The outdated 2nd amendment.

Jump to Last Post 251-300 of 519 discussions (4003 posts)

0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

All of my posts about guns and the second amendment come from my love of mostly historical guns . I am a lover of history , a lover of walnut , of blued steel , of the timeless history of a man working in his shop to build the most unique firearm piece , I am a descendent of even pre- revolutionary soldiers , the French and Indian wars revolutionary , civil war soldiers , first second and all the wars in between , just as many of you are , The biggest problem I see is that MOST of you have forgotten your heritage . You have forgotten your ancestors , You have DEFINATELY forgotten the values , the ethics , the morals of law abiding citizenry .

So you look to the simplistic solutions of the inexperienced , unread American to gun crimes , to all crimes for that matter ., the city dweller perhaps , who cowers deep in the shadows of an inner city night , or the victim , either cowardly or unwilling for whatever reason to defend themselves . The naiveté of unread or the politically uneducated , or you are the modern socialistically minded and Pseudo- educated leftist , without any real purpose in America . other than an activism towards some socialistic end .

I am simply amazed at the lack of an educated , organized , collective , attempt at a solution to the mess that our legal system has forced on us in their apathetic lack of involvement in the plague of ALL crimes in America . I am but one man , uneducated by todays " hyper educated " standards , and even I know what COULD be invoked in law or constitutional amendments to cure gun crimes . All crimes for that matter !

Man up People ......and Peoplepower , and demand more from those you already pay to enforce EXISTING law !
reply report
81
emgeposted 9 years ago
I love guns and have 3 myself. Guns are a macho sport and must never be banned
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Like I have asked most of the others who falsely believe there is a realistic (or even unrealistic) movement to ban guns ... show me just one valid study that shows the truth of your assertion that there is a viable push going on whose purpose is to get all buns banned; the emphasis is on "valid" and "viable". If you can't find one, then that suggests your fear is simply ungrounded paranoia, doesn't it?
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Once again , the complete lack of any common sense in these threads is so obvious ,
So here are a few facts about reality that some of you really need !

A few other objects or acts ,things that "kill people"

What about escalators , banning those ?

I'll bet more people have either killed or are killed by cell phones ! Where is the talk of banning those ?

And what about police chases , just how many people are killed , either innocent or guilty of a crime ?

I'm betting more dumb assed college kids die of alcohol poisoning , gonna' ban that too?

Where is the forum thread banning , or what happens to laws banning heroin ?

Hey what about operating tables , I'm sure it makes as much sense to ban these nasty killers ?

The more I read of peoples idea's , theories , advice and opinions , the more I am reminded that you can send everybody to college , right or wrong , but what keeps them from gaining common sense , what keeps them from learning of the reason behind our constitutional rights and privileges , why don't people who attend more schools , learn more ?

Maybe we should ban colleges . Learning can be a dangerous thing .
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

Some of you really need to get a handle on the reality of deaths among young people , especially young people , I have been looking at studies relating to death by guns , cars , cell phone use in cars , etc... here's just a couple of charts showing these statistics . Sad when you consider that as many of our youth die from poisoning - that means drug poisoning , illicit and prescription drugs , as they do from guns , or that from auto accidents being even higher ?

And yet the focus is on a constitutional right ? Kind of makes you wonder ? By the way- studies showing accidental deaths in auto's USING CELL PHONES by young people , is an ever increasing and hidden cause of deaths , admitted use of cell phones in accidents are charted but , statistics of suspected use of cell phones in accidents and probable use of cell phones in accidents aren't even charted but authorities know they are a pyramid effect . Drug poisoning , illegal and legal ?, deaths are as high as gun deaths including suicide , and yet , auto accidents in young are almost twice as high .

But then , why study real solutions to the real dangers of our culture , It is so typical to blast forth with a politically correct topics , hot button issues , That's why this thread is so long ! That's why we continue blinding ourselves with "popular " discourse and dialog , rather that the boring topics , the ones that might really save our youth rather than inflame them in P.C.?

Peoplepower , Would you like to really save some lives , especially some young ones ? Do a forum topic on Reality ! I know , ..........attacking our young about cell phone use while driving , the use of illicit drugs , alcohol poisoning , astronomically growing heroin addictions , bad driving habits is TOO boring !
reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
@horseback, take a few deep breaths and calm down. Your point is clear, at least for me. The world is filled with hypocrites and hidden agendas, and that pollutes this discussion.

Most people have mindlessly accepted that car driving comes with a certain collateral damage. What they in fact do is arguing that the function of car driving is more important than the deaths and casualties that come with this activity.

So, that would mean that anyone who has a car is a hypocrite, especially when they are against guns. Tomorrow you could kill someone with your car, while today you were actively protesting against guns.

I found out that the insane amount of guns in the US is not the real problem. One way or another this seems to be in control. That's an indisputable statistical fact. Maybe is the American population much more responsible (and aware) than most of us think, except for a few idiots.

The huge amount of guns might be a ticking time bomb though. That is something no one knows for sure (perhaps the secret service).
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  People who drive cars are not the hypocrites. As a condition of using this highly lethal tool, users must:
  
  1) Pass both a written and practical driving exam to receive a license that is periodically renewed.
  2) Pass an eye exam to ensure they are capable of safely driving the vehicle.
  3) Register their vehicle and periodically renew that registration.
  4) Document and report every purchase and sale of a vehicle.
  5) Ensure their vehicle meets environmental standards and passes safety inspections.
  6) Be of a minimum age
  
  These are just a few of the rules surrounding operation of a motor vehicle. Would you, as the owner of a gun, a highly lethal tool created for the purpose of killing, be willing to
  
  1) Pass both a written and practical exam to receive a license that is periodically renewed.
  2) Pass an eye exam to ensure you are capable of safely shooting a gun.
  3) Register your gun and periodically renew that registration.
  4) Document and report every sale or purchase of a gun within a certain time period.
  5) Ensure your gun meets minimum safety standards and passes safety inspections.
  6) Be of a minimum age.
  
  If gun owners are not willing to submit to these same regulations, who are the hypocrites?
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The problem, Panther is that the 2nd Amendment treats possession of a firearm akin to a right and not a privilege, to be subjected to a common sense regulatory procedure.
  
  It is the same argument I had with the right in regards to Voter ID provisions. They say 'what is the problem, you need an ID for virtually everything else in society'. I would retort that the right to vote is not just "everything else".
  
  That is the problem about getting the gun people to stop so fervently clutching their guns. Outside of reasonable self-defence, hunting and sport, most of the more cynical reasons for their desire to keep their weapons are primarly 'tin foil hat'.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  1. Sure...as long as both tests are solely to ensure the owner knows the laws of gun ownership. That's all a DL does, after all - there is virtually no skill required to pass the test.
  2. No. An unnecessary test for gun ownership, designed solely to add burden to gun ownership.
  3. Sure...AFTER the barrage of efforts to ban guns ceases. We don't try every year to ban cars, after all.
  4. Same as 3), and to be nothing more than a $5 fee by mail. It is, after all, nothing more that a tool of law enforcement and one that society, not individuals, should pay.
  5. No safety inspections for cars in most states, and what there are is almost worthless. No "safety" inspections for guns - if they don't fire, they don't fire.
  6. No problem. A 6 year old has no need or use for a gun.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, I don't know what they do in Idaho, but under the guise of emissions control, there are related requirements for safety inspections in more than a few states and metropolitan area. Also, I have seen drivers' tests used at the discretion of DMVs
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I lived in Virginia in the past, where all vehicles had to pass a safety inspection. Light bulbs were checked (and had to by made by Sylvania - anything else would fail a thorough check) and, if the shop wasn't too busy, a wheel was pulled to look at the brakes. Never failed a single test in the 22 years I lived there, which is an indication of the value of those tests as many of my cars were 15-20 years old.
  
  Idaho has a emissions test in some areas - the computer is plugged into the car and the readings from car sensors are taken as factual. (Both my Prius and Volt are exempt as the engine doesn't run at an idle). No safety at all.
  
  Drivers' tests - when I moved to Idaho I had to take a written test - no practical - to verify I knew Idaho laws. In my 50 years of driving, I've taken exactly one practical test (at 15 years old) and two written tests. (Plus one for a motorcycle endorsement, which consisted of driving down the block and returning. The tester had to show me how to change gears!). Which is what I said - verifying that the law is known is the only thing useful in the tests.
  
  But safety of a gun? What will you check? That the trigger moves? Unlike a car, a gun either works or it doesn't - virtually nothing can go wrong that is a danger to surrounding people.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  PrettyPanther: Excellent post. And all of those measures provide accountability. If someone gets in an accident or if there are deaths as a result of the accident, the ownership is traceable. Drivers are also required to have insurance to protect themselves and others from liability.
  
  I know what the gun people's answers are going to be, the 2nd amendment gives them the right to possess guns unconditionally. However, the more I think about the wording of the 2nd amendment and Justices Scalia's ruling on this, the more I think he was wrong. Here is the 2nd amendment:
  
  " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
  
  Here is a little grammar lesson from the Denver Post, February 12, 2013
  
  "Read these sentences:
  
  “Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”
  
  “Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”
  
  In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.
  
  Gun rights advocates such as the NRA have rather successfully pushed the notion that the first clause of the Second amendment is merely prefatory, a sort of rhetorical throat-clearing before the substantive clause about “rights.” Too, certain linguists have said that, as an “absolute” clause (one that is grammatically separate from the main clause), the first clause has no bearing and thus conveys no limitations on the “right” of the second clause. However, no less a constitutional authority than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall disagrees, declaring that “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”
  
  Thus, to call the first clause of the Second Amendment superfluous is to insult both Marshall and the framers. The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.
  
  So today, when the paranoid fringe faction of the NRA howls that gun control is an assault on our Second amendment rights, we might ask, which rights are those? Unless they mean the right to “bear arms” (itself a military phrase) in the service of a well-regulated militia, they’re just blowing smoke. The NRA is free to lobby all they want for the freedom for citizens to own whatever gun they choose — it’s their right. But to say that gun control somehow attenuates individual gun rights “guaranteed” by the Second Amendment, well, that’s just wrong."
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We're on the same page. I believe eventually the fear and hysteria exhibited by NRA types when gun control is mentioned will eventually be overcome by practicality and common sense. It will just take time. I'm an optimist.
  reply report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  In answer to your last question: ALL OF THE ABOVE! I am not sure if Buildreps was simply posing an argument, or if he truly believes his comment about hypocrisy, but I am here to tell you that I take what he has stated seriously. Hypocrisy is as American as apple pie.
  
  Your argument is both right and wrong; up and down, and perhaps a little sideways. No one except for the usual naysayers and know it all's; those who obviously have never participated in a college debate, can disagree with your proposal. Of course, there is no doubt that what you have suggested would certainly help. However, it simply doesn't go far enough.
  
  Every year we can expect over 40,000 human beings to die in MVC's. It has been estimated that the world wide fatality rate since the early 1900's is in excess of 20 million! A great many of that number have been children; children who had no choice but to follow their parents, or overseer's into an early grave. Buildreps is correct in stating, in other words, that we have collectively decided our convenience is worth the deaths of over 40,000 Americans each year; a number the CDC has predicted to be on the increase.
  
  If you review the chart that onhorseback posted, you will notice that in 2002, the cause of death for nearly 50% of teenagers between the ages of 15-19 was either gun violence or MVC. Such a high percentage, in that age group alone, is enough to warrant a banning of guns and automobiles; save for emergency and work related vehicles. A more efficient, nation wide mass transit system could fulfill the needs of commuters going to work, to the beach, or to the shopping mall. The interstates, thruways, and all of the main arteries where a majority of the fatalities occur, could be primarily reserved for freight.
  
  The automobile and the gun are evil twins. They are both killing machines. Henry Ford and his compadres did not do the world a favor; not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, indirectly, he is one of the greatest mass murderers and environmental polluters of all time! But Americans want to pick and choose how they define murder. When it came to the mass murder of my people, it was not called murder at all. The Americans called it Manifest Destiny, as they still do today. And you will not hear them say that they Invaded our continent. Instead, they continue to say that they :"Discovered" it. We cannot in good conscience, self-righteously condemn the manufacture, promotion, and illegal use of firearms as murder, while we are still supporting an industry that kills over 40,000 U.S. citizens annually. I can think of no other product,or service that has killed in such great numbers; and with impunity. But Americans are quick to make excuses for what is convenient, comfortable, and expedient.
  
  Let there be no misunderstanding about the definition of murder. Here is a bulleted list that America needs to memorize as quickly as possible, as time is running away from us.
  
  • Capital Punishment is: MURDER
  
  • Abortion is: MURDER
  
  • War is : MURDER
  
  • The promotion, sale, and the use, (legal or illegal) of firearms is: MURDER
  
  • The manufacture, sale, and the use of automobiles is: MURDER
  
  • Killing in self defense is: MURDER
  
  • McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and KFC is: MURDER
  
  All of these, and more, contribute to, and cause the unlawful taking of millions of human lives.
  Only God has the authority to take a human life. For too many years we have been riding down this slippery slope. For too many years men have tried to make exceptions to the rule; that being, the Holy Commandment of God: "Thou Shall Not Kill". To paraphrase Jesus: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for an American to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
  reply report
  83
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's a nice idea to draw some more facts and statistics into this discussion. WrenchBiscuit already introduced some of the statistics.
  
  1) There are about 260 million cars and trucks in the US - versus - 32,000 deaths and 2.3 million serious injuries.
  2) There are about 300 million guns in the US - versus - 11,400 deaths and 23,000 serious injuries.
  
  There are about a 1,000 times more serious injuries with cars than with guns. It is not difficult to see which of both is more lethal and requires more attention, or is it?
  
  That would mean that all your 6 arguments have to be seriously tightened to get them at the level of the gun issue. The problem is not the gun owners. The problem is the general mentality that convenience is preferred above human lives.
  
  As long as you're not willing to 'hand over' your car, you're running a hypocritical discussion.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, well, why not both? cars and guns GONE!
  
  wouldn't that be a trip?
  
  of course planes too!
  
  ALL problems solved!
  
  then the OAI people will venture forth and teach us a thing or two!
  We could do it right this time.
  
  ?
  reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
This whole gun discussion is polarizing people.

- Non-car owners argue against cars,
- Non-gun owners argue against guns.

Why do people get so excited about simple facts? Maybe it confronts them with their own responsibility in the game of life?

It's time everyone starts to think what you can do yourself, instead of telling what others have to do.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Perhaps forum dwellers , especially those who are so liberal about their propensity towards expressing their opinions about OTHER peoples actions , privileges and rights should have to register their use, and abuse of FREE SPEECH rights , After all maybe its the FIRST AMENDMENT that is OUTDATED ! Because Free Speech "causes" pain and injurious damage to others .

1 - You should have to register their vocal ability for the use of free speech privileges .
2 - Should have to pass verbal and written tests to prove worthy of the constitutional right .
3 - Should have to pass yearly testing to prove an increase of maturity with time .
4 - Must test to prove mental, social and political maturity .
5 - Must take an oath to insure knowledge that free speech can also injure ,maim and kill
6 - Should have to register annually for the privilege
7 - Must buy annual insurance for the litigation of damage to others
reply report
1. 80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ~ well, yes: no planes, trains, automobiles, guns or freedom of speech.
  Must only speak of what is good for the whole of us, like an ant.
  … like a little self-less ant.
  
  oh goody.
  reply report
2. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Free speech is regulated to some degree (and it still exists, fancy that); don't go yelling fire in a theater; don't threaten the President; don't tell a cop you are going to kill him (or someone else); there are many examples of free speech being restrained by law, isn't there: yet it is a Right even more important to the health of this nation than the 2d A is today.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh Oh here we go , I disagree ! .......:-} The second was used to protect the first .......lol
  reply report
75
cathylynn99posted 9 years ago
here's a mental health expert talking about how negative and unrealistic it is to say folks with mental illness are violent and shouldn't have guns.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thin … PGrUUTB.01
reply report
1. 68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  The article ends as follows " ... These serious public-health issues are only exacerbated by the violence-and-crime narrative, which in turn only inflames prejudice and discrimination".
  
  Mark Salzer is a professor and chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Temple University. mark.salzer@temple.edu Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thin … XG3BmYY.99
  
  Of course, I am confident the the "scholars" here on Hubpages don't have the time to read such "nonsense" written by a professor in the field. They don't believe in God or Science; but only their own blood-lust and vengeance. I think many are simply angry that they were ever born.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

And thus ,the new way to save souls , gain intelligence , make friends and influence people . Which really is best ?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
What SHOULD anger the average gun advocate OR anti - gun person . IS that this issue is just one of the usual hot button election year DIVERSIONS from real issues , from the fact the electoral representation can use these issues instead of accountability for lack of the present ,past or future accomplishment within office .

Does that bother the left ? NOooooo.........Lets all over a non-issue .ALWAYS going to present .

Crime always HAS , IS and is ALWAYS going to be a part of the human psychy ! Kind of like thinking . laughing , crying .
reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Top causes of deaths in the US.

Geeze, shootings are not one of the top causes of death.
Abortion is #1 cause of deaths.
Are some people's priorities confusing?
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nice graph, but abortion kills...only if the reader agrees that a fetus is a person. Most people apparently do not or abortion would not be legal.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "A fetus is not a person" vs "A human fetus is human" is like splitting hairs to me.
  
  A response to abortion is murder by Jack Nicholson:
  "I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life."
  
  Morally, "I don’t have the right to any other view."
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  First, person = human. No difference, and no splitting hairs there.
  
  Again, your position is very clear, as is Nicholson's. It just doesn't match that of the majority of people - people that find no difference in a 3 month fetus and a cancerous tumor. Neither is a person, neither is human, both are an unwanted growth in the body and nothing more.
  
  YOUR definition, then, is not universally held (or even close to that) and you have no right, legal or moral, to force it onto others. A common failure of the pro-life group - to define a fetus as human (and abortion thereby murder) when the law and the majority say otherwise. All while never even recognizing the problem and refusing to discuss it as anything but "My way is right and yours is wrong".
  reply report
75
cathylynn99posted 9 years ago
states with stronger background check laws have fewer mass shootings:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bac … n=politics
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Take the guns and killers don't use guns. Pretty much a no brainer, isn't it?
  
  Now if you could show that states with strong check laws, after correcting for population, population density, criminal rates, maybe even political views, etc. had way fewer murders, that might indicate something. Or find several states that instituted strong gun controls while taking no other actions and saw the murder rates fall significantly while NOT finding (after a thorough search) states that did the same and did not see a fall.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  1. The study DID control for at least population
  2. While correct about murder rates (they have been falling since 1995), it is immaterial because the study was about mass shootings, a subset of murder.
  3. Crime rates don't need correcting for because there is little, if any, correlation between that and mass shootings.
  4. Political views definitely have a strong impact on which states have strong gun laws. Because of this, that makes them very correlated with the studies gun law variable and needs to be excluded
  5. While try as I might, I couldn't get population density to play a significant role in overall death by gun. Because of what drives people to commit mass murder is different from what drives other gun crimes, I seriously doubt population density plays much of a role since the presumption would be a high population density would be more prone to create the circumstances that drive mass murderers to do their thing.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But the study ONLY considered GUN murders. It never looked at any alternative at all and is thus worthless. For instance, it said that most mass murders are of the domestic violence type, spouses and children killed rather than indiscriminately killing strangers. And never bothered to mention that taking guns from those killers isn't likely to make any difference at all: it's far too easy to stab or strangle children while asleep. Bottom line is that it makes the same assumption you do; if there are no guns there will be no killing, and that just isn't true at all.
  
  But to answer:
  1. If you're going to find a causal relationship you're going to have to "correct" for a lot more that a state's population. All that gives you is the mass shooting rate which, while valuable, does not indicate causality.
  
  2. Yes. It was about mass shootings: take away the guns and that rate WILL fall. A no-brainer, just as I said, but says nothing about saving lives.
  
  3. Are you sure? Are they more common in inner city slums? In a crime ridden environment? Or in a quiet suburban neighborhood? Can you back up your statement or just spouting off opinions that agree with the basic premise that guns are the cause of high murder rates (mass or not)?
  
  4. Don't understand this one. My intent was to ask if being a liberal, entitlement philosophy brings more mass murders than a conservative, god fearing do-it-yourself one. If so (either way) any state looked at will need some adjustment to accommodate that factor.
  
  5. Yet I think you'll find that the murder rate is higher in areas of high population density. Rate, not just total murders.
  
  Is it different? Excluding foreign terrorists, isn't the cause of the murder (mass or not) either hate, anger or simple despair? And is that despairing feeling greater in our poverty stricken inner cities or in the small rural towns?
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Again, Wilderness, the subject is mass killings, not all murders. Also, you can take knives off the table; in 33 mass killings in one study between 1999 and 2011, only 1 had a knife involved, in addition to a Ruger MK III semi-automatic handgun, .22 caliber.
  
  1. Nobody is looking for a causal relationship all that is needed is a mountain of evidence showing a high correlation. (It was enough to get laws on the books for smoking. Fortunately, medical evidence was later able to verify the observationally obvious which was then backed up by study after study after study of highly correlated data.)
  
  The same is true for guns and gun death (as well as mass killings). It is obvious by inspection there is a relationship. Tons of statistical evidence suggest, very strongly, the relationship exists. All that is needed now is for the NRA to take their stranglehold on the feds ability to collect information about guns and their involvement in death. That will allow sufficient data to be collected to actually prove causation.
  
  2. No serious person is talking about "taking" guns away from all citizens; so that argument carries zero weight.
  
  3. Here is a sampling: 2013-College: 2012-Elementary School: 2012-Clackamas Town Center, OR; 2012-Azana Day Spa, Brookfield, WI; Accent Signage Systems, MN; 2012-Sikh Temple, WI, 2012-Theater, CO; 2012-Cafe Racer Espresso,Washington; 2012-Oikos U, Oakland; 2012-Chardon HS, OH (gun/knife); Salon Meritage, Seal Beach, CA; and 38 more, none in inner cities, but there were 13 more schools, 12 work places, a few churches, and a few private homes.
  
  4. As I said, statistically you can't use political philosophy because it is like using the same independent variable twice. Why? Because states with Democratic gov'ts have the strongest gun laws and Republican run states have the worst gun regulations. So, by including this independent variable we are still comparing mass killings between states with good and poor gun regulations.
  
  5. Again, you are talking about all murders, not the subject at hand. Ditto with your final paragraph.
  
  If you want to get into all murders and population demographic then we can move on to my statistical analysis (yes, I am both a statistician and a cost and economic analyst who has years of experience in this type of analysis)
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Also, you can take knives off the table; in 33 mass killings in one study between 1999 and 2011, only 1 had a knife involved"
  
  And as we know that removing guns will not increase knife murders, knives don't matter. Right!
  
  "The same is true for guns and gun death (as well as mass killings)." Still harping on gun deaths, are we? But we already talked about that and it is a red herring, nothing to do with what matters. As for mass killings, you have yet to show ANY correlation, let alone "mountains of evidence". You do know, don't you, that one country with high guns and high mass murders does not show a correlation?
  
  2. You keep saying that, but those "mountains of evidence" show otherwise as we keep on doing whatever we can to ban guns of all types. A 22 cal. "Assault weapon", for God's sake!
  
  3. Great! A handful of locations with (I assume) mass murders. Now find 50 with fewer and fewer guns coupled with fewer and fewer mass murders.
  
  4. And with differing political affiliations. Which one is responsible for more murders? Can you prove it?
  
  5. From your post: "While try as I might, I couldn't get population density to play a significant role in overall death by gun." Not mass murders, death by gun. And my final paragraph does indeed mention both homicides and mass murders. Not gun murders, because I'm not interested in that, but murder (mass or not) in general.
  
  Sure - if you can show that population density does not affect murder rates, I'd be interested. It would show that that is not a cause for our high murder rate, after all.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here are some other tidbits I just put together on this mass killing issue.
  
  * There are 19 states with good to great gun laws
  * There are 29 states with fair to poor gun laws (HI and AK cancel each other out and they don't appear on the map I am using in any case.)
  * Of the 15 states the study identifies that had universal background checks, only one fell in the 28 states with fair to poor gun laws (This was CO who changed their law in 2013)
  * I broke the rates of mass murders per 1 million up into three equally sized buckets 0 - 9, 9.1 - 18, and 18 and greater.
  * All 4 states with the highest rates are part of the fair to poor gun control group
  * 8 of the 10 states falling into the middle bucket are also in the fair to poor group.
  * 17 of the states in the lowest mass murder rate group are in the fair to poor states.
  * Of the 17, only five states had no mass killings in the study's time frame.
  * ONLY 2 states (WA and SC) with moderate mass killing rates fall in the states with the good to great gun regulation states.
  * Of the 17 states with the lowest rates and are in states with the best gun control, 6 had no mass killings.
  * That means 31 % of the states with acceptable, sensible gun laws had no mass killings
  * That means only 17% of states with unacceptable gun laws had no mass killings.
  
  NOW, how can you tell me with a straight face there is no relationship between the strength of a state's gun laws and the rate of mass killings?
  
  The states within the orange outline have fair to terrible gun regulations
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well, let's see. If I'm following your terminology correctly, half of the states with the lowest mass murder rate (17) had bad laws, The other half of the states with lowest rates (17 again) are in the good law states. No correlation, then.
  
  Of the 17 low rate states and bad laws, 5 had 0 murders. Of the 17 low rate states and good gun laws, 6 had 0 murders. The same, in other words, and still no correlation.
  
  So far, and with an absolutely straight face, there is no correlation. The only thing left is that 4 states (out of 48) have high rates and bad laws. This is hardly a good correlation, and doubly so when half the low rates are also in the same boat with bad laws.
  
  I'm having a little trouble with your percentages, unable to figure out just where they came from. Can you explain further? Or have I just lost it all and completely misinterpreted ALL the numbers (quite possible, I assure you!)?
  
  Of course, you never did define what "acceptable, sensible" gun laws are, nor "unacceptable". Both appear to be a purely personal designation without regard to costs or trouble to a gun owner. The strongest, most restrictive laws are "sensible" I would guess, while laws that accommodate the gun owner are not?
  reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
People are choosing to arm themselves. The FBI did 1,976,759 background checks in October for retail gun purchases. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … nd-checks/
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Sex produces embryos to murder and sell.

Therefore, sex should be regulated. If you are married and you have a home with a washer and a dryer, then you may have sex.

Otherwise ...
No, you may not.

Guns produce mass killings, etc.

Therefore if you are mentally stable and you are intelligent enough to own a gun, you may own a gun.
If you have a court restraining order due to domestic abuse, gang activity involving murder, etc. …

No, you may not.

Right?

it is a matter of not being trigger happy.

No, don't be trigger happy. Be trigger sad.

very.
reply report
1. 68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  The very act of owning a gun demonstrates a lack of intelligence. It is pure barbarism. What speaks volumes about the true heart of America, is the fact that the gun advocate feels comfortable publicly confessing his love for killing.
  
  To the superior intellect, this is on par with a pedophile bragging about his exploits in a public forum; with impunity! Some of us have evolved, but a majority have not. And so, this is a heavy cross to bear. I am not a simple minded man, but it is easier for a simple minded man to understand Jesus, than an arrogant man of average intelligence. Rather than looking to protect ourselves with an antiquated Second Amendment, more guns, and a dysfunctional Constitution, we need to get "more Jesus". We need to get "more love". My only weapon is a "Weapon of Prayer". And it is all that a man should ever need. Ignorant men will say that God does exist. But the photo I have provided here clearly reveals the image of God.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thats it, WB, why. The need to be 'packing' just because of some misplaced sense of power and authority was something that I thought you move beyond after adolescence.
  
  There seems to be many that cannot defend why they need to be armed everywhere all of the time beyond legitimate need of self-defense or sport.
  
  The true test of manhood is to be able to resolve conflicts without violence or the threat of violence. Taking that stance in life is something that reasonable and intelligent adult must eventually embrace. Too many immature people hide behind their guns as much as advocate for them as it is easier to intimidate than expend energy to sort through ideas and engage in discourse.
  
  This is the root of the belligerence about the planet and the endless conflict that is more defining of our existence than anything else. It starts with your neighbor.
  
  I know the what and wherefore, I would like the gun people to dig deep and tell me WHY, in their own words, rather than I having to speculate.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Some opinions, are just out there ! This P.C. opinion of yours is the epitome of a popular opinion gone senseless . To compare pedophiles and gun owners is clueless on your part . To equate gun ownership simply with a love for killing ; lacks any common sense whatsoever !
  
  "To the superior intellect :"..............Is certainly out of your league .!
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Violence starts in the mind.

Don't be violent.

And what should the people who died in Paris have done to keep their lives?

French Police had to shoot a couple terrorists DEAD!
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris- … ck-n463251
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Terror Attack Paris ,

Paris, France , An extremely restrictive gun ownership country and city ! Guns for any reason are heavily restricted , NO military calibers of handgun are allowed , semi-auto rifles holding more than THREE [3] rounds is illegal ! A physiological background check for gun ownership is required . THERE ARE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR GUN OWNERSHIP .

Sounds cruel but , could it be Boston OR LA.. next ?
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If it had been Boston or LA, the outcome would have been roughly the same because you are talking about a well trained army of terrorists. Unless your answer is to make all Americans carry around, in their day-to-day activities, fully loaded M-16s with belts of ammunition strapped around them, some with M-203 grenade launchers attached (I know, I am dating myself) who go through grueling military training every year, then your analogy is meaningless
  
  It is even more meaningless because most of the deaths seem to have come from suicide bombers..
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  True (that most deaths came from bombers). It seems that all the gun laws in the world won't stop killers from killing. Thank you.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing will 100% stop anything, but that isn't the goal, is it? Isn't the goal, instead, to REDUCE killings as much as possible? But, since I have established elsewhere that, at the moment, only common sense says sensible gun laws will reduce actual criminal homicides (I can't establish that statistically yet, although I am close), one must expand their scope beyond dead people caused by gun homicides to dead people caused by the use of guns in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. In that case, the statistics ARE CLEAR that better gun laws lead to lower rates of dead people overall.
  
  Now, I understand that in order to maintain your position you must discount gun deaths by non-homicide intent and consider them non-dead for the purposes of your argument, but then that isn't the real world, is it.
  reply report
  75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  part of the reason you don't have the research to link prevalence of guns to violent crime is NRA obstruction. after the CDC study showing that you're more likely to die by your own gun than an intruder's, republicans defunded CDC gun research.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It wasn't just the CDC research Conservatives defunded, it was almost all federally funded data gathering and research. That is why a lot of independent research rests on independent polling data and creative statistical analysis of the data that can be gleaned from gov't and non-gov't sources. Conservatives are well aware that by controlling the information, they control the narrative ... and so far, they have been successful in suppressing information.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Isn't the goal, instead, to REDUCE killings as much as possible?"
  
  No. The goal is to REDUCE killings as much as possible while maintaining rights, freedoms and privileges of the citizenry as much as possible. Something the control advocates seem to have forgotten.
  
  "But, since I have established elsewhere that, at the moment, only common sense says sensible gun laws will reduce actual criminal homicides (I can't establish that statistically yet, although I am close),"
  
  Again, no. And the reason you can't establish that statistically yet is because it is not true - I have established that. So the "common sense gun laws" that you want so badly will do nothing to reduce actual homicides.
  
  "In that case, the statistics ARE CLEAR that better gun laws lead to lower rates of dead people overall."
  
  And still no. If that were true, you would have already established it, but so far have done nothing of the sort. In fact, barring suicides the matter is exactly opposite of your premise (premise, not proven conclusion) - that there is no correlation at all, so "better gun laws" (meaning take the guns?) won't do a thing. The next question then becomes (assuming that taking guns will lower the suicide rate) just how far we're willing to compromise rights and freedom of millions of people to protect a few hundred from themselves? And my personal answer is "Not very far".
  
  The only real category left is accidental gun deaths, and there aren't enough of them, compared to the other two categories and considering that you will not stop very many anyway, to be worth compromising freedoms at all.
  reply report
  75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  how much is a human life worth to you? apparently not very much.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  When terrorist attack other countries, they use what is called a "Force Multiplier." Their attempts don't even have to work. That's why we have to remove belts, shoes, etc, and have to go through metal detectors. We as a country lose part of our freedoms, by just one person attempting an attack. Each attempt whether successful or not causes the whole country to lose more of their freedoms.
  
  What happened in Paris by just a few people has put a whole country on alert and put the people into a state of hyper vigilance.
  
  Justice Scalia in his ruling, rewrote the 2nd amendment by not rewriting it. Here is the 2nd amendment:
  
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
  
  His ruling says that everything up to the first comma is a "prefatory clause" and is just used to introduce the main subject which is the second clause, "to keep and bear arms." Therefore the part about the "A well regulated Militia" can be ignored.
  
  In my opinion, I think he realized that the Well Regulated Militia was meant for colonial times. Because we already have a well regulated militia in our military including the national guard. But he has given the right of the people to keep and bear arms more importance than a well regulated militia., by using a grammatical ploy, called a "prefatory clause.". Therefore, every person has the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally, until a crime is committed. Then said crime is subject to the criminal justice system for adjudication.
  
  This begs the question, when can parts of the constitution be ignored by a justice of the supreme court and when are certain words more important than others in our constitution?
  
  Now back to the attacks in Paris. Those terrorists use force multipliers. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that happened here. How does a "Well regulated civilian militia deal with that? How is this militia going to form on the spot in 50 states? It's called a surprise attack. How does our "Well regulated Militia even know it is coming?
  
  So do we arm ourselves to the teeth, when we don't even know who they are among us. And even if you saw one, do you shoot him or her before they detonate themselves?...fat chance!
  
  This is why I said in my title to the this forum, that the "2nd Amendment was outdated."
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I made a mistake. It's everything up to the second comma, can be ignored...sorry about that.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't quite understand why Scalia had to go to such lengths to justify his position. He could have simply said that the right to bear arms by all individuals is implied because without that meaning, the point of the Amendment (In order to ...) would have been moot. To reverse that, if the People didn't have access to arms, then you couldn't have a well regulated militia.
  
  Then, to take that a step further and address what the case was really about, the right to bear arms for self-defense, it simply follows that given the individual liberty each American is guaranteed under the Constitution, the arms they possess could be used for self-defense.
  
  It was clear from the facts of the case that D.C. and some other cities, were trying to circumvent the "right to bear arms" which, if successful, would have prevented the ability to establish a well-regulated militia and is therefore unconstitutional.
  
  Unlike most other countries, individual liberty is sacrosanct and inviolable except to the extent it has been given up to the gov't in the People's contract with the government or from the forfeiture of it from their own actions.
  
  Having said that, even Justice Scalia agrees the "right to bear arms" is not an unlimited right and that under the appropriate circumstances the gov't does have a legitimate power to limit that right.
  
  Consequently, although I see where you are coming from, I just can't accept the 2A is outdated because it furthers our right to do what we please unless it harms others.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My Estoteric: The part that is outdated is the same as what Scalia calls a prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
  
  Where is this well regulated militia now? During colonial times, civilians were trained in the use of weapons and military tactics and then sent home, to be called into service to defend the colonies against their enemies.
  
  "being necessary to the security of a free State." has to do with tyranny. Where is that tyranny today? I know the NRA and the right wing propaganda machine keep drumming this into people's heads that it could happen. But in my opinion, it has about as much chance of happening today as the sun not rising tomorrow. Why would our government turn on us? And even if it did, we could not defend ourselves against the might of our military. I know, it's because Obama and the liberals can't be trusted.
  
  The word State is capitalized. A state in colonial times, could mean a colony or the free state of the collecive union, I don't know without getting into the framer's head.
  
  As you said, "our right to do what we please unless it harms others.", that right is guaranteed by this clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, that is the only part that still serves us today and makes sense in our modern world. It allows people to be gun collectors, hunt, target practice, and defend themselves against criminals. But it also allows people to commit crimes, as well, some of them more horrific than others.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, with that restriction.
  
  (As to "getting into the framer's head", I am in the middle of a great biography on James Madison as well as a lecture series on American foreign policy which requires an understanding of what the framers had in mind, so the professor goes into to some detail; currently he is talking about Thomas Jefferson.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's great, maybe you could do a hub about it. I think the style of writing was different in colonial times than today.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  'What we have here is a failure to communicate" There are those on this hub that insist the direct opposite. Their reasoning is that the militia was mentioned first. So, the second clause is subservient to the first. Or it being one sentence therefore can only have one idea. That being the first thing mentioned.
  
  I think the 2nd should be two sentences:
  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
  Two distinct sentences, two distinct ideas.
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  YUPPERS the main reason I even own a gun is to protect my right to own a gun. It is our last resort insurance policy against an illegal overreaching tyrannical regime. Thank God "Keep & Bear" means own and CARRY for such a time as this with militant gays, Moslems and a Kenyan-born usurper in our White House. Molon labe!
  Even Jesus said "When a strong man well-armed keeps his palace his goods are in peace." Luke 11:21
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  To tell you the truth Sgt Prepper, I have more to fear from you and your same-minded friends rather than the multi-phobic rant on "militant gays, Moslems and a Kenyan-born usurper in our White House. Molon labe!"
  
  To me, you are the greatest threat to this nation and is why it bothers me not that rational people are armed; it helps protect us from the irrational ones.
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  YOU BETCHA' maybe Bathhouse Barry should just go ahead and declare martial-law, round us up into FEMA camps and cut off our heads? Wait that is his plan anyway. That traitorous tyrannical usurper needs to face justice and he will. Antichrist Obama & False Prophet Pope Francis will be cast for eternity into the lake of fire, they and their minions.
  reply report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You have clearly quoted scripture out of context in order to support a lame argument. Nice try. When we look at the passage in context, we see that Jesus was illustrating the power of God over man. This passage has nothing to do with self-defense, or weaponry. This passage: in no way,shape, or form , sanctions the use of firearms. What a ridiculous notion! Here is the passage in context. Read and learn.
  
  And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
  
  But some of them said,"He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils".And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
  
  "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
  But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth".
  
  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
  reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
I thought this interesting. Swiss males between the ages of 20 and 55 are allowed to keep fully-automatic assault rifles in theirs home with a stock of ammunition regardless of what the contrary rumors say. That means that Switzerland will never be invaded by anyone who isn't suicidal.

Gun politics in Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … witzerland
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Not quite. All are part of the militia, and keep their weapons at home. After their term of service is up they can keep the weapons. 29% of homes in Switzerland has at least one gun in it as a result, including some 400,000 true "assault rifles" (fully automatic).
  
  And Switzerland has a very low homicide rate to boot. So much for gun ownership causing murders!
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  BOOM!
  
  Added: You might have seen this video about the history of gun control worldwide. Seems the governments that have been able to enforce it end up killing the people who trusted them to protect them. We sure don't want to repeat that kind of history.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJxhc60cdHw
  reply report
2. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Those assault rifles had to be changed to semi-autos. The civilians were not allowed to keep them as autos. Some rifle with internal changes. No longer assault rifles.
  reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
Jesus spoke in parables comparing physical truths to spiritual truths. Just like how what happens in the physical world has a spiritual counterpart. The Friday the 13th blood a sacrifices the Moslems made to their god Allah/Satan caused pandemonium in hell. Moslems worship death to the extent that if they can't find a Jew, Christian or other infidel to kill they will kill another Moslem even if it is a family member. In the process they often kill themselves. Islam, abortion and homosexuality are destroying the world.
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I keep reading your comments to see if there is a limit to your inanity.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What? You weren't aware that Muhammed penned the 2nd amendment? I'm surprised at your ignorance, Esoteric!
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, completely slipped past me, always thought it was James Madison, go figure.
  reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
Because I think Wilderness is right, and no one seems to get his point. It is not about the guns, it is about the mentality. That's the whole point. The question is about where this mentality is coming from.
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OK, let's try this route. Assume the mentality of humans doesn't change between these two starkly different scenarios.
  
  1. The distribution of devices frequently used (95% of which are guns and knives) for killing themselves or other humans is as it is now.
  2. None of the devices mentioned in 1 exist at all.
  
  Which scenario has a higher rate of dead people in it resulting from one human intentionally or accidentally killing themselves or another human?
  reply report
2. 78
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I believe wilderness is right too. Take away the ideology of murdering infidels from Islam and the notion of 72 virgins and there will much, mush less justifiable murders in the minds of those who kill innocent people because of their religious beliefs in the name of Allah.
  reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
You propose to take away the means that are used now, and not the mentality that was all the time lying underneath the whole problem?

Let's assume we take away all guns and all knifes, including all kitchen knifes. What do we have left are perhaps even more gruesome methods to kill people, when the mentality is still present.

I will mention just a few:
- very effective bombs can be made of just simple home, garden and kitchen means
- what do you think of the Molotov cocktail?
- bow and arrow perhaps?
- or the more effective crossbow?

All these weapons can be made at home, and they will when we take away guns and not the mentality. What we need is a change in mentality, and only then the guns will become redundant almost by itself.
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is a given that human nature has not and will not change ... ever. We humans act the same way when our history was first recorded as we do today. So, to argue that you need to "change" human behavior is a non-starter; it is not going to happen.
  
  So, given human nature can't be changed, the only way left to reduce (NOT ELIMINATE) needless death by guns is to control the ability of people who shouldn't have guns to obtain them while, in America, still allowing responsible people to own them.
  
  Now I realize you can never accept the last phrase (...still allowing responsible people to own them....) as a possibility because to do so would mean you support keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible; something you appear to not be in favor of..
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Human nature has not and will not change?? I have to take you to task for this one - it has changed greatly and continues to do so. Just a few examples:
  
  Retarded children used to be sent away to be locked up out of sight. Tied to their beds, they were never seen or heard from again. Now we put them in school, take them shopping; do whatever we can to give them as normal a life as possible. The stigma has been erased, or at least vastly reduced.
  
  Women (and children) used to be chattel, used for whatever purpose was needed. Now both are accepted as people in their own right and given the same rights as adult males.
  
  Slavery was common with people being owned by others. Virtually eliminated from the earth today.
  
  The death penalty is nearly eliminated in most of the planet. Vicious punishments of all types for minor offenses are a thing of the past most places. We don't come together as a community to watch and celebrate a hanging - that ultimate violence is abhorrent to us today. The value placed on life has changed; the days of the Hatfields and McCoys killing each other over who owns a pig are gone and we are the better for it.
  
  Perhaps it is this idea that we will never change that drives the gun control group? That the only method of reducing the number of killings is to pretend that taking the preferred weapon away is the answer? A refusal to acknowledge that the weapon isn't the problem - that it is inside us and only when WE change will the death toll go down?
  
  I think I may understand this whole matter just a little better with that simple "given" from you, for it is not a "given" at all. History and experience shows it to be wrong, just as history and experience shows that taking guns doesn't accomplish anything, but because we've given up on changing ourselves (or at least don't want to talk about such a nasty topic) we'll continue a fight doomed to failure rather than address the real roots.
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with MyEsoteric's point, `you can't change human nature.' I think you are addressing something completely different; human behavior, at least all the points you mentioned strike me as illustrations of human behavior, not human nature.
  
  By my way of thinking an example might be this; it is our human instinct, (our nature), to protect our young. At one point in our development that might have involved destroying the threat. Now it is more likely to be to remove the young from the threat as a first response, rather than react first with destruction. That is a change in our human behavior. But, if that fails, then our behavior will revert to instinct to destroy the threat. Behavior changed, human nature did not.
  
  We are just like onions. the core is the human nature of the caveman. Each successive layer of security we achieve allows us the luxury to modify our behavior. The caveman clubs another to get the food needed to survive. Add the security of plentiful food and the club is replaced with trade. But it is still just a layer over the core. Start stripping away those layers of security and you will still find the caveman.
  
  All your examples are of modified behavior, not the nature. the caveman hasn't changed, just his behavior.
  
  GA
  reply report
2. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, Buildreps, I asked a question, I proposed nothing. The answer to the question, however, could lead to a proposal.
  
  So, is the answer scenario 1 or scenario 2?
  reply report
3. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So, you are asserting that the rate of deaths from one human killing themselves or another won't change because they will turn to building bombs, molotov cocktails, bow and arrows, or crossbows? Imagine that 310,000,000 homemade crossbows are in circulation, each one as easy to use and capable/effective/efficient of killing as a firearm. Somehow, I don't think so.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Whether you think so or not is irrelevant; experience shows that it is true. Pretending that "common sense" or fallacious "logic" is a better predictor of the future than past experience is not a mark of someone actually trying to solve a problem.
  reply report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  It is quite remarkable how you change horses when it conveniently suits your argument. Your comment, "
  
  Pretending that "common sense" or fallacious "logic" is a better predictor of the future than past experience is not a mark of someone actually trying to solve a problem.",
  
  is rife with hypocrisy! You are the one who has been persistent in accusing me of "living in the past". Whenever I make a connection between current events and an old misery, you are among the first to cry foul. But now you extol the virtue of past experience!
  
  I have maintained that there is a connection between the genocide of my people and the Jewish Holocaust. I have also maintained that there is a connection between 1492 and many of our present day problems. The recent mass murder in Paris is a direct result of America refusing to accept responsibility for the Holocaust on this continent, and the subsequent theft of land and resources. Past experience tells us that America cannot find peace by continuing down a road of violence. The action in Paris is only a taste of what is yet to come. The chickens are coming home to roost, and arming yourselves with guns is the very worst thing that you could do. In doing so you will only be throwing gasoline on a fire. Now would be a good time to call on Jimmy Swaggart, and get some of that old time religion.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The Jews were not killing people like the Indians were. If the Germans allowed them to keep and bear there would not have been a Holocaust. Columbus didn't set foot on the USA.
  His purpose was to find a roue to China and India. Not as you insist. The Vikings are said to be the first to
  set foot on American soil. And they did come to conquer!
  The Indians invited the settlers to live on land that a tribe left. There was a recent abandoned village with fields and crops. Do the research! Also, How can you steal land when no one owned it?
  
  This hub is about the 2nd. Not for you to rant on about life as you see it.
  
  The citizens need the same weapons that the terrorist have to deal with them. Also more women fighters to put the fear of God in them. Namely: They won't go to heaven and get their see through fish looking 72 virgins. 72 being the most common number being quoted. Other figures are 70 Jinn type and two human,
  800 and 2,000 or such. The muk-muks can't even come to an agreement.
  
  Jinn (Arabic: الجن‎, al-jinn), also romanized as djinn or anglicized as genies, are supernatural creatures in early Arabian and later Islamic mythology and theology.
  reply report
4. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Buildreps: Read this. It's quite lengthy, but it is also comprehensive with links to the sources. If you don't believe a statement just click on the little red number and it will take you to the source for that information.
  
  http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-st … tatistics/
  reply report
  83
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the link, but these kind of statistics are incorrectly used or interpreted. It goes wrong at the first sentence by the word "likely". It is not even a fact.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your article, and it's sources of information, are nearly worthless. For instance, the statement that "Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%" comes from a source that simply states that "Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%" with zero corroborating evidence or indication of where the numbers come from. Worthless, in other words.
  
  Having said that, I Don't really doubt the basis if the article, if not the ridiculous numbers (guns in the home increases the homicide rate by 170%!). The question becomes "Why?", and what could or should be done about it.
  
  Suicides - do guns cause people to become suicidal, or do suicidal people own guns? The difference is crucial as if it is the second, those same people will very likely suicide with or without a gun. But the first seems highly suspect; that a chunk of iron causes suicidal intentions doesn't make a lot of sense. The answer needs considerable research.
  
  Homicide of family; again, does the gun presence cause the killing, or would another tool be used? A person that so loses control of themselves to go unlock the gun safe, grab a gun, load it and proceed to shoot spouse/kids seems pretty likely to grab a kitchen knife or baseball bat if they don't have a gun handy. The "sources" of the article I checked (not all of them) were interested only in "gun" violence, not violence in general and thus did not go into this at all - the assumption was once more that a chunk of iron somehow causes a homicidal rage to occur.
  
  Intruders: I find it to be highly likely that a break in into a home with a gun in it will be more likely to result in the killing of the homeowner. If they have time to get to the gun, they are still unlikely to be trained or mentally capable of shooting an intruder, while that intruder (we're assuming is armed with a gun) is more than willing to kill (or wouldn't be armed). The intruder is ready to shoot. He may not be trained, but is mentally prepared to kill, and that's going to make a world of difference.
  
  So what's the answer in this scenario? Required training with an emphasis on both accuracy and mental preparation to kill?
  reply report
  75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  guns don't make people suicidal and suicidal people are no more likely to own guns. suicide attempts by gun are the most likely to succeed and be carried out on impulse.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "...suicidal people are no more likely to own guns. suicide attempts by gun are the most likely to succeed..."
  
  While I tend to agree with both of these statements, can you provide any hard numbers to show they are correct?
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  See http://hubpages.com/politics/More-Guns- … art-4-2041
  
  BTW, that was my original title based on a presumption which my research found can't be substantiated with enough confidence to argue that the title is correct., so I changed it to something more correct.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Very well done! I would have appreciated the source of your data, along with a much more thorough explanation of exactly what you find to be "strong" and "weak" gun laws, but that's about it. You make a very good case that more guns = more suicides. You don't, and give contradictory statements to that effect, show that more guns = more homicides. I refer to "There is a weak correlation, at this point in time, between % Gun Ownership, Density of Guns, Density of People, and Political Leanings in a State with the Rate of Violent Crime, Homicide, and Robbery." and "The answer <does more guns = more deaths from violent crime/homicide> is, "apparently not!", at least not right now and based on additional analysis while preparing for this hub, it doesn't look like it is going to."
  
  But. (There is always a "but", isn't there? ). I'm not sure at all that extreme gun laws, affecting millions of people, is something we should be doing. From your data, the number of lives that could be saved is 200 lives per year, with the cost being severe restrictions on some 150 million people (50% gun ownership rate). We could reasonably expect additional lives to be saved from limiting accidents, but again it won't be a high number.
  
  Our constitution assumed people to be responsible for themselves. It was only when a second person was introduced into the equation that laws were necessary to limit actions of either one, and that was the norm for quite a long time. It is only over the past few decades that we have found the nanny state concept really taking hold, making society responsible for the actions of individuals against themselves.
  
  While I agree that we carry some responsibility to help save people from themselves, that responsibility is very limited. It does not include millions of dollars, it does not include millions of man hours other people must provide and it does not include severely curtailing the rights of millions of people to keep and bear arms as they choose. Only considerable threat from other people can justify that kind of cost.
  
  However, that is my opinion and you or anyone else is certainly free to disagree with it. It also means that the discussion has gone from saving lives to what we are willing to pay, in time, hassle, erosion of freedoms and money, for it.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the demographic data comes from gov't sources, the gun regulations comes from a study that looked at each state and what their laws were, then graded them.
  
  BTW, do you think South Carolina's gun laws are overburdensome? They rank in about the middle. On the six point scale I created from their results, SC ranks 3. LA ranks 1 (but not the worst, that would be Maine), and MA ranks 6. That scale is used in a pictorial analysis of all of this stuff, the actual rankings go from -6 to 74, I think.
  
  I will try to remember to post the link to some of the sources.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea what individual states have for gun laws, which is why I'd have liked to see some definition of what you consider strong/weak or good/bad. I recognize that every state will have both good and bad points, but still would have liked some idea of what put different states into different categories.
  
  Example: are there any 1's that do not do background checks? If not, then that's really important. Are there any 6's that allow large magazines? If not, then that doesn't really matter to you. That kind of thing.
  
  When I wrote my own hub I gave links to each bit of data and even copied it into the hub as well, giving the reader the raw data to play with if they wished. It's what I like to see, not trusting hardly anyone to do the analysis as nearly everyone has an axe to grind.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I also have to say it sounds like the reason for changing your title was as much a surprise to you as it was to me when I did the research. That total lack of correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates just didn't fit with my worldview or common sense.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it was, my going in assumption was that it there was a strong correlation between rate of homicide and rate of gun ownership. Instead, I found it is only a weak one, i.e. R-squareds less than 70 % and the data didn't warrant accepting a lower threshold.
  
  I also accepted the position that the rate of gun ownership was also positively correlated with violent crime (homicide, robbery, forcible rape (what other kind is there), and aggravated assault. In fact the relationship is near zero, but for an odd reason.
  
  Neither forcible rape nor aggravated assault are correlated with gun ownership, no surprise there. But unlike homicide which has a weak positive correlation (more guns, more homicides), robbery, on the other hand, has just about as strong correlation in the opposite direction (more guns, less robberies). They, of course, cancel each other out. Hence no relationship to the category of violent crime.
  
  BTW, I am not sure you meant what you said with "That total lack of correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates just didn't fit with my worldview or common sense." That sounds like a correlation between the two does fit your worldview, etc.
  
  I am sure you didn't mean it that way but let me go on to say that there is "total lack of correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates" just isn't true; not by a long shot. There is clearly some positive relationship, but there are other factors which outweigh the rate of gun ownership as an important factor. Nevertheless, it is a factor to some degree, just not a statistically significant one. Same thing for Robberies, just in the other direction.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Disagree that there is correlation between guns and homicide rates. Of course, we're using different sets of data; mine was from countries worldwide and yours was only from the US. It is quite possible that with limited sets in both cases (I only used first world countries, giving me about the same number of data points as you had) a very weak correlation that isn't actually there showed up with the small size, or vice versa.
  
  Not that it truly matters. We agree that taking guns cannot be shown to produce lower homicide rates, and we both took the time to actually collect and analyze the data to find out. We agree that other factors, known or unknown, grossly outweigh any small relationship between the two; a relationship that might or might not actually be there.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Switzerland is an excellent example: They have nearly the same ratio of gun ownership as the U.S. Different culture and mentality. Maybe better gun laws to restrict the worst from owning is what we need here. 0.77 Switzerland. VS. 2.97 USA Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop
  http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo … world-list
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The US is truly an anomaly in this matter; both far too many guns (twice the rate of Switzerland) and far too many homicides, either gun or other means.
  
  So it doesn't really mean much to compare anyone else to the US. Far more telling is comparing them all to each other. Then trash those with known reasons for high death rates (Mexico and Columbia's drug lords for instance, or the middle east with it's terrorism). What's left shows very plainly that there is no connection between gun ownership and homicide rates.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why should we follow along with the worst? We need to concentrate on the worst here. That being the 14% of the population that are responsible for 56% of the homicides.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ?? You totally lost me here - went right over my head. Explain further?
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You bring up the worst places in the world to compare the U.S. to. I say we should concentrate on the best with comparable gun ownership and how to fix our worst areas first. That would have more involvement with gun safety, uses, gun ranges etc. like the Swiss do.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ah. No, I meant NOT to compare to such as Mexico or Columbia. Or the US, either; to get an accurate picture compare other nations to other nations.
  
  But yes, figure out why the Swiss (or any of 50 others) are more civilized and see if we can incorporate that into our own culture. It obviously isn't guns, so what is it? Can we use it?
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We, the U.S. have different cultures, some that are more violent and worse than others. We need to fix that problem first. Start with the worse. If those cultures don't improve than there is little that can be done except take the guns from the worst in that culture. Then go to the next. Leave the law abiding citizen alone.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Easier said than done, either "fixing" what's wrong or taking guns from the lawless.
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If the gov. doesn't want to act then leave the rest of us to do it by getting rid of those gun free zones for one. Taking arms from the law abiding only gives the bad boys free range. Or a tyrannical gov. Or an invading force etc.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But the people want gun free zones. They've been brainwashed into thinking that those zones are safe; they they won't be bombed, stabbed or even shot there. Because, after all, the law abiding people that wouldn't hurt them anyway will leave their terrible, evil guns at home. That no one else will is not a subject to be discussed.
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Question, where does the highest probability of misuse of a gun occur, in a gun-free zone or a zone flooded with guns?
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Logic" would seem to indicate that a zone "flooded" with guns will have few murderers in it. They'll stay away (including terrorists) because of the higher probability of being killed themselves. After all, that "flood" of guns will be in the form of law abiding citizens - criminals already have their arms so any additional will be in the hands of people not looking to murder.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  To all you gun people in this forum. Let's take this from the top.
  
  Fact, the Supreme court has ruled that all people have the right to bear arms.
  
  Fact, the Supreme court has ruled that the part about the militia can be ignored
  
  My opinion, therefore, that implies that part of the 2nd amendment was written for another time and place, for colonial times, but the Supreme court can't say that.
  
  Fact, nobody is coming for your guns. It would violate the 2nd amendment.
  
  Fact, each state has gun control laws, some are more lenient than others.
  
  Fact, The federal government has gun control laws.
  
  Fact, many states do not want to recognize the federal gun laws and are in the process of repealing the federal laws
  
  Fact, there are loop holes that need to be closed, including purchases outside of gun shows, online purchases, and straw man purchases.
  
  Fact, those loop holes can be closed by fixing existing laws or adding new laws, not by changing the 2nd amendment.
  
  Fact, gun advocates in this forum don't want anything fixed that they believe violates their rights as law abiding citizens
  
  Fact, the NRA has a powerful lobby group that has impeded the ATF from doing its job by having congress passing the Tiahart Amemdment:
  
  It allows dealers to ignore police request for assistance
  It denies congress access to formerly access public prime gun data
  It ends the oversight of used firearms sales
  It requires the destruction of background check records within 24 hours of sale
  
  Fact, most mass shootings are committed by mentally deranged people who have the same right to bear arms as everybody else as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
  
  Fact, criminals have that same right as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment
  
  Fact, as long as the NRA and its lobby groups have powerful influence over congress, no laws will be passed to reduce deaths caused by the use of firearms.
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The ruling passed by one vote 5/4. All there has to be is one more judge no longer able to be a judge and
  the pres. appointing another gay, liberal. abortionist type and it is all over.
  I don't believe the vetting process is working.
  
  The individual states are where those who shouldn't have guns is decided. Not the Fed. As long as those people stay in that state. When they carry across then it is Fed. area.
  
  I don't agree that the militia part should be ignored. That is there to protect the people from an invader or tyrannical gov. State militias are now called that states national guard. Look up Ohio National Guard, for one example.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here is something that is very interesting about underground gun trafficking and how it works.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 … r&_r=2
  report
  83
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am not pro or con to guns, but I want the truth to triumph. No believes, no scriptures. FACTS. That is only possible by introducing numbers and to leave out the opinions and the emotions.
  
  This article in the NYT you posted mentions some numbers about 6,000 guns and about 1,000 guns. These figures are supported by a few maps with fat red arrows. These arrows would show us how large the problem of gun trafficking would be.
  
  There are about 300 million guns in the US. The amount of gun transports that this map presents is an infinitesimal 0.002% of the whole gun stock. That is near to ZERO.
  
  1) What is the point the author wanted to make with this article? (we don't know this for sure)
  2) What is the point you want to make by posting this article?
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Builereps:
  
  I guess you just looked at the pictures and didn't read the article and read this.
  
  "About 50,000 guns are found to be diverted to criminals across state lines every year, federal data shows, and many more are likely to cross state lines undetected."
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Fact, nobody is coming for your guns. It would violate the 2nd amendment."
  
  Fact, some lawmakers and many citizens ARE coming for your guns. Several cities have already passed laws to do just that (although most if not all are overthrown), so saying that no one wants to take guns is a very obvious fallacy.
  
  "Fact, as long as the NRA and its lobby groups have powerful influence over congress, no laws will be passed to reduce deaths caused by the use of firearms."
  
  This is true, but in a very roundabout way. The Fact is that no laws will be passed to reduce deaths caused by the use of firearms because there is no causal relationship between guns and homicides. Without such a relationship, even total confiscation of all privately owned guns in the nation will not reduce murders caused by guns because there ARE no deaths caused by guns.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness:
  
  "Fact, some lawmakers and many citizens ARE coming for your guns. Several cities have already passed laws to do just that (although most if not all are overthrown), so saying that no one wants to take guns is a very obvious fallacy."
  
  I said it is in violation of the 2nd amendment. There are no government agencies coming for your guns.
  
  "This is true, but in a very roundabout way. The Fact is that no laws will be passed to reduce deaths caused by the use of firearms because there is no causal relationship between guns and homicides. Without such a relationship, even total confiscation of all privately owned guns in the nation will not reduce murders caused by guns because there ARE no deaths caused by guns."
  
  What? There are no deaths caused by guns? No, they are caused by people using guns to kill other people...Give me a break. If that isn't homicide, what is it? Your semantic convolution doesn't compute. If I shoot you and kill you with a gun, what do you call it? Here is the definition of homicide: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
  "he was charged with homicide"
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here is an interesting video about using guns to thwart attackers.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good! You understand that the gun doesn't cause the murder. Now go one step further and accept that taking guns won't prevent murders, either - it didn't cause it and removing it won't prevent anything. That's what the numbers show, so continual cries that it will are completely worthless. Accept Fact for what it is and stop saying that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of homicides.
  
  As far as taking guns: did you know that my 40 year old 22 pistol is illegal in California? A High Standard semi-automatic model with a 12 shot clip, and California would demand it's surrender should I move there. So when you complain that no government agency will ever take guns, think again. California will also take any semiautomatic weapon with that scary, deadly barrel shroud. Or any shotgun that will hold 6 rounds or a detachable stock. They've got a pretty extensive list of banned weapons, all based on that it looks scary.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness:
  Are you planning to move to California soon? If you are I'm sure, the laws are such that you would not have to disclose your possession of those inanimate objects. It's only if you brandish them or god forbid, you actually make those inanimate objects animated by loading them and pulling the trigger, while all the time being in the presence of an officer of the law. You see your "scary" inanimate objects are safe, even in California, because they are not registered in any database that can track your inanimate objects. So therefore, nobody will come for them, unless you commit a crime that is worthy of confiscation, like homicide.
  
  Your argument about disconnecting the gun from the shooter is weak. Gun people have said that if guns are banned, everything from a A to Z should be banned as well. The only problem is that cars are inanimate objects as well until they are driven. Ever object is in animate until it is used for its intended purpose. It will just sit in a quiescent state.
  
  You see, you have all these inanimate objects. So let's say we remove three of them. How many do you have left that can be used for killing? That's why the statistics don't correlate. Assault weapons can be banned, but the homicide rate does not go down, because those same people can use the other weapons that they have that were not banned to perform the same killing. That's why reducing guns does not lower the number of homicides.
  report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  And whose logic is that? Archie Bunker became famous for his logic. Are you referring to Archie? Or perhaps Edith? A coward might reason that the terrorists could be thwarted by a well armed populace, but the facts speak otherwise. It is not uncommon for these people to blow themselves up, or to go into situations where they know they will never come out alive. The man who is not afraid of death, or who for various reasons has prepared himself to die, is a formidable weapon indeed. The threat of violence is no deterrent against such an individual. This has been proven over and over again, which reveals your conclusion to be nothing more than a heartwarming fiction; a reality only for the fearful, the selfish, and the misguided; those who are living in The Land of Oz, right next to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where all things are possible.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You're on the right track, but your "reasoning" could be much improved if it went just a bit farther.
  
  Yes, terrorists expect to die (mass murderers such as school shooters not so much). But they also want to finish their task before that death, and the more people they can take with them the better. So, given a heavily armed populace ("flooded with guns" was the terminology used), it seems quite likely that the terrorist will die prematurely, before (s)he would have were there not hundreds of guns surrounding him.
  
  So, not so "Archie Bunker" is it, if we only go to the conclusion rather than stop halfway and declare it doesn't make sense. Or does that concept tax your intellect too much?
  report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  No, not taxing at all. You have continued your fictional narrative with the good folks of Mayberry surrounding the terrorist (hundreds!) and then sending him to Allah before his time. Yes, it is very heartwarming and patriotic, but it bears no semblance to the real world. If everyone in the World Trade Center had been armed to the teeth, does anyone really believe there would have been a different outcome?
  
  What distinguishes terrorism from conventional warfare is the element of surprise; a hidden timetable; a hidden agenda only known to the terrorist. The terrorist is as elusive as the sociopath, or the second coming of Jesus. No man knoweth the day, nor the hour. The citizens of Mayberry will be dead before they can even take aim! All of the ammunition in the world cannot protect against such a thing. Having now gone to the "conclusion" you have been seeking, we can see that we have arrived at the same place: in the Land of Oz; right next to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where you can still hear Bill Cosby sing:
  
  "There's a little white horse you can ride of course
  You can jump so high you can touch the sky
  In the Big Rock Candy Mountains".
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Is that why Sheriffs of the old wild West attempted to keep guns out of town, because there the homicide rate was so low since everybody had guns??
  
  And why do you presume that everybody, not already a criminal, will use their guns safely? There are 33,000 gun deaths a year; 19,800 of them are suicides; 13,000 are murders. Of the 13,000, 3,800 were spouses, family, or friends That means 71% of all gun deaths were committed by people WHO WERE NOT criminals.
  
  So, let's try again since we are talking about communities primarily made up of non-criminals; which one is safer, one flooded with guns or one with no guns? Or is it possible, none of your community would be part of the 71% would shot someone for non-criminal reasons?
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I do agree gun-free zones don't "eliminate" bad things happening with guns, but logic dictates that it must "reduce" it; which is the goal, isn't it?.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it does. Just as "logic" dictates that taking guns from people will reduce the homicide rate.
  
  The only real difference here is that "logic" pretty plainly shows that the old adage of "take the guns and only criminals will have guns" is all too true: you will never take guns from people that desire to murder, leaving only murderers armed in a "gun free" zone. This is not conducive to reducing the death toll.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I missed the implied question of my worldview: like you (I think) I did the research fully expecting to find quite a strong correlation. The only real difference is that I did it before starting my hub, so didn't have the change the title!
  reply report
  75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … s/2572097/
  
  the comparative lethality of methods is deep in the article.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But the news article contains no data, just "conclusions" and opinions reported to be from someone else. While it does claim that the first statement, that suicidal people are more likely to own guns, is false, there is nothing in it to show that attempts by gun are more likely to succeed. Just a claim from someone that it so; again, no data, no analysis, no nothing but a bald claim without supporting evidence.
  reply report
  75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  google it yourself. it's available. guns are fatal about 70% of the time and pills are fatal about 3% of the time. my own clinical experience as a physician is consistent with these figures. lots of post-pill-takers in the ICU. lots of gun suicides in the morgue.
  reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Perhaps the "mentally ill" that need to be controlled are the political leaders of countries. That would be the starting point where I would begin.

In 1776 we taught the world that an invading army cannot defeat an armed indigenous population if they object to them. Such armies are always less than one percent of the indigenous population. They are destroyed by partisans with small arms, crude weapons and passion.

Small arms are very accurate and effective at wounding soldiers, the best objective in combat as it takes several people to care for a wounded soldier. The Redcoats tired of it, went home and came back in 1812 for another bite of the American apple.

Afghanistan is teaching us our own lesson and celebrating as a people seeking their own destiny. It is not ours; it is theirs.

In 1929, the Soviet Union forced gun control on their people. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were slaughtered by their own government; the very people sworn to protect them

In 1911, Turkey passed gun control confiscating all guns. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were slaughtered by the Turks.

Hitler's Germany imposed gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and minorities unable to defend themselves were exterminated by the Gestapo and SS.

China put gun control into law in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million disarmed political dissidents were murdered by their own government.

Guatemala passed strict gun control in 1964; by 1981, 100,000 disarmed Mayan Indians were murdered by their elected ruling class.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed brutally by their government.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated, politically naive people, gun free and defenseless, were rounded up and exterminated by the Cambodian government.

Defenseless people murdered in the 20th Century after “gun control:” is over 56 million; exterminated by their governments; people sworn to protect them; people to whom they paid taxes, were loyal to and obeyed their laws.

You will not see this in major media or hear of it from politicians in Congress, on television any major media. They prey on your ignorance.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property by keeping the elected ruling class honest. Gun-control laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens as well documented in the book, “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott using FBI statistics.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of the history. With guns, we are "citizens." Without guns, we are "subjects." The difference is profound.

Before WW II the Japanese high command decided not to invade America because Admiral Yamamoto, who had been educated in the United States, told them all Americans were armed and they would consume any invading Army.
* Is that true now? It is in one country, Sweden! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … witzerland

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJxhc60cdHw
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All of the countries you cited were ruled by dictators at that time. Do you think our country has ever been ruled by a dictator or will every be ruled by a dictator? Do you not believe the constitution protects everyone from that ever occurring. Stop living in colonial times and live in the now. Not your imagined world of defending yourself from tyranny, What do you think they are going tot do, go house to house to take away your weapons? Are you going to shoot them as they come for your weapons?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We are already ruled by a cooperation of 2 dictators. Called the "Republican Party" and the "Democratic Party". Between the two we find total control of the population of the US without regard to anything the people need or want.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I see that your research and information has been limited to what the main stream media wants you to believe. "The following sheriffs, state sheriff’s associations, and police chiefs have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unconstitutional gun control measures. We applaud these public servants for their courage and conviction. "
  http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
  
  My keyword search "sheriff i will not enforce obama gun confiscation".
  
  We have a tyrant in power right now who disregards the Constitution when he can get away with an over-reach of executive power. He does not enforce laws that are in place to protect the citizens of the US. Example: amnesty for criminal illegal aliens, and open borders. And, he wants gun control.
  
  Wake up darlin'!
  reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
Where is your assumption based upon that human nature cannot change? What do you in fact know about the human nature and how the world is actually run?

The fact is that everyone wants to be happy and beloved. That is the true human nature.
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Would you believe 10,000 years of recorded history. Try showing me how the human race acts any different in 8000 BCE than they do in 2015 CE People are just as violent, peaceful, happy, sad, crazy, sane, self-centered, altruistic, etc then as now.
  
  How do I know? I read and listen to lectures on history; it's pretty obvious really, even to the casual observer.
  
  BTW, if "The fact is that everyone wants to be happy and beloved. " were actually true, there would be no crime, now would there.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My view from many sources says that their is an improvement in doing right. And there is a separation going on between good and evil. Evil eventually loosing.
  To combat that evil we need to protect ourselves until such time as there is no more.
  reply report
2. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's the good side of human nature, but everybody has a bad side of human nature which includes greed, selfishness, and corruption.
  
  One of the main factors of the stock market crash in 1929 was that commercial banks and investment companies had commingled their assets. In 1933, the Glass-Stegal Act was passed that prevented that from happening. In 1992 bankers and big moneyed interest forced congress to repeal Glass Stegal. This opened the door for all kinds of exotic investment instruments, including subprime mortgages that were packaged into toxic assets, that were insured by credit default swaps. This allowed Goldman Sachs and others to to sell those toxic assets to their clients. They then bet against them knowing that they would go down the tubes. But they took out credit default swaps that insured them that they would get the money from those transactions. Not only is that unethical, but also greedy and corrupt. They knew they could get away with it, because their were no laws to prevent it from happening.
  
  Why am I telling you all of this? Because it is a prime example of human nature at work when laws and regulations are removed. Removal of Glass Stegal caused the financial crisis of 2008. Those banks and investment companies got away clean and yet the country went down the tubes.
  
  Maslov's hierarchy of needs states survival is one of the lower order needs that we have. I think that when gun people are fixated on protecting themselves from tyranny and their enemies, it appeals to their needs for survival. Others that don't see those threats as eminent, don't see guns as the primary need for survival.
  reply report
83
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
It is a simple fact that we are conditioned from birth on. This discussion is currently at a too low level to get to the core of the issue.

Both examples show that you both don't understand how our society is run behind the scenes. The example of the bankers show that you do not understand how the conditioned mind works. If you take away the 'pressure' at one side, the other side will show 'overshoot'. Meaning that if you take away laws around people who are used to function under certain rules, they will derail almost immediately.

Do you both understand this principle, or do I have to give an online course in the human psyche?
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Buildreps: Very good. You just said the same thing I did only you generalized it. I gave specific examples.
  reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
The Friday the thirteenth blood-sacrifices were required by Allah/Satan of his minions. Slavery was already a thriving industry in Africa long before Columbus was born and is still practiced there today. Slave traders did these people a major favor bringing them here. Not everybody who says he is a Jew is really a Jew, instead they are a brood of vipers(reptilians?).
reply report
65
Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago
In light of what is happening in France I believe the old saying: "Fight fire with fire" If those pukes are on our southern border or already in house we need the same as or more than they have. Waiting for the gov. may be too late. It seems to be working in Israel after their leader asked its citizens to carry.

I am back from a seven day ban for exercising the first amendment. Now they are trying to control our 2nd. I do believe we need to revamp the 2nd on a state level. Cracking down on where the problem is the worst. According to that lengthy article that problem being:
"African Americans make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, but in 2009 suffered almost 24% of all firearm deaths – and over 54% of all firearm homicides."
I don't care if they are white, green blue etc. Right now it is the blacks. After that it may be those hothead red headed Irish like me.

I am looking for another home for my blogs and comments since this one is too restrictive. Any suggestions?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
This entire thread is rather boring and bogus in it's seeming straight-forward that less guns somehow equals less terrors committed by the gun ! Paris France , kind of knocks ALL of the wind out of peoplepower's original argument .France and Belgium both have extensive gun controls , how has that helped other than to disarm the law abiding people of either country .

The left would simply have us believe that all gun violence would just go away with the elimination of the second amendment and THAT shares the equivalent mentality of Fairy Tales authors.
, of course if you cannot win an argument by substantive thought , reason or debate with truth ! Then DEMONIZE , that might work, after all , it sure is the way of the liberal idealist !
reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
Kenyan-born, Indonesian, gay, commie, son-of-a-porn-star, less than half-black, Moslem Obama the Antichrist once famously said "People shouldn't be allowed to own guns." Lying is Obama's native-tongue just like his father...the devil.
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think your comment will buy you?
  reply report
2. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  He was born in Hawaii. The supposedly Kenyan dad took the heat for Davis, who was married, and is the real father. The Kenyan and mom met in some college class in Hawaii. They got married when she was 3 months pregnant. He lied to her about him being married. She broke it off shortly there after. She took baby Obama with her to Indonesia where she had work. He went to school there for a while.
  
  The rest of what you said I will go along with. Adding: a lying to the infidels Muslim.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sgt Pepper and Doug Cutler: You know not of what you speak and are just regurgitating right wing propaganda.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is all on the internet. Do a search. Not born in Kenya. You are entitled to to your opinion. Why not do a DNA? What part of it is wrong?
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Somewhere on the Internet, I can find proof that the earth is flat or that martians are green or that nobody has landed on the moon yet, or the earth is only 10,000 years old, or the holocaust didn't happen, and so on and so on.
  
  On the Internet I can find 50% of the hard right sites spout the same nonsense about Obama as well as finding the other 50% of the right-wing sites and 100% of the independent and left-wing sites saying your theories about Obama are hogwash.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Then why don't you try and educate us if we are so wrong? Give some facts and sources. Of coarse I can say the same as you about the so called facts you find. Why all the cover up in the first place? Sounds like Mr O has something to hide. DNA his behind!
  
  As long as the terrorist have threatened us with attacks it is the citizens right to protect ourselves with the same type arms they use. Whatever that weapon turns out to be. I really don't expect someone to strap
  on a bomb and get close to a terrorist.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +1 as well.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thats not going happen, gun nuts are crazy. I guess next you all want to be able to buy an H-Bomb at your neighborhood Walmart? Most of the gun brandishing types are yellow cake at the core and I wouldn't trust them with a pea shooter.
  reply report
59
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
wilderness you are simply WRONG again ~ The GUN does the ACTUAL Killing, the Individual who commits the crime exhibits the INTENT to Kill, unless of course you reside in "Republican PRETEND Land" WAY out there in Ultra-Remote Rural areas where any "Fantasy" is possible ~ You've already made the Nonsensical Claim that if guns were regulated crimes could just as easily be committed with other utensils, apparatus, natural stone, or machinery like a Rock, or Rolling Pin, or Toaster Oven ~ If this is correct, why not carry an Electric Can-Opener instead of a GUN like WrenchBisquit Eluded to?

I understand the FACT that you and a few other republicans REFUSE to ACCEPT Scientifically Proven Mathematical Certainties, but the Fact is, if the number of GUNS are Reduced, the Number of Murders will indeed be Mitigated, Curtailed & Yes REDUCED ~ There's really nothing else a Rational individual can possibly say or do to convince you of this FACT ~

As it relates to the GREAT Diversified State of California, I'm not sure of the VIOLENT Nature of the Rural Region in which you reside, but I've lived here in a densely populated area of the Golden State for approximately 40 years and have yet to see a GUN, Hear a GUN, Witness a Crime Committed with a GUN, See a Terrorist, see a Criminal, see President Obama Roll Up on my Lawn in a Tank, Witness a Hoard of Individuals who were interested in taking ARMS Up against a Tyrannical Federal Government etc etc etc ~ Who knows, someday it might happen, but I'm much more concerned with a REAL Tangible threat to my EXISTENCE, and that's the Backward RADICAL Conservative Republican Agenda ~
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but a chunk of steel cannot kill anything at all, and you think it did then we need to be indicting it for a crime and putting it in jail. Only by a human being using it to kill with will a death occur, and then that steel did not do the killing. The human did. Nor does your pitiful attempt at ridicule produce anything but disgust - those of us that actually reason rather than spout nonsense are not taken in by such rhetoric.
  
  "REFUSE to ACCEPT Scientifically Proven Mathematical Certainties, but the Fact is, if the number of GUNS are Reduced, the Number of Murders will indeed be Mitigated, Curtailed & Yes REDUCED "
  
  Prove it then. Show real life experience where it is shown to be true. Not just your flawed "logic", mind you, but observed reductions in murder rates when guns are removed.
  
  Hooray for California, the land of the Socialist dream! It's great for people wanting or demanding a nanny state, a great political father to look after them, but the rest of us desire to live our own lives the way we want to without undue interference from some idiot politician.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
I ONCE SAW THIS HAPPEN , UNBELIEVABLE , ONE OF MY GUNS , NORMLLY LOCKED IN A GUN SAFE , PICKED THE LOCK FROM WITHIN THE ACTUAL GUN SAFE , LEFTTHE HOME DURING A BUSY PART OF MY DAY , UN-NOTICED .

HOURS LATER A POLICE CRUISER PULLED INTO MY DRIVE-WAY , A VERY NICE POLICE OFFICER RANG MY DOOR BELL AND BEGAN TO INFORM ME THAT MY GUN WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIME SPREE . IT SEEMS THAT A LIQUOR STORE , A GAS STATION AND A PORCH ROCKING GRANDMA WERE ALL ROBBED IN A FOUR HOUR PERIOD .

WHAT WAS I TO DO ? I LOCKED MY GUNS UP , I REGISTERED THEM , I CLEANED AND OILED THEM , AND YET ...................................THEY HAVE A MIND OF THIER OWN !
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, they were inanimate objects until the people who stole them used them for their intended purpose. Even if they were not fired, they were used to intimidate the people that the gun was pointed at so they could rob them.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What were they AFTER they were stolen and used? Animate objects?
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Every time the user uses them for their intended purpose, they go from an inanimate state to an animated state. When the user is finished with them, unloads them and stores them, they are in an inanimate state. If they are loaded carried and/or holstered, the user has them in a standby state, ready for their intended use to launch projectiles and/or to intimidate. When projectiles are fired, the user and the gun become one. Without the user, the gun is inanimate. Without the gun, the user cannot launch projectiles from said gun.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I see. And is there a heart beating inside this animated chunk of iron? And I am correct that if used for merely target shooting they remain dead?
  
  Are you sure you know the meaning of the word "animate"?
  
  an·i·mate
  VERB
  bring to life
  ADJECTIVE
  alive or having life (often as a contrast with inanimate)
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You and I both know a gun is not just a chunk of iron. It has moving parts that are designed to do just one thing load and launch projectiles in the direction pointed to by the operator. Metaphorically, up until then it sits lifeless as an inanimate object. Once the operator loads it and pulls the trigger, it goes from a lifeless state to an animated state as the hammer hits the firing pin and the explosive charge goes off that pushes the charge down the barrel to launch the projectile. At this point the operator and the gun have become one. The operator's volition then controls how the gun is to be used for good or for evil.
  
  We all know guns don't have hearts, but the operators do and they control whether they are using that tool for good or evil. Guns don't kill, but people with guns have the capability of killing. It is no more lifeless than starting an engine on a car. Once that is done the car comes to life and the driver and the car become one. Of course the driver can use the car for both good or evil. But that is not the primary purpose of the car.
  
  The primary purpose of gun is to launch a projectile in the direction pointed to by the operator. In that respect, it is no different than a rock, a catapult, or a guided missile. There primary purpose is to have an operator launch a projectile in given direction controlled by the operator.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, metaphorically it comes alive.
  
  A nice sentiment if you wish to assign evil to it as well, but it hasn't anything to do with reality. Not even the quaint idea that operator and machine "become one" has any connection there.
  
  About the only thing I can agree with is that the primary "purpose" of a gun is to launch a projectile. It isn't to kill food, it isn't to kill people - it is to launch a projectile. And the primary purpose of that projectile is defined by the one pulling the trigger. Not by the manufacturer, not by you; by the one pulling the trigger. Which in turn means that even the projectile isn't intrinsically evil, either.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, give me a break Wilderness. If a gun wasn't invented to kill people, and before that, animals for food, why does it even exist? Even your own arguments cry out that a gun is for killing other humans because your fundamental argument for possessing one is "self-defense" What is self-defense but killing, or trying to, another human being?
  
  PeoplePower is correct, once a gun is in the hand of a human, it takes on all the characteristics of that human, just as does any other part of their body. You will make, I am sure, the argument that this applies to automobiles as well ... and yes it does; But, the critical difference is, an automobile wasn't designed to end the life of another living being, be it animal, or its subset, humans.
  
  A car is designed for the purpose of getting from place to another. Can it be used for homicide or suicide, yes it can, but very rarely; That is not its purpose. A firearm, on the other hand is designed to kill, it is its raison d'etre. Can it be used for target practice or to admire in a gun case, of course it can, but that is not WHY it exists.
  
  Tell me this, why does one object, which IS NOT designed to be deadly, but can be, e.g., a car, have so many regulations on its design and manufacture as well as on the people who drive it in order to reduce the number of dead people resulting from its use; and another object which IS designed to be deadly, but sometimes isn't, you want to have no controls at all on its design, manufacture, and distribution as well as the people who operate it in order to reduce the number of dead people resulting from its use?
  
  Please don't tell me it is because there is a 2A right to own a gun and there in not a similar constitutional right to own a car; that simply doesn't pass the logic test. There is nothing in properly constructed gun control laws, such as the states of MA and SC have, that constitutionally infringes on your right to "bear arms" ... none at all; even Justice Scalia agrees with that view. Yet to have it your way, all those laws would be struck down and thousands of people a year who shouldn't be dead, end up that way.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What is the reason, the purpose, the of the rifles used in the Olympic biathlon? To kill people? I never mentioned the purpose of the first gun, as it is not any more germane or realistic than saying that the purpose of every gun is to kill people. That claim is left to the fear mongers trying to get rid of as many guns as possible.
  
  Next question is why you continually put words in my mouth, knowing that they don't belong there? I have consistently agreed that some gun laws are good - why the continual claim that I feel otherwise? Do you think I'm lying that some laws are reasonable?
  
  But to answer your question to at least some degree: additional laws, restrictions, hassles and increased costs of ownership might (might!) save some 211 lives per year according to your own research and conclusions. The same thing applied to cars is known to save thousands upon thousands of lives. Now why would you want to equate the two?
  
  Finally, I have yet to see you indicate what you think "reasonable" or "properly constructed" gun laws might be. Care to itemize here, preferably with a cost in both time and money? At least we could see what saving those 200 lives will cost us, and maybe decide to put that resource into better cars.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'll also say that a scan (not a thorough study) of SC laws showed nothing I couldn't go along with. More, I could actively support anything I found.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness:
  
  "A nice sentiment if you wish to assign evil to it as well, but it hasn't anything to do with reality. Not even the quaint idea that operator and machine "become one" has any connection there."
  
  A fighter plane provides a platform for launching projectiles. it is operated by the pilot who flies the plane and becomes one with it via the controls in the cockpit. Isn't that an operator machine connection? There is no difference in terms of its intent as a shooter with a gun, becoming one with the gun when he or she fires it.
  
  I agree with the last two sentences in your last paragraph. Therefore, it is the intent of the shooter that determines whether that gun is being used for good or evil at the moment the trigger is pulled. But in any case, it is not just a chunk of iron. It is a machine that is designed to be used in conjunction with a shooter to launch a projectile in a given direction. At that point, it is not an inanimate object, no more than a pilot launching a missile at an enemy aircraft is. It is man and machine working together for a specific objective.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  peoplepower73:
  
  Do you really not see any need for the average law abiding citizen to have a gun safely stashed away, used for recreational / sport / hunting reasons, or to protect or defend home, neighborhood, city, nation?
  
  I still do not know to what extent you wish to amend the amendment.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  For the nth time Kathryn, I don't want to and can't change the 2nd amendment. I want better laws to control the illegal trafficking of firearms and to keep them out of the hands of those that will use them for evil purposes as much as possible.
  
  My point is the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, good, bad, evil, or indifferent. Obviously, the system of laws to prevent that from happening do not work or there wouldn't be so many senseless killings today. I've proved that in one of my other posts. Go find it, if you don't believe me.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The 2nd gives the states the right to form militias and set gun laws. The Fed is almost out of the picture.
  Except not allowing the state to ban arms to the general public.
  Just stay in the state or transfer your arms in a way acceptable to the Fed and any state or country you are going through or to.
  
  This may all change if we get one more gay, abortionist, gun grabbing type judge.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Does that mean that all gay judges, or judges agreeing that abortion is not murder, want to "grab" guns? I confess that I fail to see the connection here...
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You can't prove it the other way until one is appointed, now can you? I, like Biscuits, am from a higher reasoning power and can see by logic and common senses and deduce these things.
  Do you want to take that chance? The then current congress did a pee poor job of vetting the last one.
  Not even close to what the founders had in mind for a moral judge! Only takes one more of these to change things worse than the past.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Obviously, the system of laws to prevent that from happening do not work or there wouldn't be so many senseless killings today. I've proved that in one of my other posts."
  
  If you have "proven" that taking guns, from anyone at all, will prevent killings I failed to see it (outside, of course, simply claiming that it is so; that "logic" prevails over experience).
  
  Can you repeat it here, showing proof that fewer guns will mean fewer killings? It always amazes me that people, looking at hard numbers that show it isn't so (you did look didn't you?) will continue to think they have "proven" that history is false by simply saying it is.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: Below in quotes is what I said. It is about illegal trafficking of guns. I did not say anything about reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of killings.
  
  "For the nth time Kathryn, I don't want to and can't change the 2nd amendment. I want better laws to control the illegal trafficking of firearms and to keep them out of the hands of those that will use them for evil purposes as much as possible.
  
  My point is the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, good, bad, evil, or indifferent. Obviously, the system of laws to prevent that from happening do not work or there wouldn't be so many senseless killings today. I've proved that in one of my other posts. Go find it, if you don't believe me."
  
  Here is the proof of my statement.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 … r&_r=2
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The link doesn't work.
  
  But are you really saying that the laws to prevent second amendment rights don't work or there wouldn't be so many killings?!
  
  "My point is the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, good, bad, evil, or indifferent. Obviously, the system of laws to prevent that from happening do not work or there wouldn't be so many senseless killings today."
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My point is: Again: It was left up to the individual states to sort out the details. If you read my recant posts
  you would see that. You libs are so wrapped in your own agendas that you see only your own narrow view. The 2nd is very general. Basically two ideas. 1. permission to form militias. 2. The state shall not infringe on the right of the general citizenry to keep and bear.
  report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What else????
  
  NOTHING ELSE.
  
  He is saying the laws don't work!
  period.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  When I say "Prevent This" I mean prevent trafficking. I should have bee clearer.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Try this link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 … r&_r=2
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Got it. Yeah, there are lots and lots of ways to get around registering a gun, passing (or bypassing) checks, etc. Not sure what that has to do with murder rates, though - any connection is still unproven.
  
  I really think you are simply assuming that if we can keep guns away from killers there will be no killings, and that simply isn't true.
  report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Less.
  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … lence.html
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  From the link:
  
  "Some argue that Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented in 1996. But in 2012 a study by Australian National University's Andrew Leigh and Wilfrid Laurier University's Christine Neill concluded that in the decade after the law was introduced, the firearm homicide rate dropped by 59 percent"
  
  Funny how the first sentence is ignored; very strange how the rate of decline in homicide rates before and after the great gun buy back never changed, yet no one ever mentions that! Just that homicides decreased by 59%; the exact same figure that would have been projected based on the decline before the buyback. Obviously, then, taking guns was the cause (as long as we ignore history before that date and desire to show that the money was well spent without caring that it is a lie).
  
  And if England's experience is "less clear cut" than Australia's, (and it is) that can only mean that the same lack of result was seen there as in Australia.
  report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You. I knew you could decode that article.
  report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Funny how you prefer spinning fiction instead of the truth.
  
  You commented, " Funny how the first sentence is ignored; very strange how the rate of decline in homicide rates before and after the great gun buy back never changed, yet no one ever mentions that! Just that homicides decreased by 59%; the exact same figure that would have been projected based on the decline before the buyback."
  
  What article were you reading? Not once did this article specify the "rate of decline". So what crystal ball told you that 59% would have been the same figure before the buy back?
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Fiction, eh? Check the second graph: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
  
  It's from the Australian government. They make a great crystal ball when looking backwards, at historical trends and what actually happened.
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And you don't spin???
  The "sole" purpose of the army giving out free bullets to kill the buffalo was to deprive the Indians food.
  
  The settlers "only" reason to move hear was to rape, kill and conquer.
  
  The Indians "owned" land and the settlers stole it. Land with an abandoned village and fields was shown to the settlers by an Indian. Indians didn't believe in land ownership at that time.Some still don't.
  
  Columbus set foot on U.S soil and his reason was to rape, kill and conquer. Not to find new trade routes to India and China.
  
  Just go back over your posts and tell us that you didn't make these false claims and many more.
  report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  These are your statements, and your misinterpretations. I cannot account for anyones's ability to read and comprehend. I said none of the things you have attributed to me. It is quite revealing that you feel a need to resort to slander. What I have spoken is simply a verifiable truth that is woven throughout the historical record. Apparently, like many Americans, you prefer a fictional account of American History.
  I will not address every fiction you have posted here, as it is beneath me. But I will address the question of ownership.
  
  Concerning land ownership: Real Estate and the European concept of "ownership"is a perversion of the natural order. We do not "own" the air. Yet, we have a God given right to breathe. We do not own the water. Yet, we have a God given right to drink the water. What kind of a criminal would demand tribute for such basic and fundamental necessities of life? Accordingly, the land is a basic and fundamental necessity. When we drink the water and breathe the air, we can in a sense, claim that we have "owned" what we have used for our survival. But that does not give us the right to deprive another man of what he also needs to survive, or to lay claim to more than we need, or to charge a price of admission.
  
  A man does not have to "own" something in order for that something to be stolen from him. If I should choke a man to death, then I have stolen from him the right to breathe. If I should deprive a man of water, then I have stolen from him the right to drink. If I should steal his land, then I have deprived him of his home. Not "his" because he "owns" it, but because he has the right to breathe, the right to drink, and the right to be there. This is a totally different concept than the European concept of exclusive ownership; a primitive concept that has redefined the Earth as "Real Estate", which has created the fiction that the land is a commodity; a heavenly creation that can be bought and sold. And so it should now be clear that although many Indigenous nations did not have the same concept of land ownership as the European , their lands were still stolen, since they had the right to be there; just as we have the right to breathe, and the right to drink the water. You have attempted to expose a contradiction where there is none. And in doing so you have only exposed the obvious, which I need not name.
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps , todays fake "indians ' should then pretend to assimilate , I say" fake " because for the most part no one is purely native , nor is anyone here today a even a "conqueror" ! How magical it must be to spout out the politically, correct spiel of something that happened a century ago . Do you also dress in buckskins and beads with your
  
  Guess what people , it happened and happens ALL OVER THE WORLD , Mongolia , South America , native peoples are , were ,forced , driven , weakened to a point of surrendering "their " land and cultures , How do I know this , I'm Irish .
  
  Reality check , you are today , not two hundred years ago , get real . Get into this life - I'm sure you don't mind flushing a toilet or diving a car , taking a subway or going to college . Stop pretending that the fight then , was yours !
  report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  First of all, I encourage anyone, regardless of race, to resist, and to renounce Colonialism. For the Indigenous, assimilation can only lead to genocide. For the European proletariat, assimilation into a capitalist oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, can only lead to perpetual servitude. Secondly, I am not an "Indian"; fake or otherwise. The term Indian is just another European fiction; along with the magical notions of borders, and Real Estate. Furthermore, my focus was not on what happened two centuries ago, but on the concept of ownership. I used the past as a reference, since the scholar who brought up the debate revealed a common misconception about ownership, and the theft of native lands.
  
  You peddle your "It Happens" logic whenever it is agreeable to your argument. I am well acquainted with the struggle of Ireland. I can only imagine the reaction you would get from Michael Collins, or any current member of the IRA with your "lay down, roll over, forget about it and die" logic. There have been many brave Irish men and women who have resisted the tyranny of English oppression since the 12th century. But there have been even more who have acquiesced; without a whimper or a shout. Your comment clearly reveals which side of that equation you are on.
  
  Last but not least, I can only chuckle at the hypocrisy of your sentiment. Aren't you the one who speaks reverently of your "founding fathers"? Aren't you the one who has a dollar bill in your pocket with the image of a dead man born in 1732? Aren't you the one who celebrates the 4th of July and Columbus Day. And are you not in agreement with Mount Rushmore, The Washington Monument, and the Statue of Liberty? From your commentary, I believe that you are in agreement with all I have mentioned. Consequently, I will paraphrase and re-direct your final paragraph:
  
  Dear thehorseback,
  Reality check , you are today , not two hundred years ago , get real . Do you also wear white whigs and knickers, and do you own African slaves? Get into this life - I'm sure you don't mind flushing a toilet or diving a car, taking a subway, or going to college. Stop pretending that the fight then, was yours, and that the Second Amendment can cure a malignant cancer that has now spread throughout the world.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: It's interesting that you honor a law that was ratified in 1791 for the use of muskets and on the other hand, you are saying that we shouldn't live in the past, but in modern times. You can't have it both ways.
  
  In my estimation, survival of the fittest is based on how well one can adapt to change. Conservatives, by their very nature have a difficult time adapting to change. That's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve the status quo at any cost..
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The states said whatever the current weapons of an invading force or a tyrannical gov. would use.
  That would not be just muskets as you say. The 2nd left that up to the state to decide.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: Who has taken your guns? And who do you think will take your guns?
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't recall saying that anyone had taken my guns. They have made it increasingly difficult to buy one, though, and to no avail; the death toll has continued unabated.
  
  But Gabrielle Giffords (D, house of representatives, retired) would if she could, and she is not alone.
  report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness. Here is the reason why she can't :
  
  On January 8, 2011, just a week into her third term, Giffords was a victim of an assassination attempt near Tucson, at a supermarket where she was meeting publicly with constituents. She was critically injured by a gunshot wound to the head; a total of thirteen people were injured and six others were killed in the shooting, among them federal judge John Roll. Giffords was later brought to a rehabilitation facility in Houston, Texas, where she recovered some of her ability to walk, speak, read and write.
  
  On January 22, 2012, Giffords announced her resignation from her congressional seat in order to concentrate on recovering from her wounds, but promised to return to public service in the future. She appeared on the floor of the House on January 25, 2012, where she formally submitted her resignation to a standing ovation and accolades from her colleagues and the leadership of the House
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I know that. She was shot, and therefore guns are evil and should be removed from society; everyone in the country that likes having a gun just lost the right in her mind.
  
  And I can even understand the emotional impact and the reason for her hatred. But that doesn't make it reasonable, it doesn't make her solution workable, and it doesn't mean that the rest of the country needs to bow to her fear of guns.
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, you sidestepped PeoplePower's point about your hypocrisy.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You lost me here. PP's prior post was to someone else, not me. Nor did he ever (that I can find) accuse me of hypocrisy.
  
  Are you getting confused with the sequence of posts in this particular mini-thread? Or reading something into a post that I either didn't see or wasn't there?
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know anything about me except what I say here. You ass-ume way too much. It is you that kept harping on your incorrect version of the past. I am just calling you out. And I don't know how much Irish I am. Also stated part indigenous and Dutch. Don't really care.
  It is you that started the slandering. If I even slandered that is. Just am not going to let you or others think their B.S. is alright or correct. Then they get the impression that they are right and lord it over those that
  let them or are too politically correct to respond and put you in your place.
  When I get banned again I will pull all my hubs out and find another site. The 1st amendment.
  report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  God gave Israel to the Jews to own. Abraham bought a plot to bury him and his family in. The same bible you quote Jesus from is full of references to land ownership. The Indians would murder other Indians and take over the land they didn't own. An Indian showed the settlers land they could use. No stealin involved.
  Go back over your comments. You will find those statements I spoke of.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, OK. I get that. But then the question of reducing "senseless killings" arises: are you claiming that gun trafficking causes or has an effect on the number of murders? If so, can you back that up or do we just assume that without guns killers will still kill?
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth (that would have worked better if you were Ahorseback, but you aren't) and that is ... "My point is the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, good, bad, evil, or indifferent." With that erroneous belief, I now understand what your baseline is.
  
  So, to help you mend your ways, Wilderness, the challenge is two-fold. First, you need to be convinced that there is "no right" which is inviolable, i.e. there are always exceptions, and second, that "bad and evil" people DO NOT have a right to bear arms.
  
  Since there are mountains of historical records (plus Scalia's own opinion in Keller) to back up the idea that rights are not inviolable, presenting it all. But, it would be much simpler. and less wordy, if you can present something, anything, that supports your belief that no "right" can be denied to anyone. I put it that way because, beyond your personal belief (and that is all we are talking about, a theory), "everybody has a right to bear arms" is mainstream thinking (or even a large minority view). My guess is, your view is limited to the small group of extreme gun rights advocates.
  
  Having said that, let me try some logic on you. The four main rights philosophers espouse is the right to life, liberty, health, and property; and the right to bear arms, according to you, is no less a right than these great four. So, let's consider liberty for a moment.
  
  To draw the parallel with your statement, I will substitute one right (and source) for the other to see if you agree it still makes sense. So let's change
  
  "My point is the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, good, bad, evil, or indifferent."
  
  To
  
  "My point is the Constitution gives everybody the right to liberty, good, bad, evil, or indifferent.
  
  So, what conclusion can you draw from that letter statement that is inline with your arguments. It would seem to me that would be even bad and evil people have a right to liberty and cannot be jailed, regardless of the reason. If that isn't what you think then how is one statement different from the other?
  report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  There are laws. We need to enforce them.
  
  Anything else you want to add?
  report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, what laws need to be enforced that aren't already? Such broad statements like "we have laws, they just need to be enforced" has absolutely zero meaning .Why, it simply makes a good bumper sticker.and in fact, is counterfactual because we do have laws and they are enforced all of the time, that is why America has the highest number of people incarcerated and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
  
  Now, if you are talking about gun laws, it is still counterfactual because states like LA, AZ, TX, etc have very few gun laws, but here you are right, they aren't enforced. Therefore, lots of people die needlessly from gunshot wounds.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my! Esoteric, you simply have to stop demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with your stance and above all stop putting words in their mouth.
  
  If you look carefully at the post you are quoting you will find quotation marks around the statement you are attributing to me. It isn't mine: I was quoting peoplepower! Here, let me give you just a handful of laws that "violate" the constitution, and that I fully agree with and support:
  
  One may not call "FIRE" in a crowded theater despite Free speech. One may not propose assassinating the president, either. Although possible to own, it is extremely difficult to (legally) buy and own an "assault weapon" (a true assault gun, not the pretend things liberals are giving the label to). One may not own bombs - most places even ban the tiny ones called "firecrackers". We deny basic freedom to criminals, locking them up behind bars in violation of "life liberty and pursuit of happiness". We even kill them!
  
  So you're right - none of the rights of the constitution are inviolable. While I did take exception to peoplepower's disgust at the failure of laws designed to cancel out the constitution, it is almost all directed at the idea that we have laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of "good" people that aren't working. That should not be done without extremely good reason, and hoping against hope that banning more guns will produce a different result than past efforts isn't enough.
  
  I stated in another post that I can agree with SC gun laws in general, the same laws you hold up to be "good". We seem to be basically on the same side here, with only details to be worked out. I'm not your (debate) enemy - I find (as you did) that draconian gun laws are ineffective. I just wish to tread a little more carefully when taking rights from people as I'm firm believer in the concept of "You have the right to swing your fist...right up to the tip of my nose". I find that too many people (and I'm not pointing a finger at you personally) have forgotten that idea - that they have decided that political expediency and popular opinion automatically makes it all right to deny rights to something individuals don't like or want themselves.
  report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
why would any one/group kill a bunch of people in any situation in any manner whatsoever? ?????WHY?????

What is the point of killing Totally Innocent People????
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Which comment was that in response to? I agree with the sentiment, not sure who you are directing it at.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  just emphasizing MOTIVE.
  
  Thou shalt not MURDER!
  
  Not respecting this moral law is the down-fall.
  
  Maybe we need to implement this commandment in society.
  or yeah, we do need to keep guns out of the hands of an unmoral society.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Considering that the majority of society is moral, follows the golden rule, whats the real problem?

The MINORITY???????
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Take away the guns of the responsible, the moral, the law abiding citizens for the sake of the viciously volatile, angry, mentally disheveled, pharmaceutically hopped up and/ or brainwashed FEW??

why do we not figure out how to help the mentally disheveled

and failing that
figure out how to protect ourselves from them?

It seems If there are really so many of these troubled individuals … then we would need guns more than ever.
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
And they may be flocking across the borders from Syria and who knows where.
Keep yer guns just in case.
reply report
59
Sportsblog657posted 9 years ago
Guns themselves are not the problem. The problem is the background checks aren't detailed enough, thus resulting in guns ending up in the wrong hands. If you noticed, shootings often occur in places where there are very strict gun laws. When you have location where it is almost impossible for law abiding citizens to get a permit, that's a green light for criminals. Criminals are going to get and use guns regardless of laws. They're criminals, so of course they don't care what the law says.
reply report
1. 80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  
  Bears repeating.
  reply report
2. 75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  it's easier for criminals to steal guns when there are lots of them around.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is why we need to do a better job of finding and jailing them. Not let them out like the O regime wants. Political correctness be damned!
  reply report
  59
  Sportsblog657posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  As long as there are strict laws, all it does is feed the black market. If someone drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame cars. We blame the person who drove it. Same applies here. We don't blame guns. We look at why the gun ended up in the wrong hands. I'm a firm believer in that guns currently are too easily accessible and that we need detailed background checks, but banning them isn't the answer either. And as long as the 2nd Amendment doesn't change, it's unconstitutional to ban someone from legally obtaining a permit simply to protect their home.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/cr … weapon.htm
  
  http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/to … ion-crimes
  
  http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/to … on-and-use
  
  "In some states, assault against a special victim like a police officer or elderly person carries more severe penalties or is subject to sentence enhancement, which permits the court to add extra time to the sentence for the underlying crime. In many states, there also are more severe penalties or sentencing enhancement provisions if the deadly weapon used in an assault or battery is a firearm. Finally, in some states, the penalties are even more severe for certain types of firearms such as automatic weapons, machine guns, or guns that shoot metal-resistant bullets."
  
  Maybe we should focus on the penalties. And hold judges very accountable for issuing legally appropriate sentences.
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Our Second Amendment, like our "natural-born" citizenship requirement to run for President will NEVER change. The Freemason-laden Supreme court can give out whatever misguided interpretations they want. The MAIN reason I own a firearm is to protect my God-given right to own it. "Keep & Bear" will always mean own and CARRY. I hate Big Brother Obama.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
"Must I undergo a federal background check to buy a gun or get a firearm carry permit?

Yes. Under a federal law called the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 (the Brady Act), a federally licensed firearms dealer must run a background check before selling you a weapon. This search examines your criminal history, including whether there is a record of your having ever been adjudicated as “mentally defective," which prohibits you from obtaining a firearm. (See Supreme Court: Straw Purchases of Guns are Illegal.)"

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/re … l-laws.htm

Maybe we need to find a way to crack down harder and be more responsible (and hold sellers more accountable) as far as background checks.
Maybe it should be illegal to sell them through the internet.
Is it possible to make ARMS/GUNS illegal to sell through the i n t e r n e t ? ? ?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Oh how little we know anything , in America , about the "other guy " !

I've been in this thread pretty much from the beginning , one of the feelings , thoughts , impressions that I get in this forum thread is , How Little That We ALL Understand the Other Guy ! Anti- gun advocates , anti- second amendment , anti- "assault weapons "people , whatever they , you , wish to be labeled as cannot begin to fathom the ideals , the interests , the simple heritage , the opinions of the other side .

And the same holds true for gun advocates !

What hard headed ,conservative truly understands the left ? And yet here we are and here we go too! Demonizing , dramatizing , drilling the articles of our beliefs into the posts to attack the other side
As if we were all at war somehow . Deny it all you want but it's true.

We have become , in America , a collective consciousness of nothing more than a "Face-Book " mentality , and I ask anyone of you this , Where was all this controversy BEFORE the internet ? Before the public forum ? Where was this controversy before , in the election cycles , other than minor bullet points of public discussions by candidates for some office ? To me , this thread has grown pretty boring ! I have grown tired of arguing what I believe as common sense points of discussion . When all at once "another country is heard from ". beginning a new cycle of he says , she says !

And my point ; no one here wants to hear anything of reason , we've ALL already made up our minds , no one here cares at all about what the other guy believes , no one here wants to hear solutions to a real problem , we simply want to wave our flags ! That's true for the gun advocate AND the same holds true for the anti-gun liberal ! I have seldom ever seen a conservative change his opinion , his outlook or his affiliations . Nor have I ever seen a' card carrying' liberal change theirs !

Have any of us in this thread changed our minds or our hearts ? I doubt it very much . Will we ? Probably Not! Does that solve even one part of the gun controversy here ? No! And why ? Because of who we are inside . Because of our very genetic make up . Because of the "opposing poles" of liberal and conservative thought , because we are either liberal or conservative to our very cores ! We're not born that way and yet I believe that we become who we are because of our raising for one , and our own experiences for two .

I for one am going to keep my guns , I'm not going to change my mind or my locks , if you will . Nor am I going to stand by and watch the left in America , by popular opinion , by activist legislative attrition , change the make up of America or of it's very constitution , our of our constitutional rights . The left in America will have to "fight on " , by influencing the children in our schools , as it has and does with just about everything . In the end , I will teach MY children to respect our constitutionally protected rights and heritage ,

And nothing changes !
reply report
1. 83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Great post Ahorseback!
  
  For your consideration for one of the fundamental differences between each belief system is when our side say things like "Some Americans", your side translates that to "All Americans".
  
  For my side, the word "Some" leads to one line of logic that supports laws to reduce the number of guns from falling into the wrong hands. While, on the other hand, the word "All" leads your side on a path of logic which leads to opposing any law to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them.
  
  Consider this also, if my side was actually using the word "All", then most of my side would be on your side.
  reply report
2. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: You are absolutely right (no pun intended). I read a book called "The righteous mind, why good people are divided by politics and religion" by Jonathan Haidt. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Virgina. Here is the introduction:
  
  His starting point is moral intuition, It's the nearly instantaneous perceptions we all have about other people and the things they do. These intuitions feel like self-evident truths, making us righteously certain that those that who see things differently are wrong.
  
  "He shows us how these intuitions differ across cultures, including the cultures of the political left and right. He blends his own research findings with those of anthropologists, historians, and other psychologist to draw a map of the moral domain, and he explains why conservatives can navigate that map mores skillfully than can liberals.
  
  He then examines, the origins of morality, overturning the view that evolution made us fundamentally selfish creatures. But rather than arguing that we are innately altruistic...he makes a more subtle claim - that we are fundamentally "groupish". It is our "groupishness" that leads to our greatest joys, our religious divisions and our political affiliations, He shows what each side is right about and why we need the insight of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to flourish as a nation."
  
  I know that with some of my conservative relatives and friends, when we start talking politics, I see their political views as being a threat to my well being and I'm sure they feel the same way about me. So therefore, we argue with sometimes very heated, vitriolic debates.
  
  It is the same thing in this forum; however since our words are not spoken, as in oral debates, they are written, it takes on more of a form of one side trying to educate the other side since our words, and thoughts are here for all to see and examine.
  
  I agree that one side is not going to convince the other side. I think both sides are hoping for a spark of understanding to catch on with the other side.
  reply report
59
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
Boy Doug, the 2cnd Amendment Actually says ALL that?? Maybe in Lonely, Remote "Republican PRETEND Land" it does, but NOT in the REAL World ~ ----> <----
reply report
1. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure does! Recently it said I can even ignore the part about a well maintained militia! By the highest court in the land. How about that! You libs are so wrapped in in your agendas that you are blind to what is happening. So now the one sentence idea you harp about is just the last part:
  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
  Notice I have capitalized "the". And de-capitolized "Arms". To be more in line with current grammar.
  I actually prefer both parts. But in two separate and distinct sentences for the illiterate.
  
  Have just came back from a 7 day ban for voicing my views and keeping freedom alive. I missed rebutting your rude and crude personal attacks. Have you ever been banned? Or is it OK because this appears to me to be a left wing leaning site. Please, anyone, educate me about this matter.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No it is not a left leaning site, those from the other side are free to participate. It is just that the evolved thinking usually comes from the left, unless of course you want to get Sgt Prepper a lot of authority in his statements.
  
  So, I experience the 'ban' from reactionary voices that would just as soon silence opposition than debate.
  reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
I realize our small arms will be as peashooters to obamanite jackbooted BATF and Homeland Security thugs but we must at least make the effort. The Obama-regime has ruined America already and will soon ruin the entire world. World War Three has long been in the plans of Skull&Bones, Freemasonry, Bilderbergs, the UN, Jesuits, and CFR per the big plan of General Albert Pike. They plan to make a New World Order out of chaos so first they must make chaos. Soon there will be a worldwide police-state and RFID-chip implantation for every human being on earth. The FEMA camps & guillotines are already set-up. Kenyan-born Obama is the "man of lawlessness" predicted in the Bible and Pope Francis is his False Prophet.
Get ready spiritually! Then get ready physically! I hate Big Brother. Maranatha!
reply report
1. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Obama not Kenyan born! Free sex loving mom got knocked up by Davis. Probably before the Kenyan and her met. They met in a college class in Hawaii. The Kenyan married her when she was 3 months pregnant. This had to be a big relief for Davis. I suspect a little pay off here. The hang up with the birth certificate was because it named Davis or maybe not known. So they came up with a doctored certificate thinking we would not investigate further. Still a crime has been committed and all involved should be jailed.
  
  You mention spiritual. That would also imply a one world gov. The difference would be the ruler would use the highest form of judgement.
  
  Until that time we need to be prepared and do what we can until those in the gov. come over and bring some of those more powerful weopans.
  
  The Germans used captured weapons frequently. Rommel loved all those American half tracks and other stuff he got from the Kasserine Pass, the French when taking France, the Brits at Dunkirk and many other areas. Patton's Army even had to knock out Shermans that the Germans repainted gray and with the iron cross insignia on them.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
If the laws are no longer being upheld by either state/fed judges or followed by us, the people, we have anarchy.
That should make wrenchBiscuit, for one, QUITE hopeful for the future!
and of course we will then have to destroy every single solitary gun / arm / weapon.
reply report
1. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Until one of those non law abiding thugs go to their illegal stash and use one on him. Then what will he do or think?
  I think many will keep and bear just for that reason.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It would be impossible to destroy every single solitary gun.
  But as peoplepower73 says, we need to crack down on the laws, judges and law breakers.
  He may be right.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That crackdown should start with the worse offenders. Those in the 14% that are responsible for 56% of all homicides. That though would be too politically incorrect for the present in charge. From both corrupt
  parties.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ~ sounds like a valid detail to isolate.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you elaborate about the 14 percent, who are they? I presume that each member of this 14 percent have a criminal record to justify restricting their not being allowed to purchase a weapon?
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I knew I would eventually hear from you. I read it from an article from an earlier post by, I do believe was a lib. The next worst group may very well be the hot headed Irish that I am part. Along with part Black Foot Indian and some Boer Dutch thrown in. Worst first no matter what the group!
  
  http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-st … tatistics/
  My bad, it was! only 54% not 56%
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OK, as long as we are dealing with individuals that are only focused upon because of their past records and not because they are a member of a group.
  Don't like profiling regardless of the direction from whence it comes.
  
  And, yes I am watching You, and getting at the substance of your comments beyond what is said on the surface. That is what I do.
  reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
Even our .44magnums & 30.06 will be as peashooters against the government forces we will face under the soon-coming martial-law. All we can really expect is to slow their onslaught in self-defense and defense of our families. Sadly a police-state of obamanite-thugs will even use our own family against us.
OPEN YOUR EYES, pull your head out of the sand and unplug your ears! The New World Order is already upon us. Jesus Christ provides our ONLY means of escape from the coming Great Tribulation under Antichrist Obama & his False prophet Pope Francis. Open your heart to Jesus before the Rapture! Those left behind will be as good as dead.
FYI - the Republicans & Democrats are completely in cahoots.
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sgt. Pepper: If there is going to be a new world order and the rapture is coming, why don't you volunteer to go to Mars. They will need people like you with a wild imagination and besides, you will be closer to Heaven.
  reply report
2. 0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sgt. Prepper- Jesus Christ doesn't provide a way Out of the Great Tribulation, He provides the only way through it. We're here for the duration, to be used by God to testify of Him during the GT; only at the end of the GT are we raptured.
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That means the tribulation has already started and the final three & a-half years will start just before Shotgun Joe takes over the presidency and appoints Hellary our very first female, commie, witch & lesbian VP. BHO will survive somehow to head the evil-UN as king-despot of the world.
  Our immediate concern is securing personal salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord by surrendering our hearts and minds to him, repent and be baptized. Then comes dealing with the Kenyan-born Antichrist Obama. I hate Big Brother Bathhouse Barry
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Does Jesus know that you have been brainwashed into defaming peoples character?
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What are you talking about? I didn't mention Biden got 12(twelve) student draft-deferments before he was suddenly diagnosed with asthma or that Pope Francis was a child-trafficker and, like Pope Benedict, is a member of the Luciferian Ninth Circle. I never even mentioned how Mrs. Clinton was brought, by congressional pimp Robert Byrd, a child sex-slave named Cathy to munch carpets with in our White House while her husband looked on. I totally left out the part about little Barry Soetoro having a pet monkey and a tranny for a nanny called "Evie". The Fulbright Scholarship for Foreign Students BHO applied for, etc.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The only part I disagree with is he wasn't Kenyan born. Don't you read posts? Do a web search on his tramp mom using her real name.
  reply report
  68
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Could you please enlighten us, and explain why Obama's mother is a tramp. I would love to hear your explanation.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Promiscuousness. She got knocked up by married man Davis. Not that I really mind. Call me a hypocrite if you like. I just feel that there are those here that would call her the same.
  
  What I really don't like is the lies the regime made up to cover up Mr O's birth facts and tried to make it look acceptable by naming the Kenyan the dad. They got married when she was 3 months pregnant. They should all be tried for the lies. Not Kenyan born and not Kenyan sperm. Unless Davis was Kenyan too.
  Do a DNA on his a**. What is he hiding? We know! Will maybe not you because you didn't come up with it.
  reply report
59
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
peoplepower73 ~ Asking wilderness or any other republican for "Proof" of his/their claims is like asking a republican for "Evidence" that a Ground war in Syria will work to "Stabilize" the world, Unfortunately it just dosen't EXIST ~ FACTs & Science are in Direct Conflict with "Republican PRETEND Land" ~

Trying to convince republicans of Simple Mathematical Certainties like Reducing the Number of Guns in Circulation will Reduce the Number of Gun Fatalities is simply an "UNACCEPTABLE Reality" for Conservatives ~
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Still harping, pretending that only guns can kill are we?
  
  One must wonder why? What is the twisted reasoning behind trying to convince people that if they give up their guns no one can ever hurt them?
  
  Of course, one must also wonder why you would present such an outright lie, for I have consistently stated that reducing guns will reduce homicides by gun. I have, over and over and over, stated that that is a no brainer; that it is shown by both common sense and analysis of historical data.
  
  On the other hand, the overall homicide rate does nothing when guns are taken, and this is seen throughout the world. Try (try hard) to get your facts straight, AP - it says so much for your honesty and integrity when you attribute comments to people that they never made.
  
  As far as offering proof - I have done so multiple times. You have consistently refuses to even look at it, preferring ignorance to hard, cold facts.
  reply report
  59
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness ~ On a NATIONAL Level in the United States, you've proven nothing ~ I have Mathematics on my side, not speculation as to what would happen if the number of GUNs were Reduced here in America ~ If you REDUCE the Number of Celestial Bodies in the Universe, The ODDS of Finding Life elsewhere DECLINE ~
  
  The logical conclusion still remains ~ If a person can be "Whacked" with other apparatus as you claim, why not keep a Coffee Pot instead of a GUN? The answer?, and YES, sometimes I answer my own Questions ....Because a GUN is an Efficient Weapon Specifically DESIGNED to Kill ~ I thought we had already GONE Past this "ANYTHING can Kill" NONSENSE ~
  
  Let's Tackle the GUN Issue, then we'll discuss how to limit "Coffee Pot Violence" ~
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  A gun can save lives by killing those that strap on bombs before they get into a crowd. Far less will be killed. On the other hand no guns, the bomber does their deed and death rates sky rocket.Do the math on that. Or they use their other favorite on your neck.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  AP-From what I've seen here, everyone on board agrees that reducing the number of guns available would, eventually, reduce the number of deaths by gun. And yes, I don't think anyone here would disagree that guns are an effective and efficient way to kill people, far more so than coffee pots. Still, the point has been made, repeatedly, that when we take one weapon away, people who are intent on killing will use other means to kill. This is basic logic - even I understand it.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Still can't show that reducing gun ownership reduces the death toll, eh? Despite all the rationalization and false "logic" it just doesn't match with real life, does it?
  
  Oh well - that's not necessary when the goal is to remove guns rather than save lives. More power to you in your quest.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What do you expect from those that stay cooped up in a city and don't know how the rest live. Just one big solar flare or atmospheric device and their screwed. By by electronics.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  (PeoplePower, if you might, replace Republican with Conservative, or GOP. I am a Republican, of the progressive stripe, at heart but definitely not Conservative. Until Conservatives drove true republicans out of the Party, I used to belong to the Republican Party, and would again when the reactionaries release their hold)
  
  The issue is people of Wilderness' mindset cannot get beyond the untruth that you and me and those who think like us are trying to "convince people that if they give up their guns no one can ever hurt them?" Clearly, you have never said that; and just as clearly I have never said that. It is simply a figment of Wilderness' imagination in order to justify the immorality of letting people die needlessly due to gunshot wounds by doing one of the simplest things in the world to prevent it ... universal background checks.
  
  By continually saying the untruth "Still harping, pretending that [b]only{/b] guns can kill are we?", demonstrates Wilderness' inability to understand the English language since "none of us" have ever uttered such words. Logic says Wilderness is making it up out of whole cloth.
  
  Obviously, Wilderness must fabricate such an untruth in order to follow up with this lie "Of course, one must also wonder why you would present such an outright lie, ..." which is, of course, a lie in the saying.
  
  Further, even though Wilderness has often said "for I have consistently stated that reducing guns will reduce homicides by gun ..." has just as often been wrong in phrasing it. The proper statement would have been "for I have consistently stated that reducing [the rate of] guns [ownership] will reduce [the rate of] homicides by gun." Why, is the original wrong (or maybe right) is because by dealing in raw numbers, you can't reliably draw such a conclusion. It may look true, but until you work with rates, you can't tell if it is true as it pertains to the real question.
  
  And finally, when Wilderness posits " the overall homicide rate does nothing when guns are taken, and this is seen throughout the world. Try (try hard) to get your facts straight, AP - ", it becomes a useless statement because, in America, guns have never been taken away. And in Europe, in the time period where reliable and comparable data exists; they already had an extremely low ownership rate (although they weren't "taken" away either).
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness and My Esoteric: Wilderness, in his zeal to prove everybody wrong, left out some very important parts of the fact check link. The ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 was on weapons defined by that law in 1994. The ban only applied to new purchases of assault weapons. It did not ban those who already possessed said weapons. Further, as high capacity magazines for those weapons that were not defined came online, they were not banned as well. Therefore, the data only applied to new purchases and left out the grandfathered in assault weapons. Why? because nobodies weapons were confiscated. Therefore, the crime rate was not reduced because high capacity magazines were made available for handguns like the Glock that was used in Gabby Gifford's shooting. And criminals who already owned assault weapons were free to use them with the now available high capacity magazines.
  
  There are four points here. (1) nobodies guns were every confiscated; (2) If a criminal has an arsenal of different weapons and only one type is taken away, that person is free to use the other types to commit the same crime that was going to be used by the one that was removed; (3) the NRA played a huge part in making sure that the "Sunset Provision" was part of the law. That's why it expired in 2004.
  
  Conclusion: There has never been a law in this country that will remove everybody's guns and there never will be, because it will require a total police state and the 2nd amendment prevents that from happening. The constitution that we all love and cherish will not allow that to happen.
  
  Banning one type of weapon will not reduce the crime rate as others are always available that can do the same job as well. Homicides rates cannot be directly correlated to killings by only guns. as homicide rates include murders by knives, forks, and spoons. If the rate by guns is reduced and the rate by other types of murders is increased, it proves nothing. If they are equal, it is zero sum game.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You're the one that gave that link as evidence that lower rates of gun ownership produces lower homicide rates. If you don't like having it examined (and torn apart as necessary) don't give such silly links as evidence of anything. Or at least read them thoroughly so that you know what they actually say!
  
  "If the rate by guns is reduced and the rate by other types of murders is increased, it proves nothing. If they are equal, it is zero sum game."
  
  Nice to see this, though - it's what I've been saying from day one. Taking guns (reducing ownership, banning "assault weapons", making it harder to buy guns, whatever) doesn't change a thing because other tools are used. It is a zero sum game. (You might want to explain this to AP as he hasn't figured out the arithmetic yet).
  
  So tell why you want to limit gun ownership again?
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: You didn't tear it apart, you cherry picked it. I proved to you what you left out. I don't want to limit gun ownership. I want to close the loop; holes for illegal possession of firearms and trafficking.
  
  I have realized there is also a conundrum in this whole 2nd amendment right. The federal government makes gun control laws, However, because of the 2nd amendment, states do not have to comply and either tighten or loosen their own laws. With this situation, there will never be a uniform set of laws that reach clear across all 50 states. As a result, the states that are lenient are the ones where it is easier to perform gun trafficking. The NRA enters into the picture as well, because they are always trying to loosen gun control laws. It is big business for them, gun manufactures, and congress.
  
  Now that we have the threat of terrorism looming in our midst, 31 states are fearful that because of their lax gun laws, that refugees will have easy access to guns. This is one of the reasons that federal government laws are necessary, because they provide uniformity across all the states of this great nation, not the mishmash of laws that each state has. I believe in states rights, but I also believe in the federal government to provide uniformity of laws. That's why we have the FAA, FCC, ATF, CDC, et al.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is up to the states to determine gun laws in a state where the person resides. The Feds. area is cross state and country lines. Cry to each state individually. Start with the common link between mass murders.
  That being the drugs. legal and illegal.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's right - I very clearly cherry picked the very statements that you didn't want to be seen. Those that were extremely clear that the law had zero effect on either gun homicide rates or homicide rates in general. You said it did, holding that link out as evidence your statement was correct: the link refuted everything you claimed. The only holdout was Feinstein; much like asking the NRA if we should confiscate ALL guns, her words are absolutely worthless.
  
  But lets look at your own statements:
  "I don't want to limit gun ownership."
  "I want to close the loop; holes for illegal possession of firearms and trafficking."
  
  What you are actually saying, then, is that you want to limit gun ownership by closing loopholes for illegal possession. All while saying you don't want to limit ownership. The two are completely incompatible as they stand, whether I agree with either one or not. Either you want to limit ownership or you don't; you can't have it both ways.
  
  As I fully agree with you that ownership should be limited, the only question is "How much" and "What will it cost?". But when you like the idea of redefining "assault weapon" to include simple hunting guns, and when you don't care what it will cost (gun owners) you've left me by the wayside. It then becomes apparent that not only your plans will do nothing for anyone, but also that you don't care. You just want guns gone!
  
  At least Esoteric is honest to admit that his wishes, costing tens of millions of dollars and untold millions of man hours, will benefit only a tiny handful of suicides - your wants have been show to accomplish exactly nothing, but you complain when the very people you chose to describe the results say the same thing, whining that I "cherry picked" their conclusions from your link!
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but no star. Now it's you that is trying to claim that if they don't die by gunshot they won't die at all, in spite of knowing quite well that there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. Try again.
  
  You're right - you never said those words. But what other conclusion is possible when you both want to reduce gun ownership rates to save lives? The only possibility is that you think it will save lives because no other tool will be used!
  
  You of all people should know (you did the research, after all) that removing guns from our society will not reduce the homicide rate. You even said so in your hub: "There is no statistically significant correlation" or words to that affect. When you still propose that taking guns will reduce homicide rates, it becomes a lie, then.
  
  Yes, you're correct, and I used sloppy terminology. It is the rate in both cases.
  
  But in any case. Both of you know and understand (particularly you, Esoteric) that lower gun ownership rates do nothing for homicide rates. You want to talk about saving a couple of hundred people from suiciding, PeoplePower wants to talk about how people won't die from gunshot wounds if we can only prevent people from having guns, as if dead people care about the tool used to murder them.
  
  So I give. Neither one of you is interested in truth or facts - neither one is interested in actually reducing the murder rate in our country. Only in getting guns out of the hands of citizens, while loudly proclaiming that "No one wants your guns!" - something that does not interest me at all. May we meet again on a different topic.
  
  And therefore we should violate the 2nd amendment to see if "taking them away" will yield different results than Australia or Britain had? I don't think so.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
AS to the whole gun controversy ;

Should terrorism arrive here , Most liberals that I've known here , would be found cowering beneath the barns, garages , gun ranges , and gun shows , Begging anyone for an" assault weapon" .

When it does arrive here , don't look for the military or the police to seriously protect you , they are very good at picking up the evidence , cataloging the files and making a show of non-existent authority .

The president of the united States has made it clear where his loyalties lay .

Most forum dwelling liberals are nothing more than attention grabbing shock jocks ,I mean , just read the posts , it's so obvious .

And recent deliberate tests by NBC , show a ninety seven percent success rate of carrying weapons onto airlines

My advice , at least loosen up on the naiveté and be vigilant .
reply report
59
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
Hxprof ~ I'm not so sure Everyone on board "AGREES" with the Mathematical Certainty of Reducing Guns ~ But here we go anyway ~

Very FEW other Easily Attainable Instruments, Utensils, and or Apparatus are as EFFICIENT at Killing, especially from Long Distances, nor are they Efficient at Mass Killings, and that's the overriding point ~

Once we Accept this FACT, we then understand the logic that forcing an individual to use a different or alternative Instrument other than a Gun to commit a crime, would be an INHERENT Deterrent, thereby REDUCING Violent Deaths ~

And YES, I understand the "Bomb" theory, however, explosives are not EASILY Attainable, EASILY Assembled, nor Very RELIABLE, which once again, would be an Inherent Deterrent ~ Many individuals have met their proverbial makers Attempting to "Slap" together a Bomb ~
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, yes. We've seen your flawed "logic" over and over.
  
  Now prove it with real world experience. Go beyond your faux reasoning and produce real world historical numbers that show you're right.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe explosives are not that readily obtainable for the average American. What about sleeper cells.
  I would rather shoot a strapped on bomb than try to disarm it.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You mean like fertilizer from Home Depot and a little diesel from the nearest gas station?
  
  You may have a hard time getting C-5, but enough explosive to kill a dozen or so people isn't hard at all.
  reply report
65
Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago
Round and round we go! Where we stop....Will some know!
It is what others and I said as the most likely cause way early in this hub.
Drugs and mass killings
http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_ … sants.html
Again: Drugs and mass killings
http://www.westernjournalism.com/mass-m … n-control/

There is also a strong link to not getting enough as a factor. The left, libs, progressives, every one gets a medal, you are special, namby pambys, moma's boys, drug administrating education system has ruined much of the youth with their politically correct, agenda 21, common core, greedy, no accountability polices. This list can go on and on.

Want the fast track to less mass murders and other homicides? Start here and in the other high homicide ares. Leave the rest of us alone!
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Peoplepower should actually run for office , he's good at talking out of both sides of his mouth . He wouldn't limit the constitutional rights but he would eliminate guns ! He isn't for more laws but he's for more laws ? Are you starting to get the picture yet of liberal hypocrisy , Yes means no , no means yes but never is just once in a while !
reply report
1. 82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: I did not say eliminate guns. I said have or fix laws that would close the loop holes for those people who are not law abiding.
  
  I get it all you law abiding, gun loving people are afraid they are coming for your guns, because there are some bad guys out there that shouldn't have guns. But why should you suffer because of the bad guys, because you are good guys and don't break the law.
  
  As I said before, they are not coming for your guns because of the 2nd amendment and the constitution will not allow that to happen. Now, am I for or against the constitution?
  
  I believe the constitution will protect you. Obviously you and many other people like you do not believe that or you wouldn't be so obsessed about them coming for your guns, because you are the good guys. I have three guns and I don't worry one iota about them coming after my guns. I do have a concern about good people being shot by bad people though.
  
  Please tell me in my last post where i said I want to eliminate guns. I know you are an excellent writer when it comes to using acerbic language, but I think you are leaning more towards propaganda pieces, by trying to impugn the character of those who do not agree with you.
  reply report
  82
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This is for everybody's dining and dancing pleasure:
  
  http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/nra_fai … _10_years/
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest you attempt write your congressman and suggesting a re-alignment with actual prosecution of---- EXISTING GUN LAW[S}, ..........thereby keeping the idiots off the streets who re-commit gun crimes . After all , these days , The recidivist criminal is outnumbering the law abiding citizen !
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I ask again ... WHAT existing gun laws? In states like Louisiana, they have just a couple of weak ones and don't even follow what federal laws there are. If all states had laws like MA, then less people would be dead.
  reply report
  83
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  BTW, what are the reasons behind recidivism besides just being naturally bad? I bet even you are a recidivist if you ever got a speeding ticket.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Recidivism (/rɨˈsɪdɨvɪzəm/; from recidive and ism, from Latin recidīvus "recurring", from re- "back" and cedō "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they had either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or had been trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense.[1]
  
  English lit.social studies etc, is not my strong points. Also, probably not for many others here.
  
  It appears that the bad are gaining. Getting like Germany 1930's 40's. Just looking out the window gets you shot or taken away by the gov.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well exactly then , so do we punish then , the LAW abiding citizen for the acts of an uncaring criminal ? No.
  
  And there is a huge difference between a chronic speeder and a murderer , But then That is the logic of the left . IF A speeding car runs down a child then all cars should be banned ! Ohh yea , that makes all the sense in the world !
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  PLUS ONE!
  reply report
60
Sgt Prepperposted 9 years ago
To follow Jesus all you have to do is believe and confess He is the Son of God, repent and be baptized.
He rested on the Sabbath(Saturday) and said things like "You must be born again.", " The poor will ALWAYS be with you and you can give to them whenever YOU want" & my favorite "When a strong man, well-armed, keeps his palace his goods are in peace."
He also told us to "watch" and be ready! Most importantly for today's world Jesus said "I saw Satan fall like lightning from on high." BARAK means lightning and BAMAH means on high - any questions?
reply report
1. 75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  a rich man asked christ how he could enter the kingdom of heaven. christ told the man to sell all he had and give it to the poor.
  
  christ never said the thing about a well-armed man.
  
  you pick and choose your verses poorly.
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Try Luke 11:21!
  And why do you people strain at a gnat about the rich young man yet swallow the camel that BHO is somehow legally in office? Technically Bathhouse Barry couldn't be elected Dogcatcher.
  reply report
2. 75
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  and this from james: if a brother or sister is ill-clad and hungry, and if one of you says to him, "go in peace, be warm and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what doth that profit? for faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead. so, the apostles didn't think much of your selfish "faith" or belief.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If everyone sold and gave away, every one would still have what others gave them and on and on.
  I believe that statement applies to those who have overcame after many lifetimes and not to the general population.
  Jesus knew who those people were and it was up to them to do so. I also believe the human/spirit to eventually be equal to Jesus. Biscuits is correct. The corrupt bishops and Constantine banned reincarnation and karma. Burning books and killing Christians that did. Nicene Councils 325AD and other.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And what is your point in claiming that wB is correct?
  You are usually on a good track, in my mind, but here you slip off it.
  
  Christianity teaches us the way to tune into Self. What was cut off / out does not detract from the basic message.
  
  The basic message is love God with body, heart, mind and soul.
  Period.
  
  What was cut out does not teach us to deny our human-ess!
  Reality, guys.
  
  lets tend to reality.
  not pretend to illusion.
  
  Guns are good when used properly for appropriate reasons and not abused/ misused in violent rages.
  Love is good in relation to self, loved ones, home and nation and not abused and misunderstood in selfish expectation.
  Freedom of speech is good when used to communicate the truth and joy of life and not abused through lies, slander and misinformation.
  Freedom of life is good within appropriate boundaries of the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments and not doing as one likes willy-nilly according to subjective sensitivities alone.
  
  The Way I See It
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn , I think THIS is one of the best posts on Hubpages ! Kudo's
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The part he was correct in is the corruptness of the early Church. "The perversion of Christianity began in earnest with Constantine the Great" That was the Nicene Council in 325. The corrupt bishops sided with Constantine and his power hungry wife. They changed scripture and burned what they didn't like in an attempt to please Constantine and bring an end to the varying views and divisions in the areas of Roman influence.
  
  The other part about giving everything up and following Jesus is for a few as I explained. Did Biscuits give up his computer and is borrowing one? Does he own any musical instruments? I don't know?
  
  The rest of us will still keep and carry. until we overcome too.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you can explain what "overcome" means.
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The progression of the soul or spirit. The part that lives on after death of the temporary body. It may take many reincarnations to get to the point Jesus and a few others were at. Jesus was likely already at the point where he did not have to reincarnate. He chose to, to teach us and speed up the process. Or perhaps God's patients was near the end and Jesus saved us?
  
  God did not want us to be mere Lemmings. Gave us free will. We have to learn and overcome our wrong actions and thinking. This takes a lot longer to overcome for some.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How does Jesus help toward a calm mind?
  reply report
  65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on what your view of Jesus is. I believe he is a highly advanced entity that incarnated to show the way. Each of us are a spirit of God that is on a learning journey. Jesus spoke of the comforter coming after him. Perhaps your guardian angel(s). Ask in prayer.
  Deep breathing exercise, prayer, dreams, visions. No drugs Patients and practice. Boring at times.
  
  I have a hub on reincarnation and karma here on hubpages. Perhaps a better place for this type discussion. http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy … tion_karma start a conversation there
  reply report
60
ArnabDTposted 9 years ago
Not entirely correct sir. The ford motors, microsoft and many big companies came from US. They made their nation proud..
reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Let's dance to "The Gun Control Song"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjpdT2SmbRU

reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

I'm gonna go buy another gun !
reply report
1. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nice, A good revolver is said to be the most reliable multi shot self defense device. For a woman or elderly it should be low cal. for better control. Perhaps 22LR or similar. ex: Hinterland 5 shot
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All this gun controversy , actually I am a single action revolver fan . A black powder enthusiast , and a single shot Sharps * rifleman . I love the romance of guns and the idiocy of forums !
  reply report
  60
  Sgt Prepperposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Even a dbl barrel derringer can save your life. It did mine one Saturday night when I was jumped by three hoodlums with clubs. The sight of me aiming it at them caused them to lower the table-legs and flee. They were mere boys in their mid-teens and I'm glad I didn't fire at them. I didn't bother to call the police either.
  reply report
75
cathylynn99posted 9 years ago
seems that guns in the home make someone more (crooks want your guns), not less, likely to be burglarized. http://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/gun-fre … -invasion/
reply report
1. 65
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Don't show and tell! I let people guess. Wouldn't want them to think I don't have a weapon then I would be a target for easy pickins. Also don't want those looking for guns to know I definitely have guns.
  Don't drive in an auto than. Highest cause in the 4rth group on the list of 10 leasing causes of death.
  Suicides is 10 among the top 10. Suicides with a gun is a lot higher than homicides with a gun.
  Bottom line. Don't even get close to an automobile. Much greater chance of death than any gun deaths.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 … 11 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The outdated 2nd amendment.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The outdated 2nd amendment.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies