"FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!"

Jump to Last Post 51-99 of 99 discussions (865 posts)
  1. profile image0
    Zerlina Baumgarteposted 12 years ago

    "FROM YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS..."
    You'll have that pleasure as soon as you meet another gun owner.
    Hunting is not a sport but an excuse to kill living things.
    A basic sub human instinct.

    1. profile image0
      Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Is that glass bubble nice this time of year?

      Obviously, you don't get out much.

      1. profile image0
        Zerlina Baumgarteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        MMMmm...
        Lets see.....
        Sarcasm is for for the misinformed and misguided ones only...
        Yes,my glass bubble is always very nice.
        I carry  my glass bubble with me to 97 countries around the world
        while traveling due to my jobs demands.
        I live at home only 3 weeks out of the year besides doing
        voluntary work for the UN and UNESCO in under developed
        countries all over the planet...
        You are right....I don't get out much...I work too much...
        I'm going to buy a gun and go pigeons or possum
        "hunning" some where in rural USA...
        May be I should take vacation in your home town...???
        LOLOL..
        ;-))

    2. profile image0
      Zerlina Baumgarteposted 12 years ago

      Tell that to the many that have lost dear ones due to gun violence...
      Yes,smart people hate guns.( At least until one of YOU don't blow our heads off...)

      1. Scottie Futch profile image69
        Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Smart people hate violence and those who who use it as a weapon of terror. Smarter people prepare themselves to survive in a world where such people exist. The rabbit is not smarter than the wolf, nor is the wolf smarter than the rabbit. However, in a conflict between the two one can only flee while the other will relentlessly pursue unless stopped. However, when one of those two creatures is forced to defend itself at least by being a wolf you have a chance to survive that doesn't include hiding in a bush and hoping all the bad things go away.

    3. profile image0
      Zerlina Baumgarteposted 12 years ago

      Melissa: a very smart and justified comment!!
      Congratulations.

    4. RoboView profile image61
      RoboViewposted 12 years ago

      I suppose Ted Bundy was perfectly  in his right mind no reason to protect your family from him and a likes of his kind
      don't get crazy and mentally ill mixed up

    5. Miller2232 profile image59
      Miller2232posted 12 years ago

      Amazing, to me, that Charlton Heston said that just 10 days after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 when families were still grieving from losing their loved ones. On top of that, held the held a 3-day gun rally right there in Denver when the mayor (Wellington Webb) at the time told him not to come and he did anyway.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        He was senile and a lousy actor besides.

      2. LucidDreams profile image67
        LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, he was basically a self serving idiot!

    6. Living Well Now profile image60
      Living Well Nowposted 12 years ago

      Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

      Title: Urban-Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results

      Publication Date: October 2004

      What does it say?

      This study looked at the difference in rates of suicide and homicide in urban and rural areas of the US. It was found that rates of intentional firearm deaths were similar in both rural and urban areas. Rates of suicide in the most rural communities closely resembled that of homicide in the largest cities. This runs counter to the general assertion that deaths as a result of gun violence are a bigger problem in urban cities.

      The study concludes that: “Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.” Policies and laws that focus solely on the prevention of homicide and the association of firearm homicide with urban crime obscures the importance of firearm suicide in isolated rural areas.

      A 2010 study found a similar pattern among young people (“Variation in Pediatric and Adolescent Firearm Mortality Rates in Rural and Urban U.S. Counties,” Pediatrics, June 2010).  To read a summary of that study, click here.

      How can I use it?

      Firearms are the leading means of suicide. Policies that target rural populations, educate households that guns raise the risk of suicide, and emphasize safe storage of weapons could help save lives, as could the requirement that all gun sales be subject to background checks.

      Citation

      Branas, Charles C. et al., “Urban-Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results,” American Journal of Public Health, 94(10) (2004): 1750-1755

      [1416]

      1. wilderness profile image76
        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        All of those seem to be based on the concept that removing guns will remove the deaths that they "cause".  Do you have any studies that support that, or can we reasonably expect that killers or suicides that can't find a gun will use some other method to accomplish their goals?

    7. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      MISTRIAL FOR EX-EDITOR OF GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE
      The murder trial of the former editor of Guns & Ammo magazine was declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict on Wednesday. A new trial for the former editor, Richard Erick Venola of Golden Valley, is scheduled for Feb. 26. He is charged with second-degree murder in the May 2 shooting death of an unarmed neighbor, James Patrick O’Neill, 39. The prosecutor, Rod Albright, said during the trial that BOTH MEN WERE DRUNK AND ARGUED BEFORE THE SHOOTING. Ron Gilleo, a lawyer for Mr. Venola, said his client shot Mr. O’Neill in self-defense, believing that Mr. O’Neill was going to get a gun to shoot him.


      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/ar … .html?_r=0

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Self-defense. Seems fair to me.

        Watch out for those coyotes, Ralph!!!

      2. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Man Stabbed To Death Trying To Break Up Family Fight
        http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/22/ … -and-wife/

        Man Stabbed Neighbor to Death With Scissors in Harlem, Police Say

        http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2012121 … ors-harlem

        Lansing man stabbed to death; female neighbor arrested
        http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index … ath_f.html

        Man Stabs Neighbor Over Reckless Driving
        http://www.i4u.com/2013/01/over-driving … r-reckless

        Ventnor Woman Stabs Neighbor to Death in Argument: Source
        http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc … 60941.html

        Those evil knives. Do you want them too?
        People with such a propensity will use whatever means are available.

        People kill people. Not the weapons they use.

        1. profile image0
          Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Sassy, I've come to the conclusion Liberals are suffering the Disney Effect. They think if Disney makes a movie where pots, cups, clocks, and candle sticks can think and talk, so can those evil, rascally guns.

        2. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
          A Driveby Quipperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Don't forget poison.

        3. profile image0
          Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          OMG, I just realized my son has three deadly weapons in the trunk of his car!!! He's got to stop playing baseball and softball and get those bats destroyed!!!

    8. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      The amount of misinformation , childlike debate of statistics  that couldn't be further from accurate , the just plain immaturity of anti- gun nuts is forcing me to rethink my origional high estimation of hubbers who address these forums .  I think that I'll liston to the refridgerator run for awhile !  My god.... ant- gunners are daft!

      1. Andres Canales profile image61
        Andres Canalesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, I just wanted to know if you really need guns that badly, because I have none, nor my neighbors. I just wanted know if you really need them.

        1. Scottie Futch profile image69
          Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Better to have a thing that will never be needed than to need a thing but NEVER be able to have it.

    9. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

      Oh geez... a new sock puppet to play with! lol

    10. profile image0
      Will Apseposted 12 years ago

      This kind of thing is always fun for Europeans. We get to go 'they don't really think that, do they?', and 'Ok, this one is a genuine psychotic' and 'I always thought their constitution stood for human values?'

      Mostly, though, we are just grateful to live in safe countries.

    11. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Yes , I am a gun collector ,  I am a woodworker....... hence I love the feel of a fine piece of American or European walnut wood in my hands , I grew up in the woods with family and friends that enjoyed the heritage of hunting , fishing , camping, target practicing  .......yes , I need to have my guns....... for the honor of my memories and my family  heritage .  For the protection of human rights in our  free world  and to protect myself and others from the tyranny of an opressive goverment [s] as my family  an millions of others of my country have done !  And for you who live in europe ......or any other place ,  you should know this more than even I !...........:-}

      1. profile image0
        Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I certainly sympathize with people who live under the threat of a tyrannical government.

        When democracy has completely collapsed and the whole political system is a failure, everyone has the right to press for something better.

        Good luck. America!!! I hope you can get democracy working over there.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        "protect myself and others from the tyranny of an opressive goverment [s] as my family  an millions of others of my country have done !"

        Good luck with that. The oppression isn't the kind that is susceptible to resistance by gun collectors. It comes from Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, for profit health care facilities and insurance companies and from warrantless spying on American citizens by U.S. government agencies. Wake up!

        1. profile image56
          whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          We are awake, none of the things you mentioned would be possible without the criminal assistance of our government.

    12. profile image58
      MAYDAY1905posted 12 years ago

      Very likely it was a put up job and as you say the two would surely have been armed. Was Hillary responsible for the security? If so perhaps the worry and anxiety of all of it made her ill. Bleeding in the head can come from intense anxiety.

