Gun Control
Police Now Advise Assertive Response to Mass Gun Attacks
"The speed and deadliness of recent high-profile shootings have prompted police departments to recommend fleeing, hiding or fighting in the event of a mass attack, instead of remaining passive and waiting for help...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/in … d=1&hpI'm speechless, the police advocate doing the reasonable thing and the New York Times considers it news.
Reasonable things are news EVERYWHERE. It happens so rarely.
Think what this guy could have done with a Bushmaster AR 14!!
Texas student stabs 14 before being subdued.
"CYPRESS, Texas (AP) — A student went on a building-to-building stabbing attack at a Texas community college Tuesday, wounding at least 14 people before being subdued and arrested, authorities said.
"...Chalfan described the man as "eccentric," saying he often wore gloves and was known to carry stuffed animals. He said although the man was teased by fellow students, he remained friendly.
"...The four people taken by helicopter and two others with moderate injuries were taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital. Of those six, two patients remained in critical condition, three have been upgraded to good condition and one was discharged Tuesday afternoon, hospital spokeswoman Alex Rodriguez said..."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/04 … ng.html?hpI'm still trying to figure out how this guy got to stab 14 people. This is Texas... After one or two he should have had the crap kicked out of him. What the hell!?
We can agree on that!! Police are advocating an active response to these crazies.
Why would you think that? Given the way most college age kids were brought up all over the country this doesn't surprise me, sitting on couches playing video games doesn't really prepare one for an assault by knife wielding lunatics.
That's the problem. I thought in Texas of all places it would be different, but something is fundamentally wrong with our schools and it didn't used to be. If he had tried this kind of crap at my school (high-school or college) he would have been taken down soon after the first person was stabbed, and if he had pulled his knife on the wrong person, no one would have been stabbed. I'd be right there giving my 2c too, and >I< was the geek in school.
And no.. I didn't grow up in the inner city or a "rough" neighborhood. I grew up in the burbs of LA. It's taken only a generation to go from "Not in my school" to "Aaah.. he's got a pointy thing... what do we do?"
Seriously? That's the important lesson we need to learn from all this. All the important things we want to prepare our kids for, we seem to have forgotten the basics, like teaching them how to take care of themselves. This is not elementary school and a bunch of ten year old's dealing with a crazy adult. This is college..... people close to the prime of their lives physically, many of them in the best shape they will ever be in.
...which brings me back to my original comment: What the Hell?
Now, just think if guns are banned? Scenes like this will be the norm all the time.
A person with a knife is easier to approach and subdue than a person with a gun.
Punch him? Kick him? Tackle him? Elbow him? Grapple him?
You forget the other factors. Knives can kill just like guns. Not everyone is good at hand to hand combat. People can be robbed, raped or killed at knife too.
But at least you have a chance. You might get shanked, or you might parry his blow at just the right time to take him down.
If the guy had a gun, however? No chance whatsoever. Bang. You're dead. Game over. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200.That isn't true at all, there are many cases of unarmed people taking armed people down in just the ways you have described.
So, it boils down to someone having a chance?
Prolonging a death sentence is not much of a chance. You will have a chance if you have a knife as well.
Being unarmed is not having a chance.Except for a few problems.
Getting shot very rarely kills you like that: "Bang. Dead."
There will ALWAYS be a black market for guns, so there will ALWAYS be criminals with guns.
Also, going unarmed into a knife fight, without very extensive training, means you are probably going to die if they want to kill you. Even people who are trained in hand-to-hand combat will say that there is very little, realistically, that they can do against someone with a knife.
I actually do know one sane person who has guns. He goes to the shooting club once a week to stay in practice. I'm not saying nobody should have a gun, just that too many crazy people can get them.
Have you reported the insane people you know with guns? They probably shouldn't have guns if they are insane. What qualifies you to diagnose mental illness?
The one thing I was taught by some here is to read the profiles of those I'm conversing with so I did. I answered my own question about what qualifies you to make mental illness diagnosis and the answer is....nothing.
Too many crazy people apparently get elected to public office. That has the potential to hurt or kill MANY more people than one crazy with a gun. What safeguards besides popularity do we have on getting elected to Congress or the Presidency?
As I said, there are crazy people in any otherwise rational and level-headed group. Why make policy about something around the crazy people? You make policy that INCLUDES crazy people, but the fact that crazy people can own a gun should not be, by itself an argument against the ownership of guns, otherwise other things we consider rights and don't think of as dangerous to society will be legislated away.
The point is, people will be killed. If you do not know hand to hand combat, you will die.
A person with a knife is even easier to approach and subdue than a person with a gun if you have a gun and know how to use it.
"I fantasized about stabbing people" he said.
He started planning the attack in grade school.Hell I had fantasies about stabbing people. By itself that doesn't mean a thing, but most of the time, the REAL danger shows itself in other ways. I'd be willing to bet this wasn't much of a surprise to some of the people that were around him a lot.
It's instinctive for people to say (at least at first) that they didn't notice anything odd. They don't really want to admit that this person they have been around before really went nuts, and they don't really want to admit that they might have noticed it and failed to do anything. The people that liked him don't want to speak ill of him and the people that didn't like him didn't know him well enough to notice.
It will take some time to figure out the true progression of his "issues"
Concealed Carry "Hero" Shoots Child's Chihuahua
"License to Kill
Shooting Puppies and Gay Hatred Update
Photo: N/A, License: N/A
By Jack Lessenberry
Published: April 10, 2013
In the interest of fairness and balance in the gun control debate, it’s time to take a moment to honor our city, state and nation’s newest Second Amendment hero.
Sadly, we haven’t been told the man’s name, though we do know he lives in the 12000 block of Asbury Park, on Detroit’s west side.
On Tuesday afternoon, he showed all the courage and wisdom our Founding Fathers could have hoped for when they wrote those words about our right to keep and bear arms.
A little neighbor girl of Our Hero let her tiny Chihuahua, JoJo, outside without a leash. He barked at Our Hero.
Accounts differ after that point. Either the puppy stayed on his own lawn or ran on the sidewalk to yap at Our Hero.
Our Hero then did the patriotic American thing — something that would undoubtedly have made George Washington’s breast swell with pride.
He pulled out a concealed pistol and blew JoJo away.
Now, back to reality, or at least sanity. This guy is no hero; he is nothing but a trigger-happy creep.
Now, in any civilized society that creep would be in jail today, awaiting trial and, what would hopefully be a hefty prison sentence.
Instead, in today’s cuckoo gun-happy world, police did come, but once they established that he had a license to carry a concealed weapon, hey, no sweat.
Newspaper accounts say the cops agreed he had every right to murder a 5-pound puppy that probably had about as much capacity as a mouse to hurt him.
The nonprofit animal welfare group, Detroit Dog Rescue, was called and conducted an investigation. Incredibly, they seemed to blame the owner, Audrejuanna Tucker, for not having JoJo on a leash.
David Rudolph, a spokesman for DDR, did apparently think it curious that the creep shot “a little Chihuahua, a Taco Bell dog,” and asked “at what point could it have aggressed in such a way that you felt you had to go out and shoot it?”
But, interestingly, he didn’t question his right to do so.
Welcome to our incredibly fucked-up world, one in which fanatic, paranoid gun owners have saddled us with crazy laws and wild misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.
Things could have been far worse out there on Asbury Park. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Audrejuanna’s daddy was standing out there when the creep blew away the puppy. Let’s further imagine that he also had a legal concealed weapon.
If I had been him and that had happened, I would have unhesitatingly drilled the creep through the heart. Why? Simple: If he were psychotic enough to kill a tiny dog like that, it would be reasonable to think my little daughter might be next.
They probably would have hauled me off to jail, but my guess is they would have let me go, once I explained it was self-defense. And indeed, the shooter was a lot scarier than JoJo — except for that this is all nuts!
First of all, crazy behavior like this is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, regardless of whatever lies you’ve read or been told about.
Yes, the Second Amendment does say, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
But for most of this nation’s history, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, essentially, that it didn’t mean we had the right to arm ourselves; only that states had the right to form militia units like the Michigan National Guard. (See, for example, the court’s ruling in U.S. v Cruikshank, 1875)
Finally, five years ago, in District of Columbiav Heller, the court did say the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm … and to use it “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” That settled that, at least for the foreseeable future.
Those who hate guns — including me — and who wish they all were illegal, have to accept that this is the law of the land. But that’s not all the highest court said in that ruling.
The justices added that this right “is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
They also said many existing laws limiting gun ownership and possession are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
That means Michigan doesn’t have to let every drugstore cowboy carry a concealed hand cannon, or that we should have the right to blow away a puppy that might nip us.
But we are being held hostage by the gun lobby.
Forget JoJo.
Thousands of us are dying. Less than four months ago, a maniac with an assault rifle pumped bullet after bullet into the tiny heads of 20 five-and-six year olds in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
President Obama, who previously showed no interest whatsoever in gun control, was shaken to his senses by Newtown. He pledged to do everything in his power to actually get some meaningful gun control legislation enacted.
Unfortunately, it now seems all but certain he will fail. The one meaningful thing that might have been possible was some restrictions on assault weapons. But Democrats have already thrown in the towel and given up on that.
Connecticut, to its credit, did enact some meaningful legislation that their governor signed into law last week. But the only thing still before Congress is a bill requiring meaningful background checks before guns are sold.
Yet it seems increasingly likely even that won’t happen. That is thanks, in part, to creatures like Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who thinks keeping records of gun sales would be an outrageous government intrusion. So, no, we won’t have any meaningful limit on mayhem in this country unless — and until the day comes — we have several more Newtowns.
1 2 Next Page
> Email Jack Lessenberry
http://metrotimes.com/news/politics-and … -1.1470337
What a crock! I rather shows the lengths the gun haters will go, though - to describe killing an illegal, attacking animal as "murder" is about as stupid as it gets but that doesn't stop them, does it?
Have to wonder what the picture is of, too. Just more propaganda, I assume, as I don't see blood, bullet wound, or any other indication it was ever hurt. Another irrelevant but cute pic to raise emotions but without any connection to the incident.Are you saying you'd shoot the pet Chihuahua of a little neighbor girl because he barked at you, as if he were a Pit Bull or Doberman? The article was written by a man who many consider Michigan's leading liberal political commentator.
If a barking, snarling dog heads for me with all intent to bite, I will absolutely kill it if possible.
Better a dead dog than a ripped up leg or worse. You make it sound as if it makes a difference because of the breed. because it's a pet or because a "little neighbor girl" owns it; it doesn't.Except that's not what happened. The dog thing isn't a gun-control issue. It's a "When is it okay to kill a dog" issue. Many people just don't think people can love dogs as much as some do and see it more like vandalism a crime at all to kill someone's dog. That's changing slowly, but legally speaking, dogs have it rough. If a pit bull is found inside the city limits of Denver Colorado, it will likely be put to death. No questions. It doesn't have to be threatening anyone. It can even be tied up and inside your home. Doesn't matter.
wilderness: What makes a difference is that anyone who knows anything about dogs knows that barking dogs rarely attack. It absolutely matters if the dog stayed on the lawn or was running towards the armed idiot.
Ralph: Dude with the gun had no business pulling his gun and firing unless he thought his life was in danger, and if he thought his life was in danger from a chihuahua, then he's a dumbass. The legal issues about guns don't enter into it because it's legal to have an axe or a machete, even to carry them when you're on your porch, but the USE is regulated. In this particular case, the pistol he was carrying is no different than an axe or a machete, or even his foot if he kicked the poor animal to death. As I said.... NOT a gun-rights issue.You're right it's a dog issue, not gun.
Your stance is that everyone in the country must know and understand dog psychology well? And then assume (at risk of life and limb) that every dog will behave the same? How about if we just make dog owners control their pets instead of everyone else doing it for them - owner doesn't control the dog, the dog suffers for it?
And are you serious that one should never harm a dog unless in fear for their own life? Those little ankle biters can, and sometimes do, cause a good deal of damage. Enough for an ambulance ride and weeks of recuperation.No, my stance is not that everyone in the country must know and understand dog psychology well, but you don't need to know it that well to know that JoJo wasn't a danger.
But yes, no one should harm a dog unless in fear of their life. It's a big deal to end the life of a dog. You should have the sense of decency not to rush into it. There's too much about that story that was unanswered. for instance, there was debate as to whether the dog was actually charging the man or barking from it's own yard. As I said, it matters. It matters a great deal. Did the guy say anything before he fired? Did he and the dog have a history? These questions have a bearing on whether he should have fired or not. That is most of the reason these stories cause so much frustration, because the reporters don't ask the right questions. They see an inflammatory piece and say "This is a juicy story" and don't get me started on what passes for "Investigative journalism" these days.
I say, and I always have said that if the dog does something bad, the OWNER should suffer for it. Even if you don't value the life of the animal, they are only as good as they are trained. It can be dangerous to own any pet big enough to rip out a throat or open a major artery. The trouble is, we don't treat them that way, and we don't enforce consequences on the owner for their failure to understand the animal they decide to keep. We say the dog must be broke and we kill it.
Then we enact knee-jerk legislation like the pit-bull thing in Denver, but the legislators can't be bothered to actually LEARN about what makes animals dangerous. They just say "Oh, people are frightened by animals that look like this, so we need to get rid of that breed." Never mind that "pit-bull" isn't even a real breed. In a sense, it is a lot like gun-control..... Frightened people making up laws to govern something they haven't taken the time to understand. Never mind the 2nd amendment. That's just stupid and I see no reason why we should have to put up with it.While I agree 100% that this story simply does not have enough information to make even a tentative call, I will absolutely disagree about it being necessary to fear for my life before harming a dog.
Any dog that makes and attempt to bite me or mine, or that I even think is going to bite, will be stopped if I can. If that means death for the dog, no problem. I refuse to allow even a chihuahua to sink it's teeth into my leg before destroying it. Not only do I have no reason to suffer the pain and cost of being bit, but the next person along could be a 3 year old toddler that could lose the use of his leg forever or be forever traumatized.If you can't stop a taco dog from biting you, you would be a danger to everyone around you if you had a weapon and were attempting to use it under those circumstances. Any three-year old would be in more danger from you than they would be from the dog.
Perhaps, although I do think you exaggerate pretty wildly. But why risk a bite from an uncontrolled animal?
I had a buddy who had three shitzhu dogs. One liked to bite every so often. It barely even registered. I've had cats scratch me worse than a little dog bite.
There is absolutely no way that guy could have been fearing for his life.If you find it reasonable to wait until bitten, hope it is a small nip and not a lacerated achilles, fine. I do not care to do that, whether "in fear for my life" or not.
So, when does common sense come into the equation?
Guarantee it's before I get bit and need medical care.
I'm not a dog hater, but not a dog lover, either. A dog is a dog, not someone's child. I will not stand there and wait to be bitten before taking action. I've never had a bad dog bite - just little nips with no Dr. needed - and don't intend to.
As far as I'm concerned common sense says "Don't get bitten", not "Take chances because someone loves this dog, even if not enough to restrain it".So, you're saying that a little yappy dog came up to you in the street (and since it was owned by a human, it probably has had its shots, vaccines, etc) and started yapping at you, you would just shoot it because you could honestly say with a straight face that it was a threat to you?
Is that what you believe happened from the extremely limited information in the links given? That the dog barked and was promptly shot?
Because I don't see that anywhere. On the contrary one link plainly said they don't even know where the dog was, let alone if it was actively attacking.
But...a dog whose owner doesn't care enough to follow the law and keep it restrained isn't likely to give it shots, either.
Guess you've never been badly bitten, never had a child bitten either. Let me clue you; it doesn't take a doberman to hurt.Right, because dogs never get lost or loose right?
And you're really saying it was just the media trying to spin the story?
Fine....let's say that was the case, you're still telling me that you would shoot a small dog that is absolutely no threat to you because its bite may or may not hurt a little bit?My dog has never gotten loose, and never will. Because I don't have a dog to get loose, but if I did I'm still not interested, as I carry my little girl to the ER to be sewn up, in hearing excuses that it can and will happen.
Media spin? I clearly said that the media reported that it didn't know what happened (except that it was legal to shoot the dog). Sounds very much like it is YOU trying to spin the media report, trying to insinuate that the dog didn't attack, or that it couldn't hurt anyone if it did. Let me explain something to you; the only unrestrained dog, small or large, that can't hurt a person is a dead one. Dog lovers all over the country will exclaim that their dog can't or won't hurt anyone even as dogs do just that every day in every city in the country.
But you've got the last part right - I will not stand there and be bitten by an attacking animal without trying to stop it, and if that means shooting the animal then so be it (although it might be more appropriate sometimes to just shoot the owner). I do not choose to be hurt because an animal's owner is too sorry to maintain control over their pet. Not hurt even a little bit.Sewn up over a bite from a three pound dog? Really?
Really. You know, you don't do your debate much good by denying the obvious; that even a small dog can produce a nasty bite. Heck, I've seen kids that needed attention from being bitten by a pet rat! I've even seen reports of infants killed by rats. A 14" mongoose (probably smaller than that dog) will kill an adult cobra that is 4 times it's size.
Even small animals can produce a very nasty bite.People killed by a rat are probably killed due to infection or disease related to the bite. Also, babies immune systems are much worse than that of a grown man. So, if your daughter is a baby, I could see it possibly.
However, you aren't doing your argument any favors by assuming that a three pound dog is a killing machine. What if it just wanted to play?No - in the case of the infant, the rats literally ate it to death. It presumably died from loss of blood, certainly not infection. Thank God I've never heard of another case, though.
A little more spin? How do you go from a nasty bite to a killing machine? While there was a three year old a few miles from me killed by a pair of dogs this year, it wasn't the ankle biter variety that did it, but pit bulls.
In general I think I can tell the difference between a dog wanting to play and one that wants to attack and bite. But if I make a mistake, it's unfortunate but that's all. That I might make such a mistake is insufficient reason to wait until bitten before taking action.But I'm not talking about Pit Bulls.....
I'm talking about the tiny dog involved in this case.Yes, I know. What I don't know is why you're trying to claim it cannot bite bad enough to require stitches.
We both know better, so why you're making the claim is beyond my feeble understanding.
Are you suggesting a stand your ground law for chihuahuas?
Can you just see our legislators working through that one?
Seriously, though, that answer is probably yes. I've always understood it is a very bad thing to run from an attacking canine whether it be wolf, shepherd or Pomeranian. It excites the chase instinct in the dog.
That means you have only two real options; try to cow the dog into aborting the attack or attack yourself. Either way it's a stand your ground thing.
We're pretty much on the same wavelength on this one.
Your comment is revealing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/0 … lf-DefenseFirst guess (guess!) is that the shooter had something against the owner, the dog or dogs in general. Maybe he was mauled as a child and still pays the mental price for that.
Second guess would be that the dog did attack, or at a minimum gave the appearance of doing so. My limited experience with small dogs like this is that they are very excitable and very often do bark and charge with the apparent intention of biting. Nor is it always only appearance; I've been nipped by small dogs before.
About the only things we appear to know is that the shooter was within his legal rights, and that he did not commit the "murder" Lessenberry referred to in his inflammatory and stupid post. Maybe the shooter was also within ethical rights, maybe not.
In Detroit, dogs are bigger. Would you kill a pit bull who is doing the same thing?
"Doing the same thing?" As in barking? Then my answer is "No. I wouldn't kill a pit bull for barking." I wouldn't kill any animal simply for barking. Anyone who would is just frightened and ignorant.
Absolutely, if he appeared to be attacking me, not just for barking from a safe distance away.
If a dog is coming at me to do physical harm, well it is lights out for the poor doggy.
Dog barks are intimidating. I do not know if I would go that far. It is up to the mindset of the individual.
Dem-Republican compromise reached on background checks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/po … ks.html?hpBefore Congress should be allowed to pass any more gun-control legislation, they should pass one law saying all current federal gun-control legislation is void. Otherwise, every new law helps to assure that A) they don't understand what the ramifications of the bill and B) won't be effective enough to even fulfill it's stated purpose, if by some miracle it's stated purpose is even desirable.
It is a start but the mass school shootings are from students who get their parents' gun(s). Obviously all kids who are mentally ill or post controversial violent rants on social media sites won't commit shooting crimes. Make it like going into a courthouse with security. It works in some countries.
Speaking of courthouses a BG check could help stop or delay getting a gun for a spouse going through a divorce or has been served papers. Typically, it is a he and the wife and kids are killed and maybe he commits suicide. The check should incorporate this aspect since divorce happens 50% of the time.People's lives are turned upside down. Can't see your kid everyday anymore, alimony or child support, etc.We now need legislation on bombs. If it save one life, we have to do it.
We already have legislation against bombs, are you saying it didn't work?
Umm...this is kinda awkward, but no. Clearly not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -line.html
If we went with that kind of logic, we wouldn't be able to dive, eat anything with taste, have parties, have fun in general, or get any sort of medical attention, or anything else out there that causes death on a regular basis. Until you outlaw something entirely there is ALWAYS something you can do to save one more life. The thing is, when do you stop? Obviously encasing everyone in bubble-wrap and not letting anyone leave their house would save a lot of lives, but it would also make the simple act of living a little more cumbersome than anyone would want, so we don't do it.
By the same token, the approach to gun-control is not "Will it save lives?" but "Is it worth the lives it will save?" There is inherent danger is pretty much every activity. At some point, making something safer requires an unacceptable restriction that impacts our freedoms and our own personal responsibility. Obviously, gun-control supporters don't think their ideas are "too far" and those advocates of gun-ownership think they are.
But in either case, there is no logic in saying "Well, if it saves lives, that's all we need to justify it." Because that is a flawed argument under even the most cursory examination.
Same old same ol...........guns killing people by the masses every day in the good old USA. We have to have them though, don't take away those precious 2nd ammendment rights. I mean, what would we possibly do without guns? If a person comes into my house I will shoot em! If my neighbor is against guns, they will beg me for protection!!!!!!! Get a life!
I'm so sick of watching the population get wiped out by guns each day and hearing the totally pro gun advocates saying "we need more guns"! What we need is more intelligent people who will take what the people of this country wish more seriously.
Killing firemen, police, and little children to say the least. Soon it will be the wild west again. I suppose to some hard core rednecks that is a dream come true. Most of us would just like to live in relative peace. You can't educate people who will not listen or are not capable of figuring it out.
With that said, it's pretty obvious that guns and people getting killed each day is a way of life in the USA. Some want it that way and are not intelligent enough to really see the light. Good for them. I will just keep watching mass shootings on tv and in my local area. Maybe I need a gun to protect myself from the nuts who support weaker gun laws.
