> I also didn’t realize it was legal for people in the US to carry loaded firearms in their everyday life. I thought that concealed carry had to be unloaded. That’s just…why. If you drop it, there could be a misfire.
Only if it’s a gun with a major design flaw. You’re not going to believe this but gun manufacturers actually test their products for basic mishap.
>If it’s exposed to any weather, there could be a misfire!
They don’t. Literally by design. Unless the manufacturer wants to get sued into next week.
>Ammunition fails, too!?
You think ammunition is just constantly cooking itself off?
Do you think nobody would’ve addressed that at some point in the past few centuries?
Armed police officers regularly carry loaded guns. And not just Americans, cops in Europe and my country as well. Most reports of accidental injury are due to user error, AFAIK.
>I would never carry a loaded gun, let alone one loaded with an entire magazine of 5+ bullets.
Who cares? You’re manifestly an imbecile making crap up.
>Can you imagine having your loaded gun stolen off your person? Or catching the trigger on something?
Guns are almost always carried in holsters, which makes it extremely unlikely that something will get inside the trigger guard and trigger the weapon. Many also make it difficult to remove the firearm.
Gun owners strongly advocate awareness of one’s surroundings. Moreover, standard carry guns are usually handguns, and either concealed carry - so few criminals should even notice it’s there - or open carry - which means criminals are unlikely to try and steal it unless they’re suicidal.
Also, I like how you find information that contradicts your prejudices, but instead of looking for more info, you assume an entire country is completely wrong about gun safety.
And seem to think a criminal will just stop and let someone load a weapon in a violent situation. You literally give not a single crap about the life and limb of the people concealed carry is intended to protect, out of sheer hoplophobia.
> Also like…no legal responsibility for a gun owner to keep their guns from being stolen??? Or to keep them away from minors????? TO STORE THEIR AMMUNITION IN A SAFE LOCKED CONTAINER FAR FROM THEIR WEAPONS?????? TO STORE THEIR GUNS WITH TRIGGER LOCKS???????????????????????????????????????
You’d end up creating a “chilling effect” on gun ownership unless owners can also afford “proper” security. Whatever arbitrary levels local or federal officials set it at. Sure, that sounds like a great idea.
If a kid gets a gun and uses it without the parents’ permission, that’s probably negligence, and lands parents in jail. However, many parents train their kids with small, low power guns, under supervision, much like parents teach their kids how to use cooking knives. One doesn’t magically become competent with guns at age 18.
There is literally no point in keeping ammo separate from the weapon. For one thing, it means that if you wake up in the middle of the night with a crackhead coming through your window, you’re screwed. I’ve never understood why you imbeciles think this is in any way a good idea. Same with trigger locks. Can’t find the key or even see the combination in the dark? Hope you have your will up to date. At least with a gun safe, you’ll probably be able to use it by touch.
The only possible benefit for storing guns and ammo separately is that it might make things slightly harder for a criminal who steals the gun from the home, which, according to your stupid criteria, is supposed to be secured anyway. It’s entirely redundant. And if you’re, say, a mass shooter, you don’t care. Do you really think there’s any significant amount of people who just decide to shoot folks on impulse, but walking across their house will cool them down?
I’ve also heard someone say it’s to keep kids away. Except, in Canada, guns are supposed to be securely stored or locked at the very least. If a kid can get into that, what’s to keep them from getting to the ammo?
All your foaming-at-the-mouth hysteria really does is make things harder for legal owners, possibly to the point of endangering their lives.
You’re just blindly assuming Canada’s gun storage policies are better, without actually thinking about whether they help.
Or you would be, if keeping ammo secured in a separate room wasn’t one of Japan’s stupid gun regs, not Canada’s. You actually want higher standards than your country has.
> I just thought the States let anyone purchase a gun and that it didn’t put m a n y roadblocks in the way of purchasing weapons that are prohibited here. I didn’t realize that it went further than that. My father can’t actually tell me what his trigger lock combination is since my full license hasn’t arrived in the mail yet - that’s how strict laws are here around handguns. So uh…yeah…I wasn’t prepared for that info about the States.
Somehow, I suspect we haven’t even begun to plumb the depths of your ignorance. For example, the fact that most US gun crime isn’t with legal guns - so a registry wouldn’t help - and there’s only about 11K murders compared to well over 100 million legal guns.
You’re being remarkably smug for someone who just admitted they didn’t know one of the most basic facts about American gun laws.
Also, how do you think this works? You think centuries of technological development has somehow made guns less safe, or kept them at the same level of safety? Do you think a Brown Bess is the same as a Browning BAR? For Pete’s sake, cowboys had to keep a chamber empty to avoid a misfire. That’s how unreliable guns were just a hundred years and change ago. But it’s not a problem today.
Speaking of which, gun sellers aren’t actually required to track sales in the Great North, despite Anon’s talk of a registry. Heck, you’re apparently only required to register certain firearms.
