How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
Why do you feel like something has got to be done about guns? Various gun control laws have been in effect for decades and wherever they have been there has not been any change for the good, the cities and states with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime statistics which have not been postitively affected by the gun laws they have (been to Chicago lately?) Keeping guns from law abiding citizens is not how to keep them from criminals or stop the mentally deranged from carring out nefarious murder sprees...no law will keep someone who wants a gun to commit a crime from getting it. So the real question is why do politicians wish to pass laws that infringe upon the second amendment and which the media has recently led the discussion in the direction of let's get rid of the whole constitution?
Because kids are being killed, thats why
Oh, I didn't realize guns get up and go looking for kids to kill. More kids are killed in car accidents every year than by guns - shouldn't we stop those cars from killing kids too. What about the MILLIONS of fetuses that are murdered every year by their own mothers - I suppose you feel something should be done about that too even though it is legal just like it is legal to own a gun..
I agree. Something does need to change. Schools need better security.
Sure...bars on windows...or better yet...no windows at all. No doors either. And how about a ratio of one cop per student in every school across the US? That be enough to hand over more of our freedoms and incidentally, tax dollars to gun nuts so they never have to give an inch even when children in classrooms end up in schools that look like a prison? No one is fooled anymore by gun nuts in the US. All they care about is getting their way...not their rights.
And child-related crime is different, How??? Crime is crime because We Allow it. We illusion that only a few be regarded as protectors of rights, rather than the responsibility of All. We illusion that only a few should hold the guns...only a few should hold the power to direct those weapons, run the economic structures, & provide 'justice for all'. We then illusion that we have intelligent leaders in place to manage those few.
Illusion or Delusion? Who is truly to be labeled 'mentally challenged' here? Perhaps, We the Peeps, need a deep psych evaluation of Selfs & a new picture to re-define that which We can become grander of.(?)
Our history...the telling of Our Story...is as misconstrued as the Bible...edited & interpreted at whim & control-convenience. Perhaps a New Story needs to be presented...Transparent pages, unleashed personal responsibility, renewal of Family & Community...Guiding our future, rather than leaving it to struggle on.(?) Let the garbage be sorted through Freedom.(?) (Freedom is Not Anarchy, btw)
mpo, of course.
The reference to Chicago here is made without context. Chicago has issues with crime because, despite having strict gun laws, they are an island in a massive sea where there gun laws are much more lax. Over 20% of all guns used in gun-related incidents in Chicago come from ONE gun store OUTSIDE of Chicago.
Using Chicago as an example of how gun control doesn't work doesn't help an argument, because the reason gun control doesn't work in Chicago is because the surrounding areas don't have gun control, thus guns are easy to come by.
And yet, if we banned guns everywhere, people would be able to print them off at home.
Moral of the story: you can't keep guns out of the hands of people who want to get their hands on them.
Gun control doesn't automatically mean "ban all guns ever". Gun ownership shouldn't be a free-for-all. There need to be rules and regulations and laws defining gun ownership. Universal background checks, banning the ability to have over 10+ rounds at once, banning assault weapons, etc. That isn't taking guns away from people, that's doing your best to make certain mass violence isn't committed. If you need an assault weapon with 20 rounds, you aren't hunting and you obviously aren't a good enough shot to be trusted with a gun anyway.
The excuse that criminals will get guns anyway is a poor one. By that logic, we should just throw all law out the window entirely, because criminals won't follow them anyway.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of mass shooters went and obtained their guns legally. They were also mentally unstable. There need to be laws that prevent mentally unstable people from having access to weapons like that. There need to laws that hold people accountable when they've paved the way for mentally unstable to have access to weapons like that. The gun laws that exist now need to be more strictly enforced.
The United States has the highest gun ownership percentage and the highest gun violence of any modernized, developed country on the planet. And all because the American public is too selfish and self-righteous. That's shameful.
It doesn't matter. Ban all guns. Ban some guns. Ban 30-round magazines. Require background checks... none of that matters when someone can just make a gun at home.
What we need to do is make sure we aren't limiting the rights of good citizens. Why limit how many rounds a law-abiding citizen can have, if the bad guys can just print 30-round magazines off at home?
And you're wrong about round count. It's impossible to tell how many rounds you will need, no matter how good of a shot you are, before a situation ends. The correct number of bullets needed in any self-defense situation is 'however many it takes to stop the threat'.
There is no international correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates. It's not because we are selfish or self-righteous, it's because we have laws and policies that create environments conducive to crime.
Any of these shooters had the mental capacity to hit 'print'. You'll never keep guns out of the hands of people who want to get them.
No one needs 30 rounds. We aren't facing an invasion and as badly as the paranoid fear-mongerers want us to believe it, we aren't going to be steamrolled and tossed into concentration camps by our government either. No one needs an assault rifle either. The notion that more guns will stop gun violence is asinine. Just look to the shooting in Texas, where a SEAL sniper and his military friend were gunned down at a gun range. Both were completely comfortable around guns and both were very, very well-trained when it came to handling them - and yet, both were gunned down and could do nothing to stop it. Neither could anyone else who may have been at the gun range. Just because a law-abiding citizen has a gun doesn't mean they'll be able to stop a bad guy with a gun.
The availability of guns is the issue. If you make something harder to access, logic says that it will be harder to access, which means less people will access it, seeing as it is now harder to access. Will gun violence go away entirely? No, of course not. This is humanity we're talking about, after all. People are never going to stop killing one another. But would stricter laws and removal of assault weapons and high-round magazines cut down on the number of mass shootings? Of course. And is it worth it? OF COURSE. Saving lives at the expense of some gun-loving Americans not being able to own assault rifles or 30-round magazines? That should be no contest. It speaks volumes about our society that it is.
Nobody needs 30 rounds, except for people that need 30 rounds. It's nice that you have such a clear picture of the future, most people don't. Probably any number you would be willing to settle with, I could find a story of someone who needed one more bullet.
Nobody needs an assault rifle? "Assault Rifles" are already regulated. "Assault Weapons" only exist in law, and most people can't provide a definition for what one is, or tell the difference between an "Assault Weapon" and an non-"Assault Weapon". It's not a real term, it's a political word for 'scary'.
Go ahead and point to the story about the SEAL. Anecdotes don't really prove anything, because for any story you use, I can use one too. Statistics are what matter, the sum of all the stories. That incident was unfortunate, where a SEAL was murdered by a 'friend' who snapped. There will always be situations where you can't defend yourself. There will always be situations too, where you can defend yourself. If you look, you'll find thousands and thousands of them. They're not exciting though, so they don't make national news. It's completely fallacious to say that someone [b]won't[b] be able to defend themselves with a gun. They may and they may not, but a chance is better than nothing.
Texas, Florida, Virginia, South Caroline, Arizona, Utah... pretty much every state that change its laws to allow citizens to carry concealed experienced a faster-than-national-average drop in violent crimes after changing its laws. It's not only correlation, but an argument for causation.
Would it? Do you know how much it costs to print a 30-round magazine? About $30. People buy things because it takes less time, but rest assured 3D printing will become cheaper and cheaper, more and more prevalent, as time goes by. Banning anything will only keep good guys from having it, and letting the good guys be outgunned is a bad idea.
There are many more aspects to this debate, but I'm just sticking to the topics you bring up.
The story about the SEAL - I do not have all the facts yet (no one does) but why is no one asking just why a "troubled" man, one with PTSD was given a loaded gun?
I'm not casting aspersions on that SEAL, but that just doesn't seem real smart. It does seem to be at the center of the gun control debate, though - why are unstable, mentally ill people allowed access to guns?
As far as I know, he was volunteering for the Wounded Warriors project. I don't know who made the decision, but I doubt it was a psychiatrist, to try therapy that involved shooting guns to help with the man's PTSD.
I do know that exposure can be used as part of therapy... maybe that particular man had been doing really well and they just moved him up, I don't know. It's a tragic story, and one that shouldn't be used to try and prove that we have a gun violence problem.
The real problem is violence. The war on drugs and poverty have caused horrible cultures of crime among poor urban people. Our crime rates are so high, largely because we have these extremely dangerous, violent urban centers.
It is a tragic story, and as I say I certainly don't know the ins and outs of it. Maybe it was part of the therapy - I don't know.
In any case it is not really germane. Just as you say, the problem is violence and not the tool. I really have come to wonder if the war on drugs isn't playing a very large part and certainly the poverty stricken urban centers is.
Oh, the war on drugs is a HUGE problem. Baltimore reports that in up to 85% of homicides BOTH the perpetrator and the victim had previous drug and/or gun crime convictions. I think 65% of them had both, but this is all off the top of my head.
My thoughts on the mentally ill getting guns is because there is nothing that I know of in place (outside of the background questions) that will stop the person. Meaning the background check will ask the question that causes a red flag, but if the person says no to being mentally ill or any other mental health issue, then where does the red flag come up? Without infringing on personal and private mental health records to be submitted with a background check, I don't know how to stop the mentally ill from getting a gun.
The mentally ill I know of and have dealt with are just as smart as you and I. Sometimes more so in areas. They are in the "system" and know how to "work it" to get what they want. I know someone who has had mental health issues in the past and I am surprised at the place of employment and other gun related issues this person is allowed to do. All comes down to how were the questions answered in regards to mental health.
No offense to anyone who is mentally ill or has other mental health issues, but unless the person is obviously retarded and has outward obvious mental health set backs, the question comes down to "will this person answer honest and truthfully on the background check to the mental health questions."
"The availability of guns is the issue"
No it isn't, the murder rate in the US is. The amount of violence. Not the number of people killed with guns, and not even the number of people killed in mass murders is anywhere near as important as the total homicide numbers in the country - it is but a very small percentage of that total.
Jaxson is right - there is no correlation between homicide rates in any developed country and the number of guns the citizens own. Getting rid of gun violence isn't (or shouldn't be) the goal; getting rid of violence is and there is no indication that getting rid of guns will accomplish anything towards that goal.
Brandi, I truly admire you for sticking to you beliefs. That being said, I would like to take exception to some points in some of your posts. You say we aren't under attack. We don't need 20 rounds to defend ourselves (not exact quote). We probably won't kill an intruder with a gun anyway(another not exact quote)
Brandi, have you ever been a victim of a home invasion? They are seldom perpetrated by one person but 2 or 3 or more. To be able to rapid fire at them gives you the best chance of winning.
I'm a retired police officer and I still am shocked at the hideous murder of the children in Connecticut. Yet, if you check into it and the other recent mass murders, I think you will find they were all committed by psychos who were on medications prescribed by psychiatrists. Now medicating a potentially dangerous person is not really dealing with the problem now is it? There are laws already in place to cover that and protect the psychiatric community.
As for the federal government, they should keep their noses oit of it and let each individual state handle their gun laws. The feds couldn't even control their own so called "sting" and got a border patrol agent killed.
Our federal government is totally inept. No additional gun laws of any kind are going to stop the violence. We need the laws already on the books to be enforced and judges who have the balls to sentence people to the max sentence. Thank you for reading this.
Brandy your logic is flawed in a couple of areas. The ban on assault rifles was proven in the past to not make a bit of difference to the outcome of the murders being conducted with these type of weapons. Just because it looks mean doesn't mean the person acquiring it will be getting it to do mass killings. 30 round clips also make no difference with the general criminal malcontents because they aren't going to get the gun legally in the first place.
A general feel good rule by which all should be subject to is also reliant upon the government to discern the difference between someone who is stable and who is not over any time period. If someone becomes unstable years after they purchase the gun through a government approved program what difference did it make?
Time and time again we have gone after the rights of the law abiding gun owners to clean up a faction of the population that cause these mass killings. This just to make ourselves feel better that something is getting done.
Time would be better spent finding ways to deal with the mentally challenged and get them the help they need before it escallates to the results we see more and more often.
They didn't all obtain them legally. Some stole them. The true facts ae out there to be found and not by listening to politicians or the media.
Chicago's gun laws don't work because the politicians are corrupt & lazy. Enforce the laws & lock up the criminals. Put more real cops ont he streets. Been there, the cops are lazy & they feel like a privlidged class. Sure, I know there are "good" cops there, but they are outnumbered by the bad ones.
It is refreshing to use Chicago as an example instead of Detroit.
Chicago is crime riddled for reasons besides guns. The presence or lack of guns doesn't affect crime. It never has. There is always something else going on. However, otherwise normal communities that enact extremely permissive gun laws, and some that actively encourage EVERYONE owning a gun, are NOT crime filled wastelands where people are shot daily.
Gun control advocates do not talk about this. The reasons for banning or restricting guns boils down to this: They're dangerous, and they don't like them. Not good enough.
I consider myself a common sense person. I see the need for guns in places like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska where there is still a threat of animal attacks on livestock. Human beings, contrary to what some gun owners want us to believe, are not livestock. The military uses a professionally manufactured fire arm to protect and defend our country and themselves when in battle. We are not in battle on US soil. (as yet.) Our police and others in law enforcement are armed in order to provide the protection our municipal, county, state and federal taxes pay for and the public insists upon in times of threats to our personal safety and security. Unregulated militias are not paid for by our taxes and therefore, have no need to add to the burden law enforcement already carries.
The first four words of the 2nd Amendment are specific, "A well regulated militia", ...followed by..."necessary to a free state." In the US today, I am ashamed to say, there are 88.8 guns for every 100 people in the country. How is this not an unregulated militia? And when you continue to read the rest of the Constitutional amendments, you read how militias are paid for by the government (read taxpayers). Now we have a complete distortion of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, ignorance of the following amendments that define how militias are paid and total extension of one amendment to exclusion of the specification laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In country with 88.8 guns for every 100 people? Politicians cannot allow the gun obsessed in the US to arm themselves in unregulated militias. From unregulated militias to anarchy? Anarchists have always armed themselves to the teeth proclaiming hatred for their president, their government and anyone who dares disagree with their ideology. Ask yourselves what happens when and if these overly armed unregulated NRA gunmen decide they don't like the next president and you all vote for a candidate they hate? You'll be looking down the barrel of an AR-15 in the hands of an anti-government anarchist. That's a big danger too. Think about it.
That's ridiculous. Most members of the NRA hated Clinton, and hate Obama. Just try to paint people who disagree with you as lunatics...
Okay..,let's pretend that hate NEVER is the cause of people being killed, right? Sorry Jaxson...if you hate the president your fellow Americans choose to vote for and he wins, what does that make you as an American? You can disagree with anyone you like. But, when their objective is the greater good of all, you have nothing to disagree with unless you are a radical right winger who is muscling everyone else with an ideology of One Size Must Fit All. I do not want to go to my church, my grocery store, my dry cleaner, my shopping mall or my bank and see men swaggering about armed with assault weapons. If you can find one single reason for any American who is not in law enforcement, the military or a person who needs to protect their livestock, you have no excuse to own an assault weapon. You can't shoot it at animals if you are hunting. The specifics the gun obsessed want to muscle the rest of us into believing is that an AR-15 isn't specifically designed to kill 10 or more people. Sorry. You lost this pro-gun argument.
LOL, Yes I can shoot an animal with an AR-15 and have. The second amendment gives me the right to buy and keep an AR-15. When you realize there never was an argument you will understand you lost the argument.
Is that what the manufacture of an AR-15 was intended for? Hunting? According to the National Gun Statistics, an AR-15 is manufactured implicitly for military purposes. No. That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment states. When you realize that the first four words of that amendment begins with "A well regulated militia," you then deny what the sole intent of the amendment was. You lost the argument the minute you stated you hunt with an AR-15. Sure you do...and get a thrill from seeing the body of an animal turned into chopped meat instantly? Taxpayers do not pay you to be a member of a militia. A militia was necessary to a free state as stated in the 2nd amendment. Gun nuts love to focus only on the "right to bear arms."
So that must mean that we can all take four words out of any amendment and interpret it to mean whatever we want and gun nuts won't dare object.
Sorry we do not need an unregulated too well armed militia in the US. We have plenty of National Guardsmen, military and law enforcement our taxes pay as stated implicitly in several following amendments that clearly define what a militia is and isn't and who pays for it.
when you realize the SCOTUS has ruled on this already and determined that we as citizens have a right to keep and bear arms you will quit writing.
No you won't.
The Supreme Court today cannot be relied on to rule on law without inserting their political ideology into their decisions. Think of it this way. In 2006, Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's Chief of the Justice Dept. was removed from his job for hiring only Republicans in the Justice Dept. That's a no-no. Why? Because law can not EVER be politicized. Today's Supreme Court justices rule so that the cards are stacked against individual Americans and for those with the biggest money voices. Ergo, that ruling on Citizens United. Americans are incensed that the Supreme Court would rule that corporations are people. NO. They are not. They cannot walk into a voting booth, pull a lever and elect a candidate. Even if they could, that would give the corporations 2, not one, vote. Once as the individual corporate voter and again as the corporation. The Founding Father never intended businesses to be people. That's as stupid as the ruling on the 2nd Amendment. And if you check who voted for that 2nd Amendment ruling, you see it was all of the ultra conservatives appointed by the GOP president.
I do not care what people do in the privacy of their homes. I absolutely do not want to have guns wall to wall everywhere I go. I don't care about 2nd Amendment rights when my right to walk freely into a bank without 2 gunmen following me striking fear in everyone's hearts is at stake. And if you are trying to make the case that we should all become desensitized to the sight of guns, how then do we protect ourselves when guns are everywhere? How do we know the difference when we are on line in a bank between someone attempting to commit a crime and someone who is "just armed" with an assault weapon? How ridiculous do the gun obsessed need to get?
The Supreme Court is not always correct in their decisions.
"But, when their objective is the greater good of all, you have nothing to disagree with unless you are a radical right winger who is muscling everyone else with an ideology of One Size Must Fit All."
Woah woah woah. So anyone who disagrees with . . . presumably Obama and gun control, is beyond the range of acceptable opinion, simply because you believe that the policy is "for the greater good of all"? What an absurdity. Did it ever occur to you that there are many opponents of gun control who believe that gun control would be against "the greater good of all"? And that many of these opponents of gun control are not "rabid right-wingers"?
Categorising opponents of a certain policy as 'crazy' as an alternative to rational discourse makes your anti-gun argument seem less convincing.
The words of a PEACEFUL anti-government anarchist.
If your opinion is a detriment to the greater good? You bet it is invalid. The right wing in the US are attempting to inflict their brand of control freak ideology on everyone else. I'd say that's an infringement of our constitutional rights.
We've all seen their how their ideology is always tied to big money to the detriment of hard working, decent Americans. Today's right is not the right of Eisenhower or Stevenson. They are extremists and must be seen as such. Pre-war Germany ignored the same kinds of extremism and we saw what that kind of evil extremism caused. There's no reason for intelligent, thinking, caring Americans to lean so far in one direction or the other that they cannot effect balance that aligns with the specific needs of the society they live in.
The right in this country are not the ones trying to dismantle our rights. That is exclusively coming from the left.
Yes. The right in this country are dismantling our rights. By refusing to accept the Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs. Wade. By refusing to accept our rights ERISA and HIPPA rights as workers and by watering down existing laws to satisfy the whims of these extremists.
The left agenda follows that of the Founding Fathers. Did the Founding Fathers start wars in other countries to earn huge profits for Halliburton and the rest of the corporate welfare states? Did the Founding Fathers intend that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be the empirical advantage for those with the most money?
The right in this country would love nothing more than a return to the servitude and free slave labor to line their pockets. That's greed....It isn't conservatism. You pay for what you need. You pay for those who provide your needs and you pay workers who endanger their lives so you can profit. That is not what the right wants. The right ignores the Constitution every time they help themselves to our tax dollars for their corporations. Face it. If you can't face the truth squarely, you can't resolve any problem.
I ask you if it's occurred to you that some gun-control opponents are not right-wingers, you ignore it, and continue on your rant against the right. This indicates to me that you are not willing to listen to reason.
I'm not totally in disagreement with you about the right, but can I switch it back to you? The left is predominantly the side arguing for gun control, key word being control, further government intervention in the economy, environment, education and also in foreign affairs. This seems to suggest that the left is also a control-freak party, if not more.
Please spare me. I grew up in a total man's world. What I learned about men, as a woman, is enough to make any sane person's hair stand on end. For men, it's all about control. This is why they are battling so hard to get their way about gun control today. It has nothing to do with their actual need for guns and everything to do with pushing their weight around on others who find guns socially offensive to our senses. That gun control opponents refuse to see the human instinct of offense at the sight of guns everywhere proves how much they lack mental stability.
Men are mentally unstable.
I think I know all I need to about you.
Yes. Some men are too mentally unstable to be armed. Their personality types are usually bullies, autocrats and narcissists. These are the men who are all too quick to judge others while ignoring the vast supply of their own flaws. Their knee-jerk judgements prove they should not own guns.
That you find guns to be "socially offensive to your sense" and will therefore do everything possible to prevent others from owning guns isn't about control? Control for no more reason than that you find something "offensive"?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, to me.
It is about control. Men and women gun owners trying to ram the sight of guns into what should be a peaceful society. I find guns offensive. That you don't isn't MY problem. Yes. I will do what I can to prevent more children from being shot to death in their classroom. Why won't you?
I've state the reasons why I am anti-gun. I do not want to see guns everywhere I go. If you do, stay where you fit in best with your mini arsenals. I do not want the sight of guns everywhere to make my world look like something out of a Wild West movie.
I have as much right to NOT see your arsenal as you have to own it. However, your ownership comes with laws protecting people like me from frivilous use of those lethal weapons you own and can kill me or others. Sorry...but the burden of responsibility lies with the ones who choose to push their rights to the limits of excess. I control the world I live in. That means insuring that it is safe. No one tells me I have to see guns in the world I live in. How isn't that YOU controlling the rest of us?
What? We were talking about this left-right paradigm, and now it's men vs. women? I'm confused.
Never mind. I've never been a fan of false dichotomies anyway.
What we are really talking about is violence vs. non-violence, for to exceed control is to commit an act of violence. Is the gun-owner or the gun-control advocate being violent? Well, we cannot say by simply owning a weapon an individual is committing an act of violence. If they have come to own it justly, and use it on their own property or with the consent of others, they are not violating anybody's rights. The gun-control advocate must be the violent party, and therefore controlling party, because to enact whatever control they wish they must violate the property rights of the gun-owner. It's clear to see when we see the practical application of gun-control that the gun-control advocate is the violent party, seeing as one necessarily needs guns to enforce the law. It also proves that the gun-control advocate is not anti-gun in the slightest. They are simply making a distinction between the average citizen owning a gun, and the police and military owning a gun. And when you consider the fact that the police and the military account for a much larger percentage of civilian death around the world, we realise that the distinction is arbitrary. Therefore, we have to conclude that there is no rational basis for gun-control except from the point of view of government self-preservation.
In short, the gun-control advocate is the violent, meddling party, and the gun-owner is not.
Today's left is becoming more liberal, often socialist.
No today's Americans are more educated and know stupid when we see and hear it. We know lack of common sense when it's shoved in our faces by anarchists of the right. Do you deny the right hates government? Hates this current president? Wants to ram their right wing ideology down everyone else's throat? I don't take order from anyone. I pay my own way in this life. If a right winger thinks for one second they will suddenly make laws for me to follow, they'd better think again. I live in a democracy...not an autocracy. I'm fed up with men strutting around like swaggering peacocks armed to the teeth knowing the sight of guns everywhere are offensive to most common sense Americans. That the gun addicts can't accept this is a stunning capitulation of how little sanity they all possess.
And why are we still pretending a natural, willing evolution into Socialism is a bad thing? If you paid even poor attention during your history classes, you'd know that Socialism and Communism were only bad decisions when they were suddenly enforced without the proper resources or infrastructure to sustain it.
But when you start out Capitalist and gradually become Socialist? You turn out just fine. Even if the Socialist aspect applies only to government services and institutions and leaves consumer goods to the free market system. See: Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Japan, Canada...you know, all those other industrialized nations who are thriving far more than we are.
Lost the argument?
Lol, there's no real argument going on here. You're just ignoring most things, and focusing on labeling people who disagree with you.
I agree with some of what you say but this is another case of a blanket policy covering all situations and it just doesn't wash. Take for instance the fact that in a lot of places with shrinking police enforcement there is a fifteen to twenty minute wait for the police to respond to a call. If you are a mother of two or three and a home invasion happens you are essentially dead meat. If you have a gun that can confront the perpetrators which are often two to four you will need a weapon that can fire multiple rounds. Is it fair to take away her ability to defend her home and children because of trying to keep the firearm out of the mass slaying nutcase idiot? Why not concentrate on the nutcase? We are never going to take back the guns so why don't we prevent the criminals and wack jobs from acquiring them?
I wish you lived in Trenton, Camden or Elizabeth NJ. Your guns would be of little use to you unless you plan on wearing it 24/7. I was the mother of two children. I don't live in a place where there is likely to be home invasions. That's just luck. I have worked with people who lived in such places and I can tell that those who owned guns still had their homes invaded...either when they were at work or when they were asleep or in the bathroom.
This isn't Frontierland anymore. If you lived in the 1800's in a prairie state like Minnesota, Montana or Wyoming, as a woman, you needed to know how to shoot a weapon. In New York City? Detroit? Chicago? A woman with a gun is an open invitation for some nut job guy to challenge her to show off his sharpshooter skills. More women are killed by guns in the US than men. Now, unfortunately, so are children.
I am originally from South Philadelphia and I grew up there in the sixties during some of the most trying times in the cities history. Acquiesing to the threat is not the answer. I would like to have some sort of fighting chance no matter what sex I happen to be.
Would it make more sense to enforce the laws we already have and energize them a little more? Perhaps enforcing the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony to where there is no wiggling out of the mandatory five years without probation. The lawyers have been hedging this one for years to get a more lenient plea bargain. Lets spruce it up to if you show up to a fight with a handgun even in your car you get five years. If you go to your ex wifes house to finish an argument with a handgun in your car you get five years. Period. This would make people think twice before casually thinking that its okay to pack heat even if you don't use it.
People that loose their gun to a family member by not securing the weapon against its unauthorized use. FIVE YEARS! No wiggle room! I bet the gun safe industry could use a boost. Responsible use and care is what you have to expect from the average gun owner and throw the book at whoever is careless or stupid is the answer. All of the incidents we have seen involving lawfully purchased weapons are either careless custody or irresponsible sales of weapons to those that should not have them. Make the culprits pay and not the responsible people who have a right to own such weapons.
I can't agree more. You have struck the problem at its very core. We have great laws. But, as you likely have noticed, there are those who always feel these laws don't apply to them. We've seen this in numerous industries in the US and various special interest groups like the super PACS. The NRA languishes in its powerful lobby and neutralizes every attempt their members demand they impose on the rest of us. Whenever a special interest group has the power to infiltrate the halls of Congress to the degree that it can override the will of the majority of Americans, who then is really making the laws? Or in the case of the NRA seeking as many loopholes around existing laws to stretch the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who reads that 2nd Amendment as it was written sees that the first four words are the basis of that intent.
The NRA uses only a portion of the 2nd Amendment to support their right to "bear arms." The very idea that a civilized society would be reduced to a scene out of a shoot 'em up has the potential to be the first chink in the extinction of that society and by association, civilization.
There is one and only one reason for a gun: to kill. Get the NRA to admit that and they will find as many excuses to get around existing laws as they can. So you see...if a law states clearly you cannot carry a concealed weapon and you do, what does that say about such a mentality? It says that this individual will do whatever they please and the laws be are for everyone else. Of the last 5 mass murders in the US, all of the murderers were licensed, or at the very least, permitted gun ownership or, worse, were young teens with raging hormones who had access to guns in their home. Now, I ask you, what kind of parent with teens in a home goes to work everyday with latch key kids who are nearly as intelligent as cracking gun cabinet computer passwords?
The problem is not that each of the sides don't have points. They actually have very good points. That the NRA has a more sympathetic ear from congress is another topic entirely. The thing that is at the heart of finding a solution is figuring out a way of starting a conversation and not an argument. Do both sides wish to find a solution? What is the extent the two sides are willing to agree upon and can they accept the concerns each side has in consecrating the solution with a workable outcome? Is it fair that children and innocent people are victims of the failed policies and do nothing attitudes of the masses? Or is escallation the answer as is being proven with new gun sales and ammunition hoarders? How are lawbiding citizens protected from criminals and wack jobs who are out to just claim a victim or take what is not theirs without a means for the victim to protect themselves?
It is like going to a club meeting and getting yelled at for all the ones who don't show up. You are just pissing off the attendees and doing nothing to solve the problem of why the others are missing.
For me personally, I find the sight of guns in public offensive, threatening and in a civilized society unnecessary. My fear is that a small minority of too armed Americans will one day realize the power in their hands and decide it's THEIR way or the highway for the rest of us. That's not democracy.
Right now, the NRA's big suggestion is to start educating 6 year old children on Gun Safety. How is that not asking for trouble when you know how impressionable 6 year old children are and how alluring the power of guns are to little kids? This is absolutely wrong. How much more of our children's innocence must we steal from them to make them "safe?"
I also believe there this issue can be negotiated. I do not believe the NRA wants to negotiate. It has been my experience that some individuals only recognize their definition of "negotiations." Which is why in most issues nothing is ever resolved. I lived by one very wise platitude taught to me by Dominican nuns in grade school. "If you are not willing to face truth squarely, you cannot hope to resolve issues."
The NRA and gun owners do not want to face the issue of guns as lethal weapons. They want the rest of us to become totally desensitized to public displays of arms on a tiny minority of individuals. That's not facing the truth. It's avoiding the inciting of fear in those who have the right to go where they please without feeling threatened.
That's the bottom line of truth the NRA is avoiding. Most Americans who walk into a grocery store and see an armed man have a natural human instinct to feel threatened. That should not be so difficult for intelligent men and women gun owners to figure out.
I can appreciate your position and I personally don't have any guns nor do I wish to get any at this time. There was a time in the past when I did own a few guns and they were for protection as I lived in a shady section of town. When my sons (3) got into their early teens I got rid of them as they were a nuisance to worry about. Raising my sons they had no toy guns nor did they have any shoot-em-up video games. It was a conscious decision as I explained many times that guns were not toys and they could cause great harm in the wrong hands.
However I will defend the rights of others who feel that it gives them peace in knowing that they can protect their families and themselves. I don't feel that this is a difficult position to defend or should it have to be.
The founding fathers having been under the Kings rule and knowing what government can turn into they provided for a way to defend your rights and protect your family with the provision for gun ownership in this country. I will not speak on behalf of those that wish to abuse this right but it is a right and not a privelege so the only way it can be changed is by an act of congress and that I will stand by even though I hate the slippery slime they are.
I am sorry you feel uneasy or intimidated in the presence of a firearm but it is a part of our society. The problem is if we can make sure the responsible part of society can be assured to be the ones in charge of the weapons..
Defending rights is important when the intent of those rights is honest and not delusional. Please explain how arming everyone in the US is not going to cause more murders? No one expects people who need guns to give them up. But now we have a bunch of aggressive gun owners who use every excuse in the book to be armed. The penalty for owning more than one gun in any household should be to live for one month in Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Trenton, Camden or Atlanta. The real problem is we have rubes who don't get it. You simply cannot afford the luxury of arming people in these cities. There would be a blood bath every day of the week. These cities have enough trouble keeping the flood of guns out of the hands of gangs. Do we need to add rubes who want more guns in these cities? To what end? Every citizen armed and dangerous?
"A well regulated militia..." is the phrase often keyed upon by anti-gun people. What they fail to understand is that in the parlance of 1787 the phrase meant 'well equipped' and did not denote some sort of government regulation upon the militia. In fact, the militia was recognized from the first to be made up of all regular citizens.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. " -George Mason
Wow was that ever fear mongering.
What basis do you have for such an accusation?
I believe in gun control 100%. You should always hit your target...!
And then you get that gun with the broken sight and your shots go way too high and you're baffled as to why until 20 minutes later when you realize said sight is broken.
This is totally not a true story and totally did not happen to me on my first time shooting.
Here's some always for the Great White Angry Males in the US armed to the teeth. I'd love to see you do that macho swagger swagger boom boom on a big city street and see how fast you will ALWAYS meet your markmanship match. If all you have is a line of blowhard bragging, it doesn't say much for life accomplishments. The reality is that allowing everyone to walk around armed is going to cause more murder, not less. But thank your ilk for showing us who the most mentally unstable, law-abiding gun owners really are. The penalty for blowhard bragging pro-gun addicts should be to walk around the biggest cities armed. This I'd love to see. Takes all that blowhard bragging down to its truest levels.
Perhaps, if gun addicts spent as much time learning something useful to society besides murdering animals and innocent victims, the world would be a better place. As such, the DogPatch Lil Abner mentalities continue to invade the educated world of people who find many outlets of interest other than lethal weapons. Some men never grow past the age of 15 mentally or emotionally. They still want to play chicken with other peoples' lives. Until other people get good and fed up with their big baby mentalities. If you gun is so important, it doesn't say much about the quality of your lives.
that's a govt responsibility if they want to stop , they done better but if they stop it then they are going to loss because in every country govt support the terrorist to change the mind of public from one way to another
The title itself is hypocritical in that it supposes a gun can control something. A gun is merely a tool just as a knife or a hammer or a screwdriver. All of them used in their proper use become very helpful in bettering our lives. The problem there-in lies when an abuse of the tool by any individual becomes evident. The individual who exploits the tool or gun to harm another is the one who demands our attention. Are we to ban others who responsibly use the tool or weapon because of the abuse perpetrated by the other because they have less of a value system. It would be like banning all opiates from production because those that do abuse them are not worth the risk to others that use them in a medicinal sense.
I think that the crux of the matter is in making those that abuse the trust and break the rules of society when they try to get or use a gun should be the focus and not the ones who lead a healthy lawbiding respect for others and the law.
By the way I don't own nor do I wish to own a gun.
Interesting stats on who owns the guns in our gun crazy country!
Men, Married, Southerners Most Likely to Be Gun Owners
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-m … wners.aspx
I think I have figured it out but I am not sure... it's not a 2nd amendment thing...These men think the need to protect their lovely ladies, or they make them angry enough on a regular basis to need protection from them. Having been married in the past to a good ole southern boy with a gun, I suspect it was for his protection from me.
As I expected when this thread popped up there are so many responses, I don't know where to begin.
Some very good, well thought out and well said from both sides of the argument.
Some however, just have no basis in reality.
Let's start with we need gun control because "kids are dying."
I direct your attention to this: http://news.yahoo.com/highway-patrol-hi … 1955.html. The number 1 cause of death among kids. Ya wanna ban cars?
I come from a background of Emergency Services: Fire/EMS, Sheriff's Deputy, Private Security. All of this in Texas, home of so many "gun toting rednecks."
In all that time and experience, you can bet your bottom dollar I've seen my share of violence of all kinds. Gun violence included.
What's at the top of the list in my experience? Domestic violence, most of 'em drunk. 80-85% of 'em unarmed. Quite a few with knives, some with tire tools and the like. Guns? Maybe I'm senile, but I only remember a couple.
Number two: Drunks looking for a fight. Again, only a couple of guns in my memory banks.
Number three: Beatings/stabbings. I could write a book on those alone.
Number four: Drug and gang activity. Lotsa weapons here. EACH AND EVERY ONE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. Some of those guns are not even available in America.
Number five: Armed robbery.
Number six: Child abuse. No guns there, Though God knows I wanted to use mine.
Number seven: Sexual assault. Even mix guns/knives, with some unarmed.
Number eight: Vehicular assault. No guns there.
Number nine: Suicide, even mix guns/knives/hanging/drugs. One jumper.
Number ten: Murder. Even mix of methods.
Number of gunfights I've been in: two. Body count: One 17 yr old gangbanger armed with a Makarov 9mm. Stopped him with two .44spl rounds (doesn't make me a badass by any means, but I gotta live with it somehow). Gun was traced to Mexico.
Number of school shootings: ZERO
Amount of the above that could've been stopped if the victim had been armed: 75% or better. But, that would've been a crime in itself according to some of you.
One home invasion stopped dead in it's tracks by an armed homeowner whose weapon, a 12ga shotgun would have been classified as an assault weapon due to the fact it had a buttstock that incorporated a pistol grip. Anti-gunners wanted this woman prosecuted for murder, claiming she had no right to fire on her attackers (there were three) even though they had kicked in her door and fired on her teenage son.
Now get this: All of the above are illegal activities. Some were the result of mental/emotional problems. Half the firearms involved were illegal to begin with. The people involved didn't give a $h1t about the law one way or the other.
So, what makes you think new laws will have even a minimal affect on all this violence?
What makes you think new gun control measures will do anything other than erode the God-given rights of average law-abiding citizens?
Have you any idea how many gun control laws are already on the books?
How about this: Instead of passing a bunch of feel-good legislation, we ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
You want to beef up school security? I'm all for it. Hell, I'll do it for free. I still have two kids in school.
You want to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Again, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAW.
The funny thing is how the current measures being directed are towards the ones many of which do practice gun control. Whether it be registration or gun courses or gun safes, these people are practicing gun control. Why are the new measures being debated aimed at these people? The ones who perpetrate the crimes associated with these horrible occurences seem to have nothing aimed at them to curb their acts of violence. A truly American paradox.
It's only NRA members who are making a fuss - most Americans (including most gun owners not in NRA) support new gun controls.
"89 percent support closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearms sale; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; while 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. "
Another interesting quote: "For instance, the survey found that 74 percent of NRA members supported universal background checks for all firearm sales."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rudo … 73812.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/poll_fi … gulations/
Sure an uninformed public will agree with measures that sound good, but the truth is these measures are never properly enforced and even when they are they don't have any affect on crimes committed with guns. Currently criminals get their guns of the street not at gun shows. Currently the first line of defense against crime guns is the background check. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (or NICS) remains a grossly incomplete patchwork of records. According to federal audits, the NICS is lacking millions of records that would prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.
Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks. While the background check does deny guns to criminals, very few are punished for trying. According to a 2000 report published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found rates of homicide and suicide were not significantly different in states that had implemented the checks versus states that had not. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 … ck-system/
Do you really think government will do any better with new laws? They can't even be successful with what they have had for 14 years.
Nearly 90% of the American population is uninformed - wow - amazing or wot. That's why we have the 'absurd' electoral college - because those in power decided we 'the people' were to informed to understand politics...
Yeah, pretty much.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to walk up to 90% of Americans with two pictures of two guns, asking them to point out which is and which isn't an assault weapon, and to explain why, and get completely wrong answers.
To begin with what poll are you citing? What were the internals? What percent of the public do you think was aware of what I just posted above? I know I wasn't till recently - so I was uninformed until I took the effort and time to investigate - most people don't, doesn't mean they are stupid, just not informed or uninformed about the whole issue which I'd dare say you are too, uninformed that is..
I provided links. They actually aimed the polls more towards current gun owners - so I think they would be more informed than most...
Just because someone has a different view than you doesn't mean they are uninformed...
Ad populum fallacy. We are arguing about what is right, not what is the consensus.
Simeyc wants to judge the "rightness" of everything by polls because the facts do not support his viewpoint and he thinks the polls do. An accurate poll would first qualify the participants with questions to ascertain if they are even informed about the issue, about the history of gun control and its ineffectiveness, what the terminology means, etc.. That poll would probably reveal that a majority of the public isn't informed so why poll them if you want the truth? Poll those who are informed. The reason why is pollsters (who are well aware of what they are doing) are being paid by the left to get the result they want or they lean left themselves on this issue and don't want an accurate poll that is relevant to the facts...Inany event to base your opinion on polls while disregarding the facts is plain naive. I'll bet Simeyc supported Obamacare before it was passed despite the polls being overwhelmingly against it. Why aren't those polls valid? Because they don't agree with his point of view, and that is the only reason. I call that cherry picking.
"Simeyc wants to judge the "rightness" of everything by polls because the facts do not support his viewpoint and he thinks the polls do." Where exactly did I say that? A poll is simply the feeling of the public (whether informed or not) - if a referendum was taken, the population would vote to have tighter gun laws whether they are informed or not. These Polls were aimed at gun owners, so they are more likely to be informed than not - the truth is that we both don't no - to simply dismiss a poll and not look at the broader intent is, as you put it, naiive - a poll, what the NRA say, what the left say, what the right say are all parts of the discussion and none of it should be dismissed.
There are NO true facts about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of gun controls - it's all based on statistics and as such any statistic can be manipulated.
"I'll bet Simeyc supported Obamacare before it was passed despite the polls being overwhelmingly against it." Irrelevant to the discussion - and the poll were not overwhemingly against it. Like any piece of legislation there's good and bad in it. You seem to think because I question the NRAs stance that I must support Obama? Actually I come from Britain where we never had guns - and I know there are statistics that show that the UK is more violent apparently....
What we need is a full discussion by all sides - for the NRA simply to state 'facts' and not be willing to discuss is irresponsible. There is public concern and the NRA have done nothing to help.
A debate has to be a two way thing - if you simply stand up and say 'don't take away my rights' and then ignore everything else then you are abusing democracy...
You and the NRA have some very valid points - but where's their ideas on how to control things better? Simply giving more guns to people is not going to stop the killing.....surely they can come up with some regulations that will help???
Have you read how the polls are conducted? Usually, these guys do not even ask how much the person knows about a particular issue; and since people do not want to seem stupid, they still express an opinion.
Read David W. Moore's 'The Opinion Makers' - the information might shock you.
Absolutely - my point entirely! And so to base a position solely on a poll result or to use a poll result to beat people over the head to see it your way is absurd.
If it was a referendum, it doesn't matter how informed or uninformed the people are.
The point is that it is part of the discussion and one that cannot be dismissed - the NRA is simply standing and saying 'we are right, you are not' - 'gun control is not the solution' - 'it's my right' - why not come up with some ideas that will help the situation, or promote a program that will educate the 'uninformed' - this is a problem that has to be tackled and until all sides start communicating properly and not simply taking a stand, them nothing will change....
Well I give you an F for those last two replies - you talk around every point I make and put words in my mouth - a typical liberal tactic when they know they are losing the argument. Fact is YOU made the poll the centerpiece of the rationalization of your point of view in your comments, not me and an outlyer poll at that. Funny but in another forum (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/69037) you fought to keep Obamacare depite the polls all of which were significantly against Obamacare - you never mentioned the polls. Why's that - because you disagreed with the polls - that's all there is to it, you cherry picky your rationalizations and don't take an honest look at the facts if they disagree with your point of view. You don't form your point of view from studying the facts first. Facts of which there are 9000 federal gun laws already on the books which would target the criminals but they are not enforced- that's the facts.
"Actually I come from Britain where we never had guns - and I know there are statistics that show that the UK is more violent" You know gun control doesn't work yet you support the poll you cite that people want gun control - You just don't make sense no matter how your previous comments are analyzed. I suggest you hang it up....or keep digging the hole you've jumped into deeper...be my guest.
You neglect to mention that the OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!!1 federal gun laws that are woefully unenforced are only unenforced because the NRA, which is composed of your typical muahahaha-evil Conservatives, has passed legislation masquerading as insignificant budget bills that prevent those laws from being enforced. Why? Who knows, but I'm going to say it's because the NRA is pure evil.
So why doesn't the NRA simply come out and say - enforce all current Gun Laws for a year and we'll re-assess the situation then? It's a starting point of discussion.....
The problem I see is that both sides have entrenched themselves - conservatives v liberals? But the discussion should never be a political one.
I agree with the NRA - let's look at all of th unenforced laws and see what might help - while we're at it, are there any things that could help that are not laws?
Well, to risk repeating myself, the NRA doesn't want to reassess the situation because, currently, letting madmen and psychopaths be able to purchase guns increases their membership dues. Ergo, pure evil.
Of course it would be a good idea to enforce existing gun laws, and of course it would be a good idea to examine every potential source of gun violence, but the NRA wants its money, and they'll make sure they get it, even if it means more lives are lost when it would've been so easy to prevent via regulation and awareness.
Zelkiiro Really?"because the NRA ...has passed legislation"?? Dufus, The NRA does not pass legislation - can you cite some examples - give me some links, some facts...just cause you say it don't make it so. And SimeyC, or should I say Mr. uninformed, the NRA has been crying for these laws to be enforced for years - that is where I got that information cause the media doesn't talk about it - they want new laws..
the fact simeyC is so quick to support Zelkiio's ( insane) statement practically guarantees what Zelkiio says is false cause simey jumps on it without asking for verification - he cherrypicks it without proof if it is true or not simply because it sounds good to his view..keep on - give us some more demonstrations that what I say is true.
You know what - you try and pick apart everything I say and take out of it what you want. You totally ignore the fact that I've said you have valid points - why would you pick an argument with someone who is actually agreeing with you in part.
You keep on calling me uninformed based on a few sentences on a forum. You say the NRA has been calling for the gun laws to be enforced. Show me one national show where the leaders of the NRA have repeatedly done this? Oh hang on they don't get the press do they? Ever heard of the internet? Youtube? forums? etc. 'The only time the NRA jumps out is when there is a tragedy and they have to defend their right to bear arms - which in itself is not wrong - and perhaps I agree that there may be media bias.
Why do you continue to insult? Why don't you debate properly and objectively? Why don't you point out that I have clearly said several times 'you have some valid points' - why are you so obtuse that you apparently think you are the only informed person on the forum....
don't bother answering because you'll simply insult me and call me names.....
Really? I could have sworn I just said that you have valid points?!?!?!
Polls were irrelevant when Obamacare was around because the bill was going to be law (and they were about 50-50 anyway - broadly split d v r) - the point I made for Obamacare is the same I am making now - both sides have to compromise - there are some good things in Obamacare - there are potentially some good ideas in gun control. This is why we have to discuss the whle thing objectively.
No side can ever get everything they want - that's democracy for you - whether you like it or not a demcocracy will always have some unjust laws.
"You don't form your point of view from studying the facts first." Find me ONE proveable fact and I'll agree - you say that polls don't count - I say that Stats are just as bad - the ONLY fact is that both sides are using stats or polls to their own advantage.
I reiterate - YOU HAVE MADE SOME VALID POINTS - I have not dismissed any of your points because I cannot - I simply pointed out a different view - why are you trying to twist everything I say into a liberal argument...
Again I will ask - what is your solution?
Again twist my words - "and I know there are statistics that show that the UK is more" - there's those stats again. I didn't once say gun controls don't work - the stats are skewed in many countries and there's no way to get a true picture. There are countries with guns that have little gun crime - there are countries with no guns with little gun crime. Statistics statistics statistics.
Americans today are the world's most informed. We do not live in the Neanderthal age. The problem among some Americans is their inability to understand that their bucolic lifestyles are not normal in inner cities. It would be a blood bath to allow concealed weapons on crowded NY, Detroit, Boston, Chicago or Atlanta subways, buses and trains. In the slow and easy south and west, that might be dandy. But one size cannot fit all. We need one federal law that bans assault weapons. No American has any need for a lethal weapon that can kill 10 people in less than 2 minutes. That's common sense. It's utterly ignorant to assume others are not as well versed in fire arms, their deadly effect on human beings and quality of life. The reality of the last 5 mass murders is that they were committed by either adults or kids who had access to guns in states with lax gun laws like VA, CO and OK. Now, CT is the bellweather for the end of allowing each state to determine how many mini arsenals their citizenry can own.
You think Americans are so well-versed in firearms? Do you want to take a test?
Most people here, arguing for gun control, have stated blatant falsehoods about 'assault weapons'.
And no, it wouldn't be a bloodbath. It's a bloodbath to only allow criminals to have guns in a crowded city.
"Americans today are the world's most informed" What does that mean? They have acces to information? Yeah, but that has nothing to do with being informed which takes effort - most people can't even tell you who their government officials are. You think most people study the gun control issue and inform themselves of all the facts? - if you do you are in a dreamland?
The NRA went into a rage when they found out a northern NY town published the names of gun owners who had more than 1 weapon. Why? Are we supposed to be uniformed of who in our neighborhoods might have a teen who has access to an assault weapon just to protect the self-expanded rights of gun owners? If you can't handle your name being published, you shouldn' t own a lethal weapon.
Wow, can't be more naive than that. Did you know that a couple of those gun owners that were published already had their homes broke into and their guns stolen - guns that were in the hands of law abiding citizens are now in the hands of criminals because of that newspaper. How about the battered women that have a gun for protection and are hiding from a batterer. There were such in that article and now they are outed. And there are way more people than the NRA who proclaimed that it was a stupid thing for the paper to do and that it actually endangered the public at larger. Anyone could get that information if they were concerned for children but to publish it and make it accessible to any criminal without knowing who is getting access to that information is just irresponsible.
The 69% who support banning 'assault weapons' couldn't even tell you what those 'assault weapons' are.
Public opinion based on ignorance and propaganda is kind of worthless.
Eliminate the evil doers - not the tools that protect law abiding citizens.
The emotions of many individuals are appalled by the disasters created by irrational individuals.
But it is not the tool that is the problem, but the individual who uses the tool.
Our current criminal justice system does not keep records on thwarted criminal activity, because they are focused on the criminal act that must be investigated.
In our small town, the incidents of armed attacks have dropped by 73% in the last 4 years due to the large number of carry permits issued to our citizens.
every neighborhood in the town is now recognized as a carry zone.
through combined efforts, the citizens of the town have forced the criminals to move on, because they know they are not welcome here.
By taking personal responsibility every citizen has accepted their role to protect and defend.
Removing this capability will then permit the criminal to return to do their damage to the citizens who currently protect themselves.
By the way, a neighboring town just installed our citizen-centered protection model and they have already taken 40 criminals off the streets of America.
How much responsibility did Nancy Lanza have knowing she had a mentally unstable 20 year old she not only took to firing ranges but taught to use assault weapons? We have police we pay taxes for. Unregulated militias are not paid by taxpayers. They are self-appointed.
The police force is a violent, un-solicited monopoly of law enforcement. It is no wonder that it is chock-full of corruption and brutism. I trust a militia I voluntarily fund tenfold over the police-force.
your ranting is the same illogical excuse all people make as their fear of responsibility overtakes their ability to properly adjudicate and comprehend their true personal requirements for making the society safe.
you can continue to rant and pant - but this will never provide the safety that a well trained law abiding weapon carrying citizen will.
A challenge to all on here who don't want to change gun laws.
How would you reduce the number of shootings going on now - these are not hardened criminals who are going into school and in most cases they have no history of gun violence - what is your solution?
Clearly we just need to ban violent video games. Because our violent TV shows and violent movies are a-okay, and America is the only country in the world that has violent video games.
Violent Video games are available all around the world?
...Yeah? Why wouldn't they be?
Belgium, Australia, Japan, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, South Africa, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, South Korea, Germany, Ukraine...every industrialized nation (whose name is not China or North Korea) has instant or next-to-instant access to violent video games. They get just about every game we get. And hell, Japan alone makes a good portion of these games, and many of them are never released internationally.
Increase security in public places, such as schools.
Make sure criminals receive more stringent sentencing - no parole.
Improve our mental health system.
Encourage parents to be parents.
The list keeps going, but it doesn't include gun control.
It's a very good list and one that will help things - and I agree with the NRA that we have some very good laws in place for gun control - we just need to implement them. I'm not actually saying that there SHOULD be more laws, those words have been put into my mouth. I just want an open and honest debate where name calling and entreneched views are left behind and common sense communication happens.
If there was proper debate and openess by both sides then we would get something done (whatever that is) - for both sides to simply say "we must have laws" or "don't take away my rights" is simply wrong.
Yep. Emotion has been dictating decisions. We are all horrified by recent events. We are all moved by these events. We all want to keep our children safe. When somebody disagrees, calling them an extremist, absolutist, communist or some other derogatory term, it serves no purpose. All it does is anger your opposition and entrench their views even more.
No one's saying gun control is the only answer. It will help out a lot (especially if all they did was enforce the current laws), but the road to ending gun violence involves tackling ALL the issues, not just one of them.
The issue shouldn't necessarily be centered around violence that involves a gun. It should be about all violence. When we start looking at violence in general, we'll make progress towards saving lives. Guns are only one facet of this situation, and they are being used as a scapegoat by many.
Exactly. That's why countries like Denmark, The Netherlands, Japan, and Finland should be held up as examples to study--they have access to the exact same media we do, they are all Capitalist nations (though I think Denmark has a shade of Socialism goin' on), and they're all prosperous nations just like the U.S., but their crime rates are astronomically (almost comically) low.
my solution is to correctly charge and hold the individuals responsible for the acts.
in the case of Sandy Hook, the father and brother should be paying for everything to fix the problem. This includes all medical bills, counseling, school repairs, etc.
The parents of the shooter allowed this to happen.
In addition, if investigators find a psychiatrist involved previously with the shooter they should be required to assist with repayment.
Society always balks at requiring personal responsibility because we have chosen to make everyone equal even though in most cases there is no equality.
Evil will never be equal to good.
Anyone who wants the government to stay out of our lives and stop trying to control us all the time should add me on Google Plus. The link to my Google Plus account is on the top right of my HubPages profile.
"The government?" As I recall, we ARE the government of the people, for the people, by the people. Those who try and demand a sub-government with no rules nor order are anarchists who would as soon roam the streets seeking power unto themselves. Sorry. I cannot agree. I am the government. I prove that by voting for candidates of my choice. I prove it by serving jury duty. I prove it by supporting issues that advance the greater good of all Americans.
I'm glad you need that support system. If it works for you that's wonderful. I take care of myself and live away from people.
I added you. Nice to meet you fellow anti-government extremist!
Not PC. So you are not part of the government? An anarchist then? Someone who isolates themselves from the rest of the society we live in? It does work for me because...duh...it worked for Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and a host of other Founding Fathers. Your way and we'd still be under British rule.
Americans who have any sense of patriotism take an active part in their government. They don't go to a voting booth, push a button and then let their elected officials do as they please. If you are an anti-government extremist...you are an anarchist. It's that easy to define. Anarchists hate any organized government they can't control.
The United States was founded after a revolution against a government that got too big for its boots . . . these anti-government extremists you're talking about. The constitution was intended to be a protection against un-solicited power, and to keep government as small as possible. Back in the day, you would've been vehemently defending the British Empire because, 'we are the government'.
Were the Jews part of the Nazi government? Were the victims of the Soviet gulags part of theirs? It's nonsense.
The US wasn't founded to be a lawless, uncivil society either. How is a return to the Wild West days of shoot 'em ups going to produce anything remotely civil? People can be anti-government when there's a valid reason. These anti-government people aren't just anti-government extremists...they are hateful to the core. Back in the day, I would have done what I do right now...support my government with all of the changes that are for the greater good.
Please do enlighten on how these hateful haters of the government and this president in any way are not the same tyrannical soldiers of militancy like the British soldiers sent her to quell rebellion? You rebel when you have a cause...not just because you hate. The Jews in some cases collaborated with the Nazi. Though this was only in very small instances.
What's nonsense is this push by the militants of the right to get their way by telling the rest of us we must do what they want. How Ghenghis Khan does it need to get? That's tyranny...not rebellion. I am not now nor ever will be aligned with narrow minded fools who want zero change from their covert militant agendas. I defend my country, my government and my president. Don't call yourself an American if you don't.
We are NOT the government when people like President Obama circumvent the 3-branch system with executive orders. That negates my representative's ability to fight for things I support.
Education...Oh come off it. Who but George W. Bush and Cheney circumvented the 3-branch system with their secretive executive orders? That negated your representatives' rights to fight for things you supported. What did you do about that?
1. A embassy in Baghdad that was hurried through Congress to the tune of $200 billion.
2. Alberto Gonzalez being forced from his job as head of the Justice Dept. for hiring ONLY Republicans to adjudicate law enforcement.
3. Attempting to put Harriet Meiers on the Supreme Court for no reason other than her cronyship with Bush.
4. Datamining personal information of vets and other American citizens for over 4 years before it became public...Shall I go on?
In fact, the Executive Branch under GWB and Cheney, the first US co-presidency in history, managed to get us involved in a war we couldn't afford and wasn't necessary...Iraq remind you of anything?
You're assuming that I was for it when and if I appreciated the results. Nope. I'm not for it now, and I wasn't for it then. What did I do about it then? I did the same then that I'm doing now, writing letters and commenting in forums.
I did not and do not support any politician who does not work within the confines of the 3-branch system, be they a democrat or a republican.
Further, I do not support our government spying on us. I didn't support it then, and I still have concerns now.
If you believe that there is even one "representative" in washington that actually tries to do what is best for the people you are living in a fairy tale land of make believe. Those politicians are there for their own purposes, to fatten their wallet and rise in power over you.
They have no intention at all of doing anything in your best interest, or even the best interest of the country as a whole; it's all about what is good for them.
President Obama has certainly shown this to be true, along with so many other politicians.
Wilderness! I'm so surpried by your cynicism - I mean from some of your forum comments I got the impression you thought the government was sincerely concerned about the environment - why else would our representatives create the EPA and pass so many environmental laws? "for their own purposes, to fatten their wallet and rise in power over you." Not the impression you've given in past comments - you are such a hippocrit.
Ignorant people never make the connection between depleting our natural resources and pollution. All they care about is themselves and all that money they'll profit from by drilling, fracking and transporting 1750 miles of dirty Alberta tar sand oil to the Big Oil Big Daddies in Galveston.
North Dakotans now rue the day they allowed that oil drilling. The drilling rigs are using that outdated flame burnoff into the air. Now not only is North Dakota air polluted but so is their groundwater. Smart move for big profits until the cancer clusters become pronounced in these regions as it always does when environmental regulations are ignored by the "ignernt."
I have 3 NJ politicians I know have worked hard for the people of my state. What NJ is up against are the Porker red states eroding the federal kitty with all manner of pork the rest of the states end up paying for.
Explain please...how you deny FEMA funding for 90 days to people who lost their homes while you send billions to Texas to build $2 million each hurricane domes in Austin and Dallas? Wasteful porker spending? What else?
Cynicism reigns supreme among the narrow minded these days. I personally refuse to fall prey to the haters out there who hate their government to the degree that they hate anyone remotely connected to it.
Certainly, all governments of any civilized country need constant change and oversight. However, those who complain the loudest about government do so to hide their refusal to put blame for the missteps in our present government where it belongs...on those who most desire government to be a private corporation and operate as such. What then does that make American citizens? Employees of this private corporate to be called America Inc.? The problem in the US today stems solely from too much interference from corporations with their hands in the tax tills. Remove their influence and you regain your government of the people, for the people, by the people. When you see a corporation walk into a voting booth in an election, let me know.
but you lack the ability to accept personal responsibility for protecting your neighbors by carrying a concealed weapon that will permit you to eliminate the evil that may be encountered.
therefore, like many elected officials, you wish to do only a small part of your responsibility.
The ruse of gun owners is that they are actually "Protected." Or they are "protecting." They do no such thing. No human being has the capability of predicting the unpredictable. This includes gun owners who deem themselves so highly endowed with extra sensory perception that they are able to predict a dangerous situation.
In actuality what they do is force their neighborhoods to be subject to danger. If your valuables are that prominent to the criminal eye, perhaps a little less showing off of these valuables might be the answer?
You can be the government if you want, but the fact that one necessarily governs over others, we can not say that the government is the people. The people is the people - the government is some of those people committing violence against the rest.
The reason there are term limits is to protect WE the people from those who would become dictators. I am the government. I vote in every election. I honor my duty to helping the judicial system as a member of a jury when called and I pay my taxes knowing that it helps keep my country from becoming 3rd world underdeveloped and underadvanced.
Do you normally walk up to a stranger and immediately pass judgement that they cannot be trusted? So why do that to your elected officials? All elected officials are as human as they rest of us. Neither you, I or they are infallible. Would that be true, this country would never experience growing pains. Which all developed countries must do in order to follow the path of advancement and progress.
There are swathes of misconceptions, but I shall try to address them all.
Firstly, term limits have proven themselves to be ineffective in preventing dictatorial powers. Perhaps they prevent individual dictatorships, but it does nothing to prevent dictatorial powers being established through congress or executive orders. The patriot act was continued and expanded under Obama, for instance, and so will Obama's NDAA, kill lists and drone strikes. So even if we were to believe Obama when he says he won't use these things, it still leaves us with the problem that they are still in place when the next President comes in. Why should we believe the next one is going to be any better? If you look at the last century from a wider perspective, you will see a continuity of agenda towards big government, police statism, a debt-based economy and excessive expansive wars, whether the party in charge was Democrat or Republican.
The problem persists with voting. We are presented with two, at most three, essentially indistinguishable candidates (again, all big government, police-statist, debt-based economics, war-mongering candidates), and we are expected to make a 'choice', and real candidates that we actually believe in 'have no chance of winning' so there's no point in voting for them. This scenario is not a lesser of two evils - it's a ridiculous predicament! We have to at some point realise that the system itself is broken.
It's wonderful you enjoy being a juror, but I have yet to have seen a compelling argument for forcing people to participate in a jury. Explain to me how this is any different to slave labour?
And tell me how paying taxes helps the US stay a first world country. Taxation is an inhibitor of economic productivity, as it necessarily needs to take from productive sources, otherwise there would be no revenue. Taxation admits, by its existence, that productivity exists already. And by performing taxation, the government admits that what it wants to do with it would not have been done by the market in the first place. Explain to me how the Vietnam war, for instance, payed for through taxes, helped to prevent the US from being a 3rd world country. Pertinently, how did it help Vietnam? It's the economy that runs and develops the world, the government is simply a parasite.
It's my belief that government officials have to be held to a higher moral standard than your average citizen since they hold extraordinary powers that the rest of us do not have. It's absolutely necessary to question question question, especially when it comes to power, and especially when they purport to be your saviour. Let me turn it back to you: if one of your friends were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians through drone strikes, would you swear blind allegiance to him or kick him to the curb?
Okay..so term limits don't work? Name then the number of US dictators we've been saddled with. Your bad Obama routine is old and saggy around the hips. The US Constitution provides for term limits. The GOP using gerrymandering and the House Majority Republicans acting as if they are gate keepers for our tax dollars helps the country how?
The US Constitution never intended for $150 billion in tax dollars in a single 2012 year to be handed to businesses either. As for National Security, I am fully confident in this president and those with far more experience in terrorism than you or I will ever possess. Arm chair posturing over the drones is just that. Name those innocent civilians who were killed in Iraq in the tens of thousands by the Bush and Cheney Administration and the 4,000 here in the US killed on 9/11 due to deliberate ignorance. Or, is just bashing "this" president some form of appetite for those who think they know it all? If the latter, time for a steady, more nourishing diet of common sense. If this president doesn't take an offense position against terrorists, you'd be one of the first to call him out for not "protecting" you and yours. So which is it? You want the US to be on the offense against terrorism or you want the US to sit back and wait for another 9/11 terrorist attack?
Did you understand what I said or are you deliberately ignoring it? I said that term limits may prevent individual dictators, but do nothing to prevent dictatorial powers, such as NDAA and kill lists. These things will still be there when the next President comes in.
"The US Constitution never intended for $150 billion in tax dollars in a single 2012 year to be handed to businesses either."
I agree and said nothing to the contrary.
If you had been following my posts at all you would know that I am equally as critical of Bush's policies as I am Obama's. I'm just wondering why you're making the distinction. If Obama didn't take an offense position against terrorists (meaning, charging round the world illegally bombing and invading countries), I would jump for joy. Terrorist attacks are an inevitable consequence of the above policies, including 9/11. Many of us would feel much safer if the US wasn't deliberately provoking, aiding and abetting terrorists abroad.
And where's the response to everything else I said?
I personally have no intention of giving up my guns to anyone. No offense but I do not believe that to be an answer. Consider this, were we to become a nation that no longer allowed citizens to own guns, do you think that all of the guns that are in the custody of criminals would suddenly disappear? They would end up being the only ones, aside from law enforcement, to have them because not only do they not bother with laws and regulations when they obtain their firearms, they will certainly not be standing in line to relinquish them.
Now consider this also; the criminals and mentally unstable people who commit these acts, almost always with guns that they obtained illegally, will still be criminals and/or mentally unstable, regardless of how strict gun laws are and regardless of what guns are banned. That is, the problem still exists because it isn’t being addressed. Gun bans are no more than “feel good” band aids being placed on a bloody wound. It doesn’t cure anything.
The last five mass murders were not committed by criminals but by ordinary Americans who had access to guns in their homes. Guns in the home are the major cause of these multiple murders. No more excuses.
Banning assault weapons that can kill multiple individuals in the shortest amount of time is an assault on the rights of the freedom of others to enjoy their lives as they choose. When a gun owner leaves his guns at home, goes off to work and his latch key kid then tampers with the gun cabinet and decides to "get even" for some sociapathic imagined sleight at school, these are the gun owners who are not law abiding citizens. They are all a danger to the right of freedom of access to public places.
That's really amazing that you can assign a cause for a murderer to kill without ever "looking" into that deranged mind to see what was actually going on in there.
As far as banning assault weapons - you are aware, are you not, that not one of those mass killings was done with such a weapon? Sandy Hook didn't even have a rifle in the building, let alone an "assault" rifle!
Interesting that you pretty plainly assign blame to the gun owner that locks his guns up, the kid "getting even" for an imagined slight at school yet the blame is somehow on the gun. Then to declare that all gun owners that have their guns stolen are not law abiding citizens, well, you just don't make much sense.
Wrong...I look into the deranged minds of gun bullies every time I see a post that insists there is not a single relativity between men and women who are addicted to violence and those who own guns without a real need.
There are people in the US who do need their guns. There are also phonies who feign a need for "protection." This is nothing more than an insidious paranoia that today has spread to where there are 88 guns for every 100 people in the US. That's about as deranged as it needs to get.
Did you think Nancy Lanza didn't lock up her guns? And the VA Tech shooter? Just a deranged young man? Or the nut job out there in CO? Or the nutty cop who just this week shot 3 people?
We put child proof caps on everything and babies with their tiny fingers still figure out a way past these things. Teens are fully capable of getting into a gun cabinet the minute McMommy or McDaddy leave the premises. Ever hear of hairpins to pick a lock? Or a simple paper clip? Or...even better a plastic credit card?
If you cannot possibly see the connection between gun violence in the US and the insidious paranoia of those who now feel so "unprotected" as to be neurotic sociopaths, you are not part of solution...you are part of the problem.
In a way society has helped create this mess. We have allowed rapper and sports stars to sot in public, get days of fame and very little punishment. We have video games and cartoons that are so realistic that young kids watch that they cannot distinguish reality from fantasy. We have bully free zones that hinder children since they never get the skills to deal with emotional pain.
We allow fame for being an A$$ everyday to people that our children are supposed to look up to and emulate.
Look at the way the girls try to be the next Paris Hilton, Kim Karadshin and sisters or even the next desperate housewife.
The boys have sports stars the cheat, get caught with excess drinking and/or drugs and failing to pay their bills.
No wonder today's younger generations want to make a their name public in any way possible!
Maybe it's time for today's parents to step in an be parents again as well since the parents are to dammed busy trying to be friends with the kids.
Funny thing about each generation. Compare the wild and fast times of the 1920's when booze flowed illegally thanks to Prohibition. Then came the dolefulness of the Crash of 1929 that stuck a fork in the silliness and decadence. The bloodletting of Robber Barons losing their fortune was a stark contrast to the prior partying years. WWII sounded an alarm of vulnerability heard round the globe. The peaceful, though autocratic, 1950's spawned a generation of young people destined to be free of old ideas that had become obsolete, replaced by a new freedom. The problem with freedom most people don't get is the huge responsibilities that go with it.
Parents today have a unique situation they can't take entire blame for. All of the years between 1960 and 1999, saw parents raising children to have the best. It's what parents do. So they provided college educations and crossed their fingers that their children would become responsible adults. Some did. Some became too educated, too goal-oriented and too insatiable. In my view? The biggest problem is a younger generation pushed to provide two incomes, leaving latch key kids in the hands of perfect strangers at daycare. I call this the Daycare Generation. They are jostled out of bed at 6 weeks old at 5 AM, shipped off like a sack of potatoes to daycare while both parents work to provide family income. Excess is part of today's way of life. Poverty is scorned as an absolute evil no matter how it began. When you demonize those without equal opportunity, you show the excesses to which your lives have become all too accustomed. Pity is...these are the excessives who when hard times come along do one of two things...they either rip off others to retain their excess or they fall to pieces and become fatalistic. Materialism is at the root of the young today.
Assault rifle used during Sandy Hook massacre
As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 … -massacre/
I wonder if the public will ever know the actual truth?
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 … 46018.html
And another link at the same site goes to the SP who say it was all from a single rifle.
A couple gunned down over feces dumping.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 … e=obinsite
With all of these claims about needing a gun for self protection I have to tell you I don't feel safe.
The point being that only people who are professional users of firearms should be allowed near important/precious things, we don't let random civilians have guns near the president, in Congress etc. for the same reason we don't let them near schools. You are making the opposite point that you intend.
Not really. Civilians have a far higher hit rate than police, many police only have to fire up to 50 rounds a year to 'qualify'... that kind of training can be had in an hour.
The myth of the ultra-elite police is unfounded. But hey, if that's what you're worried about, let's bring back gun clubs to schools and let kids become knowledgeable, capable, and safe with firearms.
Jaxson...If the number of armed people on a crowded New York subway outnumbered the unarmed, I'm guessing you'd have zero compunction about riding that subway? You'd last about 2 seconds before you could pull out a gun to "protect yourself" and by then it would be all over for you with bullets flying everywhere from every armed person on that subway. Time for some people to get a clue. In the wilderness, guns are fine. Not on crowded city subways or on public streets. Unless you support constant Gunfights at OK Corral every hour of every day.
Yes, because that's what happens in the real world. People just start shootin', lead starts flyin'... you can't carry a gun without pulling it out and starting an OK Corral every hour of every day.
Meanwhile, back in Texas, concealed permit holders only commit crimes at a rate of 1/14th the state average.
You sound like the Brady Campaign. They promised that if the Assault Weapons Ban were allowed to expire, the streets would literally run red with blood. Well, it expired, and the streets didn't run red with blood.
I'd be fine with the majority of people being armed.
Jaxson...Just because you say so doesn't make it so. The streets are running red with blood. You choose to be ignorant to suit your agenda of always being the only individual who knows it all. That's an ego problem that needs serious professional help.
You may be fine with the majority of people being armed until you are at the end of a pointed gun on a crowded city subway, train or bus. Then, all that blowhard bragging ends up having you run for the Kaopectate. You can drop the braggadoccio. It's failed miserably to prove that too many guns, like too much food can kill too many people. But, I'd bet you're the first to complain about obesity and how much it costs you. Yet, you don't see the common sense in the cost of constant blood shed to your income? Grow up little man. You've lost your argument. Excess always leads to desensitization whether its too many guns, too much money or too much food.
Unfortunately you focus on a secondary aspect of the things driving this entire debate. Mental health goes on the backburner with the assumption that controlling guns will fix that problem. It will not...it will only shift the methodology as to how the desires of an irrational mind are carried out. People speak of gunowners in these debates, and there are millions of them, as if they are some kind of sick and demented creature because they own a gun regardless of the type. Rational people do not go around killing other people whether it is with a gun, a baseball bat, a weed-eater, or a bottle of acid. Ask you same question but the take the term "gun control" out of it and replace with "mental health". ~WB
Look..I'm the first to say that the stigma of mental health shouldn't be a deterrent to seeking professional help. That said, however, the reality is far different. The most rational people know that someone who must amass a small arsenal for protection could likely be labeled neurotic and sociopathic. How many gun owners are willing to have their mental states examined?
The knee jerk reaction that owning a gun is certification of mental stability is an insanity unto itself since we've all seen how the mental health of shooters like Charles Whitman in TX, Adam Lanza in CT, The VA Tech shooter and others can tip over the edge. The number of women killed by armed men they know far outweighs the number of men who kill each other on the streets. When our police are outnumbered by gunmen who are using military warfare style arms, it is time to put a stop to the carnage. Now, our police and other law enforcement officers are no longer safe to do their jobs of protecting others.
Unless you personally would be willing to undergo mental health testing because you are a gun owner, your argument is defunct.
Maybe this is a bad comparison, but i feel compelled to make it anyway. Americans overall seem to struggle with limits, or with people trying to keep you in line. Just like with the credit industry. You knew you couldnt afford it, but the banking system was making it available to you, so you took it (without reading the fine print). And subsequently, the economy crashed. Now with the guns...for some reason, because you have the right to own guns, you need to have every gun. And when people get mowed down by stolen AK47s (usually a family members) you say its not about the guns, its about the person wielding it. Well we have the same kind of people up here in Canada, but less ak47 serial killings, because getting hold of those guns is not as easy as it is in the states. Just like it wasnt as easy for us to get credit. Our government and banking systems held us to a very simple equation and kept us within our limits of borrowing. You need to stop thinking that you are losing something with gun control, but rather that you are being protected from the people who mean to harm you. I just cant believe that this continues to be an issue in the US.
disclaimer: i know Canada is not perfect, please dont think i think that way. but come on...get a grip on gun control already. this discussion should have been over years ago.
Canada =/= USA
Vastly different cultures, demographics, and environments. No gun control measures will do much to cut down on drug/gang gun violence, and that's the majority of what we have. What it will do is ensure that the good guys can't have as good of weapons as the bad guys.
While the homicide rate in Canada is considerably lower than that of the US, it is instructive to look at the methods used.
Murders via knives and bludgeoning (fists, feet or other tools such as hammers, rocks, etc.) show a far higher rate in Canada than they do in the US. The obvious inference is that when guns aren't available, other tools will be used if a murderer wants to kill
The US has a higher murder rate in total, but the root cause isn't guns and removal of guns will merely cause the killer to switch to something else. The US desperately needs to find and address that root cause instead of toying with controlling a particular murder tool.
It may be the war on drugs, it may be the violence we expose our kids to, it may be the large amounts of graphic violence in movies and TV, it may be the lack of help for the mentally ill, it may be a hundred things. What it is not is the number (or type) of guns owned by US citizens and putting effort into limiting gun ownership in the forlorn hope of controlling the murder rate will only result in a steadily growing pile of bodies.
the thing is...and this is a big thing: knives cannot kill 20 humans in 10 seconds. im talking about guns of mass destruction. why cant americans agree that these kind of weapons should be illegal? who needs these guns? for what possible reason would a citizen of the US need a gun such as that? i agree that americans and canadians are basically the same. the difference between us is the availability to certain things. dont you agree?
No, I can't agree. It's not about a need, either real or perceived. It's about freedom - something US citizens used to be very concerned about. I've never lived in Canada and don't really know the culture, but suspect that Canadians are considerably further down the path of Big Daddy government than the US is. Canadians are used to politicians telling them what they can and can't do or own and how to live to a much greater degree than Americans are. Although socialism like this is growing in the US there are a great many citizens that still bridle at the notion that some bureaucrat in the capital should act as father to children and exert ever more control.
So it's about freedom vs saving lives, and removing guns doesn't save lives. A hard look at "similar" (as similar as possible) countries throughout the world very plainly shows that. I realize this is counter-intuitive, and I didn't believe it myself until I did the research to find out, but it is very true. The old hack statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" turns out to be a very simple but very true statement.
Without the ability to save lives, then, gun control has no place in a free country.
While I don't believe in gun control... though I admit to wavering on that in light of certain recent events the gun control does not save lives argument is dumb and untrue, we all know that guns are the most effective and widespread method of murder for personal use, in Australia when gun ownership was largely banned the rate of gun murder halved and has remained at half that rate consistently for the 20 or so years since, club/blunt weapon/knife murder rates went up very slightly but the truth of the matter is that someone trying to kill you with a hammer or a knife is a lot less likely to succeed than someone with a gun and many people don't have the stomach/nerve to kill someone up close and personal so the argument you make is patently, obviously false.
The argument is this, do weapons protect us from tyranny and if so is the human cost of weapon ownership worth that protection. That question is a matter of opinion, the other is a matter of simple fact.
Sorry, Josak, but that is untrue about Australia. The big gun buy back took place in 96-97 but the murder rate remained fairly constant for the next 8 years. If guns were the problem then they should have seen a definite decrease in the murder rate beginning in 97 or 98 at the latest, but it didn't happen until '03-'04. Taking those thousands and thousands of guns away from the citizenry accomplished nothing.
You can come up with all the opinions and scenarios you want to, all the "common sense" ideas and all the made up "reasons" that guns kill, but the numbers don't agree.
You're right - saying that people won't kill as much with knives because they can't stomach it is an opinion - that they do kill that way is fact, borne out by experience (look at how murders are committed in Canada) and the opinion is patently, obviously false if you bother to look rather than use "common sense".
The gun take backs were not the point, the point was the illegalisation of guns which then allowed police to confiscate guns from criminals and made them wary of carryinga gun because it meant years in jail to be found with one, that is why the fire arm murder rate dropped by 47% in the next 6 years.
People handing in their guns initially were not the type to murder people, they were generally law abiding people which is why they followed the law.
What ocurred is exactly what the gun plan predicted would occur, a massive decrease over 5 to 10 years. Just a coincidence is really not going to cut it.
I find it hard to believe that living in the States, you feel more FREE than we do in Canada. Maybe you have not yet realized it, or you are so used to living the way you do, its just normal now. But the rest of us (way up here in communist Canada) see how you are being held hostage by fear. You lock your doors while you are in your homes, you sleep with a gun by your bed. Everyone is a suspect. That is not freedom my friend. Freedom is being able to go to the movies and not fear a gun wielding maniac is laying in wait in a darkened theater. Freedom is leaving the door unlocked even when its late at night because you dont fear your neighbours and you trust that they are looking out for you. not saying that bad things dont happen here, they most certainly do...but we still live more free than any of you. im sorry, but that is true.
Meg...that's not always the way it works out for a lot of Americans. They lose their jobs and there's NO money to pay their bills. What little they receive from unemployment (a tax that must be refunded when employment is found) is barely enough to pay the rent and buy food for their kids.
It's always easy to look in a window and see how much better you'd handle it. Until you find yourself in medical bankruptcy as a result of a long-term injury or illness. With every bill collector calling all hours of the day and night and your income gone out the window. Judge not, lest you be fortunate enough to be on the inside of that window.
Megs..it is a bad comparison. We have what is called a Constitution and a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. We have certain inalienable rights and they must be honored at all costs. I do not want to be caught by a criminal with a gun and have no defense..it's that simple. You don't put bans and limits on good ppl as it is not going to stop the bad. Criminals will think twice if they knew EVERYONE carried. We do not want to be a socialist country.
Copy/pasted from an email I just got. Posted for amusement purposes only:
"General Cosgrove was interviewed on
the radio recently.
Read his reply to the lady who interviewed
him concerning guns and children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to
This is one of the best comeback lines of all
"This is a portion of an ABC radio
interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to
sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.":
So, General Cosgrove, what things
are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your
We're going to teach them
climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
Shooting! That's a bit
irresponsible, isn't it?
I don't see why, they'll be properly
supervised on the rifle range.
Don't you admit that
this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching
I don't see how. We will be teaching them
proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
But you're equipping
them to become violent killers.
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a
prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
went silent for 46 seconds and when
it returned, the interview was
One thing wrong with Cosgrove's statements...Can he guarantee that teaching children the use of arms will not turn them into Adam Lanza? If he can't, he's another man who sees the world only through his own masculinity.
Can you guarantee that it will turn them into Adam Lanza? No...you can't and here is more fear mongering.
Complete disconnect with reality. Having a gun doesn't turn someone into a murderer or make them crazy.
And the Conservatives' solution is...
A. Ban something that has no relevance whatsoever to gun violence
B. Surround children with even more guns and people with guns, increasing the chance of gun violence exponentially
C. Do absolutely nothing about gun violence, sentencing more children to die
Liberals are saying that the absolute maximum amount of guns in one home should be a pistol, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle. Use one of those.
Oh, and, you know, actually regulating the gun market and requiring that gun retailers give background checks so that Badguy McShootsEmUp can't buy guns at all.
Back ground checks are fine, but if you think that will make it so "Badguy McShootsEmUp can't buy guns at all" your dreaming. At best you will inconvenience them into stealing guns for themselves, finding a friend who already has stolen one, or turning to the black market for them. Thinking criminals will instead say, "Shucks, I would really like to go kill or rob someone but I can't buy a gun without a back ground check so I guess I will go play cribbage instead" is ridiculous.
You seem to have missed the part where I said "actually regulat[e] the gun market." If it can find its way to the black market, it sure as hell isn't being regulated properly.
You really are dreaming then. Even the Gestapo couldn't pull that off, and good thing too. Are you suggesting such an attempt in the US?
Because the Gestapo totally had the same information infrastructures and technology we have today and were totally trying to save lives instead of committing mass genocide.
Our technology doesn't negate history's lesson on why governments seek to disarm the people. Even with the technology, you couldn't get all the guns. No way short of a totalitarian regime you would stand any chance of removing all guns, (or is that your ultimate goal?). If you could, folks would make them, and feed the black market that way. At least we would have the machinists employed. Perhaps that is how the dems will improve the economy.
And look at it this way: If someone is so flat-out determined to get a machine gun that they'll shell out tens of thousands of dollars, bypass all kinds of security, and pay off anyone to achieve that end, nothing was going to stop them anyway. And middle-class suburbia is most likely not their target. People who use the black market for heavy firearms are usually after rich people, and are often rich themselves. I'm all for rich people killing each other off!
And if you're against gun restriction laws, so are you!
Black markets exist for anything people want that the government tries to restrict. What do you think the drug trade is? Folks use the black market to buy a joint, (in most states). They will certainly do so for a gun.
You do realize, don't you, that if you have access to a computer to be on this site whenever you want, on a bell curve of the world economy, you are a rich person.
On the bell curve of the world economy, a bum living in a cardboard box picking up fallen change on a street corner is a wealthy man, too. What's your point?
bBerean, you are so right. Gangstas never buy guns at gun shows or shops. They can get one easy on the streets and always have.
Janet is a nutcase! She used to be governor of Arizona and got delusions of grandeur.
What really gets me are the libs in Hollywood coming out with two minute "anti-gun violence" commercials, and then spend the rest of their lives making movies where they are shooting at people.
The link between violent films and crime rate has been disproved myriad times, people can tell the difference between reality and fiction, a portrayal of violence or an encouragement to buy a product.
Not at all true. It;s a proven fact that societal decay is a direct result of the culture that Hollywood has built up over the last few decades. Thirty years ago there was no such thing as school shootings, and there was more access to guns then that there is now.
High schools even had rifle teams.
You do realize don't you that most of the men who own guns already have compromised egos? Most of the male gun owners are incapable of seeing life on the planet from any view but their own? And this, they call sanity?
Projection, I do believe.
"Most of the male gun owners are incapable of seeing life on the planet from any view but their own"
Projection from one's self onto everyone else. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon; there are an awful lot of people that simply cannot understand that their lifestyle and opinions are no better than others. It's a primary reason the US has such a glut of victimless "criminals".
One could only imagine the terrible burden you must have of being such an enlightened individual.
Okay, I was reading through this thread and hadn't planned on commenting, but at this point I just have to say something. Why is it that you equate gun ownership with men? Kinda sexist, don't you think? I am a woman. I own a gun. As a matter of fact that gun is sitting within arm's reach of me at this very moment
Am I going to go out and kill a bunch of people tomorrow? Nope
Am I afraid that an armed assailant is going to come through my door at any moment? Nope.
Other than target practice, the only time I have ever fired that weapon is to shoot at the coyotes that were trying to eat my chickens.
I leave you with one final thought. It's a quote by Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ewent..you can't be serious..I am a female and i know soooooooo many other females that carry. I feel confidant and secure that i have a fighting chance..
THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT WHO'S RUNNING THE NRA
http://front.moveon.org/shocking-the-tr … aily.share
I see they are still saying that an AR-15 was used at the Newtown massacre, which is a lie. Interesting, banning AR-15's wouldn't have saved a single child.
What weapon did Lanza use, in your opinion?
"At about 9:35 am, using his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school. He was wearing black clothing, earplugs and an olive green utility vest carrying magazines for the Bushmaster. Initial reports that he had been wearing body armor were incorrect. Some of those present heard initial shots on the school intercom system, which was being used for morning announcements."
Four handguns, and no rifle.
Here's a later report that says Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle:
The clip stating the Sandy Hook shooter’s assault rifle was in the trunk went viral again, with many re-posters claiming that the clip was definitive proof the “official narrative” had been wrong, and that Lanza’s spree was carried out with no assault rifle used.
The catch? The clip regarding Lanza’s assault rifle was dated December 15 — recorded ahead even of the press conference with Dr. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner who autopsied the Newtown victims.
Still, the “no assault rifle used at Sandy Hook” claim lives on, with little published to counter it. This week, Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance spoke out to address the issue, breaking a long spate of silence on the specifics of the Newtown massacre.
While Vance and his officers have released little to the press about the details of the murders, he did clarify the rumor that no assault rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings. Vance began:
“It’s all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters … There’s no doubt that the rifle was used solely to kill 26 people in that school.”
The Connecticut State Police spokesman added that regardless of the common misassumption that because an assault rifle was found in the trunk that Lanza did not use one in the spree, he has actually noted numerous times that all victims at Sandy Hook Elementary were killed with an assault weapon:
http://www.inquisitr.com/497086/no-assa … -shooting/
He was just playing a video game with real human targets. Where's the problem? Shouldn't Lanza have invited his Mommy to watch his display of power. OH ...that's right...he took her out first. Nothing like mother/son love right? Puhlease...get serious. A woman who takes an innocent child at an early age to a shooting gallery and teaches him to fire is too intelligent to think there are consequences for her "intelligence?"
You better check your facts and source on that one.
If we’re going to have a national debate about gun-owner rights and gun control, let’s start by getting the facts straight.
Case in point: The pervasive myth that military-style firearms were not used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
Some Mid-Valley residents were perpetuating that falsehood at Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader’s town hall at the Salem Public Library last week. As Schrader was responding to a question about firearms, audience members interrupted him to say the shooter didn’t use a rifle. They were wrong.
Indeed, the town hall incident illustrated how some people will believe what they want, regardless of the facts.
Some “gun rights” proponents are still latching onto an early, inaccurate press report on which firearms Adam Lanza carried into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. That report indicated he’d left his military-style rifle in his car. Meanwhile, “gun control” proponents are claiming that Lanza used an assault rifle, which also is inaccurate.
The U.S. military carries “assault rifles”: automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled. Civilians cannot legally possess automatic weapons — which in essence are machine guns — without special permits.
The civilian version of the Army firearm is more accurately described as a “military-style rifle,” talking about the design. Calling it an “assault weapon” or “assault-style weapon” conjures up an image of a gun firing bursts of bullets. In reality, the military-style rifle sold to civilians is like many other rifles and most handguns: It’s semi-automatic. The trigger must be pulled to fire each bullet.
[From a Gannett--Republican--newspaper--http://community.statesmanjournal.com/blogs/editorialblog/2013/02/04/the-truth-about-assault-weapons-and-the-sandy-hook-massacre/]
Letter: Weapon used at Sandy Hook
Posted: February 7, 2013 - 12:21am
Re: The letter “Letter misrepresented Sandy Hook weapon,” A-J, Jan 13
It requires further comment.
Regarding the weapon: it was a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. It is included in the federal definition of a semiautomatic “assault weapon” (it automatically ejects the fired cartridge and chambers the next round) and was included in the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban.
It can accommodate a magazine with room for more than ten rounds, “the key to the weapon’s firepower. It gives a shooter a high number of shots without having to stop and reload.” (Criminologist Christopher Koper: Time Magazine, Dec. 19.)
My characterization “Bushmaster high-speed high-kill weapons” is thus richly deserved. This firearm, which the letter-writer believes is “ill-suited for crime.” was used not only at Newtown but in the Webster, N.Y. firefighter shootings; it was among the weapons of the Aurora, Colo., movie shooter and it is similar to the Bushmaster used in the 2002 Beltway sniper shootings.
Regarding guns versus knives: Chinese knife attacks, however horrifying, do not begin to approach the kill magnitude of the Newtown catastrophe. The Dec. 14 knife attack, for example, resulted in 23 injuries and no fatalities.
Regarding damage caused by the bullets used, reports do not seem to specify. But one firearms expert quoted by the New York Daily News (Dec. 19) said “the shooter likely used hollow-point bullets.” The high death toll (28) versus the low injury toll (one) at Newtown (state police report) supports the supposition.
I stand by my original assertions.
A little spin and misdirection never hurts, does it?
First you claim that Lanza used a military style gun, when the military has never made use of the particular gun OR the style that he used. Looks are similar, but not use, capability or action. Unless your concept of "style" is black and scary looking?
Then you define "assault rifle" as an automatic, while a little later claim that the AR-15 is also defined with the same terminology.
I didn't "define an assault rifle" as anything. And if you check, you'll find that I was correct that, as the term is commonly used, a a semi-automatic assault rifle was used at Newtown. There was initial confusion about that, but it has been clearly established that an "assault" rifle was used. [I resent your accusation of "spin or misdirection." This is what you and the other gun nuts have been doing--i.e., disseminating false information on the weapon used at Newtown. ]
"The U.S. military carries “assault rifles”: automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled" I'd call that a definition, myself.
And when you then call the AR-15 an "assault" rifle a little later, well, I call that spinning the truth a little. It's not false information, just misleading as you never bothered to indicate that a different version of "assault" was now being used.
Personally, I find your definition of any semi-automatic rifle to be "assault" the same thing; spin and misdirection as it is never used by the military and never used to "assault" anything. Just a scary term intended and useful for producing an emotional reaction by insinuating something that isn't true while while never actually saying so.
I've used the term the same way it has been used in this country in the expired assault weapons ban, in the media and in common parlance in this country. You are quibbling about something that's unimportant. We all know what we are talking about that has been used in more than one mass killing incident---a semi-automatic, military looking rifle with a big magazine. The fact that this weapon may not be an assault weapon by your definition or by the U.S. Army definition is not important. It is not necessary for hunting, target shooting or self protection and, most recently it was used to assault and kill 20 first grade children and six teachers. As I said, I don't appreciate your niggling claim that I have tried to spin or mislead anyone.
Will you appreciate mine? An AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times you deliberately try to make it so because it scares you.
Legally speaking from the 1994 ban yes they are so you can have your own definition all you like, you'll still be wrong.
Yeah you are
Feel free to read the legislation. They are legally defined as such.
"Regarding the weapon: it was a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. It is included in the federal definition of a semiautomatic “assault weapon” (it automatically ejects the fired cartridge and chambers the next round) and was included in the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban."
Call it whatever you want. A semi-automatic Bushmaster AR15 with a big magazine purchased legally was used to slaughter 20 little chlildren in Newtown.
I have a shotgun that does the same thing, is that an assault weapon too?
No, I wouldn't call your shot gun an assault weapon, and it doesn't "do the same thing." I doubt that it accepts a magazine holding 30 shells. I also have a .12 gauge Winchester Model 12 pump gun with a plug which holds three shells perfectly adequate for hunting game birds and for self protection.
I usually stay out of political threads. But... stop and think ladies and gentlemen.
There are 50 states in our union and 50 sets of laws for purchasing a gun. I believe there are 3 states that have no background check at all. Then there are those states that are so restrictive that the regular citizens have no rights to own a gun.
Here's the simple fix. Make the permitting process a federal level procedure. FBI check, fingerprint and background check. Have the next level the Concealed Carry also at the federal level. go thru the process again as well as a written and shooting range test.
I only recently fired a gun and I'm 38 years old. I was at a legal firing range with a rented Glock that beat the snot out of my hand. My grouping was good for a beginner but a bit low (sorry guys). But I enjoyed it so much that I now own a gun that fits my hand and my aim has improved greatly. I know it is not a toy that it is for protection.
Look at the statistics for homicide. Baseball bats are at the top of the list, not legal guns. Sadly there is no distinction between legally purchased guns and illegal street guns in the statistics that are put out by our government.
There is also very little press for the times that a legally owned gun is used by a responsible gun owner to stop a robbery or protect his family.
Has anyone ever noticed that the news is mainly bad stories... how many times have you really heard a feel good story? Time for us the people to rethink the way we react. It's is just like raising children, if all we do is accentuate the negative then negative is what continues to happen since the child got attention they wanted. Maybe it's time we highlighted the positive and stop giving idiots the 5 minutes of fame.....
"Look at the statistics for homicide. Baseball bats are at the top of the list, not legal guns. "
Not even close according to Snopes:
Ralph, you've just got to quit changing the meaning of things and providing irrelevant information in an effort to misdirect.
"Baseball bats are at the top of the list, not legal guns".
See that word in bold? It is a rather important part of the sentence, and is not found anywhere in your link to Snopes. The Snopes information, while valuable, thus has absolutely nothing to do with the claim made that bats are used more than legal guns.
Can you cite anything other than your opinion to support your claim about baseball bats?
Here's one from a pro gun site:
"In other figures as reported by various reports, Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a RIFLE." Again no citation orther than "various reports." Obviously handguns, legal and illegal are responsible for more deaths than rifles.
Sorry - I didn't make myself clear. I don't make a claim about baseball bats (I rather doubt the claim, too), just comment that a refutation of a changed statement is irrelevant. Effectively the claim is ignored in favor of a new topic that sounds reasonable but isn't.
When you change the claim from "legal" to "any" guns and provide citation it doesn't have anything to do with the original claim. You and I have been around this over and over when I make a claim about "homicide rates" and you reply with reference to "gun homicide rates".
I didn't change anything. I merely cited one source on a closely related subject contradicting a highly dubious undocumented assertion. Nearly every day someone is killed with a gun in Detroit and Chicago. I don't recall reading about anyone being killed with a baseball bat.
If Snopes made any comment at all about the homicide rate using legally owned guns I certainly didn't see it.
Neither did you, but it refutes the argument quite well if we just quietly ignore that it is about something else than legally owned guns, so quote it and hope no one spots the difference. Great way to debate, and I've no doubt it works well with the masses that reason with emotion and pre-ordained conclusions, but not so well with those that actually think.
Well the Snopes piece was the first piece that came up when I looked for evidence to refute a dumb, undocumented assertion wrt baseball bats from Onusonus.
I don't doubt that one bit. One the other hand, being first doesn't mean that it is pertinent; in this case it was simply a red herring that sounded good, gave information that agreed with your position but had nothing to do with that assertion.
As far as the assertion that baseball bats are used in more murders than legally owned guns, it could be true. So far neither you,I nor Onusonus have produce any evidence one way or the other. Without evidence, I guess your claim that it is not true is worth just as much as the claim that it IS true; nothing, in other words.
There aren't enough hours available for me in the day to research and refute all the erroneous b.s. pulled out of the air in these forums by the likes of Onus and others. (E.g., Onus's assertion that only pistols were used to kill the children in Newtown, when the final reports say a Bushmaster was used.)
Here's some data from the FBI:
I concede that the figure for firearms includes all firearms, legal and illegal. However, note also that the 747 figure for blunt objects includes all blunt objects--baseball bats, hammers, pipe wrenches.
If you want to quibble, feel free to do so. I'm done with this topic.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … ta-table-8
A bit more indicating that in 61 mass murders, the killers obtained their guns legally:
"Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the last three decades. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … ed-states/
Lol, you're funny Ralph.
You know, I would have so much more respect for you if you would admit when you are wrong, rather than jump through hoops to get out of doing so.
Still think GE pays no taxes?
I wont believe it until I see it on the foremost cables news in the country!
I fully agree that the topic (legal guns vs baseball bats) isn't worth pursuing, and I'm not interested in trying to verify it any more than you are. I did considerable research in the matter of homicides and gun homicides; never did I see any more breakdown than rifles vs handguns, although I DID come across reports that the only guns in Sandy Hook Elementary were pistols only, no rifle. I've also seen the opposite there, but am not interested in pursuing that either.
The "subtopic", however, was intended to be using irrelevant information to "prove" a claim as being false, and in that I believe I've shown my point. It also doesn't need to hijack a thread on guns, so let's let it drop.
"A Loaded Gun" by Patrick Radden Keefe in the New Yorker
[The story of Amy Bishop, a "walking time bomb" who killed three colleagues in a faculty meeting after being turned down for tenure at University of Alabama, Huntsville]
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013 … fact_keefe
"A gun is like a parachute.
If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."
With one caveat, a parachute is only used in specific instances. Guns are not. A second caveat might be that the neurosis of those who believe they "need" a gun is far greater than those who believe they "need" a parachute. How many parachutes have you seen dropping out of the US sky lately? How many who believed they needed guns have caused mass murders? Parachutes and guns...apples and oranges.
You should love concealed carry permit holders... they are much more lawful and cause much fewer problems than average Americans.
Nice. Implying everyone who "believes they need a gun", or in other words, everyone who wants to own a gun, is neurotic.
"How many who believed they needed guns have caused mass murders?"
What do you mean by "believed they needed"? If you want to know how many people who legally obtained guns, (since law abiding citizens are the only ones laws can hope to control), and who "believed they needed them" for protection, or even just wanted them for sport or hobby, have later changed their perspective and decided to use them for mass murders instead, I suspect that number is zero.
If you mean nutcases who obtained the guns for the express purpose of wanting to kill, (and who would do whatever was needed to get them to that end, regardless of laws), that is another matter altogether.
The point is clear, regardless of the contrast between guns and parachutes. One might equally argue the neurosis of those who are so afraid of an armed citizenry.
Ewent, Yes, guns too are used either to defend or attack. I never will be car jacked or house jacked without a fight and i will be the winner...I don't know what world you are living in but i can assure you, all would be better of with a gun..
Some facts about gun deaths:
1. Suicidal acts with guns are fatal in 85% of cases. With pills, in 2% of cases.
2. 20,000 out of 30,000 gun deaths each year are suicides.
3. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska are the highest gun owning states and the highest suicide states.
"“...The literature suggests that having a gun in your home to protect your family is like bringing a time bomb into your house,” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, an epidemiologist who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 'Instead of protecting you, it’s more likely to blow up...'”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to … ns.html?hp
Yet another stunning piece of work from the NY Times, sure to go down in history alongside 'GE didn't pay any taxes!' and 'Tesla Sedan Doesn't Work'.
The NYTimes merely reported on research done at Harvard Medical School. I suppose you prefer Fox News and Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Can you cite anything that rerfutes the NYT article. If so, please do so. Dissing the foremost newspaper in the country doesn't get it.
Doesn't matter. If I prove that a source the NY Times uses is bunk, you'll still say that the NY Times is right. Just like with the whole GE's taxes thing. It was a perfectly fine source when you thought it said what you wanted, then when I showed you what it really said, suddenly it wasn't a valid source.
The conclusions listed in that article are biased. Guns don't cause suicides, and it ignores the DGUs that are beneficial. Anything will look bad if you only look at the negatives.
FOX news is the foremost cable news network in the country, so they must be right all the time.
. . .so my rights must be eroded? Even if these statistics were right, what would that prove, Americans are violent? Let's address the violence issue and leave gun rights alone.
What rights are you worried about being eroded?---The "right" to buy a .50 caliber rifle and armor piercing ammunition? A 30 shot magazine for your Bushmaster? I don't believe you have rights to these military weapons under the 2nd Amendment. My understanding of the current Supreme Court interpretation is that reasonable and practical regulations covering the sale, purchase, licensing and use of guns are consistent with the 2nd amendment.
Too bad your belief wasn't a concern for the Supreme court Justices.
My comment is a fact, not a "belief."
Have you actually read any Supreme Court 2nd Amendment decisions? Or are you relying on NRA propaganda? Are you aware that machine guns have been regulated and virtually illegal since 1934?
"Since 1934, Congress has strictly regulated the manufacture, transfer, and possession of machine guns. The firearms are regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) (26 USC § 5801 et seq.) and the 1968 Gun Control Act as amended by the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act (18 USC § 921 et seq.)."
Beyond that there are a variety of state and local regulations, consistent with Supreme Court decisions.
What machine gun? I own a .50 caliber rifle. and no, machine guns are not outlawed you must posses a license to own them but you CAN own them!
Here's an excerpt from the Heller DC decision:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
Thats great! The second amendment does not have any limits applied to it.
Can you read? There are all kinds of federal, state and local limits on the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of guns and other weapons. Second Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. There is no Constitutional impediment to a federal ban of "assault weapons," however defined, or big magazines, or closure of the gun show loophole or any of the other of Obama's or Feinstein's proposals.
Why am I not surprised that you own a .50 caliber rifle? What do you use it for? Shooting squirrels?
IF I could trade high-capacity magazines and what you call "assault weapons" to protect further erosion of gun rights in perpetuity, I would do so willingly. The problem is that politicians take a little away now and a little more next time, and then they take more away after that. Pretty soon, you have little to nothing left. Look at the tax increase that took place last month. Now the POTUS wants another increase. That's what will happen to gun rights.
IF I could trade high-capacity magazines and what you call "assault weapons" to protect further erosion of gun rights in perpetuity, I would do so willingly. The problem is that politicians take a little away now and a little more next time, and then they take more away after that. Pretty soon, you have little to nothing left. Look at the tax increase that took place last month. Now the POTUS wants another increase. That's what will happen to gun rights.
It seems you can't read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Where is the limit?
No Ralph, I don't shoot squirrels with it. I own it because I can, the same with a fully automatic Thompson. Must drive you nuts that I have this right and you are foaming at the mouth to take it away.
How about a ban on magazines greater than 5. That was the original New York proposal. You see, today's prudent control becomes tomorrow's extreme control. That's how the government works.
It is true that criminals will find a way to get guns, and they won't voluntarily give them up. But it is what is in a person's heart and mind that tempts them to kill people. If somehow all guns were taken away from everyone including criminals, people that wanted to kill others would find a way via poison, making a bomb, bow and arrows, knives, clubs, brass knuckles and beating them to death or some other means.
He doesn't care abouot that. He just cares about what his party wants to do . That's all.
Bare...You mean like Bourbon Boi McConnell only cares about HIS party when he denies Americans the right to affordable healthcare to keep his campaign war chest loaded with donations from HMOs all while McConnell sucked off taxpayer dollars for his heart surgery a few years back?
No...You must mean all those good ole good ole good ole bois of the GOP like Boehner, Cantor, Issa, Cornyn and attack Dog Ryan who stand guard over our tax dollars as if they owned the US Treasury? And now have a historic record of filibustering everything this president tries to do? Is that all your good ole good ole bois are good for these days? Sticking to a right wing misguided party ideology even when it hurts other Americans?
Let me remind all those Big Daddy's Lil Sugar Magnolias that when WE pay taxes, those taxes belong to tax payers ...not half of the southern industries that can't make it on their own without taxpayer help ...$12 billion to Big Oil last year alone...Like those Big Oil Big Daddies needed a dime more of our tax dollars.
Why don't you just admit why you really hate this president? All your posts show is anti-government, anti-president. I'll bet when that swaggering blowhard from Crawford was president, no one heard a peep out of the Sugar Magnolias.
In the State of the Union speech this week, all the wussy bois of the right and Tea Party did was sit there like a bunch of lumps glaring because they can't have their way. Well, boo hoo ho. Boehner's puss looked like someone stuck a hot poker up his butt. Cornyn went white when the president presented his plan to end our dependency on foreign oil. Wow...Those Big Oil Big Daddies must have been running for the Kaopectate roflmao.
Our president's SOTU speech was what it should have been. Plans to move the country forward. But righties like you don't want the country to move anywhere but backward. Sorry...that may work in the Porker Stars and Bars states. It doesn't work in mine. As the president stated, if you aren't with you, we could care less...you'll be the ones on the outside looking in which is where backward mentalities should be.
You are a living set of talking points.
You are also very wrong about lots of that.
Can't tell the difference between facts and fiction? It figures. Just because you post it, does make it fact. From your ears to God's mouth? Jes what that swaggerin' blowhard from Crawford once said and we all know how reliable anything that came out of that drawling mouth ever was. Just keep laying on that syrup sugar magnolia. It covers a lot. Just not facts. You don't get to have your own facts. Didn't Big Momma ever tell you that?
Just to set the record straight....because for some reason George Bush is an important tool for you...I voted for him for two and only two reasons.
If they had put up some folks living in reality I might have voted for them.
I was raised Democrat.
Right now I'm independent.
You have a great future as a writer of fiction.
Sorry...I'm a published author of two suspense novels, several poems, 2900 SEO articles I sold online as a ghost writer...need more? I'm proud of my career as a former business owner, a former professional dance teacher and my 12 years teaching dance at Rutgers...Sorry if there wasn't time to put on my antebellum ball gowns and sip mint juleps out on Big Daddah's verandah.
shamadraza...these gun nuts won't be happy until every 5 year old kid is packing heat to kindergarten. There are several people who were fairly close to Nancy Lanza, Adam Lanza's mother. They all agree it was wrong for her to take her son to a firing range to teach him the use of fire arms. Now..they agree?
How stupid does any parent have to be to not understand that children don't exit the birth canal raring to become violent toddlers? These gun loonies actually believe teaching a young child of any age how to shoot a gun doesn't show them the best example of violence and they get it from their parents. These disgusting examples of parenthood just don't get it. They take away a child's natural innocence they are born with and contaminate it by teaching them to use a gun no matter what the purpose. Then, they wonder why these kids take these powerful weapons to school and shoot their classmates? Any parent stupid enough to put a gun in the hands of a child needs to be castrated. While McDaddy is swaggering about showing off his fire arms, his young child is watching his McDaddy's every move and by age 15 will have it so well rehearsed, he can read McDaddy's own gun script for him.
Lol. Yup, that's it, exactly.
When I grew up shooting at bottles at the local 'range', I was being completely brainwashed into violence, and taught that guns are the only tools that can solve problems. Yup. Totally.
You know what is especially interesting? In your post, you talk about how bad violence is, then say that parents should be castrated!
Ewent, a gun is an inanimate object. It does not have some magical power to make someone do something that's not already in their mind to do. If you put a gun into the hand of a non-violent person it doesn't miraculously transform them into a raving lunatic. You just have a non-violent person with a gun.
As to your assertion that parents who teach their children about guns are horrible people, you're dead wrong. If there are guns in the home, a truly responsible parent is going to teach a child how to properly and SAFELY handle a weapon, but only under adult supervision. The problem is parents who don't properly store their weapons out of reach of their children.
My father put a gun in my hand when I was 10 years old. He taught me how to shoot it, how to load it, and how to clean it. He also taught me that guns were not toys. Rule number 1 was to never, never, never, NEVER aim a gun at a person.
And before you go off on another of your little rants, here are a few things you should know. 1) I've been around guns my entire life and I've never felt the overwhelming urge to shoot someone. 2) I don't think every 5-year old should go to kindergarten packing heat. That's just ridiculous. 3) I have absolutely no problem with universal background checks. Anyone with a history of violent crime should not own a weapon. Ever.
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
Mustangluver...No one disagrees with that. But how many people can predict when someone is going to try to kill you? Unless we know in advance that we are in danger, no one is ever prepared.
Take a good look at some of the old western movies. It was shoot first and ask questions later. The US cannot allow a Wild West rampage on our streets where everyone shoots first and asks questions later. That's about as uncivilized as it needs to get.
Which begs the question: how can we rely on the police if we are not personally prepared?
This Wild West thing is a straw-man, again. Nobody is suggesting we shoot and ask questions later - we are suggesting that individuals have the right to hold personal protection in the form of a firearm. Two vastly different things.
If the Wild West thing is a strawman, what do you call Bonnie and Clyde? Or, the Jesse James gang...these were also strawpersons? Get real. You can be as armed as you want...He who shoots first, shoots the last bullet.
The state I live in has an open carry law. You can wear a holster on your belt if you like...perfectly legal.
You don't see any. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you are going to have duels. People have better sense than that.
But....you just keep spreading that fear as far as you can try and get it to spread.
No one buys it.
Really? People have better sense? And which people would that be? The VA Tech shooter who was college educated and had sense? Oh..I see you probably meant the shooter in Aurora who now can lay claim to fame because he shot a Congresswoman..yep...you are correct...Let's all carry guns and the more guns on the streets, the more blood baths. Don't you dare try to make the claim that in 2013 there are less gun murders when every possible record of gun deaths in the US show a huge increase in guns since the year 2000. You want to explain why no kids took guns to school when you were in elementary school and now we have to have cops roaming the halls in 2013 like school is Alcataraz?
You want to explain why the last 5 mass murders were committed by licensed guns owned by someone in a family with a gun permit? I realize news doesn't travel much in DogPatch these days but total ignorance of the fact put out by 10 of the top gun reporting agencies in the country say that in 2013, there are 88.8 guns for every 100 people.
We know why that happened. 4 greedy gun billionaires flooding the country with guns in inner cities and gee....how coincidental...all from 4 red states: TN, MO, NC and VA. Isn't it funny how these billionaires just "happened to" amass their wealth on inner city streets. We all know why they choose to flood these cities with guns. Its suits their extermination of the races they consider inferior. That's something I wouldn't expect the sugar magnolias to concern their pretty little heads about. Big Daddy wouldn't like that.
Actually, it's going down, not up. But don't let that get in your way.
Jaxson...You sir are an unmitigated liar. I just read the report from both the government and an international firearms association. Why do you contort the truth when you know you can't prove it? But don't let that get in YOUR way. After all, truth as only you see is has to be the only truth there can ever be right? Too far right.
Wow, that's pretty accusatory.
Year - Gun Homicides per 100,000
2000 - 3.84
2009 - 3.78
2010 - 3.59
2011 - 3.6
Jaxson...from 2000 to 2011 the number of gun homicides doesn't reflect the number of mass murders committed does it? But nice try. I got that figure 88.8 per 100 people in the US from a 2007 report by the Small Arms Survey, an international group out of Geneva, Switzerland. I think they know much better than you the number of gun owners in the US. You can also check the same figure at any of the country's top newspapers. As for the accusation, I "shoot" from the lip. Truth often wounds.
It reflects all murders, including mass murders. You stated that gun murders have been drastically increasing. In fact, they have been slowly decreasing.
88.8 per 100? Yeah, I don't think so. Also, no international group is going to have better data on US murders than US agencies.
What are you talking about the number of gun owners? What does that have to do with the number of gun murders?
Jaxson, you do realize how cowardly that post of yours appears, don't you? That International Group just happens to be a group of researchers who do this type of survey work on arms on a daily basis.
You gave it a "shot." you lost the argument since I provided the source of that 88.8 guns per 100 people. You don't bother to verify the information because now you are using the excuse that only US groups can know the correct figures. US groups? Like the NRA? Who are supported by 4 billionaire gun manufacturers? Get real and man up for a change.
I'd trust an international group to provide more accuracy on the number of guns in the US than I would a bunch of biased right wing loonies happy to fudge numbers to suit people like you. The number of gun owners and the number of gun murders are related. Nancy Lanza was a gun owner was she not? The VA Tech shooter was a gun owner was he not? Charles Whitman in TX was a gun owner was he not? You sure do like to divert from reality. Try professional help for that inability to accept facts.
Why are you talking about 88 guns per 100 people? We were talking about gun murders, weren't we? You said gun murders were going up, or did I misunderstand you?
And can we keep the personal attacks out of the discussion?
I showed you that the gun-homicide rate is going down, not up. So, if the gun-ownership rate goes up, and the gun-murder rate goes down, what does that tell us?
I will grant you that gun-based homicides have been on a downward slope recently (ever since '94, I believe), but that still doesn't change the fact that we have the highest amount of gun violence per capita in the industrialized world (with the UK being very close behind).
You know which countries suffer from next-to-no gun violence whatsoever? Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, and Japan, just to name a few. And what do they all have in common? Universal civilian gun restrictions.
Yeah, pick and choose, ignore variables, good work.
If you really want to see the biggest factor for gun-violence, look at drugs. Ask yourself why 60-80% of gun violence is tied to drugs.
If you want to see the effect of gun control or gun rights laws, look at states before and after changes. That way, you're comparing a place to itself, not to another place. That means most of the variables are automatically controlled for you.
Then the solution is simple: End the War on Drugs!
If the War on Drugs is over, and drugs are legalized and regulated by [insert something competent here], then gangs lose all their power! And when the gangs lose all their power, they don't be supplied with money or weapons! And when gangs run out of money and weapons, they'll be out of business! And when gangs are out of business, the streets are safer!
Denmark has a gun ownership of 12 guns per 100 citizens, a gun homicide rate of .01 per 100,000 and a general homicide rate of .07 per 100,000.
Japan has a gun ownership rate of .6 guns, a gun homicide rate of 0 and a general homicide rate of .5.
Denmark has 20 times the guns and 1/7 the murder rate.
This would seem to mean that adding guns to the population will result in a general homicide rate that falls, regardless what the subset of gun homicide rate does. Should we require everyone to be armed in our fight to lower murder rates?
I've concluded that this person is a troll. Nobody can be that wrong and argue so badly.
More fear, more hatred, more stereotyping of people from certain regions.
Oh puhlease...Fear is what you make it sugar pie. I've lived 66 years in the same state, never saw a gun in sight, never needed to and most important don't live in a state where guns are the accepted symbol of manhood. Obviously, some sugar magnolias see a gun as a sign of masculinity. Got news for you ...so do those good ole good ole bois. They were shortchanged in their jeans and so they pack heat to show size does matter.
And on top of the FEAR FEAR FEAR is the hatred for people of other regions.
Nothing you post on these subjects is anything but talking points wrapped in hatred.
I don't hate people from other regions. I hate their ignorance. Most educated people do hate ignorance. There are the poorest of the poor living in Appalachia who are less ignorant than some in certain regions who pride themselves on that ignorance. In fact, to these loonies of the extreme right, ignorance is their best weapon.
Being ignorant of the huge increase in gun deaths in the US is the most ignorant of ignorances there can be. It's perpetuated by those who should know better. All they see is that someone is "forcing" them to "give up" their guns. There are people who need guns in remote regions to protect their livestock. The military and anyone in law enforcement need their weapons. No NRA member has a justifiable reason to arm himself with a semi-automatic weapon designed and manufactured to kill 10 people in less than 30 seconds.
All the men and women in the NRA care about are themselves and what THEY want. Well shocker for you...you and they don't live in an insulated society. If you don't want a civilized society, move to North Korea or better still...try any one of the Middle Eastern countries. The men there are armed to the teeth.
Where I was raised there were some pretty smart kids.
You are stereotyping which is another symptom of how badly you hate them.
You wish I was stereotyping. My ex was from a southern state. That's WHY he became an ex. His ideas about women and equality was off the beam. I don't doubt there are smart people where you were raised. Too bad smart can also be ignorant. None so blind as those who will not see.
If you hate ignorance you might want to educate yourself as to the effect of gun controls on homicide rates throughout the world. Not, mind you, gun homicide rates, but on what overall homicide rates do when coupled with strong gun controls.
I, at least, would be very interested in seeing what you could come up with rather than making silly claims based solely on ignorance and fear of an inanimate object.
Wilderness...You and I both know what "ASSuming" does. Don't assume I haven't already educated myself to the effect of gun controls on homicide rates throughout the world. Go to Wikipedia...they have a wonderful map of the country with the highest rates of gun homicides in the entire world...It's the US. And the map is the product of an international survey group well respected for its factuality.
The only silly claims come from gun owners who use all manner of repetition to justify what can't rationally be justified. For the record, I fear absolutely nothing. I made it to age 66 and have yet to meet a man or woman who could instill an ounce of fear in me. You can't walk around afraid of every shadow or a man with a gun. If he's carrying a weapon, it tells me he's no man.
"Don't assume I haven't already educated myself to the effect of gun controls on homicide rates"
Fascinating, particularly when the very next sentence veers completely away from the subject and addresses gun homicides. As in " Go to Wikipedia...they have a wonderful map of the country with the highest rates of gun homicides" (bolding added).
Doesn't look to me as you have even tried to correlate gun ownership to general homicide rates. Instead you talk about the totally irrelevant subject of gun homicides.
I did look at it. I looked very carefully at gun ownership vs general homicide rates the world over and found there was no correlation between the two. More guns does not correlate with a higher homicide rate, let alone indicate a causal relationship between the two.
Fear isn't irrational where I live. We average one gun killing per day. The only issue is what to do about it. Arm everyone or disarm the criminals and nutjobs who shouldn't have guns.
how do we get rid of the guns?
Give us details, not just democrat speak.
Not an easy task. We have to start somewhere. None of the proposals I've seen involve confiscation of legally owned, registered firearms. Buyback programs can be successful.
Like Australia, yes. Where it accomplished nothing at all in terms of the homicide rate. Or Britain. Or apparently even Chicago City.
It did, however, erode just a little more freedom; always a good thing for government control of the masses.
From what I read, you're mistaken about Australia.
Here's an interesting article that appears to show that gun deaths are considerably lower in states where gun ownership is lower and more regulated that in states where gun ownership is greater and less regulated.
"The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000). The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as G goes up, D goes up (r=+0.63). These data suggest that whether or not our society finds it desirable, gun safety/control is a plausible means of reducing gun deaths.
"A striking aspect of this graph is that the rate of gun ownership varies by almost tenfold across states. Residents of different states are in very different environments, gunwise. When opponents of regulation, who are usually in gun-rich states, say that a sufficiently-determined evildoer could get a gun even under a heavy regulatory regime, that could be correct. Think of this measure as an index of “gun culture.”
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/2 … gun-error/
Same as always, Ralph - I talk about homicide rates and you switch it to Gun homicide rates. Not interested now any more now than before.
I meant what I said - the great Australian gun buyback in 1996 accomplished exactly nothing in terms of lowering the overall homicide rate. It may or may not have reduced gun homicides, but if so it increased the rate of homicide by other means as the total rate did not change one bit.
Apparently the Australians don't agree.
""Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres-- each with more than four victims--causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."
Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/aust … z2L4hSEqgL
You want Australian homicide rates:
Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.
And yet...guns were taken in 1996 and for the next 8 years there was no change in the homicide rate outside of normal ups and downs. In about 2003 the homicide rate began to fall and has, in general maintained that rate of decrease.
My interpretation: guns were taken away with no effect. Were that action to have any result it would not take 8 years to show up; the reduction in gun ownership rate was accomplished over just one year and if the murder rate is caused by guns it should show an immediate reaction. If a lack of guns is to result in a lack of murders it will show up in the following years stats; without guns murderers will stop killing. Didn't happen.
It is also not surprising at all the the government will spin the data and claim an effect; they have taken action, the people demand results, and politicians have their jobs on the line. Just a "small" spin, then, for people that don't understand statistics, want very badly to believe that giving up their guns saw a reduction in loss of life, and (just as in the US) will believe almost anything they're told by authority. You can even see the spin in the quote from authorities; the same old, old, reference to "gun" homicides with no reference to overall rate. Gun homicides may indeed have fallen immediately, but if so murderers simply used other tools as the overall rate had no change. It's called spin, misdirection, irrelevant information; it's called fraud at the end of the day. An effort to convince a gullible public that the action had results when it plainly did not.
It didn't happen and your own graph there plainly shows it. 8 years is simply too long to wait to see a decrease after the tool doing all the damage is removed from society while claiming the tool caused the damage.
It seems a little unrealistic, wilderness, to expect that gun law changes would take immediate effect. People with illegal guns didn't race to cash in at the gun buy-back. Once the law-abiding citizens had complied with the law, the police were able to take action against others who had unregistered firearms.
It makes perfect sense to most Australians that the process was not instant. We watched the nightly news as illegal guns were seized after the buy-back.
How long do you think it would take in the US? I anticipate it would be a long process that could easily take an entire generation to make a significant difference. Instant results are highly unlikely, but I don't think that's a good reason to dismiss the argument for long-term improvements.
And how exactly can you possibly compare Australia to the US? Or Britain? Yes...it eroded freedom....of gun owners to intimidate others with all that power they hope represents the symbol of manhood.
20 innocent children were killed in the US in a single ten minutes time along with adults and you have the gall to say we should just continue on as if no possible resolution can be effected? Is it because gun owners now feel guilty about their blowhard swagger swagger boom boom of the last decade? Or, maybe it's all that moolah they lost to the billionaire gun manufacturers now that more than 80% of Americans are fed up with a tiny minority of US gun owners taking away OUR rights?
The answer is to put limits on the number of semi-automatics that can be sold by those 4 manufacturers in a year's time. Cutting the number manufactured means less guns on the streets since they can't easily be smuggled in from Canada or Mexico now that the President has added more National Guardsmen at the borders.
The President is correct that anyone buying a gun has to show he is mentally sound. Those who legally own guns must also submit to the same kind of testing for mental illness.
And, one other caveat would be that gun owners cannot have guns in their possession if there are children in the home alone while parents are at work.
You said what about the borders?
You are serious?
Bare..How do you manage to be totally ignorant of the increase in the number of troops at the borders? I am absolutely serious. And I can prove it. Go to the government website for the DOD. Check out the number of troops that are now patroling at the southwestern border...if you can be woman enough to manage that courage. It's obvious the minute this president opens his mouth to speak, some ears go deliberately deaf. That figures. Most anarchists only want to take the country back to some backward dimension they can control. Not going to happen. We voted for this president.What your kind wants is to constantly find fault with everything this president does so you can make him appear beneath your white supremacy over the earth. Four years of this bashing is more than most American care to hear. If that's all you have in your arsenals of bashing...it's not enough. A president is a leader. As president, and as a leader, he is expected to move the country forward. Not back to DogPatch.
Is it your claim then that the extra troops have stopped the drug traffic? The flood of illegal aliens? Do you simply accept the President's word that it has without ever checking?
Sounds like it, but some of us want proof, not mere words. Especially from this President - the one that made promises that he then recanted on before he was ever sworn in.
I always check the facts with at least three unbiased sources: the DOD website, state websites and an outside fact check organization like Factcheck. If all three sources show the same facts, I consider that unbiased and reliable. The facts show that in Texas and California, the number of illegals crossing the border since 2011 has dropped. These three sources also show that extra troops have been added at the borders by almost double the number in 2008. You can find these facts for yourself or is it just simpler to feast at the table of grand denial until engorgement on denial takes place?
I accept THIS president's word because as yet, much to the utter frustration and chagrin of the right, he isn't like Liar Bush. But what can you expect from a 3-time Texas loser who shared his presidency with Cheney for 8 years?
I support President Obama as the duly elected leader of my country, don't you?
Ralph...The mayors in some of the biggest inner cities have had more cops murdered in the last 10 years than in all of US history in the northeast. These cop killers have an unfair advantage. They can buy semi-automatics and the kinds of bullets that cause more fatalities before a cop can get a shot fired off his weapon. That's patently wrong. When cops can be killed in greater numbers by thugs who can buy their guns in MO, TN, VA and NC and smuggle them into these big cities, cops and innocent people are in greater danger. Americans have every right to the expectation of safe city streets. Americans have the right to shop in malls without being shot at or have an evening out at a theater without becoming someone's shooting gallery.
It isn't necessary to disarm everyone. It's only necessary that those who wish to be armed prove their sanity and their able to maintain their civility.
A little education can go a long way.
So educate yourself.......
bare..since when is a right winger the paragon of intelligence? Most righties are gung ho to be armed and as dangerous and intimidating as they can get. It's why in the south and west, you have all of more mass murders than anywhere else in the country. So much for gun rights. The Hatfields and McCoys ...after hundreds of years? .
Say what? Are you living on this planet? Murders happen every single day! Stores are robbed at gun point every single day. Criminals walk into establishments and shoot up ppl every single day. It's a way of life. There are over 10,000 gangs here in Fl and they are busy every single damn day..so i think we can safely predict crime can be knocking on your doorstep at any given moment! I guess with anti gun ppl the blood has to pour from the wound to feel the pain..
Yes, and making guns so easily accesable to the public also allows people like the man who murdered all those children in Conneticut, to get his hands on weapons so easily. Many tragedies could be prevented if gun laws were stricter.
Most sane women in the US have this natural instinct to protect our children. If they can't be safe in a classroom, that's the last straw for our enabling other men and women to expand their so-called 2nd Amendment rights far beyond the intent in which it was written.
What possible value is there to exposing 6 year old children to guns and ammunition? This is what the NRA wants. The NRA hopes all of our children will be gun savvy enough to be armed by the time they are in 4th grade. Women know that when you feed a child poison, you make that child ill. When you feed a child on violence in the form of guns and ammunition, the child becomes mentally ill. Only gun nuts ignore this fact.
Do you not get it that it is a right to own a gun? And there is no such thing as a gun nut...except for those who use guns to hurt and kill innocents. So i take it you think all the founding fathers were gun nuts? It's the same thing as because there are obese ppl, everyone should be punished?
Let us hope that one day, the world may be safer. But no, that is a wish that will never come true. Human nature calls for violence, competition, and satisfaction. Allwe can do is protect those we care about, and fight to ensure better laws.
It seems to me 3 groups primarily want gun control...and the stricter the better:
Left leaning or far left government leaders. History tells us bad things about when governments want to disarm the citizenry.
Left leaning idealogues who either want to give power to the leaders of the same bent, or who perhaps in some pollyannish way, actually believe they can eliminate criminals having guns by disarming honest folk.
Criminals. They love gun free zones and would benefit immensely if the government would disarm their potential victims.
I don't belong to any of those groups.
I think most are in the second group, but for some reason they can't recognize that banning alcohol gave power and money to the mafia families, and increased crime. Banning drugs gave power and money to the drug lords and drug cartels, and increased crime(as much as 80% of gun crimes are drug related). Neither of those bans kept alcohol or drugs out of the hands of bad people.
But somehow, banning guns will make everything hunky-dory. It will actually keep guns out of the hands of bad guys(unlike drugs and alcohol). It won't create a new black market(unlike drugs and alcohol), and it won't increase crime(unlike drugs and alcohol).
Furthermore, they would rather compare vastly different countries, without even attempting to adjust for variables, than look at the effects of gun law changes in localized areas over the course of time, where the variables are already mostly corrected for.
The fact is that surveys show that the majority of Americans support stricter gun controls consistent with the 2nd Amendment.
. . .and the majority can be wrong. History has shown that more than a few times. We shouldn't be legislating based on polls.
Ralph, you are obviously not aware of how many in this nation are gun owners..
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-owner … ographics/
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … erica?lite
Surveys show that public opinion is split on gun control and that support for stricter controls increases each time there is an incident like Aurora or Newtown.
"After Newtown, Modest Change in Opinion About Gun Control
Dec 21, 2012
"The public’s attitudes toward gun control have shown only modest change in the wake of last week’s deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Currently, 49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns."
One might say the same of the right...they are the ones who oppose government most, oppose the president most and want to be armed and deangrous like a bunch of uncivilized animals roaming public streets free to create mass anarchy. Without a gun, these cowards can fight for a flea.
We don't oppose government. We oppose big, invasive government.
Inconsistent with the second amendment, but whatever.
Ralph, I still don't see how you could think that the 2A means 'X' because the Supreme Court says it means 'X', when you know very well that a single changed justice would have come to the decisions 'Y'.
If the Supreme Court said that the 2A only gave citizens the right to own spud-guns, would you really say 'Yup, that's what the 2A means!'.
If the Supreme Court said the sky is green, would that change the color of the sky?
I heard the transition to a green sky was due to global warming and will increase gun toting asteroid visitations...woops, mixing up my threads again.
Oh well there is always a falling sky with the left.
Just ask the people at the New York Times.
What can you expect from the morbidly obese right wing feeders at the feast of denial? You can't expect sanity. They lost it long agao.
Gun death and injury trend in the U.S.
Better Medical Care Has Kept Gun Death Constant, But Total Number of People Shot
Has Risen Dramatically in the United States
Survivors’ Injuries Often Chronic and Disabling
The number of Americans killed by guns has remained fairly constant in the nine years for
which complete data is available in the 21st century.1 Between 2000 and 2008, a total of
272,590 people died of gunshot injuries in the United States. This averages out to about 30,288
gun deaths per year, a number shocking by comparison to any other developed country.2
But the common focus on gun deaths as a marker to illustrate America’s “gun problem”
obscures an alarming trend. The number of persons who suffer nonfatal gunshot injuries―that
is, who are shot but do not die―has risen over the same period. As graphically demonstrated
by the chart below, this means simply that more people are being shot by guns every year. In
other words, America’s gun problem is getting worse, not better. More guns means more
Click on link for chart which shows shootings by year.
Ralph, your very long and boring articles only show how ignorant you are to reality..
Laws that aim to restrict or eliminate the ownership of firearms are often justified by arguing that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem is criminals and madmen don't obey them; only honest citizens do. Gun control laws end up producing a society in which decent people are helpless and defenseless and a gunman can kill scores of people – because nobody is there to stop him.
It may be prudent for Congress to consider proposals to ensure that individuals purchasing weapons are, in fact, law-abiding citizens and competent to own a weapon. It may also be appropriate for states and localities to consider requiring licensing for gun owners who wish to carry their weapons in public.
However, such measures will not earn my support if they infringe on the inalienable right of individuals to own and defend themselves with a firearm.
The problem is no restriction on the number of guns that 4 billionaire gun manufacturers can flood the country with lethal weapons. Cut the number of guns manufactured in the US and the problem is reduced.
Your evidence that the problem will be reduced? Or is that too much to ask?
Here's the only evidence marrow minded narcissists who own lethal weapons need. Anything in excess will kill you eventually. The difference with guns is that they kill sooner than eventually. How is flloding the US with more guns in excess of commons sense necessity not going to increase gun deaths? Point, set and match. Ball is in your court now to prove otherwise. We already seen in the last 10 years floods of guns in major cities. Don't bother to deny this. It's the reason mayors of the US's biggest cities want to see more teeth in gun control laws. The cost to these cities of hourly deaths to cops and innocent bystanders is bankrupting these states. VA, NC, TN and MO gun manufacturers are no better than Mafiosi who sell drugs and prostitution in cities where they no their dirty profits will be highest. You can go for proof of the number of deaths in NY City, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago or Los Angeles at these city websites. I'm betting you won't bother. Because it's so much easier for someone in a remote area of the country or in some red state conservatory of conservatism to play ignorant of facts to support the backroom agenda.
An unsupported opinion that everything in excess kills, with an unsupported inference that the number of guns in existence is excessive.
A question rather than evidence, followed by a statement that the matter is now proven by asking the question.
Declaration that freedom lovers must prove a point to keep their freedom.
An unsupported claim that cops and other deaths are caused by guns; that removing guns will save their lives.
An unsupported claim that gun manufacturing companies are similar to the Mafia selling drugs and prostitution.
I'm very sorry, but if that is the sort of thing you consider "evidence", well, there isn't much to talk about, is there? Your opinions, unsupported claims and question are not evidence of anything but your own opinion, which was already known.
I wonder....is it even physically possible for her to turn her head to the right?
I doubt it. A pre-determined conclusion, unshaken by facts because facts are neither desired nor considered.
A little common courtesy would be appreciated, however - such terms as "marrow minded narcissists" don't really add much to a debate.
This is going just like the health care mess where this is al you will hear on and on and on and on and on and on and on till some hack produces a bill that gets rammed throguh whether the people actually want it or not.
It's called tyranny. It's why there is a 2d Amendment in the first place.
I rather expect that as well. It seems the way of the left to make and approve laws without ever reading them - too many don't care about factual reality any more than they care whether gun controls will actually reduce the murder rate. It's immaterial as it has nothing to do with the actual goal; all that truly matters is convincing the sheeple that it's in their best interests.
It's why I no longer have anything to do with the Democrat party....either of them for that matter as the other on has turned into Diary of a Wimpy Kid which is exactly what the Democrats wanted them to do.
Gun owners are often considered extremists. Aren't your comments about gun owners a bit extreme? If one treated any other demographic with the kind of animosity that so many gun-control advocates direct at gun owners, do you think the two sides would ever come to an agreement? Do you think the opposing side would become entrenched in their ideals? From my experience, gun-control advocates are often more extreme than gun-rights advocates.
Many of us just want to be left alone. We want the government to enforce existing laws. We want criminals behind bars. We want mental illness to be treated. Many of us believe that parents need to be parents and stop allowing their children to play violent video games; parents need to be parents and stop allowing children access to the kinds of violence that are so prevalent on television, in movies, and on the internet. Until we address these real issues, putting additional limitations on gun owners is like putting a bandage on cancer. It hides the real issue and makes some people feel better, but it won't stop the problem. Violence should be our target, not guns. Guns are a quick fix, a scapegoat.
The usual response is a lot of data showing how many murders are committed using guns. I get that. I've seen it before. Let's talk about the person pulling the trigger. Why is he/she doing this? When we start addressing this issue, we'll have made a step towards a safer America. Gun control doesn't address this issue.
I don't think you will find any desire for compromise from this one. The end goal is removal of all guns and it will remain that way whatever else is offered.
You won't get any compromise.
You are right...remove the guns so you have complete control.
That's the goal.
Yes, that is the goal, though it will be hidden behind statements of "we don't want your guns," or "we're not trying to take your guns." Then, we start hearing words like "confiscation."
Have you seen the post where Missouri has a bill pending to confiscate weapons? Any semi-automatic rifle in the state that has a thumbhole stock (or any of several other such inane features) will be confiscated and the owner subject to jail time. You will have 90 days to either get it out of the state or turn it in without compensation, which I would call theft or confiscation at best.
All I can say is......that's why there's a 2d Amendment.
OH, but that can't be. How many times, within these forums, have we been told that we are wrong about the government confiscating our guns? It would never happen. . . Now, it might just happen.
When another 20 children die in their classroom, what will you find for an excuse for the common denominator then?
Probably the same things (s)he does now.
The bigger question is, when you have finally made all guns illegal and the body count continues to grow what your next irrational scapegoat will be?
Violence is the reason, not guns. Address this issue, and you will take one large step towards protecting children.
Hey anti gun nut, your response was a silly one.
Liberals don't want to send their children to school and worry while they work what Bush called 3 "uniquely American jobs" if their children are safe. Dogpatch is calling...hurry up Lil Abner wants his pregnant barefoot wife to cook him his grits and gravy.
Now let's see how easily avoidable these methods of homicide are!
Auto Accident: Quit driving like an asshole. Easy.
Drunk Driving: Have a designated driver. Super easy.
Blunt Objects/Knives/Barehanded: Fight back. Can either be easy or hard.
Rifles/Handguns: ...Make a Reflex save...? DC 43 with a +8 to save on a d20.
Here's an interesting article. Sometimes, just sometimes, the gun-control advocates are the extremists. I'm pretty sure this might just fall under the category of "illegal search." Gun owners are often being treated like criminals. Here's a great example.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ … 17xml.html
We're actually seeing more than a few bills being introduced all over the country that have no chance of being passed and the sponsors know that.
The question, then, is why? Why introduce such a bill? Just to garner a few votes from extremists? To "test the water" and see just how far such legislation might go - how much support it might get, giving a prediction how well a slightly watered down bill might fare?
The reason why is that the politicians have a flashpoint opinion to mark on their record as something they can use in the future should they need to gain a knee jerk reaction from those that would vote for them. Total posturing and phony politics as usual. If they were about anything they would have the ear of the press who seems to have mysteriously dropped it as well.
"Gun owners are often being treated like criminals. Here's a great example."
Ever hear the one about the pig who squealed before he was stuck? The proposal has zero chance of passing. Even the Democrats are saying it's a mistake. Or are you worried about gun owners' feelings being hurt?
I don't care about feelings. I care about freedom. Wilderness is absolutely correct in saying that politicians are testing the water to see what the public will allow. Gun owners are being treated like nuts and criminals by the extremist gun-control advocates. Look at these forums, and you'll see plenty of evidence about that.
Well, quite a few of them are nuts and/or criminals. Wayne LaPierre is a prime example of the former. IMHO, he's not helping your cause. Just curious, can you think of any change in gun control laws that you would support?
Most of the nuts are the ones for gun control, constantly going into hysterics as if an inanimate object can cause harm.
Do you rage this way about cars, airplanes,roller coasters?
Nuts, sure a lot of them.
Hey look....an out of control golf cart is running loose!
You didn't respond to my question. Repeat: Is there any gun control measure that you would support?
Do I "rage about cars, airplanes, roller coasters?" Answer: No. Obviously not.
Why not rail against cars? 40,000 die every year?
Deaths due to guns is 30,000.
Planes, I don't know but it is safe to assume more than 20 people are killed at a time when an airliner goes down. Weapons of mass destruction?
If you put a gun down by a plane and leave both alone do you know how many people will be killed by each?
Why don't you blame the deaths on what is actually at fault? People.
Quite a few gun-control advocates know nothing about guns and use them as scapegoats too.
I want no more laws; the criminals won't abide by them, so why should my freedoms be eroded? I want existing laws enforced. As for LaPierre, we'll just have to disagree.
Ban on High Capacity Magazines May be Coming
"...'We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,' Mr. Murphy said, referring to the high-capacity ammunition feeding device used by Mr. Lanza to shoot scores of bullets in seconds. 'I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.'
"It is that conviction that has helped put fresh scrutiny on the size of magazines as Congress debates new gun laws.
"While influential lawmakers in both parties view a proposed ban on assault weapons as politically toxic, lawmakers seem increasingly open to a ban on high-capacity magazines, like the 15- and 30-round devices that have been used in shooting rampages from Aurora, Colo., to Tucson, where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, to Newtown.
"Constitutional lawyers, including many conservatives, generally believe that limiting magazine size falls well within the boundaries of recent Supreme Court decisions on gun rights, and evidence suggests that a ban on large magazines would have reduced the number of those killed in mass shootings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us/po … tml?ref=us
That's a little sad, if true.
Mr. Murphy (whoever that is) and the parents of murdered children have a conviction that changing magazines would have saved lives because they know that most amateurs can't do it.
And that is what is driving our congressmen to address the issue? The "unbiased" convictions of people that have no knowledge, experience or understanding of what they are speaking of?
Rather sad, isn't it? It will pass, though - I'm sure it falls with SC decisions and that's reason enough to take freedoms and rights. No more be said.
What about the proposed legislation in New York? They wanted to limit magazines to five and agreed to limit them to seven. How are magazines of this size, under any stretch of the imagination, considered high capacity? Here's a great example of the slippery slope we keep mentioning.
"In the US, federal law prohibits shotguns from being capable of holding more than three shells including the round in the chamber when used for hunting migratory gamebirds such as doves, ducks, and geese. For other uses, a capacity of any number of shells is generally permitted. Most magazine-fed shotguns come with a removable magazine plug to limit capacity to 2, plus one in the chamber, for hunting migratory gamebirds."
If three shells are enough for hunting birds, why not for shooting people?
Here's another example of that slippery slope:
http://www.redstate.com/briansikma/2013 … wisconsin/
We all know that the Huffington Post is liberal. Here's an interesting article that clearly shows a couple points. First, the current proposal on "assault weapons" won't work. Second, many liberals truly do want to take our guns away from us.
"As someone who fired guns for over two years in combat, I hate to tell you that the conservatives are right when they argue that banning big magazines and assault rifles -- the current "liberal" opening gambits -- will make very little difference. It takes only a second or so to replace an empty magazine with a loaded one, and there are so many assault rifles out there that it would take at least a generation (assuming no new ones were sold nor imported nor smuggled in nor stolen from military bases) before these guns would become significantly less available than they are at present."
"A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns)."
I think it's safe to say that "domestic disarmament" means confiscation. But wait, we've been told that's not on the table. It's not on the table. . .today. Then, people like this get into office, and here we go witht the slippery slope.
For a full text, here's the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-et … 18536.html
Republican David Frum asks "Are gun accidents 'very rare?'"
Claim 1: There isn't much of a safety problem with guns. Or, in Robert's words: "The fact is that gun accidents are statistically very rare — and even this information isn’t all that helpful without an estimate of armed self-defense to compare it with."
How rare is "very rare"? In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal. Is that "very rare"?
The total number of Americans killed and wounded by gun accidents exceeds the total number killed or injured in fires.
Claim 2: The gun industry responsibly sells safe products. VerBruggen: "Most modern handguns - especially those designed to be carried - are drop-safe." "Some accidents might be caused by confusion about whether there's a bullet in the chamber." "Serial number filing isn't very effective."
As you can see, words like "most," "some," and "very" are doing the heavy lifting in all these sentences. Let's try this line of argument with other products.
"Most modern aircraft don't crash due to battery fires."
"Most store-brand packaged foods are not rancid."
"Some accidents might be caused by the truck's tendency to flip over at high speeds."
"Cigarette advertising aimed at children is not very effective."
Would Congress accept that line of excuse from any other product or industry? Surely Congress would say, "No aircraft should crash because of battery fires." "Stores shouldn't sell any rancid products." "Trucks should not flip over, period." "Cigarette advertising aimed at children should not occur at all."
Yet when it comes to the most lethal of all consumer products, suddenly Congress becomes super-indulgent of industry fallibility. It would be a bold pharmaceutical executive who said that we didn't need child-proof bottles because it was a parent's responsibility to teach her 7 year old to stay away from the medicine chest. Yet that's just the answer we hear after incidents like yesterday's tragedy in Decatur, Ohio, when a 9 year old boy was shot in the head by his 13 year old sister.
Nobody would suggest that better product design could prevent all gun accidents. I'm certainly not suggesting it. But it's true that the most popular range of handguns in the United States, Glock, is sold without a usable visual indicator of a bullet in the chamber.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … at%20Sheet
. . .so the government needs to regulate gun production/design too? Are you saying that people can be harmed by guns, so they must be banned? What are you saying here?
Yes, I think government has a role to play in the design, manufacture, sale and ownership of guns in the public interest much the same as it has regulated the safety, emissions and fuel economy of cars for many years. It would seem to me logical that Glock pistols could easily incorporate a feature that would indicate when a shell is in the chamber as Frum suggested. Other regulations are needed and possible without negating anyone's Second Amendment rights nor interfering with legitimate use of guns for self protection, hunting or target shooting. I am a gun owner, and I am not suggesting that guns be "banned."
Half the members of congress think that every semi-automatic gun is an "assault weapon." I don't trust Congress to regulate the gun industry.
I'm not saying the the government shouldn't have a role in making sure people are safe. I am saying that the role needs to be as small as possible. The government usually makes things worse.
"Half the members of congress think that every semi-automatic gun is an "assault weapon."
I agree that the term assault weapon is used loosely. .However, . IMHO, an AR-15 with a 30 shot capacity magazine qualifies as in the case of the 26 people killed in Sandy Hook and other mass slaughters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/nyreg … ws.html?hp
And IMHO an "assault" weapon is one that could reasonably be used by the military to "assault" a fortified position. Which would mean a fully automatic weapon.
So OK - until a specific definition becomes accepted pretty universally wouldn't it be a good thing to provide your own, with specifics, rather than try to spin a statement into something it isn't? Which is exactly what is done most of the time.
I'm using the word the way it has come to be commonly used. I feel no obligation to conform to your definition. AR-15s with big magazines have been used in several recent assaults, as you well know. That's good enough for me. I hope they are banned although that appears to be unlikely. As far as I'm concerned their manufacture and sale should be confined to our armed forces. They serve no necessary or useful civilian purpose, and they have created mayhem on enough occasions to justify banning them.
Our armed forces don't use them Ralph.
But that doesn't matter, because it doesn't really matter if we legislate from ignorance, does it?
Well, that's kind of my point, Ralph. It's not common use, except by gun control advocates trying to slip it under the radar, so to speak, and take guns that no one else even thinks are being discussed.
It's one way to get such legislation pushed through, simply because those in opposition aren't picking up your new definition, but it's not very honest.
The term "assault weapons" is in common use in newspapers, TV and other media. In point of fact, you are the one who is misusing the term. Here's Wikipedia's entry on assault weapons:
Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain ergonomic or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug. Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.
The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as state and local laws often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired Federal Law.
Here's Webster's Online definition:
"Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle "
Yeah, like he said, it's common among gun-control people.
But nothing about it is 'assault'. An assault rifle is specifically designed for use in assault, where suppressive fire is needed. A semi-automatic doesn't do that.
It's a made up term that stuck, but it's still a crap term that doesn't describe things properly.
That's part ot the problem. So many gun-control advocates feel that a gun must have a civilian use to justify its use. Why does it have to have a use? I understand that gun-control advocates don't believe that an "assault weapon" can be, and often is, used for defense. Why does that mean that I must lose the right to own the gun? Can't I own it out of enjoyment, or for sport, or as a collector? Why do we even allow this justification argument? It's a right; no justification is necessary.
After making this point, I usually get asked whether I believe any gun should be banned. I believe the existing laws should be enforced, nothing more and nothing less.
An "assault weapon" obviously can be used for defense, but it isn't necessary for defense, and many don't think it's the most useful defense weapon. The fact that there are 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year indicates that additional regulations and more effective enforcement should get serious consideration, Wayne LaPierre and NRA notwithstanding. .
It actually is the most useful defensive weapon.
The fact that only ~40 of those gun deaths are from 'assault weapons' should get serious consideration as well.
A .25 can be used for defense too, but it isn't the best tool. Again, why should we have to justify owning these kinds of guns? Rights shouldn't have to be justified.
Gun control? Just snug it up to your shoulder, breathe in slowly while you aim down the barrel , and squeeze steadily while breathing out.
Now you know what can be done about it.
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:21:42 -0600
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:32:16 -0500
> Subject: Looks like Obama should have read the "Obamacare" law before he
> Looks like Obama should have read the "Obamacare" law before he
> signed it, OR he was so eager to get "Obamacare" that he
> didn't care about the "gun owners" clause that was in it!
> Wednesday, it was discovered that hidden deep within the massive
> 2800-page bill called Obamacare, there is a Senate Amendment
> protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
> It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the
> throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi
> D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
> According to that amendment, the government
> cannot collect "any information relating to the lawful
> ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition." This
> means that the government CANNOT mandate firearm registration.
> No registration, no confiscation. Poor ol' Joe Biden, he spent
> the last couple of weeks focusing on making a law requiring
> registration. Good thing is though, the amendment also states
> that not even an executive order can override the amendment.
> CNN is now referring to it as "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."
> And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's
> exactly right. He says he personally added the provision in
> order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative
> fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.
> It looks like Harry Reid actually helped out firearm owners
> without even realizing it. Thanks Harry!!
> Go to:
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … gistration
> http://wizbangblog.com/2013/01/10/obama … istration/
Michigan man faces sentencing after drinking game with gun led to friend's death
"A Battle Creek man faces sentencing for his part in the death of a friend while they were playing a drinking game with a loaded revolver.
"Samuel Castanier is to be sentenced today in Calhoun County Circuit Court.
He pleaded guilty to manslaughter last month, telling a judge that he and 34-year-old Nicholas Ullrich "were playing a game with guns."
"Ullrich was shot once in the head in September as he, Castanier and a third friend were celebrating a birthday at Castanier's Battle Creek home.
"Police have said the revolver was loaded with a single cartridge and that the men believed they were safe by looking at the cylinder before pulling the trigger. They said they forgot the loaded chamber advances when the trigger is pulled."
http://www.freep.com/article/20130222/N … RONTPAGE|s
More Gun Mayhem in Michigan:
4 wounded in shooting at Grand Rapids bar, police say
Police say a shooting at a bar in Grand Rapids has left four people wounded, including a security guard.
TV stations WOOD, WWMT and WZZM report the shooting happened around 2 a.m. today at New Roosevelt Bar on the city's southwest side.
Police are looking for a suspect in the shooting, which reportedly stemmed from a dispute involving security and a group of men.
Details on the conditions of those shot weren't immediately released.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130222/N … police-say
More Michigan gun mayhem--Mentally Ill Man with gun license shoots daughter, aunt and grandmother
The ex-girlfriend of the Detroit man accused of fatally shooting his aunt and grandmother and wounding his 7-year-old daughter on Friday night said she believes the man threatened her and her son's life, too.
Police said Ferdarius Shine of Detroit was mentally ill and turned himself in to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation early Saturday, ending a manhunt for the 28-year-old after the shooting on Detroit's west side....
Shine has a license to carry a concealed pistol, police said, but details about when he obtained that license were not available Saturday.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130217/N … -were-next
Good set of incident reports. Plainly, we should not allow drunks to carry weapons of any kind, nor the insane.
But what does that have to do with gun control?
According to the Daily Kos, the gun ownership info has to do only with that obtained through the seeking of health care:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/1 … ct-Really#
Who tries to buy a gun at the doctor's office?
Court rules right to carry concealed weapon not protected by 2nd Amendment.
"n a decision likely to hearten backers of gun-control measures, a federal appeals court in Denver said Friday that carrying concealed firearms isn't protected by the Second Amendment.
"In its ruling, the three-judge panel referred to longstanding restrictions on individuals' ability to carry concealed weapons.
"'In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections,' wrote Judge Carlos Lucero, a Bill Clinton appointee, for the unanimous panel, which also included Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointees.
"The court—the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—is the latest to wrestle with guns and the Constitution following landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010. In those decisions, the court recognized the individual right to bear arms but declined to say whether, and to what degree, certain restrictions on guns would still be allowed.
"Last November, a federal appeals court in New York upheld a New York requirement that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain concealed-carry licenses.
"Federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Va., are weighing similar challenges to concealed-carry laws. Rulings inconsistent with those from the courts in Denver and New York could likely tee up the issue for the Supreme Court.
"'The case decided on Friday involved Gray Peterson, a resident of Washington state, who unsuccessfully applied for a concealed-handgun license in Denver. Mr. Peterson sued the Denver sheriff and Colorado's executive director of the Department of Public Safety in February 2010. A federal district court dismissed his claims; Mr. Peterson appealed..."
SUCK IT UP GUN NUTS!
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … EForthNews
That's ok Ralph...I live in a state where you can OPEN carry.
Those states line up so well with the highest murder rates.
That sure is civilisation
http://www.ibtimes.com/which-states-all … ist-312409
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- … tate#MRord
Actually, stats show that more guns are in rural areas, yet fewer homicides occur in rural areas. Aren't the majority of homicides committed in urban areas, often the same ones that have gun control? Chicago's gun control sure works well! Civilization indeed.
Higher population density, doesen't take a genius to figure out that will increase murder rates. Despite that have a look at the stats given.
Last time i checked it was "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" not THE BILL OF NEEDS!
All you here out of the mouths of the pro gun activits is a paranoid need for protection. Their obsession with protection is such that they believe around every corner someone is out to get them. This is an outrageous paranoia that pits their "them" vs. "me" obsession for protection at all of us. They now have 8 million guns and they want more, more, more. If they had their way they'd all want to ban automatic military style assault weapons and demand the sale of shoulder fired rockets and armored tanks to haul onto our public streets to "protect themselves." It isn't about "their 2nd Amendment rights at all. It's about their demanding to turn our streets, schools and public places into war zones. After all, why arm yourself if you've no war in the streets? Anyone else think this isn't on these militant nutcakes minds?
Whoop dee doo....DogPatch allows Open Carry and calls that civilization. So when Lil Abner get sousd on Saturday night and comes home and find Lazy Daisy Mae in bed with Gomer next door, civilization ends? You've got to really hand it to the gun nut mental midgets out there. Their version of "civilization" begins and ends at the point of a gun. This, they call "protection?" Sure...and cows fly and chocolate chips fall out of the sky....any more stupidity than this and DogPatch is going to collapse from "ignernce." roflmao.
All you hear from gun-control advocates is fear of guns, nothing about the people who pull the trigger.
this young man makes good points on the issue. points many are not willing to look at logically, but only emotionally
hype and rhetoric get us no where and to listen to it from a president and other leaders is shameful
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/colum … re-you-on/
"Violent, Drunk and Holding a Gun"
"... But a focus on mass murder, while critical, does not get at the broader issue of gun violence, including the hundreds of single-victim murders, suicides, nonfatal shootings and other gun crimes that occur daily in the United States. And focusing on the mentally ill, most of whom are not violent, overlooks people who are at demonstrably increased risk of committing violent crimes but are not barred by federal law from buying and having guns.
"These would include people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors including assaults, and those who are alcohol abusers. Unless guns are also kept from these high-risk people, preventable gun violence will continue. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opini … ef=opinion
2 convicted in Wayne State football player's 2011 killing
"Two Detroiters have been convicted in the 2011 shooting death of a Wayne State University football player.
"Anton Blevins and Quintin King were found guilty Friday by a Wayne County Circuit Court jury after a seven-day trial, according to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.
"Authorities said they killed Courtney (Cortez) Smith, WSU's 2010 rookie of the year, while Smith was trying to break up a fight outside Club Envy in downtown Detroit on May 5, 2011.
"Blevins had pulled out a gun and handed it to King, who gunned down Smith, authorities said.
'Blevins fled to Las Vegas after the shooting, where he was arrested in December 2011. He was featured on "America's Most Wanted." King was charged in June 2011.
"King was convicted of first-degree murder, six counts of assault with intent to murder and felony firearm.
"Blevins was convicted of second-degree murder, six counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felony firearm, the Prosecutor's Office said.
"Sentencing is scheduled for March 12.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3302240297
That newspaper is pretty much your bible isn't it?
What do you think of Chicago's massive gun problem?
They must need more gun control. Hasn't their existing gun control worked wo well already?
No. It's my hometown paper. There's usually nearly every day reports of local armed robberies, gang shootings, etc., which I'm tired of reading about. I also read the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal daily and several magazines.
Yeah, and guns cause crime.
Funny, when people talk about crime-pits and how gun-control doesn't work in those places, the response is 'well, they get their guns out-of-state!'.
The problem with that is, if GUNS are the problem, why doesn't 'out of state' suck just as much as the crime-pit?
It's much more telling to look at the ration of LEGAL vs ILLEGAL guns.
I know right? Criminals, which include the mentally disturbed, have stockpiles of weapons..by taking guns away from good ppl is not going to stop the bad, ever! They will just triple the gun smugglers and make the black market bigger.
The black market is a good thing... it provides career opportunities to underprivileged youth...
More "ignernce" from the Lil Abners. To show how insane these righties are...anything that resembles goodness to them is bad. So peace, laws, safe streets? Bad, bad, bad. Guns flowing, blood running like rivers and bully bois taking over public places...just dandy. Keep proving the mental illness. Now that there will be mental health testing for all gun owners, I will be thrilled at watching the most righteous right wing loonies being forced into mental institutions.
You really don't know anything do you?
Aren't you glad you have talking points so you know what to say?
LOL....I love how that's your reply to everything..
That's because that's all anyone ever gets from you....stuff somebody else told you.
Well Ralph will refute that with another New York Times piece.
Ralph, I use to stay on 24th Street and Hudson not far away from Michigan Ave. I also attended Wayne State University.
Trust me, where we live, you need protection. I am not talking about the police either. Also, a relative suffered car break-ins.
Do you think she was able to talk down the criminal drug addicts who did it? Yes, she did so with a 9MM Beretta.
The end results: No more car break-ins.
Guns work. Talk gets you killed and is not dependable in every situation.
Well, here's one from West Bloomfield--
West Bloomfield Granny pumps 6 hollow point bullets with her new Glock into her grandson.
Oakland County prosecutors rested their case Tuesday against a West Bloomfield grandmother accused of fatally shooting her grandson, but not before presenting a horrifying scene of the teenager staggering through her condo wounded as she continued to pull the trigger.
Jonathan Hoffman, 17, was bleeding on two floors as his grandmother Sandra Layne, using her newly purchased Glock, pumped six hollow point bullets into him, a bloodstain expert testified.
The defense will present its case today.
Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton, who showed large pictures of Layne's Brookview Lane condo to the jury, led Michigan State Police expert Guy Nutter through the scene Tuesday. He asked about blood in the upstairs loft, blood in the main floor master bedroom and blood in both bathrooms.
Prosecutors contend Layne, 75, shot Hoffman in his loft first and then went to the basement, where she left bloody footprints. Prosecutors say they believe Hoffman made his way down the stairs to the main floor, checked to see whether his grandmother's car was still in the garage and then went into the master bedroom to call for help. Layne shot him again there, prosecutors said.
Layne sat with her eyes closed as pictures of her home -- filled with family photos, houseplants, cozy rugs and knickknacks, some of them covered in blood -- were shown in Oakland County Circuit Court. She is charged with open murder in the May 18 shooting and could face life in prison if convicted.
Bloodstains on the floor and wall of a hallway leading from the master bedroom indicated a person was moving and bleeding heavily, Nutter testified. Swipes in those stains could indicate a second person was following the injured person. Prosecutors contend that was Layne following Hoffman back to the loft, where she shot him again.
Defense attorney Jerome Sabbota asked Nutter whether it was possible that police officers created the swipes in the fresh blood. Nutter said the blood would have begun to dry, making that scenario less likely.
Sabbota has argued that Layne, a retired schoolteacher and mother of five, was terrified of an increasingly violent teen with a drug problem. Hoffman was living with her to finish up high school after his parents, who were divorcing, moved to Arizona. Sabbota has argued that Layne was fending off an assault when she shot him.
"You can't rule out, based on your examination, that there was a struggle," Sabbota said to Nutter. Nutter said he could not.
In earlier testimony, a weapons expert said the bullets used in the shooting were hollow-point, jacketed 9mm. Such bullets are particularly deadly, State Police forensics expert Shawn Kolonich told jurors.
Layne bought the gun April 27, three weeks before Hoffman was killed.
Sabbota has said he plans to put Layne on the stand, likely today or Thursday.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130313/N … cutors-say
[According to LaPierre's theory, it was too bad the young lad wasn't packing so he could have protected himself.]
Must have really got your jollies with all this disgusting blood and gore...Now...I've got one for you...One of the US's most decorated military men, Manan Trivedi, stated in an interview, "Assault weapons are human killing machines."
One, two, three....the "ignernts" feast at the table of denial.
According to La Pierre, only the insane shoot people. La Pierre, the village idiot, with no real education and not much in the way of manhood? La Pierre who as NRA honcho in chief loves to thwart every attempt at gun control that is sane and rational all so the assault weapons can become the unapproved, unpaid government hating, president hating righties can strut around in public armed with their Bushmasters and AR15s to show everyone how "powerful" they are? What about being armed not being impressive don't the rednecks get?
Is everything in DogPatch a Hatfields and McCoys war? People who love war and destruction are mentally ill. These are the jerks who are born to violence, live by violence and get their jollies from blood running like rivers. Sickos.
You are one of those Left Wing anti gun nut cases that we have already understood. You can keep posting your nonsense until you turn blue in the face.
The fact still remains that people have the right to bear arms and protect themselves.
You can keep insisting your "right to bear arms" is going to allow you to walk around armed to the teeth on public streets until the rest of us demand an end to your "right to bear arms."
Stupids read the 2nd Amendment like they do the Bible down there in DogPatch. So, their version and interpretation is skewed in their favor.
Sorry, if I'm not impressed with the Confederate MY way or the Highway BS. You can keep your guns. I don't want to see them in schools. I don't want to see them on public streets or in shopping malls, churches or anywhere else. That's MY right. I want to live in a society where jerks don't have to show their butts by arming themselves with AR15s. No educated person is fooled by the "South Will Rise Again" anti-government, anti-president armed phony militia men and their penile implants they call guns. I have a right to post my opinion. If you don't like that opinion, your option is to stop reading them. My First Amendment Right gives the MY right to state my opinion. Your 2nd Amendment Right doesn't give you the right to tell any other adult what to do.
So, you demand my rights be revoked?
That's a two-way street, sister.
Pray tell me: just who is using the 2nd Amendment to tell you what to do?
Your rant reads like that of a spoiled brat.
You have a coherent argument? Let's hear it. Otherwise, quit drinking the Koolaide.
Tell me something Ewent, who said the following: "The two surest ways to insure government behaves itself are a free press and an armed populace." Look it up and get back to me.
"who said the following: 'The two surest ways to insure government behaves itself are a free press and an armed populace.'"
According to Google, no one.
Nobody is demading that "your rights be revoked." There is no Constitutional right to AR-15, big magazines, armor piercing bullets or straw purchases or no record keeping. These matters are all subject to federal and state legislation and perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
It's not very bright when you make the claim in a universal statement that you have a right to "own those things." You can also own a military tank, shoulder fired rockets. But you can't BUY them without a whole lot of hoop de doo can you? Get real. No one is prohibiting people who truly need guns. We are going to put a stop to lunatics who own guns and have anger management problems that exceed sanity. Your right to own a gun should be based on mental stability...not the need for a penile implant you call a gun just because you say you need "protection." I need protection from jerks who think they can bully me. But, I don't reach for a gun to do it. I slam them with truth that hurts them where I am certain it does the most good....in their wallets. Gun lovers who have no reason to own a gun other than they fear the government or the president are walking the thin line between sanity and insanity. It's called "paranoia."
Why do you keep posting Detroit News/Free press articles?
Ralph, all this shows me is that you can post articles. You can do this until you turn blue in the face and people will still buy guns no matter what.
I guess in the vain hope that some of you gun lovers will recognize that there's a problem and indicate some willingness to do something about it. That is, close a few of the loopholes in current regulations, consistent with the Second Amendment.
It's a pretty vain hope, all right, as there is no problem with guns as such. Just violent people, and your confiscation plans won't help that at all.
Come up with even possibilities to alter the violent nature of the American people and you'll find this "gun lover" jumping up on the bandwagon right beside you. Continue to take away personal rights for no gain but political and emotional good will and I'll stay on the ground, thanks.
Yes there is a problem..........
with people Ralph....people.
So, you want to do something about those bad guns but do nothing about those people who pull the trigger?
That's like limiting soda to 16 ounces or less in the hope that it will make people less obese. Maybe, just maybe, it's a bit more problematic than that. Perhaps the problem is with the color of the cans and the cups. We could make sure none of them look scary, or we could limit the amount of soda that comes out at one time. That should do the trick. If that doesn't work, we could simply stop selling sodas to all people who are obese or have ever been called obese by anyone who might be able to put those people on a list. We'll have a problem with sodas being sold by private venders though. I'll have to work on a solution for that. Rest assured, the answer is always with more government control and less personal freedom.
It's funny you bring that up....
Isn't it the GOP who are against background checks? Ya know, the thing that would indicate if a person shouldn't have a gun due to mental illness?
I am a conservative, and I am against further laws for gun control. Criminals seldom undergo background checks; few ill people are on a "list." Who would make this list? Should we put all of those Americans on the kill list on this list too?
Look, I'm not against background checks. I'm against additional regulations. We already have background checks that don't work. When somebody who isn't supposed to have a gun tries to get a gun, how often do you think they are prosecuted? Look at the numbers, and you'll see how great the background checks are working.
by Don Bobbitt12 months ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by Onusonus13 months ago
I've never owned a gun perivately But after reading this E-Mail, I'm considering it.A LITTLE GUN HISTORYIn 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend...
by Judy Specht3 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more:...
by My Esoteric8 months ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by safiq ali patel14 months ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?
by Right2BeHeard7 years ago
Why is it that republicans think that it's our right as Americans to have the right to own a gun but healthcare is a privilege? Do I have any less of a right to live a healthy life because I work for a company...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.