Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

5-Year-Old North Dakota Boy Shoots 9-Month-Old Brother to Death


Sly_Paragon

Recommended Posts

With that logic let's get rid of cars to reduce all car accidents. Let's also take hitting out of hockey to prevent related injuries. In fact let's just bubble wrap the entire world to reduce all forms of injuries in just about every situation.

The difference between guns and cars is the intended use. Cars are a necessity for transportations and accidents will happen. As well, the intended purpose of cars is not to hit things with them but to get from Point A to Point B. The intended purpose of guns is to shoot things. Guns are not necessary for the vast majority of people who own them. The uses people commonly point out for guns are recreational activity (hunting, gun range, etc.), livelihood (farmers who need to put down animals, hunting for food), and protection.

1) Those recreational activities are a choice. Hunting for fun is not a necessity. People can do it provided they are properly trained in gun safety. Guns can be rented from the shooting range, it is not necessary to own a gun if your sole purpose is to use them at a shooting range.

2) Again, similar to hunting for fun, using guns for livelihood is fine provided proper training and knowledge is acquired.

3) Protection, From what exactly? The imaginary boogey-man that people are afraid will break into their house. Studies have shown (studies which are posted earlier in the thread) that most home invasions happen when the home owner isn't home and even if you are, the perpetrator is more likely to be someone known to you than the scary stranger, and you are more likely to get injured/killed if you reach for your gun than if you just comply.

I should emphasize, my problem isn't with gun ownership as a whole. I don't advocate a complete ban on guns. However, far less people should own guns than the number that do. If the problem is with education about gun safety, then give less people guns, and it's less likely that guns will fall into the hands of idiots who leave them loaded, with the safety off, lying around. You can try a mass education program, or to force people into a gun safety course before giving them the gun, but while the truly responsible people will continue to use them safely, habits will slip for the majority.

Only give guns to the people who need guns, and there'll be less guns out there, decreasing the chance of accidents.

PS. You can throw studies around that support both sides of the argument. People will find the stats which suit their position and write about it. Just as papers written by proponents of gun ownership will be biased one way, papers written by anti-gun people will be biased the other way. Trading articles gets us nowhere. Just use common sense and meet in the middle. The solution isn't 'Everybody should have a gun, so everybody is safe!" just as the solution isn't, "Ban all guns! Guns kill people!". Less guns, less accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have provided no information that contradicts the evidence that I have presented that possessing a gun in the home places the people in that home in more danger of injury or death than not possessing a gun in the home , all you have done is try to water down the statistics.

You seem unable to grasp basic logic , if you possess a weapon whose primary function is to injure or kill then the chance of injury or death is greater than not possessing that weapon.

When another poster points out the obvious , that not having guns reduces accidents by %100 you reply 'With that logic let's get rid of cars to reduce all car accidents. Let's also take hitting out of hockey to prevent related injuries. In fact let's just bubble wrap the entire world to reduce all forms of injuries in just about every situation.

You continue to provide logically unsound/ fallacious arguments , you compare an object whose purpose is transportation and a game to a weapon whose primary purpose is to injure and kill , that is both ridciulous and illogical.

Stop the BS claims about providing information that contradicts my assertion that possessing a gun in the home increases the chance of injury or death , you have provided no such information because there is no such information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS. You can throw studies around that support both sides of the argument. People will find the stats which suit their position and write about it. Just as papers written by proponents of gun ownership will be biased one way, papers written by anti-gun people will be biased the other way. Trading articles gets us nowhere. Just use common sense and meet in the middle. The solution isn't 'Everybody should have a gun, so everybody is safe!" just as the solution isn't, "Ban all guns! Guns kill people!". Less guns, less accidents.

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”

David Hemenway ......Director of the harvard injury control resarch centre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between guns and cars is the intended use. Cars are a necessity for transportations and accidents will happen. As well, the intended purpose of cars is not to hit things with them but to get from Point A to Point B. The intended purpose of guns is to shoot things. Guns are not necessary for the vast majority of people who own them. The uses people commonly point out for guns are recreational activity (hunting, gun range, etc.), livelihood (farmers who need to put down animals, hunting for food), and protection.