Guns are for sissy's......the military may need them but the average citizen does not. This whole thing makes me sick. This is proof of intelligence and weak minded people who need a gun to compensate.
Why do you think there is the term average? This is a direct result of combining the general populations intelligence level. Those who are not smart enough to get it our below average. Those who do are above. The middle is considered average. Look at the poll numbers and it is pretty clear. It breaks it down for those who cannot figure it out on their own.
Sad society we live in here!That has to be some of the most nonsensical, disjointed claptrap I have ever read. Good job.
The problem in the country today? A bunch of bully, belligerent males who think shoving guns in the faces of everyone at any given opportunity is the only way to get their jollies.
These belligerents are mentally unstable individuals. They don't see their own lack of civility in a society that is fed up with constant massacres of innocent people in public places the rest of pay taxes to maintain.
They love when their adrenalin pumps the minute they hear the sound of "Pow! Pow! Pow!" This is how they get their jollies. Truth hurts them more than anything else. In their squirrely world, they are all that counts. Not their wives, their kids or their jobs...just their guns.
There is a push on right now to limit the number of guns that can be manufactured in the US by 4 billionaires in MO, VA, NC and TN. This makes perfect sense. The same gun nuts who want drugs controlled and other dangerous chemicals won't like that lethal weapons are in the same "dangerous" category. They've already lost that argument with Newtown, Aurura and the daily shootings of innocent people.
The other push is to insure that all gun sellers and dealers pay a licensing fee like that of those who sell liquor. In some states, that license costs $200K or more. And why not?
I find it ironic that the same loonies who live in "dry" states are the same states that allow floods of guns everywhere. Shows how idiotic these nut jobs really are.I don't own any firearms. I'm not sure I ever will, but that doesn't change what I think about firearms, and it doesn't change the fact that the more firearms that are in the hands of our citizens, the safer our neighborhoods are. This is a fact. It's a statistic that gun-control advocates choose not to dispute. The most they say is "Guns are dangerous" which makes them no different than many other things in our society that are dangerous but we live our lives along side them just fine. Explain to me why we have towns where firearms are not only allowed but encouraged, yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. Explain that before you jump up on your soap box and lament the "wave of violence" caused by "gun nuts who can't give up their weapons".
Oh really? More firearms make neighborhoods safer? You mean like that tiny little town in GA where the mayor demanded all people own guns with a population of 3500? Just who are they protecting themselves from if not each other?
Guns are used as weapons to kill others. You want to ignore that little fact of life too?
Two weeks ago in NJ, a 4 year old in Lakewood got hold of his father's 22 caliber rifle, one of 11 the father owned. The little 4 year old went out and shot the 6 year old boy who lived next door.
Please tell me how the glorification of guns wasn't already shown by Big Daddy's example to his 4 year old? Now, the 6 year old is dead and the 4 year old may as well be too. He will forever be remembered as the little boy who shot another child by his schoolmates. His life is as over as the 6 year old.
I'm fed up with men who think their actions are not copied by their kids. Parents teach children by example. And...don't tell me a 4 year old can be taught to respect guns. No professional child psychologist would agree. It's why they call 18 years old the "Age of Reason," when a child can be held responsible for their actions.
You teach children every day by what you do. If you treat guns as some reward for manhood, you teach them violence. Children know a gun goes "Pow," and someone is dead. That's a simple lesson often learned, as the 4 year old's father is now learning....too late.
I don't deny that there are people who need guns. But guns in inner cities, on subways, buses and trains jam packed with people isn't the place. That's the place for a civilized society to work out their differences without violence. There's a time and place for everything. Showing butt being armed to the teeth on public streets isn't the place.
What about "violence" do some men have such difficulty accepting. Not everything in this lifetime requires a gun. And I stand on my belief that some gun owners only own guns to get their jollies. When I see photos of men at gun shows, I laugh and laugh...most of them have drool coming out of their mouths.Ewent: Again, you're not disputing what I said. You're just saying that it doesn't matter. Kennesaw, GA. Look it up. Firearm ownership is encouraged in that town. It's not a smalltown. It has over 30,000 people in it. If gun violence was affected by the number of guns or the ease that they could be obtained, then that town should be a cesspool of death and violence. It's not. Please explain.
"I'm fed up with men who think their actions are not copied by their kids. Parents teach children by example. And...don't tell me a 4 year old can be taught to respect guns. No professional child psychologist would agree. It's why they call 18 years old the "Age of Reason," when a child can be held responsible for their actions. "
You repeatedly, and not just in this post, make this an issue about men. Did you know that there are between 15-30 million women in America who own a gun?Yes, we get it, you hate men.
Now, while you attempt to 'reason' and talk about rainbows and unicorns with a gang-banger who wants your wallet or car (let me know how that works out) I will choose not to be a victim just because *you* tell me it's more "civilized" to just allow my hard earned possessions, or my life, to be taken by some scumbag who doesn't give a rats ass that you chanted and wore your crystals today.
Go buy another gun since it seems to DEFINE who you are. I'm sure it will make YOU feel safer poor thing. Dont let the boogie man get you! Let's all buy guns and have a big shootem up festival, why not revert back to over a hundred years ago. Hey, while were at it, let's also get rid of cars and electronics. We should all go backwards. Maybe we can use our BIG GUNS to shoot animals instead of people each day, that way we can wear their skins to stay warm by an outside fire at night.
I enjoy shooting soda cans. What's wrong with that?
There are millions of Americans and millions of firearms and with the exception of very few cases of insane people committing horrible crimes where is this death and carnage that you say will happen? Please don't use Chicago as an example unless you just like looking foolish.
That's the issue I have with most gun-control supporters. They use examples that are dubious. Even if we buy the idea that Chicago's problem is guns, then that doesn't explain the many communities where firearms are even easier to obtain than in Chicago, yet do not have rampant crime. The bottom line is that if the number of firearms doesn't affect crime, then why is gun control only about the number of firearms? If the number of firearms DOES affect crime, it seems to affect it in the opposite way that gun-control advocates are telling us it does, so THAT needs to be explained. Instead, they don't explain that. They say either that the "gun culture" advocates violence (again, without citing any proof) or that they don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an AR-15, never mind that the AR-15 is practically the LEAST popular firearm when it comes to violent crime.
Seriously, guys you have to start finding better arguments. Repeating something that is demonstrably false doesn't make it any less false.
The average citizen needs guns. Self defense is important.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0Liberal minds seem so far removed from reality ! What about the revolving doors of ' lets go easy on the perpetrators " , "I don't believe in the death penalty "....."our prisoners are a just plain persecuted minority ", .....please ! You want to control guns . demand accountability in criminal courts , real punishment for real crime ! On and on !
You operate under the false assumption that the death penalty scares people--or at least, scares the people likely to receive it.
You wanna see gun violence and drug trafficking come to a screeching halt? Execute every banker. Execute bankers who've never even touched drug money before. Execute every last one of them. Is it morally and ethically reprehensible? Yes. Will it work? You'd better believe it.So, holding criminals accountable for their crimes is as morally reprehensible as executing bankers? Don't get me wrong, I think executing a few bankers would be morally justified, but the death penalty DOES deter crime, IF is isn't so fraught with loopholes and conditional rules. If you KNEW that if you killed someone in the commission of a crime you would automatically get the death penalty if you were convicted, you WOULD be less likely to kill people when you were perpetrating a crime. Too many criminals get away with it even in death penalty states. Not exactly a deterrence.
And how does that have anything to do with gun-control anyway? Even if I believed your argument, it would seem to say that people, rather than firearms are the source of crime. Never known a banker to pick up a gun himself, but a few pointed in his direction might make him a better person.Hrm...figured you would've picked up on it.
The #1 reason America's gun violence statistic is through the roof is because of gang/cartel violence, and that's primarily caused by drug wars. Now, it would be much simpler and much more logical to just legalize some of these drugs so the gangs disintegrate, but my fellow Americans are stupid and hate logic, so we kill off the bankers instead. Why the bankers? Because they launder the drug money and make it difficult to pin these drug lords down. So with the bankers dead, drug lords will be unable to funnel money and goods, and when drug lords can't funnel money and goods, the gangs go away, and when the gangs go away, the violence goes away.I picked up on it. I just didn't think it was relevant. Most drug violence is against other criminals, or the police, and in any case, what gun-supporters scream about is the mass shootings done by whacko's and criminals getting hold of citizens guns and killing innocent people with them, or law-abiding citizens accidentally shooting innocents while trying to prevent crimes, which are statistically the least common deaths from firearms. You are statistically more likely to die from a bullet that came out of a police gun, than one that came out of any of those types of incidents, yet we don't try to disarm the police now... do we?
And throughout this entire discussion, still.... absolutely no one has answered my challenge to explain why communities with non-existent gun-control or even encouragement to own firearms are not full of violence or crime. They just continue to bring up emotional arguments and spurious conclusions with no proof.Guns protect too. A criminal is less likely to enter your home if he/she knows you have a gun and know how to use it. That's my answer.
I'm not for legalizing drugs, but you are right. This would be more effective than gun control, and it addresses one of the major reasons we have violence, something gun control wouldn't do. It's a valid point that deserves a lot more discussion. Good point.
And btw Zelkiiro.... Drug violence is not a problem. It can be virtually eliminated by doing one simple thing: Legalizing drugs. The reasons we don't are entirely political, and pretty dumb.
. . .it addresses the problem more than banning guns. Still, it's hard to accept the concept of legalized drugs.
That's only because we've lived with it so long that it seems natural for drugs to be illegal, yet we casually accept alcohol and vehemently oppose ANY suggestion that we make it illegal. I can think of MANY reasons to make drugs legal. The only reason I can think of NOT to make them illegal is that they mess some people up, but those people would be messed up by drugs if they were legal or illegal. At least if they are legal, there is more of a chance of those people being helped rather than just thrown in prison so they can give a lot of thought to how they were screwed by society and learn how to be a better criminal when they get out.
You make interesting points. Again, I don't believe I am ready to support this, and you probably hit the nail on the head as to why that is the case. Still, I recognize that this might have a greater impact on violence than gun control.
You want the death penalty to be a deterrent? Televise just one execution, post it on You Tube and all over the internet, pipe in to the day rooms of every prison in the country, let them all watch it in glorious HD.
Let them see what it looks like for someone to be hung, electrocuted, gassed, shot and injected. THAT will make it a deterrent.Most research says that capital punishment is not much of a deterrent. For one reason, most cold blooded murderers think they won't get caught, and, another, impulse killers aren't thinking much at all.
Don't think I ever, ever heard of a repeat offender - I'd have to say it was quite a deterrent to the killer.
Still, I think you're right that it isn't really much of a deterrent to others.As of October 2012 there were 3,146 people on death row in a country of over 300 million, you don't think death row is a deterrent? Wonder how things would be without the fear of death.
Certainty of apprehension and punishment short of the death penalty is a much greater deterrent to crime.
Superkev: I don't think that would work.. The first time you plaster the execution of an innocent man railroaded by the system and snuffed ALL over every television and monitor in the country, you won't have a deterrent. You'll have a flashpoint for riots... or did the Rodney King verdict teach us nothing.
I go back and forth about the death penalty all the time. My basic opinion is that if we had a system where the rate of jailing innocents was MUCH lower than it is today, then capital punishment, if done right would be a benefit to society. That's a lot of fixing we have to do before we reach that point though.I'm a retired Police Officer, I was there during the Rodney King riots, your comparison is not even close to apropos. King was neither innocent nor railroaded, he was a dirtbag from the word go.
And I think it would work, think of it as the ultimate scared straight program.Maybe he was a dirtbag, but not as big a dirtbag as the dirty cops who beat him up for no good reason. I hope you weren't one of them.
All he had to do was comply with orders Ralph. Instead he charged at Officer Briseno and tried to grab for his weapon (that's the part of the video the media didn't show) and he ended up on the ground. Those officers were perfectly within the force continuum as it existed at LAPD when this happened. Back then you had a stick, a gun, and supervisors had Tasers. That was it.
And they were within the laws of the state of California, that's why they were acquitted. Then the feds come in and have to "modify" existing, codified federal law to even have a chance at getting a conviction. Think about that, they changed existing law so they would have a chance at a case. PC BS all the way.Well, if that's true, the California laws/procedures needed to be changed. You are confirming my impression about the attitudes, behavior and short fuzes of a minority of policemen, based on what I've read, seen on television and experienced personally on a couple of occasions (on one occasion a Royal Oak, Michigan, policeman jumped out of his police car and threatened to hit me with what appeared to me to be a 2-foot long flashlight after I politely objected to what seemed to me an unjustified traffic ticket. Not long after that two Royal Oak policemen were convicted of robbing local businesses at night while making their rounds at night. Brutality by white policemen against black citizens contributed to the Detroit riot in 1967.). I also recall NYPD officers pumping 20 or 30 bullets into an African American young man on the front steps of his house for no good reason.
You do realize that this happened after a very long pursuit of poor innocent Rodney that was initiated by CHP, right? He had been evading arrest for about 30 minutes when the pursuit ended on the street in Foothill Division.
Rodney King was high on 'Angel Dust' at the time. If you have never tried to wrestle someone high on that substance in to handcuffs by yourself, you will do so only once.
To my mind what Rodney got was karma, I've seen his rap sheet. And he never saw a dime of his settlement because his victims sued him and he was ordered to pay them restitution for the crimes he committed against them.
I don't have a short fuse Ralph, but when it's time to rock, I'm ready and willing. And I will use that force necessary to overcome resistance in order to affect the arrest. Because bottom line is, me and my officers are going home at the end of the shift.Apparently you don't realize that it's not a cop's job to gang beat people (which is cowardly just to begin with, aside from being a crime) for your version of "karmic justice" it is in fact a crime and it is not why taxpayers like myself pay your wages, in fact if we needed thugs to give people a beat down we could hire people much cheaper, cop's are there to perform a professional service and a job outlined by their employer (the people).
Cops are hired to stop thugs and criminals, not become them.Ever tried to fight someone high on Phencyclidine Josak? I thought not.
He attacked the officers, was Tased twice and kept coming. And all after a 30 minute pursuit by CHP in which he could have chose to stop at anytime by pulling over, he chose not to and disobey a lawful stop. They were perfectly within policy on use of force. All he had to do was put his hands behind his back and allow himself to be cuffed as he was repeatedly ordered to do.Not Phencyclidine particularly but I cared for several years for a family member who suffered from Schizophrenia and used meth amongst other things so I am familiar with the principle, I never gathered some family members put him on the floor and beat him into a bloody pulp.
Again refusing to comply does not then allow policemen to deliver a gang beating to a man on the floor. That is a crime.
Not to mention that Rodney King's tox screen was totally clear so he almost certainly was not on drugs let alone Angel Dust, just lies upon lies to justify brutality.He was on the ground as he was hip thrown there after he lunged at Briseno's sidearm. And this was after he had been Tased once already.
No crime was committed, as evidenced by the trial verdict. They were within the use of force policy and they were well within California state law on use of necessary force to effect an arrest. Refusal AND resistance equals a little bit of Pain Compliance coming your way.
Josak is under the impression that a a cop should just "talk" down violent people.
I had a cousin who was a cop in Detroit. A lot of the times, he had to use physical force on those who would not cooperate. Especially the violent thugs who were in gangs.
I tried using the I pay your salary to a cop once. He handed me a nickle and went on about his business.
People have the right to own a gun to defend themselves. But they do not have the right to have weapons of war, and have no need of automatic weapons with so many clips. You don't have to know anything about guns to know how wrong that vote in Congress was today. The fact they let those parents whose lives were ruined sit in that room, and then not even throw them a bone and ask for background checks, is disgusting and shocking. It's inhumane. I know Karma will get them in the end, but I hope they have to suffer the sorrow these poor parents feel, and have all the pain people have from being shot. Everyone of them who didn't vote for background checks is a coward, and I'm ashamed they are part of our government. A person who cannot even think for themself to make a logical decision should not be a Congressperson. We need to start watching who gets elected much earlier in the process. I hope all the B*****Ds suffer.
The debate isn't about automatic weapons, unless I've missed something.
If it was just about background checks, then maybe I would agree, but Obama specifically lied about what was in the Bill, and then refused to back down when he was caught. If we found something that he tried to slip into the bill, what ELSE did he slip in that we didn't notice? Sorry. All things being equal, politicians don't get the benefit of the doubt. Some of those Senators admitted that they didn't even READ the bill. Good intentions or not, it was a BAD bill and they used dishonest tactics to try to pass it. If you're mad that we didn't pass gun-control legislation, get mad at Obama. He did more to sabotage that bill than the NRA did.
The NRA is the one who lied about the bill, claiming inaccurately that the bill contained a national registry when it actually contained a specific prohibition of such a registry.
"Republicans armed themselves with disputed talking points from the gun lobby about how a bill to expand background checks and outlaw a national gun registry was instead tantamount to a national gun registry. Turning the dispute from gun safety to gun rights, they took to the Senate floor to denounce the compromise, even arguing with its sponsors, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, two National Rifle Association-blessed lawmakers who could not contain their umbrage. Mr. Obama on Wednesday accused the gun lobby and opposition lawmakers of willfully lying about the measure." NYTimes 4-18-13The NRA has over 4 million members, it isn't in the best interest of the President to call us liars!
I think he was referring to St. Pierre and whoever has been writing their ads and public statements. But if the shoe fits.
Although I'm not particularly against background checks, the idea that congress needed to throw a bone to the grieving parents doesn't make it.
Don't forget, that "bone" affects millions of other people. A part of what is wrong with our system is that there are far too many "bones" given out. Congress was right in thinking that background checks are going to accomplish absolutely nothing as far as decreasing the death toll - this particular bone needed to stay out of the equation. To make it a law, negatively affecting millions of Americans, is nothing more than politics in play - throwing bones in the hopes of getting votes and placating people but accomplishing nothing else.Thank you for NOT voting for this infringement on our rights and I hope those who voted for and those who support this type of legislation suffer immensely!
There was no proposed infringement of your rights. You have a vastly overblown conception of your "rights."
No, Ralph: The bill that they wanted Obama to sign was expanding background checks to include all gun sales, not bad by itself. If you already buy the idea of background checks it makes sense to do it everywhere. Where the government fell down was in the data that was being collected with those background checks. They claimed to prohibit a national data base, but then the information obtained by those background checks would be SAVED and federal authorities would have access to that information whenever they "needed" it. How is that not the same as a national firearm registry?
Sorry, Ralph. You got duped.Please document your assertion. You have a habit of making undocumented erroneous claims. My understanding is that the only records on the background checks would remain with the gun dealers or other sellers.
Ralph: about my "assertion" The language of the bill was supposed to have the following language in it:
"Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry. Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to…allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.”
This was the argument when they were trying to get the NRA on board. Turns out the NRA still wouldn't support it, but instead of leaving that language in it, they removed it. Checking on the bill that the Senate just voted on, I could not find those passages or any like them. I guess they figured if the NRA wasn't on board, they didn't have to do what they said they would. I call that dishonest, especially since the supporters of the bill kept referring to that language right up till the vote. I wonder how many of those Senators who voted for it also thought that language was in the bill.
However, since Congress hardly even reads bills anymore.. I suppose it doesn't matter in the long run.
"Well, if that's true, the California laws/procedures needed to be changed."
Then that should be left up to California.
Not the point. He was PERCEIVED as being innocent and railroaded and look what happened. A REAL innocent who is railroaded generates a LOT more sympathy, and if you throw the event live everywhere... well you're just asking for trouble.
Kudos to the four GOP Senators who voted in favor of the background check bill that was defeated today:
Collins, Maine
Kirk, Illinois
McCain, Arizona
Toomey, Pennsylvania
Brickbats to the five Democrats who voted against the bill, especially Harry the Rat Reid:
Baucus, Montana
Begich, Arkansas
Heitcamp, N. Dakota
Pryor, Arkansas
Reid, NevadaJust keep in mind that the congressmen who voted against the bill were not trying to protect the 2nd Amendment and those who voted for the bill were not trying to reduce gun-violence. It's called politics, and they accomplished exactly what they intended, keeping the problem alive so they can collect votes on election day by once again acting like they are trying to solve a problem.
Gun-control: the gift that keeps giving.Now we know which Rhinos not to vote for in the next election.
Chris Rock--"How not to get your ass kicked by the police."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8It's too bad it did not go through. It's intent was to stop mentally ill or unstable people from getting guns easily. We know career criminals fit into that group but their access to lots of money will get them a gun somehow like drug cartel lords, ID thieves, politicians, bank bailout bigwigs, and the like. It's strange to me.
Cars have accidents, and there are gun accidents but only one has to be registered and the person goes through a written and performance test. If you have killed people from drunk driving due to a BG check, no license to drive, If you have killed someone with a gun, you can still buy own another one at a gun show or shop. I know one is a privilege and one is a const. right. Times have not changed, there is no progress. Soon enough you will have just democrats in the senate because republicans were so bull-headed or bribed. This country will get spent to death. Now, you will need a gun. I guess they saw it coming.ocbill: Whatever it's intent was, it wasn't going to do that. The mentally ill and unstable ALREADY can't get guns. The problem is that unless they are in therapy or they are are or have been in a mental institution, a background check will clear them, even under this new bill. Sorry. You've been duped.
I wouldn't know, I paid a little for my lifetime membership haven't seen any money from them though.
Did you think I was asking if you were paid by the NRA?
I didn't know, thought I would clarify if you were.
I don't like to argue, but the person who did the killing in Newtown was mentally ill. I know his Mother had the gun in the house, and I don't want to blame her, since he killed her too. But can anyone really say it's such an infringement of rights to ask for background checks? I'm not saying anyone should be denied a gun to defend themselves against a robber or attacker. You should see some of the martial arts weapons in my house from my son's 15 years of training and now teaching. I had to call the cops a few times in the last years because NJ is deluged with bears, and they wanted us to call each time the bears were at our house so they had a tally for the proper agency reports. They looked with interest at his weapons mounted on his wall, but know he's a good kid because we've lived in this town all his life and they know the unstable ones or drug addicts. Background checks at the gun shows would mean some of the bad ones would be unable to access a gun as easily. I know crazy people will still do crazy things, But the NRA is really overstepping itself and likely paying for the "right" vote. I think the midterm elections will see an exodus of D's elected in. I don't see how Senators couldn't vote with what 90% of the people they are SUPPOSED to represent want. I'm glad we have strict gun laws in NJ. And John McCain voted the right way too, someone I respect for all he's been through. People who are brave and have suffered don't have to be afraid to do what's right.
They perform background checks at the guns shows it is already a law!
Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for private firearms purchases at gun shows. Federal law only requires licensed dealers to do background checks at gun shows.
I think Ralph has told him that 3 times...