If it wasn’t for the blocking, I’d lean toward troll.
I would like to personally thank purgatoryandme for literally one of the funniest posts I have seen in a good while. I really needed that good laugh from gems like “If it’s exposed to any weather, there could be a misfire!” I would suggest they shut up on this topic for their own ability to possibly save any sort of respect from anyone, but this crap is too funny, so please do go on.
Oh yeah, it gets hot in Texas, there’s guns going off by themselves fucking everywhere, dude. First drop of rain, it’s like the freaking fourth of July. Why you can’t ride anywhere on your horsey without walking past a straight line of guns just firing everywhere from the slightest changes in atmosphere.
Up to 200 children separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico
border are being held in this tent city outside Tornillo, Texas:
Too bad for you lot, this shit has been going on for much longer than Trump. But it doesn’t count when Obama did it. Is that right?
i’d hate to show them prisons. show us the kind of shit going on in these camps, don’t just say “cOnCenTRAtiOn cAmPS” and expect us to instantly be behind you.
also the UN is largely useless and isn’t its human rights council headed up by the type of people who’d call women driving terrorism?
Remember when all the Jews were trying to sneak into nazi Germany?
“OHOHOHOHOHOH WIKIPEDIA SEZ kids being fed and given clean sheets and an education is just like a concentration camp! and Trump quit the UN (who covers up rape and has the fucking Saudis on the human rights council), he’s a NAZI!!!”
I will never understand marginalized groups wishing to have their rights taken away.
It’s honestly mind boggling.
^^^
It’s because they’ve thoroughly tied their identities to “anti-conservative.” They can’t support any of the same things that conservatives do, even if supporting that thing would be beneficial or opposing it would hurt them far more than it would hurt the conservatives.
The Second Amendment and the right to own guns is seen as a conservative issue; therefore, guns must be banned. If you’re LGBT and support gun ownership, then you hold a conservative viewpoint, which makes you a conservative. And since everyone knows that conservatives all hate gays, that means you’re a traitor.
It’s fantastically stupid, but when did that ever stop large numbers of people from thinking like that?
I think that also extends to actually knowing anything about guns. Because that’s something “those redneck gun nuts” do.
It’s just so shortsighted. If you see yourself as a member of a marginalized and vulnerable group why would you want to give up the best possible tool you have available for self defense?
Oh my god remember when Obama drone bomed kids and weddings and armed terrorists and gave 4 million dollars to a country that funds terrorism and locked more immigrant children up in cages than Trump’s continuation and enforcement of Oabama’s polices ever have …. and y’all all but swallowed his balls for eight years?
I’m gonna start calling this “Progressive amnesia syndrome”, and this is why you’re going to continue to lose elections.
Democrats Admit They Don’t Give A Shit About Kids Despite Histrionic Hand-Wringing
HMMMM.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slo-mo! It’s terrible, but you just can’t look away.
So is anyone going to explain exactly WHY they rejected it? Or am I safe to assume this is just a circle jerk post?
5 bucks on the circle jerk post, knowing this website.
Hush
Someone doesn’t know me very well.
Circling, a partial response is meaningless to me. Plus no link to the actual article, if it actually exist. Because OP is a lazy shit or something.
But this is fucking funny, let’s just circle a picture of a twitter post, a fucking twitter post as a source, and call it a fucking day. This is adorable.
Someone owes me five bucks.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
It literally has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, but because Shumer didn’t like using legislation to solve the issue, and his milqtoast excuse is “well, something bad could get put on it later so uhhhhhhh”.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
That’s not how I read it. Maybe because it was so vague, which is why you post an actual article, but the way I read that twitter post, but I read “putting the focus on trump” Differently after comparing to the article.
Which means I saw it different than you. Gee, I wonder why I asked for a source. Just makes one wonder, eh? Real Scooby Doo mystery here.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub
Clearly I am now owed 10.
>REEEEE because no sources
>REEEEEEE because headline literally spells out Shumer’s comments on why he rejected it
>REEEEE because after crying about no source and being handed one, still wrong
>REEEEEEEE and try to save face
You do understand nobody’s giving your broke ass a single penny, right?
Oh boy.
because no sources
Yeah.
because headline literally spells out Shumer’s comments on why he rejected it
No, it didn’t, there was not enough information.
because after crying about no source and being handed one, still wrong
I didn’t say it was wrong, you silly goose. I just said I read it differently. Which is why I asked for a source.
and try to save face
This is funny to me.
You do understand nobody’s giving your broke ass a single penny, right?
Democrats Admit They Don’t Give A Shit About Kids Despite Histrionic Hand-Wringing
HMMMM.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slo-mo! It’s terrible, but you just can’t look away.
So is anyone going to explain exactly WHY they rejected it? Or am I safe to assume this is just a circle jerk post?
5 bucks on the circle jerk post, knowing this website.
Hush
Someone doesn’t know me very well.
Circling, a partial response is meaningless to me. Plus no link to the actual article, if it actually exist. Because OP is a lazy shit or something.
But this is fucking funny, let’s just circle a picture of a twitter post, a fucking twitter post as a source, and call it a fucking day. This is adorable.
Someone owes me five bucks.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
It literally has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, but because Shumer didn’t like using legislation to solve the issue, and his milqtoast excuse is “well, something bad could get put on it later so uhhhhhhh”.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
That’s not how I read it. Maybe because it was so vague, which is why you post an actual article, but the way I read that twitter post, but I read “putting the focus on trump” Differently after comparing to the article.
Which means I saw it different than you. Gee, I wonder why I asked for a source. Just makes one wonder, eh? Real Scooby Doo mystery here.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub
Clearly I am now owed 10.
>REEEEE because no sources
>REEEEEEE because headline literally spells out Shumer’s comments on why he rejected it
>REEEEE because after crying about no source and being handed one, still wrong
>REEEEEEEE and try to save face
You do understand nobody’s giving your broke ass a single penny, right?
Democrats Admit They Don’t Give A Shit About Kids Despite Histrionic Hand-Wringing
HMMMM.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slo-mo! It’s terrible, but you just can’t look away.
So is anyone going to explain exactly WHY they rejected it? Or am I safe to assume this is just a circle jerk post?
5 bucks on the circle jerk post, knowing this website.
Hush
Someone doesn’t know me very well.
Circling, a partial response is meaningless to me. Plus no link to the actual article, if it actually exist. Because OP is a lazy shit or something.
But this is fucking funny, let’s just circle a picture of a twitter post, a fucking twitter post as a source, and call it a fucking day. This is adorable.
Someone owes me five bucks.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
It literally has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, but because Shumer didn’t like using legislation to solve the issue, and his milqtoast excuse is “well, something bad could get put on it later so uhhhhhhh”.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub.
What more do these people want from trump???
This is embarrassing.
No legislation is needed. This is a presidential policy matter.
Funny how you quote a piece that makes Schumer look bad, but take it out of context:
“Again, the president can change it with his pen,” he said, warning that Republicans would likely try to add poison-pill provisions to any immigration bill that came to the floor. “Unacceptable additions have bogged down every piece of legislation we’ve done,” he said.
“UHHHHHH WELL, someone might add something BAD so we should continue this practice of presidents just abusing the abusolute fuck out of executive order powers to shove things down the shit pipe!”
The fact that you think Shumer’s piss poor excuse makes him sound better is hysterical.
Democrats Admit They Don’t Give A Shit About Kids Despite Histrionic Hand-Wringing
HMMMM.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slo-mo! It’s terrible, but you just can’t look away.
So is anyone going to explain exactly WHY they rejected it? Or am I safe to assume this is just a circle jerk post?
5 bucks on the circle jerk post, knowing this website.
Hush
Someone doesn’t know me very well.
Circling, a partial response is meaningless to me. Plus no link to the actual article, if it actually exist. Because OP is a lazy shit or something.
But this is fucking funny, let’s just circle a picture of a twitter post, a fucking twitter post as a source, and call it a fucking day. This is adorable.
Someone owes me five bucks.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
It literally has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, but because Shumer didn’t like using legislation to solve the issue, and his milqtoast excuse is “well, something bad could get put on it later so uhhhhhhh”.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
That’s not how I read it. Maybe because it was so vague, which is why you post an actual article, but the way I read that twitter post, but I read “putting the focus on trump” Differently after comparing to the article.
Which means I saw it different than you. Gee, I wonder why I asked for a source. Just makes one wonder, eh? Real Scooby Doo mystery here.
Don’t nobody owe you shit, scrub
Clearly I am now owed 10.
>REEEEE because no sources
>REEEEEEE because headline literally spells out Shumer’s comments on why he rejected it
>REEEEE because after crying about no source and being handed one, still wrong
>REEEEEEEE and try to save face
You do understand nobody’s giving your broke ass a single penny, right?
Democrats Admit They Don’t Give A Shit About Kids Despite Histrionic Hand-Wringing
HMMMM.
It’s like watching a train wreck in slo-mo! It’s terrible, but you just can’t look away.
So is anyone going to explain exactly WHY they rejected it? Or am I safe to assume this is just a circle jerk post?
5 bucks on the circle jerk post, knowing this website.
Hush
Someone doesn’t know me very well.
Circling, a partial response is meaningless to me. Plus no link to the actual article, if it actually exist. Because OP is a lazy shit or something.
But this is fucking funny, let’s just circle a picture of a twitter post, a fucking twitter post as a source, and call it a fucking day. This is adorable.
Someone owes me five bucks.
Lmao should I know or give a fuck about who you are?
It literally has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, but because Shumer didn’t like using legislation to solve the issue, and his milqtoast excuse is “well, something bad could get put on it later so uhhhhhhh”.