1) Those recreational activities are a choice. Hunting for fun is not a necessity. People can do it provided they are properly trained in gun safety. Guns can be rented from the shooting range, it is not necessary to own a gun if your sole purpose is to use them at a shooting range.

2) Again, similar to hunting for fun, using guns for livelihood is fine provided proper training and knowledge is acquired.

3) Protection, From what exactly? The imaginary boogey-man that people are afraid will break into their house. Studies have shown (studies which are posted earlier in the thread) that most home invasions happen when the home owner isn't home and even if you are, the perpetrator is more likely to be someone known to you than the scary stranger, and you are more likely to get injured/killed if you reach for your gun than if you just comply.

I should emphasize, my problem isn't with gun ownership as a whole. I don't advocate a complete ban on guns. However, far less people should own guns than the number that do. If the problem is with education about gun safety, then give less people guns, and it's less likely that guns will fall into the hands of idiots who leave them loaded, with the safety off, lying around. You can try a mass education program, or to force people into a gun safety course before giving them the gun, but while the truly responsible people will continue to use them safely, habits will slip for the majority.

Only give guns to the people who need guns, and there'll be less guns out there, decreasing the chance of accidents.

PS. You can throw studies around that support both sides of the argument. People will find the stats which suit their position and write about it. Just as papers written by proponents of gun ownership will be biased one way, papers written by anti-gun people will be biased the other way. Trading articles gets us nowhere. Just use common sense and meet in the middle. The solution isn't 'Everybody should have a gun, so everybody is safe!" just as the solution isn't, "Ban all guns! Guns kill people!". Less guns, less accidents.

Hunting is a necessity for many. Living in an urban area Vancouverites may not recognize that but it is a big part of people's lives elsewhere in the country. Just because you think they are not necessary does not mean that they aren't. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses but it is just one opinion. Nothing about it is factual.

Hunting is not just for fun. For many people it is how they eat. Many people who live in urban areas, such as myself, would rather eat wild game then some hormore ridden animal you buy at the grocery store. Many of us also find it more humane to go out and hunt an animal living in the wild instead of having it raised in a disgusting over populated barn where the animals are abused and treated worse than prisoners of war are treated.

When it comes to owning a firearm for the purpose of target shooting or going to a range it is much safer to use a firearm you are familiar with and know the mechanics of. Going to a range and using some random firearm you have never used before. So again your argument here is very debatable.

Less guns = Less accidents is not a proven theory. More education = less accidents is proven.

You don't reduce guns to reduce accidents. You increase education and training.

For every study you show me that says you are more likely to be injured by having a firearm in your home while being the victim of a home invasion I can show you another study that shows the exact opposite.

You say that habits will slip for the majority, but that is false. The majority of firearm owners never experience any serious injury or problem with their firearms. So again, that statement is not based on facts.

Oh and at no point did I say everyone should own a firearm. My initial point was that you don't blame the gun you blame the owner and the lack of respect they show the firearm. As well I said that education and training are the solution and not going crazy with restrictions or the banning of guns as it has a reverse effect and actually brings in more crime and causes more deaths overall in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have provided no information that contradicts the evidence that I have presented that possessing a gun in the home places the people in that home in more danger of injury or death than not possessing a gun in the home , all you have done is try to water down the statistics.

You seem unable to grasp basic logic , if you possess a weapon whose primary function is to injure or kill then the chance of injury or death is greater than not possessing that weapon.

When another poster points out the obvious , that not having guns reduces accidents by %100 you reply 'With that logic let's get rid of cars to reduce all car accidents. Let's also take hitting out of hockey to prevent related injuries. In fact let's just bubble wrap the entire world to reduce all forms of injuries in just about every situation.

You continue to provide logically unsound/ fallacious arguments , you compare an object whose purpose is transportation and a game to a weapon whose primary purpose is to injure and kill , that is both ridciulous and illogical.

Stop the BS claims about providing information that contradicts my assertion that possessing a gun in the home increases the chance of injury or death , you have provided no such information because there is no such information.

Actually I have provided plenty of information. Please go ahead and read the articles and statistics provided.

With proper education on storing and handling a firearm, a home is at no greater risk for injury than if they bought an axe or a chainsaw or any other tool.

When it comes to the comment made by someone else about removing guns reduces injuries 100% it's a garbage statement from the get go because we cannot live our lives by banning and removing everything that could pose any ounce of threat to our safety if used/done improperly. it is not healthy or sane to want to live in such a sheltered world where we go around banning things left right and centre.

A firearm is not meant for injuring or killing people in this country. It is meant for target shooting or hunting. A car is not meant for killing people either but it happens. I was referring to accidents happen with anything when used improperly and just because a slight risk might exist if improperly used does not mean you reduce or remove that thing from society. That is ridiculous and cowardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having guns in the first place reduces accidents by 100% ;)

Your bang on there.

However some people do have a good reason to have firearms in their house. (Hunter's for example). In these cases education on proper storage of firearms and ammunition as well as safe handling of the same are critical to reducing the potential for accidents.

Personally I've always looked at how my Grandparents treat their firearms as a shining example of the proper way to posses them. FTR they live on a trap line/ farm in Northern B.C.. My grandparents own enough firearms to equip a small army however they keep them in a large safe in their root cellar which is locked 24/7. They keep the ammunition in another locked safe in another building which is locked unless one of them is in it. The only firearms not locked up are an old French musket and his old .22 which he carries out into the woods with him. The only ammunition for the .22 that he brings are 5 rounds which he keeps on him at all times. At night the bolt for the .22 goes into a locked drawer next to the bed. It's worth noting that most of the firearms predate 1980 and most date back to his time in the army.

As a kid I learned to shoot at 7 but was taught for as long as I can remember how to handle a firearm safely. Today I have 3 handguns ( Colt 1911 , Beretta M9 and a Colt peacemaker) and 3 rifles ( Springfield 1903 , M1 Garand and Kr98k) plus several Deactivated guns. I don't keep any ammunition in my house apart from 2 magazines for the M9 which is my issued sidearm and is rarely at home anyways when it is at home it is kept in a small safe in my bedroom. I do keep a few boxes of ammunition for my other firearms in a safe in my office. The other firearms in my house are all on display in my study at which point they have the firing pins removed and a trigger lock placed on them.

I don't own any guns for self defense and honestly don't think that it's particularity necessary or a good idea to have a firearm intended for self defense in your house as it would have to be loaded and in a position for you to reach it quickly making it much more likely that it will go off accidentally and injure or kill someone. When my kids are old enough I plan on teaching them how to properly handle firearms (using one of my deactivated ones) and eventually how to safely discharge a firearm.

IMO mandatory education on how to handle firearms is much more attainable than straight up banning them.

Just my $0.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very good story to read actually about this

It is the NRA's 3rd upper man and owner of the gun manufacturing company PARA.

He is actually responding to Liam Neesons comments about guns in America after questions regarding Taken 3.

And I quote

Liam Neeson's comments on American gun control have a U.S. weapons maker up in arms.

PARA USA, the gun manufacturer that provided the firearms for Neeson's latest action film Taken 3, says it regrets working with the Irish actor after remarks he made in an interview with Dubai's Gulf News.

"There’s too many guns out there," said the 62-year-old in reaction tothe deadly attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris two weeks ago.

"Especially in America," the actor said. "I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300 million guns privately owned, in America. I think it’s a disgrace."

Actor shows 'ignorance'

PARA, a North Carolina-based gun maker, said the remarks reflect "a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties," and it called for a boycott of Neeson's movies.

"We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson," said a message on the company's Facebook page.

"Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same."

Neeson, who has a reputation for playing trigger-happy characters in his movies, hasn't commented publicly on the boycott threat.

The controversy doesn't appear to be hurting ticket sales for Taken 3,which stars Neeson as an ex-government operative​ who is framed with his wife's murder.

The shoot 'em-up thriller has grossed more than $65 million US worldwide since its release on Jan. 9.

===============================

It's actually remarkable when you delve in to this story and the comments people have made as well as the NRA's statements regarding Neesons comments that people genuinely think like this.

The view into the mind set of the american mind is frightening regarding guns gun use and gun freedoms

When people from other countries think the American culture is weird, it's called "cultural and factual ignorance".

When Americans think other countries/cultures are weird, it's called barbaric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I have provided plenty of information. Please go ahead and read the articles and statistics provided.

