jump to last post 1-44 of 44 discussions (135 posts)

Gun Control Who

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 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, 1938

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-c … z2Halds2vi

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really interesting. Probably 100 more examples out there. Seems like the latest referenced would be Idi Amin, over twenty years ago. Seems like there is a trend against this notion of ban guns and massacre the people. Now we have nukes and drones and ICBM delivery systems. I wonder where we draw the line.

    2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mao Tze Tung?  yes a "favorite philosopher" of some in our government smile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FVEe7wCzs

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was afraid to look at the link for fear of who would be the star.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, well you can bet there are many others there who admire Mao (one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but they're not stupid enough to pronounce their preference. Of course then you have others like Pelosi who speak about how they see dead people.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Even as liberal as John Lennon was he knew enough to sing a recommendation about not carrying pictures of Mao.  lol

            1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              John wouldn't qualify as one of the left's "favorite" philosophers - he didn't kill anyone.

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And Hitler liked painting. Should we assume anyone who paints today has a secret desire to commit genocide?

    4. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ben Shapiro cuts Piers Morgan down to size on gun control! If you comment on this video at least listen to the whole video first. Notice how, right from the liberal playbook, when Ben makes a valid point Pierce tries to change the subject, feign indignation or just ignore what Ben has just said.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_o … r_embedded

    5. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      “All political power comes from the control of sources of information. The privileged few must command all sources of information, that way, no information can ever be used by the many to command the privileged few.”

      
- Me, 2013

      "Anyone who thinks that in the 21st century, guns are the only way to take control of a society, is an idiot who has no understanding of the age they live in."

      - Me, 3 seconds after the above.

  2. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    The left tells us that armed citizens would have no chance in defeating a tyrant's army. They sneer at such a thing.

    Well, if so, why then are they so intent on disarming us?

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You only need to cut off the head of the snake to kill it - they aren't concerned about us fighting the tyrants army, their worried about their own skin.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A a leftist I don't sneer at that principle at all, civilian guerilla actions against tyrannical governments have been successful many times, the point however is to balance the possibility of such an event and the likely harm against the continuous damage done by the ownership of semi military weaponry.

      in 200+ years of democratic government successful armed revolution has occurred precisely never in the US, the vast majority of tyrannical government measures in recent history were inflicted entirely on leftists i.e. the Lusk Committee, the Hatch Act, McCarthyism and The Committee on Un-American Activities.

      I have always been pretty pro gun for precisely the reason that a population must have the ability to defend itself but my "faith" has been rather shaken by recent events and a look at the number of lives lost due to gun crime compared to this potential and unlikely event makes gun ownership look pretty bad mathematically as a policy.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Regardless of our leanings there is always something to agree about. This one is definitely a mixed bag of opinions.

      2. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Could it be that the government has stopped short of becoming tyrannical enough to encourage a revolt specifically because they are aware the citizens are armed?  I believe this was the exact intent of allowing it in the first place.  We don't know how far the government would go against us until the guns are gone.  Paranoia or prudence? Perhaps we don't want to find out.

    3. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not just the left, concerned citizens in the USA are tired of adults and children getting murdered this way.
      Most who oppose any sort of gun control are not willing to face the facts. Why would a government who can kill you from a drone flying over with total precision, need to rampage the streets and somehow be concerned that some homes may have gun owners. That's a joke!
      By the way, it's not just mentally ill people doing these terrible deeds. Once again, today, another school shooting in California. These guns are not protecting us, they are killing us.

      Unfortunately, many who will defend their rights to own guns are those who have grown up with this same philosiphy and continue to push for it as adults.
      You could basically have half of a city wiped out due to one singular gun violence happening and they would still say, "if not guns they would use a bomb or something" It's just not worth arguing with therm over. Let em keep their guns and let's just keep living in this country without oany worry of controling GUN VIOLENCE. Gun owners and defenders will be happy and apparently the amount of people getting killed this way is not such a big deal to them. Because "it would happen anyway"!

      1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
        Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Why would a government who can kill you from a drone flying over with total precision, need to rampage the streets and somehow be concerned that some homes may have gun owners."

        Gee then why did we send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan if drones are so effective? Maybe because the enemy was armed? No that couldn't be it.

        Tyrants aren't drones or the military - they are people, their henchmen are people and if their subjects are unarmed they have no fear of being killed or stopped. Is that so difficult to understand? Our founding fathers understood it well.

        1. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The founding fathers rode around in horse drawn carts! Think things haven't changed a bit since then? Back then kids were not coming to schools with automatic weapons and wiping out children and teachers alike. Is that so hard to understand?
          Why did we send troops to Iraq? You tell me, seen any difference with all the deaths and mass soldiers we have put on the ground.?Nope!
          Drones are effective. Besides, that's not really the point is it? No matter what happens, some people will never give up their guns, or work on a real solution to make this country safer!
          It easier for these gun happy people (I'm talking about the gun nuts, not respectable gun owners who keep them locked away) to just cite other ways people will kill eachother instead of REAL solutions.
          Hey, keep your guns, when the government tries to take over, you can crawl under a rock with your beloved gun and live a happy little life!

          1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
            Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds like all I hear in your comment is hate (for "gun nuts" but not respectable gun owners?) - which has obviously blinded you to the facts. So we are to punish the respectable gunowners for the acts of gun nuts by denying them their constitutional rights? The facts are, and it has been proven wherever gun control is instituted, those (gun nuts) who want guns to commit crime will always be able to get them no matter what the law is and law abiding citizens will be made into criminals if they simply try to exercise their constitutional right to try to get a gun for their own protection.

            Your argument is incoherant to say the least and to dismiss valid points I make answering your question

            "Why would a government who can kill you from a drone flying over with total precision, need to rampage the streets and somehow be concerned that some homes may have gun owners. That's a joke!"

            by just saying "drones are effective" is so disingenuous and demonstrates that you can't admit when you are wrong and that is a sign of immaturity.  Anyone who knows anything about the military will tell you you can't win a war with drones when the enemy is armed (or we would be doing it).

            1. LucidDreams profile image83
              LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I dont know if you noticed but we are NOT WINNING any war in the middle east using guns and ground warfare. Also, speaking about facts that are misrepresented, the only studies that show that some sort of gun control is not-effective are those put out by the NRA and othe pro-gun media.
              Sounds like you believe their rhetoric down to the last drop.

              The reason we use guns and ground warfare is not to win, it is to be publicly seen and demonstrate our international will. Each time we need to hit a target that is very important, a drone is used EFFECTIVELY!
              It does not really matter anyway, folks like you that with your so called VALID POINTS are so distorted there is no meaningful conversation.
              Talk about being immature,......

