

This might help.

Oh, fuck off, you stupid prick.

The list of weapons that could be used at a distance is long and varied over the course of history. Atatls, Javelins, Pilum, Spears, Slings, Bows, Crossbows, Throwing Knives, Shuriken, Throwing Axes, etc ad nauseum. These didn't immediately supplant the sword or axe. They were usually supplementary weapons.

Guns were supplementary weapons first as well.

You are looking at accuracy, penetration, wounding power, and rate of fire. Guns have increased in these capacities by several orders of magnitude over the last few centuries.

Because of these things, they became the predominant military weapon for the soldier, and with the advent of the repeating rifle effectively buried the personal melee weapons.

So guess what? The same functionality that makes the gun a better military weapon to kill the enemy is the same reason its a better weapon to kill innocent civilians.

Its the lethality of the weapon that is in question, and that's more than just weather or not it will cut off someone's head.

A person with an AR-15 is a more effective dealer of death than a person with a claymore.

Period.

There's no fucking argument here, dimwit. This is an established fact.

Lying your ass of again about what other people HAVE to believe, I see.
No, no one said getting rid of guns will magically stop people from dying.

No one said we should get rid of all guns. You can lie all you want about that because your intellectual masters tell you that's true, but I know what I think, and you saying otherwise just makes you an assclown.

What we have said is that the ease of getting guns in this culture means that lots of people die who wouldn't otherwise, and there's no end of studies and research that back that up.

So, once again for the monumentally deluded, having better precautions against guns getting in the wrong hands would make for a safer society, and less people would die. Not all people would stop dying, not we would sing hari-krishna as we rode off into the sunset, but there's a better chance that are young people who are the predominant victims of gun violence would grow up to be useful members of society.

It's really fucking simple.

But you can't believe it, because you are brainwashed by the LIBERTY LETS KILL THE GOVERNMENT types who are funded by the people that sell the guns.

Go wet your bed.

Over and over it is claimed that "we don't want to get rid of the guns!" and over and over examples are cited that the only way those incidents could have been prevented would be complete removal of guns.