Becayse most people against guns have never held a firearm let alone used one

pic in OP didnt work, here it is

I personally enjoy the billboard on the mass pike that says "we need a federal assault weapons ban" or whatever. It has a counter of gun deaths since sandy hook and it's at like 30000 or something but 99.9% of those are from handguns 😂

if the government asked me to turn in my guns, i would.

wepresidentnowif the government asked me to turn in my guns, i would.

What's it like being a sheep? Do you listen to all shepherds or just the government-shepherd? All your baa-ing is getting annoying. Perhaps it's time for mutton?

This one is my favorite

Well as far as the government knows I have no guns ha.

That quote in OP is too stupid to be real. How is this woman an elected official??? Oh right....California.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Let's give everyone a gun then no one will need a gun, gun crisis solved. Bojack horseman ftw.

This can't be real. If I was in that room with her holding the gun like that, i would have took cover, and then yelled at her. (Just as i was yelled at the first time I held a gun incorrectly)

They speak as if they are experts and in reality know nothing.

Consider this...

Feinstein can in a sense, owe her current position to gun violence.

in 1978, The mayor of SF and supervisor Harvey Milk (who was an instrumental gay rights activist) were murdered by one of the former city supervisors, Dan White - who was effectively pissed that Moscone didn't reappoint him as a supervisor, and that Milk had lobbied against his re-appointment. (He also planned to kill future SF mayor Willie Brown, and former freedom rider Carol Ruth Silver)

(Dan White basically got away with murder, and only served like 5 years in prison thanks to his "twinkie defense" (literally said he was depressed and suffered diminished capacity because he changed his diet to twinkies and unhealthy foods) He committed suicide after his parole.)

--

After this, Feinstein rose to prominence, became Mayor of SF and then California state senator. It's possible that without it, others may have rose through the ranks in her place - namely those such as Harvey Milk, or Mayor Mascone, both of whom were quite well regarded.

as for Feinstein, and someone who has voted for her before - the main reason she keeps getting elected is because A: Democrat (and lets face it, Californians would vote for mickey Mouse if he had a D next to his name, these days) and B: no serious challenger has even had a chance because they're either really lame republicans, or Democrats looking to raise their profile just by having gone up against Feinstein... She's not the progressive bill pusher she used to be in the 80's/90's... Now she's kinda just talking out of her ass like many other older congress members who probably have diminished capacity themselves just due to too much time in the beltway...

She did not receive my vote last time around (Neither did her challenger). I am a strong advocate for term limits in congress simply because of old fogeys like feinstein. Congress sucks because it's just the old guard, and anyone new just gets sucked into it as they try to appeal for support of their own bills to the powerful. There should be no more than 3 terms for a senator, and 5 terms for a House Rep, IMO. Nobody should hold office for much more than a decade...

This chart compares the ranks of percentage of people who admitted to gun ownership from 2007 census data to 2010 fbi murder rate data for the 50 states and DC.

It was the data available, obviously using the same or multiple years of data would be better and there are better potential metrics about guns than the people admitting to owning them but the data doesn't lie.

I looked at comparing the ownership percentages to murder rates as X,Y but it just recreates the purple graph more or less. I think seeing states and both ranks at the same time tells a better story.

So in DC, the 3.6% of the population own guns but 16.5 per 100k die from gun murders.

In Hawaii, 6.7% of the population own guns but only 0.5 per 100k die from guns.

In Wyoming, 59.7% of people admit to owning guns but 0.9 per 100k die from them.

Tell me, do more guns stop gun murders or do more guns create gun murders? The inverse as well. Or does this data set tell you absolutely nothing about how guns relate to gun murders?

My takeaway: it's not where the guns are, it's who has the guns so everyone should just stop trying to prove something they can't. Also stay the fuck away from DC.

BombogenesisI personally enjoy the billboard on the mass pike that says "we need a federal assault weapons ban" or whatever. It has a counter of gun deaths since sandy hook and it's at like 30000 or something but 99.9% of those are from handguns 😂

by fenway? werent they ordered to remove that or something due to how misleading it was?

t_robThis chart compares the ranks of percentage of people who admitted to gun ownership from 2007 census data to 2010 fbi murder rate data for the 50 states and DC.

It was the data available, obviously using the same or multiple years of data would be better and there are better potential metrics about guns than the people admitting to owning them but the data doesn't lie.

I looked at comparing the ownership percentages to murder rates as X,Y but it just recreates the purple graph more or less. I think seeing states and both ranks at the same time tells a better story.

So in DC, the 3.6% of the population own guns but 16.5 per 100k die from gun murders.