With proper education on storing and handling a firearm, a home is at no greater risk for injury than if they bought an axe or a chainsaw or any other tool.

When it comes to the comment made by someone else about removing guns reduces injuries 100% it's a garbage statement from the get go because we cannot live our lives by banning and removing everything that could pose any ounce of threat to our safety if used/done improperly. it is not healthy or sane to want to live in such a sheltered world where we go around banning things left right and centre.

A firearm is not meant for injuring or killing people in this country. It is meant for target shooting or hunting. A car is not meant for killing people either but it happens. I was referring to accidents happen with anything when used improperly and just because a slight risk might exist if improperly used does not mean you reduce or remove that thing from society. That is ridiculous and cowardly.

I have read the articles please show me where they state that home possessing a gun is just as safe as a home that does not possess a gun.

You keep on coming back to cars , what do cars have to do with a discussion about guns ? You are deliberately trying to confuse thed issue.

Did i ever state that guns should be removed from society ? No i did not.

I stated that a home possessing a gun/guns is a more dangerous place than a home than does not possess one.

I then provided evidence to back my claim , you have provided no evidence that contradicts that claim.

A firearm is not meant killing in this country , it is meant for hunting ? what do you think hunting is ? It is killing .

Time after time you have proved you are not capable of a rational , logical discussion on this topic , you seem to think that anyone who critises guns are trying to take them away from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your bang on there.

However some people do have a good reason to have firearms in their house. (Hunter's for example). In these cases education on proper storage of firearms and ammunition as well as safe handling of the same are critical to reducing the potential for accidents.

Personally I've always looked at how my Grandparents treat their firearms as a shining example of the proper way to posses them. FTR they live on a trap line/ farm in Northern B.C.. My grandparents own enough firearms to equip a small army however they keep them in a large safe in their root cellar which is locked 24/7. They keep the ammunition in another locked safe in another building which is locked unless one of them is in it. The only firearms not locked up are an old French musket and his old .22 which he carries out into the woods with him. The only ammunition for the .22 that he brings are 5 rounds which he keeps on him at all times. At night the bolt for the .22 goes into a locked drawer next to the bed. It's worth noting that most of the firearms predate 1980 and most date back to his time in the army.

As a kid I learned to shoot at 7 but was taught for as long as I can remember how to handle a firearm safely. Today I have 3 handguns ( Colt 1911 , Beretta M9 and a Colt peacemaker) and 3 rifles ( Springfield 1903 , M1 Garand and Kr98k) plus several Deactivated guns. I don't keep any ammunition in my house apart from 2 magazines for the M9 which is my issued sidearm and is rarely at home anyways when it is at home it is kept in a small safe in my bedroom. I do keep a few boxes of ammunition for my other firearms in a safe in my office. The other firearms in my house are all on display in my study at which point they have the firing pins removed and a trigger lock placed on them.

I don't own any guns for self defense and honestly don't think that it's particularity necessary or a good idea to have a firearm intended for self defense in your house as it would have to be loaded and in a position for you to reach it quickly making it much more likely that it will go off accidentally and injure or kill someone. When my kids are old enough I plan on teaching them how to properly handle firearms (using one of my deactivated ones) and eventually how to safely discharge a firearm.

IMO mandatory education on how to handle firearms is much more attainable than straight up banning them.

Just my $0.02

Good post PPCLI , wish there were more gun owners like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents in bolded italics.

I have read the articles please show me where they state that home possessing a gun is just as safe as a home that does not possess a gun.

They always misread the article.

You keep on coming back to cars , what do cars have to do with a discussion about guns ? You are deliberately trying to confuse thed issue.

They always use cars.

Did i ever state that guns should be removed from society ? No i did not.

I stated that a home possessing a gun/guns is a more dangerous place than a home than does not possess one.

They always use strawman.

I then provided evidence to back my claim , you have provided no evidence that contradicts that claim.

They never have official relevant statistics.

A firearm is not meant killing in this country , it is meant for hunting ? what do you think hunting is ? It is killing .

What did you expect?

Time after time you have proved you are not capable of a rational , logical discussion on this topic , you seem to think that anyone who critises guns are trying to take them away from you.

Murica... government bad freedom and guns good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that logic let's get rid of cars to reduce all car accidents. Let's also take hitting out of hockey to prevent related injuries. In fact let's just bubble wrap the entire world to reduce all forms of injuries in just about every situation.

I'm probably going to end up using my allotted number of face palms per day.... however

:picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunting is a necessity for many. Living in an urban area Vancouverites may not recognize that but it is a big part of people's lives elsewhere in the country. Just because you think they are not necessary does not mean that they aren't. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses but it is just one opinion. Nothing about it is factual.

Hunting is not just for fun. For many people it is how they eat. Many people who live in urban areas, such as myself, would rather eat wild game then some hormore ridden animal you buy at the grocery store. Many of us also find it more humane to go out and hunt an animal living in the wild instead of having it raised in a disgusting over populated barn where the animals are abused and treated worse than prisoners of war are treated.

I differentiated between hunting for fun and hunting for food. I didn't say hunting for food was a choice.

When it comes to owning a firearm for the purpose of target shooting or going to a range it is much safer to use a firearm you are familiar with and know the mechanics of. Going to a range and using some random firearm you have never used before. So again your argument here is very debatable.

For the experienced shooter who goes to shooting ranges regularly, yes. But for someone who goes regularly, but not often, and doesn't use their gun for anything else, renting rather than owning is a very viable option.

Less guns = Less accidents is not a proven theory. More education = less accidents is proven.

It's common sense. You can't have an accident involving guns, if you don't have a gun.

You don't reduce guns to reduce accidents. You increase education and training.

Why not? Maybe that's not what's being done, but it absolutely can be done. Because increasing education and training is working out so well, right?

For every study you show me that says you are more likely to be injured by having a firearm in your home while being the victim of a home invasion I can show you another study that shows the exact opposite.

I know, that's exactly what I said. That's why trading articles is getting us nowhere.

You say that habits will slip for the majority, but that is false. The majority of firearm owners never experience any serious injury or problem with their firearms. So again, that statement is not based on facts.

Just because the majority haven't experience serious injury or problem doesn't mean habits aren't slipping. For example, someone leaves their gun out in the open all day, loaded, with the safety off, and then hours later goes to bed and brings the gun with them to their bedroom, and places it in the night stand drawer till the next morning. Not accident occurred and no one was injured but the gun owner still didn't do the right things with their gun. Habits can slip without every slip resulting in a documented accident.

Oh and at no point did I say everyone should own a firearm. My initial point was that you don't blame the gun you blame the owner and the lack of respect they show the firearm. As well I said that education and training are the solution and not going crazy with restrictions or the banning of guns as it has a reverse effect and actually brings in more crime and causes more deaths overall in society.

If the gun owner can't show respect to their weapon, and use common sense in safety measures, they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. You don't need to be taught that it isn't a good idea to leave your weapon loaded, with the safety off, where a 5 year old can access it. That's common sense and, again, if they can't even prevent easily preventable things like that from happening they should lose their gun owning privileges. By making it harder to get a gun, people who need one for their livelihood, such as hunting for food, will still get one, but it may deter the idiots who only want one because it's cool, from getting one. And it's those people that accidents will likely involve.

As for the more gun restrictions=more crime "fact", I can also find papers saying the opposite, and then you can papers disputing those papers, and on and on it'll go. As I've said multiple times, trading papers gets us nowhere.

I do find it ironic though that if I were to present you with a paper, such as the one claiming having a gun in a home invasion increases the risk of injury, you immediately void it's relevance by saying that you can find a paper disputing it's finding. But when presenting a claim from a paper supporting you, such as more gun restrictions=more crime, it's automatically fact in your eyes.

It should be clear to everybody that any paper supporting either side can be disputed, so dodging real discussion by hiding behind a paper and proclaiming it fact (as opposed to a paper claiming the opposite, which is clearly a load of BS), gets us nowhere.

Either don't believe any papers, or consider papers from both sides of the argument.

The difference between guns and cars is the intended use. Cars are a necessity for transportations and accidents will happen. As well, the intended purpose of cars is not to hit things with them but to get from Point A to Point B. The intended purpose of guns is to shoot things. Guns are not necessary for the vast majority of people who own them. The uses people commonly point out for guns are recreational activity (hunting, gun range, etc.), livelihood (farmers who need to put down animals, hunting for food), and protection.

1) Those recreational activities are a choice. Hunting for fun is not a necessity. People can do it provided they are properly trained in gun safety. Guns can be rented from the shooting range, it is not necessary to own a gun if your sole purpose is to use them at a shooting range.

2) Again, similar to hunting for fun, using guns for livelihood is fine provided proper training and knowledge is acquired.

3) Protection, From what exactly? The imaginary boogey-man that people are afraid will break into their house. Studies have shown (studies which are posted earlier in the thread) that most home invasions happen when the home owner isn't home and even if you are, the perpetrator is more likely to be someone known to you than the scary stranger, and you are more likely to get injured/killed if you reach for your gun than if you just comply.

I should emphasize, my problem isn't with gun ownership as a whole. I don't advocate a complete ban on guns. However, far less people should own guns than the number that do. If the problem is with education about gun safety, then give less people guns, and it's less likely that guns will fall into the hands of idiots who leave them loaded, with the safety off, lying around. You can try a mass education program, or to force people into a gun safety course before giving them the gun, but while the truly responsible people will continue to use them safely, habits will slip for the majority.

Only give guns to the people who need guns, and there'll be less guns out there, decreasing the chance of accidents.

PS. You can throw studies around that support both sides of the argument. People will find the stats which suit their position and write about it. Just as papers written by proponents of gun ownership will be biased one way, papers written by anti-gun people will be biased the other way. Trading articles gets us nowhere. Just use common sense and meet in the middle. The solution isn't 'Everybody should have a gun, so everybody is safe!" just as the solution isn't, "Ban all guns! Guns kill people!". Less guns, less accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason that you're more likely to be killed by someone related or you know, rather than a stranger breaking into your home.

I've never understood the US logic of leaving a loaded gun by your bed table. I own 3 firearms, all three are locked up. Ammunition is locked mostly separately. I do have a box of .44 special in my gun safe with my Smith & Wesson. But my 629 is not loaded. (.44 Magnum is way too much overkill.)

I also have a hockey stick and a baseball bat which would be my go to if there was a break in my home. I enjoy going to DVC, and shooting paper targets. The rules in Canada are clear cut and mostly logical about storage of firearms. I like the fact that people have to do training to get a licence.

What's hilarious is when firearms manufacturers build in things like safeties, loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, transfer bars, internal locks for safety. Americans get all huffy and upset. Clearly the number of accidental shootings doesn't register with them. On Youtube there's all sorts of videos showing how to disengage the magazine disconnect, or file or remove a loaded chamber indicator. Why? I understand the best safety is your brain. But a small item to help assist you keeping safe? And they want to remove it? I sort of understand the internal lock on revolvers wanting to be removed. Because in double action mode, the trigger pull can be like 10 lbs. you're not going to twitch and set if off. But if everyone handled firearms safely they'd never need to put a safety device like that in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that there are many variables that come into play that determine if it's safe to have a firearm in your property:

-is the gun-owner an idiot,or does he/she have common sense

-is the weapon loaded

-is the owner or whoever might have access to the gun trained on firearm safety

The same goes for self-defense I'd imagine:

-is the owner trained in firearm self defense

-can the owner access the weapon quickly if in danger

-can the owner use the weapon effectively despite the stresses a dangerous situation would provide.

Of course,there are other variables not mentioned here,but I imagine the the level of danger a firearm carries would depend on each individual household. I also think that in general,firearms do make society more dangerous, not because of the guns themselves, but because of the sheer volume of idiots that have access to them. But in no way is that a criticism of responsible gun owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a LOT of gun owners. None of them have shot a family member or had a suicide committed in their home. However I know SEVERAL that have used their firearm in a justifiable self defense. Just a coincidence though, right? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a LOT of gun owners. None of them have shot a family member or had a suicide committed in their home. However I know SEVERAL that have used their firearm in a justifiable self defense. Just a coincidence though, right? :lol:

In which town do those people live so I know to never go there?

Have your friends considered living elsewhere to eliminate the need for a firearm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...