The MASM Forum
General => The Colosseum => Topic started by: Bill Cravener on July 21, 2012, 04:50:43 AM
-
What’s needed in this country is less regulation on gun ownership, that way your kids can carry and when one of these nuts show up out of nowhere your kids can shoot back. Yeah, that’s what we need to do. What we need to do is make it easier to buy guns. Bang, bang, bang!!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html
-
I personally agree with the view but with a few reservations. Hand guns have had to be licenced in OZ since the 1920s and I would not like to see them any easier to get. Humerous that the shining example of responsible gun ownership is the Swiss yet we don't hear of loonies doing mass shootings like we have seen in the UK, US and other western countries that have restricted firearm ownership.
A coward with a gun like that idiot in Sweden can kill a lot of people when there is no-one there to shoot back, it only takes one armed security guard to solve a problem like that yet the politics of the anti-gun lobby only allow for disarming the population, not protecting it.
I don't personally care if the guy next door has an Ack Ack mounted on his front verandah, as long as he does not bring down any helicopters on top of my place.
-
I'm with Hutch on this one. When the constitution says "well regulated militia" I think we should take "well regulated" seriously. I grew up in Texas where when I broke down farting around as a teenager in the middle of the night it was no big deal to have a gun pointed at me as I entered a strangers house to make a call for help. I would rather have the gun pointed at me than to fail to receive help. Yet that doesn't mean everybody should legally own a gun as a birth right. The gun laws in the UK doesn't seem to have helped them much.
As far as this particular incidence, it pales in comparison to the yearly deaths by tasers from cops alone. In fact police officers do not even make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs. In spite of drivers having the number 9 spot and traffic fatalities being the number 1 cop killer. In fact your odds of being killed by a cop, whether armed or not, is greater than a cops odds of being killed by a member of the public.
So why is this incidence so incendiary when with just cops tasers alone there are at least 59 documented death by taser in 2009 alone. Of those shot dead by cops nearly 2/3 were people who were unequivocally (uncontested by anyone) not armed with anything, much less a gun. These statistics are hard to come by when national statistics reporting include death by traffic accident for cops but do not include death rates by cops. I therefore only use numbers from documented cases. The ones involving per capita odds being based a county wide tabulations of news reports. Reporting of this nature should be a standard requirement. They certainly pad their own risk statistics with traffic accidents, which they do report for national statistics and still can't make the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
So why do we react so strongly to such minuscule risk of incidence like this when so many are dying from ignored causes?
-
An outlaw does not care what the law says. Thereof gun control only takes the guns from the less likely to abuse them into the hands of the most likely to use them. Including rogue governments. Education is the real solution.
If a person is educated in using, maintain and above all, respect of the gun since youth. That person will be 99% less likely to abuse it as an adult.
-
An armed person with the right skills could have reduced the number of injuries and deaths here, as in virtually every other mass shooting. There is a reason that 49 of the 50 states here have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.
-
Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-
income countries
EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf)
During the one-year study period, ... the rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold
If you prefer a scientific U.S. source, here is a quote from a Harvard essay (http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html):For rural areas, the big problem is suicide; in cities, it’s homicide. ("In Wyoming it’s hard to have big gang fights," Hemenway observes dryly. "Do you call up the other gang and drive 30 miles to meet up?")
P.S.: I live in the homeland of the Mafia (2.95 per 100 000) :icon_mrgreen:
P.P.S: Data are a bit stale, those for Mexico (12.1) must have changed considerably; and tasers didn't exist yet.
-
In 2007 the national average homicide rate was 5.9/100k people. The study linked above is all gun deaths combined. If we round that 1.76 factor up to 2 then that gives a 7.12 deaths per 100k people in the countries we were being compared to. This is higher than our homicide rate. I do realize that article was from 1998.