              In the end, if you HAVE to have guns, you will obviously say whatever will present your point the best. Even though your argumant is very very weak in my eyes, the pro gun people will probably totally agree with you.

              If the criminals will always get guns no matter what, doesn't that mean so could you? This is always the same argument from pro-gun lobbyists. How will we protect ourselves when the bad guys can get guns and we can't?

              Your points are only valid to those who have a total fear of government take over and somehow feel that having some guns laying around the house will help.

              Well, good luck with that when the big take over happens. I cannot have a reasonable discussion with anybody who is not even willing to talk about ways of solving our problem versus just, no, I will NEVER give up my guns or gun rights!

              One last point, it seems that most who are pro-gun are either worried about government take over or home invasion. I realize some people just like to hunt but I am speaking to the majority who fight over their gun rights to the death.
              Our government has satellites, personal information at their finger tips 24-7, It would be a waste of time to mention here how many ways they can tap into our lives without us knowing, Not to mention shutting down public services including phone service, electricity, water and much more. I dont see it happening but who knows. The truth is, a few guns in your home is probably not going to do much at all.

              As far as home invasion, you you not lock your doors? Would it not be better to spend yopur time securing your home better versus buying guns for after they break in? Just a few basic ideas for you. By the way, gun control or some new gun safety and registration policies could actually work and has in other places. You don't have to believe me. Just think though, you might not have to worry about people invading your home each night if guns were harder to get. Yep, bad people will still get them, but it will be a lot harder.

          2. tirelesstraveler profile image86
            tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is a good bet many kids went to school with loaded guns when the country was young. You never knew when you might shoot something to bring home for dinner.   
            I would also like to clear up the matter of automatic guns.  They are illegal.  Semi automatic guns, have to have the trigger pulled each and every time they are fired.  The reason for 10 or more bullets in a clip is not for hunting.  Multi- round clips are very useful for target practice.  At a target range there is a start time and end time.  You can shoot as many rounds as you have; when cease fire is called all guns are racked, when all guns are racked and only when they are racked everyone goes and changes their targets.  The cease fire is usually about 10 minutes. The extra rounds allow extra practice.  Owning a gun you can't accurately aim is dangerous.

  3. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "I have always been pretty pro gun for precisely the reason that a population must have the ability to defend itself but my "faith" has been rather shaken by recent events and a look at the number of lives lost due to gun crime compared to this potential and unlikely event makes gun ownership look pretty bad mathematically as a policy."


    Then you need to check your math. Nearly three out of four gun murders are inner city gang killings. In addition, more people are murdered using hammers and clubs each year than using so-called  'assault rifles'. Should we outlaw hammers and clubs, or have their owners registered and treated like criminals? Let's employ a little common sense!

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … a-table-11

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Most murders are inner city gang murders" So? Does that somehow change their significance or make guns any less instrumental in them?

      "In addition, more people are murdered using hammers and clubs each year than using so-called  'assault rifles'. Should we outlaw hammers and clubs, or have their owners registered and treated like criminals?"

      C'mmon that is an incredibly poor argument it's like saying more people die of alcohol use that heroin use yearly and thus obviously heroin is not as harmful as alcohol, it's completely untrue because of the numbers involved, there are many more hammers and clubs around than semi automatic weapons thus more people will die due to them and many more people use alcohol thus more people die from it, that does not mean we should legalize heroin.

      1. michiganman567 profile image87
        michiganman567posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, because gang members are not going to give up their guns.   They sell crack.  Crack is illegal.  Do you think that they care what the law says?  They own the streets (and the police) in the inner cities.

        So if you disarm us law abiding citizens it will have no effect on gang violence because they will still have their weapons.  They smuggle drugs and they will smuggle guns.  They will continue to kill each other and more people will become victims of their crimes.

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Name one person or group that advocates the disarming of you and your personal weapon.
          If a man enters my dwelling with ruinous and murderous intent he will leave on a gurney. Personal protection requires a certain weapon. Mass homicide within seconds requires another. Make more automatics illegal and give law enforcement a tool.

          1. michiganman567 profile image87
            michiganman567posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Dianne Frankenfeinstien advocates that should not be allowed to own my personal weapon.

          2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
            Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Has anyone read Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban? The gun-grabbers are going for broke, doing everything they can to "cash in" on the recent tragedy atSandy Hook. They’re targeting EVERYTHING -- rifles, shotguns and even handguns -- and every gun owner and gun purchase is to be catalogued and tracked by the federal government. Witness the effective END of the Second Amendment if this were to be passed

  4. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "C'mmon that is an incredibly poor argument..."

    It is in fact a very good argument, because it points out that there is no crisis. There is only hysteria and an illogical rush to do something even if it will do nothing.

    All of these killers were on mood altering drugs. Is there any talk about doing something about that?

    Not a peep.

    This is all about the never-ending political agenda of disarming America.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No crisis, mood altering drugs (each and every one of them)? What planet are you on? I would venture to say that mass killings on school campuses, theaters and public get togethers is kind of a crisis.

  5. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    BTW, gun control proponents are fond of comparing our gun murder rate to other nations, but those nations don't have America's inner city minority drug gang gun murders, so it's hardly a fair comparison.

    That's why I make sure that it is understood.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, hammers build homes. Clubs hit balls in healthy recreation. What possible public societal benefit is there to an assault weapon? One shot or two out of a non-automatic weapon stops and intruder or assailant. What does 20 rounds in 30 seconds do? One single action rifle takes down an Elk and 100 yds. What does autamitic fire add to that? Speed limits regulate our driving, age and intoxication laws regulate our drinking, and building codes regulate our homes. Do you suggest no regulation on armaments?

  6. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "What possible public societal benefit is there to an assault weapon?"

    Beats me. Define " public societal benefit".

    And I don't recall making such a claim.

    Now let me ask you a question...what law are you proposing that will actually stop mass shootings? Be specific and tell us how it would work.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think we agree to mass homicide shootings as that which we aim to prevent.
      Fully automatice weapons and kill 26 people in just a few minutes. Today a school shooting happened in Taft California. Shotgun and two wounded. With an assault weapon that could have been 30 dead.
      Public Societal  Benefit, is like the car. It moves us around and helps commerce in a huge way. More die from cars than automatic weapons. But I have never seen greater commerce benefited from an assault weapon. We deserve and have a right to weapons of protection and to form well regulated militias. An assault weapon serves no purpose in a militia. An assault weapon off of a battlefield serves as a benefit to absolutely no one. Except the guy selling it.

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Eric, I am not sure speed is really the issue.  We should focus on the crazy guy wanting to shoot folks.  Agreed an automatic makes it easier, but an obsessed maniac with a gun won't be stopped by his inability to get an automatic, nor will the damage he can potentially cause be mitigated much.  Your most basic gun is a revolver.  Here is a video of an expert hitting 6 targets, reloading and hitting 6 more in 3 seconds.  12 shots, 3 seconds with a revolver.  Maybe a nut couldn't quite match that, but 30 targets in 3 minutes would be entirely possible.
        http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007 … ing-video/

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Buddy the difference between a psycho and a trained professional make comparisons deceiving. I have no doubt that I could finish a revolver in a school setting and kill each target. But you see that is not about the weapon that is about me and my training. If it really is a 500 meter shot I need the weapon. If it is close combat I need the weapon. If it is me and a crowd of innocents I need one bullet for me. I do not ask that we give up protection. I do not want us to turn in our weapons. I want assault weapons out of the equation. They have become disgusting.

  7. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "An assault weapon serves no purpose in a militia."


    What on Earth are you talking about! The militia is the civilian military! An assault weapon is a militia weapon!

    BTW, real assault weapons are not available to the general public. What the media calls 'assault weapons' sold to civilians are not assault weapons at all.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Militia is for defense not offense/assault. Militia in our country must be well regulated per constitution. Assault weapons have no place within a well regulated militia. A fully automatic AK 47 is available to the public. Check your facts and your history.
      I really do not care what the media says or the NRA says. Assault weapons are made for the purpose of attacking a held position. The assault weapon is used to lay down covering fire in order to gain position and advantage for physical breach and riflemen. They are not designed to be defensive. They are not for personal protection. If the bozo were part of a militia in Conn. If the firing range would have paid attention the guy would have been off the streets in Sandy Hook. Gun ownership advocates, militiamen and citizens of the ordinary do not want these crackpots with weapons. We must make it enforceable and clear. Someone who is part of a militia or well regulated "club" would not and do not have these weapons. Only assholes do.

  8. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Could it be that the government has stopped short of becoming tyrannical enough to encourage a revolt specifically because they are aware the citizens are armed?  I believe this was the exact intent of allowing it in the first place."

    And I agree. Well said.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Texas, California are all proof that man will defend his honor and his home from tyranny. When push comes to shove, THE PEOPLE that control the heart of America will have the heart of the Military. We are a nation of individuals and laws. We will not ever succumb to a tyrannical ubergovernment. But the assault weapon must go. It is being usurped from proper focus to hell.
      It will not be the weapons we hold or the barrel of a gun that makes me an American, it is the fierceness of independence that will protect the sovereignty of law.

  9. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago

    1791: The Second Amendment is Ratified

    That's a long fricking time ago. Do you really think that nothing has changed since then?

    The "Arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were single-shot, muzzleloading, handcrafted weapons that typically cost a year's wages. A skilled shooter could shoot about three rounds a minute.

    I know I know, you have to keep your guns! Did you know that over 2500 children are killed or seriously hurt from guns in the home each year in the USA? No, uh, we still have to keep our guns. The bad guys may come and get us. Has it happened yet? Should not have asked that, here comes all the rhetoric and links to people who have actually saved someone with a gun. Does'nt matter when you are saving someone with a gun from another person is is using a GUN against you. It's still a gun problem.

    So you want to save yourself from someone with a gun, let's get rid of guns and see how often it happens. Why not? Are you afraid to not have a gun, afraid this idea may actually work?

    Nah, it's just easier to keep gun owners, who will not listen at all to any sort of restrictions, happy by continuing to allow them They can get their shotgun magazines and hunting scopes. Whoopee!

  10. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "I want assault weapons out of the equation."

    Define 'assault weapon'.

  11. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Did you know that over 2500 children are killed or seriously hurt from guns in the home each year in the USA?"

    What's your source for that?

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Gee children are dying or hurt?  Children, dear God, 2500 in ayear? That alone, if true is reason to ban all guns is it not? But what then do we do about abortion. Where is the task force to deal with the over 1,000,000 children that are murdered every year in the US (and NOT accidentally).
      On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:
      3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about
      3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and
      1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
      Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
      One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).
      I wonder, if women needed abortion to defend their liberties from tyrants maybe we would ban abortion and guns. Hmmm, yes the children are definitely who the government cares about, right Barrack Obama and Joe Biden?..hypocrites all of their ilk. http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u … tatistics/

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why does abortion keep popping up on gun control threads?

        If you want to discuss whether or not an unwanted parasitic growth is a human child (that is what the abortion question is about, after all) you need to start your own thread, not hijack one about a totally different subject.

        1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
          Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are the one hijacking the discussion...I just pointed out how hypocritical the gun banners are when they try to use children as a defense and that isn't off the subject...but you are, and no surprise as I have seen how you try to change the discussion whenever valid points are made.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I see - I must have misunderstood you.  I thought that your comment "Where is the task force to deal with the over 1,000,000 children that are murdered every year in the US (and NOT accidentally)." must have something to do with the question of abortion.

            Of course abortion is not murder, either legally or ethically, whereas the killing of children is - you can surely understand my error in thinking that you were equating it with the murder of actual people rather than a few cells of an unwanted foreign growth on someone. 

            I stand corrected, although I'm still not sure what the statistics concerning reasons for wanting an abortion have to do with gun control...

            1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Of course you wouldn't because the way you think wanton disregard for the life of human beings doesn't apply to humans "in the womb". I included that information to demonstrate that most who get abortions have no better reason to kill their children that the nutcase in Conneticut, jealousy or inconvenience - is one reason better than the other? Which after all his murders of innocent children is what the left is using as an excuse to promote gun control as proven by the position I expressed, that they have no interest in saving children's lives, they are hypocrits by insunuating that is one of their reasons for more gun control. So. if the murder of that  over 1.000,000 babies (a year, not by accident and can be reduced) doesn't demand as much attention (how about a task force on that) as the slaughter of a handful of children in CT or the 2500  children hurt or killed by guns each year (if that figure is correct - at least I provide a source for statistics) you tell me why they are not hypocrits.
              And I didn't say they should advocate for an abortion ban - I'm wondering why they don't have a task force (something they are so good at) to reduce the number of abortions by addressing the  frivolous reasons most women give for killing their baby - you won't call it murder? What do you call intentionally killing your baby in your womb? Hypocrits all, and thanks for making me explain it three times, maybe someone out there will get it.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, that's what I thought.  You have to know, however, that not all people (and not necessarily me) do not agree that abortion is murder, and that that difference of opinion is at the very root of the abortion question.  If we all agreed that it is murder there wouldn't be any abortion (at least I would certainly hope not!)

                Which is why I said you were hijacking the thread - an obvious attempt to reduce "murder" rates which is not murder at all to many and has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.  If there was a general consensus that abortion was murder it could fit in, because it then becomes a case of one murder being OK while another is not and therefore guns need outlawed, but without that consensus it just becomes another case of arguing the merits and ethics of abortion.

