jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (118 posts)

Ask me about guns.

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    This isn't meant to be a pro-gun or anti-gun thread. This is meant to be an educational thread... if anybody cares.

    There is a lot of misconception about guns(I blame the media and Congress), so I'll explain anything or answer any questions. If you want to ask about assault-rifles, optics, stocks, calibers, barrel-lengths, suppressors, statistics, or anything else, go ahead.

    I hope some people care, because ignorance causes unnecessary conflict.(Not trying to insult anyone, we are all ignorant of 99.9999999% of human knowledge)

    1. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
      A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Suppressors? How about an urge suppressor?

  2. Kasman profile image88
    Kasmanposted 4 years ago

    All I have to say is that I agree with you on a few things I saw on another forum my friend.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Stalker smile

  3. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 4 years ago

    All right, here's my question:  What term would you use to include all guns that are "capable of fast mass killing"? We all know such weapons exist.

    (I ask this because in another forum one pro-gun activist (whom I won't name here) diverts any comment about "assault weapons", "automatic weapons" etc, into a lecture on the commentator's ignorance about firearms, thereby effectively avoiding having to answer awkward questions).

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't try to, because there's no real way to define weapons that way.

      Take shotguns, for example. There are semi-automatic shotguns, and there are pump shotguns. Are the semi-automatic ones more dangerous? Not really. A pump shotgun can be operated more quickly than a semi-automatic. The same thing with rifles, a pump or lever rifle can be operated just as quickly as a semi-automatic. But what happens is we have the media, and politicians, who ignorantly demonize certain guns, to the point that many or most people will look at a black rifle and think 'assault rifle', but the exact same rifle in wood or a camo pattern and they think 'hunting rifle'. Some use 'assault rifle' to mean anything semi-automatic, some use it to mean something automatic(although automatic rifles are probably never used).

      I would classify weapons the way they are classified. [Bolt/Breech/Pump/Semi-Automatic/Automatic] [Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle] chambered in [.22/12 Gauge/30-06/etc]

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OK, thanks for that. In the absence of a suitable category word, perhaps any petition to call for restrictions should simply focus on functionality, to avoid unnecessary technical argument. Probably most people would support the proscription of any gun capable of firing more than two rounds in quick succession without reloading. As a start. . .

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That would include:

          Automatic rifles/shotguns/handguns
          Semi-automatic rifles/shotguns/handguns
          Revolvers
          Pump-action rifles/shotguns
          Lever-action rifles

          Pretty much everything except for bolt-action rifles, and breech-loading shotguns.

          1. Paraglider profile image89
            Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            OK, thanks again. Do they not make single shot pistols any more? My Polish father in law used to have a small 'lady's pistol' (his description, not mine). I guess it was about .22 calibre and no more than 5 inches long. Cast in solid brass alloy. You had to cock it with your thumb before firing it. He said ladies in pre-WW2 Poland used to carry one, loaded but not cocked, in their handbags. If fired once, you had to throw it away as it would be dangerous to fire it again.
            That's as much gun as anybody needs wink

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I haven't looked. I think most such pistols are made as collector's/commemorative, rather than for actual use. A pistol like that, especially in .22, would be almost worthless for self-defense. You would be better off with a knife.

              1. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't agree. I'm told (by a gun expert on this site) that in most self defence uses, the gun is never even fired. So, not firing a useless gun must be just as effective as not firing a colt 45, no?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, if you are able to scare someone away with a single-shot .22 pistol, then it worked.

                  But if you have to fire to stop a threat with it, it probably won't work.

                  You have to admit, there probably won't be as many people who are scared away by this

                  http://www.imfdb.org/images/7/7a/UnitDP5.jpg

                  as there will be scared away by this

                  http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tn-tfb.jpg

                  1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
                    Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are probably a large number who would be scared away if you just said "I'm gay - kiss me".

                  2. Paraglider profile image89
                    Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, false reasoning again. Nobody is scared by the side elevation of any gun. What people tend to dislike is the end elevation - the muzzle clearly pointing at the head or heart. When you find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun, the calibre hardly matters any more. When you're first in line to be killed, how much do you think about the recipients of subsequent bullets?
                    The lady's gun is all the gun you need. The rest is just macho posturing.  (IMHO, of course wink

                2. readytoescape profile image62
                  readytoescapeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What you have been told by your gun expert is true, I know, I have had to pull my gun twice and not been forced to fire. However to require a defense fire arm to be inoperable would only produce more victims of crime. If you remove the potential of death or severe bodily injury, what is there to deter a criminal? That’s about the same deterrent as requiring baseball bats to be made of Balsa wood.

                  I’m pretty sure the last guy that tried to car jack me, pissed his pants and ran away because he was certain my large bore .45 Ruger semi-automatic handgun, pointed directly at him would leave very large, non-survivable hole in his head and a few more in his torso.

                  And for the record FMJ (full metal jacket) bullets are lousy self-defense loads. They create too little damage to the intended target and there is too much potential for collateral damage. The best load is a jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullet with lighter grain load to create a lower muzzle velocity than an FMJ.

                  A quality JHP will expand and begin to tumble on impact and will usually stay in the target, creating severe injury, but if it does pass thru it will stop when it encounters normal construction materials. No Collateral damage.

              2. Paul Wingert profile image80
                Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                In reality, the .22 is the assassin’s first choice for up close and personal "hits". They do more damage than a .45. In an instance of a home invasion, you'd think the sound of the slide action of a shotgun or clicking of the revolver would send the intruder running unless he's nuts or way high on something. A powerful magnum or even a 9mm opens the door for collateral damage. In reality, if you come face to face with an intruder, do you have what it takes to actually pull the trigger? Unless the guy is armed and there's a deadly threat to you or your family. But what if he's an unarmed 14-year-old and poses no physical threat to you and is crazy enough to think that you don't have the balls to shoot him? Vast majority of burglars are kids, not these 30+ year old pros we see on TV or movies. To ease my mind about getting mixed up with the law when it comes to shooting someone breaking in my house and the idea of actually killing someone, I resort to non lethal methods like a taser gun with laser sight.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, a .22 does not do more damage than a .45. Not even close. The .22 leaves a tiny wound channel, doesn't hardly do any tissue damage outside the channel, no hydrostatic shock, etc.

                  .45 is arguably the best round for defense, if you aren't worried about cost. There's a reason why the SS uses it.



                  First, if someone attacks you while you have a gun, then that is a deadly threat.

                  Second, there isn't a huge difference in the number of offenders by age. 3% fall under each age from 15-20, while 2.7% fall under each age from 21-29. The most common are around 18.

                  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

                  1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes the .22 does more damage than the 45. The SS used the .45? I didn't know the Germans (then or now) ever used the Imperial English System.

        2. livewithrichard profile image85
          livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry but I wouldn't support that.  I've been in the military and since getting out I have collected over 25 different firearms including a few semi-automatic rifles.  In 20 years, my guns have never killed anyone, nor have they came close.  I've never shot or even pointed a weapon at a person.  Some of my guns have never even been fired.  My sole use of these weapons is the enjoyment of collecting and target shooting.  My 2 favorites are my AR15 and my grandfathers AR7, both semi-automatic rifles.  In the Army, I qualified as an 'Expert' with the M16 and I fell in love with the power and skill that it takes to shoot a man-sized target from 300 meters away.  There are some indoor ranges here in Chicago where I occasionally take my handguns, but with the rifles, I ether visit my friend in Central Illinois that has 2000 acres of farmland, or up in Wisconsin, about 2 hours north of me.  Proscription of guns is the wrong reaction to gun violence.  Taking away guns is not going to stop mass killings.  Those that want to kill will find a way, they will either poison our water, use homemade pipe bombs, or fly a prop plane into an office building.  Why? Because people kill people.

          1. Paraglider profile image89
            Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            People don't kill people. People are naturally peaceful, social and cooperative. A very small number of social deviants do commit murders and even massacres, but not enough to justify fearmongering with the tired old people kill people adage. You might as well say people swallow coins. No doubt some do, but it's not a valid description of humanity.

            How would you feel about having your collection rendered safe (unusable) if it didn't in any way change their appearance?

            1. livewithrichard profile image85
              livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It may be an old adage but it is the truth.  There are millions of gun owners here in the US but only a tiny fraction of deviants commit crimes with those guns so yes it is the people that kill and guns are only a tool they use.  Take away the guns and those deviants will find another tool.  People are naturally violent, they are only peaceful because of social restraints.  Our biggest problem is identifying those that live without or beyond those social restraints. 

              What would be the point to rendering my collection unusable? I use many of my guns all the time. I have fun shooting and practicing and improving my skills.  Some of my guns were purchased as an investment, I have a Civil War era pistol that I bought at an estate sale for $800 15 years ago and today it is worth about $6000, I've never shot it and I rarely even touch it with bare hands but if I were to make it unusable it would be worthless.  I have an appreciation for guns, their engineering, history, design, use, etc that the casual gun owner does not have. Plus, without my guns, how am I to survive the zombie apocalypse? smile

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Much like asking the owner of a centuries old authentic samurai sword to grind the edge square.  Just in case he ever wanted to use it as a weapon it would have to be just another bludgeon.

              2. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Astonishing thing to say. In my World, people are naturally peaceful. They are only violent because of mental illness or extreme provocation.
                The person I know best is myself. I am not naturally violent, I am naturally convivial. Are you naturally violent, livewithrichard? If you are, maybe you should seek counselling.

                1. profile image60
                  whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Then how do you explain the extreme violence in ghettos? Are they all crazy or does just being poor constitute provocation?

                  1. Paraglider profile image89
                    Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In a well organised and caring society people are naturally peaceful because they are given space and freedom to be peaceful. In a ghetto, with little or no hope, a man (usually a man) may turn to violence in the hope of escape.

                2. livewithrichard profile image85
                  livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And what world would that be? You are delusional if you believe that.  Leave your valuables unsecured and see how peaceful your neighbors are.  Yes if I didn't have social restraints I would be very violent. I played violent sports in school... I was trained to kill in the Army...  I support the death penalty and even further I would support murders and rapists get the same done to them. I was brought up in a loving, caring, respectful family that taught empathy and right from wrong, so I restrain myself from doing harm to others...  but I will not turn my cheek if harm is done to me or my family or those that I care most about.  Maybe you should seek counseling to bring you back to reality.  Maybe it only takes turning on the TV or reading the news to see we live in a very violent world, and I seriously doubt that your 'World' is immune from this violence.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I leave my valuables unsecured all the time and yes, my neighbours are peaceful. So, this is my world too. Your world, as you describe, is very violent but it is not everyone's world. The same could be said to you regarding delusional thoughts and therapy- Violence does appear to be at the forefront of your mind.

                  2. Paraglider profile image89
                    Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I work in the major News TV channel of the Arab world. I see raw footage every day that is too shocking to put to air. So don't lecture me on violence. However, I also know that the vast majority of people are non-violent, and desire (and largely manage) to live peaceful lives. And I distinguish completely between opportunist theft and violent crime. Most criminals are non-violent too. I walk freely wherever I am in the world and have never felt the need to carry a weapon of any sort, So don't lecture me on street smarts either. I've made it to sixty living this way. I'm not about to be frightened into carrying weapons.
                    (By the way - don't read the Daily Mail if you want reliable information).

                  3. islandantoinette profile image60
                    islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We don't lock our doors on the Big Island of Hawai'i and people including our neighbours don't  "walk away" as you say with our "things" because they are not secured.  There still ARE peaceful societies! Sad you don't live in one and live for your gun. IT must put terrible pressure and stress on you. A lot is your state of mind.  I wrote this post on another site that is how I feel about guns from many experiences from ALL sides of the issue:
                    Personally I don't believe in guns period, after living in societies where there are no guns and no need for them. People will and do find a way to kill each other without guns. However guns = money and make that BIG MONEY and GREED in America as sadly with so many other "things". I know how to shoot, learned at a private all girls summer camp that Judy Garlands "other" daughter Lorna Luft and sister of Liza Minnelli attended with me. They got us all to sign that paper to join the NRA for life. We were too young to know what we were doing or the full ramifications of it. Now I do know, have formed opinions about gun violence and I choose NOT to have a gun. Not that I am a "hothead" but too many people and things in this society in America can push your buttons no matter what they be and I'd kill some people for sure!!! Yep sure would! And I am an RN with extensive education in mental health. But the truth IS the truth. Some people do not deserve to live! Ever looked into the eyes of the man who sexually molested your child? I have; there IS evil in this world and sadly the courts do not always dish out what is the deserved outcome. Then there is the other side where too many cops shoot and kill first. Oh you don't hear about all of them on the nightly news do you! If you think only 34 people a day die in America from guns you are gullible. So you can not say only these people "should" have guns and those people should not; as there are people of all races, creeds, colours, states, locations and beliefs that should NOT have guns and sadly there is no sure way to ensure that these people do not have them except for NO ONE TO! Since life can not go back sadly for the good of mankind, due to gun=money=lobbyists=greed=more money=power; it may just "go back" to the wild wild west days where everyone had a gun and shot anyone they wanted to "faster than the next man" could shoot and kill him. It certainly seems like the NRA folks want that. I see a woman with a gun on her hip in jeans not looking very ladylike, then there are the pink guns, and I see two 16 yr. olds who were able to buy legal guns from a gun shop who killed their friend with one. Then I see two hi-way patrol police in Texas doing body cavity searches ON THE HIGHWAY of two women using the same glove for throwing a suspected marijuana cigarette out the window. If these women had not agreed to the search they so easily could have been shot. I think I have experienced it from all sides and thus have decided I am AGAINST ALL GUNS.

                    And the Daily Mail is a great place to read.  I recently found it!

              3. LucidDreams profile image72
                LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Livewithrichard

                the only thing is, another tool would be what? Probaly not something capable of killing twenty something people in a matter of seconds.

                1. livewithrichard profile image85
                  livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Really?  What about a homemade pipe bomb, or the numerous poisons that can be found in the local Walmart? While researching for my novel, I came up with an even more devious plot: A distraught kid breaks into his high school science class and steals the containers of acid, then he deposits the acid into the fire sprinkler system.  The next day he lights a match to set off the sprinkler system and it douses the entire class body and staff with the acid.  It may not be lethal but it is certainly mass destruction. (yes I know it's not as easy as it sounds but it makes for good drama.)

                  The point is, if a person is set on doing bad things then they will find a way and a tool to do it with.  Everyone wants to feel better so they attack the symptom of a problem and never even address the root cause of the problem.  You may feel better taking that cold and flu medicine but you still carry the virus and spread it to others.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Won't work.  Most interior sprinkler systems are of the "wet" variety, meaning they are full of water and under pressure at all times.  You would have to notify the monitoring company that work was being done (if you don't the cops promptly show up), turn off the incoming water and completely drain hundreds of gallons from the system.  Then break the piping, pump in hundreds of gallons of acid, reseal the broken pipe, turn the water back on and notify the monitoring system it is back into operation.

                    On the other hand an envelope of anthrax is pretty effective.  Or a breakable container of chlorine or mustard gas under pressure.  A tank of propane with a bit of thermite heaved through a window.  A little booby trap on a school bus.  Heck, a rental car driven through a classroom wall.

                    Yeah, there are lots of alternatives, and many are cheaper and quicker than buying a gun.

                  2. movingout profile image60
                    movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Setting off one sprinkler head wouldn't open all the sprinklers. That only happens in the movies.

      2. oldhorse profile image79
        oldhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It seems to me that requiring guns to be muzzle loaded would put a big damper on the ability of one person to kill many quickly.

        1. BloodRedPen profile image71
          BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Have you ever loaded a muzzle loader. Many more would die from packing the powder to tight or accidental touch off. Plus back in the day when that's the only type of gun they had. People kept them loaded and ready to fire. What if a kid got hold of it. (a conundrum)

          1. LucidDreams profile image72
            LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "back in the day" EXACTLY.....things were a little different when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Kind of like when a kid gets a hold of a gun today with much more power and killing ability. See the post at the bottom of the page!

  4. CMHypno profile image89
    CMHypnoposted 4 years ago

    How can there be any misconception about guns - they kill people?

    I can't see that knowing the ins and outs of what an assault rifle is is going to change that.

    Some professionals need to know the technical details and some people are interested hobby-wise. But I don't think that knowing the technical spec of an automatic weapon is going to change many people's views on gun ownership either way.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Look above for one example of a misconception. The media and politicians have trained citizens to look at two versions of the exact same rifle. A black one will be called an assault rifle, while a camo-patterned one will be called a hunting rifle.

      When emotion and ignorance are part of a subject, logic and reason are hindered, or completely removed.

  5. ocbill profile image69
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    statistics. I like numbers.
    I want stats on countries with high per capita gun ownership and violent crime (not petty theft). is there a correlation?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There aren't any that would be considered useful statistics, from a statistical standpoint. A valid statistical study has to control for any factors or variables that are different in two datasets. So to compare two countries for gun ownership vs. gun homicide, you would somehow have to control for:

      Age
      Wealth
      Population density
      Race
      Religion
      (there are others)

      In addition, you would have to adjust for other factors that drive crime, such as the legal status of drugs, and the underlying crime rates themselves(If you have two countries, and one has double the gun homicide rate as well as double the knife homicide rate, then is it the fault of knives/guns, or is it the fault of that society?).

      Effectively, it's a useless diversion, I've never even seen an attempt to control for those factors.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Such a correlation is nearly worthless; a correlation can be found between nearly any two actions.  You need a causal relationship, not a correlation.

      You might look at countries with such a correlation, then look at the violent crime rate without guns.  Do those countries have a high violent crime rate using knives?  Blunt objects (baseball bat, pipe, etc.)?  Bare hands?  Boots?  Rape?

      If so, the causal relationship would seem to come from the culture itself, not guns.  If not, guns could be causing the violence although consideration would have to be given to the question of "will removing guns simply produce another form of violence?".

  6. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

    Would you say the larger the gun the smaller the penis?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. While some people do compensate for what they consider faults or inadequacies, it certainly isn't a rule that can be used in reverse that way.

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OK thanks, I'll try to put that image out of my mind.

    2. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Happiness is a warm gun - Beatles, White Album

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Helter Skelter.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ha! That reminds me of an old Army distinction: "This is my rifle. This is my gun. THis is for shooting. This is for fun."

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Maybe we can stimulate the conversation a little...

    Is this:

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ar15.jpeg

    any more dangerous than this:

    http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-750/Model-750-Woodmaster/750-prod.ashx?w=570&bc=ffffff

    ?

    Would you call them both assault rifles, or just the black one?

    1. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To someone that doesn't know guns, the AR15 has a more intimidating design because it is made to imitate a military weapon.  Technically they both are considered 'assault rifles' since they are both capable of rapid fire.  I would do more damage with my lever action Henry .30/30.  The 'pistol grip' of the AR15 will give an inexperienced shooter a false sense of control and cause him/her to be less accurate than they would be with the Woodmaster.

      They are equally dangerous in the wrong hands.

  8. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 4 years ago

    Sorry - you said 'restraints', not 'restrictions'. There is a difference, and I didn't mean to misquote you.

  9. ocbill profile image69
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    It appears that access is just too easy though. Since you have to be able to protect yourself in case of home invasion, they are left in the open for depressed or mentally unstable youth, except for the Denver theater and Fort Bragg shootings.

    FYI: Despite the much lower number of firearms in circulation in the population than the United States, Brazil recorded in 2010, 36,000 victims of fatal gunfire.

  10. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Pelosi was talking about how we need to ban 'endless assault magazines'.

    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Our politicians, our lawmakers, are talking about things that they don't even understand. They use sensational adjectives(what's a 'regular' magazine?), and incorrect terminology(endless, shoulder thing that goes up, etc).

    How are we supposed to have a real discussion when most people don't even seem to know anything about the topic?

  11. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

    The Second Amendment, the NRA, American politics dependent on donations from vested interests, Americans fear of themselves - all contributed to the school shooting.

    America is dealing death to the world with its drone attacks, hypocrisy in its dealings with groups that are terrorists one minute and freedom fighters the next, and its own society has a people so sick with worry (despite all their wonderful guns) that they are seriously suggesting arming nursery school teachers.

    To be honest mate, you can waffle on about the length and calibre of your gun as long as you like, but there is a much deeper problem in American society. 

    This incident and the reaction to it has made me feel less inclined to put America on my list of places to see.  The message the gun owners preach is that you are unsafe in America without a gun.

    Nice one.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, America is a violent place. Not because of the weapons, the causes are different than that.

      But, to ignore the fact that 4 out of every 100,000 citizens are murdered every year is folly. If that's enough to keep you away, then fine. For me, that's a big enough chance, and I consider my life and the life of my family important enough that I'm going to have a weapon, just in case.

      I'll probably never have a fire in my house, but I have a fire extinguisher, just in case. I'll probably never be stranded, but I have an emergency kit in my car, just in case. I only have one life, so I'm not going to risk it.

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OK, well, the UK has fifty million people in it and London is fairly large.  It has crime, murders, rapes and all the stuff that goes along with society.

        In the UK though, I believe that the majority of us feel safer WITHOUT guns.  We don't have them and the nutters don't either.  Our police, mostly, are unarmed apart from pepper spray and now Tasers.

        So what is the difference between our two societies?  One obvious one is the availability of guns.  Any other ideas why we rarely have school shootings yet they are a regular event in the States?

        As a Brit, if I thought someone in my street had guns I would be more scared.  Maybe I'd need to get one.  And then my neighbour would get scared...

        Is that how it works?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          One factor is the income inequality. Crime rates in poor urban areas in the US are some 6-7 times higher than the national medium. Racial factors, mixed with problems with our healthcare system, coupled with the drug war, makes for a lot of really bad situations.

          We've tried gun control in places in the US, but things only got worse. Gun rights laws have made things better.

          Think about it this way. When a patient goes in to see a doctor, and has a stomachache, do you expect something that worked on one patient to work on another patient? All we are doing is looking at symptoms and trying to proscribe a cure.

          1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
            Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad you can see a broader argument.  So...

            1.Legalize all drugs.  Cuts out the criminals and the government agencies - both of whom use illegal drugs for their own agendas. At worst - users kill themselves - they don't need to kill for that pricy next fix.
            2. Make taxation more fair.  Tax the rich a bit more - individuals AND corporations - and put some money into those deprived communities.  Endlessly building prisons is not the answer, although politically it guarantees a few more votes.
            3. Healthcare. You know, in little old Britain we have the NHS.  We can't afford it but we are proud of it (mostly). The theory is that rich AND poor can get treated.

            We don't really have 1. and 2. in the UK and we probably never will.  But a general equality and feeling of self worth in society would surely be better than an endless personal arms war where people need to barricade themselves in their homes.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              1 - I agree.
              2 - I disagree. Taxes are already unfair. The top 1% of Americans pay 900% more taxes per dollar earned than the bottom 50%. 900% isn't fair enough? We have the highest effective corporate tax rate in the world, so why in the world would we make it even harder to do business here?
              3 - Healthcare is a huge topic, and nobody here has shown any indication of actually wanting to discuss it with me. Americans pay $100-$200 billion more per year than they should have to on pharmaceuticals, because the rest of the world has price controls on them. Almost all of the funding for R&D comes from America. That pretty much sucks. I could go on(I have before).

              1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
                Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                2. That's an interesting stat.  I am sure it is misleading and unfair but I haven't got time to argue over it.  Or knowledge to be honest.
                3. Pharmaceuticals, university research, doctors prescribing according to profit - another topic which I am sure there is a lot of mileage in.

                Another time...

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  2 - I can prove it pretty easily, the information is published by the IRS. The top 1% pays $0.24 of every dollar they earn. The bottom 50% pays $0.0185 of every dollar they earn. So sorry, I was actually thinking of another measure, the top 1% actually pay 1190% more per dollar earned in taxes than the bottom 50%.

                  http://taxfoundation.org/article/summar … tax-data-0

                  3 - Yup, lots of mileage. smile

    2. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Aloha Mark Ewbie:

      I really like all your intelligent and accurate comments.
      Talking to people who had the choice to go to America or the UK and those who chose the UK all stated there was FAR LESS crime and violence in the UK and people were much happier! I was Grand Cayman only Hospital Medical Social Worker and spoke to many people who immigrated to both countries and got that info first hand.
      You hit the nail on the head.  America has Americans living in FEAR! IT is an agenda they perpetuate and it is most effective in selling many things.
      I totally agree with you and this is an excellent comment:
      Americans fear of themselves. America is dealing death to the world with its drone attacks, hypocrisy in its dealings with groups that are terrorists one minute and freedom fighters the next, and its own society has a people so sick with worry (despite all their wonderful guns) that they are seriously suggesting arming nursery school teachers.

      To be honest mate, you can waffle on about the length and calibre of your gun as long as you like, but there is a much deeper problem in American society.

      This incident and the reaction to it has made me feel less inclined to put America on my list of places to see.  The message the gun owners preach is that you are unsafe in America without a gun.

      I have heard many many people from all over the world state they no longer have any interest in coming to "see" or "visit" America.
      While living in other countries I heard what people really think of America and it was not good!


      Nice one.

  12. LucidDreams profile image72
    LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago

    Kind of seems like no matter what happens, those who HAVE to have guns, will always find a way to steer the conversation to other ways people will kill people. Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are too easy to get, and even though, yeah, many people like to collect them, they were disigned to kill.

    No reason to keep arguing here. I'll just keep watching people kill other people on the news with guns and maybe a bomb or two. No need to do anything about it.

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      YES AGREE WITH YOU LUCID DREAMS! I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO GUNS ONLY BROUGHT UP THE "OTHER WAYS PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" IS TO ALSO WHO THAT THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH VIOLENCE IN EVERY WAY THAT CAN KILL - GUNS BEING THE WORSE AS YOU ARE RIGHT THEY ARE ONLY DESIGNED TO KILL.  WHAT KIND OF MONSTER NEEDS AN AUTOMATIC TO KILL BAMBI YOU IS UNARMED?  AND THEY CALL THAT SPORT?  SICK - SICK - SICK.  BUT GUNS=MONEY=GREED=MORE MONEY=MORE GUNS=MORE GREED=BILLIONAIRES IN THE NAME OF DEATH OF ANYTHING AS GUNS KILL!

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who hunts with automatic weapons?

        1. livewithrichard profile image85
          livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          People that don't have guns, never touched let alone fired a gun, or have only seen guns on TV, always assume that people that have automatic weapons use them to hunt... what a joke.  Frankly, I hope these people never do get a gun because its that sort of ignorance that leads to gun violence. 
          You know, when I was in the military I didn't get to pick and choose which rights I wanted to defend, I defended the entire constitution.  The problem with far lefties is that they want to cherry pick the rights they want to support and that is a slap in the face to every person that has ever worn a military uniform. People who have never served their country, never served their community, and then complain about the society they live in, disgust me and I will have no further discourse with them.. Merry Christmas!

          1. LucidDreams profile image72
            LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sad!

          2. BloodRedPen profile image71
            BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            livewithrichard - I whole-heartedly agree with your statement. And as a fellow veteran. I would like to thank you for your service. Merry Christmas

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is no right to assault weapons, however defined, in the constitution. Ditto for large capacity magazines, body armor, hand grenades or even handguns, except within reasonable state and city regulations.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is a right to arms, which is understood both through SCOTUS rulings and historical texts that an 'arm' is considered weapons used in war. The 'bear' portion of 'keep and bear arms' indicates that they are specifically referring to weapons which can be carried by an individual.

              So, you're actually wrong. 'Assault weapons', however you choose to define that, are constitutionally protected.

              Additionally, the rifles the military uses aren't specifically designed to be the most lethal, you get much more lethal rifles in hunting. The military is both restricted by the Hague convention, other 'rules' of warfare, and the desire to injure enemies in order to take more than one out of action at a time, and to be cheaper and more suppressive in nature.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Assault weapons were banned for ten years without a successful challenge until the law expired. The most recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. Handgun prohibition supported reasonable gun restrictions.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Reasonable restrictions, yes. It also said that guns that are in common use are constitutionally protected. That includes AR-15 style rifles.

                  The Assault Weapons Ban didn't really ban rifles. It mostly banned cosmetics. The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook wouldn't have been banned. That's why using the term 'assault rifle' is stupid. Nobody can agree on what it means. Some think it's semi-automatic rifles. Some think it's 'black rifles'. Some think it's automatic rifles.

                  But Ralph, we both know that the SCOTUS is just opinion. Change one judge and suddenly you would get different rulings. The constitution is clear. Very clear. So are the supportive writings and historical context.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If the constitution were clear there would be no need for the Supreme Court. The constitution means what the SC says it means.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They masturbate with them!

          1. innersmiff profile image73
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Poison gas? Machine guns. Etc? Pretty extreme?"

            Relieving the violent monopoly the government has over these things can only be a good thing. I am not phased by arbitrary labels like 'extreme'.

      2. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your eloquence is astounding.

  13. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    I can't remember the last time I read about an average guy shooting and killing the bad guy for self defense? I do however read all the time about bad guys killing innocent people. And let's not forget the boyfriend/girlfriend and family dispute type shootings just because the guns are available in their homes.

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can remember the last time I read about an average guy shooting and killing the "bad guy" for self defense.  It was the Trayvon Martin MURDER! And the killer had to "stand his ground" he said.  They have even invented laws to support their guns and what they feel is their right to use these guns to KILL which is what guns ONLY DO! KILL!  Oh and did you hear about the case in Florida where a man did not like the music kids were playing in their car at the gas station so he went over the killed the driver! He is also saying he was just standing his ground.  What has America come to with their gun laws and gun rights and the NRA?  It is insane!

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Simple. A story like that isn't sensational. They happen locally but don't go nationwide like murder stories do.

  14. jcales profile image62
    jcalesposted 4 years ago
  15. jcales profile image62
    jcalesposted 4 years ago

    L.A.P.D. Chief of police - in 3 years of gun buy backs of some 8,000 firearms, we have seen a drop of violent crimes by 33%

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Data from the FBI Unified Crime Report shows a 24% decrease in violent crime for Los Angeles for 2009-2011. That's about 8% per year. The four years previous LA saw an average of 11% per year decrease in violent crime.

      So, if that's the measurement you want to use, then the gun buyback program has slowed the rate of decrease in violent crimes.

      1. LucidDreams profile image72
        LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        2,947 children and teens were killed by guns in 2008; another 2,793 were killed in 2009.
        Two-thirds were victims of homicide (3,892), one-quarter were suicide (1,548), and five percent
        were accidental or unknown (300) gun deaths. Black children and teens were only
        15 percent of the child population but were 45 percent of the total fatal gun deaths in 2008
        and 2009.

        These were not people defending their homes but children being killed by all of the guns in our nation. Too many guns with too easy access.

 
working