In Hawaii, 6.7% of the population own guns but only 0.5 per 100k die from guns.

In Wyoming, 59.7% of people admit to owning guns but 0.9 per 100k die from them.

Tell me, do more guns stop gun murders or do more guns create gun murders? The inverse as well. Or does this data set tell you absolutely nothing about how guns relate to gun murders?

My takeaway: it's not where the guns are, it's who has the guns so everyone should just stop trying to prove something they can't. Also stay the fuck away from DC.

Absolutely moot point. Note the population density of those three places.

In Wyoming, how the fuck are you going to murder someone.. You can't find your neighbor to begin with...

As a non-American, the only thing I see retarded about all the 'Guns vs no guns' bullshit is that you need guns for self defence in order to feel safe. I'm not making a point about gun, rather about American society.

*DUMBCAN*As a non-American, the only thing I see retarded about all the 'Guns vs no guns' bullshit is that you need guns for self defence in order to feel safe. I'm not making a point about gun, rather about American society.

It is bullshit... it's like people can't fucking defend themselves without a sword. Less guns, more Katanas!

but seriously, it is pretty pathetic if you think about it. We see each other as wild rabid bears.

DingoSeanAbsolutely moot point. Note the population density of those three places.

In Wyoming, how the fuck are you going to murder someone.. You can't find your neighbor to begin with...

Have a new set of outliers.

t_robThis chart compares the ranks of percentage of people who admitted to gun ownership from 2007 census data to 2010 fbi murder rate data for the 50 states and DC.

It was the data available, obviously using the same or multiple years of data would be better and there are better potential metrics about guns than the people admitting to owning them but the data doesn't lie.

I looked at comparing the ownership percentages to murder rates as X,Y but it just recreates the purple graph more or less. I think seeing states and both ranks at the same time tells a better story.

So in DC, the 3.6% of the population own guns but 16.5 per 100k die from gun murders.

In Hawaii, 6.7% of the population own guns but only 0.5 per 100k die from guns.

In Wyoming, 59.7% of people admit to owning guns but 0.9 per 100k die from them.

Tell me, do more guns stop gun murders or do more guns create gun murders? The inverse as well. Or does this data set tell you absolutely nothing about how guns relate to gun murders?

My takeaway: it's not where the guns are, it's who has the guns so everyone should just stop trying to prove something they can't. Also stay the fuck away from DC.

I think that graph tells nothing as it is completely false in numbers. The number of people who admit to having guns does in no way actually tell the real number of people who have guns. Also, pennsylvania has one of the higher gun death or murder numbers, but I'd love to see a split on gun ownership over the whole state compared to where the gun deaths happen. Philly is chocked full of gun deaths and murders, while I'd bet 95% of the gun ownership admitted is outside the city. Every house in rural PA has a gun in it or damn close I'd bet.

i wonder if there's a certain demographic or group of people that are responsible for the high rates of gun violence in DC/Chicago?

hmmm.... nah, couldn't be

Doesn't really matter. We elect all kinds of bullshit people into office. We're all about electing career politicians, or rich people that want to take a stab in the limelight, not so good about getting people in that don't suck balls.

Our govt is pretty bunk across the board. Oh well, nothings going to change anytime soon. I don't even vote most of the time because it's hard to find anyone worth voting for.

wepresidentnowi wonder if there's a certain demographic or group of people that are responsible for the high rates of gun violence in DC/Chicago?

hmmm.... nah, couldn't be

...are you seriously going there?

wepresidentnowi wonder if there's a certain demographic or group of people that are responsible for the high rates of gun violence in DC/Chicago?

hmmm.... nah, couldn't be

I certainly don't think so, at least not here in Philly. (some sarcasm included)

http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/crime-maps-stats/HomicideReport-2013.pdf

t_robHave a new set of outliers.

That graph is a lot more accurate. Look at how many times the population density matches up with the murder rate...

...and even then it still fails to tell the story.

PASKIINGSUCKSI think that graph tells nothing as it is completely false in numbers. The number of people who admit to having guns does in no way actually tell the real number of people who have guns. Also, pennsylvania has one of the higher gun death or murder numbers, but I'd love to see a split on gun ownership over the whole state compared to where the gun deaths happen. Philly is chocked full of gun deaths and murders, while I'd bet 95% of the gun ownership admitted is outside the city. Every house in rural PA has a gun in it or damn close I'd bet.

How about when austraila had a bunch of gun control laws passed and there have been 0 massacres and death suicides rates went down about 60%. That's shows that gun control works curious as to people who are agenst gun control think on that.

zzzskizzzHow about when austraila had a bunch of gun control laws passed and there have been 0 massacres and death suicides rates went down about 60%. That's shows that gun control works curious as to people who are agenst gun control think on that.