                After the third time explaining that do you have it yet, or need more explanation?

                1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
                  Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So, rather than one comment on what I was commenting on from the start - that gun control people are hipocrits for using child victims as an excuse to promote gun control YOU have "hijacked" the thread yourself to promote abortion which has been the topic of every one of your comments, not mine  -  you are so transparent  it is pathetic.
                  And no one in their right mind questions if abotion is murder, religion confirms it, science confirms it and common sense confirms it. The only issue really debatable is does the woman have the right to murder her child in the womb - and our courts say she does. Our courts condoned slavery at one time too, so good luck with your position on that.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you support the death penalty? Taking the life of an actual person is very different than abortion. If you support the death penalty then I would say that is the hypocritical view I am constantly aware of when the right thumps their arrogant chests about abortion views. 20 children were murdered, as well as many more who will be traumatized for life because what they have seen. These heinous murders and abortion, are an apples and oranges discussion in which I am sure you are aware.

  12. tillsontitan profile image90
    tillsontitanposted 4 years ago

    I probably shouldn't be here as it appears I am up against some "big guns" but I'm one of those sitting on the fence.  I fear for the automatic weapons in the hands of the criminally insane, but I don't think it is right to take weapons away from those who are responsible...where to draw the line?  Someone said to me that cars kill when they run people down...do we out law cars?  I'm not saying that is a valid argument but this is an issue that needs a lot of thought and discussion before anything can be done.
    Remember, Hitler believed in disarming people as well.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for that. I promise to keep piling on the knowledge of in depth study. It is perhaps ironic that those sitting on the fence will make the decisions that I am afraid to make.

  13. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    The convoluted logic of abortion supporters is that the taking of a human life in the early stages of that human life is not really the taking of a human life. However, in the later stages of a human life, it is the taking of a human life.

    The new 4D sonograms show with stunning clarity that what abortionists once claimed was a shapeless mass of tissue, is in fact a fully formed and living human being at the 12 week stage where most abortions take place. It is in fact, murder:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUKwv0YH0ZM

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No one in their right mind questions if abotion is murder, religion confirms it, science confirms it and common sense confirms it. The only issue really debatable is does the woman have the right to murder her child in the womb - and our courts say she does. Our courts condoned slavery at one time too, so good luck (abortionists and slaveowners) with that position.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't be silly - science cannot even define "species" or "life", let alone "humanness".

        True, religion may define it, but it is in no way a confirmation of anything.  It is a definition only, and everyone has their own. 

        So when you claim that our courts give the right to murder a human being, well, you are just wrong.  The courts have defined that a fetus is not human, but that is only a legal definition - everyone has to make their own ethical definition for themselves.

        So good luck with forcing your personal definition on everyone else - it hasn't worked yet and is extremely unlikely to work in the future.  It's why we demand separation of church and state.

  14. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Name one person or group that advocates the disarming of you and your personal weapon."


    How about hundreds of them? :

    http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Looked at your list, familiar with a few. This link does not support your position. There is no question that those who want to carry and are qualified should be able to. Assuming I am a monster criminal with no compunction about taking your wife's life. I definitely would slow if I thought you might be carrying. Citizens should in fact be armed in one way or another. This stops the prick who thinks his gun is righteous.
      But no way assault weapons --- do we agree?

  15. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "But no way assault weapons --- do we agree?"


    Define 'assault weapon'.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Bullet hoses. They are weapons by design that lay down a covering barrage of small lethal projectiles. The purpose of the weapon is to keep weaponry in an installed position from being fired. While the defenders have a physical protection the assailants now have a lead based virtual protection. Rapid and indiscriminate fire is used to provide for the approach of attacking forces.

      This is not a crowd control weapon. It is not a personal defense weapon.
      good enough?

    2. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Gun nuts always have you define what an assault rifle is? Ever notice that? It's always, tell me the definition of an assault rifle? It's that thing that kills mass amounts of people in literally seconds!!!! Do we really have to define it for you?

      Does it matter anyway, someone who starts off asking another to define what this is, is not serious about solving a problem, only interested in keeping their guns!

  16. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Bullet hoses."

    Bullet hoses?

    So a rifle that is not a 'bullet hose' and just shoots once when you pull the trigger is OK?

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds nuts but that is how I feel. Allow me to digress. In the early days of television to my part of the world, 50's to 60's there were two men. I guy named Sarge and a guy named Cage. Sarge had a low carbine mechanized gun. I think 6 round bursts at a time, part wooden stock. Cage had this monster that was meant for entrenched positions but he was such a strong huge man he carried it with him. It was a full bore machine gun. The ammo alone must have weighted 300 lbs. That was TV. Those guys won WWII.
      My point is this: Weapons that could legitimately wipe out a whole platoon were born on the silver screen. It really does not work that way. Bullet hoses serve a purpose but not one that serves man in reality except for attacks on "bunkered' positions. Put  it another way: I want you to have a weapon. Just not that weapon.

  17. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Children being murdered in school also has nothing to with abortion..."


    I wonder.

    After all, when today's young people see nothing wrong with killing totally innocent babies simply because they are a nuisance, why care about killing anyone else? Death is death, and we also push suicide, especially assisted suicide. We have evolved into a culture of death, so why would a killer care about children?

    Maybe they look at it as assisted suicide.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, A killer does not respect any life. You know as well as I do that abortion is a multi-faceted arguement. Because of rape for instance. Have you seen the biggest story on the news as of late, where the young girl was raped by two boys from the local football team? What if she is pregnant? Did she make a mistake by drinking at a party and passing out? Yes. Does she then deserve to have her rapists baby? what if the mother discovers she may die if she carries to term? Shouls she be forced to choose to die and leave her child motherless, or should this be her choice to make? I know that abortion has been abused, as is every other one of our rights, including...The Right To Bear Arms

    2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, when will I learn to take my own advice  ?

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7555479_f260.jpg

  18. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    Hi tammybarnette,

    My wife is a labor and delivery nurse for almost forty years, and in all that time, she has never had a mother who needed an abortion to save her life. They are very rare, so let's get that one out of the way.

    Incest with a minor is a rape, but incest among adults is not, and a baby of incest is almost always perfectly normal, so that is not really an excuse.

    That leaves rape, and a woman who has been raped (including a child of incest) should not be forced to continue the rape via a pregnancy against her will. (Many do choose to have that baby anyway because it is, after all, half their child). I support a rape victim's decision to abort, as a justifiable homicide.

    However, I do not support an abortion of convenience.

    Would you be willing to limit abortion to rape, or do you support it for mere convenience?

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I support to limit to rape and life of the mother and incest, all my respect to your wife, but she is one person, it is not as rare as it may seem.I have always took the stance about the right to choose period, but I can see the abuse of the system has been a runaway train...Do you see that civilians have no need for military weapons?

      1. Ericdierker profile image81
        Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you have the fortitude make a hub about rape and abortion.

        Not relevant to this hub.

  19. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "I support to limit to rape and life of the mother and incest..."


    And I would support that.

  20. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago

    I dont hate gun owners, I just hate when people get killed by guns on a daily basis.As long as guns are readily available, people will need guns to defend themselves from other people with guns! My god, this isn't rocket science!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, it isn't rocket science, but some seem to treat it that way. 

      http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c … PGVqmfhdks

      Check the second graph in the link, the modus operandi of homicides in Canada (few guns) vs the US (lots of guns).  Look at the bottom two methods used; knives and beatings.  Notice how the rates in Canada are double the US?

      It's not rocket science to figure out that the reason for that is because guns are harder to get in Canada - that without guns killers still kill, they just use different tools.  Not rocket science, but still apparently extremely difficult for many to grasp.

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Even in the chart you provide a link to, UNKNOWN and NOT SPECIFIED seem to take up 50% approximately of the graph for the United States., This is back in 2006 by the way. Hmm, wonder how those NON SPECIFIED killings happened. Does Canada just keep better records?

        Doesnt change the fact that many thousands die to to guns each year in the US. Of course, we can still point to other ways people will get murdered in the USA. This does not change the fact that we have WAY too many gun deaths does it?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Doesn't change the fact, no, but it pretty clearly shows that the tool used is inconsequential.  You want to stop the deaths, forget about guns and figure out why people kill.

          But, of course, we won't do that.  We won't look inside ourselves to see why we are such killers (too painful, maybe) and we certainly won't put any effort into stopping the killing.  We'll just take away the guns and gasp in shock as knifings and beatings go through the roof.  Require that all knives be dull, ban whetstones and require everyone to wear boxing gloves outside the home might be next - it makes about as much sense as banning guns or even just some guns.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, you make good points. The problem is that citizens will say they agree we should research this or that but vote against funding said programs. Many reasons I have seen behind murderes, especilally serial killers, has been due to child abuse and neglect. Yet this is one of the very programs always on a chopping block for government dollars. Then of course there is mental health issues, another misunderstood and under-funded research and develpoment issue.We also recognize as a society that movies and video game violence is out of control, but nothing changes. We do need to understand that military weapons need not be available to citizens. More needs to be done with back ground checks and regulations as well, but all of these things will cost money, as will rebuilding after Sandy, as will all developments of infrastructure....but our politicians will continue to fight about spending. Without spending nothing gets better, however, if we continue to spend on a credit card it won't really matter because we will soon be a third world country and then we will really see violence. Answers, solutions, what are we to do besides argue talking points?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              Tammy, I wholeheartedly agree and It's why I keep carping on these gun control forums.  We're going to spend a little money on gun control in the very near future, but it's going to stop at that point (prediction, not knowledge).  We won't put any more resources into those things you mention and that are so much more important than taking a few guns away from people. 

              It's all about resources, and a willingness to actually look inside ourselves for the problem.  We'll spend the first on a worthless, feel-good "solution" and never attempt the second. 

              What can we do besides talk?  I wrote my congressmen, showing my research as well as that of others.  I tried to explain my stance on gun controls, and why I take the stance.  I highly doubt it will do any good whatsoever as it takes time and effort to dig through and understand gun statistics but mostly it doesn't agree with the loud voice of GET RID OF GUNS, but I tried.  At the moment, then, it isn't PC as I'm asking our politicians to actually work and probably go against the public wail to boot.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, I have been looking into this crowd-funding option. I am beginning to think this may be an avenue for change, to be heard. If we can build an organization with enough power to lobby Congress, then maybe our voices will be heard. Maybe, we could build organizations to fund programs ourselves. At any rate, I believe we will either find new ways to be heard or we will suffer the consequences.

  21. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "It's always, tell me the definition of an assault rifle? It's that thing that kills mass amounts of people in literally seconds!!!! Do we really have to define it for you?"

    Sure you do.

    A law that bans 'assault rifles' has to define exactly what that means, so if you want to ban 'assault rifles' you have to tell us what you mean by an 'assault rifle' and be very specific about it.

    BTW, military rifles are specifically protected by the Second Amendment (see United States vs Miller), so you'll need to repeal the Second Amendment first.

    Good luck with that!

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Glad you are so confident, even when you say the same old thing, I suppose to you somehow it seems clever?Do you know what an amendment is? You pro-gun people sure love to use the term. It is when you need to fix something you got wrong in the first place, or change the exact wording or  meaning. This may apply to a document that is over 200 years old also.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In Europe a building that isn't at least 200 years old is considered contemporary. Sniping at a document that has held up for 230 something years when no other country has survived that long makes a point as well.

        1. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Were not talking about europe!!!! I am not sniping at a document, this is what is called being reasonable and saying change is worth taking a look at.

  22. LucidDreams profile image83
    LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago

    This is a PRO-GUN-NUT in my opinion. You may not agree with Piers Morgan, but does this behavior seem rational to you? If so, I truly feel sorry for anyone who is this out of touch and not willing to look for a real solution.

    http://trendingnowvideos.blogspot.com/2 … organ.html

  23. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Glad you are so confident, even when you say the same old thing, I suppose to you somehow it seems clever?Do you know what an amendment is? You pro-gun people sure love to use the term. It is when you need to fix something you got wrong in the first place, or change the exact wording or  meaning. This may apply to a document that is over 200 years old also."


    A long-winded way of saying you have no idea what an assault rifle is.

    Didn't think so.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you should explain what an assault rifle is? Clarify it for us that don't know. This way, next time you ask what one is, you have answered your own question.

  24. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Maybe you should explain what an assault rifle is? Clarify it for us that don't know. This way, next time you ask what one is, you have answered your own question."

    You wanted to ban assault rifles, but you don't even know what they are. That is typical of the anti-gun crowd...they don't even know what it is, but they don't want it!

  25. The Suburban Poet profile image80
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    I think the interesting thing about having weapons (assault weapons?) for home defense is this: should you keep it at your side at all times because a home invasion is a surprise attack? Now if you go to bed at night I can see the strategy of a gun on the night stand but if you have children and you live in fear of a home invasion then the guns aren't locked up are they? So what is the reality of home protection? I guess having a weapon gives you a fighting chance in the event of certain circumstances but it is not a 100% solution given the safeguard needed for children or other adults in your home concerning the weapons themselves.

  26. stclairjack profile image80
    stclairjackposted 4 years ago

    we will never tire of hyperpole and self-serving dramatics when engaging in conversation on this topic,.... but i do observe, after a cursory glance over this thread, ya'll have behaved closer to civilized adults than other threads i've seen on this topic,... kudos   psaa- jack

  27. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    Only very irresponsible people leave drain cleaners, poisons, and guns where children can reach them, and so gun accidents involving children are extremely rare. In the latest statistic from the CDC, 42 children were killed in the US in gun accidents over a one year span.

    That's still 42 too many, but that's amazingly low considering that over half of all homes have a firearm. The claim that thousands of children are the victims of gun accidents each year is false.

    1. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, boy are you a glutton for punishment? Great points but wasted on this crowd - logic means nothing to liberals - it is all about how they feel and their intentions, even though misguided. If you can't see it their way you will be villianized and belittled. You are just a GUN NUT in their eyes and nothing will change that stigma unless you agree with their "feelings". Let's not cloud the issue with facts or logic.

  28. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    The Suburban Poet is a very reasonable man, and I was responding to his excellent question. I know that the rabid left has no interest on the truth, but The Suburban Poet does.

    1. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, he is, I should have said "some of this crowd" because it is painful to read what you have to wade through to connect with one sane person so I still think you are a glutton for punishment :-).

  29. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "...I still think you are a glutton for punishment :-)."

    And you would be correct, but I'm just asking that the opposition consider the facts before they condemn the lawful possession of a perfectly legal item, and one that is protected by our Constitution.

    But if I cannot, I ask them to at least do it the right way, and amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, if that is what they want.

    1. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But Will, that is so unfair because you know that the vast majority of Americans support the second amendment (according to Gallup in 2008  http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Ameri … ights.aspx ) and based on the recent surge in gun sales nationwide since Obama opened his mouth promoting Biden's "task force" I doubt those numbers are lower than they were in 2008. And "they" know they could never repeal (or change)  the 2nd amendment so what you are suggesting is UNFAIR, Will! Face it the whole constitution is UNFAIR Will, we should re-do it!

      (since you are a glutton for punishment I thought I'd oblige :-)

  30. stclairjack profile image80
    stclairjackposted 4 years ago

    ok,... i will post here, what i have posted elsewhere on this subject,....

    1) i have no problem banning the civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons (already illeagal, has been for years, so its like me saying have no qualms with the sun coming up in the morning)

    2) i have NO problem banning the import, manufacture, or sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and also banning the import, manufacture, and sale of weapons that by design hold more than 10 rounds.

    3) i sujest we grandfather in all magazines and firearms that fall into this catagory and allow the ownership of these with the caviot that they cannot be sold or traded, they must be held indeffinately by the owner, be that owner a licenced gun shop, or an individual... and that a government bounty be offered for these items equal to market value +20%, paid for the item should it be turned into a local law enforcement division, funnded through a federal program (gona creat at least 5000 new gov jobs there! lol)

    4) each state should institute a gun licence program, lincencing gun owners, requiring a one day course or a waiver of said course from your county sherriff to aquire the licence. it should be carried on your person at all times, the same as your state issued drivers licence. this licence should automaticaly grant the right to the concealed carry of a fire arm, and should cost the licence holder no more than 20$ total to obtain. it should be a life time licence unless revoked by a court.

    5) after passage of this total package, there will be a 25 year mortorium on firearms laws. (this is so the current generation of gun haters might have to breed the next, remember ,... make love, not war?.... perhaps what we all need is a pleasant diversion????)

    i say this as a life long gun owner, collector, shooter, hunter,... and advocate for freedom.

    i also say this as an advocate for personal responsability,... and cmomunity responsability..... as a nation we regulate vehicles to death,.... there is little regulation on guns in comparison.

    crucify me if you will,.... but i've thought this out,... discussed it with friends,.... all gun owners,.... it seems logical and proportional.

    all this said,....... crazy, angry, deranged, and plain norml people will ALWAYS kill other peole,.... if pushed far enough,..... they will run them down with cars, stab them with knives, or beat them witrh ball bats,....... but,..... if this gives the elft the false sense of security that they want,.... YEE HAW,.... but americans will still be just as armed.

    i will not miss 30 round banana clips,..... they are like nude pictures,.... once youve seen one hot naked body,... you prety much,... wana see em all,...... so if you have a 30 rd mag,..... you'll spend a lot of $$$$ on ammo,..... my wallet could use the rest.

    if you truely belive in gun controll as i do,.... bullet placement is key,.... i have great faith in my ability to do more with 5 well placed rounds,..... than any childish amiture that played video kill 2000, and got mad cause someone made fun of his pimples, and his motrher didnt buy him video kill 3000.

    ok,.... i stand ready for the assault,... no quarter asked,... none given

    1. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, and the punishment goes on, and on...needs no help from me..:-)

  31. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the People to keep and bear the arms necessary to arm a militia in the event the federal government becomes a tyranny. The Supreme Court has already ruled that military weapons are protected (United States vs Miller), and that would include semiautomatics and military capacity magazines, usually 20 to 30 rounds.

    Lots of civilians own and fire fully automatic weapons (machine guns) and they pay a $200 tax stamp per weapon. Only one was ever used in a crime.

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      indeed, there is a special permit proscess for the ownership of fully automatic weapons,.... i've looked into this,.... i found it to be more than just a 200 tax per,.... far more invasive and expesive,..... in the end,..... not worth it to me, lol

      if afgan fighters can defeat russians finest from the backs of horses with scavenged weapond in the hostile mountains there,..... if they do the same to us now, the most awsome millitray force in the world,..... then i have no worries about the hardy american to defend him/herself from all enemies, both forign and domestic,.... peace my friend,.... i love and agree with 90% of evreything you write,.... thats a better ratio than all my ex's combined! ha!

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics … ncy/60803/
      "At six per 100,000, the rate of violent deaths is higher in the U.S. than in any other country in the world, and the majority of those deaths involve firearms. The rest of the world is pretty far behind, too. We have three times as many violent deaths than the next most violent country, Finland. Researchers linked this trend with the U.S. having the lowest life expectancy -- 75.6 years for men and 80.7 years for women -- out of the 17 wealthy countries surveyed in the report."

  32. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "if afgan fighters can defeat russians finest from the backs of horses with scavenged weapond in the hostile mountains there,..... if they do the same to us now, the most awsome millitray force in the world,..... then i have no worries about the hardy american to defend him/herself from all enemies, both forign and domestic,"


    Excellent point, and one I had overlooked! I will definitely be using that one! Bravo!

  33. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "At six per 100,000, the rate of violent deaths is higher in the U.S. than in any other country in the world, and the majority of those deaths involve firearms."

    Oh, that's far from accurate. At 5.9 per 100,000, the US comes in at #63, not #1! :

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … 000-people


    And even then, almost 70% of all murders in the US are committed by the inner-city minority drug gangs that other countries we are compared to simply do not have. Factor those out so the comparison to other countries is fair, and we come in at 1.7 per 100,000!

