Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.

None of the rest of your comment bears reading, as its A) bullshit, and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?

That's funny, the police report and all reporting on the case claim that he did.

The VIDEO proves he didn't.

Let me guess - the ghost of Bob Marley came to you in a dream, and told you The White Man Executed Tamir

I AM "The White Man," you shiteating fuckwad! What, you think because I have the shred of basic human decency necessary to admit the truth I can't possibly be white?! Fuck off, you racist douche!

People also need to get the idea that just cause X was a good law 100 years ago, doesn't mean it doesnt need an update to account for changes in technology, society, etc.

For example: long ago guns were created individually by a craftsman, a gunsmith. It took a while, so output was low. And they held only one shot, that took awhile to reload. There were few rules involved at any stage, on both the manufacturing side and ownership side. There didn't need to be.

But progress marched on. Manufacturing became more efficient. Output increased, particularly with assembly lines. The guns themselves gained multiple shots. The amount of firepower available, and hte number of guns, increased over time dramatically. To the classic bank robbers and their Thompsons. At that point rules began to be adopted, and rightly so: large scale manufacturing needed serial numbers and sales records, while ownership of certain classes (such as the Thompson) was restricted or controlled.

Times changed, and so did the laws.
That's how it SHOULD be.

Hell, we talk about it enough on this site when it comes to copyrights and the expansion of the digital medium, or the anti-hacking laws from the 70s and 80s, and how outdated laws are being misapplied and need updated.

So now we're at the next step in gun tech progress: 3D printing. If it's small scale production, I see it no different from the gunsmith or DIY making for personal use. Larger scale production, I could see the rules that apply to large manufactures coming into play; not much different. There are potential concerns at "undetectable guns" (ie, no metal)....that's largely a thing from bad tv at the moment, but never underestimate materials science. But such a thing could logically call for once again updating law to account for it, as previous security practices taken for granted (metal detectors, etc) would no longer be relevant.

But again that's how it should be: laws regularly updated for the current needs of society, rather than assuming a bunch of farmers and lawyers from 200 years ago running a country of 2.5 million* largely uneducated folks got it 100% right the first time, and knew all there was know about running a country of 350 million folks who even in the worst conditions live like a king compared to those farmers. After all...aint that why they gave us the mechanisms to update the law, up to and including the founding document itself?

(*Just think about that: there 21 major cities (metros) in this country with more people in them now than were in the entire US when the Constitution was written.)

I can seek to look into the past or future myself. I don't even get headaches from it. Of course, my visions aren't real accurate, but I doubt hers were either.

We won because of the help of French, along with the BIG FUCKING OCEAN between us and England.
England had other concerns in Europe that also demand its attention, and were a lot closer to home.

Guns are the reason we survived long enough to win (and didn't get roflstomped by the best military in the world),
but they aren't the reason for the win itself.
Logistics and allies are the real reason we won.

We essentially created the insurgent playbook that's been used against us these past 14 years.

I would say if they haven't started shipping units with the DRM disabled at the factory, they haven't yet gotten the message.

Really they should do that and provide existing customers with a freedom clip if they want to salvage their sales (and stock value) for the year.

Technically it was the rich landowners and politicians of our colonies and their opposition to paying taxes that resulted in us being Americans.

Plus, you say that like there are no gun owners in England or Canada.
You really should try to correct your perception on that.

Well, not illegal, but there are restrictions and regulations on the practice. IE, you need a license, and the products needs to be serialized, and you need certains record kept, etc. At least as far as the Feds are concerned.

But States vary and I only know the few I've lived in (and that knowledge could be outdated by now).
Mostly...they had few or none, being good ol boy states.
But in Cali, you can make it for your own use. But you cannot sell that gun you made for yourself down the road, unless it's sale is permitted by and in compliance with the current Cali laws regarding gun sales when you go to sell it. Essentially in this case it's "manufactured date", as far as regulation compliance is concerned, is considered to be the date you tried to sell it.

Well, you could ask, "Am I being detained or arrested?" and if the answer is "no", then "I do not wish to talk with you. Please carry on while I film, officer."

Blatant bullshit myth.

62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.

These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.
Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.
Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.

Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.

Some reading so that you might become better informed: http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Red herring.

The answer is very few, on the order of ~5-10%, because most non-gun suicide attempts are not successful.
In fact most suicide attempts in general are not successful.
But the majority of successful suicides are carried out with a gun.

The difference is that other methods aren't as final and decisive as a gun, and still have a chance of being treated with medical attention, whether because of regret on the part of the person attempting suicide, or someone else calling for help.

Firearm suicides on the other hand aren't as forgiving.

Oh, has it already been ratified by the Senate then?
I was under the impression it was still being negotiated.