Then how do you explain Switzerland?

Ralph_Swaggumby fenway? werent they ordered to remove that or something due to how misleading it was?

Maybe but I drove by it last week so they definitely haven't yet

zzzskizzzHow about when austraila had a bunch of gun control laws passed and there have been 0 massacres and death suicides rates went down about 60%. That's shows that gun control works curious as to people who are agenst gun control think on that.

Counter argument: England 2003.

zzzskizzzHow about when austraila had a bunch of gun control laws passed and there have been 0 massacres and death suicides rates went down about 60%. That's shows that gun control works curious as to people who are agenst gun control think on that.

I'm not against all gun control actually.

They're gun control laws were forced, not passed democratically and I would be curious to see how that would even go down in the US. They also enacted huge buyback programs to get rid of guns, which I also would wonder how effective that would be here in the US.

Most of all that movement toward gun control in Australia was spurred by one major massacre, in which the killer admitted to buying the weapons in question illegally. One of the measures I'm all for if we are talking about gun control.

Also, guns are still very much legal and owned in Australia and yes the numbers of gun murder have gone way down.

t_robCounter argument: England 2003.

Counter argument to both: Australia and England aren't the USA, don't have the same culture as the USA, don't have the same gang complex of the USA, don't have the same population spread of the USA and you can't compare one country to another so generally.

Might as well just compare the USA to Burma. Same useless comparative argument applies.

Anyway, to add my $0.02 to this neverending argument about guns.

Assault weapons (or, in my opinion; any automatic or semi-automatic weapon that's also a derivative of a military weapon - whether rifle or sidearm) should not be as easily obtained as it has been in this country.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So don't give people guns.

AT-ATThen how do you explain Switzerland?

They are Swiss. And that should tell you enough.

wepresidentnowi wonder if there's a certain demographic or group of people that are responsible for the high rates of gun violence in DC/Chicago?

hmmm.... nah, couldn't be

Im from the suburbs of Chi and can tell you without a doubt the crime in the city is so high because of poor ethnic neighborhoods with gangs. The crime is the highest in those areas and gets lower when you move away. Almost all those firearms are stolen or black market purchases.

DingoSean...are you seriously going there?

uhh.. yea ....but r u srs m8?

Guns don't kill people..

Gangs and the mentally-ill use guns to kill people..

You need to fix the source of the problem.

DingoSeanCounter argument to both: Australia and England aren't the USA, don't have the same culture as the USA, don't have the same gang complex of the USA, don't have the same population spread of the USA and you can't compare one country to another so generally.

Might as well just compare the USA to Burma. Same useless comparative argument applies.

Gang complex? Almost everyone in my extended family is a gun owner. None of which are gang members. I kind of see what you're saying though.

My point would be guns are used for many many different things in this country and getting rid of many of them like Australia did IMO would never fly here.

DingoSeanIt is bullshit... it's like people can't fucking defend themselves without a sword. Less guns, more Katanas!

but seriously, it is pretty pathetic if you think about it. We see each other as wild rabid bears.

you would honestly feel comfortable letting your 90 year old grandmother have only 1 way to defend her life? and that 1 way is to physically fight at 90 years of age......possibly fighting someone much younger and healthier too lol you're clueless. countless accounts of old women using a gun to fend off an attacker when they would have otherwise had no other way to effectively defend their life.

DingoSeanIt is bullshit... it's like people can't fucking defend themselves without a sword. Less guns, more Katanas!

but seriously, it is pretty pathetic if you think about it. We see each other as wild rabid bears.

We don't necessarily see each other as rabid bears Sean... More that we know there are some crazy people out there. If one of those crazy people breaks into my house I want to be ready for it before they kill my dog or my gf. I don't distrust everyone.. Instead I know there are some loonies no matter how small a percentage of the population they are.

DingoSeanGuns don't kill people. People kill people. So don't give people guns.

hey while you're at it, might as well not give them bows and arrows or knives.

wepresidentnowif the government asked me to turn in my guns, i would.

i really hope your kidding.

