Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 20, 2012, 01:58 PM   #51
Orange Crane
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
15 million fewer cars, but 3x the death rate.
USA car culture is way more out of control and scary than USA gun culture because so many people refuse to even address that it is a problem. You'd think that it would be limited to sprawl areas out of necessity but it's out of control in dense urban areas too, where regular auto use is more of an impediment than it is useful.
Orange Crane is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 02:35 PM   #52
Dr McKay
macrumors 68040
 
Dr McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kirkland
Send a message via MSN to Dr McKay Send a message via Skype™ to Dr McKay
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Regular refresher courses are perfectly reasonable. Pilots have to have biannual flight reviews done. Why not the same for gun owners?

Not saying a refresher course will do anything to prevent further mass shootings, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Thats not going to prevent the sheet volume of attacks committed with guns stolen from legal owners.
__________________
If only I could be so grossly incandescent.
Dr McKay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 02:55 PM   #53
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SporkLover View Post
I'd like to hear what the NRA and law makers eventually come out with.

Personally I'm not convinced yet that any form of additional gun control would have affected the outcome of this situation one way or another. He carried two other powerful hand guns, they were all legally obtained by lawful citizens. If he didn't have an assault style rifle he had two other guns that would have produced the same results.

On that front, I'm not sure responding to the control issue emotionally will make any meaningful progress.

While I do question the place of assault style rifles in the hands of private citizens, I would like lawmakers, lobbyist, and citizens alike to instead consider why Adam Lanza had access to these weapons when initial indicators show that he was somewhat off kilter. Owning a gun is an incredible responsibility and gun owners should have to bear more of a burden ensuring that they don't fall into the wrong hands. Electronic trigger smart locks, mandatory gun safes, etc.

I look forward to see what the NrA has to offer up.
[Emphasis added]
I wonder exactly what is meant by "assault style rifles".

This is a Ruger Mini-14:

The pictured variant (Mini-14GB) has a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and a 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban on assault weapons, this would qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 5-round magazine, it would still qualify.

The Ranch Rifle variant lacks the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, yet maintains the 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban, it does not qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 30-round magazine, it would still not qualify.

Both the Mini-14GB and Ranch Rifle variants fire the same ammo as was used at Sandy Hook, the 5.56x45mm round. Both variants also fire the .223 Remington. Both kinds of ammo are readily available in the US. The type of ammo has no bearing on assault-weapon qualification under the 1994 rules. (Some countries that allow firearms will prohibit civilian ownership of long arms that can fire military calibers.)

Both types of ammo would be forbidden for deer hunting in some states, as being of inadequate caliber. A typical dividing line is 6 mm or higher for deer hunting. There may be other restrictions. For example, some states prohibit magazines larger than 5 rounds for deer hunting. These rules are generally set by states, not the Federal government.


This is another Mini-14, with after-market accessories:
Thumb resize.

It has a new folding stock, scope, and "flash suppressor" added. The magazine is a 30-round model. The original wooden stock is shown below. It fires exactly the same ammo.

All these changes, in particular the new stock and flash suppressor, can be easily added without any special gunsmithing skills or tools. The scope is probably the trickiest thing to add and get sighted in.

As configured, this qualifies as an assault weapon under the 1994 rules. If a 5-round magazine replaces the 30-round magazine in this configuration, it still qualifies, even though it can fire only 5 shots without reloading. Yet a stock Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with only the addition of a 30-round magazine, and having more fire-power yet looking far less like a military weapon, would still not qualify. Even with its standard 20-round magazine, it would have four times the no-reload firepower of the "assault weapon".

Last edited by chown33; Dec 20, 2012 at 03:06 PM.
chown33 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 02:59 PM   #54
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
I wonder exactly what is meant by "assault style rifles".

This is a Ruger Mini-14:
Image
The pictured variant (Mini-14GB) has a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and a 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban on assault weapons, this would qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 5-round magazine, it would still qualify.