It gets more troubling looking at race statistics.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/U.S._Firearm_Deaths_and_Death_Rates_by_Race-Ethnicity_Intent.pdf
In 2007, as noted, we had a homicide rate was 5.9/100k people. Yet among whites the rate was 1.5/100k people. Among blacks 18.1/100k. The overwhelming majority of violent crime in not interracial.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html
I had a cousin that shot himself in the leg rabbit hunting years ago. He still turns red faced when it's mentioned. Using numbers from all gun related deaths is a bit like cops including their deaths by traffic accident in the statistics used to claim how dangerous their job is and therefore justifies stricter laws to help "protect" them. Such numbers even include cops shooting armed robbers, and unarmed kids that reached for their waistband at the wrong time in front of a cop. That also includes the old lady nearby here the cops shot because they served a warrant on the wrong house.
-
In 2007 the national average homicide rate was 5.9/100k people. The study linked above is all gun deaths combined.
Yes, it includes suicides, which doubles indeed the figures. From the Harvard essay linked above:
In general, guns don’t induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there’s a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent."
And I fully agree that there is a race problem. Google for the link between poverty and crime, e.g.:
Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.
(you are certainly aware of the fact that the U.S. have an incredibly high % of population in prison, compared to developed countries)
-
(you are certainly aware of the fact that the U.S. have an incredibly high % of population in prison, compared to developed countries)
We're still number 1 at something ;)
-
Mass shootings have become a fact of life here in American. It’s rather alarming that toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns then guns are here in the States.
Just imagine going to a movie with your family or friends while enjoying popcorn and a flick when out of nowhere some nut who went to the local gun dealer and purchase a gun with no background check appears then systematically mows down your wife and kids, your best friend, the people next to them, and the people down the aisle with his AK47 blazing. The facts are clear, nations that are most civilized and have the fewest guns have the fewest deaths by crime, fewest suicides by guns, the fewest gun-related accidents and fewest mass murders by nuts using a gun.
The right to bear arms had a purpose when we were a wilderness nation. We are no longer a wildness nation. But hell we Americans would rather be proud ignoramuses and march to the tune of the death lobby, confusing freedom with guns with freedom of speech. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the United States. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. and firearm violence costs our country as much as $100 billion a year.
Here is a list of mass random shootings just this year (2012). And there are many mass random shootings that we do not hear about on national news every year which go unnoticed by the general public.
July 19, Aurora, Colo: Gunman shoots into a movie theater, killing 12 and injuring 50 others.
July 17, Tusaloosa, Ala: Gunman shoots into a bar, injuring 17.
May 30, Seattle, Wash: Gunman shoots into cafe and later carjacks a woman, killing five and injuring one others.
April 7, Tulsa, Okla: Two gunmen accused of shooting passersby in a north Tulsa neighborhood, killing three and injuring two others.
April 2, Oakland, Calif: Gunman opens fire on classroom at Oikos University, killing seven and injuring three others.
March 3, Pittsburgh, Pa.: A gunman opens fire on a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, killing one person and injuring seven more.
February 27, Chardon, Ohio: Teenager shoots into high school cafeteria, killing three and injuring three others.
I suppose what we Americans need to do is return to the way things were back in the days of the old west and all of us carry a six shooter strapped to our hips. YEE HAA!!
-
An armed person with the right skills could have reduced the number of injuries and deaths here, as in virtually every other mass shooting. There is a reason that 49 of the 50 states here have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Let’s assume for augments sake there are some 100 people in the theater. Of that 100 lets speculate that oh say 20 men/women are carrying a hand gun. Of that 20 lets assume 10 of those gun carriers know how to handle a hand gun. The madman begins shooting randomly mowing men, women and children down. Now let’s say you are one of those trained hand gun carriers and you see your wife or kid take a bullet. There is a rage now arising in you as you see your loved one fall. As the madman fires rapidly at the panicking crowd of people, wanting out of the theater, you a trained hand gun owner pull your gun and aim at the madman. In your own, at that moment madness, you begin pulling the trigger but in the on-rushing panic of the crowd you are knocked about and several of your rounds stray. A young woman near you takes a bullet thru the head from your stray bullet. A small boy takes one of your strays thru the chest. Yet you are certain you hit the madman several direct shots but he doesn’t drop because he’s wearing body armor. Now just imagine the other 19 gun carriers also firing at the crazy bastard going up the stairs as the on coming panicked theater goers want out even if it has to be over you.
It’s insanity to think that the outcome would have been less tragic in my scenario described above.