SFBi really hope your kidding.

honestly? no.

only have a couple of rifles and a shotgun. don't ever shoot them, don't ever need them, and no, nobody is going to burglarize me. although, rural oregon doesn't have a ton of "ethnic neighborhoods" where violent crime is high so i guess i have nothing to worry about besides the one off meth addict.

rather take the $1500 or so they're worth and put that to something more worthwhile in life

if you wanna own guns, not my business, go for it. all you buddy.

maybe i'm getting to be an old man but putting money to travel/real estate is a hell of a lot more rewarding than just buying more stuff

wepresidentnowhonestly? no.

only have a couple of rifles and a shotgun. don't ever shoot them, don't ever need them, and no, nobody is going to burglarize me. although, rural oregon doesn't have a ton of "ethnic neighborhoods" where violent crime is high so i guess i have nothing to worry about besides the one off meth addict.

rather take the $1500 or so they're worth and put that to something more worthwhile in life

if you wanna own guns, not my business, go for it. all you buddy.

maybe i'm getting to be an old man but putting money to travel/real estate is a hell of a lot more rewarding than just buying more stuff

im thinking more that it would be a direct violation of the constitution which is not ok. i feel like "shall not be infringed upon" is pretty clear.

At this point, the best solution I've heard put forth is mandatory background checks for all purchases, public and private, based on some kind of national database tied to criminal records, gun manufacturing records, and (if possible) mental health records. We can set up a system very similar to that used for cars, where you have to have a title and registration on file with a government entity. We should have a waiting period of some kind (which may not apply to all classes of guns) to help prevent people with clean records who are under some kind of emotional or other stress from doing bad shit out of nowhere.

You see this? It doesn't take away or ban guns, which is dumb for various reasons, but it still tackles a very real problem.

Hey folks!!!

Whats the murder rate like in the UK where guns are nearly impossible to get?

Oh, really fucking low you say?

wepresidentnowhonestly? no.

only have a couple of rifles and a shotgun. don't ever shoot them, don't ever need them, and no, nobody is going to burglarize me. although, rural oregon doesn't have a ton of "ethnic neighborhoods" where violent crime is high so i guess i have nothing to worry about besides the one off meth addict.

rather take the $1500 or so they're worth and put that to something more worthwhile in life

if you wanna own guns, not my business, go for it. all you buddy.

maybe i'm getting to be an old man but putting money to travel/real estate is a hell of a lot more rewarding than just buying more stuff

well shit what you got? looking to sell?

californiagrownHey folks!!!

Whats the murder rate like in the UK where guns are nearly impossible to get?

Oh, really fucking low you say?

t_robThis chart compares the ranks of percentage of people who admitted to gun ownership from 2007 census data to 2010 fbi murder rate data for the 50 states and DC.

It was the data available, obviously using the same or multiple years of data would be better and there are better potential metrics about guns than the people admitting to owning them but the data doesn't lie.

I looked at comparing the ownership percentages to murder rates as X,Y but it just recreates the purple graph more or less. I think seeing states and both ranks at the same time tells a better story.

So in DC, the 3.6% of the population own guns but 16.5 per 100k die from gun murders.

In Hawaii, 6.7% of the population own guns but only 0.5 per 100k die from guns.

In Wyoming, 59.7% of people admit to owning guns but 0.9 per 100k die from them.

Tell me, do more guns stop gun murders or do more guns create gun murders? The inverse as well. Or does this data set tell you absolutely nothing about how guns relate to gun murders?

My takeaway: it's not where the guns are, it's who has the guns so everyone should just stop trying to prove something they can't. Also stay the fuck away from DC.

why the hell would you use a line graph

PASKIINGSUCKSI'm not against all gun control actually.

They're gun control laws were forced, not passed democratically and I would be curious to see how that would even go down in the US. They also enacted huge buyback programs to get rid of guns, which I also would wonder how effective that would be here in the US.

Most of all that movement toward gun control in Australia was spurred by one major massacre, in which the killer admitted to buying the weapons in question illegally. One of the measures I'm all for if we are talking about gun control.

Also, guns are still very much legal and owned in Australia and yes the numbers of gun murder have gone way down.

thank you for a real response the other two just named countries and wasn't an argument.

Phil-X-well shit what you got? looking to sell?

Savage Model 24F-G (I think that's what it is anyway...): http://www.cylindersmith.com/savage24/sav1.jpg

pretty rad gun, .22Mag over 20 gauge shotgun, single shot breakaway.

prolly want $600 for that one.

and a merlin bolt action .22 not anything special...I'm not sure if I'd be willing to ship cuz it doesn't break down like the savage

SFB

so how many murders are there in the UK? I seriously dont know. Please inform me.

Banning guns is stupid. Guns are banned in Chicago and yet that city has some of the highest rates of gun violence.

Stop banning guns and ban gangstas

milk_manStop banning guns and ban gangstas

Everyone who now acts gangsta on this site will be given a ban.

Green names don't ban gangstas, gangstas ban gangstas.