    That's why well armed countries like Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada do not have our high crime rates...they also do not have America's large minority population. I know it's not PC to tell the truth about minority crime, but there it is.

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      3 cheers!

    2. tsadjatko profile image78
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No fair Will, you are using THE REAL figures. Don't that beat all!

    3. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, Your stats are from 2004, and no you can not factor out inner-city violence which is one of the biggest problems in our country. It really does not matter of what ethnic group the stats come from since we are a very diverse country, and we are ALL Americans. The truth is we have a violent culture. The children today are drowning in a society that worships sex and violence...The movies, video games, and good greif the music, if that's what you call that noise...All of this has changed dramatically in the last 20 yrs and always hides behind Freedom od Speach...This is what I was speaking to you about in an earlier conversation, all of our rights are being abused. Are you still unwilling to say that the 2nd amendment is being abused? The NRA cares not about our rights, they care about there bottom line.

    4. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will I went back to your web site and found updated info, Your website says we are now #7, behind: Thailand, South Africa, Colombia, Slovokia, Guatemala and Zimbabwe...I still do not feel safer nowing these are the only countries more violent in gun homocide than the US, do you?

    5. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ns/ … an-expire/
      Will, an article from 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired, since then, using your web site we have risen from position 68 to 7, or maybe even #1 as my Jan 2013 article reported, the stats I found using your website after updating were from 2011...So, in eight short years after the ban was lifted we have become a much more dangerous society have we not?

    6. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Take a look at this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
      I don´t want to go into the discussion on inner city gang shootings or assault weapons. Just look at the little figure: "Unintentional", the US number is roughly 10 times as high as of peer European countries or Australia, not to mention Japan, where apparently nobody got shot by accident.
      The numbers in the statistics only seem to be low. How many are 10 per 100,000 per year? Lifespan of an American is how much? 75 years? Then we have another number: 750 per 100,000 in a lifetime. That is 7.5 per 1000 people whose life is ended by a gun. Only the traffic related death rate is a little higher, some 10 per 1000 people are killed by cars.

  34. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Will, Your stats are from 2004..."


    1) If we went from #63 to #1, our rate would be over 70 per 100,000, not the 6 per 100,000 you correctly quoted.

    2) You challenged my source, but you didn't even provide a source.

    If we are to be compared fairly to other countries on crimes stats as a reason to disarm America, then the playing field must be level. If 70% of our gun murders are committed by the minorities that other countries do not have, then we have to factor them out for the comparison to be fair.

    That does not mean they should be ignored (although that's exactly what our country does, year after year)? Of course not, but before you criticize me, remember where you heard it, and you heard it from me. Most Americans don't even know who is committing all the crime, because it's hushed up.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, I am not criticizing you, I am trying to open a much needed dialouge about the abuse of our rights and that legislation should be shaped in order to protect this citizens of this country not to increase the bottom lines of Big Business...I left many more comments above for you in which I updated your websites info, I hope you will check those out as well as tsadjako and stclairejack...we are all on the same team, the American team smile

  35. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    First you said 'violent deaths', so I got those stats. Now you say 'gun murders', where we are #8:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_g … 00-000-pop

    But factor out our minority gun crime and we plummet down to #18, even though we are free and heavily armed, but are being compared to countries where guns are outlawed, like Mexico, #7!

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Will, you are making me think I am talking to a brick wall....who cares if we are #1, #7 or #8...We are a violent country! We need to get our heads on straight here. Many things need to be accomplished, and for anything to happen, people need to open there eyes and admit to reality, come together as one people with a common cause, the cause to save this country. No need to argue semantics, we have a real violence problem in this country, and a heavily, militarily, armed population IS part of the problem no matter how you try to spin it....The many other facets need to be dealt with as well, some falling under the "freedom of speach" umbrella...There is a lot of work to do in this country and we need to quit fighting one another, this is exactly the problem in Washington. Coming to the center is the way to compromise and accomplish something to be proud of, but no, we would rather dig our heals in and blame the other guy, it's ridiculous. Gun Violence is caused (at least in part) by GUNS, it's a no brainer.

  36. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "I am trying to open a much needed dialouge about the abuse of our rights..."

    And so am I, because Obama and the Democrats are standing on the Sandy Hook graves trying to convince gullible Americans that they need to punish law abiding Americans for the crimes committed by madmen.

    Not one thing they propose will actually stop mass killings, but if you have a new law in mind that will actually work, I am more than willing to listen. 

    So what would that law be?

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I support, banning military weapons and tougher regulations on background checks, specifically as it relates to the mentallly disturbed. I would support spending more on mental health research by taking that money away from the administrative payouts already being spent in our bloated healthcare budget, I would support banning violence depicted in videogames and movies that are targeted to teenagers, I would support banning violence and sex and bad language in music...that's a start anyway.

  37. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    When we break all the stats down, we find that over half of gun deaths are suicides. Japan, where guns are outlawed, has the highest suicide rate in the world. Of the rest, less than a thousand are accidental, so yes, the claim that thousands die every year from gun accidents is a lie, including the 'thousands of children'. The real number is less than fifty children, still far too high, yet far less than claimed.

    We are being hyped by the left and their hysterical media. There is no gun crises in America. If you are not suicidal, not a gang member, not a minority, don't use illegal drugs, don't live in a ghetto or Barrio, and are not one of out brave police officers, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

    Period.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      NO, none of that statement is close to true. Last year in my little hick town in TN a man shot and killed his wife in front of their children in McDonalds parking lot, every night on my local news is a story of a shooting or stabbing. a close friend of mine saw her best friend murdered by her astranged husband, also in front of their children...last night on the local news the remains of a person I went to high school with were found in the woods...I used your site Will, if you use that site often you must trust it's numbers, right?

    2. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wiill

      If everything you say above is true, and our chances og ever getting shot is pretty much zero, then what's the problem with registering guns or a little control. You or I obviously really never need them to protect ourselves based on your calculations!

  38. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "NO, none of that statement is close to true."


    Why do you say that? It's all true, and backed up by statistics! Why call your opponent a liar? Why insult your opponent?

    Everybody had an anecdotal story, but they don't mean much statistically.

    So how about my question? Do you have a law in mind that could pass Constitutional muster and actually stop gun murders?

    If so, let's hear it.

    But if your law won't do that, then why pass it?

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As for stats, I proved using your website, then I provided a personal story, then I showed an article from 2004 when the assault ban was lifted and using your website numbers proved that in that time frame from2004 until now we have risen from 68 to 7 or 1 arguably...then above I stated which laws I would suggest. What is your idea for legislation to prevent this violent trend?

  39. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "What is your idea for legislation to prevent this violent trend?"


    The trend is actually going down, not up. That's due to all the states that are wisely issuing concealed carry permits, because criminals now know their victim might be armed! That's why all these shooters go to so-called 'gun free zones'! They know their victims will be unarmed!

    Duh!

    There are several sites you can use for statistics on Crime in America. The one I cited was on international crime, not just American crime.

    There is no legislation that will prevent crime. If there was, there would be no crime, since we have all kinds of laws against it!

    Think about that.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, So by that logic we should legalize drugs too, do you agree?

  40. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "...what's the problem with registering guns..."

    A better question is what is the purpose since it won't stop any crimes?

    And have you forgotten what a newspaper did to all the law abiding permit holders in New York? It published all their names and addresses, and put them all in great danger!

    If guns are registered nationwide, then what would stop papers from publishing all those names? Nothing!

    No thank you!

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Kind of seems as if you dont like any ideas except for more guns! Is that your stance?

    2. lilmissmontana profile image90
      lilmissmontanaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree with you. There is no registering or gun control that is going to stop a criminal with the intent to do harm. They are criminals.

      When have criminals ever obeyed the laws?

      We, as free citizens should have the right to bear arms and protect or families from those who choose to do bad.

  41. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 4 years ago

    "Okay, So by that logic we should legalize drugs too, do you agree?"

    I don't see the parallel at all, but yes, in a free country, you should be able to kill yourself with drugs if that's what you want to do. Just don't ask the poor taxpayer to foot the bill. Tax the stuff and then use that money for burials and/or recoveries.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The parallel is that you used the drug using, gang violence earlier, but, I will give you this Will, at least your not a hypocrit smile You believe what you belive all the way through, crossing party lines...I may disagree with you completely, but I respect your integrity.

  42. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 3 years ago

    “All political power comes from the control of sources of information. The privileged few must command all sources of information, that way, no information can ever be used by the many to command the privileged few.”


    Then we should have simply 'informed' Afghanistan and Iraq into submission.

    But there's still Iran and Syria, so let's get to informing, because it's far cheaper than guns and ammunition.

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It then begs the question: how does one 'control' information if not through violence?

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sarcasm. Very good. But why do you think all major communication outlets in Iran are controlled by the State? Why do you think the North Koreans are not allowed to use the open internet? Why do you think corporations in the U.S. are lobbying to increase their control over the internet? Why do you think the CIA provides media and communication resources in places they want a regime change? In Tunisia and Egypt, the most important weapons in their revolutions were Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. If the entire population of Syria was well informed and well organised into taking coordinated action in the form of civil unrest, the incumbents would be overwhelmed.

      As for America, guns are not needed to control the population. It's far easier to subdue the population through entertainment, religion, party politics and anything else that serves as a detraction to what's really happening. This gives an illusion of freedom, but in reality, your "freedom" is slowly being eroded bit by bit. What you see and hear is determined by a handful of corporations. What you can do is determined by a handful of banks. And the spectre of terrorism is used to scare you into accepting invasions of your privacy. Meanwhile laws are shaped by those with vested interests who use their financial resources to influence government.

      This is the most powerful form of control. It is not forced. It happens because the population consent to it. It's control by consent. Guns will not protect you from this. If you think they will, you are living in the past. Any new revolution will be a digital one. It will be about informing and organising people through digital networks, and it will be about mass civil unrest of such scale that cannot be ignored. It will be about forgetting the left vs. right differences that divide, coming together and demanding change. Think Occupy and Tea Party combined, and on a bigger scale. That's what I believe an American "revolution" will look like in the 21st century.

  43. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 3 years ago

    "As for America, guns are not needed to control the population. It's far easier to subdue the population through entertainment, religion, party politics and anything else that serves as a detraction to what's really happening."

    And I would agree, for those who choose ignorance and willingly submit in exchange for a promise of 'social justice', but you assume that all are ignorant and submissive, and that is simply untrue.

    Most Americans who choose freedom over submission are armed, as it should be. Our British cousins however, have meekly allowed their government to disarm them, so there, you would be correct.

    1. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not all are ignorant no, but being armed does not make you any more "free" than the next man. You may be armed but you are still a slave. Your master is the Federal Reserve. It requires more than guns to change that. It requires mass communication, organisation and action, not necessarily violent action. Since 1913 the Fed has been enslaving the general populace bit by bit, to the point where the monetary system now controls every aspect of our lives. This has happened without a single shot being fired. It can be reversed without a single shot being fired also, but that requires the will of the people. Never before have people had direct control over a mass communication medium, with the power to organise on a national level at their fingertips. The internet will be a key feature in any movement for change. That's why it must be protected from corporations seeking to control it through legislation that criminalises aspects of its use. In the 18th century guns helped throw of the shackles of tyranny. In the 21st digital technology is your best weapon. You should be more concerned about restrictions on internet freedom than gun control.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think it goes a lot deeper than the Fed when it comes to the topic of who controls the country. The undeclared plutocracy we now live in is light years ahead of the average Joe Blow can even begin to understand. I don't know how many times I have heard that I am just Anti-American or not a patriot by exposing the myths of our economy and its' affects on us all. The disimilar incomes have grown over the years and the benefactors are more and more becoming the politicians and their cohorts.
        The greater the gap between the rich and everyone else, the more dangerously unstable economies become. In 1928, a year before the U.S. economy nose-dived into depression, the top one-hundredth of 1 percent of U.S. families averaged 892 times more income than families in the bottom 90 percent.
        In 1980, the last pre-Reagan year, families in the bottom 90 percent averaged $30,446 in income, after adjusting for inflation, $72 more than the $30,374 comparable families earned in 2006. The top 0.01 percent in 1980 took home an average $5.4 million, less than one-fifth the $29.6 million average income of the super-rich in 2006.
        In 2006 the top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income that America’s bottom 90 percent.
        And, to make matters worse, while income has risen for this group, the top marginal tax rate has fallen precipitously.
        In 1944 the top marginal tax rate – the rate on income in the highest tax bracket – hit 94 percent. In that year, taxpayers making more than $1 million, in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars, paid Uncle Sam 65 percent of their total income in tax.
        In 2005 taxpayers making more than $1 million faced a top marginal rate of 35 percent. Their deep pockets paid just 23 percent of their income in federal tax.

  44. WillStarr profile image82
    WillStarrposted 3 years ago

    For those of you wondering what Don W. is talking about, 1913 was the year the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment (income tax) were created, and allowed government to steal the people's gold and silver money, replacing it with worthless paper money..

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A good book to read is The Creature From Jekyll Island that describes the crime very well. Secrets of the Federal Reserve is also a good one describing the events that led up to it and beyond.

 
working