Gun Control
The people have spoken. Now get rid of stupid 10 round mag limit. America, love or......, you know.
I take issue with this "myth"
--------------
Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire."
----------
First of all, this is an opinion that doesn't exactly contradict the myth. Being armed and prepared when some nutjob starts shooting MAY help. Not being prepared or armed when a nutjob starts shooting won't be much help at all. Point of fact, I have heard more than a few stories of armed civilians taking down someone who started a killing spree and they are the reason the incident got reported as an exchange of gunfire rather than a Sandy Hook style mass shooting.
So having an armed citizen with a CC permit has the potential to squash a mass shooting before it becomes one. It's not a myth. It's a fact. It seems to be an uncomfortable fact too as it is never brought up by gun-control advocates.
Here’s another story that you probably won’t see on Obama’s website in the section where they’ve solicited people’s gun violence stories and reasons that they support more gun control. They’re only interested in the stories that end with, “if only we could take away everyone’s guns, then we could do away with gun violence” or “guns are weapons of war, so people need to defend themselves with scissors or ballpoint pens…but only as a last resort.”
In Houston, Texas, a family was baking a cake when they heard someone ring their door bell. The dad went to answer the door, and there was a kid standing there, who he assumed was a friend of his son’s. But the kid lunged at the man, knocking him down to the floor, and then two others came in after the man’s wife. The men were armed.
The man’s 21-year-old son sprang into action, grabbed his dad’s gun and shot at the intruders and killed one of them. The other two ran out. The police, who were responding to the call, spotted the two criminals trying to speed away in their car. They were pulled over and then taken in for questioning. The son who killed one of the intruders won’t be charged.
If the man had not had a gun, then what would have happened? Were the three thugs there to steal the family’s valuables? Would they have murdered the family? Three innocent citizens could have been dead. Or their property could have been ransacked, and valuables could have been stolen. Who knows? Since they made the decision to commit a criminal act by breaking in this family’s home and harming the family members, they should have known to be prepared to deal with the consequences. And now, one of them is dead.
This is what happens to criminals when they deal with gun owners. With stories like this, it really makes one marvel at the idiocy of liberal politicians out there who seriously talk about things like the “buddy system,” body fluids, Judo, ballpoint pens, whistles and scissors in the context of defending oneself from an armed criminal.
Anything but a gun.
Leave guns to government and criminals. And the rest of us who can’t depend on the government (or criminals) to keep us safe should be left with basically nothing.Nice story, and yes it is not reported as often as you would like. On the other hand, each time a child plays with a gun and shoots himself or a frriend, we don't always here that news either. This happens on average around 10 times per day. That's a Sandy Hook every couple of days right there!
Glad the family is ok and the teen did not accidentally shoot a family member in the process. Gun must have been readily available (not secured properly) This way whenever kids want to play with it, it is available!
We have a president whose administration was involved in giving "assault weapons" to drug dealers who used the guns to kill innocent people, including Americans. Then, the same president turns around and tells us that we shouldn't have "assault weapons." That's rich.
Remember Fast and Furious?Yes. It was a well-intentioned but dumb move by low level ATF border personnel, as I recall.
That is because you excuse everything this President does!
Which is weird because the congressional investigation found the President didn't do it and neither did Holder.
Excuse me? That was not an investigation by Congress but an internal investigation of the Justice department.
Wasn't Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt by Congress for failing to disclose internal Justice Department documents in response to a subpoena? Hmmmm. Why would he fail to disclose documents? Do innocent people fail to disclose documents very often?
I wouldn't think so, but what do I know. Josak seems to think an internal investigation by the justice dept is Congress, wonder where they get their ideas.
I don't excuse everything President Obama does. I don't like the drone program because too many innocent women and children are killed and because it may well be creating more new terrorists than it's killing. I also don't like the spying by NSA on American citizens. And, as someone who depends on Social Security I resent having my pockets picked by Obama's "chain CPI" offer in order to make up for Bush's two unnecessary wars, tax cuts for 2 percenters, and his unfunded Medicare drug program written by drug company lobbyists. Social Security should be discussed as a separate issue considering ALL alternative "fixes" including increasing the earnings cap subject to FICA tax.
Obama had nothing to do with the gun fiasco on the border. As I recall several people were fired over it.
The last thing i have to add is, you cannot control what is utterly so out of control already and that being, since there is no controlling criminals, and they will always get guns, leave the legal gun owners alone..but of course they're not going to, so i can't wait to tell all those who want gun control, i told ya so..Anti gun ppl are like going swimming with someone that doesn't know how to swim but expects to be saved.
This is amusing....Dog shoots owner. Maybe the dog needs to be mentally evaluated!
http://www.webpronews.com/dog-shoots-ow … ed-2013-02Last year, our government spent $100,000,000,000 and doesn't know where it went, can't show any assets for this expenditure, and readily admits that this massive sum of money is just gone. You want this same government body to have additional oversight over guns and gun control? Half the members of Congress don't know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon, yet you want these people to interpret what the Constitution really means?
Care to provide proof for those claims?
As for interpreting the constitution only the Supreme court does that.Most of these statmements came from an Interview of Rand Paul. I'll leave the burden of proving this to you, as you now know the source.
As for interpreting the Constitution, I hear politicians constantly say that the founding fathers didn't mean that people should have "assault weapons." Politicians try to intepret the Constitution all the time.
Dianne Feinstein on assault weapons: "They are designed to kill large numbers of people ... I don't believe the Second Amendment covers them"Yeah the lost money claim is just false, unaccounted money is nowhere near that much (highest estimates put it about 15% of that) and that includes funds for covert operations and such that are not officially labelled.
Giving an opinion on the constitution is not the same as interpreting it for you, congress can not interpret the constitution, they can make laws and then the Supreme court decides whether they are constitutional or not.Josak,
It wasn't my best source, and I have to admit I didn't do my due diligence in checking it to begin with. Still, could you provide proof of the 15%, as I am highly skeptical of this statistic.
As for the Constitution, we all know that the judicial branch interprets the Constitution. My point wasn't that. My point was that politicans try to justify their gun control legislation on what they "believe" the founding fathers meant in the Constitution. It's a matter of semantics.And if they didn't give up their guns, history would remember them as evil vigilantes and radical extremist revolutionaries.
You seem to not realize the issue here isn't "they gave up their guns"; it's "HOLY SHIT, America used to be racist as hell!"You don't get it and i blame your education.
"And if they didn't give up their guns, history would remember them as evil vigilantes and radical extremist revolutionaries."
But they would have kicked a little more ass!
Give it up Tootsie...Adam Lanza's mother knew her son was mentally unstable. She never locked her guns away. She never even considered the possibility he'd turn 20 innocent kids in a classroom into chopped meat. DogPatch is calling honey...Lil Abner is waiting on his vittles.
No, of course they don't retire and move up north...Lil Abner and Lazy Daisy Mae would go into culture shock if they had to give up their grits and gravy, their collards and their pork bellies...both of them...the ones in the pots and the ones most of the Lil Abners fall over when they walk.
Sorry sugar magnolias....no one wants to move to the south for any reason but the warm weather...where you laze away on the front porches while the people in other states pay for your welfare and phony disability.I always enjoy seeing your posts becasue it's nice that you can show everyone what hate speech is really all about.
I love the "ignernce" in your posts. Closet racists and bigot magnolia rarely have the mental maturity to stop feasting at the table of denial. Most "ignernts" have no idea what hate speech is. They just keep trying to have the last word and they keep insisting they and only they can are right. You prove that with these 3 week old posts. Most insufferable, uncivilized types live in fear of their mental illness. It's the reason I so welcome mental stability tests for gun nuts. 90% of them live in mortal fear of the rest of us finding out for certain what we already knew...lunacy prevails. Take the hint.
Oh puhlease...Which magnolias love to bat their eyelashes, act coquettish and jiggly their buns the minute a swaggering, drawling hunk is around? Whose culture insisted upon "beauty" in women being more important than brains? Whose culture stereotyped women to be "the delicate flowers of southern womanhood?" The only thing missing from the magnolia stereoptyping today are the huge balloon dresses and the fluttering fans. There are several notable southern women I admire Ann Richards, Kaye Bailey Hutchinson and Rosa Parks. These women didn't put "beauty" before the brains they knew God gave them. Simpering, obedient lil flowers of womanhood I know well...I have an entire entourage of these silly, vain, self-centered female in-laws. Don't tell me about stereotypes. If the south had its way, the Stars and Bars would be the only flag in this country and the Confederacy would still be making plantation owners wealthy off free slave labor. You can hide many things "darlin" but racism isn't one of them. Your posts are the reasons sane, rational people recognize the danger of putting guns in the hands of self-stereotyping antebellum loonies.
See...like I say...
the hatred just oozes from your posts.
But...of course..I should realize you are the elite and future rulers so you are allowed....The only thing I can tell you is apparently any visits you make to those in laws you reference are made under coercion. Whether you believe so or not you stereotype anyone who is from the region apparently and make the mistake of thinking you can tweak me into ranting at you.
You really know nothing of the southeast at all.
But as I have said that's ok. You plan to be part of the elite ruling class anyway and that will be the dumping ground as far as you are concerned.
And I am sure those in-law ladies you tell me of have you all figured out.
Oh I see so sugar pants magnolias with twitches where it itches now have ESP...Darlin' "y'all" need to check out my accomplishments and then try desperately to keep up.
Those in-laws of mine are women whose only identity is tied to a man. Like you, they all believe the only degree that is important is their MRS. Your posts prove that women also see a gun as a Phallic symbol. These are the women for whom size DOES matter...the size of Big Daddy's bank account that is.
But as you've stated, you need to own the phallus symbol Bushmaster.
There's only one problem with mentalities like yours. You demonize anything that is good or peaceful and glorify the righteousness of evil. You're the one promoting gun violence sugar magnolia...not I.I have no idea where I said anything about a Bushmaster.
I am not glorifying anything.
The Constitution gives people the right to own guns. If you feel that needs to be taken away that's your problem.
Education Answer
Our government spends limitless amounts of money every year that is un-accountable and has for decades The congress and senate are to put bills forth, and pass them based on PUBLIC opinion, wants and needs. That is supposed to be their job. The public in general would like some sort of regulation whether it be, a ban on automatic weapons, gun registration or something else. Right now registration has the most pull! Anything is better then the IDIOTS at the NRA telling America what we should do about our gun problem.Only partially true. It is the job of congress to put forth and pass laws based on public wants and needs, yes, but always with concern for the needs, wants and rights of the minority as well as concern for the constitution.
That the majority wish to remove rights from the minority should only be passed when there is an actual need. Majority wants or opinion cannot (or at least should not) override the rights of the minority.
Yes, the IDIOTS of the country that can't be bothered to research or reason the problem of homicide rates through do want rights and freedoms of others removed, but without the need there is insufficient reason to do so.They're idiots, because you disagree with them? Give the issue a few more months, and I'm sure you'll find that the public's view on gun control starts to fade; it's a transient view. Right now, a lot of public sentiment behind this issue is because of emotion, not facts. Look, we all want our children safe, but these proposed policies do little to accomplish that.
@LucidDreams, don't let emotion cloud your judgment.
I'm not a member of the NRA, but I support the right of Americans to bear arms of their own choosing.
Don't react to fear mongering. That's how tyranny builds. Hitler used it, Bush used it, and now Obama is using it. Soon, there won't be anything left of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then America will be just another suck-job tyrannical regime, like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany or the Roman Empire.
With American National Debt skyrocketing and accelerating, I think we need to be more concerned with the lunatics in Congress who are spending money like drunken pirates with a stolen credit card.
$16.6 Trillion !!!
And the government seems to be losing Trillions of dollars every year from lost funds, especially in the Defense Department.
America is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. And the indiscriminate drones are continuing that policy of tyrannical mayhem. Murder has become "collateral damage." War has become "peace-keeping" action. What a crock! Wake up people. America has become the Evil Empire we once condemned.
If you can't see that, then there is little hope for us in things like government. Get ready for the firestorm that brings humanity to the edge of oblivion. I hate the thought of billions dying because of the greed of a few. Don't play into their hands by listening to the sweet rhetoric of politicians who don't care squat about you.I am not reacting out of fear at all. I get my news from a varity of sources pro left, pro right and in the middle. Those who are so stuck in their ways and not willing to see the whole picture need to be more open minded and educate themselves a little better.
Tyranny wants the 2nd Amendment to disappear
Stop reacting out of fear!
That bears repeating:
Stop reacting out of fear!
When you're afraid, the bad guys can eat you up and spit you out. That's what they've done to the American Constitution. Bit by bit, they've shredded it.