-
To put some icing on the cake, the government will gladly allow this sort of thing to happen and be heavily debated in the press because it draws attention away from them while they stick the knife in and sell us all down the river, no matter what country you come from.
The saddest thing though, is we can talk about right and wrong until the server dies but in all honesty, the politicians don't care one bit about the people they represent so nothing will ever change. They simply use the people until they have no more to offer then they phase them out or blatently throw them on the scrap heap to make room for the next group of chumps they'll feed to their corporate overseers.
There is never talk about removing the root causes of problems, only of the business it generates when a project is taken on and the fiscal benefits which are available to those vying for the contracts:
1. Smoking is a problem? Control the sale of tobacco stronger, introduce proper penalties for those breaking the rules and stick by it or here's a suggestion: BAN IT ALTOGETHER.
2. Alcohol abuse is a problem? Control the sale of alcohol stronger, introduce proper penalties for those breaking the rules and stick by it.
3. Teenage pregnancy and parenthood a problem? Stop paying them to be breeders and force them to work for their handout.
Let the population fight amongst themselves about pollution, poverty, healthcare, tax, guns, you name it... As long as that is occurring, the people will never unite enough to stand up against 'the man' and that is exactly how they want it. The 'GFC' as it has been labelled, did not need to happen, could have been prevented and most certainly should not have resulted the way it did: Poor people lost everything and the companies went on to post record profits anyway.
Corporations and Capitalism have potential to be positive things but only if they're policed and regulated strictly, as soon as there is room for individuals to move against one and other the 'playing field' so to speak gets reduced to one side just taking what it wants from the other side.
I remember seeing a writeup of the Skull & Crossbones Secret Society, the supposed NWO and what they plan for 'us' normal people, i laughed my head off because *they* wouldn't need to set up a New World Order when *they* already have all what *they* could ever want if there is a single grain of truth to it.
My take is that there isn't an NWO so to speak, instead we are just cattle to be bred and farmed by our governments. If the population doesn't have enough 'skilled' workers in a field, open the doors to migrants and increase the base population as a bonus...
The population isn't breeding enough for their projected figures on population growth? Pay them to breed more, give the uneducated and poverty stricken a carrot to encourage them to breed because after all, the labouring workforce is aging alongside the white collar worker and there will always be a need for 'low-end' human beings to service our 'better' masters.
They all suck and they do a terrible job, if their pay was based on their performance, they would be broker than a dole-bludger the day before his handout. I don't really agree with much Alan Jones says (probably why i try not to listen to his radio show) but there is one thing that sticks out in my mind that i did agree with:
"Politicians in the top job aren't payed enough. The position is a lonely one, everybody around them is either trying to curry favour or orchestrate their downfall and the buck stops with them. They are expected to keep their portfolio in good shape and they really do have a lot expected of them overall so they should deserve more pay for doing this job.
Having said that though, if we do pay the people at the top more, it should come with the condition that if they do not perform (ie: they don't do a good job at the top) then they should not be payed the high rate because they simply did not earn or deserve it."
I can really imagine Julia Gallah giving a 'Message from the PM' to us, telling us that although she is really happy with her efforts during her (illegal and farcicial) term as our nations Prime Minister, on assessment her performance was lacking so she will only be taking a minimal wage without all of the perks of being PM, not!
HR,
Ghandi
-
1. Smoking is a problem? Control the sale of tobacco stronger, introduce proper penalties for those breaking the rules and stick by it or here's a suggestion: BAN IT ALTOGETHER.
2. Alcohol abuse is a problem? Control the sale of alcohol stronger, introduce proper penalties for those breaking the rules and stick by it.
3. Teenage pregnancy and parenthood a problem? Stop paying them to be breeders and force them to work for their handout.
i can see that you don't smoke, drink, or screw :lol:
-
Lol, i'm one of the remaining '17%' of Australians who still own up to smoking cigarettes, i used to drink like a sailor until i became a parent and for observation 3 i refer you back to why i don't drink anymore. ;)
I am a sucker for my vices, but it doesn't make me disregard the other things, if anything it just makes me kick myself harder for being so weak willed. If i were to continue in the same vein i made the last post in, i would say that fits again: Keep turning people against each other by whatever means, be it overt and in their faces or by conditioning people to look down upon and criticize others when they don't fit the social 'norm'.
Sow disunity, control money and media and you own the population.
HR,
Ghandi
-
Let’s assume for augments sake there are some 100 people in the theater. Of that 100 lets speculate that oh say 20 men/women are carrying a hand gun. Of that 20 lets assume 10 of those gun carriers know how to handle a hand gun. The madman begins shooting randomly mowing men, women and children down. Now let’s say you are one of those trained hand gun carriers and you see your wife or kid take a bullet. There is a rage now arising in you as you see your loved one fall. As the madman fires rapidly at the panicking crowd of people, wanting out of the theater, you a trained hand gun owner pull your gun and aim at the madman. In your own, at that moment madness, you begin pulling the trigger but in the on-rushing panic of the crowd you are knocked about and several of your rounds stray. A young woman near you takes a bullet thru the head from your stray bullet. A small boy takes one of your strays thru the chest. Yet you are certain you hit the madman several direct shots but he doesn’t drop because he’s wearing body armor. Now just imagine the other 19 gun carriers also firing at the crazy bastard going up the stairs as the on coming panicked theater goers want out even if it has to be over you.
It’s insanity to think that the outcome would have been less tragic in my scenario described above.
Bill,
Your scenario lacks what I would like to refer to as common sense. People need to be taught to stay low and on the ground if possible when bullets are flying by. If people were to do that, they would not be hit by stray bullets as long as the person defending them knows enough to shoot above them. DO NOT MAKE YOURSELF A TARGET BY STANDING UP WHEN SHOTS ARE BEING FIRED!!!!
-
Let’s assume for argument's sake there are some 100 people in the theater. Of that 100 let's speculate that oh say 20 men/women are carrying a hand gun. Of that 20 lets assume 10 of those gun carriers know how to handle a hand gun.
People need to be taught to stay low and on the ground if possible when bullets are flying by.
First, there is a problem with the assumptions. On average, 97 out of 100 U.S. citizens have a gun, so the cinema was crammed full with persons who (according to the self-defense theory) could have stood up and killed "Batman" before he did any harm.
Second, those 3 that didn't have a gun should really have known that staying low on the ground would save their lives...
So how come 12 persons were killed, and Batman walked out alive?
Or, put differently, could the killing have been prevented if every person over 14 who enters a cinema was obliged to carry a Kalashnikov?
-
On average, 97 out of 100 U.S. citizens have a gun.
:icon_eek: that's not a very good statistic
or, perhaps, it is a twist on some otherwise realistic numbers
i would venture to say that there are not even 97 guns in the US per 100 citizens,
assuming we are not counting military equipment
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270000000
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)
US population: 311,591,917
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)
that's 86.65 %
and - you are assuming that each person that owns a gun owns only 1 gun
a silly assumption, as many owners that are into guns own several
the 270 million number would also include all those guns owned by manufacturers, dealers, etc
my guess of individuals that own guns would be less than 50%
and - we could eliminate rifles and shotguns
you might go to the theatre packing a pistol, but not so likely to have a 30-06 hunting rifle - lol
-
Maybe it's an average of 97 guns per 100 citizens. For the big-time gun collectors, they would skew the average a bit.
What you would want to look up as a good statistic would be the percentage of people that have concealed carry. That would be much closer to a realistic number. I know in Ohio, we are allowed to own guns and keep them in our houses and whatnot, but we are not allowed to carry them with us on a day-to-day basis without the concealed carry permit.
-
Or better yet, maybe it's per household.
-
here in AZ, you can carry if it is not concealed
of course, you can't enter a bank, unless you have some kind of permit, i hope
i know that some who make very large deposits are allowed to do so - not sure what the rule is
and - i know you can't go into a bar unless you check your weapon
many buildings have no guns allowed signs
Bill's scenario is still a bit stretched
but - the fact is....
if i were carrying (in a theatre or otherwise) and some nut-job started shooting up the place,
i would be reluctant to pull my weapon unless i knew there was a clear shot
i would be more concerned about NOT shooting an innocent bystander than getting the bad guy
also - if you are ducking out of the way, he sees you as a potential victim
you pull a gun out - and he sees you as a potential threat
be prepared to have bullets flying your way
that means that you don't want bystanders near you, either
-
Just imagine going to a movie with your family or friends while enjoying popcorn and a flick when out of nowhere some nut who went to the local gun dealer and purchase a gun with no background check appears then systematically mows down your wife and kids, your best friend, the people next to them, and the people down the aisle with his AK47 blazing.