    13. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Why is it the people like many of you here , demonize the guns..........perhaps  - just as you do your veteran soldiers  ,  when you don't need them ? ........Yet when you do , you call out the gun owners and users to save you from your own niavite' , how ironic!

      1. BloodRedPen profile image66
        BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        As a veteran - I concur with your statement ahorseback. Another part of our community that is often demeaned is amateur radio operators (Ham Radio). Neighbors and communities call their antenna's eyesores and dangerous.They blame them for interference on their radios and tvs.  But when there is a hurricane or other natural disaster. They come looking to the ham operator for help.

    14. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Will apse  , You sir couldn't be more wrong about that observation  !.....:-}

    15. LucidDreams profile image67
      LucidDreamsposted 12 years ago

      Agreed!

    16. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 12 years ago

      What a joke. Self righteous Hollywood hypocrites acting like they care.
      http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530290_10152414778990515_909681569_n.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image76
        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What gets me is they actually think this commercial sends a more powerful message than all the action packed gun blazing movies that they make millions of dollars off of.

          1. wilderness profile image76
            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Doesn't quite work, though, does it?

            I think that it's quite possible that they are contributing, and not just a little, to the problem.

            1. profile image0
              Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Ironic isn't it? It's a cultural issue and liberal Hollywood plays the biggest part. Not even the NRA could promote guns as efficiently as Hollywood does.

            2. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I'd agree however, so does the lack of any hands on parenting in our society.
              "you want that rated M video game Johnny? Sure no problem."
              "you want to see that violent rated R movie Susie? Sure no problem."
              "I'm tired Billy. Go kill things on your video game."
              "what's Sally doing? Oh I don't know. Something on the computer. At least she's out of my hair and quiet."
              While I know this is not true of every parent, I strongly believe it is quickly becoming the norm.

              1. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Agreed. 

                I'm not sure that such things actually promote violence, but my gut and common sense says "yes".

                Unfortunately neither is a very indication of reality and I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer to the question, just opinion based on little to nothing.

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't believe they do promote violence all by themselves and I am in no way suggesting we shouldn't be allowed to make certain movies or video games. I mean, if you really think about it, old cartoons were violent. Road Runner vs the coyote, Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd, Tom & Jerry. But when were cartoon really on and we were watching them? Saturday mornings pretty much. Other than that we were watching such wholesome fodder as the Brady Bunch, the Cosby Show, the Partridge Family. Balance. Something that is lacking today.
                  Also, today, with I-phones and laptops, and tablets, everyone is doing their own thing. Most of the parents do not even know what their kids are being exposed to on the internet or in their video games. And there isn't anything balancing that out, in most cases.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm with you on this.

    17. RoboView profile image61
      RoboViewposted 12 years ago

      AH Hollywood perfect fodder for those that blur reality and real life.

      1. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Yup. People talk about America's gun culture as though some crusty old politicians have an iota of influence on the way people think. Yet we just watched Hollywood sway an election in favor of a guy that didn't have a leg to stand on.

    18. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      FACT: The NRA has financially induced (as in bribed) morally weak politicians to enable crazy people and irresponsible people in America to easily buy guns and ammo.

      No matter how you choose to refute that fact, more people with more guns will only continue the slaughter of innocent Americans. 

      Too many gun advocates are in denial of their own irrational fears and insecurities.  They believe more or more efficient weapons will provide them with the necessary protection against  "the crazy bad guys."

      What they refuse to recognize about this issue is that irrational fear, irresponsible behavior, misguided folly, petty resentments, anger, rage and lethal weapons is as much about themselves and their own beliefs as it is about the Adam Lanzas or Anders Breviks. 

      This issue is not about, hunting, survival or freedom;  it's solely about  immaturity, ignorance and ideology.  So please stop the diversionary sophistry and the ideological BS!



      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7541465_f520.jpg

      1. BloodRedPen profile image66
        BloodRedPenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Friends this will be my last post on the Gun/Crazy Person subject.
        You can be just as dead when hit by a musket ball in 1776 or a 357 bullet in 2012. DEAD is DEAD
        It's not a gun problem, gun quantity problem, gun type problem, gun access problem. It's a crazy person pulling the trigger problem. And if anyone here on hubpages can successfully address and eliminate crazy from society. I'm sure the world would declare the second coming. Until then I'm am done with this subject. big_smile

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Denial ain't a river in Africa, baby! 

          It's the over-availability of guns of every kind in our culture and it's your last post because you can't admit the truth!

          How much damage could a crazy person have done  in a few minutes at Columbine or Newtown with a musket?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Ha! Typical gun nut.

    19. RoboView profile image61
      RoboViewposted 12 years ago

      The firearm the very tool that allowed us the freedom to post in this forum, needed by the average
      American during the revolutionary war.Having said that do we need them to the extent we do today,I don't know,but just because you use a hammer once does not mean you throw it away.

    20. Scottie Futch profile image69
      Scottie Futchposted 12 years ago

      It took 90 minutes for the police to act in Norway when Breivek started his murderous rampage...no one in the area was armed but him due to highly restrictive gun laws. Of course he only got 21 years for the murder of 77 people.. with bombs and firearms.. so yeah..America has the market cornered on crazy compared to Europe. pfft.

      A crazy man with a knife attacked and badly injured 22 children and one adult in china. This sort of thing has happened so often in China in the last two years that they did what America needs to do. They posted armed guards. Over twenty children have been stabbed to death by whack jobs in that country and 50 or more have been seriously injured.

      "In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 98430.html

      Who cares if a crazy man has a knife, a musket, or a full automatic belt-fed .50 cal attached to his hummer? Homicidal people don't give one happy crap about your desire to rid this country of guns.

      Whether you think all guns should be banned or not does not change the fact that the guns currently exist. They cannot all be gathered and there is far too much open area to sneak more in. Ban all guns and ALL you have is ample opportunity to turn honest people into victims. THAT'S the truth some can't admit because it goes against their belief that ignoring reality is best.

      Further, despite the over-availability of guns in our culture, the so called 'Assault Rifles' accounted for less deaths than bare hand kills in 2009. There were 348 people killed with rifles.. ANY rifles, of any kind that year. 801 were murdered with their killer's barehands. 611 were murdered with blunt objects. This means that 4 times as many people were beat to death that year than were killed with any rifle. Only a small fraction were so-called assault rifles. Nine states had NO murder with a rifle that year.

      Yes, firearms accounted for 9,146 murders that year out of 13,636 but if you honestly and sincerely believe that the people who committed those murders would have NOT used an absurdly easy to obtain ILLEGAL firearm after a gun ban or just opted to take a machete to someone then I'm sorry but you're denying reality.

      There are over 100 millions rifles in this country. If the reactionary gun banners were right about firearms making everyone that touches them turn into kill happy freaks then the sheer volume would mean more deaths. We'd have murdered each other to extinction ages ago. Only somewhere between 10 - 30 million of those rifles MIGHT be considered assault rifles depending on which person you asked and only around 5-10 million are Ar-15s. Out of at least 5 million Ar-15s only a tiny, tiny, fraction were used in any sort of crime. You know why? They're a lot easier to spot than a freaking handgun! You don't see jack-booted thugs walking down the mean streets prowling through the shadows with a freaking assault rifle. Yet so many want to ban them. Get real. If you want tighter HANDGUN restrictions then focus on that. Over 9,000 people were murdered with those in 2009.

      Personally I'd like to see open carry become the norm. Yet, in many states if someone sees you with a holstered firearm they can tell a cop that they feel afraid and they'll lock you up for  being 'at the terror of the public' despite having done nothing more than openly admit that you are carrying a weapon. The fact that most people have to hide a weapon that they legally possess via concealed carry and are authorized to wield by right of the second amendment is a great sadness to me.

      If you do not wish to utilize your right to bear arms that is your decision. Despite your desires you do not have the right to ban these weapons simply due to the fact that each and every citizen is supposed to be able and ready to be called upon in a time of national emergency to defend this homeland.

      We have a standing military against the original design of the constitution. You were all supposed to take up the burden of defending your way of life if it came down to it. That's what the 'well regulated militia' part was about. That is also why the supreme court ruled in 2008 that the second amendment DOES relate to private citizens.