Tragic death should never happen, whether it's cars, guns, fists, knives or anything else. But outlawing cars, guns, fists, knives or anything else won't stop violence and even deaths.
Here's a video that casts grave doubts on the "official story." Witnesses say things the police and the media are not repeating. Why? Could it be they have an agenda they want kept secret? And could it be that millions are going along with that agenda out of fear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZPS7AdgNgE
The real solution isn't more draconian legislation, because that would only lead to more tyranny.
The real solution is to be compassionate to one person at a time. If we all do this, then there will be far fewer psychotic gunmen for the government to use against us."Tragic death should never happen, whether it's cars, guns, fists, knives or anything else. But outlawing [...] guns [...] won't stop violence and even deaths."
Funny. It seems to be working just fine for Denmark, Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Japan, etc. And they didn't even have to ban knives and other such weapons to achieve almost-nonexistent homicide rates!Shut up. Go and read some mangas. That is all you are good for because you know NOTHING about politics kid.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Here's how Australia's gun ban laws have failed horribly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When honest citizens have to turn in their guns, criminals can then move in without fear.
Wake up. Don't react to fear-mongering news. Don't give up your Constitution.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\A video interviewing a bunch of gun collectors and how visibly upset they were, (almost a little weird how they loved their guns) is not evidence that the policy does not work. A biased video really shows nothing. Besides, what is the harm in trying to do something that may help our country one way or another. The major pro-gunnies are the ones who have FEAR in their hearts, Why else would they be so scared to be without guns?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
More information on gun control in Australia without the biased tone. Of course you alwasys have the PRO GUN groups which argue with every fact or figure....that goes without saying!You cure gun problems with compassion for the ones committing violence. Prison, yes. But not the kinds of prisons which build more criminal behavior.
I dislike guns. But I stand behind the 2nd Amendment 100%.
I guess you missed the part about people who became relatively defenseless being attacked by gun toting criminals.
When guns are outlawed, only criminals (and the criminal government) will have guns.
See my comment, below, starting, "What to do about gun control? Obey the 2nd Amendment! Period!"
Learn something about the bigger picture in America. Something other than the drivel you see and hear in the Corporate Party news media propaganda.
The constitution is a lot bigger then just the right to bear arms! Man, that's just a small part of it
Anyway, why do we need this many guns? In addition to lax gun regulation, the U.S. stands out in the sheer number of guns. According to the Small Arms Survey, the estimated total number of guns held by U.S. civilians is 270 million -- 88.9 firearms per 100 people. The country with the second-most guns is India, with an estimated 46 million guns in private hands -- or about four firearms for every 100 people.
Other countries have homicide rates comparable with the U.S. or worse, Alpers said. But they're not exactly models of public safety. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime data shows 10,300 homicides by firearms in the U.S. 2009, compared with 8,804 in Mexico and 12,808 in Colombia.
Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.
Glad to see we are lumped together with Columbia and Mexico . What a proud moment!
The phrase had been coined "trigger-happy pooches"
It seems as though there are some dogs that aren't simply satisfied with merely biting. At least 2 dogs by their own action have resulted in shooting their owners.
I guess now we will have to include the phrase: "Okay-make my Kibbles and Bits Day!"
http://www.inquisitr.com/547680/dog-shoots-owner-again/The Gun Industry's Most Outrageous Marketing Ploys
A Sniper Rifle of His Own
Gunmaker Barrett specializes in selling military-grade, anti-personnel and anti-materiel sniper rifles to couch potatoes who like to imagine themselves as members of the Special Forces. The tagline says it all.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOkxoGbh
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Pretty in Pink
Female gun ownership is a third of men's. To attract lady shooters, the industry's marketing geniuses are now aggressively pushing pink firearms (see these examples from Sig Sauer and Smith and Wesson). This $140 stock set sold at GunGoddess.com can even make an AR-15 look cute.
Fun for the Kids
The big names in the industry – Ruger, Glock, Bushmaster, you name it– sponsor a magazine called Junior Shooters, which sells children as young as eight on the joys of assault weaponry.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOkpX5NE
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOkdworb
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Girl (Fire) Power
Little girls as young as six are also in gunmakers' sights. The industry has even dreamed up "National Take Your Daughter to the Range Day," where little ones can learn to shoot AR-15s "like a girl." Check out the event's creepy logo.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOl920kD
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Zombie Hunting
To appeal to millennials, the industry has taken a cue from Hollywood and the video game industry, turning shooting ranges into "Zombies" hunts. Zombie Industries markets 3-D dummies of the undead that either "bleed" zombie goo when you shoot them or "burst into little pieces of blood soaked, Zombie matter." This model is disturbingly called "The Ex."
This Is Not a Toy
Top ammo makers like Hornady have even gotten into the gamification of guns, marketing a line of bullets called Zombie Max– which they promote with a Hollywood-style promo of a young man firing on human actors at close range with his military-inspired guns. Note the warning on the ammo box.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOlTJBp8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … z2MOlKT2Qh
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pi … s-20130228Ah yes Rolling Stone....I trust they cleaned out the bong sometime in the last 30 years?
Those bad, bad gun makers must really have a plan to destroy our nation. More industry hating?
There is not such thing statisically as an assault rifle, so the gun control fantatics using that term need to do some homework.
For example, of the slighly more than 9,000 homicides using a gun in 2009, less than 350 were as a result of a rifle. Rifles have never been a major homicide tool in history, and the only reason the gun control fantatics and enemies of the Second Amendment use it as their focus is because it looks scary and ominous to the unitiated.
From there they'll start to ban other guns. See the links below for confirmation of that fact:
http://2ndamendmentguncontrolnews.blogs … -bill.html
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/p … osed-bill/
So the idea of calling an automatic or semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon is ludicrous in the face of about 1 homicide in America using a rifle per million people.Well, the assault pistols obviously have to go, and as for those assault slingshots - they are the absolutely worst thing imaginable! Unlimited ammunition, after all - anyone caught with one of those deserves the death penalty on the spot.
Assault muzzle loaders are a problem as well, and so are assault bow and arrow sets. Including the ones with rubber tips - while claiming they are for 5 year old kids, they are obviously designed to be hidden under a jacket and could put out your other eye, they only one left after the attack by the assault BB gun.
Don't let the gun nuts fool you - we have to get rid of those ugly, black assault weapons before they rear up on their stocks and begin firing enough ammunition to decimate the entire population. Now! Before the real carnage from assault pea shooters begins!
One of those so called 'rights' that will keep coming back to bite innocent people on the ass.
I thought the original amendment meant 'the right to bear arms-if the Government became corrupt?
Not some damn shoot him up gangham style.....Sad but not un-typical case:
Two very different situations were painted in Oakland County Circuit Court this morning as attorneys gave openings statements in the trial of a West Bloomfield grandmother accused of murdering her 17-year-old grandson last May.
The first described by prosecutors was of a teenager who was shot by his grandmother and then shot again as he was on the phone with a 911 operator begging for help.
The second given by her defense attorney was of a terrified grandmother who shot her grandson after an argument broke out and he kicked the 74-year-old woman in the chest.
“Sandra Layne is not a murderer,” her attorney Jerome Sabbota told jurors. “What does she gain?” he asked.
He said Layne, who had bought a gun, was afraid of her grandson Jonathan Hoffman, 17, and felt she had no choice.
Meanwhile, Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton told jurors about the 911 call Hoffman made after Layne shot him twice and said he begged for help during the 6-minute call.
“I’m going to die,” Walton said Hoffman told the dispatcher. “I’ve just been shot in the chest. I’m going to die. Help me. Please help me.”
Walton said as he pleaded for help his grandmother walked up to him –about 3 minutes into the call— and shot him again, in the stomach.
Officers arrived and the first thing Layne told them was “I murdered my grandson,” Walton said.
Layne, a retired schoolteacher and mother of five, and her husband, were caring for Hoffman after his parents, who were divorcing, moved to Arizona.
Sabbota depicted the teen as troubled and said he stayed with his grandmother because he didn’t want to be with his parents. He said Hoffman was a drug user and played a 911 call from March when his grandmother said he was trying to run away.
“I love you and I want to see you get some help,” she could be heard saying to her grandson on the recording.
Layne also said she called because she was desperate and didn’t know what to do.
Layne, who is now 75, is charged with open murder in the death of Hoffman. She wore a yellow sweater with a white collared shirt underneath it in court today. She sat quietly next to her attorney with her hands clasped in her lap, occasionally rocking her head.
During the trial—expected to last a few weeks—Layne will take the stand, her attorney said.
Testimony is expected to begin after a break.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130305/N … -grandson-Another even more typical case:
4 teens charged in carjacking of ex-Tuskegee airman's SUV in Detroit
Prosecutors announced carjacking charges Monday against four teenage boys from Detroit accused of stealing an 88-year-old former Tuskegee airman's SUV at gunpoint.
The teens -- ages 13, 14, 15 and 16 -- had a preliminary hearing Monday and are due back in court later this month, according to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.
At first, Jesse Rutledge didn't think anything was amiss when a group of teens approached him Saturday afternoon as he was leaving a barbershop at Harper and Van Dyke in Detroit.
"They were so little and young," said Rutledge of Detroit.
Then the smallest boy flashed a gun.
"They said, 'Give me your keys! Give me your keys!" Rutledge recalled Monday. He pulled his keys from his front pants pocket and watched them drive off in his black 1999 Jeep Cherokee.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130305/N … in-DetroitAnother shooting from today's paper:
A Pontiac café owner is in jail after Oakland County Sheriff's Office officials said he shot and killed a panhandler outside his business Sunday evening.
According to a statement released by the sheriff's office, the panhandler, 33-year-old Nils Vickstrom, was found at a Mobil gas station several blocks away around 7:15 p.m., unconscious. After performing CPR and handing Vickstrom over to EMS, Sheriff's deputies followed the man's blood trail to a shopping center in the 600 block of University and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Two bullet casings were found in the parking lot.
The 35-year-old owner of the Amusement Café, who hasn't been charged with any crime, approached the deputies and told them he shot the panhandler after a fight. He is from Troy, has a valid gun permit and gave his weapon to police. He has no criminal record, sheriff's officials said. Deputies executed a search warrant and are awaiting video footage that may pertain to the shooting, Undersheriff Mike McCabe said.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130304/N … in-PontiacA man with no criminal record has been locked in jail with no charges filed? While the cops search his house and "await video footage that may pertain to a shooting"?
I think your sources need to be examined a little closer. And if they are accurate the sheriff should be examined a whole lot closer.
One more from today's paper:
Randy Spivey was ready for his bright future.
The Detroit Free Press featured the 33-year-old in December in his quest to get his GED. On Jan. 31, he succeeded.
A week ago, he was killed.
Witnesses and police told Geraldine Smith that her son died defending a woman who was being attacked.
“He basically told me he wanted to get his life straight to help his kids,” said Smith, who said her son was considering truck driving and welding. “He tried to do something with his life. He tried to help someone. And he lost his life.”
Detroit Police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens would not comment on the case, calling it an active homicide investigation.
Smith said the incident happened around midnight in the Outer Drive and Kentfield area of Detroit’s west side but had few other details. Spivey was with his girlfriend, she said, visiting her cousin when a fight broke out.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130304/N … y=obinsiteNobody is arguing that there is a lack of violence in America. What we are saying is that guns are the scapegoat. Banning certain kinds of guns and infringing upon our rights does nothing to protect people. Do you really believe that the same people who would use a gun to kill somebody would go to the the trouble of registering their gun? There are so many guns on the streets right now that banning any kind of gun would be pointless.
Our government doesn't even enforce the laws we have right now. What makes anybody think they will enforce additional laws? One of my neighbors owns a gun shop. He said that he sold a gun to somebody who was approved with the FBI background system. Three or four months later, he received a message asking him to give the address of the buyer to the police, as the system had failed. What happened? Why wasn't the government able to access the address on the application? Does anybody want to talk about how few people who illegally tried to buy a weapon are prosecuted? We don't need a new set of laws that won't be enforced or will be enforced poorly.
We need parents to do their job. We're trying to legislate parenting. If more parents would stop allowing their children to watch violent movies, play violent video games, and access inappropriate and often violent things on the Internet, we would have fewer problems. If the government would start enforcing existing laws, we would have fewer problems. If mentally ill people would receive better care, we would have fewer problems. If people would stop spending so much time on trying to get gun control and more time on trying to figure out why people pull the trigger in the first place, we would have fewer problems. We live in a violent nation. Why are we so violent? That should be the real focus of our energy. Gun control doesn't address the issue."If more parents would stop allowing their children to watch violent movies, play violent video games, and access inappropriate and often violent things on the Internet, we would have fewer problems."
False. Every other industrialized nation has access to the exact same media we do. In fact, in countries like Japan, they have even more violent media than we do. How high are the homicide rates in Japan? NEARLY NON-EXISTENT.Does every other industrialized nation have fast food? Yes. Does every other industrialized nation have an obesity problem when it comes to their children? No. They have access to the same kinds of foods, be it fast food or otherwise. It's about parenting.
Being available is one thing. Allowing your children access to these things that are available is another.
In fact, the deciding factor you're really after is simple: culture. Here in America, guns are awesome! Guns are great! They solve all your problems, and should be the go-to solution for any tight spot! Everyone talks about how guns are great and shooting is fun and shoot up all 'em dirty illegals pew pew pew~
Whereas in Japan, guns are effing terrifying! They kill you! And if you don't die, you're horribly mangled for life! Guns only mean death, and the only people who use them are criminals, gangsters, and the brave members of the Defense Force who put their lives on the line to fight those people, risking certain death every day. Guns are the reason your father was killed by that yakuza heavy he was investigating.Gee, hysterics much? With all the guns we have in this country there should be much, much more death by firearms than what we have if what you say is true!
Our homicide-via-firearms rate is already the highest in the industrialized world (with the U.K. right on our tails). How much higher should it really be?
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000
In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total 2011: 32,1635
You said
"Here in America, guns are awesome! Guns are great! They solve all your problems, and should be the go-to solution for any tight spot! Everyone talks about how guns are great and shooting is fun and shoot up all 'em dirty illegals pew pew pew~"
Wheres all the shootouts occurring?I live in Oklahoma...if they should be happening anywhere it would be here but they aren't. And here you have the right to carry a sidearm openly.....don't see that either.
Isn't it weird that there isn't all this mayhem?
Isn't it weird how you're both pretending that we're not #1 when it comes to gun homicides?
We're #1! We're #1! It sure does feel good to be #1 at something!Its all those inanimate objects jumping up and killing people.
What we are doing is pointing out #1 may be true but it's not like a Die Hard movie in this country.
STOP acting like it is.
Culture is the overwhelming reason we have to look at violence. Why do you think we have violence? Is it those bad guns that cause people to be violent? Nope. It's those bad people.
Zelkiiro,
Isn't it interesting that there are more guns, per capita, in rural areas, yet most homicides that are committed with a gun occur in urban areas? Based on some of the comments within this forum, one might conclude that America is violent because of an overload of guns. If so, wouldn't most homicides occur in areas where there are the most guns?
Our problem lies with violence, often committed in gangs and because of drugs. It seems gun related homicides are more likely caused by drugs and gangs than the mere possession of a gun. Why don't we address these issues? Instead, we look at those bad, naughty guns. What a joke.
If you want to compare industrialized nations, let's start with drugs and gangs. Do the other industrialized nations have the same kinds of problems there? NO. No scientific study would conclude that guns are the cause of our problem without first eliminating other possible causes. You certainly have not been able to make your case, because you and I both know that America has unique, significant proglems, drugs and gangs. Yes, I know that other nations have these problems too, but statistically speaking, America's gang and drug problems dwarf the rest of the industrialized nations for which you speak.I love it when cool reason comes to bear on a problem.
Too much knee-jerk reaction without it.
We can thank the "War on Drugs" for our drug problem.
It's simple physics and human nature that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Push back on drugs and you get more of them. Put your attention on crime and you get more of it.
True, you can't remain ignorant of what is happening, but if you focus your attention on it, you get a lot more of it.
As a professional race car driver where they look in a spin-out. It's never at the wall, because that would lead to a collision against the wall.
The only way to solve gun violence is to go to the source of violence -- people! Don't focus on their violent behavior; focus on compassion. Focus on creating more jobs. South Central L.A. used to be beautiful when jobs were plentiful.lone77star,
Yes. If somebody keeps crashing, we shouldn't always blame the tires. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's the driver. We keep blaming guns, but we need to be looking at the shooter.Why? While the stated objective is to save lives, clearly that is not true. The actual objective is to take guns, thus the attack on guns.
If the actual objective was to save lives the gun control advocates would be looking to see if the experience of other countries, with strong controls and few guns, accomplished saving lives. But they don't.
What to do about gun control? Obey the 2nd Amendment! Period!
Here's a warning from Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Obama's government recently had military officers interviewed. If they answered incorrectly, they were forced to resign their commissions immediately! The question was something along the lines of: Would you obey the president if he asked you to fire on American citizens? Those who would obey the Constitution and the law of due process were told to resign. Government agencies are buying billions of rounds of ammunition -- what, to handle rowdy postal customers? The DHS placed returning vets on the potential terrorist list 4 years ago. And the VA recently sent out letters to vets that they were no longer allowed to have guns or ammunition, because they had been declared incompetent. Why, because they had a bad back from war injuries?
Consummate liar, Obama, is about to pull a Hitler on us. Only this administration isn't the real set of rulers. You have to look further up the food chain to find who is really running things. Try the heads of those corporations who gave election contributions to both Bush and Obama.
The only way to handle gun problems is to handle the problems of people. We need compassionate individuals, not some pseudo-compassionate government. Compassion cannot be legislated. Just look at the Communist experiment and their protection of the "working class." The power elite are great at telling lies to lead the willing masses of sheep.
Since 9/11, our world has changed...
=======/// QUOTE: ////======================
2744 lives lost in New York...and counting
1 million lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq...and counting
6,000 US troops lost in the War on Terror... and counting
$4.5 Trillion - War on Terror cost to US taxpayers... and counting
Precious civil liberties removed by the
* Patriot Act
* Military Commissions Act
* Department of Homeland Security
* Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
* National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012)
Today, Americans ca be...
subject to search and seizure without a warrant...
detained or imprisoned indefinitely...
...without charge
...without evidence
...without a lawyer
...without a trial
...or even tortured
...or assassinated
...merely by being accused of being associated with terrorism.
Ignoring the World Trade Center evidence is no longer an option.
=======/// END: Quote ////===================
(quote from AE911Truth.org)
We have perfect free fall acceleration in 7WTC which means controlled demolition. We have perfect, uninterrupted acceleration in both towers which means controlled demolition. We have tons of iron microspheres (not steel, but iron) in the 9/11 dust, proving thermitic cutter charges were used. We have unspent nano-thermate found in the 9/11 dust, proving this high-tech incendiary and explosive was used to bring down the buildings.
And we have circumstantial evidence like,
* Mayor Giuliani's felony destruction of crime scene evidence!
* The promotions (instead of courts martial) of all the high-ranking military officers responsible for the security failures on 9/11!
* George Bush's lies about WMDs to get us into Iraq! (and not leaving Iraq with apologies once those lies were discovered)
And what the Corporate Party news media won't tell you is that the recent "lone gunmen" crimes were not committed by individuals. They had help! During the Batman movie, tear gas came from 2 different locations in the theater, and the gunman was seen before the shooting began talking to someone else at the opened theater door. CIA handlers?
Wake up, people.
Give up your rights, and you likely will NEVER get them back.Thats basically a bunch of hogwash. You really seems paranoid, it's that kind of thinking thats makes people believe that most should not have guns. Like having millions of guns (which the USA already has) will fix these problems. Give me a break.
Bet this guy was a pro-gun advocate. Probably was just talking recently about how stupid any gun control was UNTIL HE WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY A GUN!
http://www.videovogue.net/montana-man-s … -host.html
And they are still at it. All the little cowboys and cowgirls who haven't seen a cow in their entire lives. Do they never stop playing these childish games? Do they ever grow up and realize they live in a society that includes others? Or, should we assume that in DogPatch "ignernce" is the rule and not the exception?
Personally, it will be a thrill to watch these fruitcakes finally have to be tested for mental stability. Course now, they will probably shoot the psychiatrist so their mental illness won't go public. Or, they'll shoot the rest of us because after all, isn't that why they have guns in the first place?
You do have to be very careful out there...these paranoid nuts can't produce a bowel movement without being armed. And isn't it just glorious how willing they are to impose on others their mental illness? Yep...Can't wait till they end up in mental institutions. It will lower the death rate from mass murderers who go off the deep end when they don't get their way.Ewent,
Stereotype much? "Paranoid nuts" can be used on both sides of this issue.
Suicide With No Warning
"...Last month, President Obama kicked off a continuing national debate by proposing an array of new policies, including an assault weapons ban, an expansion of background checks and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
"But more than 60 percent of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, like Mr. Lewiecki’s. Reducing that statistic will most likely take different interventions than are currently proposed — like waiting periods and safe storage requirements — and those are not even on the table.
"While background checks might turn up people with severe mental illness who have been prone to violence, gun suicides are often committed by people whose history doesn’t suggest a serious problem. In studies, a quarter to a third of those who killed themselves were not in contact with a psychiatrist at the time of death, and the majority were not on psychiatric medicines. “The first time the family may know of the distress is when they kill themselves,” said Dr. David Gunnell, a suicide epidemiologist at the University of Bristol in England...
"...In the United States, we build barriers on bridges, but have fewer barriers to the quick access to guns: “In the U.S. one of the most straightforward things to do to prevent suicide is to make firearms less accessible,” Dr. Gunnell said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/sunda … ng.html?hpWhy do people want to commit suicide? Is it mental health, depression, the economy, other reasons? That should be our focus if we want to curtail the suicide rate.
Sometimes, guns are used to protect too. I don't plan on adding an article every day, but I'm sure somebody could it they really wanted to do so.
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/ … ?id=867462Oh, what the heck. I decided to offer a few thoughts on the gun control issue America is currently facing ... from the perspective of an Australian gun owner. I am surprised so many people think that Australians cannot own a gun.
So I've written a couple of hubs. One of them is up and the other hub is pending. I will watch with interest to hear feedback, of course, but I hope they don't just turn into a re-run of all the points made in forums like this one. I'm kind of hoping for a slightly calmer discussion. lol.
Anyway, because I've heard that the US is considering following the Australian system, I have made an attempt to offer some helpful advice and some food for thought. I guess I'll find out whether or not anyone thinks it is helpful soon enough. To date, the first hub has attracted readers but not one comment. That's fine. I understand that anyone who agrees with my suggestions might not want to say so.
Just letting you know that one real live Australian gun owner is happy to discuss what our laws are really like. So far I've only noticed references to videos about aussies. If there are any other aussie gun owners actively participating in HP forums, I've not seen them yet. Of course they're welcome to add comments to my hubs as well.
Might see some of you there.Ladies, take a lesson in political invective from a couple of pros, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert"
From Fortune March 18, 2013:
"Just when the controversy (over Papa John's owner's comment that franchises would likely reduce employees' hours to avoid Obama care) was subsiding, in January, Bill Maher weighed in with a double-barreled opinion article in the NY Times:
"The filthy-rich founder of Papa John's, John Schnatter, said he'd cut his employees' hours to avoid the costs of Obamacare. this is where I'd normally suggest boycotting Papa John's, but that's like telling people to boycott sadness. Nobody eats papa John's because the like it. They eat it becauise Domino's won't deliver to crack houses."
And "Stephen Colbert, in character as an arch conservative, savaged the company and its product.
"When you order a Papa John's pizza, it's only after you've reached a state of such desperate gnawing hunger that you would eat the ass off a racoon that drowned in your birdbath...and now Obama expects you to shell out three extra nickels for this hot turd pie. Eat the nickels. You have your dignity."
Hard to match Maher and Colbert for colorful invective.And she's off.....More propaganda to extend their rights while they violate ours. And she's off....has to have the LAST word or Lil Abner might revoke her license to swing her booty on the front porch. And she's off...insisting that militancy, aggression, violence and blood in the streets is good and anything that resembles peace and tranquility must must must be evil.
Twisted minds usually can't decipher good from evil. They just stick to the garden where magnolias bloom, mint julep libations cool and those double wide butt ends are as big as their mouths.7 mass murders in 2012...all by people who had access to licensed guns. 7 mass murders that could have been avoided if the stupids of the pro-gun lustery learned that you can't keep guns in a house with teens or young disturbed adults. But then, how would these loonies recognize mental instability when they are the chief source? These are people who live in small towns across the country and yet, they are the most paranoid about "protection." From whom, one might wonder? Actually, all they need do to see who they need the most protection from is to look in the mirror.
While it is interesting (and a little scary) that your magic crystal ball can tell you that taking guns away from those 7 murderers would have prevented the murder, no one else has that magic crystal.
They have to rely on experience, which shows it to be unlikely. So, unless you can provide magic balls for everyone to read alternative realities in, you'll just have to accept that other people get their conclusions from other sources. And, of course, that experience doesn't agree with what your crystal ball predicts. Maybe it's broken?Anyone man or woman who has ever been a parent, knows that teens and young adults have volatile, highly emotional personalities. Are you that dense? Adam Lanza's mother took him to firing ranges when she knew the young man was already a problem to HER.
I have experience with many men who own guns..Some should...but most shouldn't. Most men can't control their tempers. That's why more women are killed by men with guns than the other way round.
I don't need a crystal ball for common sense. I'm fed up trying to placate the whims of a bunch of men and women who live with firearms for no reason other than their own bloated egos.
Unless you live in one of the wilderness states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho or Alaska and own a cattle or horse ranch, you have no need to own a gun. Are you that much of a coward that you can't protect yourself as a real man? Or is it that you love the idea that a gun is sooooo intimidating to others that it is like an addictive drug? Guns do not belong on city streets where millions of people must have their rights to safety. Guns do not belong on subways, trains, buses or planes. And certainly not in a classroom. Do you need a dose of common sense to figure this out? Or has the gun/violence/militant/aggression facade become all too much a persona?You sound like Adolf Hitler saying where guns do and do not belong. You are no better than a fascist.
Guns are on the city streets where millions of people have access to them. Get over it and stop hurting your thought process over something you have NO CONTROL over.
Why not run for office and confiscate all guns on the city streets?Did your parents not teach that there's an appropriate time and place for everything? Oh gee...guess you missed that one. Guns do not belong in the hands of children. They don't belong in the hands of those who cannot prove beyond a doubt they are sane and rational adults.
I have no reason to confiscate anyone's guns who has them legally and doesn't act like some kind of Jesse James. There's an appropriate time for guns...like when you need to protect your livestock from wild animals.
Unless you live in an inner city, from whom do you need protection? Your neighbors? Your wife? Your children? Get real. Stop the simpering and bullying. It's not working. I will thoroughly enjoy watching the gun heads all having to be tested for mental stability. If I were a betting woman, I'd say that more than half of the gun owners won't pass.Lol...
Can we please stop jumping to the Hitler associations every time someone legitimately makes a point?
Common sense, eh?
Common sense says that, just maybe, killers wanting to kill someone will use whatever weapon is available - even hands.
Common sense says that, just maybe, that possibility should be looked into before drawing the conclusion that guns (or any other inanimate object) is the cause of the killing, OR that taking away one tool while leaving others freely available will end the slaughter.
Common sense says that, just maybe, one way to find an answer is to look at actual experience rather than make assumptions.
And finally, common sense says that, just maybe, you will be better received by actually using that common sense rather than insulting your readers (and yourself) with a claim that you know all the answers without ever investigating.
Offhand, I'd have to say that there is a very definite lack of common sense in your posts. Go back to your magic crystal ball, where you can at least pretend your answers are true without ever putting forth any effort to actually know. Use your magic to support your fear, your desire to control others and the laziness inherent in declaring answers based only on that same fear and controlling attitude. Maybe you could even branch out into fortune telling.
Your assumptions are wrong. My mother kept guns in the home while me and my sister were teenagers. There were others who did the same. See simpleton, my mother was single and needed a gun to protect us from home invasions.
You should stop now with your anti gun rants because you look dumber than I thought. I do not mean to call names or anything, but you just jump to baseless conclusions too much without thinking. People have the right to have arms.
Get over it.She won't.........
And she will get really insulting and use all sorts of language that normally gets people banned for a few days but I have yet to see any indication she has had that happen.When you tell the truth, pro-gun nuts don't get power over my First Amendment rights...But thanks for showing how pro-gun loonies are the country's biggest bullies.
Well. second biggest bullies, maybe.
First place has to go to the fear mongers demanding people give up their rights for no other reason than to appease them and calm their irrational fears.
It won't do any good, though - the control freaks will simply jump on another bandwagon in a never ceasing effort to allow only rights and actions they themselves enjoy.No one is trying to bully you.
Drop the insults.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
One example does not a 7 massacres in one year make. Try again. That's about as pathetic a plea to own guns as it gets. I was a single mother. I got rid of my ex's guns because I knew the minute I was at one of my 3 ...count 'em ...3 jobs to feed these two, they'd be fascinated by the guns and one of them could have ended up dead.
Grow up. Guns are nothing more than an ego bolster. More women are shot dead in their homes and at their workplaces unsuspectingly by men. Sorry...the truth hurts doesn't it?
ONCE AGAIN, more people dead today because of a shooting spree!
Meanwhile, 114 people died in car wrecks while 8,504 were stabbed to death and 105 more died of drug abuse today alone.
I don't hear anybody calling for car control.
Nobody's trying to ban knives.
People want to legalize drugs.
What's your point?
Here's some interesting food for thought at this time. It was reported earlier this year that research by Sydney University found Australians now own as many guns as they did at the time of the Port Arthur shootings in 1996.
More than 1 million guns were destroyed in the gun buyback after that massacre, but in the years since then, Australians have restocked, importing more than 1 million firearms.
Despite that, the number of gun-related deaths has halved since the gun buyback.
Australia's Sporting Shooter Magazine says more people are licensed shooters than in the past. "The interesting thing is that at the same time gun crimes have still gone down, We've got more shooters, we've got more firearms, but we've got fewer crimes."Another lunatic with a gun runs amok!
HERKIMER, N.Y. — A man suspected of shooting six people, killing four of them, in upstate New York on Wednesday before firing at police and barricading himself in a building was killed early Thursday morning when police stormed his hideout.
The authorities said Mr. Myers set fire to his apartment building in Mohawk, N.Y., on Wednesday before attacking people at two sites.
Enlarge This Image
Hans Pennink/Reuters
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo met with local and state police during a search for Mr. Myers in Herkimer.
New York Trooper Jack L. Keller said that no officers were hurt in the operation, but a police dog was injured. The F.B.I. assisted in the raid.
The first sign of trouble was a fire, which sent acrid smoke billowing above the village of Mohawk in upstate New York shortly after 9 a.m. on Wednesday.
As firefighters made their way to battle the blaze, the police said, the man who set the fire made his way to a barbershop in the heart of the village and shot four people with a shotgun, killing two customers and critically wounding two others.
He then drove a mile to a carwash in neighboring Herkimer and shot and killed two more people, the police said, before fleeing and setting off a manhunt.
The police discovered the suspect’s car near a building on Main Street here around 1 p.m., but as they converged on the site, the suspect opened fire, sending officers diving for cover and setting the stage for a tense standoff that remained unresolved as of early evening.
Businesses were evacuated, schools placed on lockdown and, as heavily armed officers positioned themselves near the building — weapons drawn — the police said they were engaged in a “methodical” search for the suspect in and around the building and the surrounding area.
At 11:30 p.m., a spokesman for the Herkimer police said the suspect was still believed to be barricaded in the building on Main Street.
Gov.Andrew M. Cuomo, accompanied by the State Police superintendent, Joseph D’Amico, rushed to Herkimer, arriving shortly after the police were fired upon and spent several hours with the authorities near the site of the standoff.
“This is truly an inexplicable situation,” Mr. Cuomo said in a news conference. “There was no apparent rational motive to the best of our knowledge.”
The suspect was identified as Kurt Myers, 64, a Mohawk resident who had only one previous arrest, for drunken driving in 1973, the authorities said.
The State Police identified the dead at the barbershop as Harry M. Montgomery, 68, and Michael G. Rancier, 57, and at the carwash as Thomas Stefka and Michael L. Renshaw, whose ages were not immediately available.
As the sun faded over the Mohawk Valley, law enforcement officers with K9 units continued to search buildings in the area as an armored vehicle was brought to the scene, and officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives joined state and local law enforcement officials.
While officials said they evacuated most of those in the area, some residents remained trapped in their apartments.
Pat Roberts, 47, said his girlfriend, Christina Bruce, 27, was hiding in her apartment on Main Street with her 4-year-old boy, unable to leave and with little idea of what was happening outside. “She is nervous and scared,” he said.
The police released a photo of Mr. Myers, who was seen frequently around town. Neighbors said he usually kept to himself and often acted strangely when he did interact with others.
Superintendent D’Amico said Mr. Myers set fire to his apartment at about 9:30 a.m. before driving the short distance to John’s Barbershop at 17 Main Street.
He exchanged brief words with the people in the shop and then, seemingly unprovoked, began shooting with the shotgun, Mr. D’Amico said.
The two people killed at the shop were customers, he said, and “died at the scene.”
The other two victims, including John Seymour, the shop owner, were taken to the hospital. Mr. Seymour was in fair condition on Wednesday evening at St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Utica.
Mr. Myers then got into his car and drove to Gaffey’s carwash at 318 Mohawk Street in Herkimer, about a mile away.
As word of the shooting spread, there was confusion across the small, tightknit communities as dozens of police vehicles and ambulances raced between the two shooting sites.
Greg Beasley, 70, who was near the carwash when the shooting began, said he heard at least five gunshots around 10 a.m.
“I saw people running out from the one store building in panic,” Mr. Beasley said when reached by phone, adding that he knew some of the workers there.
Vinny Ceneviva, 44, who owns Paesano’s Pizzeria just down the street from the barbershop, said he watched as the victims were brought out, including Mr. Seymour. Mr. Ceneviva said Mr. Seymour was injured but alert when he was taken away in an ambulance.
“I have been here for 20 years, and John Seymour had his shop for 22 years,” he said, adding that he would visit him regularly and that “he was a good friend of mine.”
Mr. Myers has lived in the apartment he set on fire since at least 2005, according to property records. Neighbors said he had lived in the area for many years.
Traci Randall lived next door to Mr. Myers for four years but could recall only one conversation with him, and it did not go well. She said he accused her 12-year-old son of shooting a pellet gun at his car and screamed at him.
“I am thankful now that he never bothered with me and my family,” Ms. Randall said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/nyreg … p&_r=0
Kurt MyersYou do expect people to prove they can drive though, before they can buy a car. And you do take the right to drive a car away from them if they are dangerous drivers.
I'm wondering why it should be different with guns? If it is okay for violent people to have guns unchallenged, should that be the same rule for drunk drivers? Just wondering.Nobody forces people to drink. Guns do not force people to kill either. People choose to drive drunk just like they do when it comes to killing with guns.
I believe that gun control will not solve the problems with crime.
It is naive for the government to presume that asking criminals to give up their guns will work. They've been asked to not kill people, to not rob, rape, assault others but they still seem to do those things.
Guns are not high on the list of criminal weapons of choice either. More people have been killed by cars, airplanes, hurricanes, and manure than have been killed by guns in a single event.
Criminal control is the best way to curb gun violence. Taking guns away from those who would do so because it is the law would only give criminals an easier time of it. Gun free zones do not protect people, so why would a gun-free country protect their citizens?DUI penalties haven't "solved the drunken driving problem" either. By your reasoning laws against drunk driving should be repealed. If we put our mind to it gun mayhem can be reduced, not eliminated, by better laws and more effective enforcement. [Without infringing anyone's Second Amendment rights.]
Some people do not understand the right to bear arms. They can rant all day and use stereotypical images such as "Confederates" and take out headlines from newspapers all they like.They can hide behind the federal government's coup de tat over the people and state governments, but it shall not work.
Oh, you like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, do you?
I guess you'll be ecstatic to know that the former was an anti-Christian Deist and the latter was an Atheist, then. On the flip side, King George III and Hitler were Christians.
Have a nice daaayyyy~Yep.....more talking points.
Do you actually know anything?Why, yes. I do know that, in every case except one (Switzerland), higher rates of gun ownership ALWAYS leads to higher homicide rates. And the opposite is true, too: lower rates of gun ownership ALWAYS lead to lower homicide rates.
Switzerland is just a wacky exception to an iron-clad rule.Switzerland has gun problems, too.
GENEVA — The affinity with weapons in this small, landlocked country runs deep, from the legend of William Tell to the mercenaries of late medieval Europe to the Swiss guards who defended the French monarchy and the would-be defenders of national neutrality in the 20th century.
That tradition — which for many is embellished by heavy doses of folklore — will be tested Sunday in a referendum on gun laws. If passed, it would curb the right of soldiers to keep their weapons at home and put the onus on private citizens to prove their need for a gun.
The vote has opened debates that run deeper — raising sensitive questions about national identity, individual liberty, the suicide rate and the army’s role in this neutral state.
“The concept that the state trusts the citizen goes back several hundred years — having a gun at home has become part of that pact,” said Daniel Möckli, senior research fellow at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich. “The citizen pays back the trust by serving the state.”
The coming vote is a new salvo in an old struggle. Regardless of the outcome, an increasing number of Swiss think that the availability of guns and the role of the army will change in the years ahead. A separate vote on conscription is expected in 2013 or 2014.
The referendum seeks the creation of a federal weapons registry, requires soldiers to leave their arms at an arsenal between periods of service and bans former soldiers from keeping weapons. It also obliges those acquiring or carrying guns to justify a “need” and demonstrate the “necessary capacity,” while banning automatic weapons from private use. Collectors, hunters, sports shooters and professionals who carry arms are not expected to be greatly restricted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world … wanted=all
Only two years ago, in February 2011, the Swiss handily rejected restrictions on gun ownership in a national referendum.
Those views are unlikely to change soon, even after a mentally imbalanced man shot and killed three women and wounded two men in the southern Swiss village of Daillon on Wednesday evening. The gunman, who was known to the authorities but not thought to be dangerous, was wounded by the police as they arrested him and is now in intensive care.
The gunman, 33, who was not identified, had been placed in a psychiatric ward in 2005, when guns he then owned were taken from him and destroyed, according to the Swiss police in the canton of Valais, about 60 miles east of Geneva. It is not known how he got the arms he used in the killings — including a hunting gun and a Swiss Army carbine in use in the first half of the last century, a regional public prosecutor, Catherine Seppey, said at a news conference — but guns are easily available in Switzerland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world … ities.html
GENEVA — At least three people were killed in a shooting at a Swiss factory on Wednesday, the police said, adding that the gunman was among the dead. The episode was the second mass shooting in Switzerland this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/world … f=firearmsWith a homicide rate of 0.7, there are only two other developed countries lower. How can you say that Switzerland has a gun problem? If guns cause murders, and Switzerland has such a low murder rate, why are their guns, regardless of how many there are, a problem?
Just because guns are evil and scary?Well, the Swiss are beginning to think they have a gun problem. Who are we to question their opinion on it?
Good answer. They have a different idea of what the problem is (maybe they need steel?) so it's an exception.
Same challenge as Zelkiiro - give me any country and I will supply another that disproves the idea that more guns means more homicides. Rates, not numbers.
Switzerland is the sole wacky exception that proves the rule.
Really? Provide any country and I will provide another that disproves your statement that more guns means more homicides.
Specifically, gun ownership rates as collected by the UN. I presume those numbers have tried to take into account illegally owned guns (88 guns per 100 capita in the US is ridiculous otherwise) but do not know for sure.
Do you have a link to the index? I am curious to see it.
Easiest is to say visit my profile. There is a hub on the carousel, giving the raw data, linking to the expanded (I included only 1st world countries rather than the entire 190+ countries) list and graphing the results for gun ownership rates vs homicide rates as well as gun ownership rates vs gun homicide rates.
It also graphs homicide rates vs time before and after the huge Australian gun buy back a few years back.
I warn you, though - it doesn't show what most people expect to see. The data is startling, to say the least.
Switzerland is pretty much obsolete today. The only thing that comes out of that Socialist nation worth speaking of is chocolate or cheese.
That is ALL.And the best and most reliable banking system in the world.
And the biggest per capita producer and exporter of medications in the world.
How many of those medications are new to the world, and how many have passed the stringent US requirements?
Put bluntly, are they finding new drugs or exporting aspirin, and are either ones of value or deadly to users?
Not to mention the best consistently low unemployment and inflation in the world.
Fascinating claim, and 100% false. Wish I'd seen the post earlier.
For any country you would care to name I will provide another, disproving that ridiculous idea. It cannot be further from the truth.
Barefoot Rae...I think you are the one who doesn't know anything....How about step into 2013 instead of the Pre-Civil War antebellum era? A person who can't substantiate what she posts with facts that are unbiased proves "ignernce." People who never leave their state make me laugh. They assume that if the Wild West or the Antebellum South is doing it, well there ya' go...must be the lay of the land all over. Ignernce is bliss?
Try posting without bias or is seeing two sides of an issue too much for Daisy Maes these days?1. You never post anything but insulting drivel.
2. I live in Oklahoma. I haven't lived in my home state for nearly 20 years.
Like I said...drop the insults. They don't replace common sense.Not insults sugar magnolia...just truth you can't handle. Common sense ...Oh right...like the Oklahoma bombing at the Murrah Building by a nut job militant? Wasn't it nice how taxpayers from other states had to ante up to repair the Murrah Building since it was owned by the Federal Government?
Let's hear you deny this one. Because if you try, there's a government website that will make a liar of you.Deny what?
He was a nut job.
Look at all the people he killed without a gun?
How is that possible?
See your whole post is an effort to bait me into some sort of meltdown or other.
Give up.I will post this for a second time. I loathe ignorance. Of course he was a nut job. But, he kept an arsenal of weapons including bombs. He was a member of a militia at one point. If he hadn't had access to the directions to making bombs, count on it, he'd have done what Charles Whitman did in Texas, The VA Tech shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Newtown shooter all did....gun down innocent people with assault weapons. The whole reason they choose an assault weapon is obvious to anyone with common sense...to kill as many people in as short a span of time as possible. This is understandable in defense for our military people and people in law enforcement who put their live on the line for others. When assault weapons begin to kill the very people we pay taxes for, for our protection, enough is enough.
If you can't see a problem with gun dealers allowing the sale of these kinds of weapons, you are beyond help. If you own a weapon that has the potential to kill another human being, you should first prove your level of sanity. Sorry...but that's the way you protect innocent school kids from "nut jobs." I've seen too many men out there who can't control their tempers. For these men to own guns is another Newtown waiting to happen.
No meltdown...Just the ability to reason as adults where two sides of an issue can be seen and heard without one side using bias or vigilante rhetoric. If you live in OK as stated and I live in NJ, one of the most populated states in the country, I should need a gun more than you. Why don't I? Because in NJ, walking around with a gun would be like a magnet for every man or woman who can't control their anger or their obsession for lethal weapons and violence. NJ law enforcement doesn't tolerate being taunted by gun addicts. New Jerseyans know that and understand it's for our protection. The result is a state where you can walk among crowds and not worry from one minute to the next about being shot. The only reason the biggest cities in NJ like Camden and Trenton have such high gun deaths is due to gangs and serious cutbacks in funding law enforcement. Yet, I've been to both cities many times and never encountered guns on the streets.I'm sorry.
I know I'm just too stupid to realize....you are the elite....you are the enlightened.
If I knew what was good for me I would never question anything you tell me even if the evidence of my eyes and 56 years on the planet tell me otherwise.
If you tell me a gun will get up by itself and kill I believe you fully. if you tell me that maybe it won't do that but it will exert mind control over me and make me do things I don't wish...well...i had better listen.
Because...I don't know anything.
I have spent a lot of time here with you looking down your nose at me.
How dare you? Keep your hatred to yourself, which is exactly what it is."I'm sorry." Doubtful.
"I know I'm just too stupid."
"I don't know anything." If you say so.
"A Guide to Mass Shootings in America"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … otings-mapIt's like the government thinking it knows best for you too.
The subject was guns.......
not their personal spirituality issues.On the subject of guns and Hitler a little research wouldn't hurt either!
Hitler, came into power when this regulation was in effect … so, yes, Hitler, by default, did have a gun control policy — but only because it was forced on Germany in 1919. The measure was passed immediately after Germany lost World War I and well before Hitler came to power in 1933.
I am pointing this out because he is used as an example so often!
There certainly is no easy solution. This is my opinion only but, I feel the real problem is the people who are supposed to be protecting us from the loonies are dropping the ball. Starting with parents who refuse to accept that their "little Johnnie" has a problem. Then family and friends who don't want to be accused of meddling. Then the school teaches and counselors, whose jobs are tough enough already, being concerned about being sued for falsely accusing some little nut of being a little nut in need of help. Then the "shrinks" who treat a problem with drugs instead of getting to the root of the problem. It goes on and on.
So my conclusion (not rocket science) is PEOPLE are KILLING PEOPLE and the PEOPLE who are supposed to be controlling it aren't.
There is a seldom used term called Asocial. An Asocial person will kill or severely injure you just to do it. I think every American should learn about a man called Tim Larkin. He authored a fantastic book called "How To Survive The Most Critical 5 Seconds Of Your Life". It's a great read and a real eye opener. Tim also created a defense course called Target Focus Training. To me it's the best course for learning how to protect yourself from street violence. With my backround and training I thought I could handle pretty much anything that happened. I couldn't have been more wrong. Now that I've learned from Tim Larkin and his staff, I can handle anything that comes my way and I go anywhere I want without apprehension.
So let's all be realistic, I some wants to kill another person or people he will use whatever weapon he can find to accomplish his goal. Almost anything can be used as a weapon.
So my final analysis is this. PEOPLE need to control PEOPLE not objects.Why do people keep thinking Adolf Hitler was a Christian. The man revoked Catholicism.
The Nazi party had its own religious order. Learn a thing or two about the NAZI party beliefs. I do not feel like going over them.My ex was fascinated by Hitler. He read numerous books about him. I chose not to. Hitler was that charismatic type with a genius mentality that went beyond genius to insanity. It's not unusual. Most people mistake schizophrenia in some adults for insanity. Yet studies show that many schizophrenics have unusually high IQs , most near genius and savant levels.
It's interesting to note that Ghenghis Khan and Attila the Hun were not religious men either and their main focus was to conquer...just like Hitler.Wow Ewent, I like your biographical historical knowledge better than your anti gun ramblings.
That's a little too simple....
He knew that he needed the church and he did talk about an "Aryan Jesus" quite frequently.
Actually, if you live anywhere near NY City, you'd see that there is a huge inequity in the ability of those in law enforcement to stay alive. In Lakewood, NJ two years ago, for no apparent reason, a shooter walked up to a 27 year old police officer in his patrol car and shot him dead.
The number of police officers in NY City shot by those who are armed bears no resemblance to the Gunfight at OK Corral. Mostly, it's hatred for authority, especially law enforcement that inhibits certain individuals for doing as they please lawlessly. When young officers can be shot on a street for no reason other than doing their duty, something has to be done and soon.Absolutely, something must be done.
So lets take away all the guns of normal, law abiding people that wouldn't hurt a flea. That will certainly help won't it?
No? Well, after the good guys give their guns, we could wave a magic wand and convince the criminals and insane to give up their guns, too. That way they would have a reason to turn a car into a guided missile, running into the parked officer. Or maybe just flick a stick of dynamite under the car as they walk by. That way we can encourage them to at least try and take out a few more on their killing rampage.
Or, just maybe, we ought to try and attack the source of the problem and figure out just why people suddenly go nuts and start shooting. Or get the gang members off the streets, somewhere they can long shoot you, stab you, bomb you or anything else. Think it might help to remove the person pulling the trigger (driving the car, tossing the dynamite, etc.) more than removing the trigger?If we devoted this kind of effort trying to eliminate gangs and drug-related homicides, we'd accomplish a lot more than an "assault weapon" ban.
No question at all about that one. Banning those ferocious, scary looking "assault weapons" isn't cheap, at least not if you intend any enforcement beyond slapping wrists when a cop happens to see one.
And that money could be spent elsewhere, somewhere there is at least a chance it might actually accomplish something. Totally removing every assault weapon in the country isn't going to do anything to slow the slaughter, and if killers choose bombs instead could make it worse.Reasonable gun controls, consistent with the 2nd Amendment and attacking poverty, gangs, etc. aren't mutually exclusive alternatives.
There are no reasonable Gun Controls consistent with the 2d Amendment.
That's ridiculous. Supreme Court decisions allow for practical, reasonable restrictions at the federal, state and local levels. As you are well aware "assault weapons" were banned by a federal law 1994-2004. Other restrictions require background checks, etc. I can't think of any un-restricted Constitutional rights. Ultimately common sense prevails in the courts.
Not the point, Ralph. No, they aren't mutually exclusive, but then neither are rules (and enforcement) on the size of the soft drink you can buy and attacking the roots of US violence. They're just not connected, either.
Gun controls have nothing to do with solving the violence problem (homicide rate) and are thus nothing more than "feel good" laws designed to purchase votes from people that fear guns. That and assert just a little more govt. control over individual lives, or course - always a good think to the liberal mind.Wilderness...Gun control has nothing to do with violence? Did you actually post that? So what you propose would be every man woman and child no matter their level of mental stability should be armed so that when and if a sneer, an unwelcome snipe or grin occurs, bang...the offender is dead? But that single second the gun goes off is sweet innocence? Not violence? So, let me see...those 20 kids an unstable 20 yr. old turn into chopped meat was not violence personified?
Wow...pretty amazing assessment. One I'm sure the most violent men in history, Hitler, Al Capone, Clyde Barrow and others would be thrilled to hear.
By your assessment, gun murderers shouldn't go to prison...after all ...those murders and homicides have "nothing to do with the violence problem."
Can you expound on exactly what is to do with the violence problem when a gun is used to end someone's life?What is even more amazing is that you have consistently failed to examine the connection between gun control and homicide rate. It is non-existent, but you haven't made the slightest effort to either prove or disprove that.
Just assume that it's there. Well, I propose that the full moon has an effect on violence; we need to put an early curfew on all nights of the full moon. I can even provide evidence that it would help - something you have failed to even attempt to do. Or do the same thing for Friday and Saturday nights - the day of the week also has a strong correlation to violence committed, and I can prove that too.
Show me that removing guns will decrease homicide rates and I'll be on your side. As long as you simply make the claim without such evidence you're just talking into dead space and your opinion, based on your self proclaimed fear of guns, is worthless.You are the one who doesn't believe there's a connection. Dead is dead...it doesn't matter if it's murder or homicide. Guns are the most prominent indication of violence. How can you make love to a gun? I've stated over and over that this is a time and an appropriate place for guns...each use to its own. Guns in the hands of minors is wrong. All that does is empower them to higher levels of lethal violence.
Can you prove why in broad daylight one Tuesday morning last year, a gun loony walked up to a patrol car and shot dead a 27 year old cop? No full moon? No Friday or Saturday drunk armed zombies? Or how about the woman who had the audacity to go to her job and she and a co-worker were shot dead in broad daylight by her rampaging ex-husband in NY with other employees and pedestrians at risk? Tell me please...how wasn't this bully with a gun blatantly violent and murderous for no reason other than his wife couldn't take his physical abuse any longer and left him? Your self-proclaimed support of guns is why more women than men are shot in the US ...If you need proof, check the government website. I'd love to hear your biased take on that one...what? A half moon? A Sunday morning in church? Please stop with the desperate attempts to prove the ridiculous.That is correct. I spent considerable time researching the question, looking at the actual experience of other countries the world over with varying rates of gun ownership and found zero correlation between those ownership rates and the homicide rate. What have you done to educate yourself on the question? Declare that all guns are penile implants and therefore need banned?
My support of guns is the cause for more women to be shot than men? You are seriously claiming that if I withdraw my personal support that fewer women will be murdered? What in the world are you smoking?
You won't of course - it requires effort - but you might check emergency room statistics on treatment of violence related wounds on either the night of the full moon OR on Friday and Saturday nights. Or do the same for police records. Compare that to other nights.
You know, all your ignorance of facts put together and promoted as an opinion isn't as valuable as even 10 minutes of actual research and knowledge.
Nancy Lanza was a law abiding gun owner. If you are attempting to prove infallibility of law abiding guns owners, you've failed miserably. There are many gun owners who are law abiding. Not all can control their hair trigger tempers when they find themselves in a situation where they are opposed vocally or physically. Not all law abiding gun owners have perfect little lives where they don't experience normal human pressures that push them over the edge. How do you propose managing that little bit of kerfuffle? And for the Sugar Magnolia nagging Okie...there have been gun controls consistent with the 2nd Amendment since Reagan's attempted assassination. The problem is that the same "ignernts" who feel they need super protection from imaginary enemies aka paranoia, also refuse to accept that in an organized society, laws keep order. Gun nuts despise that "order" and love to flout those laws. As is exhibited by gun dealers across the country at gun shows who blatantly ignore these laws that keep order. Most law abiding gun owners won't admit their inherent "Don't tell me what to do" is really, "I refuse to abide by laws that keep an ordered society because I come first." Ego plus narcissism...you bet.
Oh puhlease...Now you are pathetically attempting to use political parties to show support for more guns? Reaching, reaching, reaching sugar plum.
Political parties are paid by lobbyists. The NRA has one of the top ten lobbyists in the U.S. Democrats will NEVER mess with the 2nd Amendment. You should just deal with it and stop posting your trash.
You should first of all stop telling another educated adult to stop posting what you and ONLY you consider "trash." That seems fitting an assessment coming from trash men whose life vocation is wallowing in trash...oftentimes...violent trash. The more blood, guts and gore the better right? After all, why aspire to a peaceful society when guns can be so much more effected in creating piles and piles of dead trash...Try again oh mighty pro-gunner...It's not going to change my attitude. I wasn't born to the gun like you.
Be silent and stop posting your TRASH. That is all you have is trash trash traaaash. Every little sentence, every little thought is all trash posted by YOU.
The 2nd Amendment is here to stay. So stop posting your trash and live with it. People have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their family. So please stop trying to refute the truth with your TRASH.
Are you able to refute the assertions in that acticle factually?
If not quit trolling troll.Marquis...North Korea is calling...They need another "dicktater." A puffed up masculine ego is easy to ignore...especially when it has ZERO substantiation.
You mean like the ego that has determined, based on fear, that gun controls will decrease the murder rate? A claim with ZERO substantiation?
It would seem that the "masculine" part is just as silly as the claim; feminine egos can and most certainly do make statements just as nonsensical as masculine ones.You should go to Europe. I hear they are a gunless utopia over there. Pack your bags and go.
We will NOT miss you.
Your bizarre humor notwithstanding...a troll is a person who posts her drivel every day for months...Sorry...I post far less often than you sugar pants. You are the troll...Are you woman enough to admit you spend less time writing worthwhile hubs than you do as a troll blogger who loves to attack another's opinion? Do try and keep up darlin' ...after all, only losers post as often as you do.
Democrats may not mess with the NRA...but millions of working American women with children in schools will ...faster and more strongly than the Bully Bois of the right and NRA ever expected. All we have to do is demand a national vote on disbanding the NRA. That's a no-brainer.
So, if the majority of people agree, an entire demographic must be squashed? That's really American. You wouldn't have the votes necessary to destroy both the first and second amendment, as this statement is extreme.
Actually, it may be the way of America today - one massive ego, declaring that "I have all the answers without ever researching the problem, so everybody with a different answer needs smashed".
How often do we see that today? No effort to actually understand, no effort to protect the rights of others, no concern about effects on other people, just do it MY way.So if one million gun owners hold others hostage that's okay? Everyone understands the Constitutional rights of the minorities in this country. However, when the minorities are a detriment to a civil society and their demands exceed the boundaries of equal rights to the majority, the majority has to take precedence. How would pandering to tiny minority who demand expansion of their rights to provoke the inequity of the rights of majority not be a dictatorship propagated by tyranny of a minority like the NRA? Democracy is based on equality for all. That doesn't mean a small minority can detrimentally impose their will on others or hold their behaviors and practices hostage.
This is not an expansion of rights. We've had the right to have guns since this country's inception. Nice spin.
I could tell you what you sound like, but it is not very nice. I must adhere to the Hub pages code.
That's it? That's all you've got? Not much left in the arsenal? I don't dream and that's your real problem. Dreamers of High Noon and Gunfight at OK rarely achieve much in life. It's the people who don't dream about achievement but do something worthwhile about it. You don't need a gun for that. Sorry.
Seriously? Now gun owners have no drive and no dreams? What's next? Stereotype much?
Ewent, I have an arsenal, but why waste it on you?
Remember the 2nd Amendment and Remember the ALAMO.
Isn't this post about guns and gun control?
Posts like this attracts too many anti gun nuts. Ewent, my prime example in being.
I am anti-gun....I love being anti-gun...and the beauty is ...you can't do one thing about it. Not unless you plan on proving what most anti-gun people already know...bullies with guns never accept the rights of others. Their guns are nothing more than penile implants they use to intimidate others. Sorry if I'm not intimidatable.
Not intimidatable, true, but also not educable either. That requires an open mind and a willingness to put out some effort to learn.
Oh I see....the only education you possess is the subject of lethal weapons? Well hoop de doo for you. I am not intimidated and I am not interesting in lethal weapons. I much prefer subjects that broaden my knowledge...not regurgitated bully BS from men who use their guns like a penile implant.
"I am not interesting in lethal weapons"
Interested enough to post irrational opinions every day, but not interested enough to learn about the subject, giving those opinions some actual vale. Just a massive feminine ego, declaring to the world that she knows everything, perhaps from "feminine intuition" rather than actual knowledge or study.
I think that's what I said, isn't it? Thank you - you've made my point quite nicely.Wrong...I don't post every day...But you and several other rabid pro-guns addicts do. Check the dates on my posts. Then, when you are done with that check out the number of hubs I've written. I just completed my 3rd novel and I've written nearly 3,000 SEO articles online...Oh ..do be careful....they are all ghost written so at any point you checkm out a website, you might be reading one of the articles I've written. Try to accomplish something other than being a shill for the NRA.
I don't believe in feminine intuition. Just top of the line smarts. Try it sometime.
Posting each of the last 8 days is close enough to "every day" for me.
Sorry, "smarts" indicate an ability to learn, obviously coupled with a willingness to do so. You have demonstrated neither, and if intuition isn't providing your "information" there just isn't much left. Which is fairly obvious with the continual references to massive sexism and the male reproductive system; if that's all you have it isn't of much value in a gun control debate.
If you're not interested in rational discussion/debate, providing actual information rather than a simple opinion that you hate guns and are eager to deprive others of the right to own one, perhaps you should stick to threads about writing online, SEO or other things that you actually have knowledge of.
At least there your opinion might carry some weight - in a debate about gun ownership is without value until you learn something about the topic and thus have something to contribute beyond pop psychology and sexist insults.Thanks you.....maybe she just needs a man to tell her that....
I rather doubt that - the opinion of males in general and particularly those that appreciate that freedom isn't something to be trifled with has been made pretty clear.
Seems to me it attracts more gun nuts, you being a prime example.
I agree. You cannot reason with thiese people. They are single-mindledly obsessed with guns. It's almost as if they can't imagine life without one. I live in NJ for God's Sake...it's probably more populated than these posters states by one hundred times more people. We don't walk around with guns. We don't need to. How did I possibly manage to live 66 years without ever being shot at, burgalized or brutalized by a gun nut? Because, I don't look like a person who represents a threat. These pro-gun posters obviously do. In other words, they are violence magnets. I'm not.
No, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. You are a Leftist and anti gun nut who does not.
You are the second best prime example after the first nut case Leftist Ewent.I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment. I am in favor of passing sensible laws and effective enforcement consistent with it. Until recently I owned three guns and am now down to one, a Model 12 Winchester pump gun with a plug limiting it to three shots before reloading which many years ago I used for game bird hunting. I feel no need for any weapon for self protection, but I don't condemn those who believe they do as a result of their occupation or other circumstances. For most people guns in the house cause far more problems (deaths) than they prevent,
Not for her....she hates the South and Southern people so I trip her trigger.
Yet you still can't refute the assertions in that article now can you?
After the Mile--Tim Danielson was among an exclusive group of runners who had broken the elusive four-minute barrier. Now he is a runner shackled, charged with shooting his ex-wife.
A not untypical gun tragedy--involving guns, alcohol and marital discord.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/sport … ref=sports- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0Fifty new gun laws added to the thousands already in place aren't going to make any difference what so ever ! And you know that ! Clintons big ban was allowed to expire because it changed NOTHING , I am a proud gunowner , I've known and been around gun owners all of my life and not once have me or anyone of them broken a gun law! Why don't you try calling for the legislating of the real problem , mental health ! Hysteria is the anti-gunners your tool of choice , ignorance is all your reason for never seeing any change or positive results ! My suggestion mature up ! Look for the real problem .
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Blindness , Ralph , blindness of the self imposed ! That Is the real problem ! Eliminate every "assault " weapon in the world and still , still there will be school massacres ,and you guys KNOW this ! Is it simply to complicated an issue for you to understand ? Zero ability to account for holding anyone for observation of mental illness' , The medias vibrant contribution to mass hysteria , I was going to use the term 'the revolving door of justice ' , yet how about the missing doors of justice , What about the simple fact that law enforcement entities can't even communicate with each other to say nothing about the mental health facilities and the police ! On and on ......now I know intellectuals need simple answers but there isn't one for this issue ! Guns aren't going away in America , not now , not ever ! Work on a real solution people !
Ahorseback, even if all the guns were banned, knife killings would go up. Liberals think that by eliminating what they perceive as a problem doesn't have consequences later.
Liberals are the real NAZIS. Always ban this or that with them.Coming from the guy who wants to ban pornography, same sex marriage and abortion that is a pretty funny statement.
I want to "pan" pornography, same sex marriage and abortion?
Pan it? lmaoI'm sure he meant "ban," but...that is still probably true, if we're using "pan" in its meaning of "To disparage; to belittle; to put down; to criticise severely"...
OH my god! OH NO! I misspelled something in a way that did not at all hinder understanding the point which you ignored because you are well aware of how hypocritical you are
Knives are easier to defend against than guns. A knife can be disarmed before it deals any damage, and if thrown, moves only as fast as the person's strength allows. Guns, however, are impossible to disarm at any range except melee range, and fire at close to supersonic speeds.
You can kill many, many people with a gun before anyone can stop you. That is, if they're willing to make themselves easy targets. However, you can kill, at most, one person with a knife before you're disarmed and incapacitated.Yes, of course. Now knife killings go up so what now?
Ban all knives. Ban this, ban that. Liberals are the real NAZIs.
Liberals would also ban free speech. I do NOT trust Liberals, Communists, Socialists or any fascist loser on the Left.You do know the Nazi Party was a right-wing organization, right?
As noted there are a hell of a lot more things conservatives want to ban.
If Conservatives do not like some thing, they do not BAN it.
Here are the differences between Conservatives and Liberals:
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.
A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.If a conservative doesn't like same sex marriage he bans it
If a conservative does not like pornography he bans it (which effectively means banning free speech also)
if a conservative disapproves of sodomy he bans it
if a conservative does not believe in stem cell research he bans it
if a conservative does not believe in abortion he bans itMarriage is between a man and a woman. Two men or two women marrying does not qualify as a marriage.
Porn is filth and helps degrade women.
Porn is not speech. It is visual filth which corrupts the youth.
Sodomy is sick, disgusting and is not supported in the Bible.
Stem cell research means death to many unborn babies for the research to happen.
Abortion is wrong and not supported in the Bible.See you guys love banning stuff because you don't like it or because "it says in the bible".
All of which is opinion, and opinion not shared by everyone.
But what does (or should) your opinion have to do with the actions of others? Because you find pornography to be filth, degrading to the women voluntarily participating or "corrupting" (whatever that means) to youth is insufficient reason to require everyone else to agree with you and forego it.
Josak, you are one sick pervert. You like sodomy, porn, abortion and same sex marriage?
YuuuckFine with all those things except for abortion which I dislike but think is tyrannical to ban.
As I said you want to ban way more things than I do (I don't even want to ban guns) you don't respect freedom or liberty at all.
In fact thinking on it I don't want to ban anything at all that occurs to me *shrug*
P.S. Maybe NINJA loans and the packaging of such loans.
Additionally, fascism is a right-wing ideology. Extreme right-wing, yes, but still right-wing. Conversely, the extreme left-wing ideology is anarchism, which is the total absence of exterior limitations. It's basically 1984 vs. Mad Max.
This is why I'm a Centrist.Not to be "that guy" but anarchism is neither right not left but simply anti authoritarian, fascism is right wing and authoritarian.
Why can't anarchism be anti Left Wing? Oh I forgot...because IT IS Left Wing.
The argument you make is so dumb it can be broken in several ways.
ie.
Anarchism provides total liberty, weren't you just complaining the left likes banning everything?
Without a government or ruling authority there is no way to implement neither right wing nor left wing policies, natural anarchism favors capitalism as it prevents the organization required for more advanced systems so in that sense it is right wing if anything.Another excellent answer
Your ability to consistently lose arguments is amazing, unmatched even.lol
You make me laugh. That is why I am not taking you seriously. I lose every argument? This coming from a Lefty who will say anything in favor of the Leftist ideology?
Please, spare me Josak. You are nothing more than a drop-in-the-bucket Leftist punk who talks trash.
Anarchy is Left Wing.
Fascism is Left Wing. Mussolini was a Commie too who did not believe in international Communism or the Marx's theory of Communism.Anarchism is left wing because you say it is, well that is another argument lost
Mussolini also did not believe in public acquisition of all assets, workers rights or women's rights. So he was just like a communist except without any of the main communist beliefs
He also persecuted communists within Italy.
That's another argument lost.lol
Once again, fascism was on the Left. Italian Fascism began on the Left, seeking to combine strong nationalism with modern developmentalism and an aggressive new style of activism that prized violence, idealism, and anti-materialism. Mussolini grew up as a committed follower of Marxist Socialism/Communism.
Why do you ignore facts?
YOU are no centrist. You expect me to believe that one? lmao
Look, I know you were taught that, but fascism IS NOT Right wing. I will prove it.
Mussolini grew up as a committed follower of Marxist Socialism/Communism. From its theoretical inception by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communism has always been an international movement with the goal of spreading Socialism and eventually Communism globally ... thus the penchant for many trade unions to include the word ‘International' in their name: IBEW, SEIU, IUOE, etc.
Mussolini came to realize that actually implementing International Communism was a daunting and likely impossible task. So he devised the idea of National Socialism, a compulsory "cooperation" between the Italian State government and major businesses, industries, agriculture, and banks within the state in order to streamline efficiency "for the good of the people". The "people" themselves are unable to manage the affairs of the State ... they
must be led by an all-powerful dictator.
A key distinction between Fascism and Marxist Socialism/Communism is that Fascism allows people to own private property, where Marxism dictates the State owns all property. Fascism was deemed more efficient, for the State doesn't have to create a bureaucracy to maintain the properties. The state dictates how the private property is used.
I bet if Liberals did not like a particular brand of ice cream, they will find some way to ban it.
You're making fun of gun-free zones, but they really work. Criminals see these signs, and they immediately know that we mean business. They just walk away, and violence if averted. We should start putting up other signs. Here are a few examples:
drug-free zone
no border crossing zone
no speeding zone
no terrorism zone
no burglary zone
With a mere expenditure, we can avert all kinds of social issues. All we need is more signs! "Can't you read the sign?"Duh....The purpose of the signs has nothing to do with reducing crime. Here in NJ, if you are caught in a drug free zone with drugs...The punishment fits the crime with a tripled penalty. Grow up. Men like you can't abide by the laws because with that mentality of childish belligerance, you believe you are above the law. Come to NJ with a gun exposed and you'll end up in jail before you can blink an eye and ...tah dah...your fine will insure you can't afford to buy another gun for a very long time.
In some states gun rights trump protective orders with tragic results.
The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.
The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/fa … p&_r=0I'm not fully aware of the requirements for a temporary restraining order, but I don't think it needs a trial or guilty verdict to get one.
Your point, then, is that second right amendments should be terminated for individuals when someone else obtains that restraining order. Terminated without any evidence whatsoever that it is necessary or desirable, just that someone doesn't like them.
Why not just lock them up for a few months until a jury can decide if they're guilty of anything illegal? If you're going to take away the second amendment right, you might as well go whole hog and take all their other rights and freedoms, too.
Your link didn't specify, but I doubt that the NRA is challenging states' efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders, just the efforts to taken guns away from people that someone has accused of offensive behavior without any proof, evidence or conviction. There is a difference you know - that old "innocent until proven guilty" thing.Yeesh...you really don't have a clue do you? A restraining order isn't "someone else's say so." Maybe in DogPatch it is. In NJ, a restraining order is usually the result of police being called for spousal abuse to the home or place of employment. In which case, Mr. Man immediately gets his guns taken from him and a warrant to search his home is next to protect the battered victim. If Mr. Man's testosteronism can't be controlled, NJ has a 3 stikes law that means contact with the victim by phone, in person or in the workplace gets Mr. Man a prison sentence for up to 24 months. So..Mr. Man can't control himself or his anger and Mr. Man ends up in the Graybar Hotel because he's too stupid to obey the laws he thought he was so above.
And thus the police being called is proof that violence occurred. Good thinking.
I guess that old saying really is gone, at least when it comes to the rights of Mr. Man - only women are allowed to have rights now.
Still, it would seem best to simply lock up all the men in the country - hatred of anything with testosterone is certainly enough reason to do that.
MICHIGAN GUN DEALER INJURED IN ROBBERY ATTEMPT
Authorities say a mid-Michigan gun business owner was injured in a potential robbery attempt by a masked intruder.
Investigators responded Monday afternoon at Guns and Stuff in Gladwin County's Sage Township, about 90 miles north of Lansing.
MLive.com reports Richard Robinette was hospitalized and the suspect is being sought.
Authorities initially were called to Robinette's property on a report of a shooting. His home and a shed where the gun business is conducted are on the property.
Gladwin County Sheriff Michael Shea declined to discuss Robinette's injuries.
The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives responded to assist and help determine whether any weapons were taken.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130319/N … obbery-tryHere's one the Violence Magnets out there will hate. In the NY Daily News, March 18, 2013, it was reported that the Newtown investigators found 500 people's name on a spreadsheet in the Lanza home (Adam Lanza's room) that Lanza intended to kill. This list was 7 ft. long and 4 ft. wide and took Lanza years to create. The International Association of Police Chiefs met last week in New Orleans. Col. Danny Stebbins of the CT State Police spoke about the Newtown Shooting at length. From the evidence found at the Lanza home, Lanza planned well in advance to kill those children because he believed they were the easiest target to kill in the largest number. There are photos of Lanza taken 2 years before the horrific shooting showing Lanza posing with weapons strapped to his body and a pistol to his head. The guns, one of them an AR-15 and a handgun were the ones used in the shooting. Lanza used video games to train him on law enforcement style use of weapons. He learned "tactical reload" from these videos his mother was well aware of his viewing. According to the police chief in Newtown, Lanza's mother, a "gun lover herself made straw purchazses of guns for him all along, ignoring the fact that he was getting more and more fixated on them."
What this shows is that guns do not belong in the hands of those who have not sufficiently reached the age of reason or have proven mental stability. That includes Lanza's mother and her sick mentally unstable son.Oh by the way...the Ohio shooter wore his "killer" T-shirt to court for his sentencing. Another commentary on why men stupidly believe they are teaching their kids "respect for guns." What they are teaching their children is the power of having a lethal weapon in your hands and how it has the potential to disproportionately give the kid with the weapon in his hands power he is not ready to accept the consequences of. But the DogPatchers will never accept common sense....Just backward "ignernce."
Ewent,
This is not a commentary on men any more than your seemingly prejudiced statements are a commentary on women from New Jersey. It is a commentary about the mind of a killer; contrary to your statements about gun owners, we are not all "ignernt" murderers who live in southern states.
The latest on gun control.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ … 9-13-51-09- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
The pure and simplistic idiousy of creating MORE law to cure an ailing culture is paramount to the very definition of insanity ! WHY doesn't liberal America get that ? Talk about blindless ?
A couple of years ago Michigan eliminated the requirement to wear motorcycle helmets. Guess what happened--a sharp increase in motorcycle fatalities. By your theory there should be no speed limits or rules against dui. Nobody has explained why anybody needs big magazines, armor piercing bullets, body armor or why background checks and permits shouldn't be required for all gun purchases.
The freedom of motor cyclists who don't wear helmets costs everybody else huge medical care expenditures. How do you feel about automobile seat belts?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Freedom exactly , Ralph thousands ....THOUSANDS of laws already in place don't stop the idiousy now ! Less than ten percent of gun law violations are prosecuted now , Less than ten perceent ! ( the following not intended personally ]......"Its the legal system stupid" ! Should be all our collective mantra ! Ralph , I know you are a very intelligent man but how can you ignore that ? How can anyone ?
Speed limits don't stop all speeding either, but as with gun control, most sentient citizens believe there is a need for speed limits. The question is what is practical and effective and consistent with 2nd Amendment rights, which contrary to some on this forum are not unlimited.
When nation wide speed limits were dropped to 55 in the 70's there was an immediate drop in highway fatalities. Speed limits save lives.
When guns are controlled or removed from citizen's hands the carnage continues. No lives are saved. Why do it then?Please document your assertion that gun controls don't save lives. I don't think that's correct.
All written up in a long hub on my carousel. Data from all over the developed world, collected from UN studies, show no correlation between the amount of gun ownership and homicide rates.
I do recognize that gun controls can mean more than limited ownership, but at the same time you can't get more "controls" than taking guns away.
Which you know - we've talked this out before - but haven't bothered to study yourself. Doesn't fit the conclusion you want to see, but that doesn't make it false. Just that your conclusion, made without examining real world experience, is wrong.
Gun controls don't save lives because guns don't kill. People do. It is the mindset that kills. If I had a gun in my home, but it would not hurt anyone, unless someone picks it up and pulls the trigger. The problem is not guns, but mental illness, hate, etc. If a person wants to hurt another others, then a way will be found. If you have read the reports of many mass murders, you will find that some of them used guns that did not belong to them.
Once again, this would require us to question why homicide rates are very low in places like Finland, Denmark, and Japan, where gun laws are so strict that in the latter country you can only carry a gun if you're a police officer on active duty.
(And before you start with the movies/music/video game nonsense, these countries have access to the same media we do. And in the case of Japan, they have even more violent media than we do.)They have access to the same things, but they do not have a culture of violence that is often perpetuated in gangs and drugs. Do they have the same gang and drug issues? No.
Absolutely it does. And if we can find answers to that question and apply them to the US it should reduce our own homicide rate.
It's just that the answer is NOT gun control; that answer is known to be a bogus one. After all, Turkey, India, and Ukraine all have lower gun ownership rates than Finland OR Denmark, but significantly homicide rates than either.
Forget about gun controls then and find the real reason that Finland and Denmark have such a low homicide rate and perhaps we can lower our own."Forget about gun controls then and find the real reason that Finland and Denmark have such a low homicide rate"
Now that you mention it, neither of those countries are waging an expensive and pointless war on drugs...And both of those countries have a stronger concern for their society's common interest than the U.S. where the tradition of individual liberty is stronger except for the minority social conservatives who want to impose their beliefs wrt abortion, contraception, etc. on the rest of us.
You may be right - follow the socialistic trend to redistribution of wealth and it might decrease homicides. At least until the country deteriorates back to third world status, whereupon it is likely to go back to rule of the strongest and the homicide rate (by govt. or individuals) is also likely to spike higher than ever.
But that's a debate for another time - socialism vs freedom - and at this point in the US society the trend to socialism is only an irritant, just as the conservative desire to control all religious morality. A pretty big irritant, yes, but not something that it is likely to change drastically in the next decade or two.
And that could be a large part of our homicide rate. The rate peaked during prohibition, fell drastically and went back up with the war on drugs. Since enforcement of marijuana laws has dropped so has the homicide rate.
It is a very interesting correlation, to say the least.
"The Damage Wrought by the Gun Lobby" [NYTimes Editorial 4-5-13]
resident Obama is being shouted down by the gun lobby. He and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. have spent weeks crisscrossing the country, making a forceful case for a package of laws that would reduce gun violence. At every stop, including one on Wednesday in Denver, he has demanded that Congress require universal background checks, ban assault weapons and large ammunition magazines, and prohibit gun trafficking. He has invoked the bloodshed in Newtown, Conn., and the daily toll that adds up to 30,000 gun deaths a year.
“If there is just one step we can take to prevent more Americans from knowing the pain that some of the families who are here have known, don’t we have an obligation to try?” he asked in Denver. “Don’t we have an obligation to try?”
But the president has been unable to break through the blockade set up by one of the most powerful and relentless lobbies in Washington. The assault weapons battle has already been lost, and it is increasingly doubtful that there will be enough votes in the Senate to support the expansion of background checks, the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s agenda. (Sixty votes will be required to break the filibuster promised by the most extreme Republican senators, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah.) Even the gun trafficking provision, which seemed the easiest to pass, is being torn apart by the National Rifle Association, which put forward a substitute version that would eviscerate the prohibition on straw purchases of guns.
The gun lobby is a combination of forces that includes manufacturers, hunters and hobbyists, political opportunists, and a fanatically active faction that believes guns are needed to fight off the conquest of freedom by the government. That faction is represented by the group Gun Owners of America, which has spent the months since Newtown doing tremendous damage, insisting that expanded background checks will lead to a gun registry that will assist a secret plan by the president to seize every firearm.
This is the group that said the blood of Newtown was on the hands of lawmakers who create gun-free zones around schools. Its executive director, Larry Pratt, considers the United States government to be largely unconstitutional, and says that gun rights come directly from God. “When we’re talking about firearms,” he said in 2010, “we’re not really talking about a right but an obligation, as creatures of God, to protect the life that was given them.”
And yet this twisted radicalism is playing an outsized role in the current debate. As Jennifer Steinhauer reported in The Times on Thursday, the gun group’s demands helped pressure Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to back out of negotiations on the background-check bill, depriving it of crucial Republican support. The group has helped push the N.R.A. and several members of Congress further to the right, and Republicans say fear of its retribution is preventing a deal.
Polls show that more than 80 percent of Americans support universal background checks, but where are those Americans in this debate? The best-organized voices that officials have heard are those thwarting common sense on guns, forcing lawmakers to curl up and cower. As Mr. Obama recently admonished those who have remained passive in this fight, “tears aren’t enough.”
•This is part of a continuing series on the epidemic of gun violence and possible solutions. Other editorials are at nytimes.com/gunchallenge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/opini … p&_r=0“If there is just one step we can take to prevent more Americans from knowing the pain that some of the families who are here have known, don’t we have an obligation to try?” he asked in Denver. “Don’t we have an obligation to try?”
Your quote absolutely hits the nail on the head; it could not describe more accurately the problem facing the nation. We're all demanding a "try" without regard to whether or not it is a reasonable one. Whether we can reasonably expect any results from the effort.
We want it so bad that we'll do anything to stop the death toll - at least as long as it only affects those evil gun nuts. Don't want to look at the mental illness problem at all, don't want to look at the roots of violence. Just do the PC thing and write laws restricting other people - laws that not one country in the world has found effective in limiting homicide rates.
But that's OK - it's something, it will placate the masses as well as buy votes, and when it fails here as it has failed everywhere else we'll make more laws, more restrictions on somebody else, and start all over.
And when we finally DO get our death rate down we'll declare it was because we took all the guns away 10, 20 or 30 years prior. Typical.It's pretty clear that there will be results. The only question is how much results a particular regulation will produce and the cost-benefit ratio. The same is true of the NRA proposal to arm teachers or put a policeman in every school. That's clearly a non-starter.
Oh? Which country is it that has instituted strong gun controls, no other steps, and seen a large drop in homicide rates in a reasonable time? Be sure, please, that the time involved hasn't also resulted in other social changes that produced a lowering of that rate; we want to be sure it is due to gun controls. And, Ralph, don't talk about gun homicide rates again, just overall homicide rates.
OR, which set of countries have strong controls and low homicide rates compared to which set that have large numbers of guns and high homicide rates?
"It's pretty clear that there will be results"; can you back that up with facts, statistics, experience, anything at all?
I'm not sure all legislators are even competent to pass laws concerning firearms. Its best to have an idea about what you are banning before you make the attempt.
It's true that there are a lot of incompetent legislators in Congress, especially the Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives who are being manipulated by the Koch brothers, oil companies and, of course, the NRA not to mention the drug companies and the banksters and health insurance companies.
Congress incompetent? Never. Congress corrupt? Never. It goes for both sides.
Democrats are the ones who are mainly incompetent.
And how are the teapartiers especially incompetent?
So then conservatives, who are mostly straight men, should be making laws outlawing abortion and gay marriage then?
Are you saying they are not educated enough on the subject of abortion or gay marriage or are you saying they must engage in that activity before they can understand? That is a very weak attempt at humor.
Sigh...
You complain that you don't want people who supposedly don't know enough about guns making gun laws.
Yet, you allow people who know nothing about being gay or a women making rules for their lives.
Its not comedy. Its just the right being hypocritical.I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I do not support gun-control. I'm with Clint. When you have people who don't know the terminology, who get the types of weapons wrong, who don't even KNOW the statistics on gun-violence making laws governing firearms, that's wrong. It has nothing to do with abortion or gay rights. If the same thing happens there, then it's wrong too, but saying that conservatives do it as if it's some kind of excuse for people to do the same thing with firearms.... Well that's also wrong.
You don't have to be a woman to know what it is to be a woman and you don't have to be gay to understand their plight. You don't have to own guns to understand how they work either, but if you are going to sponsor a bill banning high capacity magazines it would help if you actually knew what one was! I mean unless you just enjoy looking stupid.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dia … ORM=ASMMVRThat is...incredible. How is it possible that that woman can even dress herself in the morning, let alone be a part of our government?
I was amazed that the sponsor of a bill was completely clueless to what she was banning.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think many legislators have a clue what they are talking about. They are politicians, not (as in this case) shooters.
Aids do the work and decide what the law should accomplish, the politician takes it and provides the lies and spin while collecting the votes for all the posturing. This one just came to light as pretty darn pitiful.I've said before, politics is not about solving problems. If they did that, the problem would cease to be available to them to get votes. They try to APPEAR to be solving the problem, and pass crap legislation guaranteeing the problem will be around for them to use the same talking points on in the next election. Both the Dems and the Reps us that tactic, and everyone wins...
Well... except the people, that is.
Democracy works to pass additional gun control regulations in Connecticut:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/nyreg … p&_r=0
"...Democrats, who control both houses of the General Assembly and the governor’s mansion, could have passed legislation without a Republican vote. Republicans worked for a deal knowing that many of their constituents did not want one and would hate whatever passed. But both sides agreed that the proper response to unimaginable tragedy was to find a solution together, and despite disagreement to the end, they finally got there....
"...The new laws include a ban on the sale of magazines carrying more than 10 rounds and requires registration of existing ones. It also includes an expansion of the existing assault weapons ban, requires background checks on all firearms sales and sets up a registry of weapons offenders...
"... The new laws include a ban on the sale of magazines carrying more than 10 rounds and requires registration of existing ones. It also includes an expansion of the existing assault weapons ban, requires background checks on all firearms sales and sets up a registry of weapons offenders...
"But while gun-control advocates hailed the bill and gun supporters condemned it, the legislation did not contain some elements gun owners feared. It did not compel residents to surrender any existing weapons or magazines and included no limits on the quantity of legal firearms and ammunition residents could own...."I will not be moving their any time soon. I am headed South. Seems like people down there have more sense.
" It did not compel residents to surrender any existing weapons or magazines and included no limits on the quantity of legal firearms and ammunition residents could own...."
So basically, it was a completely useless bill even for it's intended purpose.
Gun control is pretty silly in the first place. Things like this make it downright laughable.
Didn't Otto Von Bismark and Adolf Hitler ban guns? (yes)
Democrats become more like the men who they cherish.No. They REGISTERED firearms, then took them away from all the "undesirables" The "Aryan's" still got to keep theirs.
It seems counter productive to close the barn door ,after the horse has escaped ,but still America has got to admit they make and use too many guns.
Culturally you are used to many more gun related crimes throughout history than perhaps any other nation ,so I guess to contemplate regulation seems odd-but the freedom to buy or have access to firearms is incredibly short sighted and disgusting to many Non Americans.
The old cliche 'Guns dont kill people ,,people do, doesnt wash either ,simple math tells me ,if their were less guns, then less people would be shooting-period."more gun related crimes throughout history than perhaps any other nation" Please explain where you got your info. As I understand it, the US has a LOWER per capita gun crime rate than most other nations. There are places inside the US that are higher, and they are more often than not places where gun-control is most restrictive.
Fewer gun's certainly doesn't equal fewer shootings. Statistics don't bear that out. The most anyone can say is that the number of guns doesn't seem to have any effect on crime, gun-related or otherwise.
The bottom line is that you want crime to go down and you want people to stop dying. If you restrict or ban guns and you don't get a corresponding drop in deaths and crime, then it isn't working. It's really very simple. Prove that restricting the sale/possession of firearms causes a drop in either the crime rate or the death rate and I'll become a gun-control advocate, or prove that areas that have little or no gun control will invariably turn into terrible neighborhoods where the crime rate and the death rate are much higher.
When you look at the history of places where guns are legal and/or not controlled and the places where guns are restricted/banned, you don't see that. At best, gun laws have no effect. At worst, more guns actually means lower crime.
Put up or shut up. You want to tell me I can't own a firearm, then YOU prove to ME that there is more bad than good that comes from owning a firearm."simple math tells me ,if their were less guns, then less people would be shooting-period"
You've already got your proof, eaglekiwi gave the opinion quoted here. If you want real facts, figures, statistics, experience, etc. you will have to go elsewhere. Not a single one of the many people in these forums claiming that fewer guns produce lower homicide rates has been able (or willing to even try) to give factual proof showing that. Just opinions, similar to this one, that it is obvious, it is common sense, or now it is simple math.That was well said swordsbane. Liberals seem to not understand those facts.
Neither do Republicans. This isn't a party thing. This is a stupid thing. Anti gun-control advocates don't bring it up either. It's a simple argument. Prove that gun-control is effective. It's not, so gun-control advocates pick other arguments. I get that, but when someone publicly disputes gun-control, do they use rational arguments? No... They go all 2nd amendment on people, or they complain that gun-control supporters are trying to "take away their rights" or they're "just liberals and don't get it" Instead of acknowledging that advocates are scared and making a bad decision, they claim they are evil and want to destroy America. Dumb.
So the argument continues to rage with neither side getting down to what's really substantive. Don't get me wrong, the 2nd amendment is very important, but Constitutions can be changed. Ours was DESIGNED to be changed. If enough people decide the 2nd amendment is wrong, then it goes away, even if it's still a good idea.
But facts don't go away just because you stop believing in them. They stay, and the fact is that gun-control doesn't work. That is proven time and time again. THAT is what the argument should be about... not our rights.
Related Discussions
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 10 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
- 104
Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks
by PrettyPanther 3 years ago
March 23, 2021WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.In brief, somber remarks from the White...
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 9 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 25
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 7 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
- 94
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?
by David 11 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...