JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
NO gun laws help anything. Most who promote them know full well they do nothing, they are not made to work. What would work is dealing with criminals. Law makers do not want to do that. As long as they can keep gun owners voting to lose rights a little at a time the law makers are getting what they want. Gun owners by a large swath go right along with it.
 
NO gun laws help anything. Most who promote them know full well they do nothing, they are not made to work. What would work is dealing with criminals. Law makers do not want to do that. As long as they can keep gun owners voting to lose rights a little at a time the law makers are getting what they want. Gun owners by a large swath go right along with it.
And this behavior by law makers will continue until gun owners grow a pair and push back with enough force, in large enough numbers and with consistency, to turn the tide.

Unfortunately, I suspect no real change will occur until force is taken to the extreme, to clear out the Bloomberg/Soros bought and paid for law makers, from their posts.
 
And this behavior by law makers will continue until gun owners grow a pair and push back with enough force, in large enough numbers and with consistency, to turn the tide.

Unfortunately, I suspect no real change will occur until force is taken to the extreme, to clear out the Bloomberg/Soros bought and paid for law makers, from their posts.


There were several bills that had bipartisan support (SB801 for example), but allowed to die to make room for partisan and unjust proposals like SB978-1. I wonder if there is a way to shame them or such for taking that route.
 
You have to pay to read the study, but from the abstract (bold is mine):

Abstract said:
Key Results
Universal background checks were associated with a 14.9% (95% CI, 5.2–23.6%) reduction in overall homicide rates, violent misdemeanor laws were associated with a 18.1% (95% CI, 8.1–27.1%) reduction in homicide, and "shall issue" laws were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide. These laws were significantly associated only with firearm-related homicide rates, not non-firearm-related homicide rates. None of the other laws examined were consistently related to overall homicide or suicide rates.
 
As usual, another "study" by "smart people" interpreted by "dumb people" in the anti-gun media, that treats murder and homicide as synonyms.

Homicide rates would include people that needed killing, so of course if permits increase homicide rates do as well...
.... because good people are defending themselves from bad people.

loosely, it's kinda like treating hunting and poaching as synonyms.
 
There were several bills that had bipartisan support (SB801 for example), but allowed to die to make room for partisan and unjust proposals like SB978-1. I wonder if there is a way to shame them or such for taking that route.
Shame them is a good idea. I just sent a link to the Stateman Journal Editor on this Boston University Study with the hope of it being published.
 
You have to pay to read the study, but from the abstract (bold is mine):

Please have a look here: 15% fewer homicides in states with universal background checks - Futurity

Nothing that we did not know before hand. 1. Background checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals and thus, reducing violent crimes. 2. Specifically, the authors noted that tight regulation to who has access to firearms, rather than the types of firearms, differentiates states with lowest homicides. 3. Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in a very small proportion of homicides. And lastly, "Although I completely understand the desire to ban assault weapons, I just don't see empirical evidence that such bans have any substantial impact on homicide rates".
 
Last Edited:
"Well I am glad that my relative was murdered with a firearm that , only had 10 or less shots and didn't have a pistol grip stock or a folding / collapsible stock , wasn't semi automatic or had any other "Assault Rifle" feature"...Said no one ever.

Being murdered with a AR15 , does not make someone "more dead" , than if that same someone was murdered with a flintlock rifle.
Grim as it sounds dead is dead...neither rifle , the one with its semi auto fire and detachable magazine or the other with it being a single shot , is more "deadly".

Now one could argue that the potential for more death is present in the semi auto rifle , with its detachable magazine...my answer to that is "Maybe" ...but only hits count , not the potential of hits...

All of which is null and void anyway , because as we all know , criminals enjoy obeying laws and would hasten to turn in any of their no longer legal firearms and magazines...:rolleyes:

More to a realistic point... I think that bans of certain firearms and magazines , along with the requiring of a BGC for private party sales , just creates more criminals , by way of those folks who ignore the new laws , bans and requirments.
Andy
 
There were several bills that had bipartisan support (SB801 for example), but allowed to die to make room for partisan and unjust proposals like SB978-1. I wonder if there is a way to shame them or such for taking that route.

Shame them is a good idea. I just sent a link to the Stateman Journal Editor on this Boston University Study with the hope of it being published.

The problem with shaming them is that anti's have no shame............. They know they're peddling lies, then double down when confronted with the truth.



Ray
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top