The Ranch Rifle variant lacks the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, yet maintains the 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban, it does not qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 30-round magazine, it would still not qualify.

Both the Mini-14GB and Ranch Rifle variants fire the same ammo as was used at Sandy Hook, the 5.56x45mm round. Both variants also fire the .223 Remington. Both kinds of ammo are readily available in the US. The type of ammo has no bearing on assault-weapon qualification under the 1994 rules. (Some countries that allow firearms will prohibit civilian ownership of long arms that can fire military calibers.)

Both types of ammo would be forbidden for deer hunting in some states, as being of inadequate caliber. A typical dividing line is 6 mm or higher for deer hunting. There may be other restrictions. For example, some states prohibit magazines larger than 5 rounds for deer hunting. These rules are generally set by states, not the Federal government.


This is another Mini-14, with after-market accessories:
Thumb resize.

It has a new folding stock, scope, and "flash suppressor" added. The magazine is a 30-round model. The original wooden stock is shown below.

All these changes, in particular the new stock and flash suppressor, can be easily added without any special gunsmithing skills or tools. The scope is probably the trickiest thing to add and get sighted in.

As configured, this qualifies as an assault weapon under the 1994 rules. If a 5-round magazine replaces the 30-round magazine in this configuration, it still qualifies, even though it can fire only 5 shots without reloading. Yet a stock Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with only the addition of a 30-round magazine, and having more fire-power yet looking far less like a military weapon, would still not qualify. Even with its standard 20-round magazine, it would have four times the no-reload firepower of the "assault weapon".
Thank you for injecting facts (OMG facts?) into an otherwise emotionally driven series of arguments.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 03:19 PM   #55
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
As configured, this qualifies as an assault weapon under the 1994 rules. If a 5-round magazine replaces the 30-round magazine in this configuration, it still qualifies, even though it can fire only 5 shots without reloading. Yet a stock Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with only the addition of a 30-round magazine, and having more fire-power yet looking far less like a military weapon, would still not qualify. Even with its standard 20-round magazine, it would have four times the no-reload firepower of the "assault weapon".
This is why I would concentrate on magazine capacity. The differences between the examples become overly esoteric and provide for too many loopholes ... not to mention endless "no true Scotsman" tirades over whether a gun is truly an assault weapon or not.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 03:22 PM   #56
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder View Post
A few years ago I'd agree with this. But I am fed up with the NRA's obstructionism and fear-mongering. I'll tell you the precise moment that happened: the day I received a letter from the NRA soliciting my membership, and calling me a traitor if I didn't join up. This organization has gone too far, and long since made a mockery of its original purpose.
I think their whole 'you need guns because the government is scary' is pretty ridiculous. They've gone from a shooting organization to more of a fear driver. The whole 'no compromise' attitude is also ridiculous. Nothing gets done that way. Then again, the government functions in that fashion as well.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 03:35 PM   #57
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
This is why I would concentrate on magazine capacity. The differences between the examples become overly esoteric and provide for too many loopholes ... not to mention endless "no true Scotsman" tirades over whether a gun is truly an assault weapon or not.
That was my point (well, one of them). If the perceived problem is high-capacity magazines, then address that as the problem, and focus on that issue specifically. I don't think it's any easier to solve, considering the number of magazines already on the market and in owners' hands.

Anyone who went through the 1994 ban also knows what the immediate result of a ban would be: 1) a deluge of high-capacity magazines being made and sold, and 2) an increase in the retail price. After the 1994 ban came into effect, the sheer number of pre-ban manufactured magazines caused the price to fall again.

There are also older-design handguns, such as the Browning Hi-Power, for which a magazine larger than 10-rounds (the 1994-ban's cutoff) is/was a stock component as shipped from the factory.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:04 PM   #58
copykris
macrumors 6502a
 
copykris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: home
i don't know where else to put this, but i enjoyed reading this:

http://gizmodo.com/5970132/walmart-i...-and-stockpile
copykris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:18 PM   #59
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by copykris View Post
i don't know where else to put this, but i enjoyed reading this:
Loved the use of the term "sporting".
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:22 PM   #60
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
I wonder exactly what is meant by "assault style rifles".