My understanding is that the proposed bill didn't even completely close the gun show loophole, because if someone who couldn't pass a background check finds a non-dealer with a gun at a gun show, all they have to do is go across the street and consummate the deal legally without a background check.
Thats true, and only those holding FFL can legally sell guns at gun shows, whats the loophole.
Editorial
The Senate Fails Americans
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: April 17, 2013 437 Comments
For 45 senators, the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a forgotten tragedy. The toll of 270 Americans who are shot every day is not a problem requiring action. The easy access to guns on the Internet, and the inevitability of the next massacre, is not worth preventing.
Those senators, 41 Republicans and four Democrats, killed a bill on Wednesday to expand background checks for gun buyers. It was the last, best hope for meaningful legislation to reduce gun violence after a deranged man used semiautomatic weapons to kill 20 children and six adults at the school in Newtown, Conn., 18 weeks ago. A ban on assault weapons was voted down by 60 senators; 54 voted against a limit on bullet magazines.
Patricia Maisch, who survived a mass shooting in Tucson in 2011, spoke for many in the country when she shouted from the Senate gallery: “Shame on you.”
Newtown, in the end, changed nothing; the overwhelming national consensus to tighten a ridiculously lax set of gun laws was stopped cold. That’s because the only thing that mattered to these lawmakers was a blind and unthinking fealty to the whims of the gun lobby.
The National Rifle Association once supported the expansion of background checks, but it decided this time that President Obama and gun-control advocates could not be allowed even a scintilla of a victory, no matter how sensible. That group, and others even more militant, wanted to make sure not one bill emerged from the Newtown shooting, and they got their way. A vast majority of Republicans meekly followed along, joined by a few nervous red-state Democrats, giving far more weight to a small, shrill and largely rural faction than to the country’s overwhelming need for safety and sanity.
Guns had not been on the president’s campaign agenda, but, to his credit, he and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. came up with a solid package of proposals after Newtown that would have reduced the number of dangerous weapons on the street and in the hands of criminals. Mr. Obama traveled the country to promote it in 13 speeches, and he has spent the last weeks unsuccessfully trying to pry senators out of the pocket of the gun lobby.
The most important aspect of his proposal, in the eyes of many gun-control advocates, was the expansion of background checks, both because it closed an important loophole and because it seemed the easiest to pass. From 20 percent to 40 percent of all gun sales now take place without a background check, and the bill rejected on Wednesday would have required the check for buyers at gun shows, on the Internet and at other commercially advertised sales. It was sponsored by two pro-gun senators with the courage to buck the lobby, Joe Manchin III, a Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick Toomey, a Republican of Pennsylvania.
The critical need for this measure was illustrated by a report in The Times on Wednesday that showed how easy it is for criminals to buy weapons on the Internet without a look at their backgrounds. One widely popular Web site contains tens of thousands of private postings of gun sales, and The Times’s investigation found that many buyers and sellers were criminals. Some of the guns have been used to kill.
A vote to continue this practice would be hard to explain to constituents, so lawmakers simply invented reasons to oppose background checks. Some insisted it would lead to a national gun registry, though the plain language of the bill prohibited that. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said it would raise taxes. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona said it would require checks even when a gun sale is posted on an office bulletin board. (There’s nothing wrong with that, but it wouldn’t.) Mr. Obama, after the vote, said those who made these arguments had “willfully lied.”
It’s now up to voters to exact a political price from those who defied the public’s demand, and Mr. Obama was forceful in promising to lead that effort. Wednesday was just Round 1, he said; the next step is to replace those whose loyalty is given to a lobby rather than the people.
“Sooner or later, we are going to get this right,” he said. “The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opini … ls.html?hp
Comment: When will the GOP ever learn? Again they've painted themselves into a small corner with American voters.Saying a gun show loophole exists because someone violates the law at a gun show is the same as saying there is a loophole in the DUI laws because someone got caught driving drunk.
Justsilvie,
You didn't miss much. Even though many states have no background checks for people who want to buy guns, many insist that they do. I have never seen so many people accept lies so easily and believe them, like a bunch of sheep. And of course, Obama lied and did whatever evil they want to blame on him now. He was furious in his speech, as he had a right to be. I believe the Senate will do anything to oppose him, no matter how shameful their behavior is. Our New Jersey Senators voted Yes, we have a densely populated, diverse state, and tougher gun laws work. We also rarely have hate crimes and Thanks be to God, no school shootings or tragedies like othes have suffered. Those children should be alive today, and no other country in the world (except one in a civil war, obviously) has so many people who own guns. It's not necessary. Things were different when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and sometimes I think it needs to be updated. You don't hear of people shooting each other so often in any country except the U.S. It's disgusting. I think too many people buy into that old Cowboy and Indian culture, thinking how "good" it is to defend yourself from those "bad" Indians. The Indians kept the new settlers alive their first winter in this country, only to be killed and put on reservations by said Cowboys. I don't know why some people idealize this kind of behavior.Tougher gun laws work, do they? NJ is just a tick under the national average, and far above those western states with very high gun ownership rates. States such as Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have lots and lots of guns but a murder rate less than half that of NJ. Can't say as I see tough gun laws working too well. Those states don't have the school shootings, either, even though some smaller towns find guns in the vehicles of students as a matter of course.
I think far too many people buy into the idea that limiting guns will limit homicides, but it simply doesn't work that way. Back to that tired old saw; people kill, not guns. Find the reason that people kill each other and you might lower the tremendous US murder rate; put your time, effort and funding into taking away guns and the death toll will only continue.
I don't know why some people idealize the mistaken concept that taking a shot in the dark (limiting guns) will somehow fix the problem when no other nation on earth can make that claim. Fact of the matter is that there is no connection whatsoever between the number of guns in a country and their murder rate.Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Japan, etc. say differently.
No they don't. For every country you can name, I can (and have) named another with the opposite result. There is no connection.
There is no "overwhelming national consensus" to pass this law. If there was, it would have passed. People believe whatever poll they want to believe. If Finland & Japan are so great, go live there. & why are Indians always brought into an arguement. They were rounded up & their guns taken away. The president or anyone else can be as mad as they want. Feel free to express your anger. It's called the 1st Ammendment.
Some people have guns. Others are mad & scared of those people who have them. They want to limit the 2nd Ammendment. They want to pass laws against the 2nd Ammendment. Sure you can say this was about "background checks." This law didn't pass because the people don't trust the lawmakers proposing this law. Lawmakers laid out what they wanted in the begining: magazine capacity limit & a ban on semiautomatic rifles. Limiting magazine capacity, the people don't want it. If that really makes you feel safer, move to New York or Colorado. Semiautomatic rifles (the really scary guns) will not be banned. Call them assault rifles or whatever you want. I know this law didn't address this, but the ammendments that would come later would have. Feinstein made that clear. People don't trust the lawmakers.Wilderness, states like Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have very small populations for their huge sizes, and almost all white citizens. Many of them are survivalists and stockpile food and guns for the end of times as they see it. There is no diversity, so if there are less killings, it's because the people live in rural areas and are not exposed to people who are that much different than them. They get along better because they are the same, not because they are broad minded or because they respect any other culture than the one they embrace.
I respect you and don't want to argue. Crazy people will always kill, always find a way. I just don't see why so many people feel a need to have a gun. It's dangerous, and we've seen many cases where children died because they knew where their parents kept the guns, even if the parents were trying to be careful. My Father was a jail warden, and later a detective, and he never carried his gun, he was respected and never felt a need for it. I've said people have a right to have a firearm if it's not a weapon of war, though when they keep adding on more guns and ammo, I think they suffer from paranoia. I guess we just have to disagree about this one.
NJ has one of the biggest Muslim populations in the U.S. and there were not gun incidents or mass killings over that on 9/11, when all of us lost loved ones.. Both sides are getting facts from God knows where, though I know your research is to be trusted. I'm just speaking from the heart and what I know of my state. I don't want to see our world end in violence, but if we don't change things, it will. I always read that in other countries there are very few deaths by handguns compared to the U.S.,but cannot quote the publication.
It's all so very sad, and I still don't think our representatives should have caved in to the NRA. I don't believe every news channel whether conservative or liberal is lying when they say 90% of the people wanted background checks. I still don't think that's too much to ask. Or if the states have background checks people can get guns at shows, which is just as bad. The parents of the Newtown shootings would at least have had something to hold onto, to feel at least like their children did not die totally in vain, that something came from it. Would it really have been so awful to do such a small thing to help people in such terrible grief feel like maybe they could keep another parent from such horror? It's the cold and heartless attitiude of the Senate that upsets me the most. And besides being beholden to the NRA, they will disagree with President Obama anyway, even if they have to pretend to dislike something they like. The immaturity and irrationality of it shows me that many of them should not be in office. I'm not going to post anymore, it's all too depressing. When we are at a point in society where people are being killed for no reason, what hope is left?Jean, there is no doubt in my mind that you and I are on the same side in our goals, we just differ in the way to get there. I will, however, address a couple of points:
1) if you think the West isn't diversified you are sadly mistaken. The east has primarily blacks and a few other sources, such as Muslim. We have Indians, illegal aliens and a tremendous push in very conservative states to control religion. Gays, for example, have been hung and drug to death. It is a sad fact of life that humanity will always form groups, groups that hate everyone else.
2) Most people aren't after facts; they are after opinions the same as theirs, such as 90% of the population wanting stiffer controls. You couldn't get 90% of Americans to agree that the sun would rise tomorrow, let alone agree that guns should be controlled. A very few look for facts, check their veracity as much as possible and then go with them whether they want to or not. I am one such: I spent a good deal of time collecting and examining statistics on gun ownership vs homicide rates and although the end conclusion was startling, it is what it is and I will accept that there is no correlation between the two. I even wrote it up for others, but that hub doesn't see much traffic - the gun haters don't want to see it and the gun lovers don't care as they, too, already have their desired conclusion.
3) No, the parents at Newtown do NOT have a right to control the nation, particularly when that loss of freedom will do absolutely nothing of value except give a false sense of security. They certainly do not have any right to feel that everyone must take worthless steps to make those parents feel good about it, and certainly that will be the only real result of strong legislation. That and more criminals as a great many gun owners will refuse to abide by strong laws.
4) Finally, #3 says that the actions of congress were not "cold and heartless"; that those actions could have been taken in the best interests of the country. Personally, I believe they were taken to control the political atmosphere, to gain votes and maintain party strength, but I have absolutely no proof of that. I could be that for once our politicians thought beyond their personal power and gain. Certainly there are enough differing opinions, and enough opinions on what the law would actually do if passed as written, to make at least some (and perhaps most) vote against it.
So we need to find what causes our people to kill, to put our time and effort to finding and eliminating that cause instead of spinning our wheels in making more laws to limit what people can legally do. Insanity, IMHO, is a huge part of the problem, but I haven't the faintest how to handle that one. Our war on drugs, seems to me, could be another big part and there is some limited data agreeing with that. That our culture loves "pretend" violence in the movies and games they use may be a part, I don't know.
Whatever it is, though, we desperately need to find and correct it. After all this time, I still think of Sandy Hook every time I pick my grandkids up from school. I look for a shooter or bomber in the crush of cars. I listen for anything unusual, and I cry inside at the thought of that happening again. For it will happen again; we aren't prepared or willing to look inside ourselves for the problem and that's the ONLY way it will be stopped. Take the guns and there will be bombs. Take all bomb materials and there will be kamikaze car crashes. It will not stop until we somehow change as a people.I'm sure we would both like to see people use their energies to solve the problems instead of being on one side or the other. Nobody seems to be doing what's best for all.
I have been out West quite a bit, and the people are much more spread out. It's not like I never left N.J. Even PA, right next to us, is mostly white Republicans, except for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the rest is mainly farmlands. Very pretty, but not many jobs. N.J also has illegal immigrants, a large Hispanic population, Indians (from India) and gays, Muslims are not the only unique group of people we have. We have a disaster on our hands from Superstorm Sandy, the whole shore area is a mess which will take years to get back. Our economy depends a lot on tourism.The Hurricane that took the roof off my neighbor's house and left us freezing and in the dark for 8 days got downgraded to a superstorm, and the politicians tried not to give us money to fix all that is broken. Although Chris Christie undid enviromental issues that took us years of hard work to fight for, at least he put the people first and he and Obama cooperated. I wish we could see more politicians like that.
There is no way you can get me to believe politicians are serving the people. You may not think they are "cold and heartless", but their actions since Obama has been in office are not what is best for the country as a whole, only for the rich and special interests.
I still think maybe it's the old "shoot 'em up" culture, but people need to think for themselves. It's like blaming a rock band for "making" your family member commit suicide because of song lyrics.
I don't know what could have helped those parents. Their lives are ruined unless they channel their grief and anger into trying to change things in what way they think can help. But as has been seen in Columbine, parents and the students who lived through that horror have been killing themselves as the years pass. Parents can't live without their loss, and the then kids have physical limitations so bad they would rather die than live.
We do not have adequate mental health help for the people in this country that need it. I know that firsthand from my bi-polar brother. Plus more troops from Afganistan have killed themselves since they have been home than died there. In other generations, they kept in their feelings. I guess we all have a relative that just sat and looked depressed all the time, and the family just accepted it and never got them the help they needed. Of course, you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. Nobody seems to be doing much for our troops coming home, and there whole lives were turned upside down when they answered the call.
We aren't going to agree on the gun issue, I also know too many people who have so many guns and so much ammo I don't understand what on Earth they are "planning" for.
So there is no one answer. People need to learn to cooperate with each other, and how to help take care of each other. Some people are much stronger than others. It just hurt me so much to see those parents. I don't think they were "used like props" as Ted Cruz said, but if it was already a done deal and known no vote could help them, they didn't have to go through that. I still think there must have been something that could be done, this constant stalemate is obviously going to be this way until Obama is out of office.Yes, everywhere has their problems, but you may have a partial answer to our violence. Do we need to outlaw residential zones of more than a certain population density? Force people to spread out into suburbs? Certainly the violence is worse in densely populated (and poor and drug ridden) areas.
If you think I believe our politicians you didn't read very closely. 99+% of them absolutely disgust me; blood sucking leeches without an honest or caring bone in their bodies. I also have to admit that that is pure opinion, as I haven't listened to more than 1% of them. I can't stand to listen to the lies and drivel they put out every time they open their mouths.
But maybe that rock band really is a part of the problem. That and Hollywood. And the video game designers. And the boxing match promoters. And all the others that cater to our blood lust. I don't know; ask the psychologists! I will say that that is the kind of question we need to be putting our efforts into answering, though.
You can't help the insane that don't want help, but you can lock them away from society. Is that the answer? I, at least, cannot accept that; the "cure" is worse than the disease as we all then watch our neighbors closely for any signs that they should be locked away. Talk about witch hunts, but what else can we do? That, too, I have to leave to someone else; I have no answer.
Do those having so many guns collect them the way I collect books? I enjoy books, I like having a library at my fingertips whether I'll ever read them again or not. Are they the same? You can't put your likes and dislikes onto everyone else; I have known at least two gun nuts that had dozens of guns, ranging from revolutionary times to really modern. One old man way off in the hills had nothing else to spend his money on and must have owned over 100 guns, worth tens of thousands of dollars. He just likes guns, but that doesn't make him wrong somehow.
See, I do think those poor parents were absolutely used for political purposes. They were used to promote an emotional response; a vote in the positive. That's the way our wonderful politicians work; as long as it isn't them paying the cost they'll do nearly anything to maintain and grow their power. That it caused those poor people great distress to be there just wasn't a consideration and if the vote went against them and it hurt twice as bad it mattered even less - they are then worthless and can be dumped back out of the building and the politicians life.I also live in NJ. Most New Jerseyans are outraged that the red state gun manufacturers are flooding the streets up here with guns. Try to get them to admit that these gun manufacturers don't give a fat rat's patoot who gets these guns and how many hundreds of millions gun manufacturers put into the Big Bad NRA and you see their lies are worse than hypocrisy.
You'll never get these belligerent gun toting SOBs to ever admit that you can't walk around in a subway station in NY City or any major NJ City armed to the teeth...They'd get their butts in jail post haste.
What I notice most of all is how these red states clamp down and call themselves "dry states" when it comes to alcohol and then their boozers are armed to the teeth and ready to fight the 2nd Civil War they've all been spoiling for since Nixon was thrown out of the White House in disgrace.
So...what we who want safe schools for our children and not schools that resemble LaPierre's version of prison-like schools is to push legislation for a limit on how many guns the gun manufacturers can manufacture annually. And...to add to the hurt, we intend to demand legislation that jacks the cost of the license to sell or deal in arms.
By the way, if you want to know how these Militia Bois get around the existing gun laws...look no further than that Gun Runner USA gun dealer in North Carolina. He proudly proclaims how he sells online with no background checks and at gun shows and claims he is "selling privately." More BS than this you can only get from the nut jobs who use their guns like penile implants.
The next 20 kids shot are on the NRA...and the NRA has far too much influence over politicians and the red states won't do one damn thing about those "unregulated militias" the government doesn't pay for...as the 2nd Amendment states.
There's more than one way to disarm these bullies and now, those of us who are furious with these selfish, self-important little dungheads plan to make sure they abide by the letter of the existing gun control laws. There's a "Nix" list that's available to all gun sellers and dealers...and they damn well better be using it to check to see who they are NOT supposed to sell those guns to. Crackdown time bois...how does it feel? And not a single shot fired either...just common decency and common sense.
But do try and bring your 10,000 rounds of ammo and your mini arsenals in to Jersey and see how fast you end up in the slammer.Also, there's another way to get these loonies to get off their gun addictions....post their names all over the web as the Bully Bois armed to the teeth they already publicly boast about.
We limit the manufacture of dangerous chemicals and drugs. Why wouldn't we also limit dangerous lethal weapons?
I guess the marathon bombers would've passed a background check too? They had guns.
Allow guns to be freely bought by everyone (people who just entered the countries years before) w/o checks and everyone has a chance to kill you. Limit it to some extent and lives are saved. Sure they may get it on the black market but that will be the only market.
People who don't want gun control and just plain selfish ( and that is what Republicans are at their very base, greed, materialism and so on). Tell the family of the MIT officer shot & killed by the bombing suspects Thursday night you are not selfish.Nice try....What has a bomb to do with guns flooding inner cities? Nadda, zip, zilch. But you pro gunnies always manage to dredge up the least relative incidents so you can ignore 20 babies being shot by an assault weapon in the hands of an unstable kid whose Rootin Tootin Red Hot Gun Totin' Mama was too damn stupid to realize you don't put a gun in the hand of a kid you know isn't mentally stable.
So now...Do you want to claim Nancy Lanza needed mental health care too?
Tell the family of a Lakewood NJ 4 year old who shot the 6 year old boy dead next door ....Got one for that too? The 4 year old's Daddy owned 11 assault weapons. The 6 year old was shot with his Hunter Big Daddy's 22 caliber rifle...The 6 year old is still dead.
What is it about teaching children by your example you pro gunnies do not get? You can preach to your kids till the cows come home and what YOU DO is all they imitate. So much for teaching a 4 year old in a house full of guns "respect for guns."Yes, and if guns aren't readily available, people will just use knives. What then ban knives?
You have become tedious on the issue and don't live in reality.I have three guns by the way. Working on getting 3 more.
nadda, zip, zilch? The bomber (older bother) had access to guns and used it to kill an MIT officer!!. I am not against gun control !! Read my other posts. I want gun control and background checks.
How do foreigners living in the U.S. under 3 years get access to a gun? From other naturalized foreign citizens who speak their language, black market, gun shows, and gun shops. Eliminate the latter two options with background checks. I'll be more clear next time.Hi Wilderness,
Well, we both agree it's not worth it to listen to politicians. I know you are a reasonable person. I'm sorry if I read something wrong in your post, these are emotional issues. Ewent is expressing how many in my state feel. It seems not just individuals have opinions, but people from different places lean different ways.The West and the South seem more attached to guns, In NJ everyone who wants them just goes to VA. I guess we have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. And then we have to get our people who represent us to do the right things. They are supposed to be helping us, not leading a country that gets less and less safe. In light of the Boston killings, it appears we can't afford to be too trusting of anyone anymore. These two guys were in the US for 10 years. We don't want to live in a police state, and have our freedoms taken away, but where do you draw the line? Just more questions hard to answer.You draw the line where our rights are. We have the 2nd Amendment. If you want to change it, you need a 2/3rd vote to change it. That's the process by which we are allowed to alter the Constitution. We're not allowed to ignore it. We're not allowed to have it superseded by any old Federal or State law created because people are afraid.
If you don't think the 2nd Amendment is clear enough, then we take a vote to change it to something that is more clear. It's really very easy.
THEN, if you want to make any sort of law concerning the regulation of firearms, you can, but even then it would be a refreshing change to sit down and talk about it rationally. NOT just saying "We have to DO SOMETHING" because we've had another shooting, because when tempers run hot and everyone is scared of another Sandy Hook, brains have a tendency to fly out the window. If you want a law restricting firearms, then make a credible argument that says the law actually DOES what you want it to do. No one has EVER done that. So far, every argument used doesn't stand up to scrutiny, with the minor exception of very basic background checks.Absolutely it is an emotional question and problem. The problem, to me, is in using those same emotions to produce an answer, a solution.
It doesn't work. When your car won't start only the stupid get out and kick the door in anger, because doing that won't start the car. Yet so many people are reacting to this problem in exactly that way; kick the gun because we're mad at it and don't know anything else to do. Well, that won't help either.
To find a solution requires (requires, not just is advisable) cold, hard, calculation - not a gut reaction from fear, sorrow, anger or any other emotion. Close off the emotion, set aside any "common sense" and subjective pre-made conclusions and begin looking. Anything else is just as likely to do more harm than good and is almost certain (outside of pure luck) to fail in providing a solution that actually works.
We can all stand around shrieking that "Guns kill - get rid of the guns and the killing will stop!" but cold hard evidence and real life experience says it won't. We can ignore the tough (very tough) problem of the insane, even as we know it is at least a contributing cause. We can declare that violence laden movies and games won't cause people to kill without a shred of evidence to back it. We can pretend that drug violence isn't a huge part of the murder rate even though we know better.
But none of that is going to help. Only hard reasoning and study is going to find a solution to our violence problem. So let's stop shrieking, stop ignoring and pretending, and let's find an answer that will work."We can all stand around shrieking that "Guns kill - get rid of the guns and the killing will stop!" but cold hard evidence and real life experience says it won't. "
I don't recall anyone in this forum or among the proponents of additional gun control measures claiming that "the killing will stop." Most of the shrieking is coming from the hard core 2nd Amendment freaks.