      Do you feel it is right to demand that an individual pass a firearm safety and marksmanship course before they can bear arms? I have no problem with that. It's part of being part of a well regulated militia. Do we need to screen for mental illness with greater efficacy? Sure, go ahead that's part of a well-regulated militia.

      The truth of the second amendment isn't that it was designed to protect our right to wield weapons of mass destruction. It was designed to allow us to PERSONALLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFENDING OUR WAY OF LIFE. Remember that concept, antiquated as it is? Personal responsibility. It is NOT the responsibility of the police to safe guard your life, it is yours. The standing military in this country is only supposed to be for fast reaction while we gather our citizens to defend our states and our country.

      The second amendment was first and foremost designed to protect the sovereignty of the individual states by way of arming and regulating the training of their citizens. Secondly this amendment was designed as a means of allowing uniformity in joint efforts to defend America. Lastly, when all else fails and should the government of our beloved Republic fall to tyranny it was designed to allow us to undertake the final charge of any free and able soul who loves freedom and despises servitude. That final responsibility is to take your firearm into your supposedly well-regulated and well trained hands.. join with your brothers and sisters... and defend your way of life. The second amendment isn't about your rights... it's about your RESPONSIBILITY.

      Every single one of you who blames the weapon and ignores the evil in the hearts of thieves and murders, blames 'gun nuts' are slapping our forefathers in the face. They had the wisdom and sensibility to include that amendment. Do not think yourself more civilized and progressive for thinking that banning the ONLY thing that can equalize a world filled with disparity in size, strength, sex, and skill. Even though you delude yourselves into thinking that you are helping the only result of banning firearms or giving one political jack-a-ninny total control over which weapons are considered 'too dangerous to use' based on their personal opinion, you are not. Your well meaning insistence does nothing more that tighten the noose that will be used to strangle those you love.

      That is my opinion, you all have yours. May you live in peace.

    21. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      Here's an article on gun control by Eric Sharp, Michigan's best outdoors writer:

      "AIM FOR GUN LAWS THAT WILL WORK"

      "As an outdoors writer for two newspapers for 35 years, a hunter for more than 50, and an owner of handguns, shotguns and rifles, I'm at loggerheads with some gun owners because I believe the U.S. is in desperate need of new gun control laws.

      "I'm also at odds with many people who espouse more gun control, because I see no point in passing laws that make the ignorant feel safer yet do nothing to avert future horrors like the massacre of 20 children and six teachers at a Connecticut grade school...." MORE--

      http://www.freep.com/article/20130106/O … y=nav|head

      Eric Sharp would be a much better spokesman for NRA than this guy:


      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7544731_f248.jpg
      deedsphoto

    22. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      MORE GUNS = MORE KILLING

      "Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. 'There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.'"

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunda … ef=opinion

      LaPierre plagiarized his claim that the "best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" from Archie Bunker circa 20 years ago:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

      1. wilderness profile image76
        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Now that's a really useful and relevant link, Ralph.  Not.

        There is no study done, no data collected.  There is a link to the same studies I used in my own research, but that's it.  No study, no conclusions except "recent sharp increase in homicides in Venezuela could be in part explained by the abundance of arms there". (bolding added - pay attention to that could be and in part)

        The article also notes that there is strong gun control, but that enforcement is very lax - no indication is given as to the numbers of guns in the country.

        Finally, are third world countries, all known for excessive violence, heavy drug dealing and a near war condition in the country really what you want to compare the US to?  Countries like Guatemala and Columbia? 

        For shame, Ralph - you can do better than that.  Or maybe not if you're trying to link gun ownership to homicide rates - I certainly couldn't find any correlation in the industrialized countries like Germany, France, UK, Australia, Iceland, etc.  You know - countries at least something like our own.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You guys remind me of Archie Bunker on gun control:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

          1. wilderness profile image76
            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Nice rebuttal (although I didn't bother to watch it).

            Ralph, if you want to actually discuss, debate or possibly find a solution it has to be better than these two posts.  All they do is scream out "I don't care; I want guns GONE!"

            Come on; I've read your thoughtful posts in other forums; give us something to sink our teeth into.  Something relevant to the US and that has something to do with homicide rates and guns. Preferably something relevant to homicide rates in general, but I would discuss suicide, homicides in the home or homicide by relatives. 

            Just not a list of third world countries, as far from US culture as possible, that have a far worse problem.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              "Nice rebuttal (although I didn't bother to watch it)."

              Open minded as usual, I see. The video reminded me of your mentality. You might even find it amusing. If you had a sense of humor, that is.

              "All they do is scream out 'I don't care; I want guns GONE!'"

              I've never said anything like that. I'm a lifelong hunter, and I currently own a Model 12 Winchester with a three shell magazine plug which I used to use to hunt game birds. You are the one who is unable to give even an inch.

              1. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I should watch Archie Bunker rant to be open minded?  You're funny!

                Or did you mean that your own open mindedness or mentality was similar to Archie's?

                Here's a bone for you, Ralph:  Homicide rates by weapon for the US and Canada.  Notice that while our gun homicide rate is much higher (we have guns) Canada's rates for knifings and beatings is many times that of ours (they have no guns, so use fists and knives instead).

                http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c … Oo58Xfhdks

              2. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Replying to your edit and addition:

                What would you like me to compromise on that experience tells us will be effective in reducing the general homicide rate?  I assure you that I'm open here, just show that it will be at least somewhat effective.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I expect you do do me the courtesy of considering the points I offer to our discussion.

                  1. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    !!  But I did, Ralph.  I opened the first link and read it.  I just didn't find it pertinent to the discussion.  All about Latin American countries, which are nearly as far from the US culturally as you can get, most of which have a violence problem far, far in excess of ours but with known causes.  No data presented, no real conclusions, just a "maybe" this and "possibly" that, without any real support of either. 

                    A claim that reducing gun ownership lowers gun homicide rates, but without evidence and that's a no-brainer anyway.  Nothing at all about homicide rates and gun ownership.

                    It's why I asked for better information; You've produced valid, pertinent stuff in the past - why submit junk like that for perusal here?

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  All I ask is that you do me the courtesy and yourself the favor of watching the video that I posted. You might actually find in funny.

                  1. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, I did open it later - I always liked that show with it's over-the-top bigotry and total lack of rationality.  This one was funny, too, I thought - wish I could have seen the whole show.

                    But what did you think of the link to Canadian data?  I thought the graphs were interesting, particularly the second one where the differences are striking.  Coupled with the known fact that fewer guns correlates well with lower gun homicides but not at all with lower homicide rates in general it made a pretty striking statement and graphically shows what happens when guns are removed from society.

                    Did you examine it?

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Keep avoiding the REAL problems Ralph my friend  , keep throwing up the smoke screens and mirrors !

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Please enlighten me on the "real problems." And while you're at it try responding to the points I and others have made.

        2. AurallyPleasing profile image67
          AurallyPleasingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          While I am on the opposite side of this debate as Ralph, I agree that there must be real data to back claims up; that is why I am posting links to sites that are relevant. Please come back when you have facts; until then, leave the debating to me.

    23. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 12 years ago

      Statistically speaking we should be more concerned with Obamacare.
      http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/580637_539138502777388_2091452638_n.jpg

      1. Scottie Futch profile image69
        Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        This image makes me want to stand up and start a slow clap. smile

        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Ah the slow clap, an old time favorite.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Did you know BS is more dangerous than lying, because they really don't care.

        Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        wikipedia.  Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
        In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Most suicides are by firearms

        Do you want a world filled with Guns and take away your Doctors, cars, knifes, and excercise?
        Get real

        1. wilderness profile image76
          wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Did you note that the picture doesn't address homicides at all, just deaths?

          Much like talking about the decrease in gun homicides when gun ownership is limited, it is a red herring that has little to do with the discussion in this thread.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            How many charts and surveys addressing homocide do you want?
            If I showed you a picture of a cow, would you get that, it is a cow?

            If UN OR Wiki are not good enough, what is?

            1. profile image0
              Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              We all know the UN is nothing more than a Star Wars Bar Room Scene look alike. It's full of people who hate America and we should have kicked them out a long time ago. They're useless.

              As for Wiki, anyone can go in and post what they want and you do know you can't beiieve everything you read on the internet, Right?

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                The United Nations is an organization open to all sovereign nations of the world, as a forum to work out their problems and to work together towards common solutions.

                NATO is a military alliance, Most countries in the world are part of the UN. Only 28 are part of NATO

                What other group do you trust  to protect the world?

                1. profile image0
                  Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There's only a handful of UN member nations that works to protect the world. Then there's the others who either need the protection or are the problem, Castle. To give the ones that are the problem any credence at all is just one of the reasons the UN isn't worth the real estate it sits on. IMHO, of course.

                  1. MrBecher profile image61
                    MrBecherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    "the UN isn't worth the real estate it sits on."

                    ...definitely stealing this! Haha

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      United Nations is in New York City.  the only  main headquarters is in New York ...
                      Stop downing America

            2. wilderness profile image76
              wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I apologize, Castle.  I've seen so many charts and graphs on the subject that I don't remember any from you comparing gun ownership to general homicide rates.  Can you refresh my memory, please?  With one comparing guns to general homicides, not the smaller subset of gun homicides?

              1. MrBecher profile image61
                MrBecherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org … online.pdf

                From the conclusion,

                "the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
                more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
                cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
                that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
                require showing that a large number of nations with more
                guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
                stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
                in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
                not observed when a large number of nations are compared
                across the world."

                Basically, a study of gun control and crime rates of over 25 countries across the first world, mostly Europe. It finds that more gun control is directly correlated with more of both violent and non-violent crime.

                1. Don W profile image86
                  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  This study takes a different view:

                  "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

                  And 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

                  And 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

                  And 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

                  And 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

                  Edit: URLs unscrambled

                2. wilderness profile image76
                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Most interesting.  I recently compiled that same sort in information (from the UNODC) for a hub and came to the same conclusions, except for more controls correlates to more crime.  I simply found that there was no correlation between controls and a decreasing homicide rate.

                  Thanks, MrBecher - I'll have to dissect this one and see if it is actually applicable to the hub.

                3. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The figures cited in the Harvard Law School article came from a variety of sources which may or may not be comparable for each country in the comparisons, and they provided data only for suicides and murders. The figures didn't not include accidental gun deaths, injuries short of deaths, armed robberies not resulting in deaths and so forth. Moreover, the study cited Kleck which I have read has been discredited. I'm not suggesting that all of the data is unreliable, but that the conclusions do not strike me as valid.

                  1. wilderness profile image76
                    wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    It is essentially the same data (although older) than what I compiled from UNODC.  Would that suffice?

                    You will have to make your own conclusions from the data, but isn't that why we're discussing?

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Here's a more complete set of comparative data from Wikipedia which includes all gun deaths.[ Note that U.S. is nearly five times higher than Canada and the highest of all developed countries.] I doubt that truly comparable and accurate data are available.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate

              2. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                This thread is over 700 posts long, there is so many examples of it here from so many people here.

                1. wilderness profile image76
                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No, there most certainly is NOT.  I don't think I have seen even one study (except my own) comparing gun ownership rates to general homicide rates for a variety of first world countries.  That's why I compiled it myself - I couldn't find one anywhere else.

                  Somebody put one up for latin America, but personally I don't find any of those cultures similar to ours.  The one just posted by MrBecher a few moments ago in response to my request is another exception, but I haven't had time to absorb it.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I think GW Bush can convince an eye optometrist on the eye chart that the E is an F too.

                    Personal experience is the best teacher, I've traveled every State in the  USA except Alaska and every industrial country in the World. I have no doubt that guns makes America (with no hold bared) the most dangerious industrail country and  outside of that only few latin American and African countries

                    1. profile image0
                      Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      In your U.S. travels, how many people did you see carrying a gun, Castle?

        2. MrBecher profile image61
          MrBecherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What matters is not the percentage of homicides using guns, rather the rate of homicides against the population. More people may use guns for murdering, but there are less murders. I'm okay with that.

          1. wilderness profile image76
            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm afraid you aren't to get very far promoting that kind of concept.

            I've been trying to say that the gun homicide rate isn't what counts for days, overall homicide rate is, but no one cares.  It seems to be a heresy or something; certainly nothing of interest.

            1. MrBecher profile image61
              MrBecherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Haha it's unfortunate how hard people shut their eyes and cup their ears when presented with a statistic that works against them... maybe if people understood math better, they'd understand the difference in relevancy of said rates. Anyways, keep up the good fight!

              1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Wail your at it
                1. Keep America obsessed, keep eating McDonald's and dream about private healthcare
                2. Shoot a lot of people at home and keep making new nuclear weapons...
                3. Keep THE Natural environment record of the World's largest carbon footprint per capita, in America keep denying climate change
                4. Keep promoting debt  via  IMF and World Bank,
                keep paying dictators who they want to represent them
                5. keep Hollywood culture American and  listening to "news and insist USA knows best.
                6. Keep imprisoning pot heads with war on drugs
                7. Fight  Oil enriched Countries, as the bible says onward Christian solider, fight the good fight

                Maybe I said too much, better slow down now

                1. profile image56
                  whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You're safe you live in Canada.

              2. wilderness profile image76
                wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                That's part of it - people don't truly understand how to draw conclusions from statistics.  Other reasons, depending on the individual, can include a fear of guns, lack of concern for personal freedom, "busy body" attitude of wanting to control others, emotional distress over Sandy Hook (that includes me), simple ignorance leaving "common sense" to make conclusions with and probably 100 others.

                1. profile image56
                  whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "fear of guns, lack of concern for personal freedom, "busy body" attitude of wanting to control others"

                  I think you may have isolated the problem.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                    Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Remember I'm fearless, it's just guns are useless except for hunters and bullies.  As far as Controls, I'll leave that job up to the RIch and Religious politics

                    Been Mugged twice, Six times had a gun pointed at my head, been to 6 war zones, Two advances to intent rape until they found out my fighting skills. Fought off a bear, out swam a crock, a few snakes, monkeys and mostly attacked by dogs

    24. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      And here are Facts Ralph ,
      The year 2000 in your  reality world
      -2,523 deaths to SIDS
      -1,621 teen suisides
      - 1,580 suffucations
      -6,466 auto deaths
      -1,946 fires
      -1,236 to drownings
      -ALL children ynder 18 Ralph , want more facts ? Yes , "from my cold dead hands " , will you take my swimming pools ,  my pillows too , what about my matches and automobiles , get real people , lets delve into reality for a while ....you guys did too much acid back in the day , me thinks !  No dissrepect intended !........:-}

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Those deaths are unfortunate, but this forum is about unnecessary gun killings and gun control issues such as the NRA's recommendation that armed guards be put in schools. How do you feel about that? And closing the gun show and private sale loopholes? And appointing a director of the federal agency responsible for gun control. And about the need for uniform federal regulations. And about specific regulations, e.g., banning large capacity magazines, body armor, and reviving and improving the assault weapons ban? I gather from your irrelevant comments that you can't think of a single gun control law that you would support because you don't think gun killings are a significant problem.

        1. wilderness profile image76
          wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I would respond to just a couple of your questions.

          "reviving and improving the assault weapons ban" - I could compromise on reviving this ban on fully automatic weapons, although those guns are used very rarely by civilians and are not owned legally anyway.  The only reason I say I might compromise is because it would affect only a very small percentage of the people - a sop to appease the control advocates that will not affect the number of killings at all, but will negatively affect only a very few.  Tolerable, if totally unnecessary.

          Large capacity magazines, same thing.  They aren't particularly effective from what I've been reading in these forums; they jam and it only takes about 2 seconds to change out an empty for full magazine anyway.  Another sop to appease the control group, but one that will impact only a very few owners.  Collateral damage to a handful of owners for purely political reasons, but something I could live with.

          Body armor, I'm not so sure about.  Lots of people could use body armor in their daily lives; removing a purely passive defense just so cops can kill people easier doesn't seem rational.  Discussion, reasons, etc?  How many killers use it, is it really effective in allowing those killers to kill even more people, who else might find it useful, etc.?  I do remember seeing a bank robbery a while back with two people wearing the stuff and simply shooting up the whole area as they walked down the street, but that's it.  One incident certainly isn't enough to warrant banning it - are there others?

          1. Scottie Futch profile image69
            Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Unless the criminal is wearing Sapi plates or something similar their body armor does NOTHING but help prevent penetration. The force of the impact travels through and does traumatic impact damage. you'll be a mass of bruises, with possible broken bones if you get shot in the chest.

            You can get low-ebb body armor that looks like street clothes, and higher-end versions that look like coats or jackets. I honestly suggest anyone who does not want to own a fire arm but who does wish to survive an encounter with a potential robber purchases and wears body armor. It weighs very little without plating and can be disguised under normal clothing.

            Sapi plates are useful against one to two shots to prevent a lot of the trauma but they break easily under fire and are useless afterward. Also, without trauma plating body armor does NOT stop a knife attack.

            If someone is wearing body armor and shooting up the place a few well placed shots are still just as effective. They are just less likely to die from being shot.

    25. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Of the hundreds of gun control laws on the books in americas states and fed levels .. not one of these laws was able to prevent a single one of the shootings ...........anywhere ! Now , why ?  because Criminals and or ,doting mommies and daddies with half idiot kids  don't pay attention to laws anyway . Ralph , seriously if you had a tweaked teen age son , would you allow them access to your collection ?  oh and those "unfortunate deaths "......we'll not regulate those right ! Ralph there are thousands of  sexually  molested children everyday in America , are there  laws agains that ?  Yes ,  what about illicit  drug use by parents of children , anything there .....?  I am a reasonable gun owner , I understand and welcome regulations that protect our kids , women , and entire families , I understand the need to close loopholes  too ! All of them ,............ But  what I fail to understand the most is the paranoia attached to  this issue ! Especially from those who've NEVER  taken a nephew or a son to the woods with a twenty-two and a few tin cans ............I truely believe that societies handwringing  paranoia is simply explained ........You and those like you have to clear your social conscences  quicky and loudly by pointing neurotic fingers at everyone else but ....at your own  apathy towards Really Making a Difference , mental health reform ,  Legal reform of a twisted and distorted justice system . 

      Example - DUI  laws to keep drunk drivers off the roads !  One man arrested last year in the great liberal state of Vermont had eight previous DUI  charges ,  He t -boned a mini van after running a red lightand killing  young mother of two and killed her instantly ! Where's this suedo outrage there ?  One in four FOUR young girls will be molested by the time their twenty one !  Any outrage . ? Apparently not !...........put this in perspective ....all I'm saying .

    26. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      Here's a piece on the Aurora movie theater massacre:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/he … re.html?hp

      "...Officer Oviatt said that because the suspect, James E. Holmes, had been swathed in so many layers of body armor and equipped with a helmet and a gas mask, that he had first thought that Mr. Holmes was a fellow police officer....

      "Less than a month before the shooting, after he had dropped out of his neuroscience program, Mr. Holmes sent a text message to a classmate that suggested he believed that he suffered from dysphoric mania, a bipolar condition that combines manic behavior and dark, depressive tendencies. Mr. Holmes warned the classmate to stay away from him “because I am bad news,” the classmate has said. "

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        And did this classmate report this to school authorities or law enforcement?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Is Lying was the USA greatest pass time, Let me make Gun America is a make USA Safer as my number 1 choice now.

          1. GunAmerica is safer

          2. USA 50% of the World’s War Budget makes the World safer

          3. USA 26% of the World’s prisons makes us safer

          4. Columbus discover America

          5. The war in Iraq is finally over and it was a success. BY We are winning in Afghanistan.”

          6.America is unthreatened by China's growth.”

          7. Tie: “Republicans are the problem” and “Democrats are the problem.”

          8. Cutting the taxes of millionaires helps create US jobs.”

          9.  “I love Israel.”

          Anyone got a 10th to add to the list?

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Please go to the bottom of your post, click more, then edit from the side out menu. Slow down. We know you hate the U.S. but we can't rebut what doesn't make sense, Castle.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You got it all reverse, I love the world, not against or hate anyone. I know America is better than this. America has best and worst of things, I want a more of a happy America of balance and  I'm not the bad guy.

              1. profile image0
                Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                So you love us as long as we have a liberal, or in this case a Socialist, in the White House?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow you have many choices to vote from
                  Republicans OR Democrats
                  What do you perfer front or back, Up or down
                  The White house is no longer just white people

                  Canada has a balance of Socialist and Capitalist and still I think there is something out there, even better than this balance

                  In capitalist America, bank robs you!

                  1. profile image0
                    Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    This is in no way a black or white thing, Castle. At least not for me. Obama's skin color means nothing to me.

                    You say Canada has a balance of Socialist and Capitalist. Does one try to cram their beliefs down the throat of the other? That's what's happening here. The left is trying destroy what we had only to replace it with something that's been proven to be worse and doesn't work. If that were the case in Canada, would sit idly by and watch it happen?

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population
                      The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with 173,929 of its 1,388,028[1] active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle east, as part of the War on Terror

                      Let your bull dogs loosen their grip first, we get along well with rest of the world

    27. Living Well Now profile image60
      Living Well Nowposted 12 years ago

      Stats:

      All firearm deaths
      Number of deaths: 31,347
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

      Mortality
      All homicides
      Number of deaths: 16,799
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
      Cause of death rank: 15
      Firearm homicides
      Number of deaths: 11,493
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7


      Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    28. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Hey everyone , Ralph , I'm not aginst one of the hundreds ,  hell thousands of federal and very few local or state gun laws as long as reasonable people write them !   

      I have a -five -shot clip fed deer hunting rifle ,bolt action , I can change out the clip in three or four seconds . and fire rounds as long as I want to a as many as well, Oswald  got off 3 in six and a half  seconds . 

      I have a single barrel ,single shot   45/70     sharps style buffalo rifle that will shoot once !..........and then I reload to shoot agaain .........I could effectively fire  what 5- to-10 times a minuite maybe .....

      I have a single barrel, single shot 12 guage shotgun . and that will give me the same rate of fire

      I can MAKE  an amored vest out  of steel plates  and a hunting vest ! 

      Give me a roll of duct tape and a couple of soda cans I can make you a silencer for any gun !






      My point is go ahead  write all the laws , renew clintons magezine laws ! None of this will make a difference ! 


      ,

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I'm more optimistic than you, but I recognize that change in the U.S., given our history and Constitution, will not be easy. Until recently I had three hunting guns, one antique .16 gauge Ithaca double barreled gun that was my grandfathers, a .22 Remington bolt action repeating rifle and a Model 12 Winchester shot gun which I used to use for game bird hunting. I guess I'm too old and set in my ways to see the value of AR 14s or Bushmasters. And I never felt any need for a gun for self-protection. If I did I'd load up the Model 12 Winchester pump gun and stand it up in the corner of my bedroom.  (No children in the house.)
        I once suggested to my mother who was worried about a prowler in the kitchen when my dad was out of town, that she barricade herself in the upstairs bedroom and load up my dad's shotgun.

      2. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You sound like a good person to have around, ahorseback.

        I have a .75 caliber, smooth bore Brown Bess Musket I can load and shoot 3-4 per minute using pre-rolled cartridges. It depends on what I'm shooting. I can shoot round ball, shot, rocks, nails, whatever will fit down the barrel.

    29. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Exactly Ralph , my friend thats about the extent of my ownership as well ,  yet you and I both know reasonable answers  are   What WILL work !  The Aks  and the ar -15s  are just the younger generations "old favorite " , personally I have no use for them either ! Yet an Iraqi war vet i know hunts with one . Who knows ,  there are far too many issues involed here that magezine size s .  I am a single shot man myself Ralph !  My pleasures lie around my old shotgun  a couple of dogs and maybe a darned partridge if I  can get my new glasses !  Hell ya , lets close the loop holes !  I fear though that it won't do much !.........:-}

    30. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Jonesy ! My hero was Jerimia  Johnston , a Hawket 50 for me !lol........Ralph , gets those guns Back ! Your Grampa had them !...:-}

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I've got a .54 Cal. Hawken and a .44 Remington ball and cap revolver. Since TN is a non-conceal state, maybe I should pull it out along with the tied-down holster I custom made for it and start wearing it.

    31. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/ItsNotEasy.jpg

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, that will work!!!

        Come on, Wizard. You have to have at least one gun.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Indeed, I have a staple gun and a glue gun!

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Touche, Wizard!!! Well done!!!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Wizard could be dangerous

              The Twin Tower were taken down by box cutters

    32. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Wizard , Actually most of the guns ,in your little picture are made in all parts of the world .  The thing about America as compared to whatever third world country your from , we air ALL of our dirty laundry in the media for all to see ! Does yours ?  -Yes because of its size and place in the grand scheme of things as a world super power ,America has more  of a lot of things , crime , guns GENEROUSITY !, PHILANTHROPISTS ! FORIEGN AID ,THE WORLD S  MILITARY PROTECTION   ,is  for whatever reason , OUR JOB ! ALWAYS ........do I stop now !  about Thirty percent of the worlds economy is the US !  ANYBODY need something beg the US, We'll send it  !

    33. RoboView profile image61
      RoboViewposted 12 years ago

      Do not fear the Firearm an inanimate object. the fear is in what cannot be understood the understanding
      of why people do what they do.which can escape the well educated and the person with sheer common sense.these things are not logical one says there must be a logical explanation.When there is not.
      I say to myself there is an answer for this but i just can not draw logical explanation for the short circuited
      human mind or even predict when it will all make sense.

    34. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Robo , and it is this very unpredictability of the mind that cannot be understood NOR controled , Nor can it be legislated out of existance by another law !  Its perhaps more irrational to think that we can   control  such impulsive acts of complete  insanity !   Almost all these acts are in some ways nurtured into existence by a coddling system  , parents , schools , hospitals , the legal system 

      An experiment ? Call up the hospital and your insurance company and  the police and tell them your insane and need a room with a lock !   See how long it takes to aquire .....

    35. RoboView profile image61
      RoboViewposted 12 years ago

      Horse  it  is an unfortunate fact that the locked room is unobtainable unless the act of violent insanity happens first.We as a society need to be more proactive then reactive.The time of sitting on our hands has passed.

    36. AurallyPleasing profile image67
      AurallyPleasingposted 12 years ago

      You know, neither side is ever going to convince the others; why don't we just archive the topic for future reference and go on believing what we do?

      It never matters who is right, it matters who the jerk in the conversation is. And from the posts I see, there are jerks on both sides. So, why don't we lose ther jerks and hold a nice, calm, intellectual and ethical discussion of the Federalist (a.k.a gun-banning) and Anti-Federalist (a.k.a gun-rights) viewpoints? Who knows, it may even be recognized as the most enlightening discussion on the topic someday, if we do that.



      Click here to see more of Randall Munroe's apt sarcasm.

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Not going to happen when you have two sides who feel passionately about the subject. I can easily just discuss the subject until the arrows start flying. Then I tend to give as good as I get.

        I have come to the conclusion arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a small child. Hell, my 4-YO son is smarter than most of them.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That was a childish comment,

          Freedom was throwing away my army toys at age 8, real freedom is awesome and been child like ever since.

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            And you say my comment was childish? roll lol lol lol lol lol

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You don't know the difference between childlike and childish.

              OK, carry on your bigot ways towards non violent people and the other half of American political thinking forever. What do I care, it's not my conscience who suffering.

              1. profile image0
                Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I know perfectly well the difference between the two, Castle, and there comes a time when a grown man sets aside both. It's not my fault when liberals can't handle the truth.

                There's nothing bigoted about my comments and my conscious is as clear as the ringing of a bell.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Universe is always expanding and contracting, like Liberals and Conservatives. Blaming Liberals dose not help anymore than Christian blaming Satan and fight your back in spite of your front.

                  Satan concept is made up, they use it, so they can kill so called sub humans, they so call bad guys

                  It's always something to fight or kill over, peace is in the mind, not out there.

                  1. profile image0
                    Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    "The Universe is always expanding and contracting, like Liberals and Conservatives."

                    Does this mean we have to cut back on the chili and soda? lol

                    Are you feeling well, Castle?

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Soda's directly will kill you quicker, than guns or politics.  It's the fear of Gun that harms the poor.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        pleasing.hubpages.

        We are not going to change a  America's with their gun crazed nation  background over night and it's hundreds of battles History

        Just trade with the National defense less nuclear and gun weapon for the American public Guns for a safer America.

        Because if America dose not, The rest of World will take away their money and spend them to death. Very few Countries will for their policy at gun point anymore.

    37. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/i/1/moment_of_silence.jpg

      http://www.trbimg.com/img-50295dac/turbine/bs-ed-horsey-nra-cartoon-20120814/600

      http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001068319/nra_cho_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Seung-Hui Cho, the VA Tech shooter, was never a member of the NRA, Wizard. You representing that he was is, at best, a total misrepresentation and, at worst, a lie.

        Perhaps you should consider pulling your last photo.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You isolate the one aspect that is satiric and ignore all the other valid points on the issue that these cartoons point to.

          Little boys, programmed to identify with their toys for all kinds of reasons, but mostly to help them feel more secure as they grow and develop, at some point recognize they don't need them any longer, then stop identifying with them and move on and mature.

          Sadly, we should be addressing all of the immature identification with guns the American male can't seem to relinquish because of his preoccupation with feeling more secure as an overcompensation for his fears and male inadequacies.

          It's always about them verses us because you can't seem to face the fact that the real enemy is a lack of awareness and human compassion or empathy.  There is no difference among desperate men with fear in their hearts—excepting the fact that the ones with guns are causing most of the mayhem in America and around the world.

          <image removed>

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I have no "human compassion or empathy" for able-bodied people who, even in a good economy, won't get a job. They instead want to take what's mine, that I work for, and they have a president who will give it to them.

            As time wears on, it's becoming increasingly clear it's us against the government, Wizard. It's clear we'll be on opposite sides.

            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Your response is obviously sincere and tragically sad, Jonesy.  You exhibit the same kind of projected anger and resentment, that so many dupes of right-wing demagogues who encourage you to believe this folly, suffer from. Scapegoating and believing other people are the cause of your fears and unhappiness is an age old malady of humanity and your Them vs. Us delusions.

              You're trapped in your patterns of thought and nothing I can say will matter, but I can predict what will come of it—you are sealing your own fate to despair and unhappiness.

              1. profile image0
                Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Hmmm, lets see, my cost for our government's  "human compassion or empathy" is $424 more out of my paycheck each month, Wizard. That's the extra I'm paying each month for lazy, good-for-nothing "vunables" to have healthcare, EBT cards, Obama phones, and baby-daddies free to roam the streets like the predatory animals they are without responsibility for their actions.

                And you wonder why I have no  "human compassion or empathy" for these people. Call it what you want, Wizard, but as far as I'm concerned, they can all go to hell on the next rocket ship out.

                1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought your clap-trap sounded familiar—it's you, who formerly called yourself,  "Longhunter," right?

                  What pity you didn't win The Civil War or that we never abolished slavery!

                  1. profile image0
                    Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    No. Who the hell is Longhunter?

                    As for the Civil War, I just hope all this doesn't cause another one, Wizard.

                    Your comment on slavery doesn't deserve a response.

                    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Longhunter was someone from Tennessee who share your myopic views and petty resentments.

                      And FYI, Longhunter's response regarding The Civil War & slavery was exactly the same as yours.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Seung was a bit over the top

        Yet

        He would have killed less with a hammer or knife in his hands, even I could have stopped him.

    38. shockblog profile image60
      shockblogposted 12 years ago

      rest of the world does not own a gun yet safer than americans.

      1. wilderness profile image76
        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        The continent of South America rather gives a lie to that statement, as does Central America.

        So does the continent of Africa, particularly the middle east, and you can add much of Asia to the list. 

        As a matter of fact, most of the world has more violence per capita than America.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          America has less violence than most of the World

          So much, Non sense

          1. Scottie Futch profile image69
            Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, despite the brainwashing so many people seem to enjoy America is actually NOT as violent as many other western nations. http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/201 … -than.html

            In some countries people being dragged out of their homes and shot by the government doesn't even make the news. If that happened in America it would make the news, unless of course they claim that the homeowner had drugs or something to cover the murder.

            Here's an interesting reason why many might NOT want to see their guns get banned. Sure, you'd die most likely in the assault but at least you wouldn't have to watch your handcuffed children get kicked and beat while staring at the dead family dog. http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/10/st-pa … g-door-rai

    39. shockblog profile image60
      shockblogposted 12 years ago

      Sir , Countries you have mentioned are in War. War zones can not be compared with place like USA. Look at countries those are not in War, for example United Kingdom. I do not see any gun fight here in London . Even Most police officers do not Carry guns. The whole world is in shock after that guy went on shooting those innocent babies. There is only one way you can enjoy a safer environment. But I am not anyone to give advice, I hope you guys get what is best.

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. were shocked as well, SB, but not near as much when the left used the deaths of 20 first grade children to further their political agenda.

      2. wilderness profile image76
        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Brazil is at war?  Or South Africa?  Columbia?  Mexico?  Panama?  Peru?  Ukraine?

        Not to my knowledge, but all have a homicide rate far, far in excess of the US.

        1. shockblog profile image60
          shockblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Sir,
          Brazil is not in war. But I hope nobody will take offence if I say some Brazilians are far from being civilized. Lets say they live in Jungle.
          South Africa is situated near some war zones, its easy for criminals to traffic arms which are used to kill people. In USA your border guards are strong enough to prevent this.

          Columbia do have a war going on with FARC rebels, And Mexico has their drug war which is responsible for many deaths. Peru is in civil war since 80s which have caused 70 thousand deaths.

          1. wilderness profile image76
            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We all have our problems, don't we?  America currently has, to me, a massive problem with violence, but to say it is the worst in the world is far from the truth. 

            Nor can it be linked to gun ownership.  Looking at just the "civilized" world, there is no correlation between the number of guns owned and the violence of Homicide rates.

            1. shockblog profile image60
              shockblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              To be honest with all problems we have in the world still world is much safer than it was 50 or 70 years ago. With the rise of Media and internet we get news of war and crimes very fast thus getting impression as the world is in constant chaos.

              When we talk about america we expect america to be the best country in the world. However all these school shooting , mass murder is not a common sight in any other part of the world . When a psychopath can find a gun close to his hand what else he would do than go and shoot some random peoples? atleast in other countries  psychos do not find guns near their hand. If a guy kills another guy for a reason  that's a normal crime. But if a psycho goes out and kills random peoples just because he hate living his life and wants to mark his name in the history book,  thats not normal. How can such people get close to a gun and how do Americans feel safe knowing there are thousand more psychos are fantasizing about committing same kind of attack right now at the very moment we are discussing.

          2. Scottie Futch profile image69
            Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            So, just to understand your feeling on this situation... America is more violent than other countries because it has no excuse for being violent?

            I'm sorry, but that's just sad. Many of the world's countries have citizens who can't even use the bathroom without fear that someone will shoot them in the head and steal their toilet paper. I don't give any country a 'pass on being violent' just because they have internal strife. That strife is the epitome of violent action.

            People are so afraid of violence that it makes me sad. The world is not child-safety proofed. It's an inherently dangerous place and we've removed ourselves from the dangers of being alive to the extent that we complain when anyone is hurt or killed. We die every day. It's the quality of our lives that should matter.

            I would rather live in a dangerous country where I have to a chance to live my life independent and free than in a sterilized police-state where I can only live within the confines of what someone else allows. A little regulation on how guns are acquired is fine, but outright banning me or anyone from a weapon when they have no history of violence is a slap in the face to a life lived without violent tendencies.

            1. shockblog profile image60
              shockblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I understand people of USA has their own culture which is different than ours. And i do respect. But you should work in order to prevent psychopaths getting close to guns. If one member of a family is known to have serious mental issues that family should not be allowed to own guns. For public safety. I hope you agree to that.

              1. profile image0
                Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                That should be the responsibility of the family and their choice, not the governments. Just my two cents.

                1. wilderness profile image76
                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Can't say I would agree with that, Jonesy.  The mentally ill aren't the problem of his/her siblings or even parents - they didn't cause it and have no blame for it and thus cannot be held responsible for it.

                  It is the problem of society in general, and we aren't dong a very good job of handling that particular part of the violence problem.

          3. Greensleeves Hubs profile image84
            Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sensible comments Shockblog. Certainly there are other countries with high gun homicide rates but usually there are reasons associated with the instability of government or ineffectiveness of police force, lack of resources, inter racial, ethnic or political rivalry, and extreme poverty, drugs etc. None of these apply to the same extent in America, which is a rich country with a stable government and a strong police force. The main reason for the high level of gun homicide in America has to be due to the ease of access to guns.

    40. Living Well Now profile image60
      Living Well Nowposted 12 years ago

      From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center on Homocide:

      1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

      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.

      Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


      2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

      We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

      Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


      3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

      Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

      After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

      Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


      4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

      Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

      Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

      Source

      1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image84
        Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I thank you Living Well Now for this source of information. I am on the look out for accurate, preferably objective and dispassionate reviews of gun control, gun proliferation and the implications of both.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          wiki
          United States is ranked for the highest gun ownership rate unambiguously, Yemen based on the margin of error may rank anywhere between 2nd and 18th, Switzerland anywhere between 2nd and 16th.

          According to few guy on this thread they only use their gun on the bad guys. USA is way out in fronts for prisons too with 25% of the World's prison.

          Where do most of the terrorist hang out?

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You're using Wiki, flawed at best, Castle.

          2. Scottie Futch profile image69
            Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Most of the people in prison are there due to drug charges, tacked on BS charges, and nanny-state laws.

            I know someone who ended up in prison for three years because they decided that a fight he got into with a man on his property was obviously due to his attempt to commit first degree burglary.

            Sounds bad right? Except that first degree burglary usually requires someone to enter a private home or business while an occupant is asleep. This guy was having a conversation with a former employer, the argument got heated, it came to blows, and because this assault occurred after 9pm it was deemed 'attempted first degree burglary'.

            The attack might have gotten him a few months in jail, but the tacked on charge got him three years. He had to plead guilty in order to prevent it from being a possible 20. He denied the charge 3 times, but the prosecutor wanted to be 'hard on crime'.

            The man he fought with didn't even bother to show up to the trial. He sent pictures from a time several months earlier when he'd been hospitalized after a fight with his brother in law. Due to the "attempted burglary" and severity of his inflicted wounds his attacker was sentenced to like 3 years. He gets out next year.

            They prosecutor told the judge that the poor abused home owner might never walk again. Funny that I'd seen the guy moving refrigerators three days after the altercation and he didn't even seem bruised up despite the many vicious blows he'd taken. pfft.

            Yeah there are MANY reasons why America has a prison overpopulation but it's got nothing to do with our excessive violence issues.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Excellent information.

    41. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      I must say I amazed at the supposed intellectual levels of liberal intellectuals , NOT !.  And heres the thing I probably have less I.Q. than most of you do , and yet I know that I have more common sense that most of the idiousy coming ,obviously , from the anti-gunners !  You ae so predictable ......And soo Far  removed from reality in the REAL problem here !  But hey . Lets just legislate the problem away .....That'll fix it !

    42. SoManyPaths profile image62
      SoManyPathsposted 12 years ago

      Your comments

      "It only takes a split second for a person's life to changed completely by a mad man. We saw that in Connecticut"

      A split second? A split second?  But you support guns and assault rifles to kill in "split seconds".

      You are completely OK with allowing a Mother to buy a gun and keep it in a home with a mentally unstable kid. A mad man did let that happen since there were no laws in effect to prevent her from purchasing the gun and keeping it at her home. A mad politician bought out by the neo-conservatives. I feel it is OK to an extent to arm yourself but you don't need assault rifles or guns in close proximity to people who are unstable. So, that would apply to having armed guards in schools who are around unstable kids.

      When you want to live like a free bird and keep whatever 200+ year old laws at your disposal, you see the result over and over. It does not work! For you to support guns after a unstable kid grabbed a weapon that should be banned is deplorable. Innocent children were killed because of the NRA!

      I know, it's about time you now you label me as a liberal since I am anti-gun or wasn't pro-Romney nor Pro-Obama. For the last 8 to 12 years presidential candidates were not far apart in their agenda. FWIW, I am very pro-business but not at the expense of risking lives. We could label the NRA and its supporters as neo-conservatives and plaid-shirt union jack  gun toting whackos but I don't throw those out there. Everyone has an opinion that should be heard since it is our country. Dividing it does no good for those lost by the assault rifles you support.

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Who are your comments directed to, SMP?

    43. SoManyPaths profile image62
      SoManyPathsposted 12 years ago

      I cannot find the person who made the comment now. But it is directed to anyone who supports NOT banning the sale of assault or automatic rifles to the general public. If it can kill 10 people or more in less than a minute. I will sign against it. I will also sign against having and owning weapons that can kill others  in close proximity to crazy people (same household, work, etc). You say, "Crazy people kill and commit these mass murders NOT guns".
      Crazies will find a way to carry out their devious acts." OK, so logic tells you to have a law to prevent that. Keep donuts, carbs and processed breads away from a person and they will lose weight.

      These type of, "if then, logic" statements do not support pro-gun people nor do the statistics.

      We have laws to keep crazy drunk people off the road and you have to adhere to this to some degree? Why not this?  Please don't answer with the 200-yr old, "Oh, it infringes on my American constitutional right to bear arms".

      Oh, _that's such _ _,  you can keep the normal gun for protection as long as you are not a crazy and don't have people in your household who are diagnosed as mentally unstable. There have been 3x as many murders with the "stand your ground law".

      A great argument for pro-gun people is that other countries have higher homicide rates yet less guns. So in the U.S., logic tells you the majority of guns are in the hands of good moral people since we have millions more people with guns than those other countries. OK, well then a ban on assault rifles law will make it even better ratio and children and teens can go to school and theaters w/o being shot up. Or no? maybe we should make bullet proof vests for kids now?

      OK, you are a gun collector, why not allow bomb collectors too? what about plutonium too? A bomb or nuclear chemical can only kill 1000s if in the hands of a crazy person right?  It is a mass murder weapon right?

      1. profile image56
        whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Why not answer with the 200 year old argument about my rights under the constitution? Do rights become invalid after 200 years? It is actually the only argument we need! We have laws against the insane buying weapons, they still get weapons and if there were a ban on them they would still find a way.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The Second Amendment, contrary to some opinions expressed in this forum, is subject to differing interpretations, and it doesn't preclude reasonable and practical restrictions on the sale, use and possession of guns.

          1. profile image56
            whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The 2nd amendment is straight forward and means what it means.

            "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

            1. Scottie Futch profile image69
              Scottie Futchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Just because we don't currently draft people into the military doesn't mean the concept of bearing and maintaining arms is void. If America were ever surprise attacked on national soil the first line of defense wouldn't be the military. It would be armed and trained citizens who have to hold ground until the military is mobilzed. I would say that a great deal of 'infringement' has occurred and is still occurring.  Turning blinders on reality doesn't change things. Just because people think we're safe and secure now does not mean that we will always be without war at home.

        2. Greensleeves Hubs profile image84
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I would say yes, the rights may indeed become invalid after 200 years if the circumstances which brought about those rights have changed. There are many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but for me the most convincing one simply links the two parts of the amendment - the right to bear arms was written into the constitution because of the necessity for a people's militia. Today with a stable democratic government, a powerful army and an armed police force, there is no need to form militias. America is a very very different place. Therefore, I don't feel the 2nd Amendment still applies. Of course there are other arguments in favour of guns in private hands for personal safety, but I don't myself believe the constitution is a valid reason.

          1. profile image56
            whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You may have had a point  but the U.S. Supreme court thinks otherwise. You may want to worry about your countries laws you don't seem to have a grasp on ours.

            1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image84
              Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              whoisit, I could have predicted someone would imply - politely in your case - that foreigners with an alternative point of view to yours should stay out of the discussion. I think I do have a grasp on the law, but laws can be changed in a free and dynamic society.

    44. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      And speaking of "scapegoating" & gun control . . . 

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j … un-control

    45. Wayne Brown profile image80
      Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

      Greensleeves...I think you need to go back and read the second amendment again.  The amendment does not tie the militia to the citizens bearing arms...it separates it.  It makes clear the point that even though a "well-regulated" militia may be provided for by the various levels of government, such action does not impede the right of the citizen to bear arms.  In other words, just because we have a US military, in effect a standing militia, in no way restrains a citizens ability to bear arms.  That was true 200 years ago and it is still true today.  ~WB

    46. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Everyone will once again know the causes and  reasons that the second amendment was written in the first place [along with all the others ] , wars and revolutions , civil unrests will always rear their ugly heads ..  The rest of the world doesn't ever seem to mind asking [begging]Americans to dig that old musket out of thier closets and "come to the rescue " of the compromised freedoms of outside counties  , now do they . Any country in the world that doesn't have a second amendment ....should have !

      1. LucidDreams profile image67
        LucidDreamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        The reason all of the other countries don't mind asking the USA to come to the rescue is because they know we are a gun happy country who loves to shoot off our guns any chance we can. We spend the money, we have soldiers die, we solve THIER PROBLEMS!
        Kind of seems like they are out smarting us!

        1. profile image0
          Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah, I'm REEEEEAL sure that's why they ask, Lucid. roll

    47. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      "... Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50.

      "The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher.

      "Sixty-nine percent of all American homicide deaths in 2007 involved firearms, compared with an average of 26 percent in other countries, the study said. 'The bottom line is that we are not preventing damaging health behaviors,' said Samuel Preston, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was on the panel. “You can blame that on public health officials, or on the health care system. No one understands where responsibility lies'....”



      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/healt … .html?_r=0

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Well Ralph. I don't really believe this Issue will Be Settled, EXCEPT, If WE ALL Crumble, Like ALL the other Countries did,

        To me, This would be, UNEXEPTABL. I stand as YOU DO.

        How or what will it take to get MOST if these People, TO WAKE UP, AND GET IT.

        I know their are TWO people that, Will Not comply. You and I.

        I will always have your back This Issue is getting blown Totally out if shape.

        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_00

        OLY

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          OLYHOOCH
          Interesting film, however

          Education is one of the most powerful weapons and most valuable possession you can own is an open heart.  A gun is not an instrument of peace and the terror of guns is more in the big bang, its only in the anticipation of it. We allow Guns and wars  far too often the greedy rich this powerful tool of Guns and Gods.   

          Gandi changed India without weapons te purpose of programming fear into the masses of people is to control us – and is it ever effective! Fear, although it is a very low vibrational force, is an extremely powerful emotion. It is used extensively in brainwashing programs, because nothing makes the implanting stronger than a good dose of fear.

          1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
            OLYHOOCHposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The only thing a Man/Lady, has to fear,is Fear it self.

            Guns, dont kill people, People kill People.

            OLY

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I'm happy love is stronger than fear, fear is just the unknowns until they are understood. That is where education comes in and why firearm and nuclear budget are far greater in the USA to promote worldwide fear and control.

              The USA greed will fail, like all the rest in your film and 80% of the consciousness of the people will lead again

      2. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting life expectancy by country
        USA is rated 38th, Cuba was rated better.

    48. SoManyPaths profile image62
      SoManyPathsposted 12 years ago

      I just got enlightened by a marine on the topic and it all seems moot. Yes, I was in the military too but not a marine, (air force).  I was not aware that almost or most guns can be modified to become automatic. So, a ban on 'ABC rifle or gun" is just fluff. There's a lot of variables out there.

      1. profile image0
        Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I assume you're posting this to the OP which is I so I'll answer.

        The death of a friend or a loved one is never easy, SMP, but it's not the gun's fault. It's fault of the person who's pulling the trigger.

        If I smash my finger while nailing, it's not the hammer's fault nor my right hand's. It is mine as I am the one in control of the hammer.

        We must stop doing something so stupidly silly as blaming the tool, an inanimate object, for the actions of a person.

        1. SoManyPaths profile image62
          SoManyPathsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I'll agree to an extent with the blame part.
          You are aware of  being guilty for "accessory to murder"  . You, the gun owner contributed to their death by leaving it in an accessible or visible place.  No gun visible to the exploring 6 yr old child could've kept him alive and you out of jail. Blame the 6 yr old 100%?

          You know a lawyer would have a field day and they can even win if it was another adult instead of the child.

          1. profile image0
            Jonesy50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            A gun being available to an "exploring 6 yr old child" isn't a problem in my house. Unless it's on my hip, it's locked up. That is the responsibility of the gun owner.

            We could sit here and argue scenarios all day, SMP. The fact of the matter remains a gun is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more, nothing less. To a person like the Lanza kid, it wouldn't have mattered. He was going to do something bad. Maybe he wouldn't have done as much with a knife but we must still blame the person, not the tool of choice.

            All this talk of gun control is either knee-jerk reaction by some or using the deaths of 20 children to further their political agenda.

    49. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

      Jonesy !+++++++

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)