This is a Ruger Mini-14:
Image
The pictured variant (Mini-14GB) has a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and a 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban on assault weapons, this would qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 5-round magazine, it would still qualify.

The Ranch Rifle variant lacks the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, yet maintains the 20-round magazine. Under the 1994 ban, it does not qualify as an assault weapon. If the 20-round magazine were replaced by an after-market 30-round magazine, it would still not qualify.

Both the Mini-14GB and Ranch Rifle variants fire the same ammo as was used at Sandy Hook, the 5.56x45mm round. Both variants also fire the .223 Remington. Both kinds of ammo are readily available in the US. The type of ammo has no bearing on assault-weapon qualification under the 1994 rules. (Some countries that allow firearms will prohibit civilian ownership of long arms that can fire military calibers.)

Both types of ammo would be forbidden for deer hunting in some states, as being of inadequate caliber. A typical dividing line is 6 mm or higher for deer hunting. There may be other restrictions. For example, some states prohibit magazines larger than 5 rounds for deer hunting. These rules are generally set by states, not the Federal government.


This is another Mini-14, with after-market accessories:
Thumb resize.

It has a new folding stock, scope, and "flash suppressor" added. The magazine is a 30-round model. The original wooden stock is shown below. It fires exactly the same ammo.

All these changes, in particular the new stock and flash suppressor, can be easily added without any special gunsmithing skills or tools. The scope is probably the trickiest thing to add and get sighted in.

As configured, this qualifies as an assault weapon under the 1994 rules. If a 5-round magazine replaces the 30-round magazine in this configuration, it still qualifies, even though it can fire only 5 shots without reloading. Yet a stock Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with only the addition of a 30-round magazine, and having more fire-power yet looking far less like a military weapon, would still not qualify. Even with its standard 20-round magazine, it would have four times the no-reload firepower of the "assault weapon".
All this proves is that the people who authored the old Assault Weapons ban did a bad job.

Every single modified gun you described should be classified as an Assault Weapon and banned.

You even said it yourself: many states restrict you to 5 round magazines when hunting. Why on earth would anyone need 20+ rounds then?
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:24 PM   #61
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You even said it yourself: many states restrict you to 5 round magazines when hunting. Why on earth would anyone need 20+ rounds then?
They might be a lousy shot.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:28 PM   #62
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
All this proves is that the people who authored the old Assault Weapons ban did a bad job.

Every single modified gun you described should be classified as an Assault Weapon and banned.

You even said it yourself: many states restrict you to 5 round magazines when hunting. Why on earth would anyone need 20+ rounds then?
Actually, one could say the NRA did a great job of watering it down.

If you ban a certain type of gun, you can't grandfather in previous owners. That's pointless.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:31 PM   #63
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Actually, one could say the NRA did a great job of watering it down.

If you ban a certain type of gun, you can't grandfather in previous owners. That's pointless.
Let's hope the new ban that will end up being passed as a result of this tragedy isn't that stupid then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
They might be a lousy shot.
Then they shouldn't have a gun to begin with. If you're not trained well enough to shoot what you are trying to aim for, you shouldn't be shooting at all.
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:34 PM   #64
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr McKay View Post
Thats not going to prevent the sheet volume of attacks committed with guns stolen from legal owners.
I did acknowledge that in my post. But, it is still something I think that should be enacted. It keeps responsible gun owners the most up to date and making sure they can still handle the gun.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York

Last edited by quagmire; Dec 20, 2012 at 05:44 PM.
quagmire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:34 PM   #65
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
I never own a gun (I legally could), and I think the NRA are giant selfish bullies, but all of the proposals I heard on news (not all, just what I heard) in the wake of the horrible tragedy in Newtown are useless.
(In no way am I trying to belittle the horrid tragedy, or defend anyone. Just trying find a lasting solution.)

It is a simple test, "would proposed law stop the tragedies in CT, or CO, or AZ, for instance?"
If it won't, why propose it? (Answer: Political brownie points, but I diverge).

IMHO, the best way just like learning to drive, to teach everyone, from 9th grade (or earlier) and up.

Suggested topics:
Gun security (how to safety and prevent from use)
Gun safety (how to handle weapons and remove ammo)
Discipline (not to joke around or treat lightly)

and what some will object to:
Social monitoring: be aware of unstable people (suicidal, violent, drug user)
and just like a drivers licenses (another dangerous weapon if you think about it),
Regular refresher courses, especially if you own a fire arm (or bow for that matter).


Now, the talk about banning "Assault weapons"?
Despite the fearsome look of AW's, for close range, nothing beats handguns.


While I actually do not have nor never owned a gun (firearm to be exact), I have shot many weapons (Glock, 1911, Thompson Semi 45, 22's, etc), even handled and operated a fully functional machine gun (MG-15, if you want to look it up), and even a small collection of ammo each of different size for comparison.
I am curious about weapons, not "crazy".
this is probably one of the most level headed gun posts ive seen posted here by a macrumors regular...thank you.
glocke12 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 05:34 PM   #66
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
If you're not trained well enough to shoot what you are trying to aim for, you shouldn't be shooting at all.
Shooting blind is better than not shooting at all.





Should I identify this as irony?
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 09:59 AM   #67
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
Broken statistic and can't be tabulated. However; we can determine how many are owned. Besides, the idea is not to use a gun per se, seeing as how it's a tool for self-defense. And would only be legitimately deployed in defense of life.

Newtown massacre for example, firearms were taken from a person with valid and legitimate ownership for self-defense, and used to murder. They weren't being used as intended. Same as when cars plow into each other and/or over people murdering, not their intent.

Guns are in existent, just like cars. So existent numbers are more applicable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passeng..._United_States


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

15 million fewer cars, but 3x the death rate.
Using this logic, 20,000 gallons of rocket fuel stored in the basement of a daycare in corroding barrels is safer than cars are simply because it hasn't killed enough people yet. A drawer full of rusty razor blades is safer than a hammer because the hammer gets used and a guy hits his finger.

The number is existence is NOT what matters. It's how much they are used, or carried in the case of guns. Guns are used far, far, far less than cars.

And where are you getting "three times the death rate"? Are you using only homicide rate with guns, because the last time I checked, in 2007 there were 31,224 gun-related deaths, and 41,059 car-related deaths. The number of car-related deaths has dropped almost every year since 1990, and in 2011 was 32,367. That's pretty damn close to the gun death rate, which oddly enough, I can't find a 2011 statistic on, but I'm pretty sure the current total gun deaths per year is not under 11,000. And, if you're only going to use the homicide rate for guns, then you must use only the intentional use of death by car. Let's see how that statistic plays out.

But yes, let's ban cars. They have the same practical use as a gun.

Now, why has the US car death rate gone down almost every year, even as car ownership and use rises? It's because of safety and regulations, and maybe a little bit of market pressure. But, the gun nuts seem to be proposing LESS regulation of guns, as if that will make them safer.

Anyone calling for an all-out ban of anything is an idiot. It won't work. But to fight against safety regulations and such for guns is simply asinine and shows that you have another agenda.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 08:56 PM   #68
tshrimp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
I'm not sure why Americans are so against gun control in the first place.

Although I would get one as soon as I can if I move to the states in the future.
It could have something to do with the Constitution of the United States allowing the citizens to have them and not just its government. Also in the US cities that have had gun control tend to have the highest gun related crime rates.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/2602...-statistics/5/
tshrimp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 09:11 PM   #69
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
Using this logic, 20,000 gallons of rocket fuel stored in the basement of a daycare in corroding barrels is safer than cars are simply because it hasn't killed enough people yet. A drawer full of rusty razor blades is safer than a hammer because the hammer gets used and a guy hits his finger.

The number is existence is NOT what matters. It's how much they are used, or carried in the case of guns. Guns are used far, far, far less than cars.

And where are you getting "three times the death rate"? Are you using only homicide rate with guns, because the last time I checked, in 2007 there were 31,224 gun-related deaths, and 41,059 car-related deaths. The number of car-related deaths has dropped almost every year since 1990, and in 2011 was 32,367. That's pretty damn close to the gun death rate, which oddly enough, I can't find a 2011 statistic on, but I'm pretty sure the current total gun deaths per year is not under 11,000. And, if you're only going to use the homicide rate for guns, then you must use only the intentional use of death by car. Let's see how that statistic plays out.

But yes, let's ban cars. They have the same practical use as a gun.

Now, why has the US car death rate gone down almost every year, even as car ownership and use rises? It's because of safety and regulations, and maybe a little bit of market pressure. But, the gun nuts seem to be proposing LESS regulation of guns, as if that will make them safer.

Anyone calling for an all-out ban of anything is an idiot. It won't work. But to fight against safety regulations and such for guns is simply asinine and shows that you have another agenda.
2011 FBI Homicides - Firearms

By firearm type
Handguns - 6,220
Rifles - 323
Shotguns - 356
Other firearm -1,684

Total - 8,583

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 08:07 AM   #70
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp View Post
It could have something to do with the Constitution of the United States allowing the citizens to have them and not just its government. Also in the US cities that have had gun control tend to have the highest gun related crime rates.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/2602...-statistics/5/

You guys still pushing the thoroughly debunked John Lott "study"?
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 08:51 AM   #71
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
2011 FBI Homicides - Firearms

By firearm type
Handguns - 6,220
Rifles - 323
Shotguns - 356
Other firearm -1,684

Total - 8,583

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
+ suicides and accidental deaths.

Otherwise like with like isn't really being compared.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:15 AM   #72
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
2011 FBI Homicides - Firearms

By firearm type
Handguns - 6,220
Rifles - 323
Shotguns - 356
Other firearm -1,684

Total - 8,583

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
+ suicides and accidental deaths.

Otherwise like with like isn't really being compared.
You can't compare just homicide gun death rates with ALL types of auto-related deaths. If you were just typing to help out with homicide statistics, then thank you. But if you were bring to say that auto related deaths were much higher than homicide gun deaths, then sorry...that's not going to work.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:17 AM   #73
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
You can't compare just homicide gun death rates with ALL types of auto-related deaths. If you were just typing to help out with homicide statistics, then thank you. But if you were bring to say that auto related deaths were much higher than homicide gun deaths, then sorry...that's not going to work.
Those were the only stats I posted, and the only reason I posted them.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:32 AM   #74
Biff...
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA.
I've had a gun in my hands since age eight, I am now forty. My father started me early, pushing basic safety rules as the foundation of gun ownership. Following the basic safety rules, constant practice at the range, has given me 32 years of accident free gun ownership.
Biff... is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 10:36 AM   #75
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff... View Post
I've had a gun in my hands since age eight, I am now forty. My father started me early, pushing basic safety rules as the foundation of gun ownership. Following the basic safety rules, constant practice at the range, has given me 32 years of accident free gun ownership.
Where in those rules does it outline how to safely store your guns in a way they can't be accessed by anyone other than you? How many accidental shootings occur when someone finds a gun and starts playing with it? How many suicides happen using a parent's gun? How many of these mass killings by teenagers/young adults have been perpetrated using the gun of a family member?
Moyank24 is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal' mrkramer Politics, Religion, Social Issues 13 Feb 18, 2014 06:10 PM
Another California Gun Law prostuff1 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 38 Jan 23, 2014 06:24 PM
Gun buyback canceled due to new law. lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 102 Jul 31, 2013 10:45 AM
Gun control... 1080p Politics, Religion, Social Issues 8 Jan 16, 2013 01:40 PM
You are a gun control hypocrite if... glocke12 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 63 Jan 4, 2013 03:53 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC