Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
CQ, how much alcohol does it take you to get drunk?
I was 150 and still overweight. If I gain more muscle then I'll be fine at that weight but as of now 150 is way out of my range lol female and men have different body weights that are concidered healthy. A man my height and weight would look completely different. My waist is a 24" and myna hips are 42" so it's just how I'm built.5'3" 115lbs does not sound healthy to me
I may be ignorant, but shouldn't you weigh somewhere near 150lbs?
Maybe 7 tall boys if I got gun them and don't eat that whole day. If I ate, 10 beers ; if I sip, more than that. My tolerance has nothing to do with my weight, I've been drinking since I was 13.. but yet pot was soooooo bad .. -.-CQ, how much alcohol does it take you to get drunk?
I am an idiot. I assumed your numbers were for a male's body. Absolutely dumbfounded when second reading "queen" in your name..I was 150 and still overweight. If I gain more muscle then I'll be fine at that weight but as of now 150 is way out of my range lol female and men have different body weights that are concidered healthy. A man my height and weight would look completely different. My waist is a 24" and myna hips are 42" so it's just how I'm built.
Finally, someone with some common sense.Both charts show that the gun buyback did very little in regards to homicide and suicide and only continued following its course.
"Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/
No I never said that anywhere. That is your own creation. I specifically addressed gun buy back programs and nothing else. They dont work, period.Right, you say that gun control laws won't work because the US is awash in guns. Then you say don't comment on your circular and fallacious argument.
Right, you say that gun control laws won't work because the US is awash in guns. Then you say don't comment on your circular and fallacious argument.
I don't disagree that people with hordes of guns won't turn them in and probably only a fraction will even register them. Then again, how many are predisposed to mass shootings? So, gun control laws needn't be determined effective or not based upon how many people still own an armory-sized horde (not many do but those who do have a huge number). Gun control laws are determined effective based upon reductions in harm. This is quite thoroughly proven to be true.
What does that even mean? Why would they establish "legal ownership" just to turn them in? Or if I misread why wouldn't they go through the paperwork and establish legal ownership like they already do? Wouldn't they be more likely to hide and keep them along with all the ammunition? How does this stop someone from using them to harm people? It might stop a lot of accidents, but people on a mission to kill that have access probably aren't going to be deterred one bit.The answer to the guns already out there is to give it time. People with their horde can keep them. They can't show them off and if they do, so what? The objective is reduction in harm, remember. Most of those people are old fuckers and when they die, their heirs, most of them, won't want to go through the paperwork to establish legal ownership and turn them over to the govt. Problem solved.
Of course you are denying that gun laws work. Why else would you talk about how gun owners won't turn in guns?No I never said that anywhere. That is your own creation. I specifically addressed gun buy back programs and nothing else. They dont work, period.
I made no reference of any kind to any other form(s) of gun control or to their effectiveness or whether I support them or not.
Again, I specifically was addressing gun buy back programs. And again, they dont work.
Again, I made no reference of any kind to all other forms of gun control and their effectiveness or whether I support them or not.
What does that even mean? Why would they establish "legal ownership" just to turn them in? Or if I misread why wouldn't they go through the paperwork and establish legal ownership like they already do? Wouldn't they be more likely to hide and keep them along with all the ammunition? How does this stop someone from using them to harm people? It might stop a lot of accidents, but people on a mission to kill that have access probably aren't going to be deterred one bit.
Of course you are denying that gun laws work. Why else would you talk about how gun owners won't turn in guns?
"The answer to the guns already out there is to give it time. People with their horde can keep them. They can't show them off and if they do, so what? The objective is reduction in harm, remember. Most of those people are old fuckers and when they die, their heirs, most of them, won't want to go through the paperwork to establish legal ownership and turn them over to the govt. Problem solved."
If you can't read it, try sounding it out.
They might. In which case, again, problem solved. Tracking guns and ensuring ownership is legal is part of a sane and comprehensive gun control bill. Tracking gun ownership makes it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. You keep harping on how guns won't go away just because of gun control laws and I'm totally in agreement with you.So you really think they wont do the paperwork? I did paperwork when a relative passed for a 1911 that was handed down to me. Like hell I was gonna just give it up just because. Families with firearms shoot together, so heirs are most likely to keep them since it was a gift from a relative lost. The half life you are hoping for I just dont see being a realistic reduction over any reasonable amount of time. In fact I would expect a massive uptick in illegal manufacturing.
Keep the gun buy backs for those types. They dont want them then let them turn them in, no issues there. But to think it has any effect on criminals using firearms to hurt people is asinine.
This is 100% literal nra propagandaGun laws only apply to law abiding citizens the people that are not allowed or don't care to follow the law are the ones commiting these acts and I don't see where making more law that make it harder for law abiding citizens to get and keep guns would change that fact
I specifically addressed gun buy back programs and nothing else. They dont work, period.
Sorry If I sounded sassy :/ ahah not usually like that lolI am an idiot. I assumed your numbers were for a male's body. Absolutely dumbfounded when second reading "queen" in your name..
lol..
150 for a woman at 5'3" is a lot more than it would be for a male..
...duh...
they've worked on every single country that's done them.
Im so glad you said this. So cut out all the self inflicted purposeful/accidental deaths by firearms, and we are left with less than 1% of all deaths in the United States being attributed to firearm violence. And of that 80% of all firearm related homicides are gang related. So 11k-ish homicides by firearm and 80% were gang related. Pretty sure those gang members didn't have registered legal firearms and obviously they didn't use them as prescribed.Regarding self-harm which obesity clearly is, I'm OK with that. I'm also OK with gun owners using their gun to commit suicide.
You trump and gunz supporters all say the same thing. Thoughts and prayers. "Car accidents kill more people" or some such oblivious nonsense.Im so glad you said this. So cut out all the self inflicted purposeful/accidental deaths by firearms, and we are left with less than 1% of all deaths in the United States being attributed to firearm violence. And of that 80% of all firearm related homicides are gang related. So 11k-ish homicides by firearm and 80% were gang related. Pretty sure those gang members didn't have registered legal firearms and obviously they didn't use them as prescribed.
Sad when any innocent life is lost for any reason, but to use it as fuel to take things away that 99.9% of the time are used in a manner that no one is hurt or killed is a knee jerk reaction at best. Millions of rounds being produced daily, yet only only a few are aimed to harm.
I am seriously more worried about bleached coffee filters than I am this.
I'll just leave this here in case we try make anything up.
"These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent". Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms."
"In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011."
Not many deaths left for us to pin on gun loving righties who voted for Trump.
"if we just get rid of all the firearm violence then there is less firearm violence"cut out all the self inflicted purposeful/accidental deaths by firearms, and we are left with less than 1% of all deaths in the United States being attributed to firearm violence.