"Only hard reasoning and study is going to find a solution to our violence problem. So let's stop shrieking, stop ignoring and pretending, and let's find an answer that will work."
How about giving us a sample. The only solution I've heard from the NRA crowd is more guns, guns in schools, bars, libraries, etc.,etc. I haven't noticed any suggestions from you. [Excuse me if I've missed them.]
I agree that gun violence is a residual effect or a symptom of a problem;therefore, efforts must be made to identify and alleviate root causes of violence...interventions that are not aiming at addressing the underlying issues is as a good as putting a band aid on an infected festering wound. I propose that we begin within our neighborhoods and communities to create the changes that we want to see. My agency has started a community based initiative to begin our efforts to change the world 1 person at a time. I would be glad to discuss how this initiative can be a movement that shapes the world, as I know that WE can all do a little to make a big difference and in the words of my beloved brother, Aareyun James,...let's do it!!! Go to
www.lendahandcorp.com &sign the Save OUR Children petition on the current events pg. PLEASE fwd this message and the petition to help stop violence in OUR communities.- Onusonusposted 11 years ago0
I'm just wondering why they want to be the only ones who have "weapons of war".
I live in Arizona, the place the Obama administration dumped guns in Fast and Furious. I find it rich when the POTUS talks about guns. He has no credibility on the issue, especially in Arizona.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
The entire second amendment issue in media , in government and in the mind-set of liberal anti-gun people today is nothing but a ruse ! And the sad part is -there are otherewise exceptionally bright yet niave people speaking for the cause !
1- The real issues - lack of any chronic care for mental health issues in hospitals , in schools , in public or private corporate offices or government !
2- the revolving cycle of plea bargaining to lesser charges for most criminal acts including gun crimes !
3 - A new and younger culture of morally and ethically starved high school and college age people !
4- and a public oppinion at odds with itself unable to justify punishments including capital punishment for .extremely anti- social behaviors .
On and On !Of course the ready availability of guns, huge magazines, etc, to criminals, mentally, disturbed people, terrorists, suicidal individuals, children and so forth is nothing to be concerned about.
I read all the comments about how "guns are all registered" or "don't need to be registered" or "waiting times don't matter" and "background checks are not necessary" and I can't understand where otherwise reasonable people are coming from. Why do people need guns anyway? We have police and military to protect us. I have friends that hunt. The hunters ALL go out at times they are not allowed to be out hunting, (like when kids are walking to school), many go close to people's homes when they are not supposed to, (when unsuspecting neighbors may just be out in their yards and not expecting to get shot at) and I've heard my neighbor, (whom I love, but he drinks too much), get out there at night and just go shooting at trees or God knows what. Every man I know that has a gun does stupid stuff like that. Two of our friends moved to PA and apparently got brainwashed, or apprehended by aliens, now have much ammo stockpiled I got afraid to go there and don't hang around with them anymore. So the small bit of hunting they do is an excuse to just let off violent urges and shoot guns?
Then the NRA or people in the South, think arming teachers, or just arming EVERYONE will help. Yeah, let's all just shoot each other each time we feel a bit cranky. I feel like I've been making sensible statements and have been treated like some hayseed that never got off the farm. There are too many crazy and mentally ill people in our society, and it has to be harder to get a gun. Period. Wayne La Pierre isn't the President, and I believe this was just another racist attempt to not cooperate with Obama.
Two of my son's friends went to college in TX, and the first thing they did when they got out there was to buy guns. Can't you pick them up at the liquor store, or at the Piggly Wiggley, along with your beer? That's really safe. Why would college students need guns? It's just ridiculous.Sorry Jean, you sound like a really nice person who is just surrounded by S.O...... Well,you know. There are idiots in Texas, just like anywhere else. But believe me, there are also responsible gun owners. I purchased my first handgun in 1996 & have never had a bad incident. I practice at an indoor range and have my chl. I've taught family members, friends, and a few strangers how to shoot a gun. We're not all like that & hopefully you meet one of us someday. The problem is, we don't advertise who we are and you may already know one of us.
Jean, the PROBLEM is classic. Someone meets one of the 2% of the people who is an idiot and also happens to be armed and says "Oh, they all must be like that."
Can ANYONE think of a group of people that doesn't have idiots in it? That is not something to make policy around, otherwise, we wouldn't have cars, police, firemen. Hell... we wouldn't have any safety equipment (I could tell you stories)
Look at it this way, we have firemen that we call when there is a fire, but we also have laws... yes LAWS that say that businesses must have fire extinguishers and train their people in how to use them and provide some employees with basic first aid skills. I understand that firearms are very different than fire extinguishers, but it may surprise you to learn that if you don't know what you're doing with a fire extinguisher, you can kill people with it.
I work in the production industry. As such I am around machines that can do all sorts of lovely things like tear off fingers, arms, even kill you in an instant. There are tools that can cause injury and death to you or those around you if you don't use them properly. Basic safety protocols are rigidly adhered to and if you violate those laws, you will likely be fired on the spot. These are more dangerous than ANY firearm, yet they are all over the place where I work. They are there because they are useful tools, they are necessary for business to be conducted. No one has ever shown up and said "I don't feel comfortable around that nail gun. You need to get rid of it." They would be rightly laughed off the premises and told not to come back. If you dropped a firearm into this "arsenal" it would hardly even be noticed and it certainly wouldn't be the most dangerous thing in the building, yet there are signs all over saying "This establishment does not allow any weapon on the premises"
My point is that dangerous things, even more dangerous than firearms are used all over and yes.. accidents do happen, but there is no hue and cry to regulate them any more than practical considerations for safety would warrant. Why should firearms be any different?
The reason firearms are different is very simple; they scare people. Some of the same people that could walk right past a nail gun without flinching won't even walk into the same room if there was a pistol on the table. I've seen it happen. They're afraid of someone picking up the pistol and killing them, yet they're not afraid of someone doing the same thing with a nail gun.
And we're NEVER going to have a civil, rational, practical discussion about firearms regulation as long as that is the case.
Statistics about firearm deaths vs gun-regulation will continue to be ignored, the incidents of firearms saving lives will continue to be overlooked in the media, knee-jerk legislation will appear on the heels of every sensationalized incident of gun violence, and people will continue to push for firearms to be more restrictively regulated because "My God.. People are dying."
The bottom line is that regular people aren't dangerous. Armed civilians aren't dangerous. Criminals, and crazy nutjobs ARE dangerous, but they are dangerous because they are criminals and crazy nutjobs, not because they may be armed with a firearm. For the same reason that arson doesn't cause us to ban fireplaces or candles, firearms shouldn't banned because people are hurt with them.
As for schools using them for defending their students, I have no problem with that as long as whoever is armed is trained to store and use them safely, just like we do with everything else out there that can kill people. Making an exception for firearms is just silly.People need guns for protection. Where have you been? Ever heard of self defense?
Every person does not follow what is in the Bible. People have the right to protect themselves. Maybe you live in Disney land, but everyone doesn't. Not every place in the United States is devoid of crime. In some places, crime is far worse than others.
When will people ever learn that? The most peaceful places in the United States have police officers who carry guns. Why would that be? Simple, because violence sees no borders. And the quotes from the Bible will not stop a person from robbing, raping or killing.
Quotes from the Koran will not stop a suicide bomber either.
The problem is not guns. Why as in the bombing in Boston, the blame was placed on the bombers, not the materials used in the bomb. If someone is Killed with a knife, the blame is placed on the person who stabbed them, not the knife. There is no way you can blame anyone being injured or killed on an inanimate object that can't do anything on it's own.
The only thing stricter gun controls laws would do is restrict law abiding people from pursuing their 2nd amendment rights. Criminals will not get guns by legal means. I haven't heard a single person in the media or in politics ask the question, Why don't we crack down on the criminals to stop violence on other people, with any weapons." I haven't heard a single person in the media or in politics ask the question, Why don't we crack down on the criminals to stop violence on other people, with any weapons."
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.
By your defective reasoning motor vehicle deaths are due solely to bad drivers and air bags and speed limits should be abandoned.You missed the point, we can't blame the crime on a piece of matter. It is caused by the people using whatever weapon. Your comparison has nothing to do with my point.
"The U.S. has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world." and most of the incarcerated are for drug offenses and NOT for violent crime. The number of people we put in prison for violent offenses is not much different than in other countries in the developed world (when adjusted for population). We aren't especially better or worse at catching violent criminals than anyone else.
The United States also has a large population. Next, if every state in the United States had capital punishment, well then maybe the incarceration rate would not be so high.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I keep hearing the same , "the US is the most violent society Blah blah blah "...............horsepucky ! its also the best at "real" statistics , don't look for that anywhere else . Want gun control - start with criminal control , that ! We don't have !
death is definetely not the worst thing to happen some people see it as a way out
Another mad gun rampage--
"Five people, including two children, were shot and killed in an early Wednesday in an apartment in Manchester, Ill., according to local media reports.
"The suspect, captured after a high-speed chase, died at a local hospital from wounds sustained in a shootout with police, KSDK-TV reported.
"The Chicago Tribune reported that the victims were a grandmother, a young couple and their two small children. A 7-year-old was hospitalized in serious condition.
"The newspaper identified the victims as Joanne Sinclair, 65, her granddaughter Brittany Luark, 22, her boyfriend Roy Ralston, Nolan Ralston, 5, and Brantley Ralston, 1.
"The Tribune quoted a son-in-law, Brad Teeter, as saying the shooter broke into the first-floor apartment in the housing development and "shot everybody inside." He told the newspaper that did not know the gunman.
"Manchester Mayor Ronald Drake, who lives a block from the house where the shooting occurred, said the shootings happened at about 4:30 a.m.
"WLDS quotes police in Winchester, about 12 mile from the scene of the killings, as saying that a suspect was arrested, and hospitalized, after a high-speed chase and exchange of gunfire.
"Manchester, a village of 350 people, is located 85 miles north of St. Louis.
"The pastor of Manchester Baptist Church tells KSDK-TV that the shootings took place inside a public housing complex. Schools were closed in North Green, Winchester and Jacksonville while the gunman was at large, KSDK reports."
http://www.freep.com/article/20130424/N … r-IllinoisAnd if one of them was armed, the story MIGHT have read "Would-be killer shot and killed while trying to break into apartment."
Just sayin'......In fact I've seen a lot more stories about someone foiling a potential mass shooting than stories about mass shootings. That suggests that if citizens didn't own firearms, there would be a lot MORE mass shootings.
Also just sayin...."In fact I've seen a lot more stories about someone foiling a potential mass shooting than stories about mass shootings."
Where do you see those, in an NRA magazine? I see the reverse (gun killing) every day in my morning newspaper, and a report of an attack or robbery foiled by a good guy gun owner maybe once a year at most.Hey Ralph Deeds; You posted this:
"Where do you see those, in an NRA magazine? I see the reverse (gun killing) every day in my morning newspaper, and a report of an attack or robbery foiled by a good guy gun owner maybe once a year at most."
You must not pay much attention to the news, I see those stories quite frequently...and NOT in an NRA mag....I see them in newspapers, on TV, hear about them on radio, online news articles, etc...
Y'know, Ralph the thing is, these things seldom make national news. Mostly they stay in the local media.
Which is why you probably didn't hear about the 52-yr-old grandmother with the Texas Concealed Carry License in Lubbock, who foiled her mugger this past December with a handgun.
I know you didn't hear about my wife pulling out the shotgun on the druggie who tried to force our back door since it wasn't reported in anything other than our little local paper which only publishes twice a week. Or the man (also here in our little podunk town of Levelland, Tx) very recently who pulled his gun on a burglar, holding him for police. My own shooting incident (in the line of duty) with a gangbanger several years ago was only reported by the Dallas/Ft. Worth media.
Ralph, I'm not an NRA member these days (I let my membership lapse years ago), so I don't get their publications. But I do read several newspapers and check out different radio stations from around the country via the internet.
Those stories are most definitely out there, but you gotta hunt for them.I read two or three newspapers every day and I hardly ever see reports of "good guys with guns" saving the day. BTW, I have no problem with good guys having guns, but I wish we would do a better job keeping bad guys, the mentally ill, criminals, et al from getting their hands on guns, especially those with big magazines and other devices that aren't needed for hunting, target shooting or self-protection. I don't buy the theory that they are needed for protection against the government. That is looney tunes stuff.
Hey Ralph, I didn't think this happened here:
http://news.yahoo.com/soft-spoken-man-s … 20349.htmlI'll just take a guess and say the papers you read are not interested in showing citizens using their 2nd Amendment right to stop crime, I read stories all the time and you could actually look them up if you wanted to expand your knowledge.
Good news does not sell. We both know that.
Only bad news sells.He only wants to read the news that confirms his beliefs.
Armed police patrol Texas public schools arresting kids for crimes such as dress code violations and tardiness. Kids as young as 6 have arrest records in Texas schools for crimes ranging from throwing paper airplanes to spraying perfume in class. Each day hundreds of kids appear in court for their crimes in school. Other states have also criminalized normal childhood behavior. In California a kid got arrested for dropping cake in the cafeteria and not picking up all the crumbs.
Texas schools have found the solution to the problems caused by kids struggling with disabilities. Arrest them. A 12 year old girl with ADHD & bipolar diagnoses finds a non-violent way to fight back against bullies. Arrest her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/1 … rrests-WTF. . .are we hearing the whole story in many of these cases? Because minors are involved, details are withheld. While it's absolutely true that mistakes are made by schools and the police, one has to wonder how much of the story we are missing. While it's true that hundreds of kids appear in court, it's also true that many of these children belong in court and others who didn't go to court do too. Have you asked teachers what they think about police, SRO's, in their schools? Do it, and then come back to report. You'll be changing your tune once you do.
There has been a lot of adverse publicity over the overbearing police activities in Texas schools.
" HOUSTON — As school districts across the country consider placing more police officers in schools, youth advocates and judges are raising alarm about what they have seen in the schools where officers are already stationed: a surge in criminal charges against children for misbehavior that many believe is better handled in the principal’s office.
Multimedia
"Are they teaching children how to be prisoners?"
Joe G, Houston
"Since the early 1990s, thousands of districts, often with federal subsidies, have paid local police agencies to provide armed “school resource officers” for high schools, middle schools and sometimes even elementary schools. Hundreds of additional districts, including those in Houston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, have created police forces of their own, employing thousands of sworn officers.
"Last week, in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a task force of the National Rifle Association recommended placing police officers or other armed guards in every school. The White House has proposed an increase in police officers based in schools.
"The effectiveness of using police officers in schools to deter crime or the remote threat of armed intruders is unclear. The new N.R.A. report cites the example of a Mississippi assistant principal who in 1997 got a gun from his truck and disarmed a student who had killed two classmates, and another in California in which a school resource officer in 2001 wounded and arrested a student who had opened fire with a shotgun.
"Yet the most striking impact of school police officers so far, critics say, has been a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially nonviolent behavior — including scuffles, truancy and cursing at teachers — that sends children into the criminal courts.
“There is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety,” said Denise C. Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland who is an expert in school violence. “And it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.”
"Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are arrested or given criminal citations at schools each year. A large share are sent to court for relatively minor offenses, with black and Hispanic students and those with disabilities disproportionately affected, according to recent reports from civil rights groups, including the Advancement Project, in Washington, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in New York...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/educa … t.html?hpw
It would be interesting to know how the majority of teachers feel about having police in schools or having teachers armed. I haven't seen any polls on that question."Have you asked teachers what they think about police, SRO's, in their schools? Do it, and then come back to report. You'll be changing your tune once you do."
What's the basis of your opinion that teachers support having police in their schools? I'm sure some do, but I suspect more don't.My basis is personal experience, my profession. Because of budget cuts, our SRO's were minimized, and I don't know of a single teacher who is happy about that. In my community, the majority of teachers and administrators want police in the schools. I have yet to find a single teacher who didn't want an SRO in the building.
You hear about the negative publicity. Police protect students, teachers, and staff every day. If the newspapers wrote articles about all the successes, you'd see police in a different light. You only hear about the negative stuff. Teachers see both the good and the bad. Again, go talk to teachers, and come back with an answer. I am very, very confident that you will find that the majority of teachers want police in schools.
The NEA is the largest union for teachers. It recently wrote a letter to Joe Biden. Here is part of the letter:
". . .calling for more school resource officers in communities who need and want them. School resource officers are trained not only in the appropriate use of firearms in high-stress, rapid-response situations, but they also become integrated members of the school staff who also receive additional training in counseling and working in a school setting. We do not object to increased funding for school resource officers, but would like to see more emphasis placed upon school resource officers AND educators being trained together in bullying, school safety, cultural competence, positive behavioral supports, and appropriate classroom management."
There are plenty of examples of the NEA stating that it supports SRO (police officers) in schools. Again, you believe teachers do not want police in schools because of a few incidents. Teachers rely on the police. Principals rely on the police. The majority of teachers support police in schools and realize that the media likes to report sensationalized events. The events are often bizarre and do not reflect the overall job police and teachers are doing.You answered my question. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree.
It's easy enough. Ask the question on the education forum. You'll find that most teachers would rather have police in schools than not.
Have you seen any polls on the issue? I haven't. But I've seen negative reports on the results of putting cops in schools.
http://youtu.be/2diNojgJF9c
This would be funny if it wern't so sad. I almost expected to some people in this forum. Now I see where they get that 90% number of people who support gun control legislation.Yeah, because the Washington Times is SO good at seeing the obvious they think gun control laws would have somehow made bombs harder to get:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … made-bomb/
I wouldn't trust the WT if they said water was wet.What difference does it make who reports the news? The facts are still the same.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 … -security/
Police have no place in schools except in very special circumstances. Experience in several states shows that they criminalize behavior that should be dealt with by teachers and school administrators. And they tend to focus their attention disproportionately on minorities.
Dreams and rainbows will stop a shooter. If a shooter is present, just show the "gun free" sign. If a shooter is in the building, call 9-11, hide the children, and see how many children survive the next ten or fifteen minutes. That's a great way to protect children. I'm sure it will result in no deaths at all. Unicorns, smiley faces, and hugs might work better.
Your views are simplistic.
The US schools with their own police
More and more US schools have police patrolling the corridors. Pupils are being arrested for throwing paper planes and failing to pick up crumbs from the canteen floor. Why is the state criminalising normal childhood behaviour?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ja … ce-schools
Armed police patrol Texas public schools arresting kids for crimes such as dress code violations and tardiness. Kids as young as 6 have arrest records in Texas schools for crimes ranging from throwing paper airplanes to spraying perfume in class. Each day hundreds of kids appear in court for their crimes in school. Other states have also criminalized normal childhood behavior. In California a kid got arrested for dropping cake in the cafeteria and not picking up all the crumbs.
Texas schools have found the solution to the problems caused by kids struggling with disabilities. Arrest them. A 12 year old girl with ADHD & bipolar diagnoses finds a non-violent way to fight back against bullies. Arrest her.
"I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has been diagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who is conscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude things to me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Then they said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've ever smelled.' Then the teacher called the police."
Charges against Sarah were dropped after disabilities rights lawyers fought for months on her behalf, but others were not so lucky.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/1 … rrests-WTF
N.R.A. Recommends Assigning Police Guards to All Schools
Soon after the Newtown, Connecticut, slaughter of 20 first-graders and six staff members, the N.R.A. recommended that police be assigned to all schools. Aside from the expense, this would be a poor public policy because police guards would soon on their own initiative or as a result of requests from teachers or administrators, become involved in student disciplinary matters traditionally and best handled by teachers and staff. Experience in Mississippi public schools where police turn minor disciplinary problems into criminal matters, described in the New York Times articles and editorial linked below, supports the conclusion that routine assignment of police to schools is not a useful policy.How many school shootings have occurred at these schools isn't that what all of this is about? When the opportunity to have security is there its rejected. Police are not the final arbiters they only enforce rules established and a Judge will make a decision as to the validity of the charge.
School shootings are terrible, but they are a small part of the gun problem in this country. And no this is not "what it's all about." Educating our children, not criminalizing them, is what "it's all about." Police are not helpful, except in unusual circumstances. Aside from their detrimental effects, the cost-benefit ratio does not justify the expense of putting police or armed guards in every school. (I can agree that this may be justified in unusual circumstances.)
But it was a school shooting that brought the latest attempts at gun control. Are you admitting that doing it for the children is all a sham?
Not at all. Newtown and four or five other mass shootings were a catalyst. There are many other reasons (30,000/year) for more comprehensive gun controls and more effective enforcement.
Why are existing laws not important enough to enforce, what new laws do you want to see?
The proposed law expanding background checks was a start. Limiting the size of magazines would also be a step in the right direction. Armor piercing bullets serve no civilian purpose. I have a Winchester Model 12 which holds 4 shells which is plenty adequate for my purposes.
As to background checks how would it work, could I pick up the phone and check your background for free, is your background any of my business? Would there be a list as to who cannot own firearms that I could access? Limiting the size of magazines isn't going to help, a killer can always carry more magazines, they could always ignore the ban altogether. I can't see any reason for armor piercing rounds myself so I'm in agreement with you on that.
Can you provide evidence, as opposed to opinion or "common sense", that any of these actions have actually reduced the killing anywhere in the world?
Your 4 shell magazine is adequate for your purposes; are the purposes of everyone else in the country the same as yours? If they don't match, and they need more rounds are those purposes "wrong" somehow simply because it isn't the same purpose as yours? What makes your purposes the only ones that count, of such importance that the rest of the country must have the same or "lessor" purposes?I just want to address arming teachers, both because my son is an elementary school teacher, and I grew up during the 60's/70's in a big city and we had armed police narcotics officers in school. There are a huge number of young children with autism and special needs in early grades, and some who just run out of the school, so the teachers have to be very, very alert. This is dealt with in his district by hiring a few extra aides to help with the ones who are too immature or have problems and cannot or will not follow the rules. They often grow out of these behaviors within a few weeks or months of the school year. But an adult is with them at all times. Just having a few extra sets of hands and aides watching seems to help. I wouldn't like to see an armed adult in these situations, and think doors that shut and can be only opened when a person identifies themselves and is known by a school official work quite well. As far as my High School experience, we all knew the local cops, they made it a point to talk to us and their purpose was to protect from drugs, not predators. But I still think there were enough layers of vice principals and staff to deal with watching the doors and dealing with the classes, just as long as they didn't sit in their offices all day, and walked around the building. As long as just anybody can't get into the doors, the schools are safe. When my son was little, the teachers came outside, walked the children to class, and once again, the doors locked behind them. If a parent or anyone wanted to get into the school, they had to announce themselves through the main entrance. None of the doors could be opened from the outside except by the staff.
I just want to address arming teachers, both because my son is an elementary school teacher, and I grew up during the 60's/70's in a big city and we had armed police narcotics officers in school. There are a huge number of young children with autism and special needs in early grades, and some who just run out of the school, so the teachers have to be very, very alert. This is dealt with in his district by hiring a few extra aides to help with the ones who are too immature or have problems and cannot or will not follow the rules. They often grow out of these behaviors within a few weeks or months of the school year. But an adult is with them at all times. Just having a few extra sets of hands and aides watching seems to help. I wouldn't like to see an armed adult in these situations, and think doors that shut and can be only opened when a person identifies themselves and is known by a school official work quite well. As far as my High School experience, we all knew the local cops, they made it a point to talk to us and their purpose was to protect from drugs, not predators. But I still think there were enough layers of vice principals and staff to deal with watching the doors and dealing with the classes, just as long as they didn't sit in their offices all day, and walked around the building. As long as just anybody can't get into the doors, the schools are safe. When my son was little, the teachers came outside, walked the children to class, and once again, the doors locked behind them. If a parent or anyone wanted to get into the school, they had to announce themselves through the main entrance. None of the doors could be opened from the outside except by the staff.
Locking doors in a public building is a major, major no-no during operating hours. No fire code in the country will permit that, and for very good reason.
That means that a knock on a side door, a beckoning to a young student, could very well result in admittance to the bad guy. That student must be able to open the door from the inside, and may do so for anyone friendly looking and that is asking for it.
The last elementary school I helped build had, I think, 10 exterior doors, plus one in the "cloakroom" of each classroom. One of those exterior doors led only to the mechanical room; the room where the fire sprinklers were controlled, the electrical system originated and where the natural gas main entered the building. Enormous possibilities for destruction of property and lives there.
It is not possible to eliminate chance of entry into our schools; not with 2 armed cops and not with 20. The bad guy wants in badly enough they will get in, just as he did in Sandy Hook where he shot out the lock.Wilderness,
I never said the doors were locked. Obviously nobody would advocate locking children in a school and breaking fire or other safety codes. Do you really think I would think anything that stupid would be a good idea? I said they doors were hard to get into, especially for really young children. Adults are outside and check the grounds until they are positive no child is left outside. If a child is late for school, the parent or person bringing them would have to address the PA system outside to be admitted to the school. So armed, dangerous people have less chance of getting inside. Is something bothering you lately? You seem crabby and I don't remember you being like that.I don't think you understood what I was saying.
The doors must be unlocked from the inside - the big thing across the door (inside) is called a crash bar and whether locked or not all you have to do is push on it to open the door. Locked from the outside, someone inside just pushes the bar and the door opens.
So the bad guy, outside, smiles and beckons a child on the inside. Says he has to talk to his little boy (Jamie) quick - will the child please open the door so he can find Jamie. Or take this sack lunch to Jamie maybe. Child says "Sure", opens the door and the bad guy is in just that easy. With some 30 doors in the school, it just isn't possible to put a cop at each door - considering that the bad guy will just shoot out the lock even 2 cops at each door (60 cops!) isn't going to guarantee anything.
The problem I see is contained in your statement: "If a parent or anyone wanted to get into the school, they had to announce themselves through the main entrance." There is truth in that ONLY if the one wanting in is a good guy - the bad guys are coming in one way or the other, whether wanted or not and whether the office unlocks the door or not.
As distasteful as it sounds, armed teachers are going to be a better bet than an armed cop or two. They won't stop someone from getting in either, but could save at least some lives once the shooter gets into their classroom. Not all, probably, but maybe some.
And sorry - didn't mean to sound grumpy. I just doubt that many people realize how many ways there are into our schools, how vulnerable they are; having been in on building a dozen or so, I DO realize it and wanted to share that knowledge. Go in peace, Jean - I mean no harm or even offense.
I've put considerable though into protection at our schools, particularly elementary ones, and don't see any answer at all the will do any good at against a determined killer. We have to find that killer before it gets that far and to date I haven't seen anyone at all even trying to address that question - it scares me to death that we won't even try, that we put our efforts and discussion into a useless and fatal effort to react instead of being proactive.Hi Wilderness,
I did misunderstand what you were saying. The doors are unlocked from the inside, so in case of fire or emergency everyone can get out fast. In my son's elementary school, the custodians and certain aides used to be "in charge" of the doors, and knew who was coming in. Others could speak through the speakers and would be let in if they were known (and you are a Dad I believe, so you know that even in a school with 500 kids, the parents and staff soon know who belongs there and who doesn't). It's handled the same way in the school my son now teaches in, with more special help for the Kindergarten and 1st grade. In fact, it's shocking how much money is spent for aides to keep tabs on who comes in and out, not to mention kids with problems who try to escape.
I know you are well meaning. No matter how much parents and teachers do, I still don't know how to deter a killer. If somebody wants to cause that much damage, they are so disturbed they will find a way. The presence of the narcotics cops in HS was always taken pretty well. The parents liked it, and the students had no choice, so as long as they stayed out of trouble, cops in school shouldnt bother you. The police chief in town lived next door to my best friend, and my Dad was in the Sheriff's Dept, so even if my crowd was a troublemaking one, we wouldn't have gotten too far!Cops in schools, armed or not, don't bother me at all. Past elementary school here, every school has a cop on duty and overall I think it's a good thing. Sad that it's necessary, but a good thing they're there.
But those cops are no deterrent to a killer, and neither are a handful of teachers, custodians and such. Not when there are 30 doors leading into a school. Even if you could guard every one with an armed cop, it will not stop every determined killer. Some, yes - some will be shot before they can get in. Others will just find another way - drive a U-Haul through the door, maybe. Or set a bomb one night.
We simply cannot provide quality protection for every school - the answer has to lie in preventing even the concept of terrorist type activities. I don't know how to do that, but I do know that not trying isn't going to solve it, either.
Why extend background checks? We currently don't prosecute anyone for committing the felony of lying on a background check. Do you really think we're going to dedicate the extra money and manpower to try and monitor every private sale to make sure a background check is done, and then prosecute those who break background check laws?
We should prosecute for lying on applications to purchase guns or ammunition. That would require more adequate funding which has been blocked by the gun lobby.
According to Joe Biden its a lack of time that prevents prosecutions. I would think this would further clog the system.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden … nd-checks/First - source needed. When did the gun lobby block a bill that would provide for the prosecution of gun-related felonies?
Second - if Congress had the support to create a law with punishment, how could it possibly not have had the support to include the resources to follow through with that law? Again, I'm going to need you to provide a source showing that this is the case.
You'll notice Ralph ignored the 1st half of that question
It looks like he ignored the question altogether.
Here's something else Ralphie boy likes to ignore:
http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/c … CM9dQ.cspxI read that yesterday, this happens more often than the media reports it, it seems to go against their agenda.
The story was not just about police but also unarmed security. However it really wont make any difference since the citizens have rejected proposals to fund any security.
That's fortunate, but not entirely true. Texas and Mississippi have police in schools with unfortunate results.
I gotta call BS on this one, Ralphie boy.....
Unlike you, I actually live in Texas. I see the cops in the schools here in my town, know most of 'em.
I know a lot of the kids here, too. 99% of of those kids, including mine, say they feel safer with those cops on campus.
And just what "unfortunate results" would you be referring to? The drastic drop in gang activity on school campuses? Maybe the drug arrests? Maybe you find it unfortunate that they've intercepted several kids bringing guns to school.
And what about the planned mass shooting Houston PD's School Resource Officers foiled last year.....that was really unfortunate, wasn't it?Here in Arizona, we want more SRO's in our schools. Budget cuts have removed many from our schools, and it has caused problems.
There should be no gun control at all, there should be more control on mental cases. There normally aren't a lot of deaths from guns.
An average of 12 Americans are killed every day by illegal aliens. Why don't we do something about this?
Is there any doubt that drugs contribute to our violence in America, including homicides? Each year, more than 72,000 illegal aliens are arrested for drug offenses. Why don't we do something about this?
In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide, approximately 1,200, target illegal aliens. Why don't we do something about this?
Here's a great starting place. Stop worrying about gun control, and start worrying about illegal alien control."An average of 12 Americans are killed every day by illegal aliens. Why don't we do something about this?"
Where did you get that questionable statistic? What's your suggestion?There are many sources that will confirm this. Here are some sources. Some are liberal and others are conservative.
“Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said individuals living in the country illegally kill about 9,000 Americans a year, averaging 12 a day by stabbings and shootings and 13 a day by DUI and ‘related crimes.’"
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ … .php?id=79
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/060622
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/
Here’s Wikipedia:
Fiscal year 2011 saw 396,906 deportations, the largest number in the history of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; of those, 216,698 had been convicted of crimes, including:[74]
• 44,653 convicted of "drug-related crimes"
• 35,927 convicted of driving under the influence
• 5,848 convicted of sexual offenses
• 1,119 convicted of homicide
That’s right, 1,119 murders in one year!!!!! That’s according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_im … ted_States
We need to control our borders. Controling our borders would have a great and positive impact on our homicide numbers in America.1119 per year doesn't equal 12 per day. There are no federal statistics on illegal alien homicides. Moreover homicide isn't the same as murder.
Either way, 1,119 or 12 a day is a lot of needless homicides . . .agreed? Would you feel better about calling it 3 a day? That would be closer to the 1,119 number. Some of these lives could have been saved if our government simply enforced existing laws on immigration, and 1,119 homicides is a significant percentage of our entire number of homicides in America. 12 a day is even a larger percentage.
Speaking of homicides, let's take a look at what's being used in homicides:
Should I feel bad that I giggled at the small spike of "Other Methods" in 2001?Like I said before, ban guns and watch the knife homicide rate go up.
Homicides with a handgun have dramatically declined in since the 1990's! I bet a lot of those homicides that involve a handgun involve an illegal alien. Let's start with border security. How many people have to be killed, raped, or kidnapped before we do something about border security? How secure is our nation against terrorists when our borders are this porous?
Your bet would be wrong. Illegal aliens are not overrepresented in criminal activity, homicides or otherwise. Most homicides are by people the victim knows. Most handgun deaths involve revolvers, not automatic weapons with 30+ magazines. ALL homicides have been trending down since the early 80's. Despite what gun-control advocates would have you believe,the country is not infested with criminals, gangs, rapists and murderers, and when local crime rates go up or down it isn't because of gun-control (or lack of gun-control) and no one has ever been able to prove otherwise. They resort to arguments like "I don't see why anyone should be allowed to own that kind of gun" or "Guns are dangerous, we need to get rid of them"
Faced with the facts, gun-control gains ground mostly on the heels of tragic events like Sandy Hook when EMOTION trumps rational thought and logic.First off, we agree. I am opposed to gun control. I have made that case many, many times.
Yes, I'm sure that most homicides are committed by people who know the victim. I'm not saying that illegal aliens commit the majority of murders, only that they commit more, per capita. Working on illegal alien control would be more beneficial than gun control.My point was that I don't think that illegals commit more crimes, per capita than any other demographic, and saying that they do, without providing any evidence, is just as bad as the people who say "more guns = more deaths" without providing evidence.
Working on fixing the justice system, the prison system and how we rehabilitate criminals (or more to the point; how we don't) would be more productive than either gun-control OR the illegal alien "problem"Indeed the fact is they commit fewer estimates put the illegal population of the US at about 4.2% and yet nationally they make up only 3.1% of the prison population.
This is absolutely WRONG. I have provided information from Homeland Security and The Arizona Department of Corrections. It was reported by CBS. What more do we need to prove you are wrong? Illegal aliens commit far more crimes than Americans.
Even if illegal aliens didn't commit more crimes, you're acknowledging that they do commit crimes? Right? That means that Americans are being killed, raped, and stolen from, because OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T ENFORCE THE LAW? Great, how many Americans have to die before we have illegal alien security?No you really haven't I have posted plenty of sources to the fact, that figure comes form a FAIR study a group that specifically wants to close the borders, even they were only able to come up with 3.1% of the prison population and they counted people being held for deportation.
Of course some illegals commit crime as do some people of all demographics it does not mean we should get rid of those demographics.
Not to mention that millions of people now get to experience the comparative safety from crime and the opportunity for a better life that they would otherwise not have, sorry but I don't drink the kool aid on rating Americans as more important that other human beings.At what point will you ever acknowledge sources that do not agree with your position? We can all find a source that confirms our belief somewhere on the Internet. I bet you could even find a source that claims cat is correctly spelled kat. That's what you do. When you are wrong, you research and research and then cite any source and claim it is accurate. It's tiresome. Your "facts" get in the way of reality. Then, when you can't find a source that really proves your point, you spin it, interpret it, and force it to fit your reality. Your sources aren't any better than mine, and many times, they are worse. Still, you hold your sources over any others, as if they are the eleventh commandment.
No, I really have shown that illegal aliens do in fact commit more crimes. You are incorrect. How many credible sources must I cite? My sources are not third-party sources. In this case, they come from the government. You should love that, being a socialist who loves government.
Illegal aliens commit more crimes than Americans; while my statistics pertain to Arizona specifically, I find it hard to believe that Arizona's statistics are an aberration. It's a fact. The Department of Homeland Security and The Arizona Department of Corrections both agree with this fact.It's well known that police and other law enforcement people stop, harass, and imprison Mexican Americans disproportionately.
Well, now you know it. Haven't you heard of Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
Yes I have, now that you have said that they are stopped and harassed disproportionately you could provide proof of your claim.
You are TOTALLY wrong on this one. You are trying to make excuses. You also hide behind stats too much.
We all know for a fact that illegals are half of the prison/jail population. Next, we know that they are NOT in those prisons and jails because they crossed the border illegally.
They are there because they raped, murdered and participated in illegal drug activities.Yes. The illegal aliens who did nothing more than enter our country illegally are deported. Those in prison are here for a reason. They broke the law.
Because gut feelings and beliefs are more valid than empirical evidence, right?
You have not paid attention to prisons and jails in the states of California, Texas, Arizona or Nevada. In the state of California, over half the prison population is Hispanic. Many of them being illegal aliens. These are the ones who like to kill, rape and sell drugs.
I love when the Liberals hide behind their fairy tales of this "document worker" nonsense. Not all of those trespassers come to work. They come to take advantage of the welfare system.Does it matter? 100 years ago there was no welfare system to take advantage of; immigrants either worked or starved. Literally starved, not the 1,500 calories per day we now call starving.
Total gun deaths is a more meaningful statistic than homicides.
No. that's a mistake most people make. The objective of any crime law is to cut crime. The job of any gun-control law is to cut the homicide rate. The argument says that if you get rid of guns, then fewer people will die. That means a drop in the homicide rate. Accidents can be stopped by safety awareness, and a criminal who get's killed while committing a crime doesn't matter. You track HOMICIDE.... bad people killing good people. Anything else is a political talking point.
+1
Ralph has been trying to push this "gun death" thing for a long time now, as if it matters whether someone is killed with a gun or with something else. It's a good talking point, as long as no one ever questions if "take the guns away and something else will be used" is true or not.
Investigate the question and it's not too hard to prove that it is true. Meaning that if you take the guns away you may make the gun haters very happy, but not the loved ones of the people that will go right on dying.
People keep right on pushing gun laws, though it's hard to imagine just why.It's true that safety training and better mental health care can reduce accidental shootings and gun suicides. So can reducing the number of guns in the hands of the public.
Reducing the guns in the hands of the public won't do much for the mentally ill though.
I just have to ask, is somebody paying you to post this stuff? Americans love guns and nobody is going to take them away so why bother?
Ralph: Taking all the car's off the road will reduce traffic accidents. But no one talks about even REDUCING the cars on the road for safety reasons. When people talk about gun-control, they are ALWAYS talking abut criminals or crazy people getting their hands on them. Safety is ALWAYS most effective when countered by familiarity with the dangerous "thing" in question; in this case; firearms. Not by keeping them away from people who don't know how to use them, but by education and training for those who might want to use them. This logic is used in every other aspect of our lives. Why should firearms be any different?
Like I said before; the bottom line is: Show where gun restrictions have made the homicide rate go down, and explain why places with almost no gun control aren't high crime areas. Do that, and I will discuss the possibility of gun control. If you can't do that, then why support gun control when it's clear that it doesn't seem to work?You have zero evidence it will affect suicides. Suicide by gun, yes - that's obvious - but not the total number of suicides.
Same thing, then - let's take away the guns so the surviving loved ones can be really happy their child hung himself instead of shooting himself.Firearm is by far the most effective commonly used suicide method 2.5 times more likely to succeed than hanging so that is a significant difference, preventing access to firearms does reduce suicide rates simply because more people survive their attempts.
I don't think that is a good reason to ban guns (and really it would have to be all guns for suicide since the most innocuous and common firearm, the shotgun is the most effective) but it remains true nevertheless.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120.fullNo argument that guns are the most effective method of suicide, or that they are the most common.
To go from that to a statement that removal of guns will decrease suicide rates cannot be shown by anything I've ever seen. I would have to guess, just as you did, that it is true but it will absolutely take more than your link to do that. I did guess the same thing on guns and homicide rates, but was proven wrong...I'll look for actual evidence before doing that again.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magaz … print&
The truth is many, in fact from the available data, most people who attempt suicide and fail do not attempt it again (at least not over 10 and 20 year periods) so the fact is that if more people are attempting to hang themselves and failing statistically that will mean fewer deaths than people shooting themselves and not failing.
It's not guessing it's verifiable data.Or, does it mean that those that are really serious will go to the trouble of getting a gun instead of using that old rope on the back porch? That if they want a gun, can't get one so use a rope that breaks, will now get a stronger rope?
Again, until you can show experience before and after removal of guns you won't know. It's still a guess, a very good one I think, but nevertheless a guess. At the very least it has more going for it than the mistaken idea that removing guns will result in fewer killings.There is a big difference between inference from fact and guessing.
Well the evidential data from Australia backs it too, the Australian gun buybacks were completed in 1998, 1997 was the highest suicide rate in Australian history and it plummeted thereafter it had fallen by about a quarter by 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_AustraliaSee, I don't think you can make the claim it "plummeted" immediately after the gun buyback, and at the same time say it fell only 25% in the decade after that same buyback.
Those two facts are not compatible - one didn't happen. Not unless you call a drop of 5% or less "plummeting", and I don't. Had it dropped 25% the year after the buyback I would say different, but not when the data source says there has been a steady decline. That's probably not from the buyback, but from some other reason that continued over the decade. Did they ban acid rock "music"?
It is more circumstantial evidence, though, and should improve the guesswork. And it is guesswork - giving a guess a nice fancy name like "inference from facts" doesn't make it truth. It's still a guess, just a semi-educated one (the real education will come with experience).in·fer·ence (nfr-ns)
a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.
Having shown theoretical and experimental proof I don't know how we can possibly go any further towards proving the claim, it's as well proven as any sociological hypothesis can be I think.
As for the steady decline there was a steady decline of guns, not everyone handed in their gun immediately and many more were confiscated over the years after. It truly is a remarkable coincidence how the suicide rate rose until the buyback then fell fast (it began at about 4% per year which for a statistics as generally stable as suicide in first world nations is very fast).This is not scientific until you eliminate every other variable. You have failed to do this, and your data may or may not reflect what you think it does. If this were a study, you wouldn't recieve additional funding, or perhaps you would receive wasteful government funding, with a hypothesis or conclusion that leaves so many ends loose.
HAHAHAHA
Oh my you really don't understand how science works.
The scientific model does not work on the basis of eliminating all variables as outside of Mathematics, chemistry and physics that is usually impossible but on minimizing variables, as a hypothesis this theory is as well proven as any psychological or sociological experiment can be.
Which is indeed by why Harvard published a paper making the same point using gun ownership by state and household compared to suicide rate, amazingly they find the same thing as the Australian experiment indicates and which psychological assessment of people who have attempted suicide finds, that the lower the access to guns the lower the suicide rate. How astounding.
"The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea … p-and-use/Josak,
Oh my, this is like dealing with a teenager who THINKS they know it all. You have not eliminated or minimized variables. You've manipulated data to support your belief, and that's not how the scientific process works.
Pompous arrogance and the ability to quote Harvard do not necessarily result in a true conclusion. Yes, gun availability has an impact on the success rate of suicide. Your conclusion, however, is not necessarily fact, and you present it as if it is fact. Then, you fail to listen to opposing viewpoints which can be important variables. Consequently, I stand behind my statement. You are not being scientific.
. . .You quote Harvard a lot. Do you get all your ideas from there? Is this the same institution that proved that being sad makes us careless with money? It's kind of a pointless study with obvious results. Harvard is a great school, but it, too, is not infallible.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhen … ur-wallet/Nope I have presented data from several different sources and from several different angles all coming to the same conclusion.
I showed studies from the English coal gas oven research which show that having an easy available method in the house increases the rate of suicide dramatically.
I cites Psychological studies showing that those who survive suicide attempts usually don't try again and studies also show that guns are the most effective method 2.5 times more lethal than the next most common, hanging.
Then I showed that Australia had a rising suicide rate until the gun buyback which then fell significantly.
And then I presented Harvard data that showed that states with more guns have more suicides and households with more guns have more suicides.
Just for fun I'll post another study that finds the same:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 064029.htm
Of course in the face of overwhelming evidence you will continue to pretend it proves nothing and claim I am not being scientific after I have cited no less than ten scientific studies. It just shows that you as most conservatives are utterly unwilling or unable to accept evidence even when the point is proven well beyond reasonable doubt.Josak,
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. Can you name a single time, here at HubPages, where you conceded a single point, a comment, or anything to the opposition? My experience is that you always believe you are always right no matter what. I'm expecting the usual snide, disdainful comment that does not answer the question, or the lack of response.
I'm not even saying your argument is wrong. If you read my original post, it clearly says that you might be right. My point is that you do not listen to other ideas or data, and because of that, you are not scientific. You tenaciously hold to your data, and discount other relevant data. We've had this discussion many times before today, and I expect we'll have it again. Still, can you tell me of a single instance when you accepted the opposition's data, source, or study, and acknowledged they had a good point? Without revising your stance based on additional data, how can you claim to be scientific?
Here is a source that seems to disagree with your conclusion:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12 … alia-show/Yup I concede points quite often, when I am wrong I think it was yesterday or the day before that Wilderness actually corrected me on my understanding of the scientific definition of "life" I believed there were set criteria and he demonstrated I was wrong. Just a recent example.
For this argument I have resented a mountain of evidence including over ten studies from reputable organizations Including Oxford and Harvard probably the two leading universities in the English speaking world. Your reply as to say that it's not proof, call it unscientific and then post an opinion piece from the blaze (with it's well known bias) claiming that the suicide rate in Australia remained constant when in fact we have already seen the Aus government stats that prove it fell.My initial post did not quote The Blaze and did not say you were wrong. In fact, it said that you may or may not be right. It simply said that you have not eliminated all variables. You obviously were angered or frustrated by that. That's your problem, not mine. "HAHAHAHA" Your disdainful comment was the result. While you claim to conced points, I have yet to see it. Still, I'm glad to hear you say that you have done so.
Are you willing to show some compassion for all of those people murdered, raped, or kidnapped by illegal aliens now? I haven't heard much from you about this. You could save 6-12 American lives daily just by having illegal alien control, and you wouldn't even have to erode gun rights. Surely, you don't believe that all illegal aliens are here for good purposes. . . or that they are all "undocumented workers." Would a successful socialist nation allow millions of people into its country without even knowing who they were or why they were there? It seems doubtful.No actually I laughed because you misquoted the scientific system as one that required the elimination of all variables to be valid.
As for the Illegal immigrants thing I have responded elsewhere, dealing solely with the so called compassionate issue. The answer is in your comment "you could save 6-12 AMERICAN lives daily just by having illegal alien control." my compassion, desire to see others live better lives and respect for human dignity does not extend only to Americans it extends to all people and many more lives are saved by illegal immigration than are lost because of it, many of those being completely innocent children protected from the massive crime rates and poverty etc. that people suffer under in Mexico.
It's quite sad that when you try to use the compassionate argument use an argument that would result in the deaths of more innocents, I really don't think you understand the concept or the emotion very well.First off, eliminating variables to the best of your ability is part of being scientific. I do not believe you have done this, and you insisted that I do not know what the process is. In fact, I do know what the process is. I just happen to disagree with you, so you got emotional, said some disdainful things, and turned into this. At this point, I find this discussion comical.
Your answer is not an answer. You still have failed to address the illegal alien issue. All you do is say that you have compassion, yet you have never once really talked about American victims. How do you propose protecting Americans from illegal aliens? Should something be done to keep Americans safe? How many Americans have to die before we have border security? Is any country really secure when millions of unidentified people roam the country?Minimizing not eliminating as I noted before and that is exactly what I did by using a variety of sources, from different areas and from different perspectives.
No I answered you question quite clearly, allow me to be more succinct. I don't believe than an American life has more value than a Mexican one because of where they happened to be born and immigration to the US illegal or otherwise saves far more lives than it costs. therefore my compassion that you are so attempting to appeal to (as noted without understanding what that even is adequately) leads me to the conclusion that illegal immigration is the greater good from that moral perspective.
Understand?Yes, I understand. You don't want to answer and veil your "compassion" by saying all life is valuable. I agree that all life is valuable, but how are you going to protect the lives of Americans? Again, what should we do to protect innocent lives that are being lost to illegal aliens? Should we improve border security? Can a country that doesn't even know who is in its country really be safe and secure? Doesn't the whole illegal migration issue really leave us open to possible terrorist threats? I'm looking for specifics, not general "all life is equally valuable" statements that really do nothing to answer the question or solve the problem. You're giving a politician's answer and dodging the questions. How should we keep our own citizens safe?
I'm pretty sure a new immigration policy bill is going to pass Congress sooner rather than later because of what happened in Boston.
That policy gives amnesty to all. What a great piece of legislation. Just let anybody enter your country. That's not a solution; it makes the problem worse. Now, we have even more illegal aliens flooding our country, so they can get amnesty. Again, we don't know who these people are or why they are here. We just assume they're all good people who are here to work. Meanwhile, the crime continues, and Americans are often the victims. We do this for what, cheap fruits, vegetables, and other commodities? When Arizona passed 1070, many illegal aliens left Arizona. Local contractors were left with nobody to do a lot of the labor. Guess what happened. They hired Americans for the same wages; Americans wanted the jobs. Prices didn't go up because of housing competition with repossessed homes. Instead, contractors simply had to take less profit. Americans won’t always take up the slack, but they do take it up a lot of the time. Green cards can be issued to migrant workers to take on jobs Americans won’t do.
I want to make this very clear. I am not opposed to legal immigration and the American dream. Legal immigrants must meet citizenship requirement, including but not limited to a criminal background check. That's the way it should be for anybody entering our country, either for livelihood of citizenship. Anything less endangers our citizens.
Josak, what’s your solution? I still haven’t heard your answer. I asked several questions, but all I got was life is valuable. I'm waiting for specifics. How will you protect Americans? Shouldn't our own government protect its citizens?"That policy gives amnesty to all. "
No, it doesn't. You are a fountain of misinformation."The proposed immigration amnesty would benefit the 12 to 20 million undocumented aliens (illegal immigrants) currently living in the United States. An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their acts of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working with false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status (Green Card) for breaking immigration laws."
http://www.usamnesty.org/
12-20 million will receive amnesty. Guess how many illegal aliens are projected to be in our country. . .that's right, between 12-20 million. Yes, illegal aliens do not receive amnesty for violent crimes; that SHOULD be obvious. Again, I have to explicitly spell out what should be obvious, or liberals begin deflection. Again, 12-20 million people will get amnesty, with what kind of background check? You want background checks for every gun purchase but are willing to let millions of people in to our country?
Sincerely,
The Fountain (This is sarcasm for those who need it to be explained in detail.)
Note: No answer from Josak about the detailed questions. I'm assuming he is consulting a Harvard study or Huffington Post for his opinion.
So, what about the children of illegal immigrants who have lived here their entire lives?
I don't feel it is right to punish children for living here. Common sense and decency have to be part of any immigration plan. Again, I am not opposed to legal migration to America, and I am not advocating unfair treatment of illegal aliens. I just feel that we need to protect American citizens, and we can't do that by not knowing who is in our country and for what reason. We need better security, and I am opposed to blanket amnesty.
Do you believe Ronald Reagan was a good president?
Also, you just said that illegal aliens are criminals who don't deserve amnesty. Yet you say that the children now should be allowed to stay?
So you believe in partial amnesty?I answered most of this in the post above.
The children didn't make the decision to illegally enter our country. The decision was made for them.
Yes, I believe Reagan was a great president. That doesn't mean I agree with all of his policies, proposed or otherwise. I do not agree with his stance on illegal imigration and his stance, in later years, on "assault weapons." I also believe that he ran up the debt too much; I understand his reasoning for doing this but still have a problem with massive debt.
You asked on the basis of compassion if I though that was a good reason to stop illegals, I responded that from a compassionate perspective illegal immigration is a good thing as it saves more lives. I really don't see how I can be any clearer.
So when your question asks how do we protect American lives my answer is that all lives not just American ones are equally valuable and thus that should not be the question. The real question should be how do we protect lives.You are STILL evading the questions. What should be done to keep Americans safe from illegal aliens? Can any country with millions of illegal aliens really be secure without even knowing who those people are and why they are in the country? You talk of compassion but fail to answer the question. What should we do to keep Americans safe? It is a fair question, and you won't answer it. All you do is give some liberal statement of equality of life. Yes, I get that, and I'm sure many of us agree. Life is valuable. Why won't you address American lives lost? Again, what would you propose to protect American lives from the criminal activity of illegal aliens.
I understand that few studies have addressed this issue, but I really feel that you can come up with an opinion on this.Every time you say AMERICAN lives you miss the point, the ethical question is how do we protect LIVES regardless of where they are from, and the answer is that illegal immigration does protect lives.
Of course I think the amnesty is good int hat respect too because it gives us an opportunity to do background checks, get fingerprints etcOkay, we're getting closer to a real answer. What do you propose to protect American lives? Does it end at background checks? How do you intend to get those background checks when people are here illegally in the first place?
You sure do talk about the value of life a lot. I'm guessing you are opposed to abortion. . . That's what I thought. You only believe in the value and equality of some life, not all. Am I wrong? Are you opposed to abortion? It seems that your stance is inconsistent. On one hand, you preach compassion and life equality. On the other, you say that some life is more valuable than other. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and I will gladly issue an apology. My guess, however, is that you are for abortion rights.
I'll ask it again, what do you propose to protect Americans? We've established that you feel American lives and Mexican lives are of equal value. Great. Now, we know what you want to do to protect illegal aliens, allow them to come here. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO PROTECT AMERICANS? It's a fair question, but you just keep giving double-speak answers.
Feel free to expand this discussion and describe why you feel that allowing illegal aliens into our country saves their lives too. You say that illegal immigration saves lives. How many? Where's your source on that? I'm curious to see what you think, but I don't see much data about this stance. Thus, it sounds like you're basing your belief on gut feelings, rainbows, and misguided compassion. Please correct me if I am wrong.I think background checks and DNA and fingerprinting are a positive step, I don't know how feasible anything beyond that even is.
I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds but opposed to government force on the person of the individual on a moral and legal basis. Therefore I oppose abortion but do not believe using government force to make it illegal and force people to give birth (you are supposed to be the small government guy remember?)
As I have said before illegal immigration protects immigrants from the massive crime rates in Mexico and from the poverty many are exposed thus obviously saving lives.
I still find the focusing on AMERICAN lives rather than simply lives quite disturbing. On that basis alone immigrants coming here saves more lives than it costs and thus from a utilitarian perspective is the moral path.Josak,
I didn't see this post. Sorry. I appreciate and respect your stance on abortion. Believe it or not, it is largely consistent with my belief. I owe you an apology for assuming something that was not true. Thank you for clarifying this point.
The problem with your belief about illegal immigration is the assumption that those people who come here are not part of the crime problem in Mexico. Many of them bring that crime here. I'd still like to see your statistics that prove that illegal immigration saves lives. I believe you are basing this on a gut feeling, with no data. It may be true that some lives are saved, but it is definitely true, and supported by data, that some lives are lost. To say that there is a net gain, without any substantiating data, runs contrary to what you have claimed to be in the past and really makes it sound like American lives are worth sacrificing. You have claimed, on numerous occasions, to be a person who uses data to come to conclusions. You don't have data here.
Still, how are you going to do fingerprints and DNA tests on a group of people who are here illegally? Many criminals will not submit to this kind of test; they know they will be caught. Consequently, many of the criminals will still be roaming the streets. It's not a solution, and it's not based on data. In short, it's a weak proposal. Americans will likely die today, be raped, kidnapped, or have something stolen by an illegal alien; many illegal aliens bring the flood of drugs across the border. Our government has looked the other way for decades, and many of us are tired of it. It's time for our government to enforce existing laws and have border security.
"You sure do talk about the value of life a lot. I'm guessing you are opposed to abortion. . . That's what I thought."
Again with the black and white here....
As a matter of policy, people have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies.
You can disagree with it personally, but it doesn't make it bad policy or inconsistent.It does make Josak inconsistent. I guess I'm looking for as much black and white as I can get, because all I'm getting from Josak is grey answers. For a guy who relies on facts and data so much, I find his noncommittal answers odd.
He believes in life but strangely seems to believe that it is worth it to sacrifice 6-12 American lives each day so that illegal immigration can continue entering our country. I want to know what he proposes in order to keep Americans safe. Wasn't he all about trying to make sure there aren't as many suicides? Why do the victims of illegal aliens get absolutely none of his attention?
As for my stance, I do believe that you can't hold children accountable for the actions of their parents. That's just not right. Do I believe in partial amnesty? I'd entertain discussion about allowing those adults, with children born in America, to continue living here with a green card, pending extensive background checks. After some additional time, some of these people could then go through all the requirements necessary to become American citizens and receive citizenship. I do not necessarily support automatic citizenship and amnesty. In the past, there has been talk about a financial consequence for illegal aliens, perhaps a fine. I am not opposed to this; I do believe there needs to be some consequence for the illegal entry, no blanket amnesty, stiff requirements to become a citizen, background checks, better border security, and a plan that is actually enforced.
Do you work for Sheriff Joe Arpaio by any chance? You appear to me to have a dislike for immigrants and a willingness to believe the worst about them.
Nope, I have never even met him, but he keeps getting elected. That should tell you that a lot of people in Arizona agree with his and my stance on illegal aliens.
I know immigrants whom I would welcome to our country. I am not opposed to legal immigration. However, I have also seen illegal aliens who do not belong in this country. In Arizona, we see a lot of illegal aliens. We're tired of the murders, drugs, rapings, and theft. All I am asking is that we have border security to enforce the law. That way, we can make sure that good people who want to work enter our country to do so.
As I write this, I'm looking at my truck. It was stolen by drug runners from Mexico. I was lucky. I got it back, after they crashed it. Possessions can be replaced. Other Americans aren't as lucky.
It's time to protect Americans. If you want to reduce homicides and violent crime, here's a place to start.Arpaio belongs in a pink jump suit in solitary. He could have been a hero in Nazi Germany.
Illegal aliens belong in pink jump suits in JAILS. They are breaking laws not Arpaio who enforces the LAW.
Illegal aliens don't belong in America.
That is correct. To Liberals, they have ever right to be in America. These illegals break all types of laws on every level and get a pass by the Left.
If you attack the crimes being committed by these illegals and is White, you are a racist. I wonder if enough Blacks attacked the law-breaking illegals, would that still stand?
We should place mines along border routes where the Mexican criminals do their activities. Forget that fence crap. Mines are cheaper and plentiful.
Illegal aliens do a lot of the crimes. It is not his fault he enforces the law and they are most of the law breakers. You seem to favor law breakers and criminals. That is ALWAYS the problem with Liberals.
That is why most of the criminals and law breakers love Liberals.
All Illegals out now. It is immoral for these losers to violate state and federal laws. Mine the borders and make them hop back to Mexico.
That will teach them!Ralph, it does not send those here ILLEGALLY back to there country of origin to go through the process in a legal manner. It does not have any repercussions for the laws that were broken when the illegally crossed the border. It does not "put them at the back of the line". It does not deter anyone else from crossing the border and receiving the same treatment, meaning no repercussions. How is that not amnesty. And the last time we had an amnesty like this, we increased the number of those illegally entering our nation, increased the welfare rolls and decreased our sovereignty and our security. How is this bill good for the legal citizens of these United States and for our country as a whole?
One of the arguments that gun supporters make is that areas that have gun control often have the worst gun violence. Look no further than Chicago or Washington, D.C. for examples of this. Advocates of gun control typically respond by saying that gun control doesn't work well if bordering states do not have gun control. What about California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? Does anybody really believe that there will be effective gun control in Mexico? If guns, of any kind, are banned in America, those same guns will flood over the border, from Mexico and into America. Drugs are illegal too, but you can see that doesn't stop drug dealers from Mexico and other countries. Guns will become the next illegal import from Mexico. Once again, we need border security, whether you are for any kind of gun control or not.
Incidentally, I am opposed to additional laws that limit gun rights.Mexico has strict gun laws and most of the guns used in Mexico come from the US in the first place.
Yes, they have strict laws against legal ownership of firearms by their citizens. That hasn't worked out so well, as now only the criminals have firearms. Sound familiar?
Most of the violence comes from the Mexicans. No one puts a GUN UP TO ANY MEXICAN'S HEAD and says "Buy this gun or die!"
Mexico does not enforce many laws, including gun laws.
The studies vary in conclusion. Yes, it is true that many guns come from America into Mexico. As to whether or not is is a majority is up for debate and depends on your source. Still, that's not the issue.
Mexico provides whatever Americans desire but can't get legally. Look at drugs as an example. Our borders are so porous, that it isn't hard to smuggle things to or from Mexico. If a ban on "assault weapons" were to take place in America, it is a reasonable assumption that those weapons would become a valuable commodity among some. Since we know that many guns also come to Mexico via South America, it is makes sense that some of those guns would likely come through Mexico and into border states. It's conjecture, but it's reasonable.
Education, Well said...very...um...educated.
BRILLIANT!!!!
In southern Kentucky, where children get their first guns even before they start first grade, Stephanie Sparks paid little attention as her 5-year-old son, Kristian, played with the rifle he was given last year. Then, as she stepped onto the front porch while cleaning the kitchen, "she heard the gun go off," a coroner said
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/poli … d-19079010Just totally out of touch with reality. Yeah, give a 4 year old a gun and let him shootem up! It's not just the mentally ill who need to be without guns, the stupid counts also!
Typical Tea Partiers, clinging to their guns and their Bibles.
Isn't it funny how the 2nd Amendment is the only one that the Religious Right won't shred?
That made no sense at all. But then again, I bet the atheist left would burn the U.S Constitution entirely.
Do the FCC and the Patriot Act ring any bells for you? There's, like, 6 Amendments demolished right there, and they were both solely the creation of the Religious Right.
Actually, no. The Patriot Act was largely bipartisan and I think it was written by a democrat originally. The only thing worse than Democrats or Republicans getting their way is when they work together.
Better than clinging to aborted fetuses and make-believe gay marriage -
Filthy immoral left -Your totally right. kids killing kids with guns is not a problem at all!
That's so cute, you think you're making a point (:
You're all missing the point... "Phelps, who is much like a mayor in these parts, said it had been four or five years since there had been a shooting death in the county"
Think about that: 5 years where guns are given to 5 year olds and this is the first shooting death in FIVE YEARS?? Tell me again how more guns means more deaths.
Athiest left?
What makes people who believe in keeping guns out of the hands of children who kill other children athiest?
The totally screwed up people who will defend guns to no end deserve to have their children killing each other. I know that is really rough but, when is enough enough? Always an excuse and trying to blame this on political parties. What a joke! This is about living in peace and not having our kids shooting guns at our other kids you fricken jerk off's!
You know what., keep your guns, marry them for all I care, If you really think that is the answer, poor scared little pro gunnies, they won't save you from a government that wants a take over if that is your excuse. Makes me sick..........C'mon, we are not that stupid as a country are we? UYeah, guns will save you from a government armed with drones, bacteria that could be unleashed and a variety of other weapons. Get a clue!
Guns kill!!!!! If you need them for food them move you fricken back woods jerk offs!If you think banning guns is the answer in a country which was born of the gun, promoted by the gun and lives and dies by the gun then you are very much mistaken.
Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun and knife controls in the world yet we still suffer from gun and knife murders week after week.
Without doubt stricter controls are necessary but banning just doesn't work. Maybe education is the answer?Works just fine for Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, etc.
Here is not a ban on guns in the countries you mention , there are controls.
There is a total ban on hand guns in the UK.Finland, England,Sweden and UK do not have the freedoms that US have.
Apart from the gun issue what freedoms do the US have that the UK hasn't got?
Marquis...My son lives in Sweden. You want to bet Sweden doesn't have more freedom than the US? The Swedes pay more in taxes. But, they get bang for their buck. College is FREE...unless you choose one of the Ivy League schools. Maternity leave is 24 months. Housing is subsidized if you are unemployed. Job training is a must if you are unemployed and the government will find you a job if you can't find one. There are NO sales taxes, no property taxes, no auto insurance and no homeowners insurance. So..while the Swedes may pay 52% of their income in taxes, they also get free medical care. They do have to pay for prescription drugs but it isn't nearly as unaffordable as in the US. When you total up the huge number of taxes people in the US pay, the cost of auto insurance, healthcare insurance, homeowner insurance, flood insurance, sales taxes, use taxes, property taxes, federal income taxes, state, county and municipal taxes, Americans pay far more than 52% of their incomes and get zip in return.
It's NOT free!!! You are taxed for it. And, it is economic servitude because it is compulsory...that is not liberty.
Sorry..you are wrong. You are also taxed for it...Walk into a grocery store and see if your can of tuna isn't taxes. As for economic servitude...Sweden, just like the US, wants its people to be employed. However, unlike the US, job training that is compatible with jobs in Sweden is available for free. You can push your fictionalized version of Sweden all you like but since my son lives there and YOU YOU YOU don't....time to act like a man and admit when you are wrong. Servitude...roflmao...With US corporations stagnating salaries back to 1971 levels and the rich paying less than 30% of their incomes when during Eisenhower's presidency they paid 91%? Yeah..righto.
By the way, I live in NJ...you don't want my "taxed for it" property taxes. Unlike the swaggering drawling red states, NJ gets 61 cents for every dollar we pay to the fed. TX gets $1.47, Alaska $1.72 and 50% of the red states get more than the dollar they pay. Taxed for it...BS. You can't turn right or left in the US when they are pilfering some fee they don't call taxes on taxpayers tapped out to the max.
"job training that is compatible with jobs in Sweden is available for free"
No it's not. I do not believe for one moment that the instructor is unpaid or the the maker of books or materials doesn't receive payment for them. You have a very different idea of "free" than most people do.
While it may be convenient to claim that anything a government buys is "free" it most definitely is not, and in many (most) ways is far more expensive than buying it for yourself.
Nor has there been a single year or individual that ever paid the US government 91% of their income in income taxes. 91% of the top $1,000, maybe, after all the deductions and loopholes, but even that is suspect.Correct! Simply because Person A doesn't directly pay for it does not mean it is FREE...but the backwards, circular logic of liberals never seem to understand this simply economic principal.
There are a truly astounding number of people in the world, and this supposedly educated country, that honestly believe anything provided by government is free. Sad.
My personal favorite for the backward, "ignernts" of conservatism is how they stiff the blue states for tax revenues for their Pork....Pork in conservative states like that Alaskan bridge to no where? Or 50% of the Exxon Valdez spill fine Bush slapped on taxpayers. In a conservatives mind, everyone must pay taxes...as is exhibited so expertly by Rip Van Romney...I pay more in taxes on a salary 500 times less than he earns. But that's conservatism ....Prosperity for the 1% minority and austerity for the 99%. Too damn bad if the Belligerence Bois don't like paying taxes. You use the same infrastructure all Americans do. You use all of the same government services we all do. You are not the elite or special...just ordinary Americans with one difference. Conservatives thrive on division...not unity. It's why they can't get a president in the White House who doesn't flood the 1% with tax cuts until they pay so little taxes the rest of us have to make up that loss. Sorry, you don't get to whine and complain about liberals until you clean up Bourbon Boi McConnell's stiffing taxpayers for his heart surgery or the Koch billionaires helping themselves to use of public lands on our tax dollars. Try again. Your pathetic attempts to push a conservatism agenda is in the toilet and about to be flushed.
Wilderness...You bois of the Belligerence Brigade grow ever more militant to show you are always right. In this case, you are wrong. I know this because when my son first went to live in Sweden, he was placed in a jobs program. You want to pretend that didn't happen to? It was because of the jobs program and the country's ability to find work for the uemployed that he was able to remain in Sweden. There's a word the Belligerence Bois all hate...WRONG...WRONG...You know nothing.
Of course instructors are paid...by the govenment. Just like teachers, teachers aides and professors are all paid for by the government. In the US, that's both state and federal. Or do you plan to feast at the table of Grand Denial on that one too? You can always count on the irrational right extremists to try and push a misguided agenda that's as easy as pie to poke holes in.
Nothing is FREE...someone is paying for it. The lie is that the government can give free stuff. The government does not have anything that it does not first confiscate. The government does not produce anything.
I too live in Jersey...Our taxes are too high. What's your point?
I'm not for heavy taxation at all...not for citizens, not for businesses. I believe in Capitalism, not Corporatism.Of course nothing is free, but would you rather pay higher taxes and be able to get your kid into a jobs program and get him earning an income or have to pay a private trade school several thousand dollars up front and if you can't cough up the money, the kid's SOL?
Like I said, it's not that we have to pay for it. It's what you get for your money. I don't think our healthcare system is worth the toilet paper it's written on, but if they could work out a good system that is fair and useful, I would GLADLY pay higher taxes for inexpensive or free healthcare.
So it's "economic servitude" because we here in the US get the police and fire departments for free?
The entire insurance industry (medical, auto, earthquake, etc) works off of the idea that people who need financial assistance in case of an accident get that money FROM OTHER INSURED CUSTOMERS. In return for that, they pay a small amount over time rather than all of the expense up front. It is mandatory in many states that you MUST have car insurance. It's mandatory that you get flood insurance for some houses because of where they're located, and YOU have to pay for it youself. Having to pay for something you, personally might never use is not inherently a bad thing. It certainly doesn't mean slavery. It's all a question of getting value for your money.
Sweden's economy may seem good at the moment but like a duck it is all calm and Serene on the surface whilst paddling furiously to maintain the surface image.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-1 … ryone.html
Anyone who wants a gun, just come to the good old USA where the 2nd amendment is more important then peoples lives. Just ask the NRA, they will tell you!
Want to buy a AR-15? No problem, just go to a gun show and pick one up. All you need is cash! Don''t worry about it being traced back to you if you murder 500 people. hahahah, we don't check backgrounds here or ask for any sort of registration. The NRA told us this infringed on our rights, so don't worry at all.
Want to buy 5000 AR-15's? Not a problem in the good ol USA. Just make sure that you don't act like a terrorist. Well, even if you do, that's ok also!
Want to buy a rifle for your 5 year old, hey, we encourage that type of activity in th USA so go ahead.
Thinking about robbing us? You better not because almost every household has a gun and we will kill you dead on! That's right, they keep robbing us anyway!
Children shoot each other with guns in the USA every day but the gun lobbyist tell us this is ok and just part of living here. Yeah, they are gun lobbyist...do you get it?
Yes, us poor anti-gun people wil need you to protect us! From what? Jerky's like you who carry around guns? No thanks!
Go ahead, shoot another opening in your double wide trailer, maybe you can make an addition! Tired of hearing why we need more guns to protect us. What we need is less guns and those which are regulated so we have some responsibility from those who have to buy them!Heard it all before. Do not write so much when it is virtually meaningless.
"Children shoot each other with guns in the USA every day but the gun lobbyist tell us this is ok and just part of living here. Yeah, they are gun lobbyist...do you get it?"
And a vast majority of those are who? Gang-bangers in the inner-cities who would never pass a background check and don't bother to try. No pro-gun person is going to tell you that gang violence is "part of living here'.
But gang violence, using almost exclusively handguns, is most of the gun violence in this country.
But by all means, carry on with your liberal hysterics and stereotyping on the subject.And the gun manufacturers are promoting cute little guns for cute little pre-teen kids. Give me a break.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 … shoot?lite
Do you believe that if we were to ban abortions that women would still get abortions?
These parents should be put in jail for child abuse. None of these children have reached the age of reason. It's apparent their parents have an agenda to show their butts to the world. All they show is their lack of parenting skills. Who lets an infant toy with a gun? An insane, too adolescent parent whose major goal is to show butt whenever they can.
Who said they were "Toying" with the guns? I see kids showing their guns off or safely operating them with safety equipment on. Child abuse? Seriously?
Swordsbane...You either have never taught ANY child or had one. Sorry..You are talking out of the two sides of those 7 mouths. You can't teach a 3 year old or a 5 year old respect for guns. That's about as absurd an idea as it needs to get. How do I know? I taught children as young as 2 years old for more than 32 years. Don't try and tell me what I experienced and YOU YOU YOU never have. It is child abuse when any adult knowingly puts into the hands of a child a lethal weapon or a poisonous drug. Sorry...eat that humble pie. No 5 year old child has the attention span of more than 15 minutes at best and only learns from mistakes at that age. It's obvious your parenting was less than stellar if you think you can hand a 10 year old a gun and say..."Now...dear...Respect your gun." Sure until the kid cart's it into school and starts shooting and then all those Big Stick Big Daddies with their fist and chests pumped go slinking into a corner when their kid is a murderer for life.
Four or five YEARS, Ewent. That's how long it's been since the last shooting death in a county where 5 year olds get rifles.
PLEASE don't tell me a 5 year old can't be taught safety.
And assuming I've never taught a 5 year old because I happen to disagree with you is a dishonest tactic. It assumes that not only have you done something I haven't when you haven't even asked, but it assumes that something you weren't able to do is impossible, which is the height of arrogance.
Humble pie, indeed.
Nothing bad about kids with guns, AS LONG AS THEY ARE TAUGHT SAFETY, like with anything else. There is no epidemic of kids accidentally killing themselves with firearms. People think kids don't have any business doing anything dangerous, but they do so all the time when they cross the street or ride in a car. You don't tell parents not to let their kid cross the street or not ride in a car. You tell them to make the kid wear a seat belt and look both ways for oncoming traffic. But with guns.... Oooo.. those things can hurt and kill them... Our little snowflakes shouldn't be handling them.
Bullsh*t! Lots of things can hurt or kill our kids. Being safe is good. It's necessary. Being paranoid is stupid.What is it about a lethal fire arm that can kill in seconds the dumbasses of the Belligerence Bois Brigade don't get? You don't tell a 5 year old to put on their seat belt....You put it on for them to make sure it's secure...BS to you too...no one is buying your "Let kids play with lethal fire arms" excuses so you can have your narcissistic, selfish way. Keep you guns out of the hands of these kids or we will do it for. And by "we" I mean 99% of the women in this country who think playing Annie Oakley was for the wild west cowgirls who suck up to Big Daddy to butter their palms enough to own their own weapons.
Ewent: Wow.. Narcissistic? Selfish? How is trying to explain to you that 5 year olds aren't helpless little darlings that need to have everything dangerous out of arms reach or they'll kill themselves, narcissistic or selfish?
I think you should check with your 99% before you assume that you speak for them. The argument is that you don't think 5 year olds can be taught firearm safety well enough so that they won't hurt themselves and others. I, and at least one entire county seem to disagree with you. If what you say is true, there should be many more adult and child shooting deaths in that county. Please provide some evidence that they are lying about their accident rate or you have to accept the possibility that you may be wrong. I can't stop you from disagreeing with me in the face of the evidence, but don't expect that simply telling me I'm wrong is going to make it so.Phrases from the post you replied to:
dumbasses, Belligerence Bois Brigade, BS to you too, narcissistic, selfish, playing Annie Oakley, wild west cowgirls, suck up, Big Daddy, butter their palms
Add in the very frequent extremely sexist comments and it becomes pretty obvious those posts aren't about debate or reason; they are about insults and being as nasty as possible. They aren't even an honest effort to convince someone of something, just about being rude.
I quit responding to them some time ago.I'm trying to ignore the childish jabs and figure out what is really being said, which..... in this case, wasn't a lot. Basically Ewent is saying "Nuh uh!"
Pretty much. A long list of insults, interspersed with "women are better than men" and very little else.
Seems to me it would be reasonable to let the kiddies wait until they are old enough to drive or close to it. I got my first gun at 12 or 14, a single shot .20 gauge shotgun for hunting game birds. I was taught from day one NEVER to point the gun toward anyone and to always assume it was loaded. Grade schoolers are a bit too young in my opinion, and older children should have to pass a gun safety course.
BTW: That article about the accident is the first shooting death in that county in 4-5 YEARS. And this is common for children to have firearms there. More guns = More deaths? NOT.
Prepare yourself for a barrage of rational argument from that one.
Sword...Step outside The Wild West once in a while. A month ago in Toms River NJ (my state) a 4 year old shot to death the 6 year old riding his Big Wheel in his own yard next door. The 4 year old got hold of his cop father's 22 gauge shot gun. The 6 year old is still just as dead. Common for children to have fire arms? Where? In DogPatch where Daisy Mae lays up with Lil Abner till the hound dog is fed up with the "noise?" There are gun deaths thanks to the glut of guns on inner city streets every day. You can drop the "ignernce" BS. It's not working. Maybe, in the insulated world of DogPatch, men get to walk around armed to the teeth, scowl at their neighbors for petty BS...But up north, you can get killed by gun fire sitting in an inner city living room every day. Enough with the testosterone BS. If I wanted to live in a country where the Hatfields and McCoys do gun battle every day I'd move to DogPatch where the classless and the "ignernts" don't ever live in peace.
And how does ignoring "shall not infringe" reduce the amount of illegal gun ownership and crime? How does any limit on legal gun ownership by law abiding citizens stop "inner city" deaths?
Good point.
I think there is another point to be made about the "slippery slope" position. Whenever the government starts limiting one right, whether or not you are for gun control, it opens the door to other erosion of rights. Today, we talk about limiting the second amendment. Tomorrow, maybe it's the first amendment. The slippery slope doesn't just apply to gun rights. It applies to all of our rights. We tend to think that won't happen in America, because this is America. . . How many other countries thought the same thing? It all starts with one guaranteed right being eroded.Shall not infringe? You mean like shall not infringe on the right of some belligerent grown men and women to act like there's a Civil War going on? Oh..no..you must must must mean acting like every person who walks into your neighborhood must be a dangerous felon right?
Shall not infringe on the right of some pretty assinine Americans to kill 20 children with a "legally owned" assault weapon owned by a "legally licensed gun owner"?
What's with the idiots out there who believe that over-extending their rights isn't going to diminish the rights of others to live in a peaceful, safe society? One that doesn't have a gun shoved in your face every time you leave your home?
You men need to stop pretending those guns are penile implants. As for women who feel the addiction to guns is perfectly sane, they need to stop pretending that their guns are free boob jobs and act like women, not male sharpshooters. Although, I do imagine this turns on the swaggering, ego bloated males they hang with.
In case you guys missed the most important point in "your rights" it's this" You have NO rights that don't include responsibility. It is utterly and absolutely irresponsible to flood the US with guns. Only dolts with no brains don't get the reason why. If the number of guns on public streets become as bad as drugs, society deteriorates. Keep your damn guns locked so more children don't die. If you can't do that, see a shrink. You need serious professional help.Extremists exist on both sides of this issue.
"You have NO rights that don't include responsibility. "
Very true. One of the mottoes of my alma mater for students was "Freedom with Responsibility."Ewent: We get it; you think guns are evil. You think no one has any business owning one. You don't think legal gun owners can be responsible, and you think if a lot of people own guns, the community will slide into a pit of crime, horror and children being shot. It must be inordinately taxing and stressful to be so scared all the time.
That is about the most ridiculous thing Ive ever read.
"But up north, you can get killed by gun fire sitting in an inner city living room every day."
Maybe thats true, but in the South where guns often outnumber the people it doesn't happen on a regular basis.
"If I wanted to live in a country where the Hatfields and McCoys do gun battle every day I'd move to DogPatch where the classless and the "ignernts" don't ever live in peace."
By your own admission that is exactly where you do live.Ewent: You're being ridiculous. I was pointing out that in communities where there is easy access to firearms, there is NOT a correspondingly higher incident of deaths by firearms. It's not a statistical anomoly in this county that people aren't dropping like flies even though kids are allowed to keep and use guns. I have asked repeatedly for people to explain why communities with large numbers of firearms are not high crime areas, and no one seems to be able to. If you have some evidence that more guns actually does equal more deaths, please provide it. This is not the Wild West, and the this county has nothing like the Hatfields and McCoys shooting each other daily It is apparently COMMON that children as young as 5 own and use firearms. It is NOT true that they are killing each other. One incident does not make a trend and your stereotyping doesn't impress me. Stick to the facts or please opt out of the conversation.
Your daily dose of reality:
http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statisti … 40384.html
According to Ralph Deeds, this never happens:
http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2 … YgmBrXrycEDon't waste your breath. I've been mentioning things like this all the time, challenging people to refute the statistics or explain why the statistics seem to refute gun-control ideology. I'm still waiting.
The U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents.
With that many guns it should be easy to make your point to the politicians.It is an uncomfortable fact for gun-control advocates that our firearm possession rate does not correlate with an equally high firearm death rate. All the evidence says that the biggest factor in crime and gun-related death is NOT the possession of firearms, yet it is ALWAYS the #1 factor when politicians talk about reducing crime.
Stupid.Wait what... That is not true, I am not a gun control supporter but lower gun ownership absolutely does correlate with lower gun crime, we are not doing anyone any services by being delusional.
As in the Australian gun bans removed just over 50 of the guns in the country and:
"Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ … C720130403Both arguments are true, depending on the country you choose. Both sides can pick countries to prove their points.
The UK has had a total ban on the ownership of hand guns and there have been tighter controls of all other firearms yet theregas been a year on year increase in the use of firearms and deaths from firearms over the past 10 yrs.
The UK has had a total ban on the ownership of hand guns and there have been tighter controls of all other firearms yet theregas been a year on year increase in the use of firearms and deaths from firearms over the past 10 yrs.
I do not believe it would be possible to make a case that removing guns will not reduce gun related deaths. Even if one assumes that 90+% of the guns removed will be from people that would never kill with them (probably a reasonable assumption) that still leaves a few that would have been used to kill with and that are now removed, meaning that gun deaths have been reduced.
What can be clearly shown, unfortunately, is that removing guns does not result in a lowering of the overall murder rate. And that most definitely includes the 1996 massive gun buyback in Australia. It took over 8 years to see any drop in the homicide rate - a very strong indication that removing guns did little to nothing to reduce killings. All it did was remove guns.Well there the issue becomes more debatable.
I don't buy the pro gun argument here at all btw even though I am pro gun, the rational mind cannot possibly come to the conclusion that people being murdered with something other than a gun have the same chance of surviving, we KNOW that is not true, guns are more effective than any of the commonly used alternatives.
If the rate stayed about the same it is due to another factor, I would love for someone to explain to me logically how, assuming people still want to murder each other in the same number, the same number of people are likely to die if people are using a method other than a gun.
That argument completely ignores reason.I cannot answer your implied question of why it doesn't work as expected, although I can offer a few possibilities. Not answers, or even opinions, just possibilities and observations.
Much of the murder rate is from gangs and drugs; in such a case the person targeted is doomed whether by gun or by quartering. It will happen.
It seems an almost certainty that taking guns isn't going to get the vast majority that will be used for murder. The collected weapons will come primarily from harmless homeowners.
Most (but not all the time) guns taken are of the type not generally used for murder: "assault" rifles, semi-automatic rifles, military weapons, etc. For the most part we don't even discuss taking revolvers (by far the most popular weapon for murder in the US) although I'm unsure about other nations such as Australia.
Canada has a murder rate using either bludgeoning and knives far higher than is shown in the US using the same methods and this is not unusual. Without guns, that is probably the next choice.
So, I cannot say why taking guns doesn't work - I can only guess. What I can say, and reason be hanged here, is that gun ownership rates does not have any correlation to murder rates. It may not be "common sense" (at least until we find a reason) but it is very, very true.
Without such a correlation we can never make the claim that taking guns away will (or even did) reduce homicide rates. Just gun homicide rates, and I for one will not care one iota whether I'm killed with a knife or a gun once I'm in the ground.
It depends on the statistics you use. For instance "gun-related homicides" can be (and is in some studies) considered to include shooting someone who has invaded your home, but I don't consider that a bad thing, certainly not on the order of a mugger killing his victim. Before you shove some statistic out there, make sure what they are counting.
In any event I said "crime and gun related death" That is no accident. You can ALWAYS make a case for banning something means that there will be fewer people dying because of it, but that's not really the point. Cars kill bunches, and banning them will certainly bring down the death rate, yet banning them will basically mean that the entire nation shuts down, so we consider the deaths that do happen "acceptable" and we try to reduce them other ways.
Crime is always more effectively dealt with with laws other than gun control, and accidental deaths is always handled better by public service announcements and safety training. Why is gun-control such a popular topic? Because "guns are scary" and "I don't see a need" Those are emotional arguments. We don't need any more emotional arguments. We need rational discussion.Those are intentional criminal homicides, that can include someone who invaded your home only if you wound them or they give up and then you intentionally execute them when they pose no risk. Not really a statistically significant factor.
All I was pointing out was your argument was wrong, fewer guns do reduce gun crime rates, simple as that. I was not making an anti gun argument.
I disagree that the arguments against are all emotional... I think that is just poor characterization on the basis of bias."that can include someone who invaded your home only if you wound them" NOT statistically insignificant.
Thank you for pointing out that my argument was wrong. Now, how about you prove it.
As for me being wrong, I was going to use wilderness' argument, so I'll just reprint it: "What can be clearly shown, unfortunately, is that removing guns does not result in a lowering of the overall murder rate. And that most definitely includes the 1996 massive gun buyback in Australia. It took over 8 years to see any drop in the homicide rate - a very strong indication that removing guns did little to nothing to reduce killings. All it did was remove guns."
In addition to that, what about all those areas where strict gun-control DID NOT reduce crime, such as Great Britain? How about Washington D.C? Chicago? California? I'm snowing a trend in one direction, you're showing a single instance that may or may not be true, and if it is, it has an 8 year time lag.
You'll have to do better.Sorry, Swordsbane, but as I recall from when I did the study late last year, the Aussie buyback DID see a reduction in gun homicides. Not a great deal but some - enough to be statistically meaningful.
What it did NOT see was a reduction in the overall homicide rate, which is what I referred to. Take away the guns and the killings go right on, just using a different method. The net result was that buying back those hundreds of thousands of guns did not stop a single murder.
Advice - I've found that the term "gun homicide" is very often used when attempting to give the impression that the meaning is simply "homicide". It's an extremely common tactic to "prove" that taking guns will reduce the killing, but that's all it is - a tactic of misdirection. Be careful of what you're reading actually says.Over 50% is certainly statistically meaningful
Not even "gun" homicides dropped 50% (or anywhere near that number) in the Aussie buyback. Not, at least, in any reasonable time limit - that's like swallowing that Nostradamus successfully predicted all kinds of things simply because they happened to occur a thousand years later.
That buyback occurred over the span of just one year; any drop in homicides caused by the buyback will be seen in an additional year or two as all those guns are now gone from society and cannot be used to kill with. It didn't happen.
Instead, Australia began to see a meaningful drop at about the 10 year mark; far too late to be attributable to the gun buyback. Murder rates go up and down all the time (take a look at US rates over the past century) for a variety of reasons; something else cause the current slide in the Aussie rate.Actually the gun buyback two years and as noted before, the guns that were bought back were not expected to reduce the crime rate much because they were probably not used in crimes, what was expected to happen was once the buybacks were finished the government could seize weapons from the people who did not turn them in (far more likely to be criminals) which is why the policy was expected to work over a ten year period.
- Listen to yourself; government must seize weapons from honest citizens before they can seize them from criminals! Sorry - shouldn't have laughed - but you have completely swallowed the propaganda of the gun control crowd. Even the government site I got my information from never mentioned that quaint expectation. Somebody somewhere is playing CYA when the plan didn't work.
Because even if it were true, it still took place over 2 years (your figure, not any number I ever saw) - with the guns gone it doesn't take an additional 8 years to see the results of that lack. It takes just one month in a country the size of Australia, and maybe another to verify it.I didn't say I support it but it is a fact that if you are a criminal you are not as likely to hand in your weapons. That was predicted in advance, but once the ownership of such weapons was illegal they could be taken from people who did not hand them in.
No you were wrong, you said: "that our firearm possession rate does not correlate with an equally high firearm death rate." but it does as even Wilderness has conceded.
Simple...Josak: I was talking about the US as a whole. For me to be wrong, the firearm death rate would have to track the firearm possession rate, and it doesn't. Overall, crime is trending down, suicides are trending down (although they have spikes based on national events), accidental shootings are trending down. Yet firearm possession is all over the place, but always further up there than most other countries.
But that shows nothing at all... National trends in crime reduction don't demonstrate any point about gun ownership, to do that you would have to look at gun numbers per state, and then we find that successful suicide rates and homicide rates are higher in states with more guns even as the whole country trends downwards.
Harvard study on gun ownership and suicide for example: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea … p-and-use/"National trends in crime reduction don't demonstrate any point about gun ownership, to do that you would have to look at gun numbers per state, and then we find that successful suicide rates and homicide rates are higher in states with more guns even as the whole country trends downwards. "
Then what use is your statistics about Australia? You're talking about reducing the crime rate with gun-control legislation, and you haven't shown that it correlates. You talk about the suicide rate like it matters if the suicide was through the use of a gun or not.
If the bottom line is saving lives, then prove that gun-control saves lives. If it's about crime, then prove that gun control affects crime. If it's not about national trends, then don't begin the discussion on overall trends in Australia.
And while we're talking suicides, are you saying that having a firearm in your home makes you prone to attempting suicide, or that it just makes it easier once you have decided to do it? It matters.I was referring to the US as a nation because it has not implemented any major policies on gun control or otherwise, nothing major has change don the issue so the change is not attributable to anything other than normal crime statistics change that has been going for about twenty years.
Suicides is a tough question, there is a lot of evidence that not having an easy method stops people from trying at all (see coal gas ovens in Britain) and there is definite proof that suicide attempts with guns are more likely to result in death (remembering that statistically most people who survive a suicide attempt never try again).Josak: I wasn't tracking gun control legislation when talking about the US. I was only referring to the crime rate and the level of gun ownership. The two show no correlation, suggesting that firearm ownership has either no or a statistically insignificant effect on crime, ie: more guns does not equal more crime.
Truth. It does.
It is a meaningless fact, without value or use, but it does show some correlation.
I retract that: it is extremely useful to those that will use it as misdirection and "proof" that removing guns will save lives.You might be willing to stipulate that, but I'm not satisfied, and I can show places where the reverse is true. California's crime rate is high crime and firearm ownership is low. Texas has the reverse. Some places where firearm ownership is encouraged have non-existent crime and almost no shooting deaths (accidental or otherwise)
The correlation I found (from about 50 different countries) is not perfect, not by a long shot, but it is there. In a very general way, the more guns a population has the higher the gun homicide rate is.
"Not perfect" "in a very general way"
Sounds dubious. Where's the data coming from?The UN. What I mean is that the correlation is not a mathematical formula; it is a correlation only. There are countries that don't fit the more guns = more gun deaths, but there are quite a few more that do. Not perfect, then, but it's a good bet and would earn you money in Vegas.
In the US, there is a very small negative correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths from state to state.
Other countries don't matter, way too many variable to even attempt to control. Comparing states is much better because they are all on the basic framework of our constitution and under the same federal government.
So, the more relevant data is better than the less relevant UN data.
Also, the best comparisons are comparing the same area before and after changes. In the US, nearly every time gun laws are enacted, deaths go up, and vice versa. If you go look at states before and after they allow citizens to carry, the homicide rates go down drastically.
Yeah none of that answers the question, it's just guesswork at that point. But I don't think that bludgeoning weapons have the efficiency to kill at the same rate (actually I know they don't) so the only reasonable assumption is that there was another factor at play.
As I said the issue is debatable and opinion based but I don't buy it.
There is also the fact that the gun buybacks ended but the gun seizures began after them and they were more commonly the ones that took guns out of the hands of criminals as they generally did not willingly surrender them.Someone who dies by being beat to death is still just as dead, and he probably suffered more than a shooting victim would have. If the homicide rate doesn't fall, then you haven't saved any lives. If you enact a gun control law and the death rate doesn't go down, it doesn't matter if the deaths were by firearms or not. Your legislation didn't work.
You're an intelligent person - you don't buy it because you didn't study it. You didn't look to see if there is a correlation or not, just took common sense and a gut feeling as truth.
I did. I looked at dozens of countries, their gun homicide rates, their gun ownership rates and their overall homicide rates. I don't understand the "why" of the only conclusion possible, but I do know there is NO correlation.Fair enough I have to respect that until I do the same.
If you trust me enough to accept that I won't fudge the raw data, it is available on my profile carousel. Plus, the source is given; you can check numbers against the UN.
I did have some trouble; there aren't enough first world developed countries to make a significant comparison, so some are a little iffy. Countries with huge spikes in murder rates were eliminated as being for an unknown reason. A few have data taken from a nearby year, rather than the same year as all others; data wasn't always available.
When it was all done, graphed and examined, I do think it was valid, though. Valid enough that I will challenge anyone to provide a country (first world or nearly so) and I will provide another that violates the rule the fewer guns = fewer homicides.
Some men in the US today are anti-social sociopaths who feel they must "protect" themselves in the same way the men in the military do. This proves their unstable mental states. Just imagine what this country would be like if the NRA jackasses had their way and guns were in the hands of every man, woman and child? These gun nut fruitcakes who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare but manage to afford $1,000 a pop for their AR 15s fool no one. This isn't about owning guns. It's about them demanding the right to reinvent life in the US to suit their violence magnet needs. Sorry, take your guns and shove them and since the sound of pow pow pow is an addiction, make sure it's loaded upon internal entry.
Not only men. Women are "carrying" also. Children, too.
You don't like women carrying, that's a bit chauvinistic isn't it?
Applicants for carry permits should have to demonstrate a reason why they need one. I'm not a fan of "will issue" laws.
I don't agree. It's the other way around. If you want to say that someone... anyone can't own a firearm, YOU have to demonstrate why. That's how we do things in this country. You CAN unless there is a compelling reason why not. This is how we see commonly see the use of all other things. Why should firearms be any different? You want to talk safety or mental illness, I'm right there with you. You want to say things like "I don't see why anyone would need...." Then I tune out. It's not about that. It never was, and it shouldn't be.
This is what happened in the UK. After a few years, the UK said that defense wasn't a valid reason for carrying a gun. It's a slippery slope.
I don't believe in the "slippery slope" If it's wrong, it's wrong. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Make sure everyone knows where that line is and no one will "slip"
The line already has been drawn. You just don't like where it has been drawn.
You mean six or seven lines have been drawn and everyone is shouting that the one they like is the right one. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn in this, but I know it isn't anywhere that's been proposed here.
Actually, I believe that it doesn't matter where the line is right now, because it's not even enforced. What good is another line going to do if the government isn't going to enforce it either? I the government were one of my employees, I'd fire him/her. No business could be profitable with such ineptitude.
Ralph ..and of course, your kind is always rather proud of a nation so addicted to the sound of gun fire, a fart in the wind is provocation for a gun battle in the streets the rest are all too heavily taxed for. Sorry if I like a peaceful, quiet neighborhood where neighbors don't look at each other like suspects in a police line up. Your kind obviously does.
You aren't even able to recognize you have an ally in Ralph.
Ewent has everyone pidgeon-holed already. Jumping to conclusions is a poor substitute for critical thinking, but it certainly happens a lot in these discussions.
You mean every law abiding citizen who chooses to carry...
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Here's one way of looking at it. States ranging from high gun ownership to low gun ownership, or vice versa. It is purposefully not labeled to show the ambiguitiy.
Here's another way of looking at it.
Every study on the subject is flawed in one way or another. The least flawed method of looking at the effects of gun laws is comparing the same area before and after a change. Here's an example of that.
"With the national debate focused on civilian gun control, is perhaps the biggest armed threat within the U.S.- criminal street gangs, mostly comprised of illegal immigrants – being minimized?"
"A 2008 report by the Center for Immigration Studies found that gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants."
"In Oct 2011, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that, in 2009 and 2010, it had arrested 5,270 illegal alien gang members across all 50 states."
If we're really going to have a dialogue about ending violence with guns, illegal aliens need to be a part of the discussion, a big part.
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/01/09/r … ians-cops/Wingnut American hate gangs, skinheads, survivalists and militias pose a bigger threat than immigrants or jihadists. Timothy McVeigh, for one big example. In Detroit most of the gang bangers are black, not immigrants. My impression is that the same is true in Chicago.
Then why does the FBI list Jihadists and left-wing terrorists on their most wanted?
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the … on.search=
Or the featured of the week.
http://www.fbi.gov/wantedJust because the government is worried about it, doesn't mean it IS a problem. Terrorism is fashionable these days. It makes a great boogeyman and has a significant effect on funding a project if you can say that the project is anti-terror. Fear of something is not an actual danger, except in the sense that scared people do dangerous and stupid things...like the Patriot Act.
Saying that there are other issues doesn't negate from this problem. We need to deal with our illegal alien problem.
Congress is apparently working on it for a change.
Sure they are: open the borders to anyone that wants to live on the dole in America! Won't do anything to eliminate crime, though...
After all, they all figure on getting the votes from the illegals suddenly made legal.Who was it that said that undocumented workers are undocumented democrats? Leno?
8 people in Congress are working on it.
You're talking 5270 across ALL 50 states? That's 5,280 out of 300 million. That's 0.0017% of the population. You seriously think that's going to change any statistic?
Are you serious? Yes, they arrested 5,270 illegal aliens who are gang members. I'm speechless that you aren't concerned by this, and that you seem to think that 5,270 is an insignificant number. Let's put those 5,270 gang members in your town, and see if you change your tune.
Except they AREN'T all in my town... or yours... or anyones. I'm speechless that you're trying to make something that doesn't mean anything into something that does mean something. I'm not impressed.
What statistic would impress you? How many deaths, rapes, kidnappings, and other crimes would "impress" you?
First, explain to me how arresting 5,270 illegals means anything. It apparently scares you, but you haven't said why except for the inference that it looks like a big number.
Second, back up your numbers. You threw up three links to support your immigration statistics that turned out to be dead ends. The only explanation you have given is "I use multiple sources" and "prove me wrong." The link you provided for the 5270 number used it as possible evidence that they are cracking down on crime, not on any specific illegal immigration threat.
50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo … 8432/posts
"Illegal immigrants cause many problems for The United States. Sometimes referred to as Illegal Aliens, these people have entered the United States via illegal methods. The FBI recently issued a set of statistics regarding crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States. The numbers are alarming. In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegal aliens. At least 83% of arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. The number climbs to 86% for Albuquerque. The most wanted lists for each of these cities is comprised of at least 75% illegal aliens.”
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fb_1339 … C6KA9We.99
Arizona Ranchers Demand Security at the Border
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi … p;p=343899
If we're really going to have a dialogue about ending violence with guns, our problem with illegal immigration needs to be part of the discussion, a big part.If we're really going to have a dialogue about ending violence with guns and illegal immigration, you should get your facts from someplace else. In 2006, the INS did not exist, so they couldn't put out a report about illegal immigration. Statistics on illegal immigration are very sporadic and unreliable because... well.. they are illegal and don't report themselves.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
The list you provided was an abbreviated one from earlier than 2006, and can't seem to be verified by anyone. Of the statistics on the list that can be verified, the conclusions are vague and the data suspect.
The second link to Liveleak is another conclusions-based article that cites the same statistics supposedly from the FBI, so it isn't corroborating data. It's just repeating the data without source.
The third link you provided is also a reprint of the data with no source, but it says that it is from 2010.
Seriously? You have the actual FBI source you can give us?That's the problem. I do get my statistics from different sources. Yes, the statisitics do vary. Yes, the statistics are inconsistent. I do not dispute that at all. You are skeptical of my data and ask for a primary source. I would encourage you to provide a primary source that says my data is wrong. Good luck.
Many people want to discuss the data and ignore the problem, as if I have exaggerated the data and there is an acceptable rate of crime. Does it matter if the statisitic is 3 Americans, 6 Americans, or 12 Americans that are killed by illegal aliens each day? Pick a number. All of these numbers are unacceptable. We can continue to argue about what the statistics really are, but that doesn't accomplish anything. The statistics are significant. We need to do something to protect Americans from illegal aliens.
I want to be clear here. I support legal immigration, and I support green cards. I just think that we need to know who is in our country and for what purpose. Does anybody disagree with that? It seems like a logical, reasonable goal that would result in far less crime in America. Instead, what I get is people who dispute my data without providing a plan or people who justify illegal immigration to America. Something is seriously wrong with that. What we have is paralysis by analysis, with Americans suffering the consequence.This again. *sigh*
Did you know that people sometimes kill people? We should stop people giving birth because they are potential murderers too
Not to mention that illegal immigration saves lives as soon as you just stop qualifying American lives like they are more valuable than any other human life.
It's not a rational argument and it's not even a logical emotional argument it's just rhetoric.Our government's primary job is to keep our citizens safe. That's what our government is supposed to do. America's disinterest in enforcing border security, green cards, and immigration is resulting in significant death, rapes, drug proliferation, and suffering. You justify it by saying that illegal aliens' lives are saved. Tell that to the victims. Tell them that people kill people, and their loved ones were sacrificed to save other lives. It's easy to say that when you aren't dealing with it, and your family isn't the one suffering.
Our government's primary job is to keep our citizens safe.Except that the threats you are expounding on aren't actually threats. They are red herrings.... or at least you haven't provided any evidence.
and by the way, the way it works is that you get to to do something (in this case own and carry firearms) until someone provides evidence you shouldn't. In a free society, all things being equal you err on the side of freedom, so it's on YOU to prove that firearms ownership needs to be regulated. It's not on me to prove your data false. It's on YOU to prove that it is valid. The links you presented were dead ends. I asked for additional information. You refused. That doesn't look good for your case.You get to do something. . .like enter our country illegally? It is a law, remember? No statistic proves my point to everybody. Statistics don't show how bad the illegal alien problem is. Do you believe we should know who is in our country and for what purpose? I do believe we need to know this.
Do you read what people write? I support gun rights. Gun control doesn't work. I want no new gun regulations, NONE. I've said this to you before. If you're going to criticize somebody, at least know what their stance is.
I am not for gun control. I am for illegal alien control.I read just fine, but you apparently don't, and you make unwarranted assumptions. I was using that as an example. Not because you believe it, but because it makes a good object lesson, one that you would probably agree with.
You are asserting that the illegal immigrant problem is some kind of crime wave. Yet you haven't provided any evidence for it. Just news articles that don't cite sources, or when they do, the links are broken or the sources are not available.swordsbane,
I could provide all the statistics in the world, and many would not concede this point. Frankly, I feel frustrated. I have provided source after source showing that there IS a crime wave that is committed by illegal aliens, a big one. All my sources are considered inferior by those who disagree, yet none of my critics will provide sources that are any more credible.
I live in Arizona. Whether you agree or not, I'm telling you that the media, both conservative and liberal, is doing poor job reporting how bad the crime from illegal aliens is. As an American citizen, I shouldn't have to live in a city that is considered the second worst in the WORLD for kidnapping just because some believe there isn't much crime perpetrated by illegal aliens or that it's okay for Americans to suffer so illegal aliens can have greater freedom. Do you know how many drugs flood across the border into Arizona? I'm tired of seeing our children's lives ruined by massive drug proliferation; I'm tired of going to funerals for children who never even had a chance to graduate from high school. You want me to provide sources to convince you? Come to Arizona, and you'll have a primary source. . yourself.
After rereading your post, I am sticking to my guns. You came off sounding like I was for gun control. That may not be what you were saying, but that's how it came off to me. Sorry. If that's not what you meant, I did not mean to offend.Sorry, but I can't follow any of your "evidence" back to it's source. You cite FBI statistics that don't seem to have a trail back to the FBI. You provide links that are nothing but unsourced news articles. I don't consider your sources inferior. At this point, they don't even exist. The only things I CAN find that have anything to do with your 'evidence' says that it is likely misleading or flat wrong. You talk about "multiple sources" without describing a specific source, let alone multiples.
An example of a good source would be something like a link back to the FBI data that goes to an FBI document or an FBI web site that has the raw data, not a news article that mentions an FBI report and contains a broken link or nothing at all.
I can only evaluate your evidence if I can actually find it.
So when you're done saying for the 4th time that you have evidence but I "just won't accept it", please actually PROVIDE some evidence.
Howdy EA.
Clearly you are emotionally involved with this issue. First of all, statistics are needed to establish that crimes committed by illegal aliens are greater per capita then the overall population. No one has ever established that an extraordinary number of crimes are committed by undocumented residents. Certainly, none of your sources do and, as a result, it is irresponsible for anyone to suggest that Americans should fear foreigners more than other Americans.
All credible researchers agree that data on crimes committed by undocumented foreigners is not available. Therefore, all claims that attempt to quantify crimes committed by undocumented residents are unreliable.
Simply stated, there is no way to justify any claims that foreigners are responsible for more crimes per capita then the total population of the country. Believe what ever suits you, EA, but there is no evidence to support the notion of an immigrant crime wave. Moreover, to say all undocumented aliens are a threat to American citizens is calumny plain and simple.
Thank you again for sharing your views. I have found them both interesting and revealing.
Hi Quilligrapher,
You sound like a reasonable person, somebody who is simply looking for real data that is verifiable. You have been right to question my data's reliability, and you were right to say that what I have provided is not from a primary source. Whenever possible, we would all be wise to quote primary sources. That's a legitimate argument, one that I respect. I believe that you are the kind of person who will have an open mind and somebody who will take the time to really look at compelling evidence. Up until now, I have been unable to give a primary source; they're hard to come by when it comes to crimes comitted by illegal aliens. I am extremely confident that this source will convince you that there is a serious crime problem when it comes to illegal aliens.
The source is a government document, provided to Congress in 2011, with absolutely no interpretation or third-party reporting. It is a U.S. Government Accountability Office document on FBI statistics. The link is provided below. I'm not going to quote from it, and I'll let you come to your own conclusions. I'm that certain that the document's credibility and data will speak for itself. Please note that this is a government document, a .gov site, that is pretty dry reading. For me, Figure 9: Percentage of Criminal Aliens Arrested At Least Once by Offense Category, is one of the most convincing categories. You may find other areas of the document more compelling.
Best wishes.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316963.htmlYup illustrates Quilligraphers point nicely.
That study refers to criminal aliens that is any alien that has committed a crime. So it includes legal immigrants.
But given that is all you gave us let's have a quick look, their estimate is 25.3 million aliens in the country of which 354 000 are in jail, almost 40 000 purely for immigration offenses by the ICE ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigratio … _Detention )
leaving us with 315 000 which means 1.24% of aliens are in prison or parole compared to 2.9% of the general population according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcera … ted_States
Excellent work no wonder support for the Amnesty has grown from 9% ten years ago to 70% today.Both Amnesty and Obamacare, among other things the federal government is doing are perfect for a Cloward & Piven approach.
Josak,
Your response was expected.
I think I should start saying that socialism is great. Then, you would do all the research necessary to prove I was wrong. Your desire to prove conservatives wrong sometimes gets in the way of reality. If this is how Washington, D.C. works, I can see why nothing gets accomplished. It’s actually okay to change your mind on occasion and accept that there is new, compelling data; it’s okay to agree with a conservative when the data gives reason to do so.
Your stance appears to be that it’s okay to have collateral damage. That is, all life is of equal value. America should protect all life equally. American lives can be sacrificed as long as greater opportunity is afforded to illegal aliens. I adamantly disagree with your callous attitude towards American victims. It is not all right, and justifying illegal aliens’ crime by saying that more lives are saved in the long run or that illegal aliens commit the same proportionate amount of crime as Americans is just wrong.
By the way, most criminals who are illegal aleins are deported. American criminals are not deported and serve time. To compare the number of incarcerated illegal aleins and Americans THE WAY YOU DID is an obvious attempt to cook the statistics in your favor. Look at the number of arrests, and you'll see a real picture of what is happening.
"Our government's primary job is to keep our citizens safe."
Okay, why are you opposed to sensible, practical gun control?If you want sensible and practical, why doesn't our government enforce existing laws before talking about enacting new ones?
Why doesn't our government enforce existing immigration laws before talking about enacting new ones?Actually, the federal government's primary jobs are to uphold the Constitution to protect the PEOPLE'S LIBERTY and to secure the sovereignty of the Republic, which would include the securing of our borders. Most of the rest of what the federal government is involved with is not what it was GRANTED powers to to by the Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" is supported by the proposed federal laws and what would they actually do to stop criminals from acquiring firearms that current laws do not?
Oh and... for the record:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati … 2693.storyI'm glad to see this. I support gun rights. I do not support the fact that we have no plan to protect Americans from illegal aliens and no plan to make sure we know who is in our country.
This should be a great source showing some serious criminals who are illegal aliens:
http://www.ice.gov/#most-wanted
This site is from the Government Accountability Office:
Source: GAO analysis of FBI IAFIS data.
“The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010
was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien
incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about
296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the
majority were from Mexico.”
“About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a
result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens.”
“They were arrested for a total of about 2.9 million
offenses, averaging about 12 offenses per criminal alien, slightly
lower than the 13 offenses per criminal alien we reported in 2005.”
“About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were
arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex
offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were
arrested at least once for a drug violation.”
Figure 9: Percentage of CRIMINAL ALIENS ARRESTED AT LEAST ONCE BY OFFENSE CATEGORY:
Category: Drugs;
Percent: 48%.
Category: Traffic violations;
Percent: 39%.
Category: Assault;
Percent: 35%.
Category: Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting;
Percent: 21%.
Category: Larceny/theft;
Percent: 21%.
Category: Weapons violations;
Percent: 19%.
Category: Burglary;
Percent: 18%.
Category: Motor vehicle theft;
Percent: 15%.
Category: Sex offenses;
Percent: 12%.
Category: Stolen property;
Percent: 10%.
Category: Robbery;
Percent: 9%.
Category: Property damage;
Percent: 9%.
Category: Homicide;
Percent: 8%.
Category: Kidnapping;
Percent: 4%.
Category: Arson;
Percent: 1%.
If these statistics aren’t good enough, then none will be. The source is the GAO and the FBI. There's no interpretation or third-party reporting. These statistics come directly from the government, and the stats are damning. NO population should have 8% of its people convicted of murder and 48% convicted of drug violations!!!
Here is the .gov site and government document that verifies how bad the illegal alien crime wave is: (FBI and GAO)
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316963.htmlUnfortunately, I don't think gun control will be of much help, because the guns are not the problem. The problem is in the people who want to use the guns for illegal purposes, and making assault weapons illegal will not keep such people from getting them. If they want the weapons badly enough, they will find a way to get them, even if they have to acquire them illegally, such as through that little thing called THE BLACK MARKET, which will grow richer and more powerful by selling them. That's why Prohibition ultimately didn't work, because of illegal rum-runners, who made an absolute killing trafficking booze. And the speakeasies made a killing, too, because people were not going to give up their booze. Even though such places were raided on a regular basis and rum-runners were caught selling it, this made little difference in the flow of alcohol into this country. Neither will gun control make much difference in the flow of assault weapons into this country, unfortunately.
I'm all for trying to find a solution to the problem, but I don't think gun control is it. I believe the answer lies in the human heart, and finding out WHY a person would want to do such harm to another person, and recognizing the warning signs that a person is paranoid or hate-filled enough to commit such an act, or why he/she needs to feel this level of power and control over others. In other words, I don't believe the solution can come from anything as cut-and-dried as simply controlling certain types of weapons. I know that's rather vague, but it seems to me to be a better long-range solution. Just my humble opinion.Gun crime down not up!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati … 2693.storyOnce again here is the truth, sorry it doesn't fit the narrative of the liberals on hubpages.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati … 2693.storyWait, so Americans are arguing for gun control from a position of ignorance? Say it isn't so!
Facts have no place in the gun control discussion. Politicians can't be expected to even know what the things they are trying to ban are. People who look at those evil black rifles can't be expected to even know what makes it so evil.
Total gun crimes are less than a third, homicides are half, and only 10% of Americans think those numbers have gone down. Par for the course, politics fueled by ignorance.What JaxsonRaine said. Gun Control is a political football. No politician alive, liberal or conservative, wants this issue to go away, and a comprehensive debate followed by sensible legislation would do exactly that. Then the Conservatives wouldn't be able to get votes by telling everyone the mean Liberals want to make slaves of them, and the Liberals wouldn't be able to get votes by saying "Think of the Children." Classic politicking: Look like you're solving the nations problems, but under no circumstances should you actually solve any.
Related Discussions
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 9 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
- 104
Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks
by PrettyPanther 3 years ago
March 23, 2021WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.In brief, somber remarks from the White...
- 135
Gun Control Who
by Judy Specht 11 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-c … z2Halds2vi
- 88
Would you consider a total ban on possessing a gun in America?
by safiq ali patel 8 years ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 7 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 825
Gun Control - California Style
by Scott Belford 9 days ago
States who care about their citizens finally have a roadmap on how to hold the people who will sell a gun to just anybody to account. This is thanks to Texas and their oppressive, demeaning anti-choice law.California is passing a law, which Gov Newsom will sign, that allows "Californians...