"FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!"
- Jonesy50posted 11 years ago
0I've seen the stories of how the anti-gun liberals are using the deaths of children to further their agenda. I've seen the stories of the anti-gun committee lead by the completely inept Uncle Joe Biden. I've seen the story about China calling for the disarming of Americans.
To the anti-gun liberals and the most inept government this country has ever known, I have only one thing to say.
"FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!"
To all the anti-gunners on this web site, click on the link and watch the video. It only takes a split second for a person's life to changed completely by a mad man. We saw that in Connecticut.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2012/ … liticians/
I will NOT give up my right to protect my family or myself without one hell of a fight. I will NOT give up my liberty and freedom to a bunch of liberals who are scared to death of their own shadows!
Thanks to some of the comments on this sight and the over reaching acts of my government, I'm now a renewed member of the NRA.
In the words of the late Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association:
"FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!"
Short Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4
Long Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odwInteresting. How many people would you kill to protect your automatic weapons?
See below, Mark, and please leave off these types of questions. It insults your intelligence and ours to ask such things.
I have one disagreement with this discussion. People have to ask questions. Like why does a normally straight thinking person sound like a rabid idiot .... "in my cold dead hands!" I mean like, what makes a person go Rambo.
C'mon, I joined the National Rifle Association at age 10. My father taught me to shoot at age 4. Together, they taught me respect for weapons and how to hit the target--any target. And I don't understand why a person is wailing about somebody coming to take their guns away. Nobody except paranoid people are talking about it in this kind of paranoid fashion.
All it is that people are discussing is whether manufacturers will continue to make or import 30 to 100 round clips and certain types of assault rifles. They're not talking about taking anything away, just stopping the manufacure of new ones.
As an NRA member I"m for some of this. In fact, until the 1986 bill was passed, a manufacturer in Florida made a small ... a 1/3 of the weight of a MAC 10 ... 50 round machine gun that fit one hand, fired 22 LRs without a kick, and was used by gangs to literally spray bullets.
I don't think idiots need those conceilable types of full autos. Yes, I think it's OK to buy the ones in existence--with a permit.
But if you're afraid of your own governemtn, then bring it on. Fat change you'll beat out the National Guard, the FBI, the Secret Service, or the 21 spy agencies. The issue is getting the facts and discussing this in a sane fashion so that people get what you're saying: you want to keep your guns. And that's great.PS: I regret the use of the word "idiot," I mean in no way to disparage the writer. I just had problems with the tone of the argument.
I watched the video and believe the woman makes and impressive argument. And I thank the writer for this lead. I'm am stunned, if it's true, that there is no conceieled weapons law in Texas that would allow that woman to carry a gun in her purse. Her story is tragic.
May father, who was a federally licensed weapons dealer, always carried semi-automatic weapon. So I was raised to believe that certain people with the know how and training should carry guns to help protect the public.>I don't think idiots need those conceilable
I always enjoys others who think they have rights to define my "needs"
>Fat change you'll beat out the National Guard, the FBI, the Secret Service
That's assuming all of those agencies have people who are willing (and able) to go against fellow Americans.What does the word 'conceilable' mean exactly?
First off, Doc, I don't own any automatic weapons. I own semi-automatic weapons - one trigger pull, one shot. I know with your described experience you know this. It's for the less knowledgeable amongst us.
Thank you your regrets on the use of the word "idiots." If, in fact, you are a NRA member, you should know, while there are less than stellar people who own guns, a majority of owners are law-abiding citizens, simply following their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
I will speak to the question of 'concealable' at least as it pertains to Tennessee, where I live. Tennessee is not a conceal state. I can carry my pistol in full view, for all to see. It's my understanding it was done this way so if a handgun carry permit (HCP) holder's weapon was seen from concealment by another person and they reported it, the HCP holder would not have broken any laws. They would have only made some bed wetter do so while standing in a Wal-Mart store or bank rather than the privacy of their own bed.
While concealment is not required in Tennessee, it is encouraged by HCP class instructors, LEOs, and most HCP holders. I do so to maintain the element of surprise and so not to freak out the afore mentioned bed wetters.
My opinion of the government trying to control guns is two fold.
1. I'm a Conservative in most my thinking. Not all but most. When it comes to guns, I definitely am. I don't trust Republican politicians any further than I can throw them so you know I in no way trust a liberal/Democrat one, especially not the present administration.
The 2nd Amendment is in place for self-protection from a tyrannical government, allowing us to 'keep and bear arms' for that very need, if necessary. IMHO, this administration is the most tyrannical we've ever had, causing the need for for the 2nd Amendment to be in place all the more.
Yes, I know there will be those who will disagree. Save it. I don't care.
2. If we give the government an inch, they'll take a mile. We see it with taxes all the time. These people work for you and I. I don't know how you handle employees you may have but mine do not tell me what to do. I'll listen to them but as the owner, I have the final say.
In this case, if the majority of their employers are telling them to shut up and sit down, that's what they should do or risk being unemployed. In my opinion, they all (Obama, House of Reps, and Senate) should be at this point."The 2nd Amendment is in place for self-protection from a tyrannical government, allowing us to 'keep and bear arms' for that very need, if necessary. IMHO, this administration is the most tyrannical we've ever had, causing the need for for the 2nd."
Good luck. The danger isn't from the government. It comes from the banksters, polluters, big drug companies, health care insurance parasites, for profit hospitals and doctors and evil men like the Koch brothers and their dupes. The idea that you can protect yourself from the government with guns is just plain silly."The idea that you can protect yourself from the government with guns is just plain silly."
On the surface, you are entirely correct. The Government would have better weapons by far. An armed citizenry however, makes the idea of attempting to implement a tyrannical Government a long and drawn out battle. They would not go as sheep to the slaughter. It would not be a quiet affair, able to be covered up and swept under the rug.Ralph is assuming our soldiers would follow the orders to attack their own people.
Liberals like to envision all the conservatives and anyone else that doesn't agree with them being rounded up and shot. Sooner or later, the guns would be turned on them as well. Some are just unable to realize that.
Spoken like a true liberal, Ralph.
Obviously, we have different views on who the bad guy is. I don't consider the government the supplier of all I need like liberals do.
If you were to open a business, Ralph, would be to give things away or for profit?
Keep your money in your mattress, wear a surgical mask, don't ever take so much as an aspirin, don't ever get sick, and don't look for a doctor. As for the Koch brothers, I wouldn't have a problem in the world being as rich as them.
I do know I won't go willingly like the liberal zombies have to the kool-aide trough.
You have a good day now.
Greetings Mark,
I'm just using your "... protect your automatic weapons..." comment as an opening to offer what I hope is a little clarity.
ie.
civilian Ar-15 type "assault" rifles are the icon of the anti-gun folks, (and anti-assault weapon folks) -
but that is only because of their menacing appearance, they are not automatic constant-fire assault weapons.
the weapons we see in news broadcasts - THE ASSAULT weapon - the AR-15, AK-47, etc, actually have the same semi-automatic firing rate as the typical semi-automatic .22 cal that most hunting fathers teach their kids with.
There are no legal automatic weapons available to the public.
Any semi-automatic rifle - including tame-looking hunting rifles, can fire just as fast, and do just as much damage as those evil assault rifles everyone is being pointed to.
I think the hysteria to ban "assault" rifles is the product of two types of folks:
1) anti-gun advocates that know the difference - but have an agenda
2) folks that don't understand the difference between semi and automatic firing rates, see the horror of the tragedy, and are misled by #1
So, honest anti-gun advocates should be promoting the ban of ALL semi-automatic weapons - pistols included - not just the "mean-looking" Ar-15s
Other than it's "macho" image, I don't see a benefit of owning one of them. I prefer a well-crafted hunting rifle instead.
GAGA Anderson - Here is an interesting side note to the conversation. I have a marlin .22 cal semi automatic rifle made in the 1970s. It hold 17 rounds. Under the new assault weapons laws it can only hold 10 rounds and be legal.
Thanks, your anecdote illustrates my point.
And as an example of the "it's a small world" adage - I had a Remington .22 as a kid, I think it and the Marlin were clones. So I know what you mean about the 17-round tube-load. (for folks unfamiliar with this gun - it did not use a clip - it used a feed tube nestled under the barrel)
I used mine for target practice and squirrel hunting,
but now I guess it's an illegal assault weapon.
same caliber, same firing rate, but 3 more rounds in clip - 20 vs. 17
ps. - but a lot less accurate
GAOh Lord!!
Killing squirrels for fun?
Such an ad nausea details about a gun?
What kind of child were you?
That's the way serial killers are made.
Have you the same knowledge of the history of
your country?? Or the periodic table of elements?
The mass and location of planets in our solar system?
The GNP of the UK and Australia??
Clips,firing rates and calibers??? OMG!!
Ask any 6th. grader in most countries of our planet and they
most certainly know.
But calibers,clips,rounds and firing rate???
You are the poster child against gun owning!!
No wonder America is number 23 worldwide
in education and knowledge....LOL, I said squirrel hunting - we ate what we bagged.
Yes, hunting was/is fun - as in enjoyable, but that's not the same as going out to shoot them like paper targets just for the fun of killing.
Ah, you know me so well...
ps. "an" indicates a singular, whereas "details" indicates a plural, do your 6th graders skip grammar lessons to double-up on a science or economics class? just saying...
Yes, I know a lot about my country's history...
No, I can't name the elements of the periodic table, by heart, but I know what it is and can research any specific data I need.
As for the planet questions - ditto above...
And the GNP questions - ditto the ditto...
Obviously you will tell me you do know those facts by heart - well, when is the last time that knowledge was useful to you in your everyday life - oops, you mean you really are a chemist, metallurgist, cosmologist, hang-on, I'll guess right in a minute...
I'm impressed if the 6th graders you know can recite the answers to your questions without looking them up....
Good thing I'm not in the sixth grade anymore - I'd be in the dummies class (there's an open door for you)
err... well I do know what those mean, and I would recognize specific ones mentioned, but I don't know specific firing rates, or clip capacities, but, once again, If I needed more specific data - I can look it up.
I know, I know. Maybe if I studied hard, and from the right teachers, (like you), I could lurn to be a more enlightened person.
GAGA.
Now that's a good heartened and illuminating post!!
LOLOL...I'm sorry about my grammatical errors but
I do not speak nor write English as such.
I do speak 6 other languages but my poor knowledge of
English comes only from watching the BBC and Bloomberg's
channels on TV.( Besides using Google Translate a lot...)
I wrongly understood that "AN" precedes a word that starts with
a vowel and also,like you said,to point out a singular.
When did all my useless knowledge I used last?
Hard to say but I imagine my entire life...
I hate to admit it but I must agree with most of your posting.
I was always the 'weird" nerd with the thick glasses surrounded
by huge books,statistic,percentages and strange formulas... and
I was been ignored by most of my "cool" schoolmates.
If you want to know my credentials??,please,look at my bio.
I could give you besides that, a link to the UN,UNESCO or UNICEF
I'm not much but whatever I'm I did it by myself.
I know..I know...May be I studied too hard and forgot to have
fun like you did???
I'm sure you were the "in crowd" or "cool jock" very popular
guy in school..
Mmmm...thanks for the post.
It made me think a lot...
I think I'm been misinterpreted by most and misunderstood
by all so this will be my last posting GA....
:-)
Farewell GA!! ( Smart dude...)Hmmmm...
I did look at your bio. In it you said you spoke 4 languages;
I speak 4 languages and have a PHD in Quantum Physics and Mathematics .
I was born in Romania but I'm actually living in Venice,Italy with my mother and twin brother or
in New York for work reasons.
Now in this post you say you speak 7 (6 other than English?) languages...
No wonder Mensa wants you - you have apparently learned 3 new languages in the 29 hours since you registered here.
I have this feeling of Deja Vu.... Wasn't that, "misunderstood
by all so this will be my last posting..." parting shot the same one Sophia A. ussed in her last forum thread?
GAI have no idea whom that Sofia person is nor
I care what you think.
Yes I speak 4 languages and 3 dialects.
Your hatred is so obvious!!GA....tsk tsk
...and just a minute ago you were so enlightened, funny and a smart dude!
Either way, it wasn't the last post anyway.
Not being a scientist and knowing a couple extremely basic features of items you own is not an argument for ignorance. And then having your intelligence compared to that of a hypothetical sixth grader is nothing but insulting. Clearly not a coherent defense of anti-gun advocacy.
Archie Bunker was not a 6th grader. He never got that far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … LjNJI54GMM
America is behind in education for many different reasons, least of which is our enthusiasm for freedom and gun rights. I don't know how they teach government in Europe (in America's almost 250 years, we've had one civil war. How many civil wars have the countries of Europe had? I seem to recall revolutions all throughout Europe at the beginning of the century, not to mention the many genocides, and the various groups of government enforcement which have literally commit some of the most heinous crimes that this world has ever seen), but here in America, we respect the freedom of the individual, and although (often times through illegal means) we have tragic incidents of violence with the use of guns, we are not so easily fooled by (though that is fading) politicians sensationalizing these tragedies for political gain and public subservience. In addition, if you think guns are at the heart of such violence, I'd like you to explain to me how such tragedies that we see today are seen throughout all of history, even without guns? How many mass murders have (and still do) use knives to carry out the impulses of their mental illness? Guns, in fact, are a means by which old people, young women, and unaware victims can even the odds against the cold criminals that set out to kill them. Automatic firearms are illegal, and semi-automatic weapons are only dangerous in the hands of the mentally ill, whom either steal them in the first place, or whose issues are ignored and are left to their own sinister devices. Taking away guns will not stop a murderer. That argument is empty and used only as a device to overwhelm people with emotion enough to prevent them from recognizing the gross invasion of their rights that anti-gun activists so desperately desire.
Please to use proper Latin. The phrase is "Ad nauseam" and of course, your abysmal grammar does nothing to further your point.
Keep debating, world, eventually someone will take notice.
Very well put, I wish more people understood this. But I guess the masses are the masses for a reason...
TOO MANY GUNS IN THE USA. TOO MANY IDIOTS WHO EITHER OWN THEM OR HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THEM BECAUSE OF OTHERS WHO OWN THEM!
12-21-12
http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-woma … 09136.html
12-21-12
http://now.msn.com/teen-shoots-and-kill … l-argument
12-11-12
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-mall-sh … d=17939128
9-27-12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/3 … 26843.html
8-14-12
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/justice/t … index.html
8-5-12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 … 68229.html
7-20-12
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … n/1627229/
7-9-2012
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/0 … ournament/
5-29-12
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ … ki01m.html
We have a problem here in the USA! This is not just about mentally ill people either. I am not against the second amendment but I really have to wonder when it ends? If nothing else.....as responsible gun owners, keep your dang guns locked up tight so those who would commit such atrocities will not be using your gun to do it!"In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:"
"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."
"Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
source: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/ … and-brits/
Criminals will find guns. Period. Gun laws only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Now, that said, I do support required background checks, to include criminal and mental health issues. For everyone. No more loopholes for online purchasing and private sales.Thanks for taking the time to actually look at some of the information available, and provide some alternative information.
I've fact checked some of the claims made in the blog you link to, which cites the DC Examiner as the source. Here's what I found:
Claim 1: "In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime"
The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BSCR) covers New South Wales, a religion of Australia, but not all of Australia. I can find no such acknowledgement from 2002. I did find a press release from June 6 2001 which says:
"Homicides and robberies with firearms have declined over the last few years in New South Wales but non-fatal shooting offences have increased."
Rather than suggest no correlation between gun control and gun violence, that press release went on to suggest legislation was not tight enough:
"However some legal loopholes have become apparent which make it possible to obtain or create a firearm without having to register it. The new firearm legislation presently under consideration by the NSW Parliament is designed to close these loopholes. For this reason it is an important further step in preventing firearm violence in New South Wales."
Conclusion: Far from suggesting no correlation, the BSCR explicitly state that legislation is important in preventing firearm violence.
Claim 2: ". . . the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent) . . ."
I found no information indicating that. However according to BSCR press releases from 2006 and 2011:
"The number of incidents involving a firearm declined (48% between 1995 and 2011). Robbery involving a firearm decreased (51%, 1995-2011) and unlawfully discharge firearm decreased (24%, 1995-2011)."
The BSCR also stated that a total of 29 people were victims of murder involving a firearm in 1995. In 2011 the figure was 11. And:
"The total number of criminal incidents involving a firearm in NSW is now about 44 per cent lower than its peak in 1997"
And:
"Robberies with a firearm have shown the most spectacular decline. The incidence of this offence peaked in 1997, when police recorded over 1,200 offences. Last year, NSW Police recorded fewer than 500 robberies involving firearms."
Conclusion: I can not determine whether or not murders were 16.3% (of what!?) in 2006, as the original reference was not specific, but most evidence indicates that the rate of crimes committed with firearms in this region of Australia, including homicides, have drastically reduced since 1995.
Claim 3: "The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime . . ." etc.
Data from the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) is not categorised into violent, non violent crimes. Instead the survey distinguishes between "contact" crimes and "non contact" crimes. There are three contact crimes in the survey: robbery, sexual incidents, and assaults & threats. No country in any year of the survey (1988, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004) has ever reported a crime level of 26% for any type of crime. 2006 data published in 2008 is not publicly available. So it is not clear what the claim about "violent crime" is based on.
However, if you calculate the correlation between gun ownership levels (not included in the survey) and the crime data, averaged over each of the 5 years, the data for these three crimes indicates:
Robberies: No significant correlation between levels of gun ownership and prevalence of robbery victimisation.
Sexual Incidents: Positive correlation (strong) between levels of gun ownership and prevalence of sexual incident victimisation.
Assaults & Threats: Positive correlation (weak) between levels of gun ownership and prevalence of assault & threat victimisation.
Correlation does not prove a causal relationship, so caution should be taken when assigning a cause, but it can serve as an indicator.
Note: The correlation coefficient was calculated using covariance(x,y) / [Sqrt(Variance(x)) * Sqrt(Variance(y))]
Claim 4: "Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates"
Despite a falling homicide rate, the reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown almost 50%, and the U.S. consistently maintains the highest homicide rate among developed nations. You are still at least 3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than in other developed nations.
Conclusion: Red herring
Summary:
I could not substantiate a single claim made by this blog. The exact reference material it uses is not cited. Accessing the main source, I could not find any data that matched the data presented. I would therefore categorise this information as unreliable.
Sources:
2001 Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Press Release (pdf)
2006 Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Press Release (pdf)
Criminal offences involving firearms in New South Wales, 1995-2011
International Crime Victim Survey 2004/2005
Crime in the United States (FBI)
In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun ViolenceI wonder how many children accidentally kill themselves with guns when none are around, my bet is zero! The USA averages around 3000 per year, that's just accidents with children.
It's not just mass shooting sprees that bothers peop-le who want more gun control. No matter how you look at it, something has to be done.But in the mind of a liberal, it never hurts to have the deaths of 20 children to help further their political agenda, does it, Dreamer?
Something needs to be done, alright. People need to stop fearing inanimate objects that they don't understand.Interesting, over 3,500 people in the US accidentally drown each year, according to the US government. Maybe we should take away water?
Afterall, of all accidental deaths among infants aged 1-4, about a third of them were drowning. How can these barbaric, redneck Americans tolerate having so much water around?!
Or maybe the problem is shitty parents... hm! Maybe instead of wasting our time trying to take away the rights of all, we should teach parents to watch after their kids. Almost a good argument, though!So we shouldn't regulate one thing that causes deaths because other things cause death too?
You do realize that's like saying that murders shouldn't go to jail because heart attacks kill people too?
I wonder how many kids accidentally kill themselves by jumping out of a tree, a swing, or the roof of a house because they want to be able to parachute with a blanket.
If kids are killing each other in mass numbers with guns then maybe we should make it illegal for kids to own firear... oh wait.. kids can't own firearms. In some areas they can own a hunting rifle at 16 or so, but that's about it. Kids playing with guns isn't a reason to ban guns. It's a reason to imprison parents for neglicent homicide due to leaving their firearms out where curious hands can find them.
A real pleasure to read such an intelligent well thought out comment.
Common sense like yours in the USA is not that common.
There is no place in the XXI Century for those nonsense
"amendments" people hide behind. That antiquated and obsolete XVIII Century idea give people the right to destroy lives just because the law says you can..
What other purpose have guns but kill??
America better wake up and realize it has a huge problem.Excuse me, but nonsense "amendments"?! Do you have any idea how much the Founding Fathers and the patriots fought and died to erect a republic in which people would no longer have to fear the government? Something that history has so rarely seen? That nonsense "amendment" ensured that the people whom which the government serve can protect themselves from said government if it were to become tyrannical. Do you think we're safe from that? Do you have any idea how quickly governments can turn on their people, even after being rectified by those very same people? America better wake up and realize that just because the rest of the world wants to bow to their government doesn't mean that we should.
The Swiss, who are the most heavily armed society in the world today--virtually every house has a man serving in the militia and thus an assault rifle--crime is unheard-of, because their careers would be very short, if they were to encounter a man with a gun. Gunmen would be much less willing to fire into a crowd if they thought there would be return fire. Sure, there will still be a few, just as there are a few morons who continue to be criminals in Switzerland. But the advantage there would be that they could not be serial killers, because in the first two atrocities they committed there would be one man who shot them dead. And I am sure that if you were in that crowd, you would be thankful and not care about gun control, because now you are alive, and had he/she not had that gun, you would be dead. Think it over, and when you have any logic in your vacant crania, come back and talk to me.
Yep... and each and every citizen is required to be trained sufficiently in their use... at 18 they are whisked away for MANDATORY training. It is lengthy too. If you want that then I'm all behind it... Every single person...whether they want it or not...
You support that?Sounds like Archie Bunker to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMMI support that MelissaBarrett but then I volunteered to join the Army so my opinion is a bit biased.
Nobody has automatic weapons in the USA except the military and the Mexican drug cartels the government sold automatic weapons to....tard.
So - how many would you kill to keep your semi automatic weapons?
lol Nice choice of wording. No one is "protecting" a weapon. They are protecting their right under the 2nd Amendment.
So, they are protecting their right to own a weapon with a weapon, but they are not protecting the weapon. That's a nice spin!
Yep. Just as nice a spin as the newspaper who thought it would be cool to put in print the name and address of every gun owner in their county. Complete with google maps. Attached to an article that infers they are "dangerous". Then when they got some backlash, they hired armed guards. lol
Here's the thing. We can go round and round here no doubt. Most have no issue with military grade weapons not being owned by the general public. Most have no issue with mandatory background checks (including mental health checks) and a waiting period before purchasing a gun.
The point (and it has come out in this thread in spades) is that is never enough. All proposed legislation does not offer any specific definition and leaves it open ended, not for Congressional action, but for the Attorney General to decide what guns are added later, at his/her discretion. THAT is the problem. You give an inch and they want a mile. So you don't give that inch and you wind up with a stand off. There are reasonable people, sure, who have no intention of it becoming the eradication of the 2nd Amendment. But that just is not the case, nor the practice. Show me a reasonable gun control law, that limits the wholesale addition of more weapons at the discretion of one person, with a specific definition of what is covered, and I'd bet my last dollar you could get it passed.So, they are protecting their right to own a weapon with discourse, but they are not protecting the weapon.
Fixed that for you.
Sorry - how many people are you prepared to kill to keep your LAWL 2nd amendment right to carry a semi automatic weapon?
How many is your side willing to kill to take our 2nd Amendment rights given to us by the Constitution, Mark?
Once they take our guns, what rights that you hold the dearest are you willing to give up?What is a semi-automatic weapon to you? I was under the impression that a semi-automatic weapon was simply one that auto-loads the chamber so that you can fire off a round with each squeeze of the trigger instead of having to cock and load repeatedly or stuff powder down a tube. Almost every single weapon in the US is semi-automatic. Hunting rifles, handguns, some shotguns, they are NOT machine guns in the way people think. You can't 'Pray and Spray". with a semi-automatic. You have to pull the trigger each and every time the weapon is fired. A true military grade weapon is either full-automatic (constant stream of fire while the trigger is depressed) or burst weapons that fire 3-5 rounds, typically 3 rounds. Burst weapons are usually far more favorable because full-automatic weapons are primarily for suppressive fire and anti-vehicle assault due to the high-rate of fire.
Unless you want everyone to go back to the days of muskets and having to manually load the chamber with each firing then get used to semi-automatic weapons.Sorry - did not answer my question. Please answer my question and I will gladly answer yours.
What sort of a question is it really, Mark? You act like all the advocates of the 2nd Amendment are lined up with loaded weapons, just itching to pull the trigger. Of course, that seems to be exactly what you believe. That every gun owner can't wait to have the opportunity to shoot at someone.
I find it a little ironic that one of the very things the 2nd Amendment was to prevent is what is being advocated. I mean, who is it you think will be sent to collect those guns if you ban them?Odd - You have once again not answered my question. Why not?
Odd. You're not answering any either. Why not?
lol Europe? Get outta here! No wonder your comments reflect the attitude that we're all just gun toting killing machines.Gosh - I must have really frightened you with that question. OK - sorry. Guess you are not as Sassy as you would like to be.
Well, to be fair, it wasn't asked of me. It was asked of Jonesy. I was trying to get you to answer a question. Guess I scared you.
Sorry - I thought you were the same person using different Fake user names. Good job on not answering the question. Still - as you have decided that because I am not currently in the USA, I cannot have an opinion, I find it odd how reticent you are.
Sassy huh?
Nothing about Europe scares me, Mark, least of all the people. I dare say that would probably go for Sassy as well but she's more than capable of speaking for herself.
This will conclude my portion of the European, non- sense of the American Second Amendment discussion.
You have a nice day, now, Mark.
Bless his heart.Oh you are absolutely entitled to an opinion. I only ask that you are honest about where you are coming from with it. It would have been simple to say...I don't know...here we had this ban in 1998 and x was the result. Except, I happen to know that things didn't quite work out the way that was expected with that ban. So I guess that is why you failed to mention that your opinion is driven mostly by media, and not by any actual first hand knowledge of our country's perspective or situation. Which is alright, as long as you're honest about that.
Bless your heart. You may want to stick with just insulting me, Mark. Sassy just might eat your lunch for you.
I don't recall insulting you. I just asked you a question which you avoided. You are very brave though. I am well impressed with your bravery. It takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there the way you do.
LAWL!Bless your heart, Mark, your opinions simply aren't worth my time. The voice of an "European" doesn't mean a thing to me.
You have a good evening though.How brave you are. You have a good evening also. Thanks for validating the idea that some people aught not to have access to firearms.
So very, very brave to do as you do. Out there like that. Showing your real name and what not. Brave. Like an Eagle Soaring.
- You have a nice evening, Mark. Get some rest. You're getting a little cranky. Now, off to bed with you.
Bless your little heart.
Ahhh, never mind. You're in Europe so you opinion of our Second Amendment doesn't matter.
You have a nice day, Mark.Ahhhh, but it does. Let's look how Europe handles guns and what their gun related deaths stats are?
Last I checked
America +10 for every 100,000
Britain -.05 for every 100,000
Maybe we can learn something from Mark. Now answer his question so we can move on.I doubt very seriously we could learn anything from Mark or Europe but Delta is ready when you are.
I, personally, couldn't care less how they handle things, Rad.Really Rad? Why is then that Washington, D.C. (the strongest gun control laws in the country) has the highest gun related deaths? If it works so well, what's up?
All statistics are skewed from both sides. Other countries do not report the same way nor count crime statistics the same way as here. There is absolutely no reliable data, to support either argument. You see, for statistic you cite, I can cite one with the opposite data.
Odd that we're supposed to answer questions, but he doesn't have to. How fair minded of you.
After the ban of 1998 in the UK:
"The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."You must be kidding right. Washington, D.C. is kind of surrounded by less than strong gun control. There are no boarder checks. Canada and Mexico have boarder checks, but the guns get through anyway. Canada has much stronger gun control laws and Canada's gun related are about half of America's. A lot of Canadian's never lock their doors. Canada and America are very similar in most ways, yet Canada's gun related death are half of America's despite the world longest unguarded boarder.
Is it just possible that this has something to with it? An interesting video of celebrities, all somber and dressed in black, promoting gun control, followed by their movie clips.
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/mashup-o … creen.html
Just possibly it isn't guns at all, but a cultural infatuation with violence?Fair enough, let's just say this boy has no access to guns of any kind, so he goes and get's a butcher knife. Kills him mom and runs to the school. Walks in and a teacher see's him and he kills her. Do you think he'll be able two kill two classrooms full of students before two or three teachers jump on him? No, this kid used an assault rifle. They aren't used for hunting or target practice. A hand gun is one thing and a assault rifle is another.
How about you, Rad? Can you define what an "assault rifle" is? No one else seems to have any idea beyond it's black and scary looking. Actual capabilities, caliber or magazine capacity seems to escape general knowledge. Can you elucidate here?
An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine and is a standard military rifle.
What is your point? Does it matter what the knowledge of the weapon is or does it make you feel superior over others who don't know the answers.The point is that while "assault rifles" are legal they are very rare and it is even rarer to find them used in a homicide if it is legally owned. Off hand I can't think of even one example.
Assault rifles used in killings, then, are already illegally owned; what would be the point of banning them? What good would additional laws do?Oh? Where was that? Certainly not Sandy Hook elementary.
As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.
Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine
Type Assault rifle
Place of origin United States
Service history
Used by Over 60 nations
Wars War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
War in Iraq (2003-2010)
War in South Ossetia (2008)
Production history
Manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms International
Variants M4A2, M4A3, M4 Post-Ban
Specifications
Weight 2.82 kg (6.22 lb) empty
Length 882.7 mm (34.75 in) (stock extended)
Barrel length 406.4 mm (16 in)
Cartridge .223 Remington
5.56x45mm NATO
6.8 mm Remington SPC
7.62×39mm
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire Semi-automatic
(700–950 round/min for fully automatic model)
Feed system Various STANAG Magazines.
Standard with:
30 rounds (5.56x45 mm NATO)
26 rounds(6.8 mm Remington SPC)
26 rounds (7.62 x 39mm)
Sights Adjustable front and rear iYou say there are millions of AR-15 civilian rifles in the country and then provide information on a military issue only M4, indicating that it is an "assault" rifle.
What is your point? The AR15 is NOT an assault rifle by your definition (no automatic fire and designed for civilian use only, not military) and it is very difficult and expensive to make it into one. Or is it your claim that M4's are being used for mass killings? Sandy Hook was accomplished with an AR15, not an M4 - have you other examples of the M4 being used?I'm no expert, as a matter of fact I know nothing of guns, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook … l_shooting
At about 9:35 a.m., using his mother's Bushmaster XM-15, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school.
Perhaps you have some information I do not?From wikipedia on the XM-15:
"The M4 Type Carbine is a reproduction of the Colt M4 Carbine, but is usually only semi-automatic for legality within the U.S. civilian market. However, it can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability". Unless stolen from the military or cops it is not an assault weapon, being only semi-automatic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_automatic
Again, why ban automatic weapons? They aren't used in mass (or any other) killings, unless they are stolen, whereupon they are already banned.Then why SHOULDN'T we ban them? If no one owns them legally anyway isn't the whole argument a bit silly? Banning won't really endanger anyone's rights if no one owns them anyway.
You misunderstand, Melissa; there are, apparently, gun collectors in the country that do legally own them. The thing is, they aren't the ones doing the killings; that comes from other, illegal owners, that have smuggled them in from Mexico or somewhere.
It is already illegal for them to have them, and another ban won't change that. It will only take those guns from collectors that would never use them.Well... and correct me if I'm wrong... but the 2nd amendment doesn't say that it protects the right to own guns because they look pretty. While I might get behind the right to own a gun for self-protection and possibly even for hunting... to use the "collectors" argument as being covered by the 2nd amendment is kinda stretching the bounds a bit. I don't think the constitution was ever meant to protect anyone's right to collect stuff.
I agree, but why deny someone something they want if it causes no harm? That's my point - those few full automatics owned by collectors are not going to kill anyone, so I can't find a real reason (outside of the "I hate all guns") to take away that little freedom.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.
The concept is there whether it is words or guns. Without cause for removal, those guns can remain where they are.And now we are arguing in a circle... Because the potential for them to do harm is greater-in my opinion-than the privilege of having a pretty toy.
You say they'll never be used... unless one of the gun owner's kids decides to shoot up a school. Unless someone breaks in and steals it... unless the owner has a break and decides to go to a mall... unless... unless... unless...
So like I said before- and why we will argue about the collectors issue in a circle- is that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect guns for pleasure. There are lots of things that are against the law to collect for public safety reasons.True. It becomes a matter of "measuring" potential damage, and that is completely subjective. I definitely find the potential there, but it has been used so very seldom in our history that it becomes inconsequential. IMHO anyway - you obviously feel differently.
But where do you draw the line? High power, high speed cars? Private planes? Large kitchen knives? Crossbows? Antique swords? All have potential for damage, none are necessary, but very few are ever used for that purpose. So what's the difference? Just that gun collectors are a very small, powerless group stuck in the middle of an emotional argument?
Okay, so "unless they are stolen" is acceptable to you? The fact that these gun can are are stolen is the reason they are used. In this case (which ever version was used) it was stolen and used. I was unable to find out which version was used to kill all those children.
I could not find out either, but according to wiki it is very difficult to turn the civilian version into a full automatic. Also, I rather think that if it was a full automatic we would have heard that and very loudly.
There is another option beyond stealing, though - it could have been smuggled in. I doubt it; it is American made I think, but it is possible.
If automatic and stolen, though, from where? Military, cops or the very rare collector that has a fully automatic version. All take very good care of the weapons, but all are at least faintly possible. Don't forget that it belonged, legally or not, to the boys mother.
Far more likely it was the simple semi-automatic version, and banning assault weapons would not have made any difference. Back to square one; banning privately owned military style automatic weapons (assault rifles) would not have changed anything.
Odd thing about Canada. I mean, seriously. I go to check facts on them and everything is outdated. All I can find are vague references to 2011 data and even that is not specific or verified. Hmmm...but anyway, everything that goes wrong in Canada is the fault of the US. We've been hearing that forever.
Rad, how do you know what their death rate is?
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canadal
last reporting date: 2009
then there is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … te_note-13
it claims 2011 data but when you go to that data it is from 2004!
I was excited to find the following article...until I found out it just goes back to the wiki one!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-wom … 26155.html
I do know for a fact that in only one area of Canada (surrey I believe) they've started 2013 already with six shootings/deaths. I can get that much from Google anyway.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
2009 USA firearm-related death = 10.2 per 100,000
2011 Canada firearm-related death = 2.13 per 100,000
2011 United kingdom firearm-related death = 0.25 per 100,000
http://www.gunpolicy.org
2009 Canada gun homicides = 0.5 per 100,000
2009 USA gun homicides = 2.98 per 100,000
2009 United Kingdom gun homicides = 0.03 per 100,000
We can't argue with numbers. Do you think we can learn something?
The wiki link is concocted with all sorts of numbers. Just check the actual data sources. That is the one using some numbers from 2004.
I've seen the other site before. I already checked that data against actual data coming out of the countries listed themselves (where it was available). It is an opinion site skewing data. I think I've broken that down in another response before. That is what I mean when I talk about statistics. You can't just find a chart and say "oh look!". You have to take a look at sources, dates, comparative data etc. I've found the same is true of information coming from the gun lobby.
Which was my point.
It's interesting that the UK has a study claiming a massive increase in handgun related crime, yet, it is not considered nor calculated in this data.
There is no reliable data to support either argument. However, as I've stated before, most people support lengthening waiting periods, mandatory background checks (no more loopholes for private and online sales), even a ban on military grade weapons. Just not an open ended one that can add any gun of choice without Congressional action.
That is what leaves me confused. Why, if the agenda is NOT to eradicate the 2nd Amendment, can't those things be accomplished? Why does the gun control side insist on vague descriptions and open ended additions of any guns?No, I only accept accurate data of which none of that fits the definition. When one is comparing 2012 numbers from here, 2009 numbers from here, 2004 numbers from here, that is not accurate. I'm certain you can find someone who will blindly accept some cherry picked numbers placed into a chart by a blogger with a certain agenda as accurate and factual. Sorry if it is inconvenient that I actually keep clicking and discover from where those numbers are being taken.
I see you ignored the question though."Why don't we ban semi's." ....
........
A semi-automatic weapon is nothing more than a weapon that auto-chambers a round. You have to pull the trigger each and every time to fire it. You use it for hunting because it is simple and efficient. You use it for self-defense because you don't want to be the guy/girl who has to manually chamber a round each and every time you fire during a live or die situation.
In the army we almost never trained with burst fire or full auto. We always left it on semi-automatic because burst and automatic ate up ammunition and made it very difficult to hit a moving target accurately do to the way it causing the barrel to shift with each shot fired. Burst and full-auto are only really used for suppressing the movements and assault by the enemy so that squad members can move into better positions to get a real chance at hitting the enemy.
A semi-automatic weapon is more than capable of being effective compared to a non-crew weapon of the modern military that is used by a standard infantryman. They lose the suppression fire capacity of burst and auto but they retain the accurate fire capabilities that allow for proper use in a well-regulated militia as per the 2nd amendment. Remove semi-automatic weapons and you remove the capacity of the average citizen to take up arms and defend their state and country at need.
Most firearms held during the time that document were drawn up were self-owned by the citizens. It was with self-owned weapons in mind that it was made, and citizens need to have weapons that can be useful in defense of home and country.
We don't need missiles, or what have you as private citizens, but to be properly effective emergency infantrymen/militiamen/minutemen we DO need semi-automatic weapons in order to be useful in the modern combat environment should it come down to that.
The conversation about gun control should not be about banning or restricting necessary weapons technology and capacity. It should be about properly regulating the capabilities of the citizen soldier as a means of making certain that they can both effectively and safely utilize their needed weaponry WITHOUT turning into psychotic douchebags. Fix the part that is broken, the one wielding the weapon, not the part that is whole and necessary.
Let me say this: if they were all as bigoted and senseless as you clearly are, I would consider each a necessary loss. I would regret the necessity of what I was doing, just as our soldiers do every day they go into battle, but like them, I would follow through.
And I am not proud to share any part of my name with you, Knowless.
I'll be the first to step up and answer your question for you Mark. I am not a gun owner period, only because I live in a dangerous city, and I would use it. In protection of my rights to own a gun I personally would kill as many tyrants, and lunatics who want to infringe on my rights as it takes. So in your mindset the government and police can protect us just fine...correct? The only question I have for you is if guns were outlawed, who will protect us from the government, and police?
While waiting for the police when someone was kicking down his door, would Mark think:
a. If I had a gun, I could protect myself and my family.
b. Is my life insurance paid up because this is going to end well.
or
c. Surely, the police will get here in next few seconds and arrests this horrible, horrible criminal.
Mark, semi-automatic rifles include hunting rifles. Are you saying it should be illegal to hunt?
True. But a semi-automatic rifle with a big magazine is sufficient to knock off a lot of people in a short time.
So is two semi-automatic rifles with small magazines. Or better yet, an illegal gun! If you want people to stop killing, taking away guns won't do it.
Clear evidence is that it would slow them down a bit.
Post here with links to scientific studies that prove your evidence, and I will link mine below. Then we may have a scholarly debate in the manner that the Greeks used to define which peoples were civilized or not, and then we will see what we end up with. Sound fair?
Source 1: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
I would like you to read this and reply with a source for rebuttal.Here's a good recent article by Elizabeth Rosenthal in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunda … lling.html
As you may know Stossel is a libertarian reporter for Fox News.
Perhaps I overstated when I said "clear evidence" and should have just said "common sense" should tell you that assault weapons and pistols with high capacity magazines can kill more people in a short period of time than ordinary hand guns or hunting rifles.
Are you a subscriber to Archie Bunker's gun control recommendations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMMYes, but the laws we are discussing here do not distinguish between the two, even though you and I know--me from some experience, don't know about you--that these are not the same thing. The former type are not nearly as available except on the black market, which means that owning one is a likely sign of being a criminal. The other ones, the ones that I believe the government should not have the right to take away, are not as effective in starting a rampage, which is fine, since I do not want to start one. However, they are just as effective at stopping one, since one bullet in the arm or torso or head of the perp is going to make them just as dead/maimed as 20.
Another thought to consider: we think that armed weirdos coming into our house to tell us what we can/can't do is wrong; so why is it perfectly fine when a man with a badge (which, by the way, is ridiculously easy to fake) comes to the door and does the same in the name of "safety" and "law and order"? I agree that cops should be armed, because their job is a dangerous one; however, I also believe that these cops, who are only human, after all, should have to have a search warrant before they can force their way into a private residence.
Additionally, the Second Amendment is designed to protect people from the government, should anything go wrong in the system. Why would you eliminate the best safeguard against tyranny? It has been stated that only tyrants fear the people; since our current government fears the people (or at least appears to), are they tyrants?
Just a few tidbits to think over.
What if they have a sling that makes it easy to switch weapons? Or they have extra clips attached to the gun so they can switch clips quickly?
You can try all you want to stop people from being violent, but you're never going to be able to. Before they had guns, mass murderers used knives. Imagine if they banned knives.
Excellent point mark.
Great question.
Never give up Mark!!
Someday they might see the light.The wonderful thing about democracy is that you don't have to kill people to defend your rights, you merely need to speak up. I know, I know, in Europe when you have your basic rights violated you either roll over or resort to revolution, but here in America we at least try to defend ourselves from our government. That's probably why Europe followed our lead...
I'm sure the pro-gun lobby would only murder the people they regard as criminals Mark.
Thanks, Sarra. Don't let people like Mark harass you with leading, insulting questions. Just click more then report and go from there.
You think anyone will take any notice of a spammer persona?
Definitely need some more gun laws. Well done. You have convinced me of it.AGAIN, thanks, Mark, duly noted. You like pushing buttons so I pushed a couple of my own.
Merry Christmas!As long as christian fun-dies don't push the red button
OH Lord Satan?What?!?!?
Let me guess. You don't like that I said Merry Christmas. Great! Start your own forum!
Now that Charlton Heston has been dead a while, I guess he wouldn't mind if we take away his gun.
You can make all the extreme statements you want, but people will not be bullied on this issue by a small sub group unreasonable gun owners. There are lots of sensible gun owners who want something done about the proliferation of certain types of weapons and have said so publicly, including various politicians and N.R.A. members.
There will be further gun control measures, whether you like it or not. That much seems clear. Throwing a tantrum isn't going to change that. Instead you have the opportunity to add something meaningful to the discussion and help make sure those measures are sensible and effective.
Now you can make extreme statements and pretend to be Davy Crockett at the Alamo, or you can grow up, sit round the table with the adults, and try to get things done. It's your choice. To be honest I'm not sure anyone cares which you choose. Changes are on the way.It only took an incredibly small group of unreasonable gun owners to get machine guns, silencers, and sawed off shotguns taken away back in the early 30's.
True. Gun owners would be well-advised to support sensible, commonsense regulations and find a new spokesman. LaPierre isn't up to dealing with the current situation, in my opinion. (I am a lifelong hunting gun owner and an Army veteran.)
Some brains are cold and dead too and arguing with them can be a waste of effort.
Thanks Don W for a touch of realism in what is often an irrational debate.
Just to show it's not all about the so called "anti-gun liberals", Conservative judge Larry Burns has written an article in the LA Times:
"Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it. I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state."
Would you describe him as an anti-gun liberal?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com … 4314.storyTo Jonesy50
I am so glad that you and your kind do not pollute the country in which I live.
Go on, shoot yourselves reciprocally to death. It will make the world a far more pleasant place for the rest of us when you are gone.Thanks for stopping by, WA. Yet another country heard from. It never ceases to amaze me how people of other countries complain about our guns but love us when those guns are used to repel invaders from their lands.
It's nice to know you think so highly of us Americans. Perhaps you'll have the opportunity to need our assistance some day. Then maybe you'll cry a different tune.Damn that's a leedle cold, don't ya think...?
Isn't it great how the NRA can turn a tragedy into a sales opportunity.
Isn't sad how the left will use the deaths of children to further their political agenda.
We are not using the deaths of children to further our political agenda. The deaths of those children are examples of why it is correct. Sometimes I think your org should change its initials to N.A.A. --National Assassins Association.
The biggest fear we have in this country is: other people with guns.People fear what they don't understand. They don't understand what they're too stupid or lazy to learn anything about.
carterchas
Number one fear in America is public speaking, have I cross the line again Jonesy
Sassy
The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."
Lying is the greatest pass time too . How can a country like USA have 4% of the world's population with 26% of the world's prisons and 50% of the world's war budget be so crime less?
Stop protecting me, your killing me and the natural environment too.
Other wise, I really love AmericaIt was carterchas who said "The biggest fear we have in this country is: other people with guns." Not I, so you've crossed no line with me.
Recorrecting carterchas on America's Biggest fear
World's biggest fear is nuclear weapons and the Natural envionment
Between USA and Russia they own 90% of those nukesGood point, so why isn't everyone up in arms about nuclear disarmament? They set off just one of those and there won't be many left to argue over who has guns.
Hi Castlepaloma,
I might recommend that you actually read through a post before you accuse someone of lying. Just a thought before the New Year resolutions.
Those are not my findings you'll see if you actually read the post but from the ICVS report of 2006. It is conducted to ascertain the percentage of the population victimized by crime. The US ranked 24th, for that particular year.
source: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread. … Comparison
As for the rest of your post, while we know there are at the very least indirect victims of any crime, not all prisoners have committed violent crimes with direct result victims.The number of people incarcerated for non-violent, victimless, "crimes" is huge. How many are in jail for
Having pot in their possession, or drug paraphernalia?
DUI?
Tax evasion?
Financial fraud?
Failure to appear?
Parole violation?
Silly claims? (My son got 10 days for stealing a case of beer and them walking through a flyswatter held in front of him by the clerk. Assault and Battery).
Driving on a suspended license?
Prostitution?
I don't have numbers, but would wager that at least half of our prisoners are there for "victimless" crimes.Read carefully Sassy, I did not call you a liar, I said (In America) Lying is the greatest pass time too. From researching many homicide rate sites, I found Stupidity the greatest killer of all, and most likely many of you would agree.
Beside many surveys had their own apolitical agenda to follow and many were all over the map, yet the most consistence was USA the greatest amount of homicide in the industrial nation
Wiki had intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants
Africa 17.0 169,105
Americas 15.4 144,595
Asia 3.1 127,120
Europe 3.5 24,025
Oceania 2.9 1,180
World 6.9 466,078
That means America is almost four time greater than Europe combined
In order for ICVS report to be correct, American police and the American system is doing 4 or 5 times the killing rate than it's own people are doing on the streets. That would make sense in the case of war on pot, where political Cartels and police raid kill with their guns.
I say take all guns away, except the guns to hunt for food, I've toured every continent accept most parts of Africa. From my own personal experience America is the most dangerous to travel in the industrial nations.You have misinterpreted the chart, primarily by assuming that "Americas" = the US.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … ted_States
the number for the US is 4.1 - nothing even close to 15.4, and just slightly higher than the figure for Europe as a whole.
In addition, I doubt very much that police killings are included in "intentional homicide" rates; police killings are not generally classified as a homicide, which is a crime.Europe With 48 countries, region stretches than North America as it encompasses Iceland and all of Russia with Europe's population 3 times greater than USA
Stand correct
When I said America Homicide rate is almost four time greater than Europe combined. USA is only three times greater for homicide than Europe, is that my bad?The USA homicide rate is 4.1 homicides per 100,000 people, I think from the same set of data you used.
Europe is, by your numbers, 3.5 homicides per 100,000 people.
Where do you see a 3X factor? I make it to be 1.17X that of europe - negligible. Are you looking at total homicides? That would not make sense as different population levels could skew the levels beyond anything reasonable. The one you need is the rate of homicides per 100,000 population.
Misread much? In your own post it says Americas, meaning South America, Central, Mexico, and Canada yet you refer to it as American....?
According to the NRA, we need to start arming all of our teachers with guns here in the USA. As if having 50% of all the worlds guns isn;t enough, we need more, arm the teachers right? To me it's really pretty simple, kind of like anything else. Find a model that works and copy it. Having guns everywhere is obviously not working! Learn from the countries which have minimized gun violence and impliment a similar strategy! Is this really so hard to figure out? Why the big debate? Screw the NRA and do what is needed for our citizens. There are many high population developed countries who have figured this out quite some time ago. Is America going to continue to decline and embarrass themseleves or step up? We are obviously not the LEADER in this argument, can't we learn from what other countries have done?
That isn't what the NRA says at all. No one who represents the NRA ever made a statement like that. Some kook might have.
That's just bad journalism on your part. HubPages forum seagull splatter.
Class dismissed.+++ Also, protecting school children in the classroom from insane shooters is the smallest part of the gun problem. Drug gang shootings, movie theater shootings, accidental shootings, impulsive suicides, drive-by shootings, robberies at gas stations, road rage shootings, family feud shootings and bar fight shootings combined are a much more significant problem than classroom shootings.
Here's an example from my morning Detroit Free Press:
DETROIT
A man and woman on their way home from a Detroit casino early Tuesday were shot multiple times on I-94 after a traffic dispute, according to Michigan State Police.
The shooting took place on westbound I-94 near Junction about 3:10 a.m., Michigan State Police Lt. Michael Shaw said in a statement Tuesday.
The pair was leaving the MGM Grand Detroit in Detroit when they became involved in a traffic incident with an unknown number of people in a black Ford Expedition, Shaw said. The victims said the Expedition followed them on the Lodge Freeway and then onto I-94.
The woman was hit nine times and was in surgery. She is expected to survive, Shaw said. The man was also wounded and is speaking with investigators. Anyone with information can call Crime Stoppers at 800-SPEAKUP (800-773-2587).That's horrible, Ralph. Shame the couple didn't have a means of protecting themselves. Sounds like you should move from a city that's that violent and in it's death throws anyway.
50 years ago the guys would have just stopped the cars and beat the crap out of each other.
Not necessarily. There was a lot more violent crime fifty years ago per capita than there is today. The only difference is that people BELIEVE there is more currently do to sensationalism on the news.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/ameri … ening.aspx The actual statistical poll for real victims of violent crimes is in the center of the page and is based on victims per thousand citizens. it DROPPED from 47.7 per thousand in 1973 to 15 per thousand in 2009.
If you look at the statistics from several sites based on the criminal investigations it shows that violent crime has dropped to nearly HALF of what it was per 100,000 people since the 1950s and certainly dropped since the 1990's. There are no doubt more crimes committed per day than in the 1950s due to population differences, but the percentage of the population committing them is lower when population numbers are compared.
You are still far, far, more likely to get beat to death with a baseball bat or a shovel than shot by an assault rifle in this country. Despite the news flashes and sensationalism America is actually a very safe country to live in outside of the worst parts of some inner-city regions.
Actually, if you own a gun you are more far more likely to end up dead, so your hands may be dead and cold long before you wish.
How about this study:
"Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … 0073291506
Or this one:
"Instead of conferring protection, keeping a gun in the home is associated with increased risk of both suicide and homicide of women. "
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article … eid=623145
Or this one:
"A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense4. Cohort and interrupted time-series studies have demonstrated a strong link between the availability of guns and community rates of homicide2,15-17. Our study confirms this association at the level of individual households."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … 0073291506
Or this one:
"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi … index.html
Or this one:
"Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Take your pick. If you need any more, you let me know.Applause. Your first link looks pretty good, giving a strong link between owning a gun and being murdered by someone that knows it's there (spouse, child, close friend, etc.)
It's a little short on numbers (174 gun owning homes with murders aren't very many) and very limited in demographics, but the correlation is there for what is shown, or at least they claim it is. There is no analysis shown (just "we did it") and numbers are hard to come by.
It's a good start, now if we could just expand it to several thousand home homicides in different areas, covering all demographics, it might actually say something. That information is somewhere; it has to be standard practice to find out if there is a gun in the home when there's been a murder there.
There was one caveat that seemed particularly pertinent; are people likely to get into a fight also likely to buy a gun (which is the cause and which the result)? They didn't cover that (don't see how you could), but it was a valid point and something to consider. It also points out very strongly the danger in relying on statistics of this sort, particularly stats from small samples that limit other possible considerations.
Ahhh, another Massachusetts liberal. Be sure to stay away from those "gun-free zones," now.
You have a nice day, Laura.
I'm glad idiots like him are gone actually!
You really need guns to defend yourselves in USA. I’m ignorant about that; all I know is what I saw in the news: crazy people killing innocents. But how many times have you used your gun to defend yourself. How many crazy people have you stopped, how many children have been save by guns. Is USA that way?
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g … roductive/
An extensive, highly detailed Harvard study concludes that higher gun ownership is directly correlated with less violence.
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
A tough pill to swallow for blind followers of anti-gun advocacy and irrational "humanists"...NRA,,,,, You have been very Quite in all this. Looks like, WE THE PEOPLE, Have another Group of Goo-die- too shoes that have been bought off.
IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK WE WILL STAND FOR,,,,,,, NOT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vNj2sb_00Clever but misleading piece of propaganda. I wonder who put up the money for it?
Leonard Pitts column today:
"...Here we are, a little over three weeks after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., a little over two weeks after the National Rifle Association said there should henceforth be armed guards at every school, and at least one school system, Marlboro Township in New Jersey, is taking its advice. Under a pilot program in partnership with local police, students who returned to school last week found their campuses patrolled by armed officers.
"But here's the thing. If this is truly a good idea, then why stop there? After all, it is not just our schools that are being shot up. So let us follow this advice to its logical end.
"Consider:
"• Four firefighters in upstate New York were shot, two of them killed, on Christmas Eve when they responded to a call and were ambushed by a man with a semiautomatic rifle. So we should have armed guards on all our fire trucks...."
http://www.freep.com/article/20130108/O … xt|OpinionI'll admit that I have not had a chance to watch the entire video however, from what I did watch, what is misleading Ralph? Could you be a bit more specific.
Sure they did not necessarily go out and shoot all the Ukraine farmers, however, they did first make them register their weapons, use that information to confiscate their weapons, then take their land, imprison them, and control their food. They did attempt to fight back, but without weapons, all they had were farm tools.
Nazi Germany used much the same tactics to disarm the Jewish population before they began exterminating them. Only they included clubs and sharp pointed weapons in their ban.
In China, yes, it was also due in part to the cultural nature of the people as well. And yes, it was an invading Army and not the government. Still, those who were to protect them fled, leaving unarmed civilians with no means of protecting themselves at all against a ruthless invading force.
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
Wow!
This has to be the most original thread I've seen in the forums all week. Throw in some end of the world paranoia and you'll be the ultimate winner.No doubt what side your on, Motown2Chitown.
You have a good day now.Glad you know what 'side' I'm on in the debate. I don't actually since there are ultimately so many things to be considered and it's not just a black/white, right/left issue, and I'm not a black/white, right/left person.
Wait, which debate are we talking about here...the end of the world or the gun thing?
Anyway, enjoy. You'll need your stamina for this one, that's for sure.
- True.
Still, stripped of the histrionics and posturing there are an awful lot people that feel the same way.I do understand that. And respect it. It's the histrionics and posturing that are getting so old, though. If people could discuss this particular issue without acting as if their own lives are at stake in this very moment!, it might be a discussion worthy of participation.
Till then, it's - sadly - just irritating.Glad I could be irritating to you, Motown2Chitown. It's unfortunate you don't find the taking away of our Constitutional rights as irritating but that's okay. We got this. You can thank us later.
You're not irritating to me.
What's irritating is the craziness and melodrama that surrounds this argument. What's sad is that those who are most vocal in the argument don't understand that if we set that aside, we might actually find some common ground.Sure agree with you (again!) on that.
I've joined in a few discussions on the matter but have found very very little information; just melodrama as everybody screams that they have the complete and only answer.What's truly sad is the left's use of the deaths of 20 children to further their anti-gun agenda.
I don't have the "complete and only answer," Motown, any more than you do. I do have the right to express my opinion, no matter who dislikes or disagrees. That would include you, Wildrness, and Mark.Speaking only for myself, I can say that I am very interested in discussions about bring that kind of tragedy to a halt.
I am not, however, interested in discussions with people shouting their emotional concerns without regard to actual data or debate. Screaming "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!" and putting everything in bold simply tells me that you aren't interested in a solution or discussion; that your only concern is expressing your personal ideology."your only concern is expressing your personal ideology"
And what are you supposedly doing, Wilderness. You don't like guns. I get it.
Please answer me this. Why should I not have the right to legally carry a firearm and protect myself from the crazies such as the shooter in Newtown?No, you don't get it. I own and enjoy the use of guns.
I also "own" a very deep sadness over Sandy and want that particular problem solved as well as "owning" a basic mistrust of people demanding that we give up more freedom to own guns.
But screaming that you will not give up your guns is counter productive. No one listens, at least no one that cares. You want to continue to own guns while also solving the problem? Fine. Find a solution to both that is workable and present it. In a calm, rational manner that others will actually listen to.
Personally I don't really believe that any form of gun control, from removing large magazines to total gun confiscation, is going to help, but I don't try to show that belief by screaming that you can't have my guns.
I don't disagree with your basic premise (you would have a difficult time taking my guns away), just with your method of presentation. I suppose because I don't care what your opinion on gun control is; I just want a solution that will work!Crazies generally don't announce they are coming to kill you. They just open the door and start firing. The killing in Columbine had atleast one or two armed officers and obviously that did not work.
You are aware that a few Republican's are now saying that they want some additional gun control measures as well right?
Thanks for the intelligent question, adjkp25.
I live a state where we already have gun laws. The last thing we need is more being imposed by an over-reaching federal government.Tennessee has some of the WEAKEST gun laws in the United States. No registration, no licensing and no assault weapons ban.
But some the strictest laws when it comes to legally carrying a firearm. I had to pass a class, apply for the permit, and go through a background check with the FBI and TBI that took 107 days. Compare that to Arizona's laws and we're one of the toughest that allows carrying a weapon.
http://now.msn.com/tennessee-legislatur … -shootings
Yes, but this is not the answer, armed teachers, that's insane...I more agree with other Republicans who say an armed police official in the schools...but I also believe in taking military weapons off the shelves. Wal-Mart and Dicks have already done so...We already have armed deputies in our schools. I don't have a problem with teachers who have their HCP carrying in schools as long as it's kept out of sight of the kids.
Walmart didn't remove their guns. They sold out.In other news . . . .
People in Oakland have started handing guns in, on a gun buy back scheme.
George Harris, 66, of Montclair said he was selling back three handguns he had inherited. He said he feared his home would get burglarized, putting his guns in the hands of criminals.
Arturo Hurtado of Richmond, who works at Waste Management in Oakland and has children ages 14, 10, 6 and 1, said "I've got kids, man. Kids are curious. Kids don't know any better. I had it locked in a toolbox, so I don't know. ... I just know it had to go."
Hurtado was a rare customer. Not only was Friday's school shooting his primary motivation, but also he walked away without taking the cash.
"I'm just glad it's out of my house," he said.
Tony Vaughn, 52, who had a flower sticking from his .22-caliber rifle, said he had hidden the gun behind a water heater years ago. After Friday's shooting rampage in Connecticut, he remembered where he put it and decided to turn it in. "Not just better for this city," Vaughn said of the weapon that will be destroyed, "but for the whole world."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F … z2FieZae8OTeachers are already underpaid and overwhelmed with more responsibility than there share in many situations, no they should not also be held accountable to "act" as a police person! No, our schools do not have armed guards, and yes, wal-mart removed the semi automatic rifle from their shelves
jonesy
You are saying Michael Moore did not go to Walmart in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE?
That film had no effect and the whole press thing was a lie?Castle, I never saw Bowling for Columbine. Didn't want to waste my time.
My point was people on the right want more control too and some on the left don't want to take away all of the guns, generalizing isn't always productive.
I personally don't care if someone has a shotgun or rifle for hunting or a handgun to protect their home and I disagree with those rights being taken away.
I do, on the other hand, question why our society needs guns that can fire a bullet a second.
You hit the nail on the head, but that is the way of things here in America these days. Every debate draws out almost religious styled zealots, I noticed this in the election, and primaries, gun laws, Obamacare, I mean seriously pick a subject, and Americans will verbally abuse the hell out of eachother debating it. I live in THE most violent city in America (Philadelphia), and strangely enough we also have some of the toughest gun laws. I draw my conclusions to gun laws and bans from my own personal experience, and from what I see they don't work. What I often wondered is when we will use technology to make guns genetically registered to their owners, so only that person can fire the weapon. I might be a little off track, but that seems the most ideal solution to me.
Spam is always irritating - and you are a spammer.
Nope... they feel that way WITH the histrionics and posturing... If you took that -and the paranoia- away they'd be pro gun control.
Unfortunately true, although I'm not sure that many would end up firmly entrenched in the pro control group.
Of course, I might also add that the very term "paranoia" is some of the same. I'm firmly convinced, for instance, that the ultimate goal of the pro control group is to remove all guns from private citizens and don't think that's merely paranoia.
I'm also not convinced that reducing gun ownership will significantly affect either overall homicide rates OR mass killings - some hard data or statistics would convince me otherwise, but insinuating that I'm mentally ill for asking for that data won't.Well said Wilderness. I am a liberal and I do not believe there has ever been a need for military weapons in the hands of civilians, but here we are. I DO believe in our rights to bear arms. So, how do we now make laws that eliminate sells of military style weapons without taking into account those that already own them are probably not "stable" citizens....How do we be fair? We must be able to protect ourselves and our families, we must never let the government overstep into our rights here, but we must take note of these tragedies and make common sense change.
Tammy, I don't know. To me, the problem is two pronged - preventing such incidents as Newtown and preventing common murders. They are totally separate issues to my mind.
I seem to be a very lonely voice here, but I just don't think that any form of gun control is going to help prevent school massacres. Do you remember Kansas City, or the World Trade Center? The nearly constant bombings in the middle east? If we take guns away from the madman shooting our children is that what we'll see?
Or will it be something else? Remember the cases of Anthrax through the mail? It isn't difficult to make chlorine or even mustard gas, for that matter. Pipe bombs are extremely simple to construct. I've thought about this a great deal lately, and have succeeded mostly in scaring myself with the gruesome possibilities that we don't even try to prevent and that I personally can't see a hope of stopping no matter what we do.
To me, then, the problem at Newtown is not one of guns and controlling guns isn't the solution. It's a red herring to make us feel good but one that will provide no security and that could make the problem worse.
Somehow we must keep these madmen off the streets and I don't know how to do that either. It isn't a matter of taking away the preferred tool of that shooter; it is a matter of not allowing him the possibility of causing any damage to our children or citizens.
Gun control
Similarly, I don't believe that gun control is the answer to simple murders, either. I have tried, and tried hard, to find a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicides in general and can't. Nothing I can see shows that either gun ownership (of any kind) causes murders or that the two are even related.
What little I have found shows that with gun ownership that gun deaths rise, but that's a no-brainer. It doesn't show that lowering gun ownership rates will produce low homicide rates. It appears that the problem is cultural, not guns, and if a gun isn't at hand some other tool will be used.
Nothing I've found, though, is actually statistically significant and I'm totally unwilling to make any conclusions here. Given that, I have a hard time justifying the loss of freedom required if we institute further gun controls.
It was absolutely predictable that we would be seeing cries for further gun control come out of the Newtown tragedy, but so far it's just a demand that something be done, effective or not, and guns are the obvious whipping boy. I really believe that we desperately need to forget about the tool and concentrate our efforts on the mind that is using it instead.Here's some of that "hard data and statistics" you were looking for, just in case you missed it before.
In April 1996 after a mass shooting in Australia, the Prime Minister introduced legislation banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and shotguns. This should give some idea as to whether such measures has a generally positive effect, negative effect, or no effect.
This study from the Australian National University, summarised by the Washington Post here, and Slate here, tells us that since the legislation, the firearms homicide rate has fallen 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has fallen 65 percent.
And that there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. Read that again, just so you are clear, there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. This chart shows the change in firearm suicides per 100,000 population in Australia after the legislation was introduced.
There were thirteen mass shootings in Australia during the period 1979–96. During the period since stronger controls 1996 onwards there has been 0. So there is evidence that indicates restricting access to certain types of weapons benefits society. Perhaps you need to look more closely at the issue than you have.OK, lets talk about your "data".
1. First, data from exactly one country is nearly worthless; find it for 50 more. Or at least as many as have a similar culture to the US as possible.
2. Pretty graph, but it has absolutely nothing to do with homicides OR mass murders. It looks nice and seems authoritative though - is that why you included it?
3. You make the claim of no additional homicides from other sources; where are the numbers? Are they significant over an 18 year span? Did they vary widely by year, (using a gang war or some such that produced high numbers but only happened once) as part of the statistics? Words don't have quite the same effect as numbers, at least to me.
4. A 19 year span that had 13 mass shootings vs 0 in the next 18 certainly seems significant. So much so that I don't believe it is due to banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons only. What other "stronger controls" were put into effect? Were there other efforts made to limit those mass shootings, what were they and what effect did they have? With only 13 data points there can be a lot of variables that can skew the results; were they all in one location, religious organization or something else that might have a particular cause that was removed?
In short, your "data" from one country is of some, but limited, value. Just as the data I provided you was - as the two sets show diametrically opposite results which one is actually indicative of what the US might see? The incomplete set here or the incomplete set I provided? The set that shows the desired result of gun control or the set that says it won't matter?wilderness,
Australia and the US share similar cultures. With this debate Australia does not have an intrinsic belief in a right to bear arms. In fact, 98% of Aussies has no idea what is in our very own Constitution.
With the mass shootings we have had in Australia, they do relate to the use of auto or semi-auto weapons. The massacre in Port Arthur in Tasmania by Martyn Bryant is the last recorded mass murderer in the country with using firearms.
As far as I am aware there has been no other legislation of firearms since 1996 to date.
The same evidence produced for Australia is also evident from a mass shooting incident in Great Britain, then a gun ban.. Why is it so hard to get people to understand that we have too many guns floating around? This is not rocket science!
Excellent points Wilderness. I do believe military weapons have no need in society, the inability to shoot hundreds of rounds at a time will save lives IMHO, butI agree 100% that this is a societal issue. Video games, Movies, Television; all have a part to play. The minds of the youth most especially are all but consumed and controlled by violent messages. Have we built this culture of sociopaths? Add to this the mental health issues, the unwon drug war, economic conditions,and the overmedicated and we have a cocktail of disaster in out society. Much needs to be done, and merely banning certain weapons will only be an inefficient band-aid.
Thank you.
I, too, believe that military weapons should not be owned by the general population. But what is a military weapon? I've seen no one declaring we need to rid ourselves of rocket launchers, tanks and cannons.
Assault rifles, yes, but repeatedly asking what an assault rifle is has gotten either no answer or a snotty one. No definition. No one answers, just repeats the question of do I think we need assault weapons in the home? How can a thinking, reasoning person answer that (and yes, I know that the country voted in Obamacare without knowing what it was but that was stupid and irresponsible)?
Large clips - I remember years ago debating this issue and having it pointed out that large clips often jam, and that it takes less time (2 seconds was the figure bandied about then as I recall) to change clips than it does to clear that jam. Should our efforts, time and funding go to something like that? Are there better ways to spend those resources? Should we simply ban changeable clips period? My hunting rifle has no clip, and it takes time to reload it. There are millions of weapons that will make unusable; is the return worth the cost?
Sometimes I do think we have built/are building a nation of sociopaths, and if so that's what will have to be corrected to stop (or seriously reduce) both shootings in general and mass killings. I doubt that many would argue we don't need a cultural change here, but it's just like the gun issue - no one can agree on what's wrong or how to fix it.So sad and so true. We can't agree on anything anymore. I believe it is mostly because we have been reduced to political agendas in order too utilize our free speech in a vain attempt to be heard. It is a hard nut to crack however, the changes that is. We can not unlearn, only refocus...Too much government control is wrong, but so would be the opposite of too little government help. In the center there is sense to be made, but the politicians aren't getting it done and neither are the citizens. We are being taught to think and speak in "the language"..."the talking points"...All of this of course to feed the pockets of the Corporations whose lobbiest design legislation that in no way protects the people.I believe the people could come together perfectly well if our own voices are heard, instead of our regurgitated(sp) talking points.
*Smiles* It might be paranoia wilderness as I am pro-gun control and it is certainly not my goal to remove all guns from private citizens.
Unfortunately there IS no data or statistics that show that reducing gun ownership would reduce mass killings because there is no comparable situation in which it has been tried.
Gun-control advocates are going on the- very logical- assumption that without a gun it becomes exceedingly difficult to shoot someone with a gun.
So the argument: If someone wants to kill a group of people then they can do it in other ways. Well yeah they COULD and sometimes they DO... However these crimes are rare statistically (not that it diminishes their tragedy) tend to require more resources and time and generally have a higher survival rate. There is a learning curve to the more extravagant mass-killings that simply isn't there with gun based killing sprees. Any crazy idiot can figure out how to load a gun and turn off the safety.
In addition the pure SPEED with which a semi-automatic or automatic weapon can kill is- and lets be honest- unmatched by any other form of mass-killing with the exception of mass killings that involve explosions. Explosions are- once again- on that learning curve.I'll try to hit most of your points:
You may not want to remove all guns but you know that many do. You may eventually stop the control effort, but you also know that others will chip away little by little, taking more each year, until the goal is reached. Consider what is being done with cigarettes, for example.
Yes, there is data. Just look at the middle east where guns are not as common as the US and where bombings occur almost daily. We may have a picture that everyone in Iraq is armed, but it isn't so. Whether that data is applicable to the US is very debatable, but it is data.
That high gun ownership will result in high gun deaths is a no brainer, but will it result in high overall homicide rates as well? That is the question, not how many deaths will result from a specific tool.
False premise, IMHO. Bombings are relatively rare in the US because of the availability of other tools - take away those tools and I believe we will see more bombings, perhaps with even higher death rates than guns. Any crazy idiot can learn to make a fertilizer bomb (the net is great for that sort of thing) and it is cheaper and quicker than procuring a gun. Add in a car (rented or stolen) and you have the makings of something that makes Newtown look like a walk in the park.
Speed is immaterial if it kills. You may (or may not) kill more people quicker, but if injuries result in death later it doesn't matter. Plus, there are other ways besides bombs; plowing through a elementary playground, or the school bus loading area, with a car comes to mind. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to kill our children (particularly if ones own death is desired) and not all are slow.Melissabarrett
There is stats regarding some form of gun control. See Australia and Great Britain after mass shootings!
I've given you that data on several threads, and cited the relevant peer reviewed papers it all comes from. It includes country by country statistical analysis, State by State analysis in the U.S. and data about the effectiveness of control measures in other countries like Australia. You have chosen to either dispute it without presenting reliable supporting data, or ignore it. Short of spoon feeding it to you, there's not much else I can do.
But please don't say hard data or statistics would convince you. Evidently it won't.I'm not going to look them up now, but no you haven't. You provide data on gun ownership vs gun deaths, but that is of no consequence. You (or someone) provided data on suicide by guns, but that isn't germane either. Someone gave stats on Australia (that did not agree with other sources) but one country means nothing as I'm sure you will agree.
The data that matters is a comparison of total homicide rates vs gun ownership rates. Nothing else, and I came the closest to that with the data I provided myself in another thread. It just wasn't of high value either (as we both pointed out) because it was too limited, didn't really take culture into account and was from wikipedia.So, just so I have this clear. Are you saying that you think every single study related to gun homicides, gun suicides, gun ownership, gun victimisation, and general homicide, from country by country comparisons to State by State comparisons, to in depth studies in countries that have introduced restrictions to certain types of weapons. None of it. Not one bit. Zilch has any relevance to the issue of gun violence in the U.S., and can be of no use in that regard? Is that your position? All that data can safely be completely discarded?
You mention data not agreeing with "other sources". Okay, then name the sources man! What sources, published by whom, when? I'll only accept peer reviewed, published papers like those I have cited. Mentioning data without citing a source is pointless.None of the data I've seen on these forums has been of much, if any, value. Most of it concerns matters other than what we are discussing and what little doesn't is incomplete and/or from lousy sources.
You know what sources; you looked at what I provided and commented on it. To refresh, it was from wikipedia (and I gave a link) but I'm sure it came from somewhere else - no one posting on wikipedia is going to amass that kind of data with their own studies. You can probably find where that data came from and verify it is correct from links on wikipedia; I didn't try as it was mostly an exercise in showing what I was interested in seeing.
Don, you just aren't getting it: I don't care about gun violence. I care about violence from all sources. I believe, based on that tiny bit of lousy evidence (and considering primarily mass murders by insane shooters), that reducing gun violence will result in an increase of other forms of violence, possibly exceeding that from guns.
I've repeatedly asked for information about that, data that shows fewer guns will result in less violence overall and have been shouted down with stats showing fewer guns will produce fewer gun deaths, fewer gun suicides or other inconsequential matters. You continually persist in showing any stats that you think prove that limiting gun ownership will prevent killing but it always shows that limiting ownership will only prevent deaths in a specific, limited area without addressing what happens in overall violent deaths.
You've come close with the data on Australia, but stop short of showing numbers indicating that overall violence decreases with the removal of (some form of) guns. Whether it actually does that or not (I haven't had time to investigate the links given) it is still a single data point and that does not make a statistical study.For the love of Mike! The subject under discussion is guns and gun control. First you tried to shift from gun homicides to homicides:
"Gun homicides aren't relevant here, homicides in general are."
When the data on that didn't show what you want, you tried to shift again to violence in general:
"I don't care about gun violence. I care about violence from all sources."
No dice. Trying to move the goal posts when it looks like the data does not support what you want, is plain dishonest. The subject of this thread and the other threads we have corresponded on is gun homicide and gun control. Not homicide in general, and not violence in general. We're talking about guns. Remember those? If not, see the OP.
And since when is Harvard a lousy source? Which of your sources is better? That's right you haven't cited any except Wikipedia. You've offered not a single shred of reliable supporting evidence for your assertion that gun control will not be of benefit. Yet you have the gall to call into doubt any data I present, every bit of which has been cited, linked to and from reputable sources.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume this demonstration of selective reasoning is unintentional, although I'm sorry to say it's not the first time I've encountered it discussing this subject with someone who is anti gun control. Never the less, the data is there for anyone who actually wants to consider the evidence available in support of gun controls.I'm sorry if I confused you by shifting from "homicide" to "violence"; I assure you it wasn't intentional and that I meant the same thing with either term. Change the "violence" to "homicide", please.
Don, I haven't moved the goal posts at all - from the very beginning I have stated that I believe that lowering the number of gun homicides will not lower the number of homicides at all; that killers will merely use different tools. That's why I insist on data that compares gun ownership to total homicides and why I say I don't care about gun homicides. If you want to prove that lowering gun ownership lowers the number of deaths then show data on that, not data showing lower ownership results in lower deaths from guns. I can't imagine what is so hard to understand about that.
I recognize that most of these similar threads are about gun homicides rather than general homicide rates, but that is (I hope) because it has not been well thought out and not because the poster simply has an agenda of getting rid of guns.
*edit* you also misunderstood my comment on lousy sources: that referenced that data that I provided from wikipedia, not yours.
- Jonesy50posted 11 years ago0
I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this issue but please be aware I WILL NOT be insulted and will gladly report those that do. It's not in my nature to do such a thing but I do have a right to express myself and will not be shouted down by anyone.
If you're here to spew your out and out hatred of me, save it and stay on topic. Act like if adults, if possible. If not, go elsewhere.WILL NOT huh? Brave words from behind your spammer persona.
Certainly convinced me you are not to be trusted with a gun.
Thanks, Mark, duly noted. You like pushing buttons so I pushed a couple of my own.
Merry Christmas!It's better he pushes your button, then too many others pulling triggers
Going to the End of the World party now, have a merry one too.
Words do not hurt much, not even sticks and stones
A 3 cent bullet can mean" End of story all together.3 cent bullet? Where do you buy you ammo? That's a great price!!!
Happy End of the World!!!OK, 3 cent are not easy to get, 50 cent are easy enough.
Hey don't knock stones. They are next on the list of things we have to ban to make everyone safe right after knives and spoons. I say we take this to the next level, and to assure there is no more violent death we will ban arms and legs (hard to kill someone without those), we will start the Liberal amputation at birth agenda. I gauruntee crime will decrease to nil, until the first head butting murder than the population will be reduced to nil.
"NRA Calls for Armed Officers in Schools" - NRA calls for police state to protect their gun ownership.
I understand that all of the high schools in my area have a cop on duty in the school. Although I'm not positive, I believe they are armed.
As far as I know, none of the elementary schools do.Here are some of the idiots you speak of.http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html
These people seem like real morons huh? Get a life bud.
So what is more important? The right to own a gun or the taking of a human life?
I rather give up this "right" than to see my weapon end a precious life. And no, don't tell me to say this when someone comes to harm me or my family, it won't work. The correct thing to do is to ban all guns....ALL OF THEM !.................
The supreme court ruked that citizens have the right to bear arms. But the gov't can put onrestrictions. That's why you and I can't go out and buy a rocket launcher. However, the gov't can ban certain guns and/or simply make it nearly impossible to buy a gun or ammo (imposing increadably high taxes on them along with a permit process that's so intense that only a handfull of people can apply for one. Kinda like getting a permit to own a machine gun.
This is always going to be an unresolvable issue whilst all of us debate the for or against arguments of having or not having guns. When we can stand up as a united international community to talk about and come up with logical, adult, well thought out and actionable resolutions to the issue. THEN we may achieve results.
- SassySue1963posted 11 years ago0
Well, I still believe in the words of this former President:
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is to blame rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for their own actions."Is this from the same guy who declared all out war on drugs in tghe early '80's? Buy the way, how's that coming along?
Nice try at re-direct. On topic might be nice.
This is the problem. Here on these forums, in Washington. It isn't about the problem at hand, it is about the "us versus them" mentality. Obviously you have an issue with Reagan so any idea is a bad idea. Any premise is a bad one. Society is not to blame for all the ills of the land. You will always have criminals, you will always have the mentally unstable.Yes, but the fact that a law cannot completely eradicate a particular problem is not an argument against having that law.
Making child pornography illegal does not completely it, but that does not mean child pornography should be legal.And that is why shooting people is against the law. We're not talking about a law aimed at making a particular action illegal. We are talking about eradicating a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Sure, you and others here on this thread might not be about disarming the citizenry completely. Make no mistake however, that is the bigger agenda. I find it ironic that not one person has mentioned that the President, who blasted Romney during the campaign for politicizing Benghazi, politicized this event from the word go. He saw an opportunity, and pounced, immediately, playing on the emotions from such a tragedy in the hopes of pushing through an agenda he previously claimed was not part of his agenda. Nancy Pelosi has already made a statement about changing the First Amendment, now they are taking aim at the 2nd Amendment. This should concern EVERY American. It is not about assault weapons, which no one will specifically define, because it is about slowly chipping away until you're right to bear arms is gone completely.
"And that is why shooting people is against the law. We're not talking about a law aimed at making a particular action illegal. "
We are. The action of manufacturing certain weapons etc. for the use of private citizens.
"We are talking about eradicating a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
Manufacturing a certain type of AR-15 is not a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, nor is possessing a high capacity ammunition clip.
The rest of your post consists of unsubstantiated claims about political motives of gun control advocates. They may well be your personal opinions, but they are not helpful in progressing any kind of sensible discussion on the subject.Again, "certain weapons". A "certain type". Which ones? Do all semi-automatic weapons fall into that category? What determines an "assault" weapon which currently does not have any specific definition? And next year when someone takes a weapon that was previously not considered under any such bans (if implemented) do we just now consider it part of the ban? Two years from now it's just a hunting rifle. Do we now ban them?
Of course political motives are part of the discussion. You cannot have any discussion if you do not understand all sides of an issue. It is not that the hunter or gun aficionado insists on having access, it is the bigger picture. We already know if you give the government an inch, it takes them no time at all to attempt to take a mile. Good grief, you can't even drink a 20 ounce soda if you want to in NY now. A clear case of giving the inch and the government taking the mile.
The complete refusal to acknowledge that there are those whose agenda involves the complete eradication of the 2nd Amendment, even if you are not a part of that group, eliminates any further discussion entirely because it is based on complete fantasy.Calm down, Sassy. No one wants to take away your right to bear arms
You will still be able to keep your paintball and BB guns - the second amendment requires that you may bear arms, and both are arms. They even both project things from a long tube, for goodness sake!
Until next year, when the argument will include those as well, and your "arms" will be limited to stick and stones. After all, the amendment doesn't specify which arms you can bear.
The following year may see it illegal to bear any stick more than 6" long or stones larger than 1/4" in diameter, but you can still bear arms. No one wants to take away your right to bear arms.Hi Wilderness,
You don't have to wait for next year! Here is the proposed ban list:
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
No worries. Back to bricks, swords and bows and arrows right?
Have a very Merry Christmas!Looks like we'll get a reprieve on hunting rifles for another year, and maybe one more year on single shot weapons that require re-loading after each firing.
Hopefully they'll leave us the bows and arrows for a couple of years, but yeah, it's back to bricks then.
"Again, "certain weapons". A "certain type". Which ones? Do all semi-automatic weapons fall into that category? What determines an "assault" weapon which currently does not have any specific definition?"
This is why gun experts are needed in the discussion. You tell me which guns, features and accessories would provide the most efficient means of performing a mass shooting. On second thoughts, don't. But that's the sort of information gun experts can help with (the N.R.A. would be the obvious organisation to help in that regard but they would loose millions in sponsorship from gun manufacturers, so wont). These are some of the obstacles, but something being difficult to do does not justify not doing it.
"And next year when someone takes a weapon that was previously not considered under any such bans (if implemented) do we just now consider it part of the ban? Two years from now it's just a hunting rifle. Do we now ban them?"
That's a "slippery slope" argument. Just because some weapons are controlled today, does not mean all weapons will be controlled tomorrow.
In the 1800s, 10 states (including Texas!) passed laws barring the possession of concealed weapons. The Governor of Texas said "the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man." That was in 1893. Did that open the flood gates and lead to the repeal of the 2nd amendment? If anything gun control laws are less stringent today.
"The complete refusal to acknowledge that there are those whose agenda involves the complete eradication of the 2nd Amendment, even if you are not a part of that group, eliminates any further discussion entirely because it is based on complete fantasy."
There's no refusal to acknowledge it. Just an understanding that worrying about people's ultimate agendas is not going to help develop any solutions."which guns, features and accessories would provide the most efficient means of performing a mass shooting"
From medium range, probably a tripod mounted, belt fed, fully automatic .50 caliber "machine gun". From very short range (inside a classroom) a much smaller weapon, but still fully automatic and belt fed.
But, of course, those are already banned. We need something else as banning those didn't stop anything.
So you asked the wrong question. The right question to ask is "which gun currently legally available is the most deadly?". That way the same question can be asked every year when there is another mass shooting."But, of course, those are already banned. We need something else as banning those didn't stop anything. "
How many mass shootings have their been with fully automatic weapons recently?
"So you asked the wrong question. The right question to ask is "which gun currently legally available is the most deadly?". That way the same question can be asked every year when there is another mass shooting. "
As I said before the fact that controlling certain weapons will not eradicate mass shootings is no reason not to do it. Laws proscribing murder will not eradicate murder, but that doesn't mean murder should be legal."How many mass shootings have their been with fully automatic weapons recently?"
None, so far as I know, although the killings continue to rise in numbers. You make an excellent point - when mass murderers can't get the weapon they want, they'll find something else.
I believe that's just what I've been saying all along too - I just haven't been able to state it so clearly.Making crack cocaine illegal does not completely eradicate it. Does that mean crack cocaine should be legal?
Are you saying that mass killings with automatic belt fed weapons still happens? That banning them doesn't result in complete removal (certainly correct) and they are still being used as a tool for those killings?
I haven't heard of that - are you sure?"You make an excellent point - when mass murderers can't get the weapon they want, they'll find something else."
And so we should allow them access to the weapons they want?! Don't see what your argument is here.Oh, I think you do. Remove the right to one (preferred) weapon and the murderers will just find another, maybe worse. You get the point, alright.
You may not agree, and won't make any effort to find out, but you get the point.I understand what you are saying but not the point you are making with it? What's the relevance for gun control?
Are you saying guns should not be controlled because if we restrict access to certain guns people will use something else instead?Pretty much, yes, although there are lots of "ifs".
I have yet to find any good link between gun control and murders of any kind; given that I have a hard time taking away freedoms simply because we emotionally think it might help. I think we'd be better off spending our limited resources attacking the root of the problem and not a perceived cause that is actually no cause at all.
Hi there, Sue. Before I forget, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
I read your statements very carefully and I am quite concerned when you say:
“That is the bigger agenda…there are those whose aim is that very thing… there are those whose agenda involves the complete eradication of the 2nd Amendment… The complete refusal to acknowledge [this] is based on complete fantasy…”
I admit you are not alone when you say there is a lurking conspiracy to deprive Americans of their right to bear arms. Therefore, I must ask you and others who feel this way to share your facts with us.
Can you identify who is behind this agenda? Who exactly wants to eradicate the Second Amendment and why? Furthermore, if you can not answer these two questions, why do you claim other positions that disagree with you are based on fantasy?
If you are convinced you are right without having any supporting proof then it follows your claims are also based on complete fantasy. Without offering supporting facts, you are simply making wild and exaggerated claims without providing a shred of evidence.
Not being able to supply any supporting facts makes your assertions “baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others” which is consistent with the definition of paranoia. {1} If you are not just being paranoid, you should be able to tell us who is behind this agenda and why.
Have a great holiday, Sue. I am looking forward to learning from you.
{1} http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoiaHi Quill,
I hope you have a very Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year as well. Pretty Panther has said how it takes 2/3 of this and 1/4 of that to pass any gun legislation. Perhaps someone should tell the President that you both supported. Any time a President has decided to use Executive Privilege to deter a right guaranteed within the Bill of Rights, you have serious issues.
"The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday."
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 31194.html
Here is the list that was leaked:
"Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. "
You can call it by whatever name you like. I do not live in fantasy land. They want them banned, and if Republicans won't cooperate, the President is poised to use Executive Privilege to deny citizens a right protected by the Bill of Rights.No, that is not what I said. Go back and read it. I laid out what is required to repeal the 2nd Amendment to the constitution.
Take a look at that list. PP Pretty much repeals it doesn't it? Unless you consider sticks and stones "bearing arms". Especially when one considers the line "determined by the Attorney General". Again, no real definition of anything, just vague language for any additions to the ban list, determined by the Attorney General.
Personally, I don't own guns. I don't hunt and I just don't like them. However, I am not so dense as to ignore the attempt to disarm the citizenry just because it will not affect me personally. Nor this President's stated intention to ignore the People and their elected representatives in Congress by attempting to use Executive Privilege to override the Constitution.
P.S. Have a Merry Christmas PP!
Quill the UN has been pushing the Whitehouse for a couple of years now to sign the disarmament treaty for our citizens. The reason for disarmament? UN agenda 21 seems a very likely reason, they know if they attempt the lunacy mentioned in that particular document Americans are going to fight them tooth and nail.
Following is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message, delivered by Angela Kane, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, to the United Nations Disarmament Commission in New York on 2 April:
I am pleased to send greetings to all delegations on the opening of the 2012 session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, and wish at the outset to congratulate Ambassador Enrique Román-Morey of Peru as he assumes his duties as Chairman.
This is a very important year for the Commission, and not just because 2012 marks the sixtieth anniversary of its establishment. The Commission is commencing a new three-year cycle of deliberations and is expected to consider profoundly important issues relating to nuclear disarmament and the regulation of conventional armaments.
The existence of differences in policies and priorities of Member States is not a new challenge facing this Commission, which has a long history of overcoming such obstacles, even in times of great instability in international relations. Though the Commission rarely met between 1959 and 1978, it was later able to adopt various guidelines and recommendations until 1999, its last truly productive year of consensus.
So the Commission today has only one responsible course to follow. It must focus its deliberations on finding common ground for addressing current and emerging global challenges, ranging from the elimination of the deadliest weapons of mass destruction, to the reduction and limitation of conventional arms.
I remain personally committed to doing all I can to advance disarmament goals. Progress is vitally needed because, directly or indirectly, it has the potential to benefit all other goals of the United Nations, just as the failure of disarmament efforts would jeopardize the security and prosperity of all.
My commitment is reflected not only in my past efforts to revitalize multilateral cooperation on disarmament, but also in the five-year action agenda that I outlined this year. I have full confidence that Ms. Angela Kane, the new High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, will build on the accomplishments of her distinguished predecessors as we implement the agenda.
Please accept my very best wishes for a productive session.
This was copied off of the UNODA official site. Try reading UN agenda 21, although it is a 300 page nonsensical plan, it was ageed upon by the powers that be. I might be crazy, but disarmament not only falls in line with the prescribed order of things it is in fact mentioned directly in the resolution for a "sustainable" society. If by now some Americans haven't figured out that democrats, and Obama are the UN's puppets it will take a better man than me to remove the blinders.Howdy Mike. Welcome to HubPages. It is nice to meet you and to have this opportunity to exchange ideas with you.
I must admit to you that I do not feel the need to possess a gun to protect myself from my imaginary fears. Rest assured, however, if tyranny rears its ugly head or if the UN takes over Washington, DC, I will be standing at your side weapon in hand.
Now, stepping down from my patriotic soapbox let me address the message of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Forgive me, my friend, but I failed to find anything regarding disarming US citizens. If I missed something, please point it out to me. If you read something into this text that is not actually stated then you may be creating unnecessary fear that could lead to paranoia.
The only references to disarmament are:
“The Commission is commencing a new three-year cycle of deliberations and is expected to consider profoundly important issues relating to nuclear disarmament and the regulation of conventional armaments.”
“...finding common ground for addressing current and emerging global challenges, ranging from the elimination of the deadliest weapons of mass destruction, to the reduction and limitation of conventional arms.”
I see no threat to the Second Amendment implied by either of those statements. While I appreciate your posting the item, I wonder why you felt this message was important in the first place. There are currently 193 member states in the General Assembly of the UN and not one, including the United States of America, intends to abandon their sovereignty. On this issue, your fear of President Obama seems grossly misplaced and the blinders you speak of may be your own. On the other hand, no single nation can address global, multinational issues without such a forum. I know of no apparent reason to consider the UN sinister or a threat to our republic.
“If by now some Americans haven't figured out that democrats, and Obama are the UN's puppets it will take a better man than me to remove the blinders.” If you have proof to support this claim, bring it on. If you just believe, without the support of any proof, that the President and all Democrats are UN puppets than you will have to live with that fear along with others who are like-minded. Surely you are aware that the governance of the USA is not decided along party lines but according to the preferences of unaligned independent voters.
Finally, Mike, you might want to revisit the source that lied to you about “the UN has been pushing the Whitehouse [sic] for a couple of years now to sign the disarmament treaty for our citizens.” The proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty, intended to affect only international trading of firearms, has not even been drafted yet! Resolution 61/89 passed in the UN in 2006 requested the UN Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters, a process virtually shut down by the Bush Administration but revived after he left office. Personally, I intend to wait to see what the treaty says before I express favor or opposition to it. If you have been listening to the NRA about this issue, remember it is already opposed to any treaty that might reduce the profits of its many generous corporate sponsors.
Keep up the fine work, Mike.
Give an angry person a gun and they will shoot someone!! Simple as that...
I don't care what statistics people wave around to prove or disprove their theories and beliefs just use common sense - if the mad angry person can't lay his/her hands on a gun they can't use one..
Personally I would happily deal with a nut with a knife or another weapon, you stand a good chance of dealing with someone like that even if you have only a small amount of skill.. I am sure 2 or 3 determined teachers will easily overpower a nutty 20 year old with a kitchen knife to protect their kids, they would certainly cause enough delay for the authorities to get there and prevent worse!!
The people that have committed these crimes have had easy access to these weapons. if they had not they would not have committed these crimes - simple as that!
You could argue that criminals will always get guns but the people that commit these crimes are not career criminals!! They are "normal" people...
Anyone with an attitude of "PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS" shows their total immaturity to be allowed to own a gun.. what's the next step threaten the children of anyone who says that they should not have a gun?- PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago0
"We're not talking about a law aimed at making a particular action illegal. We are talking about eradicating a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Sure, you and others here on this thread might not be about disarming the citizenry completely. Make no mistake however, that is the bigger agenda."
I hear this frequently stated by gun advocates, who fail to provide evidence of this "bigger agenda." Please provide evidence of who, specifically, is promoting this agenda, how they are promoting it, and which elected officials are backing this agenda. As you know, this "agenda" cannot be implemented unless voted in by our legislators who are selected by vote of citizens. Changing the first or second amendments will only occur if voted for by 2/3 of both houses AND ratified by 3/4 of the states. I don't see this occurring in my lifetime, but if it ever does happen, it will be the will of the people who voted for legislators that reflect their views. In other words, it would be a reflection of the type of country its citizens want it to be.
"It is not about assault weapons, which no one will specifically define, because it is about slowly chipping away until you're right to bear arms is gone completely."
If additional gun regulations are enacted, the weapons which are affected will be defined within the law. Of course, they can be defined many different ways, as reflected by the detailed discussions here on Hubpages. I don't even know what you mean by " which no one will specifically define" since the legal definition would be hashed out during the drafting of any laws.
Finally, as far as most people I know are concerned, it is about automatic weapons and gun owners taking responsibility for their guns. Since many won't do it responsibly, then us citizens have to decide to what level we want to regulate guns and gun ownership. That does not automatically mean we want to take away the right to bear arms. That is an overreaction that is not justified by the preponderance of the evidence.PP, you're better than that. I stated "even if you are not part of that group". Of course not every proponent of gun regulation has the agenda to obliterate the 2nd Amendment. However, you well know there are those whose aim is that very thing. The point was not even about the definition per se, but about how far it would go and be changed for every shooting that takes place after. Are you aware the UK now has a problem with stabbings? People who commit acts of violence, will commit acts of violence. I think our time and resources would be better spent finding ways to to be certain those in need of mental care are receiving such. That families in crisis receive the help they need.
You mention automatic weapons. Does that include all semi-automatics? Or are we talking about military grade assault weapons? I don't think you want to take away arms in the least. Even if I did, you are not in a position to do so. Now, if you want to discuss removing the loop holes that purchasing online or private sales use to ignore back ground checks and the like, I'm all for that.You still have not provided evidence of this bigger agenda you speak of. Wilderness' evidence seems to be that "our people and our country have forgotten how to compromise, how to live together." A little flimsy for me.
PP, when was the last time our lawmakers compromised on a major issue, coming to an acceptable agreement, and then dropped it, letting the new law stand?
Or do they then come back the next year, wanting to "compromise" some more? Cigarettes and smoking privileges are reduced every year, while taxes are raised as an aid to stamp out smoking. Abortion is fought every year. Legalizing marijuana is still pretty new, but do you think it will stop with making an ounce legal or will the fight continue until it's like growing carrots? DUI restrictions and punishments grow a little every year.
Guns, just as you agreed, are the same - every year it comes back and we lose a little more - can't have this, can't have that.
It's just an observation, an opinion, but it does seem to me to be the way things work now. There is never any intention of real compromise; special interests groups will continue to fight until their goal is met and the "compromises" offered and accepted are viewed as just an intermediate step towards that goal.
I may agree with some of the fights (DUI comes to mind) but that doesn't change the fact that it never ends, just repeats every year. Compromises that were accepted aren't enough now, or are too much and wanted back (as you say, we've also seen a few years when gun controls were relaxed some). Same fights year after year - we can't seem to let it go after we've "compromised".I've provided the banned list proposed by the Democrats and approved by the President. You can read it yourself and see it covers a large percentage of guns, the language is vaguely worded, definitions are also vague and the power rests in the hands of the AG to add whatever weapon he chooses in the future. Further , the President has already stated his intent to use Executive Privilege if necessary to obtain his goal regardless of Congress (or the People). Holder is already on record saying that no one should have a gun in their home. (paraphrased). Seems like enough evidence from those in some Power Places for me.
I copied and pasted your list into Google and this is what came up, in addition to a bunch of right-wing websites saying just what you did, that it's a list the Dems came up with and is approved by the President. Do you have a link to the actual new list, or is it likely that a copy and paste of this old document is circulating among paranoid gun nuts without a shred of evidence that the President supports it?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108s … 1431is.pdfThat's entirely possible, I wouldn't rule it out at all. However, I also would not rule out that anything proposed by the liberals in Congress would be exactly what was proposed in 2003. I actually chuckle at the mere mention that the President would not support it. I see you are still in denial and believe he is somewhat center in his politics.
LOL, yes, Obama is a centrist in most areas. Pretty much everyone except extreme righties can see that. As far as the list, I'm not freaked out by it, even if it is real, which it probably isn't.
A centrist is someone with moderate political views. I'm trying to see the moderate. He wants to raise taxes, but so far has bulked at presenting any meaningful spending cuts. He pushed through a Healthcare Law, and the only thing that prevented him from making it universal healthcare were the Congressman in his own Party that were against it, he's pro-abortion, even as a means of birth control, supports even late term partial birth abortions. Yeah, I'm just not seeing the moderate I guess.
"Please provide evidence of who, specifically, is promoting this agenda, how they are promoting it, and which elected officials are backing this agenda"
Can't do that, but I can point to the fact that since 1837 there has been a near constant stream of gun related laws passed and that precious few of them give rights rather than taking them away. The rather obvious conclusion is that rights will be taken until they are all gone.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm"Can't do that, but I can point to the fact that since 1837 there has been a near constant stream of gun related laws passed and that precious few of them give rights rather than taking them away. The rather obvious conclusion is that rights will be taken until they are all gone." (emphasis added)
Do you think there is an agenda to take away cars? The reason I ask is because they are one of the most heavily regulated commonly used items in the US. Cars are required to have air bags and seat belts. Every model must undergo numerous and stringent testing for environmental impact and safety. They must perform up to a certain standard in simulated accidents. To own a car, you must register your vehicle and pay taxes on it. To drive one, you have to pass written and driving tests. You are required to have insurance. You must comply with strict laws about safe operation. You can't drive one under the influence. If you transport children, you must comply with car seat laws. If you violate certain laws, you can have your license revoked or your car impounded.
Yes, people still die in car accidents, but the rate of death is drastically reduced due to these laws.
I reject your statement that "the rather obvious conclusion is that rights will be taken away until they are all gone." That conclusion is not obvious at all.i am actualy a pro gun advocate,... but i am always interested in a sound argument made with brains vs braun,....
"Do you think there is an agenda to take away cars? The reason I ask is because they are one of the most heavily regulated commonly used items in the US. Cars are required to have air bags and seat belts. Every model must undergo numerous and stringent testing for environmental impact and safety. They must perform up to a certain standard in simulated accidents. To own a car, you must register your vehicle and pay taxes on it. To drive one, you have to pass written and driving tests. You are required to have insurance. You must comply with strict laws about safe operation. You can't drive one under the influence. If you transport children, you must comply with car seat laws. If you violate certain laws, you can have your license revoked or your car impounded.
Yes, people still die in car accidents, but the rate of death is drastically reduced due to these laws."
this is,... HANDS DOWN,.. the best argument for regulation i've read,... quite possibly ever.
kudos to you,.... i actualy endorse reasonable regulation of fire arms as long as it doesnt infringe upon the ability of citiezens to A) deffend their persons,... and B) deffend thier liberty from a government that might wish to do otherwise.You're right - it works (at least with cars).
Now, which cars were confiscated again? I've forgotten. Which ones do we prohibit?
Or have we accomplished lowering the death toll by a combination of making cars safer and massive police presence and enforcement?
Instead of confiscating the guns maybe we can do the same as cars - require the gun to identify the shooter first or it won't fire (make it safer), require training for any gun owner and put a cop in every classroom to watch for illegal use. The first two might help, but the third won't because we won't put as many cops in schools as we put on the roads.Again, who has suggested confiscating guns? As a gun owner, it wouldn't bother me in the least to have to pass a test in order to use my guns, be required to register my guns and produce them at each renewal of registration, and follow strict rules about their use. Wouldn't bother me in the least.
Ouch! You've got me. Sorry, Pretty - I'm not reading close enough and reading things into your posts that aren't there. Many are proposing just that - confiscation - but you haven't.
I'd have no trouble with that either, with but two concerns.
1. If you could convince me there was little chance that registration would be used to one day confiscate guns fine. Otherwise, I won't register a gun. I'm happy to register me, but not to tell Uncle Sam what weapons I own.
2. I would change "test in order to use my guns" to "test in order to own my guns"I wouldn't try to convince you of that. If your reasons for wanting guns are to fight the government should it turn against you, I suppose you can do that when they come and get your guns, which they would do whether or not you had registered them.
I find that whole line of thinking truly silly, because no amount of armed citizenry will be able to overcome the advanced weaponry of the U. S. government.I'm not so sure about that - how long did it take to find Bin Laden and how many lives did we lose in the process? Let the entire country be armed and resisting and we would never have accomplished anything.
It's a moot point though - if my guns are ever turned on soldiers I don't expect them to be US soldiers. Which means an actual invasion and that isn't something I concern myself about either. Bombs and IED's are more effective against invaders anyway - I think we've learned that quite well.Okay, I'm confused.
"It's a moot point though - if my guns are ever turned on soldiers I don't expect them to be US soldiers. Which means an actual invasion and that isn't something I concern myself about either."
Why, exactly, are you worried about the government being able to find and confiscate your guns if they are registered?i understand his concern,... if you register each and every gun or transfer of guns,... your efectivley helping the autorities to track guns,.. individualy,.... when what i and many others are far more comfortable with is the tracking of ownership,.... if the ugly hypothetical ever ocours, and the evil dreaded government comes to get your guns, because you are a registered gun owner, you may give then 3 or 4,... and hide the rest,.....
but if the dreaded government has a complete list of every gun you owned at your last registration date,.... they will tear your world apart until you produce the guns, or the names of who you sold them to.
its not realy that far out to envision that scenario,....that said,.... the american public as a whole is by far the most armed society on earth. personal gun ownership per capita dwarfs every other nation on earth.,.... and,... i might add,.... our crime rate when presented in statistics, rather than raw numbers,.... is still better than those OTHER unarmed countries.....
forceably dissarming america,.... is a logistical impossibility,.... talking america into giving up thier guns for a monetary reward like a powerful wolf willingly having its teeth pulled in exchange for free food,.... thats in the realm of possibility,.... if its well marketed on the flat screen shrine,.... anything is possible.
once 80% of the country has sold thier personal and freedom deffence capability away for the current market price, like joseph selling the jewish nation into slavery to egypt,... the last 20% simply wont matter.I understand the fear; I just think that the NRA and gun manufacturers manipulate that fear to prevent sensible regulation of guns and gun ownership, and many people fall for it.
Of course they do! Just as the control advocates are manipulating Sandy Elementary.
It isn't about reason and rational thought - it's about wants and fears. Look at Obamacare - we want insurance for everyone so it was hyped and screamed about, with a vote being necessary before lawmakers even had time to understand it, let alone discuss it.
Stclairjack has it right. Registration will eventually be required and will be used as a tool to gather all guns.
Pretty, our country and people have forgotten how to compromise, how to live together. It's all about my way or the highway now, and sooner or later there will be enough people to vote in a complete gun ban, constitution or not, and they will do so."why are you concerned with the government trying to confiscate your guns"
No this isn't the Government, but this particular "news"paper decided it should post the names & addresses of all gun owners. (complete with map) For what purpose? To help out the criminals who need weapons? Or are they trying to infer these people are somehow criminal and dangerous? What do YOU think?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/26/out … addresses/Amazing. So, this freaks you out? Where I live, pretty much everyone owns guns and people aren't worried about other people knowing it. Many people on these forums have discussed their ownership of guns. Heck, here in rural Missouri, the local newspapers publish pictures of eight-year-olds with their first hunting kill, proudly holding their rifles for everyone to see.
You see PP, here's the thing. On the surface, you seem like a reasonable person, but then, unless it's some right wing nut job, you can't admit when people go over the top. It doesn't freak me out in the least really. Where I live, you wouldn't have the print space to call out the gun owners. You'd have to list those who don't own any. They publish those kids here as well. With permission. You kind of evaded the question though. What was the purpose behind such an article? What were they attempting to infer? Do you know what their answer was when criticized? That in wake of the Connecticut shooting, people have a right to know if their neighbors have guns. Really? Seriously? What have they accomplished? If I'm a criminal looking for a gun, well, now I know just where to go don't I. If I'm a criminal looking just to rob a residence, well now I know where they're unarmed. If I'm a paranoid liberal, the far left nut job, now I look at some of my neighbors with a skewed perspective. You don't get it both ways. I have no issue admitting that sometimes those far right wing people take things too far, obscure certain things. You though, refuse to admit the same for the other side.
I think you're way overreacting. Of course, I freely admit there are left-wing nut jobs. Would I personally have published a map of gun owners? No. However, it is apparently readily available through the Freedom of Information Act, so if a criminal or a paranoid left-winger wanted to find out which of their neighbors have guns, they could do it on their own. By the way, journalists are prone to print things that piss people off; most of them believe in the public's right to know.
I just think it's not that big of a deal.
*shrug* Pretty, you can deny that there haven't been hundreds of laws to limit guns and gun accessories over decades, but that doesn't make it so. Cars are on the list as well, but there's a problem in that they are absolutely necessary to maintain our country at this point. Just think though - are HOV lanes a step there? How about the constant push to downsize cars? Reluctance to build or maintain good roads, putting the money into mass transit instead? Ever increasing gas taxes? Every tiny step is just one more little thing to get rid of them.
That is the currently accepted method of getting something done; to chip away a little at a time until it's gone. Cigarettes are a prime example, but so are guns. If you don't like the term "agenda" OK, but that's how our political system works any more. Just a little at a time rather than a compromise and then drop it.I did not deny that there have been a steady stream of laws enacted, although many laws restricting guns have been reversed in recent years due to certain factions stoking fear that all guns are going to be banned. Of course, no one has responded to my reminder of what it would actually take to repeal or change the second amendment. It simply will not be done unless the people want it to be done.
Yes, I believe that you're right about the reason behind relaxing a handful of gun laws. What does that say about how people perceive the steady erosion of their rights? I'm not alone here in thinking that ultimately they will be taken away, and even thinking about changing the second amendment reinforces that fear. There have been enough posters just in these little forums to show that that desire isn't an isolated handful of control freaks.
I missed that reminder, but it's not easy at all. Takes a pretty massive agreement amongst all people, which is exactly as it should be."What does that say about how people perceive the steady erosion of their rights?"
It says that the NRA and gun manufacturers have been highly successful in their fear campaign.Yep - that's typical. While it might be fine to shock someone into looking at what's happening that's all we see from any campaign any more. It stops there instead of providing real facts and information.
But it isn't just one side - that's all either side of any political debate offers any more. How long did it take for pro control advocates to jump on the tragedy? 24 hours? 12 hours? You get a chance to stir the emotional pot, you use it - no rationality needed.
I responded PP. And the President responded through Eric Holder. He will use Executive Privilege if Congress does not act to his satisfaction. There goes your "2/3 this and 1/4 that" argument. You've seen the list. That is just 2 cents shy of repealing all guns and the vague wording they've put forth allows the AG to add in guns of his choice whenever he wishes.
With regards to the comments about cars...
You cannot drive a formula one car on the roads legally!! Bit like you should not have a rocket launcher or an automatic weapon.. what do you need it for??
How many people have had their homes invaded by criminals that needed to be repulsed using automatic weapons, missiles etc??Sure you can - stick on some headlights, brake lights etc. - bring it up to snuff safety and pollution wise for use on the roads and it's fine.
A trifle over powered, and a novice will surely kill himself and someone else with it, but it's legal. Of course, someone that actually knows how to use it won't wreck it, but a novice will.
Hey there, Wilderness. Do you mind if I toss in my two-cents?
I have come to admire most of your posts for their moderation and accuracy. However, I find your conclusion “that [gun] rights will be taken until they are all gone” odd coming from you because it can not be supported as being obvious or even logical. I am not saying your prediction will never be right, mind you. Only that it is a horribly weak and irrelevant argument.
The trend you cite beginning in 1837 with Georgia’s rejected ban on handguns may, in fact, have been the first sign of a growing consensus among Americans that firearms are no longer necessary nor appropriate in a civilized and stable nation.
Some posters in this thread have expressed fear of a secret agenda being advanced by unknown persons who are bent on eliminating our rights under the second amendment. I, on the other hand, have a fear of a known agenda being advanced by known interests bent on using our rights under the second amendment to fill their pockets with blood money flowing from the criminal bowels of our society as well as out of our poorest inner-city neighborhoods.
I might also offer for your consideration that the NRA founded in 1871 ostensibly for “improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war” (a function already aptly provided by our military) has grown to be an extraordinary political force in this country. {1} The four million NRA members are miniscule, less than 2% of the US population now approaching 315 million citizens, yet it has power and influence grossly disproportionate to its size. {2} It blatantly uses money and pressure to manipulate the political landscape and to oppose the political will of American citizens who have larger numbers but lack the financial support from gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers worldwide. In 2010, the NRA spent about $240 million or 100 times more than the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the biggest-spending gun control group. {3} That spending is not from membership dues, Wilderness. That is from contributions by corporate sponsors.
The USA has the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, with an average of about nine guns for every 10 Americans. I am at a loss to name one other organization with the chutzpah to suggest Americans can improve our horrific record of gun violence by fortifying our grammar and middle schools. Instead of living in fear of gun control advocates, we should be terror stricken by the thought of one organization wielding so much control over the election process in a free democratic society.
Have a marvelous holiday, Wilderness. I am planning to do the same.
{1} http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm
{2} http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
{3} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … n-1-chart/I've answered most of this earlier on in this thread:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107561#post2293212
However, let me add a little. Let's look at another possibility for the NRA cause. The NRA is an organization dedicated to preserving our freedom and constitution and will fight towards that goal using what tools it finds; the money from contributors is just one of those tools. Yes, the results of the NRA's fights benefits the gun manufacturers, but that's simply because they make the tools that support our constitution. It's not about profit, and any profit is simply a side effect of being right in the fight for our freedoms and constitution. Profit isn't the goal, freedom is.
Now you and I will look at that nonsense and recognize it as pure balderdash. We look at the results of the NRA's fights and assign a reason for them and that reason doesn't match the stated purpose. The stated purpose may match the results, but we don't feel that it matches the real purpose. We can't know for sure, because we can't read minds, but we find the statement just too far from the reality we see in society.
It's like that with the anti gun group as well - the stated purpose is to save lives while costing us just a tiny bit of freedom that we neither want nor need, but the results of their actions belies that statement. I don't believe it any more than I believe the spin from the NRA - I look at the way they continually fight to limit gun ownership and find that the ultimate goal is to take all guns. The stated purpose is as much balderdash as that pretend statement from the NRA is.
Now, you may or may not disagree with me, but you have exactly the same reason you have for disbelieving the NRA statement - you look at the results of the actions and propose a true purpose without ever being able to truly know that purpose.
As far as the methodology used by the NRA - it is the same methodology used today in all our political debates. Stir the pot, build fear and emotional response and spin it for all you're worth. You'll get a response - hopefully it's the one you want. It's sad, it's reprehensible, but it's how our politics works.
And you have a great holiday as well. I respect your comments a great deal, and always find them well thought out.
IT is all about respect and teaching respect..
YES it is all about responsibility we have to teach our children and our society about LIFE and respect others right to live!.
any violator of that basic right is subject to laws and governing powers to keep our people safe.The first thing that came to mind was Red Dawn were they show the "from my cold dead hands bumper sticker" and then a dead guy whose gun is taken from his hands by a Russian.
"As long as the right people have guns, not the wrong people" is such a stupid arguement... How the f*** am I supposed to know if you're trustworthy?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
You people who want more gun control might begin with President Obama;s giving them to the Mexican drug cartels ! Lets begin there ! Ever notice that there isn't even one law against Idiot !parents ! There sure isn't the common sense to see that in this thread. There are hundreds thousands of gun laws now !
There isn't one law against idiot parents? Do you really want to stand by that statement?
As far as gun control goes, I understand both points of view. For myself, I do not like guns and think there is something Freudian about the masculine fascination with these weapons. Maybe a gun is a substitute for an inadequate penis. If a man needs a missile to show who's boss, you know he REALLY has a problem in the bedroom.
Anytime there's a gun around, the violence seems to escalate and become much more deadly. Guns are deadly weapons and don't belong around children, in schools.
That said, it seems banning guns works just about as well as Prohibition did to get people to stop drinking alchohol--in other words, not at all.
We need to figure out a way to develop a less violent society, here in America... We could begin with the media, and expose our children to much less violence in the media, cartoons, video games, movies, and so forth.+1. We need to change our society, absolutely. That's where the problem lies, it's just that we don't want to hear that and it will be a very difficult fix.
The bandaid of gun control is just that - a bandaid to make it look like we're doing something.Sure, we need to change, but that's no reason to make them legal without restriction. People are going to buy meth and heroin and prostitutes and child slaves illegally, should we make that legal?
- Pretty much, Onusus, pretty much the way it is.
That's not a vehicle designed to kill, THIS is a vehicle designed to kill:
Do you think private citizens should be allowed to own and operate a fully functioning vehicle like this?If I owned one of these bad boys, I could park anywhere I wanted.
You betcha! In already an occupied space, middle of the street or inside the bank vault - no problem.
That's what I want!
One of these would be great during the commute to and from the office.
Can you legally own a full functioning vehicle like this, and legally obtain the ammunition for it?
New Bargain Price! $404,000 USD - Priced to Sell Now! These are the Porsche of US WWII tanks. 2nd Hellcat available as well.
Everything on the tank is functional including the hydraulic turret traverse and the radio-intercom system. The paint has some blemishes from being used in parades over the last few years, but that's about it. The engine runs perfectly, absolutely no issues with the Continental R-975 C1 motor. This tank was run in the South Boston St. Patricks Day Parade in March. {1}
You will find ammo available on the same site. Knock three times and tell them Quill sent you.
{1} http://www.milweb.net/webverts/62009/
Yes, American citizens can own tanks. The main guns need to be decommissioned, but honestly what would you do with one that has no functional maingun that you can't do with an uparmored bulldozer? Surely, we should ban tanks and bulldozers alike.. yes... then ban trucks over 3,000 lbs.. then four wheeled vehicles... then trikes... then motorcycles with a gas tank that holds more than one gallon of gas.. then scooters.. then mopeds.. then bicycles.. then shoes... and finally we should ban feet. They kick.
Back on point, depending on jurisdiction there is no reason for you not to own a tank. You won't be able to drive it on city roads without tearing up the streets for the most part so you'll be stuck using it on your private property.
Demilitarized fighter jets are sold to American buyers on occasion too. Why is there an issue with owning a tank? Do you see every gun shop selling shells? Oooh it's a tank, let's be scared for no reason. You have to have a crew to run it, special tools to maintain it, and the tracks come off at the worst time.
If I were a nutjob with a penchant for military vehicles I'd go with a medium transport assault carrier. It has wheels, and lots of nifty gun emplacements for the discriminating whacka-doo.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
With all respect , you guys are seeing black or white only in the gun control issues , and you are missing the real problem completely , My guess would be that there are at least a couple of hundred gun laws, or restrictions in each of the US states . To say nothing of the federal rules and laws . I own approximately thirty different , mostly single shot or primitive firearms . Each of them bought legally and over the years I have been slightly worried each time I purchased one for fear of being denied ! My point - I could do as much damge with a double barrel or single shot shotgun as this idiot son did with a black gun [as you term an assault weapon ], One more .....ten more new laws will change nothing !
"I could do as much damage with a shotgun..."
Highly doubtful.
Kids should not have access to firearms, unless under supervision. period. but even a kid should have the right to defend themselves. with a firearm if necessary. Sad that we as a society have psychopaths on the loose.
the real answer to the gun question in the US is for BOTH SIDES to sit down to the table and address the issue fresh,.... a clean slate,...... write a brand new set of gun laws that A) respects the 2nd amendment,.. B) respects the sporting shooter, hunter, and collector,... and C) responsibly adresses the collective safety of americans.
once that is done you recind all previous gun laws, and leave the 2nd amendment alone.
its possible,.... ITS NOT LIKELY,.... but its possible... all thinga are possible through christ,... or cash.
but,.... for that to happen, the left will have to stop parading pictures of "scary guns" across the flat screen shrine,... and the right will have to quit screaming "cold dead hands"
good luck with that,.... because as every one in this thread knows,.... "scary guns".... and.... "cold dead hands" generates donations, dues, sales, votes,...... money,..... reason, logic, and compramise do not.
if the NRA is really SERIOUS about responsible gun ownership in this country,.... they will sit down to that table and help find a real world solution,.... i am a gun owner,... i am a sport shooter,.. i am a collector,.... and i am a hunter,..... i live in a rural area where gun ownership is assumed,.... I HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL in relinquishing 30, 40 or 50 round mags,... ban them,.. put a bounty on them!.... doesnt offend me in the least,..... why?...... because i have great faith in my ability to do more with 5 well placed rounds than some amature with a bad attitude and a banana clip,.... period. i also have great faith in my rural folks' ability to do the same,... to defend our nation,... or ourselves from our crazy neighbor,... or our government,.... should the need arise.
in fact,.. i would rejoice if the big banana magazine dissapeared entirely,.... it would save me TONS of money,.... cause firing off one of those is like looking at sexy naked bodies,.... you seen one of 'em you prety much,... wana see em all!,.... you got a 50 round mag,..... you'll blow 50 rounds,,... that gets expensive! lol
but the NRA doesnt want to sit down and help write a sensible firearms law package,.... they want to generate $$$$$ ...... and influence votes (which +'s $$$),.... sence has NOTHING to do with thier over riding goal.
and the left has no desire to write a SENSIBLE firearms law package,..... they make far too much money parading dead bodies and black guns on the flat screen shrine generating ratings and donations.
so in the end,.... a bunch of HORIBLY FIREARMS ILLITERATE legislators will write a knee jerk toothless new gun law for "assualt weapons" (define that please???) that will acomplish nothing more than giving the left a fake win, and the right a big bullet in the next election cycle,....... meanwhile,..... nothing changes,..... nut jobs still get guns,..... thugs still kill people,.... and the earth spins on through the cosmos.thank you wilderness & ahorseback,..... and as if to demonstrate the validity of what i posted,..... only two fellows have chimed in on my common sence post,.... whilst countless others are still enjoying the pointless mud wrestling match,....... it makes my head hurt.
love to you both!Um, while your first paragraph is quite nice and does make sense, the rest is a pessimistic rant that basically says it ain't gonna happen. While I understand your feeling that way based upon the stalemate that currently exists among our legislators, I prefer to believe that it can and will be done. However, and it's a big "however," we the people will have to start choosing our legislators not only for their political beliefs but for their willingness to work with those they disagree with to develop solutions to our problems. I know it sounds Pollyanna but I work with people I disagree with all the time and we somehow manage to get things done so I believe we can find real leaders if we stop letting our votes be bought by whoever can pay for the nastiest ad.
from your lips to gods ears!,... agree comletely!,.... and i not only merely hope that your right,.... i work daily in that same direction,..... but there are moments when the realization that you and i and others like us are one of the lone sheep in the herd that it willing being led over the cliff,..... drives me to the edge of madness.
but then i rest comfortably in the knowledge that not only our nation but human kind has had the false self important idea that we teeter on the brink of destruction many times before,... and will for many times to come,.... i've survived several end world apocalypses so far,.... mayans dont scare me,........ niether does the anti gun lobby,..... apathy scares me.
The most indefensible thing I've read recently that the violent video game companies put links to gun sites for all kinds of assault weapons matching the ones on the video game. These links were removed after th Newtown school massacre.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Raalph I'll tell you , I'd hate to be raising kids today ! the outside forces of evil are everywhere !..........Happy new year !
So...I went to the article you reference. From there, I went and checked out the data the blogger presumably used to compile this chart. It does not back up the claims of the chart.
First, there is no data entered after 2010. Second, the data is not complete in any sense of the word. Many countries have no data entered at all, and there are only a handful with data entered with any consistency. Third, what I did find was interesting. The US had a 3.8% of 100,000 in 2003, which has since dropped to 3.2% of 100,000 with no gun bans at all.
Practically all of South American countries as well as Mexico have been ignored by this blogger to compile his chart.
The other interesting tidbit I discovered is that Australia had a rate of 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003 (prior to their strict gun ban) which had dropped to 0.1 by 2009 (last reporting year, after gun ban). Basically, we experienced the same percentage drop in firearm related deaths as Australia without implementing a gun ban. Odd.
At any rate, you cannot cherry pick data as this blogger does, to make a point. Further, the data used within this chart, and actually the raw data itself, is incomplete and I found completely inaccurate when compared to independent reports coming from within the countries covered.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
United States = 10.2
Canada = 4.78
United Kingdom = 0.25Again, cherry picking data. That 10.2 is firearm related deaths of which 6.2 are suicides. So you think those in a frame of mind to commit suicide will not find another way to do so? As well, Canada's numbers (interestingly) are from 1992 and our numbers are from 2012.
So - the UK rate is not much, much, much lower then?
Here are some more recent figures for Canada:
http://guncontrol.ca/wp.../2012/08/more … hs2012.pdfYour link doesn't work, but the suicide rate for the UK is 6.9. Although 1/2 that of the US or Canada, it is still far, far above the rate of .17 for gun suicide deaths in England. Once more, if guns can't be found then suicides will find another method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rateWiki
31,593 Americans were killed by handguns , in two years that more death for American than Vietnam.
USA rate of 10.2 firearm death per 100,000, of the largest countries in Europe with highest rate was France 3.00 Germany 1,2 Spain 0.63 UK O.25
I was mugged by 3 Columbian, fought them for passport and plane tickets and won. It would have been worst being beat-up by the police and thrown into jail for not having my passport. If one the mugger had a gun I would have taken my chance with the police rather than getting killed. If had a gun the muggers would have more likely kill me for it, than not having a gun, same experience in traveling other 6 war zone countries.
In Ten States, people were killed more by Guns than car. It goes on and on
The greater reason I think so many America want guns is they are afraid of their police and military with bigger Guns, Trade less guns for less guns instead to start withCastle, I'm not in the least bit afraid of the police or the military. Maybe it's that way in Canada, but not here.
I legally carry a gun not because I have a fear of our police or military. I have nothing but respect for both. I legally carry for many reasons but the main one is because it's my right and responsibility to protect my family.
Lastly, while I don't fear the police or the military, I have nothing but contempt and distrust for our inept government, particularly the present administration. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush was the last American president and, no, I'm not a birther. I couldn't give less than a tinker's damn where Obama's mom was when she plopped him out.
My opinion of Barack Hussein Obama is he's not an American in his heart or his beliefs and he hates what he swore to uphold and protect, the Constitution of the United States of America.
Canadians may not like nor understand us. Neither do I give a damn about. As far as I'm concerned, what we do south of your border is our business, just as what you do is yours.
Frankly, I'm not sure why the rest of the world gives a damn except that they see it as an opportunity to take a jab at us. Give it your best shot. We can easily take it and more. The rest of the country is not the paper tiger that is our president, particularly the South.
Happy New Year, Castle.The up side is
Most of the World’s population which is third World is in the process of doubling and tripling the USA economic growth. China will not allow America to go bankrupt, because they need your population to buy their products.
Down side
Obama got the Noble Peace Prize for nothing, he only increase the American militarily budget to the highest level ever. He is another puppet president bought and sold by the greedy rich along with GW Bush policies that run down much of the States. Much of my family lives in the States and at one time most of my Money was made in the States, until one day, I refused to do a War Sculpture for GW Bush, then all my work permits were refuse by the USA, there after.
So much for free thought and honest peace, still think the constitution is done very well, if enough Americans lead American's to followed it. In the future, the only financial budget USA will lead in, is the War budgets and guns, which China will overtake in 2025. As in Rome as to America Empire
HAPPY DAYS, upside again, money has the least to do with happiness.
That's cherry picking? Gun/firearm related deaths in the United States is more than 40 times greater than that of the United Kingdom. Canada's would be much lower as well, but there is no way of stopping all those guns from coming over the boarder.
From Mark's link (thanks Mark)
"The global consequences of weak regulations in the US have been well documented. All illegal guns begin as legal guns, with firearms purchased easily and legally in one area diverted illegally to those with more controls. According to a Globe and Mail report in February 2010, of crime handguns recovered by Toronto Police, approximately 70% originated in the US and were trafficked illegally to Canada. In 2011, Canada sent 1184 tracing request to the US for guns manufactured or imported in the country. About 38% of the guns Canadians police have sought trace data for were long guns (non-restricted). Mexico has also seen the devastating consequences of weak American gun laws. More than 68,000 people have died from guns in Mexico since 2006. Of the guns recovered and submitted for tracing, 70% were smuggled from the US, according to American government statistics. Mexican authorities sought tracing data for over 14,000 guns in 2011, nearly half of the requests being for rifles or shotguns.""So you think those in a frame of mind to commit suicide will not find another way to do so?"
The Harvard School of Public Health studies suggest not:
". . . in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower."
“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.” But few can survive a gun blast."
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazi … d-suicide/
Are they cherry picking data too?
The US has a suicide rate of 12, Canada has one of 11.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate
Given differences in population density, percentage in inner cities, etc. these are nearly identical.
Deducting the figures for gun suicide from each country, from your link, gives the US as 1.8 and Canada as 6.52, each from sources other than guns.
It would seem that if guns aren't there, another method will be found just as it is with gun homicides vs homicides."It would seem that if guns aren't there, another method will be found just as it is with gun homicides vs homicides."
The Harvard School of Public Health begs to differ:
". . . in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower."
“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.” But few can survive a gun blast."
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazi … d-suicide/
Are they cherry picking data too?What is the general suicide rate, and what is the gun suicide rate in Wyoming? If the rate is up, is it due to guns or to something else? Long winter nights, maybe.
I give you hard numbers and you don't want them. Fine, find some others rather than a simple statement, but please make sure they are relevant.
Most failed suiciders act on impulse; I could believe that (I assume successful suiciders were not interviewed to see if it was an impulse). What are the figures for failed suicides that live out their life without suiciding at a later time? And what does that have to do with suicides in general?
I don't know if they're cherry picking or not (can't open the link); does the article give a good list of data or just final numbers?
Bah just to throw my two cents in...
Once again it stands to reason that without instant access to guns at least some suicides would be prevented.
Not nearly as many as the gun control crowd would lead you to believe but far more than the "They'd just find another way" group thinks.
In the 2nd Amendment Zealot's defense... Those who attempt suicide often do so on more than one occasion. These die-harders (pardon the bad pun) have already committed to offing themselves and will indeed use whatever they can find.
On the Gun-Control nuts side. 1. Gun suicides are a bit more fatal than a lot of other methods. There aren't a lot of survivors to a self-inflicted gunshot to the head but I personally know two people who have attempted suicide with pills that wound up with stomach pumps and nasty hangovers 2. Knee-jerk suicides where someone suicides shortly after a traumatic incident COULD indeed be prevented by the time it took to find an alternative to a gun.Overall, I have to agree with you, except I'm not so sure about the "far fewer" part. Actual suicide rates other than by gun are pretty high in countries without guns, too high to accept the "far fewer" part? Some, yes, but a great number?
I don't suppose we'll ever know about all the failed attempts - jerk a gun to the side, find that you can't actually plow into a tree or jump from the bridge and no one need ever know.
I will concede, though, that gun suicides are probably more fatal than others. Again, I can't tell for sure, but that would be my suspicion.In all fairness I'm just going to add that pulling the gun away isn't technically a failed suicide attempt. It is almost attempting to commit suicide and changing your mind.
The most frequent ways of attempting suicide with a gun are against the temple under the chin or through the mouth. Assuming a functioning firearm very very few (10 percent or so)survive this. If the do the effects are usually profound.
Granted Jumping off a ten story building is also pretty final too.. as is stepping in front of a train.
Other methods- including pills poisons and wrist slicing are infinitely more survivable. Mainly because they are more unreliable in general and because they give a person time to think after initiating the suicide.
A bullet through the head gives no time for reconsideration.
Now most suicide ATTEMPTS are buy taking pills. 75 percent in fact. Yet most successful suicides are by guns. (over 50 percent) The difference in the numbers are that 97 percent of attempted suicides by pill fail whereas only 10 percent of attempts by guns do.
Sure move the goal posts!!! We are looking a gun related deaths.
Yes, you are looking at gun deaths. The question is why are you doing that? Just to make the claim that taking guns away will prevent those deaths?
It doesn't work; the claim/conclusion that deaths will decrease isn't supported by the facts. Taking away guns (if we could) will indeed prevent gun deaths but dead is dead - the deceased won't care whether their death was by gun, knife, bomb, poison or anything else and neither will the survivors.
The goal post has always (or should have) been consideration to decreasing homicides, not just homicides accomplished by a single tool. The thread has taken up suicides now in another apparent effort to "prove" that gun controls will save lives but that subject is but a tiny portion of death tolls in the US from violence.
From the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
DID YOU KNOW? In one year on average, more than 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun. Click here to see a fact sheet summarizing gun deaths and injuries over an average year.
Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund, p. 20).
U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1).
Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States (Richardson, p. 1).
Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually (Cook, 2000).
DID YOU KNOW? Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.
An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, p. 780).
Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).
Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, 1992, p. 467; Wiebe, p. 771).
Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
DID YOU KNOW? On the whole, guns are more likely to raise the risk of injury than to confer protection.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
Guns are used to intimidate and threaten 4 to 6 times more often than they are used to thwart crime (Hemenway, p. 269).
Every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15) compared with over 30,000 gun deaths (NCIPC).
A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault (Branas).
DID YOU KNOW? Assaults and suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be fatal than those perpetrated with less lethal weapons or means. Removing guns saves lives.
There are five times as many deaths from gun assaults as from knife assaults, where the rates of assault with knives and with guns are similar (Zimring, p. 199).
More than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626). In comparison, only 3 percent of attempts with drugs or cutting are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626).
DID YOU KNOW? Guns can be sold in the United States without a background check to screen out criminals or the mentally ill.
It is estimated that over forty percent of gun acquisitions occur in the secondary market. That means that they happen without a Brady background check at a federally licensed dealer (Cook, p. 26).
Sales from federal firearm licensees (FFLs) require a background check. Sales between individuals, under federal law, do not require a background check. This means that felons can “lie and buy” at gun shows and other places where guns are readily available.
SOLUTION: We need to make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and other prohibited persons to obtain guns by implementing strong gun laws and policies that will protect our families and communities from gun violence.
Sources
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997, 46(5): 101-105; United Nations Tenth Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, 2005-2006; Australian Institute of Criminology. National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report 2006-2007; Home Office Statistical Bulletin, “England / Wales: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/07”; Population References (except England and Wales): Population Reference Bureau, 2006 World Population Data Sheet; Population estimates for England and Wales
Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009
Children's Defense Fund, Protect Children Not Guns 2009, September 2009
Cook, Philip J, and Jens Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000
Cook, PJ and J Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, (Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1996).
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 2008, Expanded Homicide Data Table 15 and Table 15Not in Florida, info bot. DID YOU KNOW? Some punks tried to rob a man at an ATM in Orlando with a knife. These dudes had been doing oxies, coke and meth for days (drinking, too). He successfully defended himself with a 380 pistol. One DOA, no charges filed.
Don't mess with anyone on the street in Florida . . . we stand our ground. I ain't talking Zimmerman. He'll have his day, and it won't go Casey Anthony this time.Wow, living well
How many hit on the head lessons do gun happy people needHow many times will you use the phrase gun happy?
Is sad better? Any fool can pull a trigger, it takes a lot more skill and very useful products to control a car, knife, a doctor and so on. What is a hand gun used for? to kill people, what other design can be more sinful or useless,maybe nuclear Guns?
"Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084)."
Wrong. Current homicide rates are about 4 out of 100,000 people in the US. If that statement were true it would be 12 out of 100,000 for gun owners; a statistic that is not supported by facts. While the general statement may be true (minus the specified figure) for particular segments of gun owners (police and military, gang or mob members, etc.) it is hardly true for the run of the mill gun owner.
Other stats are more honest; having a gun in the home greatly increases the odds of being killed by a well known visitor to the home such as a family member or good friend. As that figure is very, very low the increase is also very, very low.
The thing that annoys me the most is the whole reliance on 'statistical analysis' that both sides use in this argument. People are not numbers. No two people are going to react exactly the same in any given situation and all of these supposedly unbiased studies do nothing more than take what a small selection of people chose to do and combine it.
Gun control is not the answer. Gun bans are a lethal and idiotic idea in a country where there are are 270 million or more firearms in existence. Guns are imported illegally into this country every day. That would not stop, it would only increase if guns were banned.
Those of you who see a gun and immediately turn into hysterical spineless jelly mode would do better to pick one up and learn about it for yourself. A large number of people have never even held one yet make remarks about controlling them based on misinformation.
I was in the Army. I know the difference between a 'machine gun' and a so-called 'assault rifle' used by civilians. There are no legal automatic weapons on American streets. We need those weapons that we do have to remain in our possession due to the necessity of both self and state defense.
I personally do not care what any other country thinks of American citizens owning firearms. They have their own laws, they deal with their own problems. I do not want to hear CHINA of all places condemning America when they have people chopping up little kids with knives and run over protestors with tanks.
Firearms are a tool. You take them away and you change nothing more than the tool that is used to kill you. If you truly want a safer environment to live in then you'll learn to defend yourself effectively, teach your children right from wrong, and stop thinking that every single person in the world needs to believe exactly what you believe.
If you don't like guns then don't own one. I personally don't like misuse of guns. There are many options for self-defense that do not require a firearm. However, I do not trust any serious government legislative measure that would remove my right to own a firearm. I already detest the socialist nature of what is happening to our Republic, but if you take away our truly effective means of defending ourselves then we won't be able to fight back when the republic inevitably falls. The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to defend ourselves by owning firearms. The supreme court ruled that this directly relates to personal gun ownership of the citizenry. This amendment was created in order to allow us to overthrow the government if it should become tyrannical and too overbearing.
If you want to know the secret of reducing gun violence then look inward at determine what you hate. Stop the hate and violence will begin to lift from our lives and deaths from violent crime will be lessened.
Do not let people confuse you into believing that an inanimate object is the root cause of the problems in this country. You get rid of the guns and you do nothing more than make yourself and everyone else victim to violent criminals and political agenda alike.Just a minor point... I am pro-gun control and I am very knowledgeable about guns. I'm actually a pretty good shot. My concerns are not based on any sort of hysterical reaction nor are they based on misinformation.
The biggest problem that both sides have in these kinds of issues is they make the assumption that the other side must be stupid or misinformed because they don't believe the same way.
I've went rounds with one of the biggest pro-guns person on these boards... It's gotten nasty quite a few times. Still I think he's very intelligent and I don't doubt he is knowledgeable ... we just have different opinions.We have gun control why not enforce laws we already have?
That would be nice... Hmm... aren't a high percentage of law enforcement officers members of the NRA?
Leans over to her hubbie who worked for the NRA for several years for confirmation. Yes... he says something like 40 percent.
I'd also like to see a few more laws put on the book on a federal level...Not sure what your point is? It sounds like you are saying 40% of officers sworn to uphold all laws are not doing their job because the NRA told them not to.
Yes... that's pretty much what I'm saying.
Do you seriously believe that police officers enforce every law on the book every time they see it being violated?
*edit... not because the NRA told them to but because they personally share the same mentality as NRA... obviously or they wouldn't be paying the fees for membership.That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, the NRA controls 40% of law enforcement in this country. Cops see gun laws violated and just turn away allowing the criminal to possibly kill them or other cops because the NRA told them to. Your proof is what?
My proof is watching it happen...repeatedly...by dozens of police officers. They can't be bothered with laws they consider "bullshit" laws.
Seriously you think a cop who doesn't believe in the law anyway is going to take a gun he happens to see in a home and charge somebody for it? When it wasn't why he was called there in the first place?Why would he take a gun away? Are you talking about somebody who by law isn't supposed to have a gun in the home? I'm sure regardless of the police officers feeling about a particular law he would enforce it. Especially because he wouldn't be the only officer in that home.
So you don't think officers ignore things in a home that are illegal? So someone breaks into my house and I call the cops. The officers come to the house and notice a handgun on my table. Do you think they are going to ask me if its registered? If they do... do you think they -not believing in the gun laws anyway- are going to take the gun away from me?
Seriously?
Do you know any police officers? I admit they are all individuals but there really is a common mentality about such things.I know a lot of officers, so they ask you if its registered and you lie and say yes, how are they supposed to know for sure? Is there a database available to police officers that they can check for sure? Why if they are there on a burglary call would they question you about a firearm? Is it against the law for citizens to own and keep firearms? Is that what you think is most important about the reason they are there? Ask your husband maybe he knows.
I think the officers concern about that particular firearm is that it is put away or he takes control of it while he is there investigating.And that right there is why the gun control laws AREN'T enforced.
You are proving my point. No it isn't why they are there so they don't care.
Yes there is a database they can check. Yes it is illegal for some citizens to own firearms. If he sees the gun on my table is he gonna run warrants or background on me? Not a chance. Not worth the paperwork. Hell he isn't even going to check if I'm in the country legally. He's not going to run the serial on the gun.
If they arrest someone who aimed an illegal gun at them then the DA will tack it on to the charges... otherwise no go. They won't be going into a gun fanatic's compound to check for illegal weapons because Police-in general-aren't stupid.Gun laws are not just a police officers concern you know, gun stores are the front line when it comes to the gun laws. I think you misunderstand my post the officer is going to want that firearm controlled, he may or may not run serial numbers but that isn't exactly his concern at that moment. That isn't a flagrant refusal to do his job and certainly not at the behest of the NRA as you stated originally.
Whatever... your argument has failed to influence my opinion.
If you'd like to move on to why gun shop owners aren't prosecuted enough then I'll run with that.I doubt very seriously any argument could sway your opinion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in the UK there is also tendencies by police officers to *overlook* certain offences because they are committed by informants. And they are usually offences which powerful lobbying groups do not worry about too much either.
I never saw that Hollie... Not saying it doesn't happen but I've never seen it.
I'm just talking about good old boys trying to do their jobs and prioritizing based on their own values.
I have yet to ever run across a police officer who would NOT ask at least a cursory question regarding a handgun sitting unattended on a table when multiple people, including themselves, are in the room. What kind of pathetic officers are they where you live?
If someone just broke into your house, you call the cops and they see a gun.. you are saying they don't ask you any questions? The police have absolutely NO right to take a firearm from your home unless it;s illegally obtained or some other violation of it's ownership and regulation has occurred.
You do a serious disservice to the police department if you think you are going to be able to tell an officer "Oh? No, the handgun I have sitting on the table over there is unregistered." and expect them NOT to do something about that. The only reason they would overlook something like that is if you were personally paying them to do so or there was some mitigating circumstance that tugs at their heart strings.I'm not doing a disservice to anyone. I know what an officer goes through on a daily basis. They are too busy dealing with what they think is important to worry about what they see as b.s.
Again with the high and mighty you are...
Don't defend the police to me hon... every cop I know would have said the same thing. How many jay-walking tickets do you think the average non-barney fife cop writes? How many times do you think an officer with over 2 years on the force writes a ticket for no seatbelts (with the exception of quota time)
How many times do you think a cop has walked in on a domestic abuse call and then busted the victim for the joint on her end-table?Funny you should mention the joint. It is probable cause to search anywhere drugs may be hidden, do you think maybe a stolen or prohibited weapon may be found?
And I'm sure the police are going to hop right on that. You are proving my point again.
Really? They will jump all over the joint and ignore the weapons? You have some very bad cops where you are.
Your reading comprehension is bad. Please re read.
My reading comprehension is just fine, its your claim that the NRA controls 40% of law enforcement that is bad.
Which is also a problem with your reading comprehension.
Sorry, your edit to explain the original statement didn't work. Your entire premise that police officers would ignore firearm violations because the NRA told them to was ridiculous then and its ridiculous now.
Whatever you say dear. I know what I said and I know what I meant. I'm not responsible for what you interpreted it as. The edit was made before you even responded to the post. It's clearly marked as an edit.
Yes I know you edited it, you at some point knew that it was an asinine assertion. The fact you trotted it out there in the first place shows your judgement lacking.
Well it would have been... if I had ever asserted it... but I didn't.
I read my posts after I write them. I editted it within seconds.
Boy you really are trying to make this personal aren't you.
I cannot count how many times you have basically accused me of lying in this thread. It's not making me respect your viewpoints very much... I wonder why you feel the need to do it.
*edit: (30 seconds after post before any responses)
Do you think that implying that I'm a liar will make my arguments appear weaker? That's called poisoning the well. Look it up.I haven't come close to accusing you of lying, I am sure your husband is a police officer and that you have seen what you claim many times. I am just questioning the kind of police officer that would ignore crimes. You had to edit, edit, edit. You couldn't figure out that what you posted was dead wrong to begin with.
Boy you really do have reading comprehension problems.
I never said that my husband was a police officer. He isn't and never has been. I said he worked for the NRA.
Are you just skimming my posts and picking out things you think you can argue with?I'm replying again instead of editting...
In addition when you spend a couple posts telling me that essentially I didn't see what I did you are indeed insinuating that I am a liar.ROFLMAO.
Yes because I was sitting on baited breath waiting for you to respond so I could post to it. I don't have four children to worry about or anything.
Please tell me again how you are the only thing that is important to me...Wow... instead of missing a few sentences in a post you missed the entire dang thing.
Sure... then you can point out where I said that the NRA controlled the cops and where I said...the cops would "jump all over the joint and ignore the weapons"
"I'm sure regardless of the police officers feeling about a particular law he would enforce it. Especially because he wouldn't be the only officer in that home."
Really? You're sure? Which means what I say happens doesn't happen...
Or are you now admitting that what I said happens happens.
If so then it is a contributing factor to laws not being enforced. You asked me why our gun control laws weren't enforced and I told you my opinion of one.
In addition... I WILL say that I DO think you are being excessively dishonest in your representations of my claims about the NRA controlling anyone. I'm fairly certain that my edit being in your response means it was there before you started going off about it. In addition my original post regarding the matter never said ANYTHING about the NRA controlling anyone. You assumed that. Just like you assumed a lot of things.
If that's what you need to do to think you've "won" an argument then so be it. Be as inflammatory as you like to divert the debate. Generally when you feel the need to divert though it's because you know your arguments are weak.
My mistake you did say he worked for the NRA, and he knows that 40% of law enforcement officers in this country belong to the NRA, he also knows the NRA owns them or was that just something you decided made sense?
I don't know a single person who belongs to the NRA, and I know a lot of gun owners.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Of course you people are talking about a state where they have to be registered . There is a national registry yet all states do not have any local codes ! Here in Vermont I can conceal carry a handgun without a written permit ! Unless there is a crime commited , or you have a record , or are in a volitile situation . the cop can't do much but check your records ! Domestic violence is about the only point at which they can pick up a gun from your table . Without a warrant !
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
While you two argue about this , consider . You register a gun once when you legally buy it ! Maybe in the state you reside , or city . Here .....its only on the origional purchase ! If a cop comes into your home and sees a gun in a dangerous position , he can remedy that situation immediately . Domestic violence call..........They can take all you weapons for a year ! This happened to my brother when he raised his voice to his wife who had annouced she was leaving home with her boyfriend !{ Later he was cleared }.of all risks and charges .
Your point about the codes and regulations being different in different locations is a good one. Honestly, I don't want to see the Federal government involved in telling any citizen what to do directly. It should be up to the state and local level government to regulate firearms, as well as most other legal issues. Let the Federal government deal with the states and foreign diplomacy. The citizens are supposed to be dealt with via the sovereign state they call home. Lifestyles are different in various areas.
I live in a rural area. It's considered both common and necessary to have a firearm of some type for personal defense. We deal with coyotes, occasional rabid animals, and other issues as well as drugged out wackos and copper thieves. In the city it is a lot easier to hit someone with a stray shot. I can see regulation on firearms based on region and area, but I don't see banning the weapons themselves. Let the cities, counties, and states determine what is legal and right. The federal government should tend to its proper business and focus on federal issues and foreign diplomacy.For the sake of interstate commerce and federal crimes there has to be some continuancy in gun laws between the states and/or a stated federal law.
You can skip to the bottom if you want to avoid my ramble...
Interstate commerce I agree with. Federal crimes are far too numerous in my opinion, considering the original nature of what the Federal government was supposed to be utilized as. If a gun crime occurs cross state or national borders I can see it being a Federal level issue. I honestly do not think there should be a single instance of any occurrence being considered something that warrants Federal attention within a single state's borders unless it is determined that the instance in question was preparatory for an assault on the nation itself. The Federal government has taken too much power upon itself and strip-mined a great deal of the State's powers.
I have no real issue with logical regulation of firearms but I do have issue with believing that most of our current office-holders have the common sense to come up with any logical solution based solely on what would work, and not on what will line their pockets. It doesn't matter which side of the political coin they fall on.
I'd rather see a new constitutional convention occur so that proper attention can be given to "Interstate commerce and what warrants Federal Crimes and Federal gun laws." compared to the current concept of "Let's make weak ineffective laws then blame each other when nothing happens for the better."
The constant political dickery in Washington has to be set aside and serious work needs to be done. I doubt that will happen because it means ultimately that the truth will be revealed. "It isn't about the guns, it's about the difficulty of running an empire the size of a continent when it's people are culturally, religiously, and morally diverse or ambiguous. Oh and a lot of us hate each other just because."
Look at Switzerland. They are a great deal more homogeneous culturally, but they also require all homes to have at least one assault weapon available. They do not have a standing army, all able bodied males between the ages of 20 -30 are conscripted into and trained to be citizen militia and fast response forces in case of national emergency and foreign invasion. Each and every man in that country is responsible for defending that country and it is a law that they must have an automatic weapon. The number of deaths related to violent crime via fire arm are very low per capita.
Comparing America to Switzerland is like comparing an apple to an orange though. I'd like to see people in America begin to develop a culture of proper responsibility and gun control through the best possible means, "Proper Self-control."
Skip to here to avoid the ramble:
I am not against sensible gun regulation. I don't think the Federal Government is capable of understanding what is sensible since it is a beehive of backstabbing stupidity. Switzerland rocks. "Focus on self-control as the best means of controlling gun-violence."I read the whole rant
The problem with amending interstate laws to not include guns is federal interstate commerce laws include EVERYTHING that is transported across state lines.
Then comes the inherent problem of the g'ment either excluding guns from interstate commerce or allowing the sale and taxation of goods that are illegal in areas within it's borders...
It's the same nightmare that's eventually going to hit Colorado.
In addition you get the whole "I made these guns in Texas shipped them from there to Vermont where they are illegal. Now they are seeking to extradite me." Those kinda cases inevitably end up in the Supreme Court.
I would love if we could eventually as a population get to a point where we could exhibit "Proper Self-control." However we wont... not for guns anyway. The honest truth is for every responsible gun owner there is at least one idiot in a tree-stand with a beer in his crotch or an idiot with 40 guns each capable of firing 40 rounds and no comprehension of how to keep them out of their children's hands.
I'm perfectly fine with letting everyone keep their guns if there was a law that if your gun is used to kill someone and it's NOT in self-defense then it's negligent homicide. If they injure someone and it's not self defense then it's malicious wounding (or the equivalent) If your kid accidentally shoots himself... you go to jail. If you sell a gun to an idiot who shoots 28 people then you are facing 28 counts of negligent homicide. Shoot your buddy in the face on a hunting trip... negligent homicide.
Basically if you are the last person to be in the LEGAL possession of a firearm that hurts someone NOT in self defense then you are screwed.
Note: That also means that if you are the owner of a factory that makes the gun and it somehow ends up in someones hands with NO legal owner in-between..you are truly f***ed. Not civilly... criminally.
Within a generation that one law would lead to manufaturers and distributors demanding all the things from gun buyers before sales that I would like the laws to address otherwise (background checks mandatory training psych workups etc)So basically you want everyone else to be responsible for the shooter but the shooter?
First off, parents are held accountable if their child has access to a gun and a child hurts himself or someone else with that gun. That is a minor child, naturally.
What you propose is the same idiotic mentality that awarded the moron who picked up his lawnmower to cut his hedges and injured himself millions of dollars from the manufacturer.
As for selling a gun, background checks should be mandatory for any sale of a gun, I agree there. Private, online or otherwise.
"basically if you are the last person to be in the legal possession of a firearm that hurst someone you are then screwed"
Ah so if a criminal steals your gun and commits a crime, you pay for it?
It is of course my opinion, but that is part of the entire problem with the law in this country right now. Everyone else is responsible instead of the person committing the crime. "oh poor little criminal his daddy left when he was three, we shouldn't punish him" Never mind that millions of other people had their daddy's leave them and don't go out and shoot people. A woman stabs her husband 70 times. "oh but she was on her period" A mother drowns her five children. "oh but she was depressed". Adam Lanza murders 26 people and all the talk is about his murdered mother and why did she have guns? Disgusting.Nope I want everybody who was responsible for the shooting including the shooter to be responsible for what the shooter did.
Parents are very rarely prosecuted when one of their children kill themselves or their other children. Everyone feels sorry for them... which is really weird considering it's their fault their kid is dead.
If your gun has been stolen report it. If you don't realize your gun is missing for a couple days then yep you are a dumbass that needs to go to jail to consider not being a dumbass for the rest of your life.
Mass shoots almost always off themselves anyway... so they get off the hook."Nope I want everybody who was responsible for the shooting including the shooter to be responsible for what the shooter did. "
I guess then everyone is responsible for everything then. If your 20 year old son stabs your neighbors, you should be responsible. Especially if he uses your kitchen knife to do so. After all, you raised him so it must be your fault right? Let's also make the manufacturer of the knife responsible as well. They are the ones who made the knife so stupid sharp anyway! Then there are his teachers. How couldn't they know he had a propensity towards violence? Why didn't they report it and get him help? His family doctor, who say him every year. He's really on the hook. He couldn't look at this young man and just KNOW what he was going to do? His friends. C'mon, they HAD to know what he was really like.
Why would someone necessarily (except in a case of obvious break-in) know their gun was gone? If they have it for protection, they keep it secure (as they are told to do) and it is quietly taken by either someone in their household or someone brought in by someone in their household. Do you expect them to not only secure the gun (as they are instructed) but to check on that gun every single day, several times a day? Which is it? Should they have the gun in plain sight so they are aware it is safe and not gone, at all times? Or should they secure it safely.
You are prescribed Oxycotin. Your 20 yr old finds it in your medicine cabinet and accidentally overdoses on it. Are you now responsible for his death?
smh....dangerous ground you want to tread.
Self defense against a coyote?? You gotta be kidding!
http://www.varmintal.com/attac.htm
The source also includes information in Canada. Why kidding? They are a predator and are increasingly less afraid of humans.Makes uncommon sense to me
Why not break natures order where cougar eats the coyote and the coyote eats the rabbit
If justice can not be served in nature , why should it be with humansGive guns to kids under 3 and half feet tall, coyotes do not attack if you are taller
That's rare, and hardly likely enough to warrant carrying a gun. Where I come from, coyotes attack small pets, rabbits and babies or small children. They won't come near an adult.
You obviously don't get out of the city much, Ralph.
Not everything happens in this country as it does in your little world of Detroit. Of course, if I lived in Detroit and given it's reputation in the rest of the country, I'd be packing ALL the time.It's easy to say "that's rare and doesn't warrant carrying a gun" until it's your child isn't it?
I was joking Jonesy
About kids, coyotes and guns mixedHiya Castle,
Sorry, the reply was to Ralph's response, not yours. I really don't much like the forum set-up here.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
While I agree with that Melissa , I believe thier are plenty of laws and so continuity , Prosecution , plea bargaining , reduced charges, expunged records and freakin defense attorney antics ......on and on , thats another story ! And I am a reasonable multi -gun owner that understands the need for magazine or clip limits and restrictions . Guns themselves though ......will lay there all day and never hurt a flea . The problem is people ! Mental health , legal minefields , and drug induced crime is the bigger issue !
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I disagree , We need federal oversight and balance , the states are far too different in levels of partisan politics . Vermont , where I live, is and eighty percent left leaning political force . Like Kaliforia is ! Another place like say Wyoming would look at politics , laws and liberties far differently .Yes , we need federal oversight .....as it is now !
We need guns for defense against coyotes, if a criminal steals our guns, why should we be at fault if something bad happens. Nothing good happens with guns, don't you get it? Geez this is really fricken stupid! Collect baseball cards, beat CRAZY COYOTES with a stick and if you dont have guns in your home, criminals cant steal them and your children and neighbors won't accidentally or purposely shoot themselves or others with them.
When was the last time you used them to defend your home from a muderous intruder? (not to say it does not happen but will you really succeed before being shot anyway)
Do you really need them for hunting or is there a local grocery store near you?
I know, here comes all the rhetoric.................Lucid, you're too closed-minded to listen to reason so there's no need responding except to say obviously you've never been in a situation where you've felt the need to never be the victim again. I have and I sincerely hope you don't. Some people aren't capable of handling the experience and come out okay on the other side.
Fear, what you've described is fear. Home of the brave? What ever happened to that?
Call it what you want, Rad. There's no arguing with some people but I don't intend on staring down the barrel of a gun again.
And where do you think criminals get the guns they use?
Its been my experience that they steal them, buy them illegally, sometimes legally. What is your point?
My point (if I have to spell it out to you) is that they are using the very guns you purchase to keep yourself safe against you. This boy took his moms guns and shot her and and a bunch of innocent children and teachers.
Wait, so you really think that if law abiding citizens don't own guns we disarm criminals who could care less about the law? Really? You believe that?
Liberals believe talking to the gunman, reasoning with him, giving him a big, ole hug to make him feel better about his non-existent father not being there for him, will somehow make him put his gun down, and not kill them.
It works in other countries perfectly well. Unfortunately, we can't just take all the guns away a once. I'm not stupid, but countries who limit guns have far fewer gun related deaths.
First off, depends on how you look at it. Secondly, there isn't any reliable statistical data to back up what you claim. Why? Because ALL of it is skewed. Intentionally by some and quite unintentionally because of the manner in which it is counted by different countries. Some countries would count the Sandy Hook shooting as "one" because it was one "incident". In the US, it is counted as 26 because that was the number of deaths. Further, the pro-gun control advocates take small sample sizes and then multiply them by population to skew their numbers. Pro-2nd amendment people do the same. Also, I thought it was about homicides in general? Killings in general? Which by all accounts, while it is possible (nothing proven) that it might bring down gun deaths, it does not decrease homicide rates.
Children that the left is now using the deaths of to further their political agenda against guns. Does that really make you proud, Rad?
Would you feel better if they bought their own guns? Nobody but me is using my guns and the chances of anyone ever getting my guns from me is nonexistent. Taking my weapons from me will not make you safer, taking weapons from anybody who owns them legally will not make you safer. If you are that afraid of guns then I suggest you never call the police, join the military or call anybody who has a gun for help.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-att … ne-bullet/
I think his point is if I don't have a gun, the criminal won't be able to get it when he breaks in my house to rob me at gun point. If I don't have a gun, I get robbed or worse but they don't care because I'm then just one more statistic they can use against guns.
I have a better scenario where the criminal comes in my house vertical, I shoot him, and he leaves horizontal with a sheet over his face.If hes going to rob you at gun point, you think he is going to wait until you have picked up your gun and are waiting for him? That's funny!
The idea is to not put myself into bad situations liberals seem to blindly blunder into, Lucid. Part on my training is to look for and recognize threats then avoid them.
My first choice is to never draw my gun and simply remove myself from the area. If the threat pursues me, I have the right to protect myself.
If it's my house, I have plenty of security precautions in place that if they do get in, they will regret it, at least for a few seconds.
I'd like to see this country return to a time where personal responsibility was important and people didn't make excuses for criminal activity "If we didn't make guns so easy to get criminals wouldn't have them."
That's just sad. Criminals in countries were guns were banned find ways to get guns and then a heavily armed police task force has to come out and stop them because no one else can. Here's a lovely bit of news from China regarding the assault, serious injury, and murder of school children by deranged men armed with knives. Thank whatever god you believe that these men didn't have guns or someone might have gotten hurt! pfft.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1220230
Lessee at least 20 dead children more than 50 badly injured in 2010 alone. yeah.. gun control let's focus on the inanimate object and excuse the criminals some more.
Not enough.. let's get creative and use an axe... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 … 03032.html killed 3, badly wounded 13 ... but hey let's control our guns! Without guns no one would ever hurt anyone ever.
Here's another lovely tale from the heart of Fresno.. strange.. guns seemed entirely useful here.. they're slipping.. surely the magical evil guns are covering their tracks and making a smokescreen of good PR to hide their pure evil maliciousness as a force of evilness.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96055 … OSwRW9ZUTYCoincidentally, do you know where most criminals would probably get their guns in the future if every single gun was removed from America ,except for military and law enforcement? Would they kill cops? Kill cops and take theirs it's certainly never happened before...right?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1615 … -raid.htmlI really do not think that is how most would get their guns, however, if this was the case, as sad as that would be, that means far less guns and certainly a chance of more dead criminals.
Maybe it wouldn't be the case that the criminal elements would get most of their guns from killing police officers. They would no doubt get them from smuggling operations. However, all it would take is a few enterprising gangs and entire states would be over-run. We do not have the level of law enforcement necessary to safeguard a country as large as ours from internal threats posed by heavily armed gangs even now. There are places that the police will not enter in many cities unless they are forced to. Compare that to what would happen if all law-abiding citizens were forced to disarm entirely. Only armed gangs and police would have weapons.
There are too many guns in this country to ever get rid of them all. There are over 270 million known firearms currently. I am not against legitimate and reasonable regulation of firearms, that's actually part of the 2nd amendment. I am against picking and choosing, labeling one more deadly than another based solely on political decisions and re-election capacity. Instead of disarming the citizenry, government leaders should impose practical and decisive sentencing for breaking the law.
It is neither the fault of the gun nor the law-abiding citizen, but the fault of the one who violates the law directly and in spirit that is the problem. If a man kills another man outside of self-defense he must be tried for his crimes. The innocent man should not be penalized for the actions of the criminal. He does done nothing wrong. Telling me, or anyone, that they should not be allowed to own X weapon or what have you is not right nor is it proper. Right and proper is to hold people to the promise that they will live by the rules of society and if they break those rules they must be punished for THEIR transgression. Prohibition does not work and it does nothing but drain tax money and hurt the innocent.prohibition on pot, dose not work, yet guns, can't fool me
So you're saying-basically- is if someone is traumatized we should arm them?
That sounds like fun.
God help the poor kid that sets off a couple bottle rockets on July 4th.
Haw
Allow these gun people, their guns
Suicide kill more people than all the murders, wars and terror combined
Who needs more idiots?Really? Because 80% of the population here hunts for FOOD. That's right. To supplement their food supply because in case you haven't noticed, it's kind of expensive. Our local unemployment rate sits at 14% way higher than the national average.
Hit coyotes with a stick? You haven't been around many wild animals have you? In fact, I'd bet you haven't actually been anywhere that is any more remote than a suburb. Here's a newsflash: there are actually wide open spaces around the country. Where there are bears, cougars, coyotes, wolves, ...just to name a few.I have coyotes right behind my house howling every night at sirens from around town. Yes, a stick, when I walk my dog I bring a stick and even though every once in a great while coyotes attack, it isnt the norm. You would have me bring a gun while I walk my dog, what a joke!
I have lived in Washington state and camped in the national forests where plenty of animals roam. NEWSFLASH FOR YOU, im still here and I wasn't shooting evrything or packing to pull this little miracle off either.
And as far as hunting for food, I know of no section of the United Sates where 80% of people hunt to suppliment their food. You need to imrpove your research on that one. What back woods town do you possibly live in? Besides, hunting is not free when you consider the cost, maybe you and your woodsy's should try calculating cost then go to a Walmart or something.Never heard of Alaska I guess, there are so many remote towns in that State where 100% of the people hunt to supplement there food as well as their incomes.
Hey, Texan, do you ever get the feeling you might as well be talking to a wall?
Yeah, that would potentially be about the only area that would make any sense. I would certainly be willing to concede that fact. Of course Texas actually has grocery stores and plenty of paved interstates, not too mention, no real weather problems. Lots of hunters and guns too.
States with less than 10 people per square mile.
Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, N. Dakoa.
20-50 (I only counted those less than 60, which is still pretty sparse. California has over 200 per square mile)
Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Kansas,Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Idaho, NM.
Now, naturally, all have cities within their state, suburbs etc. However, I think you underestimate how open many of these States actually are.
Dude, I don't have to research anything. I LIVE here. I live, work, know these people. You think you KNOW everything about EVERYONE in the US? You think there is some survey where they measure who hunts for food? Really? These people supplement their food supplies with deer, elk, bear, squirrel, turkey. Just to name a few. You would be hard pressed to find a household here that does not do so. 80% is actually a conservative estimate. I am not from here originally and it amazed me as well at first. There is the cost of the rifle and ammunition. The rifle is a one time cost (over a period of time) at around $400 for a good one. Many here use bows or muzzleloaders as well. The hunting licenses are modest, around $20. Ammunition, roughly $7.50 for 20 rounds or so. The only initial big output would be the rifle itself, which is not an output that is required every season.
Edit: I did forget about the coyotes. If you think you are stopping a truly hungry coyote with a stick, good luck with that. No one says that you are going to get attacked either. However, I've opened up my basement door to a very smelly and angry bear a few times in the spring. I certainly wouldn't think you would chase him off with a stick. In the end I guess what you are saying is that no one ever gets attacked by any wild animals anywhere within the US? Just because you haven't been? Really? The world revolves around your experience?What about gas and so on? Do you walk to where you hunt? I know I may sound like a jerk but you were definately a little chirpy with me when you commented.
I'm not a SUBURB type of guy. One thing that should be really obvious though, this is not a third world country (yet), if where you live you have to hunt to survive, there are no jobs and so on, maybe you should MOVE!
Not rocket science is it?
You know what, if you like guns and hunting for food that much, I don't really want to stop you.Actually, I personally do not hunt. Nor do I own guns. I don't like shooting animals and I don't like shooting off guns. That doesn't mean I can't recognize the other side of things.
Some do walk. Some take trucks. Some take ATVs. Again, that cost is minimal though when compared to a $150 a week food bill. We are talking about families. Especially when one deer can provide enough meat for at least 2 months. Not saying they won't eat at all if they don't hunt, but it is a viable means of supplementing a depleted income. Either by the loss of a job, cut in hours, or the rise in the basic cost of necessities. Can't say you're a jerk, don't know you. You are acting like one though. Especially when you decide that because someone supplements their food, by extension their income, by hunting that means they are the equivalent of some third world country. Once again, I suppose if you have the means of traveling here and there, and think it is so easy (and cost free) to pick up and move, yeah, I guess you'd be pretty out of touch with anyone struggling.
Sassy
Maybe you should read my profile, you'll find bears, cougars, coyotes, wolves, pass by my backyard. Mosquito and dear would kill us thousand time more than those animals combined.
Love your teddy bear more often
Maybe we should take your guns shoot the walmarts and supermarkets
1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Chronic Lung Disease
5. Accidents
6. Alzheimer's
7. Diabetes
8. Influenza and Pneumonia
9. Nephritis/Kidney Disease
10. Blood Poisoning
11. Suicide
12. Liver Disease
13. Hypertension/Renal
14. Parkinson's Disease
15. Homicide
Your small child is millions of times more likely to get hurt by the family pet than by a coyote.Did I try to claim that wild animals were in some way a top killer of people? I don't believe I ever tried to make that claim in the least!
See though, that is what the "take all the guns" people do. Take an entirely irrelevant statistic and try to give it some relevance.
I mean, in that instance, what is all this noise about guns then? Clearly, they are not even in the Top 10 for the cause of death.Relate guns to homicide, suicides, terror, police raids and war and will finds Guns will be well into the top ten ways to die.
Killing dear makes good sense to hunt for food, there is always an over population of dear.
Mace will work on a coyote just fine. Just saying.
Or here's one... don't go outside at night time and wander around in the woods.
But most people aren't talking about a shot gun or a standard rifle... but you knew that.
If you need 40 bullets in a clip to kill a damn coyote then just throw the damn gun at him... You shouldn't have ever picked it up anyway.
And you can hunt with a bow... hell where I live you could just walk up to the deer and hit it over the head.
What needs to be addressed is the fact that guns are a highly profitable and irrational palliative for all of the fear and anxiety in our hyper-culture—with its countless neurotics.
Guns are romanticized panaceas for the powerless in America's heritage. Changing that mindset is yet another battle in the global war on ignorance and the hope for growth in human awareness. Of course to the reactionary right, this all sounds like arrogance, superiority and self-righteous liberalism—instead of the truth about our gun culture.Budget for food, health and Education 10%
Budget for defense 58%
No wonder people want more guns to protect themselves from the defense teamHmmm...that's hardly possible when this President hasn't passed a budget since he was elected in 2008!
Actually, that makes perfect sense to me.
You are expected to supply your own food and, through state taxes rather than federal, your own education.
Your govt. is expected to supply your defense (in the US); it obviously costs more to supply that defense than it does to supply the food or education you supply yourself.
I'm not close minded, a little opinionated, yes! Most people have had adversity or something bad happen to them, I have had a gun held to my head, did'nt make me rush out to buy one! I have also noticed you dusgusting and rediculous shots at Ralph. Obviously you're not serious about much except owning a gun for whatever reason.
THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE!- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Sometimes I think as I read these threads " oh man , in ten years you guys may wish you had one gun, just to defend yourself from the roving bands of hungry , angry political mobs of revolutionaries that are being born of our culture today ..........do you have any imagination at all ? Or am I alone in thinking how much do you love your family........ !. Think about it ...what if ?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Ahh , No never mind !.......... I'd rather those like yourself became victims of your own immaturity ! Your own lack of respect for reality and complete lack of respect for the constitution that allowed for your shallow grasp on the "other " peoples rights !
We "all have rights" It's not immaturity to be passionate about ones beliefs especially if they hold some merit. Being that the United States has what 50% of all the guns in the world, yeah that's a problem to me. Seeing people killed every day by mass shootings, accidental shootings and more makes me care about my family and others. I rather think that being totaslly selfish and not considering any type of gun control is selfish. When this so called" government take over happens," your little guns are not going to save you. Your lack of reality keeps you from understanding this basic priniciple.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I dissagree , It does matter , perhaps because we have guns alone is why we are but the only real superpower left , one that where a government fears and respects its people for real ! listen there is a mass histeria in our culture today . We live in a time where instant gratification is what everyone seeks , where a mass culture of entitled people want something , everything ,"right now " we suffer from a plague in america of anxieties , we make demands like a bunch of spoiled brats . Don't like the weather , pay someone to tell you it's really better than it is ,don't like the news , turn the channel to a game show or a documentary on penguins , you get mad at your mommy , get a gun and kill her and everyone she loves ! your biggest problem today isn't guns , its the media that depicts each and every shooting as a soap opera , yet they can't even begin to look into the hunger in Appalacia , or solve the problem to drugs abuse in twelve year olds , a culture thats more concerned with slurping down its own and everyone elses perverbial piece of the pie , ......You want" More Gun control".......no , you don't even want that ,what you want is a quick and easy fix it now patch on a slow leak , so that you can absolve yourself of your share of a social guilt trip , and why ? ,So you can turn your head away from the painfully tragic incident in Connecticut , go ahead , turn the channel .....get your mind off it ! After all ,You don't know how to hunt or have a need for one Take away all the other guys guns !
Please . The Idiots son that will do this kind of evil next time ,will use a propane tank and a match , what will you do then ? Outlaw outdoor gas grills ? Or maybe just the tanks ? come on get real !Why don't forum posts have a like button? I would like this so hard!
It occurs to me that there are at least three things wrong with LaPierre's NRA proposal to put armed guards in schools:
1. Cost. The typical NRA supporters are among the most reluctant to vote for taxes to support public schools and other public services and infrastructure.
2. Police involvement in schools is not a good concept because there could easily be a tendency for policemen to become involved in student disciplinary matters which are normally handled by teachers and administrators. The police would likely tend to stick their noses into situations best handled by teachers. Alternatively, teachers might tend to call on police or guards to handle situations that they should handle themselves.
3. School shootings get publicity, but they are a small part of the gun problem. Putting police or armed guards in schools or arming teachers would do nothing to reduce urban shootings, accidental shootings, armed robberies, suicides, etc."It'll be a sad day for this country if children can safely attend classes only under the protection of armed guards." -Dwight David Eisenhower
I doubt Eisenhower would advocate the taking of citizens guns, Wizard.
That's not the point of his comment; originally it had to do with segregation in the south, but now the quote ironically takes on a different meaning. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that kids now have to be protected from crazy and paranoid people who can easily obtain weapons intended for military warfare.
on edit: And I assume you are trying to be facetiously sassy, Sassy? Nevertheless you have been evading the salient points throughout this debate. The fact is this culture is awash in fools with guns and you want even more fools to have them!No, Wizard, the last thing we want is liberals having more guns.
We want law-abiding citizens to have them so when the criminals commit a crime against them, they don't have to wait for the police to protect themselves or their family.
The liberals can wait for the police. Good luck with that.Jonesy, instead of your knee-jerk ideological insults and evasions, why don't you try to comprehend the illogical of the statement you just made. "Law-abiding citizens" will never commit heinous acts like we saw in Newtown, so stop conflating "crime'"and criminals with your compulsions and fears that require more weaponry to permeate this country under the canard of protection.
"No, Wizard, the last thing we want is liberals having more guns."
Stating that (as mentioned) "the crazy and paranoid people" (like Lanza) are "liberals" is more ridiculous than your first premise. You go on to suggest that liberals (who mostly don't own weapons) have to wait for the police to protect them. That sounds a lot more paranoid than any liberal I know.I've not equated liberals to Lanza. It's first time I've typed his name. However, I do believe there are some liberals who are "not letting a crisis go to waste" by using the deaths of 20 children to further their political agenda. I don't respect that.
Really Whimsy? Because I've been over there --------- discussing everything and all points while you've been posting pretty propaganda pictures. I deal in facts, not rhetoric and propaganda. Just because I'm the only one here who will admit that there aren't any (for either side) reliable statistics because they are all skewed to their own purpose (both sides of this particular issue) is not "avoiding" the point. It sort of is the point. I'm curious how you decide I want more people to have anything. I haven't advocated that anyone go out and purchase a gun who doesn't already own one nor given one reason they should do so. In fact, over there --------------- where YOU have been notably absent, I even said that few would have an issue with a ban on military grade weapons. Provided the definition was specific and not left open to additions on the whim of the AG. That any addition should require Congressional action. To date, not a single "give me all your guns" liberal has responded why we can't do that.
Impressive. A quote from another era, from an extremely turbulent time, completely irrelevant to the current climate, used to support your argument. Very impressive reach Whimsy!
- Jonesy50posted 11 years ago0
Rad Man wrote: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine and is a standard military rifle."
Looks like Rad must have gotten a dictionary for Christmas.Next time don't ask for a definition from someone sitting at a computer. Duh.
I believe Wilderness's point was do YOU know what an assault weapon was. Obviously, you didn't. Fair enough. I can accept that.
Most anti-gunners don't know the breech from a muzzle. They just know they don't understand it so they must fear it. It's the liberal way.Jonesy50.
Are you suggesting the liberal way is fearful and only conservative should be allowed their guns?
Could that be a Christian Political stacking the deck play?
I’m fearless and thank God ,not BigotedI'm not suggesting anything, Castle. What I am stating is Liberals dislike guns. IMHO, that dislike is based mostly in fear, be that because some of them haven't taken the time to learn about guns or they're too lazy to do so. Some dislike them out of ignorance or they've never had the occasion to go to a shooting range.
There are any number of reasons, Castle, just like there are any number of reasons law-abiding citizens choose to go armed. I have have a permit to carry and do so for my reasons.
That opinion has nothing to do with my faith, yours, or the lack of it on either of our parts.
I'm also not a bigot, choosing to not judge a person except by how they treat me or those I care about.
Actually, no it wasn't. The definition Rad gave was one I could accept and could even agree to a ban on, but it most definitely is not what most of those screaming to ban assault rifles are talking about.
Most of those refer to any semi-automatic weapon, including the .22 handgun I had at one time. And the .22 rifle my grandson has as well as thousands of deer rifles around the country. As you point out those people haven't a clue what they're talking about, just repeating nonsense that others have spouted.
It may not make sense to ban the "assault weapon" rad man refers to (and it actually doesn't) but at least it's a reasonable definition that could be worked with.Fair enough. His was a textbook, copy and paste answer. I went with it and should have left your name out of my response. My apologies.
wilderness
Deer rifles
Deer killed one million.2 people a year, where is our defense?Sorry, Castle, but that one is going right over my head. Somehow I'm not picking up what you're trying to say.
Do you get a load of the ammo they used to kill a deer.
In reality, the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights not to ensure Americans could enjoy hunting or target practice, but as a protection against government tyranny."...as a protection against government tyranny."
EXACTLY, Castle. One of the main reasons we won't give up our guns easily. We have them for self-protection and "as a protection against government tyranny."
Take your dislike and lack of respect for GWB. Multiply that by 1,000. Now you know how Conservatives and people who believe in the United States Constitution feel about Barack Obama. We don't trust him or anyone else from his administration.Who can trust USA and their Guns
Not counting Native America the greatest genocide in human history. White dominate America fought the white Germany because it’s their job to own the World. Cheap food and more recent cheap oil is what fight over most. Oh! and give other countries Walmarts McDonalds KC and so on
Canada 1812
ARGENTINA 1890 CHILE 1891 HAITI 1891
HAWAII 1893 (-?) NICARAGUA 1894
CHINA 1894-95 KOREA 1894-96
PANAMA 1895 NICARAGUA 1896
CHINA 1898-1900 PHILIPPINES 1818-1902
CUBA 1898-1910
GUAMU 1898 (-?) PERTO RICO 1898 NICARAGUA 1898
SAMOA 1899 (-?)
NICARAGUA 1899 PANAMA 1901-14 HONDURAS 1903
DOMINICAN 1904
REPUBLIC
KOREA 1904-05
CUBA 1906-09
NICARAGUA 1907 HONDURAS 1907 PANAMA 1908
NICARAGUA 1910 HONDURAS 1911
CHINA 1911-41
CUBA 1912
PANAMA 1912 HONDURAS 1912
Add on from 1912 to 2011 another 134 countriesre-correction
another 134 other battles in other countries
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I believe the real irony here is that the mass hysteria of these immature threads only goe's to prove the need for anti- gun people to at least ! Go to school to get educated in weaponry . There is more mis-information on guns , assault weapons , and firearms here than ever before !
I would go to school for firearm education, if the defense budget didn't stacked the deck so high on their information. When your defense budget is 10 times your education budget, guess who gets crushed. Then People want guns to protect themselves from the defense team.
Gun addiction get like oil addiction, too bad their so many other ways to produce energy, higher education and to be civilized like many other countriesI doubt very much that the defense budget is 10 times the education budget. Did you forget to add in the amounts states supply to education? That's the large bulk of it, after all.
Castle,
You keep on trying to instill some budgetary argument when we are currently working without one. If you insist on joining a conversation regarding the politics of a country of which you do not have first hand knowledge, at least attempt to educate yourself a bit.I have met three of your presidents, is that first hand enough?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Castlepaloma , what country are u from if I might ask ? And what printing press are you getting your "facts" from , trash it man , it aint workin!
Only Believe Half of what you Hear after you have done at least 3 check or more
Don't believe everything you hear, don't believe everything you read, and only believe half of what you see.
I base my life on good sense, no matter how you spin your guns, it only make sense to kill an animal for food.
It's much more intelligent and brave to not kill than to kill.
If you run of ideas to protect yourself from harm, then you can kill. I can't imagine running out of idea to harm and have a perfect record to prove it.
Your only allowing more death from a tool that has only one purpose.
To KillAnd here is when I saunter on over the the gun nuts' side for a minute. Hunting for sport is important in rural areas where when left unchecked an animals population would expand to dangerous proportions. In WV- where I live- deer season helps keep the white tails in check. They have few natural preditors in the area and they breed like rabbits. Even with hunting there are several strips of road where you literally can not drive more than a quarter of a mile without having to hit the breaks to avoid them. I have hit 3 of them in my life (And narrowly avoided dozens). It totaled one of my cars and did several thousands of dollars combined to two others. People die from deer/car collisions on a pretty regular basis. They destroy farms and gardens as well.
And that is in a state with so many hunters that they used to close school the first week of hunting season in some counties because over 50 percent of the students were going to be gone anyway. So yes hunting actually serves a purpose.
Now... on the flip side that means that in November it isn't safe to be anywhere near the woods as a quarter of a million ignorant beer-drinking pickup driving rebel-flag waving idiots who shouldn't own a butter knife carry enough guns and ammo to successfully attack a small country into the trees.
Some of them have enough skill to bow hunt as well but most of them are too inept to hit the broad side of a barn without taking 6 shots.You too, Melissa? I grew up hunting in Oregon, but when I moved to Virginia I found that it became a drunken ordeal with 10 armed men and 50 dogs chasing some other dog sized creature with antlers while expending as much ammunition as humanely possible - I haven't hunted since.
It isn't limited to the east coast, though.
The elk hunting camp next to ours one year in Oregon had a woman squatting on her heels with her Alaskan Husky between her knees; some intrepid city "hunter" shot her dog and both her knees, protecting her from the wolf attacking her. I had another city hunter come into the gas station I worked at, looking for a butcher for his bull elk - the mule tied to the top of his rig.I hunted until I managed to convince my cousins (19 all male on one side) uncles and father that I did-contrary to their opinion-have a uterus. (Around 12 or so) I continued in marksman ship competitions (both bow and gun) until I convinced them I had breasts as well (no need to list an age on that one) and at least with the bow it messed up my aim.
I realized that the normally intelligent males in my family lost 40-50 I.Q. points the second that deer season came around.- That's what I found in Va., too. Those "hunters" had no brains and they weren't there to feed themselves or even to simply kill something. They were there to get drunk and have a good time.
Yep... and we are ARMING them hon
Tell me you at least think there should be laws against drinking while armed... please...
We have laws about driving while drinking...Any hunter found within 100 yards of a beer needs locked up for a while and lose their guns for life.
I have zero use for drunk drivers and even less for drunken hunters.~Hugs~ Compromise! Let's go have a beer!
Right on! Sounds good to me - it's a cold miserable night here.
We'll you don't have anything to break the wind up there besides the occasional confused reindeer.
Now, now - I'm not that far north. It's still nearly 500 miles to Canada.
I'll leave that frozen wasteland (except Vancouver Island - that was gorgeous) to those crazy Canucks.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Sassy < he's right , The states get there education money first .......Property taxes here !......
I know the States provide a bulk of Education monies.. The question was, does he? I was betting no, but now someone has informed him.
Canada is raked number I on education where I am from and was raked 4th best country to live in and the USA 31ST
The US has real property rights, religious freedom, constitutionally protected gun rights, low taxes, stable government, we do not have over-population, we have great national parks and large diverse geography to move around in.
Personally I prefer doing business in the USA, but was booted out, for not doing a war sculpture for GW BushI have a feeling the present administration would welcome you with open arms, Castle.
Interestingly enough the ratings like that, that rate countries as good to live in, seem to primarily use values that Americans don't appreciate much. Like socialistic governments although that is changing as our citizens demand more and more entitlements, more and more government to take care of them and support their wants at the cost of someone else.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I'll tell you one thing about America , if youre from pakistan, I dont want your opine about ourr country ........same for Canada!.......when you do what America has done in two hundred years ..........Call me !
Umm... Canada HAS done what we've done in the same amount of time. Actually they've done it just a bit better.
Canadians tend to be more rational on several topics. Two come immediately to mind health care policy and gun regulations.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Melissa , Please!...... its easy for Canada to just sit by the strongest nation since Rome and say .......Look at me Im strong too !.......but to then tear apart America for egotistic pleasure ? .........sometimes ,,politically Canada sounds like a grouper fish swimming withh whales ! And Melissa , I love ya girll!............:-}
Firearms where here before i took my first breath and will be here after my last.
People who kill other people are mentally ill that's where the work needs to start+1 That's my opinion, too. The problem isn't guns, it's our society somehow.
I did some research on homicide rates for countries with varying amounts of gun ownership (wrote a hub on it the other day) and found that there is no correlation. Without guns, killers apparently just use something else.- And may I add - You can't legislate crazy with a crazy legislature. Washington is in need of a good overhaul.
We all can agree on that. Too much polarization. Too many Tea Partiers.
And the Tea Partiers could say there's FAR, FAR TOO MANY liberals.
They're both right, too. We also have too many conservatives; what we need are some real people, people that care for something besides their own pocket book. Not politicians.
- Zerlina Baumgarteposted 11 years ago0
You can't kill people with a pea shooter or a snow ball.Yet in America they combat
guns by producing and selling more and more guns.
In most parts of the world ONLY the police and army possess a gun.
What would you use a gun otherwise?
Killing comes to mind.
No need to be crazy to be a killer but just to have available the weapons.
Wake up America!!
Such a violent society yet they think they can keep the peace by
"protecting" themselves with more and more firearms.Tell that to the people of Syria. When only the police and military have guns. 60,000 DIE
Syria is at war.
Is USA at war?
Or are you armed "just in case" and "some" just
missuse their privilege??
The percentage with U.S. in mortality by gun violence
in Syria according to the UN and UNESCO is almost the same.
In Syria you have just a few million people,in the USA over 300 million.
Something doesn't add up...Most of the so-called gun violence is between gang members in areas were gun control and regulation is the tightest. Consider that for moment. The places in this country where it is the most difficult to legally obtain a firearm locally have a tendency to be the locations where most people are being harmed or killed.
Attempting to compare one country to another when it comes to firearms is a fallacy. Japan has the lowest firearm deaths per capita out of any country due to their mostly homogeneous racial background and culture of submission to authority. They have no guns for citizens. Switzerland also has a mostly homogeneous culture but they demand that every able bodied male in the age of majority become trained and own a full-automatic weapon. Their firearms deaths are also among the lowest in the world per capita, comparing ANY country to America in terms of what would work is a fallacy. There are too many diverse cultures, too much repressed racial hatred that people just can't seem to let go of, and too much constant internal warfare for a ban on guns to work. A few sensical registration requirements make sense. Disarmament and subsequent domination of some of our towns by drug cartels and gangs, among other possibilities, is NOT sensical. This isn't an alarmist reaction, this is a fact. It has come close to happening in many American border towns and it HAS happened in many Mexican border towns.
Drugs and crime are too popular once you go south of the border in the US, and continues downward for several other countries in that direction. Lots of those drugs and a good deal of crime comes upward to America because our war on drugs makes it ever so profitable.
People have this idea that the US Military is just 'too big to fail'. Sorry to burst your bubble but there is too much land for law enforcement and the military to completely defend it. If you combine the numbers of law enforcement both state and federal with military personnel the number is less than 4,000,000 total. That seems like a lot but it is only roughly the population of Los Angeles. There are nearly 3.8 million square miles of United States land and sea to cover. We have trouble mobilizing national guard troops for massive natural disasters at times and people want to believe that we can stop a massive upsurge in violent crime when we are unarmed? Newsflash, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country that have NEVER KILLED ANYONE. There are somewhere around 80-90X more firearms in this country than law enforcement and Military in this country.
Take a look at what strict gun laws get you when you're fighting for your homeland against drug cartels. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/m … massacres/
Citizens have to defend themselves, but slowly over the course of the last century people have become indoctrinated into a society of "I deserve this,give me that." Instead of learning personal responsibility and taking up the mantle of self-protection in a world that is far more dangerous than they want to believe, many people seem to think it is only proper to let someone ELSE protect them. It's your life. Give up your ability to directly defend it at your own discretion. I have no intention of doing so and even if it did come down to one of those 'black helicopter' scenarios and I die horribly, I don't care. I was never under the mistaken belief that I was going to live forever. My life is precious. The lives of my friends and family are precious. I will not surrender them and have them live in fear of some random scumbag with a knife, bat, or gun just because some people can't get their heads out of their butts long enough to realize this country is at war with itself in its inner-cities and many of our politicians are NOT interested in the American dream unless it's THEIR dream.
Anyone who thinks they can count on the Police entirely to defend them is living in a fantasy land. It's not because the police aren't competent, it's because there is too much land and opportunity for a crime to occur. How often does the police arrive in time to stop a violent crime compared to how often they show up in time to just take a statement and look for the perpetrator? Think about that when you consider disarming a populace because 'it makes sense'.
That's a WAR not everyday in America where it's ALAWAYS war!!!
- Zerlina Baumgarteposted 11 years ago0
You wouldn't need to "protect" your family if NO ONE had guns!
Killers seem to be isolated to American soil only....
More and more guns only creates more deaths!Strange.. last I heard people were chopping up little kids with knives and axes all over the world. Drug cartels in mexico kill tens out thousands of citizens of that country every year but hey.. at least the citizens there don't have mean old nasty guns to hurt themselves with. Someone might get hurt if they had the capacity to defend themselves right? pfft.
- Zerlina Baumgarteposted 11 years ago0
Tsk..tsk...tsk....Thank God most civilized countries don't have a
second amendment .
That's the source of violence in America.
The right to own a firearm???
Still in the Middle Ages I'm afraid...Yes, why do we really need firearms? Because we have been talked into the fact they are neccessary, Oh well, living in America!
Because the bad guys have firearms. Are you going to protect me?
NO ONE including bad guys should have fire arms!!
That's the key to the whole thing.
You have already decided that the "bad guys" would always have guns.
If no one has guns you don't need protection.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem dear WHOISIT!!How exactly do you intend to keep them from getting firearms? America is one of the physically largest countries on the planet with thousands of miles of land based borders and tens of thousands of sea based borders. There are not enough military and law enforcement officers in the country to keep guns from getting into the country, not including the people who would simply make them in their basements. Zipguns are deadly, and what next.. a ban on gas-powered nail guns? No more bows? We going to ban sharp objects? I think England should ban those pesky sharp objects since so many people get stabbed to death each year.
If we were a physically much smaller country, something like the size of Japan or smaller, and surrounded by water on all sides then we might be able to completely stop gun smuggling via a totalitarian police state. It won't work unless we sell off large chunks of real-estate and find the tax money to hire a lot more law enforcement personnel.Scottie Futch
It sounds like everything could kill you, are you you don't work for an insurance company?
Zerlina,
If that picture is of you, you're a pretty girl that I'm sure gets her fair share of attention from afar. If a criminal is coming at you with a knife with only the worst of intentions (remember, now, he does have a knife), would you rather:
A. Scream as he kills you?
or
B. Draw a gun and shoot him?
Criminals are going to do what they want by any means necessary and I prefer to be the one bring the gun to the knife fight.
Of course, there is another idea. I could just always have a slow-running liberal with me. That way I just have to out run the liberal. I like that idea!!!A third alternative is beating his everloving ass.
I assume you are playing the rape card and you do women a disservice. You are being especially insulting to this particular female liberal...
He would have to put the knife down or at least to the side to unbutton his pants... in that time THIS liberal woman would have put his gonads somewhere around his bellybutton.
Not all second amenders say stupid crap like "but what if someone tries to rape you" but those who do generally just reinforce the idea that they shouldn't be trusted with a gun anyway.
1. You assume a women is helpless without a big bad gun to protect her.
2. You assume that women are frightened by big bad rapists and use that to your advantage.
3. You assume that shooting someone would be less psychologically damaging to a women then being raped.
And before you have the audacity to ask the really stupid question that usually comes next when I have this conversation...
Yes as a matter of fact I have been... No I don't wish I had a gun when it happened it wouldn't have improved the outcome not one bit. No I'm not in the least bit scared it will happen again.First, no, actually rape didn't even enter my mind and being insulting to you wasn't either. I was making a point with Zerlina. I must say I do like your idea on how to handle a rapist and am sincerely sorry you experienced that.
I know a woman who was raped and she now carries a pistol legally. She's said it won't happen to her again either. It effected her differently in how she decided to deal with it.
Second, there is a special place in hell for a guy who would do such a thing. I would never ask such questions of anyone, Melissa. I regret that you think I would.Thank you for that very respectful post.
I understand that there are women that have come out the other side wanting a gun for protection. It's one of the reasons that I DON'T oppose handguns for self defense... It is also one of the reasons that I also would like psych testing before allowing someone to carry one. PTSD can make people hyper-vigilant. Hyper-vigilance and hand-guns don't mix.
I also see the need for hunting.
I don't see the need for constitutional protection for collectors.
I don't want to ban guns... I don't want my kids to see them everyday.
I want to make sure that those who scream so loudly about their rights also know that they are going to be severely punished if they don't use those rights responsibly. I also want to make sure that idiots and crazy people were never legally armed in the first place... This DOES happen...(again the Fort Hood shooting was done with a legally obtain handgun)
The constitution doesn't say "Here are your rights with no limitations". Almost every amendment has exceptions and requirements. The second amendment shouldn't be special.Perhaps you would like for all states to have to go through what I had to to get my permit to carry legally. In Tennessee, a person who wishes to legally carry must:
1. Take a course on the state laws, safe operation and carry of a handgun.
2. Qualify on a shooting range.
3. Pass a written test.
4. Take the certificate given to the Tennessee Department of Safety and apply for a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP).
5. Pay the $115 fee.
6. Get fingerprinted so they can be submitted with their application.
7. The application and fingerprints are sent to the FBI and TBI where background checks are run with federal, state, and local authorities.
8. This process usually takes less than 90 days. Mine took 107.
9. IF the applicant is approved, they are issued a HCP and can legally carry a handgun.
10. The permit must be renewed every four years.
What do you think?I would also like psychological testing and stiff prison sentences for those who are neglectful (read stupid) with their guns... including the afore mentioned parents who's kids shoot themselves and/or others with their guns and those who provide the guns willingly to people who do stupid s*** with them.
I would also support a ban on clips of over 14 rounds UNLESS they were being used at a firing range for target practice. Not the guns that can use them... just the clips.
If you can't hit a deer or a burglar (or the goon squad from our corrupt government- or a zombie- or alien- or killer mutant monkey) with 14 rounds then you shouldn't have a gun anyway.
I also know a woman that was raped at knife point.
She didn't go out and bought a gun.
She learned krag maga the Israeli deadly self
defense method and VOILA' !!!!
Twice she used it and twice she didn't use a gun.
Now she is well known and respected all over town.
No one would even think to attack her unless they are willing
to loose their manhood without anesthesia... ;-))
That woman is my 45 years old gorgeous mother.
WOW!!
Excellent answer Melissa!!!
Need for hunting??
Supermarkets are well stocked and rather inexpensive.
Men patronizing and misjudging women are a symptom of a
much bigger problem prevalent in America.
We can't have a brain or an intelligent thought.
We are just "pretty things" to be seen but not heard.
Brava for your answer!!!
BTW,I love your postings.The 1950s ended a while ago Zerlina. We don't just pat a lady on the head and tell her "now, now" dear anymore. Though many other countries could learn to evolve beyond that mindset and stop doing that themselves.
What does a well stocked supermarket have to do with subsistence hunting? Why should I or anyone else have to go out and eat something someone else provides for us when we can survive by our own means? Should I feel it better to pay someone to murder a cow or a head of lettuce for me rather than take the responsibility of my own survival into my own two hands?
The biggest problem in America in my humble opinion is not gun control, patronizing male chuvanism, or even rape. The biggest problem is that so many people are coming to believe that their survivial and day to day lives are someone else's problem to safe guard.
Zerlina your friend went out and learned Krav Meaga. Many people in this country won't even do that much to defend themselves in the future. They'll sit and whine about how the police didn't come rescue them in time and then complain about how violent people are and how guns should be banned. Some of these same people will complain about sport violence and there are even those who want to ban martial arts instruction as it 'promotes violence and makes kids think it's ok to hurt people.'
The imaginary situation is not just highly improbable but very
difficult.
I live in loving and very safe countries where weapons are outlawed.
Yes,I'm told I'm pretty but I also possess 2 PHDs and 3 doctorates
which makes me just gorgeous!. ;-))
Mensa considers me a highly intelligent individual with a 183
I.Q.
I finished high school at the ripe age of 11 and university at 15
with the youngest doctorate ever given.
You present me with a very personal and highly difficult moral decision to make:
Kill or be killed.
Neither one for would a viable solution for the conundrum.
A) A knife is not a mass killing weapon.
B) Because I'm "so pretty" whom would be heartless enough
to want to kill me and why ??? ;-p
C) According to statistics in the US most of the mass killings
are done with firearms ( not knives,base ball sticks,stones or
arrows..)
D) The percentage of gun increases while the educational level and
life expectancy decreases in all countries including under developed
ones or " third world countries ".
E) By me owning an imaginary gun doesn't give a solution to the overwhelming situation in the USA,it just magnifies the problem.
F) When in doubt take the high road 80% of the times or face sure failure 100% of the times.
Warm wishes!Impressive credentials. I'm sure I'm not alone in anxiously waiting to see the caliber of your writing.
As soon as you publish something besides forum posts that is.
But, with those credentials - you must be very very busy with all that intellectual stuff. So why are you in the Hubpage's forums?
Wait... Sophia A. sent you didn't she.
geesh... smells like a sock puppet to me...
GAI do not get your humor.
I came here because one of my colleagues
said this was an intellectual fun place to be.
A lot of people here seem to be very smart, worldly and well
educated people.
Yes,I'm very busy with "all that intellectual stuff" but I also
need to relax and change pace so I visit many sites like this.
Writing?
I don't do writing I'm afraid,but I do discuss prevalent and up to
date issues with friends and colleagues which obviously isn't
proper to do here,unless you agree with everything said...Right. You remind me of a guy I met in a bar. He didn't play pool.
Again, liberals don't want armed guards at schools because it cost too much, it might frighten the children. What are you willing to do to keep children safe? Apparently nothing, but don't stop those food stamps because the children got to eat! You're not willing to do anything except give up your rights. You are sheep in a world full of wolves.
Well... this liberal doesn't want armed guards in school because this is America... not Palestine. I also don't want children exposed to a firearm daily... it teaches them that they are OK. I don't want my children raised thinking that. It teaches that the solution to violence is MORE violence... that all you need to beat a bully is a bigger bully.
This isn't the Wild West... Schools aren't supposed to be compounds.
No child should have to go to school thinking that the only way they are safe during learning is because some high-school drop out with a gun is keeping them that way. They are kids; they aren't stupid.
In addition there is absolutely no indication that it would work. If one gunman can shoot 45 people in the middle of Fort Hood (yeah no guns there) and still manage to live through it... what exactly is one Barney Fife with a Glock going to do?Melissa, I agree schools aren't suppose to be compounds. But the world isn't filled with people who think that way. A mentally-unstable person doesn't see it that way and, if they want to do harm, a locked door isn't going to stop them. Case in point - the Sandy Hook shooting.
Just think what may have happened if that courageous principle had had a permit to carry and took that nutcase down with a double tap to the head rather than having to try to tackle him.
No one is advocating some high school drop out guard our kids, I don't know where you live but the police in my town have to have at least an associates degree along with their police training. Most are former military. We're wanting police officers and trained teachers to have that ability to stop something like Sandy Hook, not the TSA screener from the airport.
One poster said something about the police officer getting involved in disciplinary actions with kids. He have School Resource Officers (SRO) in our schools. They're deputies on the sheriff department. The SRO only gets involved if a crime has taken place. I know the SRO who was at my son's high school and I could not have been happier he was there.
Unlike some of the posters on this forum, you seem like a reasonable person. Perhaps you should rethink this and study it some more. Your school board nor mine is going to put someone in charge security who isn't qualified.1. I live in West Virginia where anyone with over an associates degree is going to be doing work other than standing around holding a gun while teenagers verbally harass him/her. We aren't talking about police officers here... we are talking about security guards... The level of training is quite different.
2. Training teachers to be combat ready is also impossible. The level of man-hours it would take for training far exceeds practical. In addition the majority of teachers ARE liberal. You would have mass walk-outs if you tried to force them to carry guns.
3. Well... in Fort Hood what happened was several highly trained military personnel were gunned down trying to stop him. One lay bleeding while the shooter kicked her gun away from her hand.
*Smiles* Are you implying that as a reasonable person all I have to do is rethink this and I'll agree with you? That's kind of... er.... egotistical isn't it? I think I am a reasonable person... I have thought this through and I still disagree with you.
My school board... like many across the nation... is financially strapped. It is going to hire out security guards to the lowest bidder. Most other school boards will do the same. Government contracts generally work like that. Do you really want your kids in a building with a guard- a person who gets tormented on a daily basis by 500-1000 kids- carrying a loaded gun and supplied by an agency who offered the lowest bid on a government contract?Hi Melissa,
Firstly, I am not so sure putting armed guards in every school is a good choice or a bad one. However, are you aware that there are already armed guards in 1/3 of our public schools? Are you aware that the school where the President's children attend employs no less than 11 armed guards? And reports indicate they are attempting to hire another? What seems a crazy off the wall statement, is really what has already been employed in some areas.I WAS aware of that. I was also aware that Columbine also had an armed guard.
What the President does doesn't concern me. It's irrelevant to my opinions on putting guards at schools.
Even if I weren't already homeschooling my children an armed guard would be enough to pull them out of school. In a related note many parents are already doing such after Sandy Hook. There has been a spike in homeschool curriculum sales since the shooting.
That perhaps points at another solution for parents. (steps off of home-school soapbox)
Nothing egotistical about it, Melissa.
I just think the liberal, knee-jerk reaction on Sandy Hook is nothing more than using the death of 20 kids to further their political agenda.
"Do you really want your kids in a building with a guard- a person who gets tormented on a daily basis by 500-1000 kids- carrying a loaded gun and supplied by an agency who offered the lowest bid on a government contract?"
We already have armed deputies in our schools and they've been nothing but a good thing. These men and women are law enforcement officers and I've never seen any of them treated with anything but respect. If the kids in your school district are tormenting someone, perhaps there's a lack of discipline in the schools and at home that needs to be addressed.Why do you assume it's knee-jerk?
I've been pro gun control for years. I do know about guns. I've used them and grew up around them. I know the laws. I know the statistics-on both sides. Why do you assume that someone who disagrees with you must not understand the situation? I understand it perfectly well. I still disagree with you.
In addition while you see it as an attempt by the liberals to further a cause I likewise see it as an attempt of the 2nd amenders to spread their agenda. Both sides are using fear tactics to do it. Neither side is exactly taking the moral high-road here.
You seemed to ignore my statement of fact that at both Columbine and Fort Hood there WERE armed and trained personnel... It didn't seem to lessen the carnage. I'll add in Virginia Tech too.
Could you explain to me exactly in what scenario you think an armed guard would do anything other than provide the first target for the shooter? Please remember that your average spree shooter has an IQ that will likely far exceed that of the guard and ample time to plan the shooting while the guard will be taken by surprise.You can disagree all you want. Just no one should think they're going to get my guns without one hell of a fight.
The "2nd Amenders" just want the government to leave us alone, Melissa.
Columbine were two punk high school kids. Fort Hood was a whacked out terrorist. The guy at VA Tech was mentally ill.
As for the armed guard as you keep calling them, I'm talking about trained police officers, as we have here where I live.That doesn't really say responsible gun owner to me. That says "This is a person that will start shooting if he doesn't agree with a law" That's kind of what we DONT want: angry people who don't care about anything but themselves and are willing to kill people for it.
I just want my children to grow up in a place where dangerous people don't run around armed.
I was saying that there were armed personnel with training at those shootings... How exactly were deaths prevented by them being there? How exactly will guards help in the future if they didn't help in the past? I keep asking and you keep dodging the question.I'm not talking about a shooting fight, Melissa, as I'm not going to shoot the LEO or soldier who's just carrying out orders, if it comes to that.
I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if this country breaks up into two, maybe three, different countries in our lifetime.
I want the same for my kids, Melissa. I have two boys, 22 and 4. I want the best for them. I do have a permit to carry and do so around both of them. They think nothing of it.
What armed personnel were at Sandy Hook or VA Tech? On a base, in country, it's my understanding only MPs carry weapons. I could be wrong on that but, if so, it would be like any other civilian situation.You're right Jonesy. Most military personnel in country are not carrying weapons. You can't even keep a knife longer than like 3 inches in your barracks room and all personal firearms must be kept in a separate location outside the barracks like a bank deposit box or a gun store owner with a lock box storage policy.
VA tech had it's own police force... Columbine had a arm guard that tried to stop the shooters and failed. Fort Hood had a trained solder ... once again (as I said way back)... almost bleed to death after she missed. The shooter then walked over and kicked the gun away from her wounded body.
The fact of there not being any armed soldiers in the cafeteria when the shooting started at fort hood kind of proves the opinion that armed guards aren't really going to help. Unless each student or at least each classroom gets one. All it means is that somewhere in the nearby area someone has a gun... One that there is a pretty good chance he'll MISS with if he was in the room anyway...
Unless you can find me a mass shooting that was averted with no loss of life by a armed guard then you saying that they would help is an opinion with not even anecdotal evidence. At least I have anecdotal evidence that dozens of people would STILL get killed even when train armed personnel try to engage (as in Columbine and Fort Hood)http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/17/o … n-antonio/
There is also a bit of bias in the media. When a citizen stops a mass shooting before the body count racks up people claim it wasn't a mass shooting, since you know... it wasn't. It was a potential threat averted and doesn't make the news outside of local areas.
Also if you read through this link you'll see some nifty examples of mass shootings averted or highly limited by civilians with firearms. http://www.blogster.com/feduptohere/ann … s-killingsI appreciate that list and grant that there are some that are excellent examples of how a armed individual could reduce the body count.
The first story is a very apt example and point is given to you...
Ann Coulter's list is quite a bit dishonest as a "mass killing averted list" as many in those lists weren't averted mass killings but averted targeted killings of more than one person...
Ernesto Villagomez for example went into the bar looking to kill members of his family.
It's kind of an apples and oranges thing.
But point given anyway. There were shootings that were stopped by other shootings. There were shootings with armed personel present that were completely ineffective. So I think it's safe to say that we are still at "It might help sometimes"
Now next point... How dangerous would it be to have the security guards and guns present in the school anyway? Does their very presence pose a danger on a regular basis? I.E. are kids going to be killed by their "protectors" or by the guns of their protectors?
Second paragraph: If I'm not mistaken, he shooting at Fort Hood took place at an outside event, not a cafeteria. Maybe you're thinking of Columbine?
Third one: I believe we're now looking for ways to prevent such tragedies as Sandy Hook from happening again. Perhaps if we had armed guards at places like schools these things could be prevented.
We can do this back and forth all night but it won't change anything. I believe guns are a tool for protection, personal and from tyranny. You don't. I believe some liberals are using the deaths of 20 children to further their political agenda. There's nothing you can say to change my opinion on that and, no, I'm not insinuating you're one of them.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Police carry guns, children are exposed to them daily. Guns are ok, as a matter of fact the only thing wrong with guns is the idiots who sometimes get a hold of them! President Obama's children attend school where there are armed guards so why shouldn't all children receive the same protection? The liberal agenda now is to attempt to take our firearms loosing one more of our Constitutional freedoms and the right to protect ourselves from an overbearing tyrannical government.
We have a large military and each school in this Nation deserves to be guarded, who said schools would have to be a compound? Place an active duty soldier,Marine,Airman,Seaman at all schools in uniform or not. Conceal the weapon they carry and publicize it and I bet these shootings will stop. The United States spent 6 Billion dollars yesterday, they will spend 6 Billion today,tomorrow and the next day. Protecting our children is more important than spending money on PBS.Oh... guards at a school wouldn't serve as determent at all. They might conceivably reduce or eliminate body count but they wouldn't stop a shooter from trying.
These people either commit suicide or are prepared to commit suicide by cop. They are planning on getting killed either way. Saying "someone will kill you" is kinda a "duh" thing.
And my daughter has seen one gun in her entire life... She's around police/ex police all the time. Guns don't come in my home and I don't go into someone's home who owns a gun. My mother-in-law (my daughter saw the gun at her house) was told to either get rid of the gun or don't expect visitations at her house.
My daughter doesn't run into police officers on the job and armed... I'm not sure how daily happens but she's managed once in 4 years... which is the same amount of times I've been exposed to a firearm.Armed guards would not serve as a deterrent because you say so? Do you have proof of that or are we just supposed to take your word for it based on the fact you are an expert?
Please don't bother to respond if this is all you bring.Armed guards would tend to become involved in student disciplinary matters traditionally and best handled by teachers and school administrators. They would tend to stick their noses into these matters and/or teachers might invite them to deal with student disciplinary matters that they should be dealing with. Moreover, where would the money come from. Typical NRA supporters are hardly the ones who elect public officials who support taxes for public education. LaPierre's recommendation is not a serious or workable proposal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM*pats head* Yes dear...
Feel like being belligerent much?
Lets see your links proving that suicidal people will be deterred by people who want to shoot them.
More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, less crime.
NEXT!!!How about if guns were illegal to own??
We haven't seen a decrease in crime in the USA even
when streets are flooded with firearms and it's legal to possess one
.The opposite is true.
More guns,more violence and crime.
America is a paradise for violence,crimes and horrible living
conditions due to the fear of been another statistic in the gun wars...
NEXT PATIENT PLEASE!!!"How about if guns were illegal to own??"
God, you're naive. How many criminals do you know that care about whether or not the gun they carry is legal or not?
"America is a paradise for violence,crimes and horrible living
conditions due to the fear of been another statistic in the gun wars."
Then why are you here? If it's so bad here, Delta is ready when you are. You're certainly capable of and invited to leave here on the next flight out.
I would rather eat in a restaurant with 50 handgun carry permit holders than just one thug carrying illegally. Of course, I would much rather eat alone than anywhere near a liberal.See?
I'm NOT here but I often work HERE so I can see the
socio-economical problems from the OUTSIDE which it's
the only way to assess a violence related issue,not
from inside.
Your problem is that you don't see the forest because of the trees...
You mean to tell me the great majority of countries around the world
without guns don't know they live in a fantasy world ??
Hush hush...they might hear you!
ROFLMAO!! Typical reaction: live with my mistakes or get out
of the country!!!!! ( Sadly, great minds did so...)
I don't live HERE and only travel Emirates Airways because as
a member of the UN I travel for free with them...
I hope you enjoy your dinner...and are able to digest it.
I much rather be in a place where ONLY the police carry guns.
Can you imagine the mayhem in that imaginary restaurant if a light
bulb explodes or a firecracker is lit??
I doubt it you'll enjoy your dessert....LOLOL.I'm beginning to believe GA is right.
Bless your little heart. You have a good evening, "Zerlina."
I'm going back to reality.Your perception of reality is actually REALITY to you.
For all of us the REALITY is different and only ours.
Hence: your reality and mine can be different and
we are both right.
And yes,Zerlina is my own ugly name.
Don't fret,I'm used to sarcasm.You may be right about the perception of reality.
ie.
Jonsey50 asked you... "If that picture is of you, you're a pretty girl that I'm sure gets her fair share of attention from afar. "
you replied... "Yes,I'm told I'm pretty but I also possess 2 PHDs and 3 doctorates
which makes me just gorgeous!. ;-))"
Which is curious because it does support your statement that you do travel a lot.
Here is the uncropped version of your picture...
It is the promo image for realladiesDOTcom
which promotes, among other things:
"Thousands single Russian ladies and Russian ladies for marriage"
"RealTatyana's profile - ReaLadies.com"
"Where you can meet Sexy Hot Ukrainian Girls"
"Hot Ukrainian single women and beautiful Ukrainian brides are ..."
You have my sympathy, because as you said..."And yes,Zerlina is my own ugly name."
But it is odd that it isn't such an ugly name when it is used as half of the lead duet in " Mozart's "Don Giovanni." - with staging by............ .... Lothar Baumgarte
sniff... snifff... who took their shoes off?
GA
DITTO Castlepaloma!!!
You don't throw more gasoline to a fire to extinguish it...
Guns have ONLY one purpose:
TO KILL.Alright, so here's the thing. You are welcome to your opinion. However, please don't abuse the hospitality. You want to debate? Fine. You want to insult and act all holier than thou? Take your green card, VISA, passport, and yourself, hop the next plane and go live in one of those countries you find so much better than the USA. No one is holding you hostage here.
As you stated, you don't understand our position. You don't have a 2nd Amendment. Nor a Bill of Rights. We do. There is a history there, there is a reason there.
You can have your opinion and state it. But take your arrogance back to Europe where it belongs.Here is another thing:
I'm NOT here !!!.
I never insult,I just vehemently disagree without been personal.
You are NOT qualified to give or take your country's hospitality
in the same way I'm not qualified to tell you to shut up and go to
learn from other countries much older than yours and without the gun violence problem.
If I disagree with you I must leave your country right away ??.
LOLOL.
I'm not "HERE"!!
Most of the world isn't here!
I'm knowledgeable NOT arrogant or holier than thou!!
I don't put down your amazing country either!.
I just point out problems that people like you make even bigger.
Besides other places in Earth have Bills of Rights too.
Your idea that yours is an exclusive and perfect position
only proves that you are wrong.
If you were right no guns problems would be so prevalent "HERE".
I have never said other countries are better or worse than the USA,
I just pointed out what guns are doing to your society which it's
not a secret.
That said,YOUR arrogance as an American isn't becoming at all
because most of your countrymen aren't.!
Kiss, kiss, Sassy Sue!!America is a paradise for violence,crimes and horrible living
conditions due to the fear of been another statistic in the gun wars..
That's the source of violence in America.
The right to own a firearm???
Still in the Middle Ages I'm afraid...
Killing squirrels for fun?
Such an ad nausea details about a gun?
What kind of child were you?
That's the way serial killers are made.
Traveling would make a huge difference for most Americans, as well
as studying a new language or doing something culturally positive
instead of going out shooting at something,
Hmmm..fairly insulting stuff. Even worse that you don't consider it such. You are arrogant and believe everyone who disagrees with your point is some backward fool living in the Middle Ages. It was YOUR comment about the 2nd Amendment, how we are the only country to have such a thing.
Your profile says you live (sometimes) in NY. Here is a newsflash sweetie pie. The majority of us (not all ) have no interest in being the UK, Italy, Germany, etc. Here's another: they have plenty of violence there as well. I could fill the page with it. You rely on biased media about America and think you have enough knowledge to comment on it. You don't. There is a difference, and it is pretty discernible, between stating your opinion and looking down your nose.
Did not tell you to leave because you disagreed. Told you to leave because of that high bred attitude of yours. It oozes out of every post.
Oh but the best for last:
"I just point out problems that people like you make even bigger."
You aren't here. You don't know squat about our problems. You only have an opinion formed from what others have told you in the media, formed from pieces of our news on some particular day, and your own experiences half a world a way. Not OUR experiences.
And you don't know me from Adam. As difficult as I can see it is for you, thinking so highly of yourself and all, don't presume to pass a judgement on me with your limited knowledge.
Easy, Sassy. She's not worth it. Just another "foreigner."
ROFLMAO!!
Never mind...
Enough said...Nice to meet you Zerlina, welcome to the hub pages, your opinions are appreciated, and I would love to travel, would love to try in living Italy, I have always wanted to experience different cultures, especially beautiful Italy. Don't let Sassy scare you away, lol, her bark is worse than her bite...she is really quite cool, and intelligent, even though we usually disagree on everything politically, she has always been respectful, and a class act
Welcome, hope you love it here as much as we do
Hello, Ms. Sue.
Not one member of Congress, to my knowledge, has demanded an inquiry into the social causes for the slaughter of 20 innocent children in our own country but there were three (3) conservative driven Congressional hearings into the deaths of four armed Americans in war torn Bengazi, Lybia.
Care to tell us once again, Ms. Sue, why foreigners have no business questioning your American superiority?Four "armed" Americans Quill? I think you are mistaken.
Further, if you had actually read the posts, Quill, you would realize I did not have an issue with a stated opinion, rather the omnipotent and empirical attitude which accompanied it.
You can blame the "take all their guns" people for the complete lack of any attention to social causes. It's all the fault of the guns you know People have nothing to do with it.Most of us that support gun control have no desire to "take all your guns".
We acknowledge that guns are only part of the problem... but they are the easiest to fix quickly... Other solutions would take a generation or two to enact.
We also stand agape at the fact that many (not all) of the 2nd amendment gang don't acknowledge that people don't shoot other people with toasters. They also don't pick up bullets and throw them real fast.
To us it is blatantly obvious that guns are part of the problem... So why ignore what is obviously part of the problem?
If a problem exists and you know some of the causes then fix them. That seems completely logical to me. Will it fix the whole problem? Nope. But it WILL fix some of it.It would all be so simple if those in Congress were quite so reasonable as yourself, Melissa. That isn't the case though. As we've seen as this has unfolded. Even within Democratic State legislature's across the country. It isn't enough to ban military grade weapons. Not enough to ban certain semi-automatics. Not enough to tighten registration requirements and background checks. No, that isn't enough. I've stated it before..it is really very simple.
Define military grade. Specifically. Give it a finite definition. (not you, but, in a Bill)
Then close it. No open ended, forever and all time, add whatever weapons we so choose thing (which is all that has so far been proposed).
I have faith in people such as yourself and Tammy not to use it as a stepping stone to eradicating the 2nd Amendment. You'll have to pardon me if I have no such faith in any member of our current Administration. Therefore, any law must be finite and specific. Not vague and open ended. Don't you find it odd that they refuse to do that? When any Congressman would be hard pressed to vote against such a thing and keep their job come mid-terms.+1 That's my problem, exactly. We all know there are a goodly number of very vocal and powerful people that won't stop until the 2nd is gone, and that's a huge problem. People like Melissa and Tammy are not, but others are.
That's when the moderates step in and balance the scales. Unfortunately that's what the responsibility of a moderate is now... to provide a balancing factor between the idiots on the extreme of both sides of really any issue.
You don't see moderates because it's just not good entertainment to show them NOT screaming and hurling curses at the other side... however they do exist and they are more powerful than you realize...
Actually I don't find it all that odd. Finite and specific laws can not be used to define something that is constantly changing.
Take for example defining "Military" Grade weapons. Defining it as "weapons comparable to those used by the military" means that in 15 years the same guns banned would be available again as our military weaponry increases. In short all it means is that privately held guns would be behind the technology of our army.
I don't want to see an abrams tank coming down my street regardless of what the military is using.
You can't make laws that limit one definition to rely on the definition another thing if the 2nd thing is not concrete.
They simply don't know what is going to happen next... if we ban a specific type of weapon(s) and say "We will never ban another type of weapon" and a new and even more dangerous type of weapon replaces the one we ban (which will happen) then our hands are tied.How would our hands ever be tied? You would be talking about an amendment to the law to include new weapons. Which would require Congressional action. That is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the only action required to add a gun to the ban list would be the decision of the AG. And I definitely have zero faith that Holder will not use any such law to eradicate the 2nd Amendment.
No guns would suddenly "drop off" the banned list once they were included just because they were no longer being used by the military, because there would be a list.Holder doesn't have that kind of pull.
No one can destroy the second amendment any more than they can any other amendment. Holder isn't an island. It isn't his job or even the job of the congress to determine if an action violates the constitution.
Holder doesn't run unchecked... no government official does.
The second amendment is in no danger of being eradicated...
The worst danger is some guns that shouldn't be banned are temporarily banned until someone oversteps their boundaries and slapped by the supreme court.
There are simply no easy definitions to define "military grade" that aren't reliant on the grade of weapons used by the military.He does not currently have such pull. But the gun control bills being proposed would give him and his office that authority.
If it is how you state (and I'd like a link) then I wouldn't worry overmuch. The supreme court can and will overrule it. They have the ultimate say in whether a law is unconstitutional.
Currently it is a conservative supreme court with the swing vote being held by Kennedy-- who is anti gun control.
Feinstein:
" “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-fe … your-guns/
"On December 20, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said the state may confiscate firearms. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said."
The last gun control bill put forth so far has this clause:
"Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Now, I did look, but as of now could not find the specific parameters of Feinstein's bill, however, by her comments I'm not hopeful it is reasonable.
Now, do YOU think there isn't any initiative to eradicate the 2nd Amendment? And do you think, based on their comments, these are reasonable people to try and compromise with?
Hi Sue.
Read the US Senate Special Report on Benghazi. It says that the two former Navy Seals killed were American Diplomatic Security Agents. {1} I think it is reasonable, due to the anemic security conditions, to expect Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith would have been armed during the attack but I have not found a report to support that notion.
Also related but not relevant, the doctor who treated Mr. Stevens later at a nearly hospital told the BBC that he spent an hour trying to revive the Ambassador and that he died from smoke inhalation. {2}
{1} http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/image … nghazi.pdf
{2} http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19587068I could provide pictorial evidence to the contrary of the doctor's report. But out of respect, I won't. I'm sure you've seen those pictures though. Yes, the NAVY Seal's were armed, I was not saying otherwise in that respect. They also came in later after the attack began. I suppose they were to come in and try to reason with the attackers?
You've found nothing to support that argument, and there are reports stating that at least Ambassador Stevens was not armed.
To be truthful, I'm not certain how that situation supports your argument when they did not go out and shoot anyone but were attacked by others. Perhaps if we'd had our own armed security, they'd be alive.
Dreamer,
The simply answer would be because the criminals have guns and our judicial system doesn't keep the animals of our society where they belong - in a cage.
How hard is that for you to understand?
Just because liberals would rather be a victim doesn't mean the rest of us would. If you don't like guns, cringe at the site of one, that's okay. You can cringe and hide behind those of us who do carry when something bad happens.
Just remember, if you keep your nose clean and don't try to hurt a law-abiding citizen, they won't shoot you. I know you can't say the same thing about the animal who wants your wallet or worse.The more guns available the more the toll
on innocent lives.
Only in America....You seem to be a man very intelligent and with lots of common sense.
If you could only make understand the rest of the firearms addicted
crowds the USA would be a much happier place to live in!
Zerlina,
You don't get out much, do you?
Turn on your TV. Perhaps watch the news. Take a peek at the Middle East stories. I think you'll find they're not the warm, fuzzy, special-interest pieces. You did know we have a couple of wars going on, right?Obviously YOU don't get out of your country very often Jonesy!!
I travel all over the world in a monthly basis because of my job,
and needless to say I see the great majority of civilized countries
with societies WITHOUT easily available guns and firearms.
Wars are of political and socio-economic character NOT fighting
with raw power hand guns in schools,churches,malls and highways.
Your misconception of the purpose of fire arms is very common
in America.
As long as it makes money they'll keep churning them out!!
Just like tobacco,hard drugs,bows and arrows,huge knives and
other "right to have" weapons.
They all kill you VERY DEAD but yet you embrace a society
of violence,decay and sheer terror.
Your TV is another source of gaudy bloodshed.
Believe me: NO other country in the worlds is in such a
social upheaval as the USA.....in fact we all wait for the next
massacre caused by firearms.
We never see so prevalent that problem in England,France,Italy,
Switzerland,Portugal,Germany,Scandinavian Countries,Arab countries,Japan,China,Australia,Indonesia,Austria,Czech Republic,Russia and so on...and so on...
You fail to see that America is always in the news with
calamities due to GUNS AND FIREARMS!!! which are prohibited
in the civilized world.
Just my impression as a world traveler...Zerlina
A world traveler too
Only 7 per cent of Americans own passports, imagine if most Americans had passportS and traveled just parts of the world.
I'm sure most of them would change their perspetive about gunsCastlepaloma:
A man after my own heart.!!
Only 18% have been outside the country except Mexico or Canada.
The horrible misinformation and strange believes in America
are due mostly to the lack of knowledge and exposure
to other countries,cultures and ideas.
I agree with you.
Traveling would make a huge difference for most Americans, as well
as studying a new language or doing something culturally positive
instead of going out shooting at something,
would open up new worlds the great majority never thought of.
Time to get out of America and see the real world folks !!
"It is hard to keep them down at the farm after they saw Paree" like my
English teacher used to say.LOLOL.
Oh!!! the wonders of other civilizations!!
Warm wishes.
As usual, you're wrong, AGAIN. I've been to Great Britain, France, and Switzerland numerous times as well as Russia, China, and parts of the Great Litter Box know as the Middle East. I've been all over the U.S. as well. Yes, I like it here better.
I take it you're not a U.S. Citizen. Is that correct?
Living in New York, I can understand why you might think this country is violent. Nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. Maybe you should travel the U.S. some. The people of the South are very nice. Yes, some of us carry guns, approximately 380,000 in my state alone, but you should be perfectly safe. You see, we only shoot the bad guys.Are you claiming you don't walk to work every day in sheer terror for your life?
Me neither...The part of town I work in isn't the greatest, but I'll survive. The dead bodies are usually left closer to the main road to the interstate, stacked up like cord wood. This time of year, it's not too bad, as cold as it is, but the summer time, with the heat and humidity, man, it stinks.
Had one report said 7 per cent of Americans own passports. Another report said “just 22% of Americans own a passport” Not clear if 7% is not including children and border cards
Add in all the illegals and 22% will quickly drop to 7%. They don't have documentation either.
That 7% is just how many are issues more or less in a given year. They're good for 10 years here and there are over 117,000,000 active valid American passports. More than 1/3 of the populace has one.
Outside of monetary issues a lot of Americans don't travel abroad due to uncertainty about their safety in foreign countries where they don't have as much right to defend themselves. Others worry about local laws and whether or not they can eat the food and drink the water without getting sick.
Mostly a lot of people don't leave America because it's freaking huge and has a lot to offer. The same way a guy from Germany goes to France on Holiday we go to another State because you know.. most of our states are larger than many countries.
Been wrong 100% of the times is as preposterous as believing
YOU are right 100% of the times.
I have citizenship in 4 countries and a UN passport.
What else would I need??
380.000 guns?
I'm glad you like it there.
Please stay there with all your guns!
Yes I did live in the south,including Florida, Mississippi, Georgia,
New Mexico and Alabama.
Now tell me the rather uncivilized phrase: "If you don't like it get out!!"
Not the best way to solve such a overwhelming problem YOU have
I must say.
Every coin has 2 faces and you refuse to see the other side.
But what do I know??
I'm ALWAYS wrong and YOU are ALWAYS right!!!
;-pZerlina
I hope you come back with a few more new fresh ways of thinking and Ideas. My baby boomer generation experience (sorry we dropped the ball) still with back your high energy up. The winds of kindness will change the mid-evil Guns and Gods way of thinking, it will shrink a great deal in a decade or two. Don't let gun bullies get you down or this so called military intelligence, freedom fighters, business.
Jonesy
You stateted to me, "as usual, you're wrong, AGAIN."
Sometimes I don't get the exact stats correct on the first time out because of the many polictical varibles. Yet always adjust my stats to the best sourses that can be found.
If you think Bush was a great President George. Yes W. Bush was in the Guinness World Record holder? Sort of.
1. Bush was among baseball fans who donned sunglasses at a night's Texas Rangers game.
2. Most war protests took place in various cities across the world. ..
3 Bush as Texus Governor had most death penilties in prisons
Not on the World Records yet
President George Bush's occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and his so-called war on terror, Total cost to America beats World War I, the Korean War, or Vietnam, and second only to the $2 trillion cost of World War II (in current dollars).
If oil man GW Bush fame is finding weapons of mass destruction, being in the guninness world record for most death penlities, breaking many of trade realationships with Canada and brecking our traditional peace of not going to war and worst, killing the poor people.
On a personal bases, Bush stopped my USA work visas for not supporting his imperlistist war.
Did a survey on Bush, he was by far voted as the worst president in America history. You find GW Bush to be a great President and put down Obama and liberals in general often. I agree with many things Obama says, although lost respect when he dose not follow them through. Ron Paul is too intelligent to be president, who wants to be a puppet-ed president anyways.
Employment in the USA has half of what Canada was before Bush arrived, today USA unemployment is almost double of what we have today, a silver lining at the least.
Bush policy have kept America the leaders in prisons, guns, nuclear weapons, and wars, Did not know there were that many hillbilles, cowboys and rednecks in the US. Did a survey on Bush, he was, by far voted as the worst President in American history.
If you think Bush was a great President, and he is consistence. Yes I agree, he is consistently wrong
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 55466.html
"According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."Both countries, I believe, show a decrease in gun related crimes, particularly homicides.
Unfortunately, it is accompanied by an increase in non-gun related crimes, particularly homicides. Net change in total homicides is zero.
If a gun can't be found something else will be used, just as you say. The insistence by control advocates that reducing the number of guns will reduce gun homicides is a red herring, serving only to give a false sense of security.
Related Discussions
- 25
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?
by Cindy Lawson 10 years ago
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense, or do you think this is where parts of the world are going wrong and make a snowballing type problem?
- 16
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in Americ
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...
- 105
Gun Free Not Working UK , London ,Australia , ....What ?
by ahorseback 6 years ago
Recent surges in Gun crimes include fully automatic gunfire in London ? Doctor in London , "Bread and butter business is treating highly increasing gun and knife wounds in London ?" I thought they had free health -care ?Experts are saying "Its only getting...
- 577
Will NRA Leadership Understand That SENSIBLE Gun Control is the GOAL
by Scott Belford 8 years 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 facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
- 38
"Cold dead Hands" a music video by Jim Carrey. Genesis or Soulless?
by Castlepaloma 10 years ago
Jim Carrey’s "Lonesome Earl and the Clutterbusters". -wrote a song reference to Charlton Heston NRA statement, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." The wording of one part of Jim’s song was “ he could not enter Heaven, as even the angels could...
- 2
Jim Carrey's video "Cold Dead Hands" is seen as un-American, crazy...
by Dr Billy Kidd 11 years ago
Jim Carey makes a spoof of the idea about someone having their assault rifle prived out of their cold dead hands. Fox people flipped. It's really just silly and of no lasting importance, right? Look at it: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/03/27 … n-twitter/