Red added. For all handgun sales in every state the gun dealer would be convicted, along with the person purchasing the gun. Most states also include long rifles. Even in those states that exempt long rifles and/or exempt them in person to person sales, if the seller had any reason to suspect the buyer was a felon then they can also be convicted under state and federal laws. Many states even require all person to person sales to go through a dealer. Even the gun show loop hole was closed after an infamous incident, and the major motivating factor behind the instant checks though NCIC. The system is full of holes, and even provides a simple method of checking out the effectiveness of stolen identities. Yet, in spite of this, the "no background check" is a red herring.
The problem is not the lack of background checks, but rather the states properly reporting to NCIC. Domestic abuse, mental illness, and other disqualifiers under Brady often simply go unreported to these databases. In the case of this latest incident there's not much a background check could have done to help under the best of circumstances.
Neither do I accept the significance of the risk you describe or the overall relevance of this case to gun laws issues. People are at far greater risk from driving or riding a vehicle than getting caught up in something like this. Even 9/11 pales in comparison to daily risk we totally ignore. I can support any reasonable methods of strengthening our background check system, but unfortunately it has to be played by the numbers. Outlawing every risks is not possible.
-
There was some virtue in allowing rifles over a certain length, can you imagine trying to sneak an M16 into a picture theatre ? Apart from security people, few have any real use for a handgun, you rarely ever see anyone hunt with one and if they do its for amusement, not hunger. Large scale rifle ownership adds a risk element to crimes involving armed break ins, armed assaults and other home based intrusions, an armed thief will be far less inclined to break into a house in the middle of the night if he/she risks getting their brains blown out.
In OZ we have had strong restrictions on handgun ownership since the 1920s but even in the current anti-gun era there are three classes of people with handguns, security based personel (police, security guards etc ...), oriental drug dealers and persons of "Middle Eastern Appearance" with ambitions of terrorist activities. Just recently there was a scam exposed where a number of such persons were importing hand gun as parts and assembling them here. They were based in a suburban Sydney post office. Fortunately our Federal Police don't mess around, they catch them, drag them through court and stick them in the "boob" for eternity.
-
It's not uncommon here to see hunting rifles in a gun rack in the back window of the truck in front of you.
-
It’s insanity to think that the outcome would have been less tragic in my scenario described above.
AFAIK he was standing in front of the screen, effectively above the crowd, and under those conditions an armed person with the right skills could have easily killed him. No taxpayer funds spent on a prosecution, or multiple appeals, or long-term incarceration, and no possibility of him getting out and repeating the offence.
Given our history, our Constitution, and our reality today, it’s not possible to take the guns away from the bad guys. Long before you could get their guns you would have disarmed virtually all of the law-abiding citizens, making them easy prey. The only viable solution is to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves effectively, not only in their homes and businesses but also in public, and clearly a solid majority of people here recognize this.
-
But the biggest problem with 'common sense' is that it is not very common, plus you are disregarding human behaviour:
These people went to a movie theatre to watch a new release movie, i'm sure that not a single one of them was thinking that they might have to encounter a homicidal gun wielding nuffy and when it occurred i think rational thought would have been pushed aside for self-preservation instincts, as non-sensical as they may seem.
Fear and confusion affect peoples judgement, clouds their thinking and in the heat of the moment, anything can happen. It is the same thing when it comes to physical confrontation and violence, generally speaking, a person freezes for an instant if they haven't encountered it before and that can mean the difference between dodging a swing or wearing it on the jaw.
Note, i did say generally speaking, there are exceptions to this rule whereby people will react and launch a pre-emptive attack for the same reason: self-preservation, the thing which drives all living creatures which aren't mixed up.
HR,
Ghandi
-
Given our history, our Constitution, and our reality today, it’s not possible to take the guns away from the bad guys.
This is very true. If I'm determined to have a gun when none are available then ace hardware is as good a gun shop as any. Neither do you need to buy commercial gunpowder or fertilizer to have highly effective explosives. The biggest safety factor here is simple lack of skills or knowledge. Security through obscurity... Luckily it reasonably effective in most cases, but complete security is a delusional myth.
-
In OZ we have had strong restrictions on handgun ownership since the 1920s but even in the current anti-gun era there are three classes of people with handguns, security based personel (police, security guards etc ...), oriental drug dealers and persons of "Middle Eastern Appearance" with ambitions of terrorist activities. Just recently there was a scam exposed where a number of such persons were importing hand gun as parts and assembling them here. They were based in a suburban Sydney post office. Fortunately our Federal Police don't mess around, they catch them, drag them through court and stick them in the "boob" for eternity.
You are not including rural areas where people carry rifles and ammunition behind their utility seat? Case in point, there was a utitilty (Hilux) stolen from Sydney that a rural person had used for shooting the night before. His rifle and approx 200 rounds of .303 ammunition were stolen along with the utility, it was recovered the next day along with the gun and ammunition but it could have ended a lot worse...
Or another rural based case:
Teen charged after guns, ammunition, alcohol stolen Save
June 28, 2012, 12:15 a.m.
Larger / SmallerNight Mode
AN ILLABO teenager has been charged after a caravan was broken into and rifles, ammunition, alcohol and movies were stolen.
See your ad here
Police allege the 17-year-old boy went to a Gregory’s Lane, Illabo property and forced his way into a caravan in a shearing shed during the night of June 25.
Two .22 rifles, ammunition for the firearms, two bottles of Jack Daniels whiskey and a number of DVDs were taken during the break-in, police allege.
According to police, the teenager set up a number of targets around his property and used the rifles to fire a number of rounds at them.
The boy was arrested at his home at 11.50pm last night and the guns, ammunition and some of the alcohol were recovered by police.
He was taken to Wagga police station and charged with break, enter and steal. The boy was granted conditional bail will face Wagga Children’s Court on August 14.
Although licensing and permits have tightened since Port Arthur, there are still plenty of people with firearms who should not have them and this is illustrated by cases such as this. The owner will complain that people shouldn't have stolen their weaponry but if they did what they were supposed to it wouldn't happen in the first place, rural people seem to be the most lax when it comes to gun control and safe practices (i live rurally, i'm not pointing the finger from the city).
1. Store firearms in safe, lockable place such as a proper gun safe or at a clubs safe.
2. Do not store firing pin/mechanism with firearms.
3. Do not keep ammunition out in the open, lock it up also, separate from the firearm.
These three things will not totally prevent it from happening but unless the perpetrator already knows where everything is, they now have the challenge of completing the firearms and sourcing ammunition before it can be used as a firearm.
HR,
Ghandi
-
Ghandi - your little 1,2,3 lists are a lot of fun :P
1. Store firearms in safe, lockable place such as a proper gun safe or at a clubs safe.
2. Do not store firing pin/mechanism with firearms.
3. Do not keep ammunition out in the open, lock it up also, separate from the firearm.if you do all that - you are going to have a lot of fumbling to do if a burglar breaks in
they make trigger locks that are pretty effective for safety :t
-
The only viable solution is to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves effectively, not only in their homes and businesses but also in public, and clearly a solid majority of people here recognize this.
It is horrifying that we are headed in that direction. We have become so gun loving, so gun crazy, so numbed by home grown violence that far more Americans have become casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.
So often after these horrid events occur there are many who say we need more guns not less. Or the nonsense that “If I had only been there with my gun I’d have killed the sonofabitch!”. The problem with this mindset of course is the public at large is being asked to arm everyone and trust that the right gun owner will quickly dispatch the bad guy in a modern equivalent of the “Shootout at the OK Corral” with bullets flying in all directions. Yes that would make me feel safer, not!!
What I see is a future were even our school teachers will have to be armed in case a nut happens to walk into a preschool and starts firing away at our kids. Or in the case of the Aurora Theater arm the ticket taker so perhaps they might stop a madman from entering. As I stated in a previous post we are reverting back to the Old West frame of mind where everyone carries a gun. How sad if it comes to that, we the supposed civilized nation called the United States of American.
Maybe you members remember the video were Adam Gadahn (http://youtu.be/EpRQzTP8H1o), an American born member of al Qaeda, the first US citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”
I’ve been a gun owner and avid hunter since the age of twelve yet I see the true reality in all of this; what the NRA has become is the enabler of death. They are a paranoid delusional bunch and as venomous as a deadly scorpion. With the weak kneed consent of our politicians the National Rifle Association has turned the U.S. second amendment into a very cruel and deadly hoax.
-
they make trigger locks that are pretty effective for safety :t
Dave, what time is it there in AZ. And I thought I was an early riser. :biggrin:
-
lol
i woke up - no sense lying in bed if you're not asleep
thought i'd get up and work on some icons i am making :P
-
Why there is lots of people doing rampage and killing lots of peopel. Trying to understand their motivation would help us to avoid such an event to occuring again.
-
Thanks Dave i do try. :)
Honestly though home invasion with firearms isn't something i hear about where i've lived except for maybe the odd story about a drug pusher being robbed at gunpoint and despite the fact i can see the good points of having a firearm at hand to defend myself or my family, i cannot say that i believe it is something which should have to happen.
Without rambling on and on like i usually would, personally i don't think that every person is capable or responsible enough to keep a firearm and the pitfalls would outweigh the merits if we're going to keep it as an overall thing, this is still only my opinion and i accept that it might be skewed or wrong.
HR,
Ghandi
-
Maybe is has to do with the ratification of the UN small arms treaty which is the 27. Obama needs 2 votes in the senate.
Given the Fast and the Furious fiasco, is not unconceivable that this was a false flag in order to take away the 2nd amendment.
Dictators always disarm the population first.
-
The continuing nonsense I’m hearing that if only more people had guns perhaps this event could have been less tragic is ludicrous. What we are just beginning to see from nuts like James Holmes is the fact that crazy people who intend on mass killings are becoming aware that the public may be themselves carrying guns and are, as this nut job did, wearing full protective body armor. This crazy bastard was dressed in full riot gear including a helmet. I don’t care how many hand gun owners that might have been at that theater it would be near impossible to have dropped the guy other then a lucky shot thru the eye. One more thing, I find it incredible that this crazy nut purchased his thousands of rounds of ammunition and chemicals over the internet of all places.
-
Dictators always disarm the population first.
Yeah! David Cameron is the worst case imho (even the police is unarmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom) :dazzled:).
Firearm deaths, per 100,000 population:
United States 14.24
United Kingdom 0.43
P.S.: Or was it Tony Blair? Churchill? Gosh I'm so confused :redface:
-
they must have a good crime rate, though - lol
the bobbies are armed with a stick and a whistle
hear my whistle - so you know where i am hiding
here's my stick so you can beat me to death with it - lol
i might be more afraid of a woman with a purse
-
I don’t care how many hand gun owners that might have been at that theater it would be near impossible to have dropped the guy other then a lucky shot thru the eye.
He had other body parts exposed than just his eyes. For example, shooting him anywhere in the face would likely have stopped him, even if he ultimately might have survived the injuries.
-
i think if you hit a guy in the chest that is wearing kevlar...
...at least with a .357, .41, or .45...
it will knock him down / hurt like hell / shake him up a bit
probably long enough to over-power him
maybe not so much with a .32, .38, or 9mm
something to be said for muzzle energy :P
-
Here i a link that makes the connection between guns and deaths as clear as mud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Some countries have high firearm death rates, some don't but the over-riding factor is that homicides continue to occur without firearms. Cave men bashed each other to death, progress had people hacking each other to death and with the advent of firearms, that added shooting each other to the previous list.
Stabbings, bashings, poisonings, electrocutions, drownings don't go off with a BANG but people still end up really DEAD. I wonder if they are less dead or had more fun being killed because they were not shot ?
-
Here i a link that makes the connection between guns and deaths as clear as mud.
Good link! Here are two graphs that make it even clearer.
Rate of Homicide (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_gun_homicide/69,88,194) per 100,000 People (any method)
Rate of Gun Homicide (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_homicide_any_method/69,88,194) per 100,000 People
-
Here i a link that makes the connection between guns and deaths as clear as mud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Clicking the header of the "Intentional homicides by country" allows you to sort by category. Sorting either by "Firearm homicide rate" or "Non-firearm homicide rate" still pretty much randomizes the list specifying whether citizens may own guns or not. If you sort by the highest homicide rates 3 of the top 10 and 9 of the top 20 nations with the highest homicide rates are nations where citizens are not allowed to own guns. 4 out of the 10 nations with the highest homicide with firearms are nations which citizens are not allowed to own guns.
I would say mud is quiet clear by comparison...
Also, it gets really tiring reading pages giving US verses <name a country> death by gun statistics without mentioning population differences. Then switching to absolute numbers when giving US only numbers. In fact it often seems nearly impossible to give statistics in so many different ways without giving any numbers that can be cross referenced with each other without more numbers. Yet many articles manage just this. It can be nothing less than down right deceit. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (It's not the fault of the statistics)
-
Sorting either by "Firearm homicide rate" or "Non-firearm homicide rate" still pretty much randomizes the list specifying whether citizens may own guns or not.
Wikipedia pretends that UK citizens are among those who are allowed to carry guns:
England & Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicide)[30] 8 0.12 1.33 1.45 Yes [29]
Also, it gets really tiring reading pages giving US verses <name a country> death by gun statistics without mentioning population differences.
The graphs above are normalised, i.e. per 100,000 population.
-
Of course those statistics fail to take into account the #1 cause for civilians murders. Which are governments themselves. Of course, when government does it, is not called murder. But collateral damage, execution, etc.
Say what you might. But fast and the furious proved that this government have no problem breaking the law in order to ban guns. Thereof the possibility of a false flag is real. Specially 7 days before the voting for the ratification of the UN small arms treaty.
So there is:
- A motive, getting the small arms treaty ratified. A clever way to pass over the 2nd amendment of the constitution.
- Opportunity.
- Willingness to commit a crime. (aka Fast and Furious).
Is this proof of a false flag? NO! Just because it was convenient, doesn't mean is a false flag. It just means that the possibility of a false flag, should not yet be taken out of the table.
1. Gas canisters thrown from 2 sides of the theater at the same time.
2. Theater doors open only when pushed from the inside, not the outside. No signs of force entry and the alarm on the door was not set. Proving that it was opened from the inside.
3. Witnesses speak of a second person.
4. Police not going to search for another suspects, even if #1, #2 and #3 suggest at least one more person.
5. Suspect surrenders himself quietly and cooperates with the police.
Too many questions, too little answers.
-
The mindset of an American gun loving parent.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/Guns.jpg)
-
The mindset of an American gun loving parent.
Not any family I ever met, and I've known a lot.
-
Another photo from an American gun loving parent.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/kidsguns.jpg)
-
Looks like we'll have to add laws to stop illegals from transporting 23 people in a pickup truck. Killed 11 when it crashed into a tree (one less than the shootings in the theater).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-texas-immigrants-accidentbre86m04y-20120723,0,4478170.story
-
Looks like we'll have to add laws to stop illegals from transporting 23 people in a pickup truck. Killed 11 when it crashed into a tree (one less than the shootings in the theater).
Just out of curiosity, what do you want to tell us between the lines? That occasional madmen killing kids in cinemas are less important than Mexicans driving trucks? Or do I misunderstand you completely?
-
I disagree with the idea that we need more gun control to stop things like this from happening. People who want to do these things will find a way to get guns illegally.
More people are killed everyday in car related accidents. It seems that if we're going to do anything about deaths, we should focus on where deaths are more common on a day to day basis.
-
And yet another photo from a gun loving American parent.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/machinegunkids.jpg)
-
Start looking at the stats for Central America and those of the US fall well below those averages. The assumption that the death rate will go down of you just ban guns does not have the numbers to support it. The problem with countries that have a high combined murder rate is people will get killed one way or another, if its not guns, its knives, iron bars and a whole host of other creative methods.
Banning guns has nothing to do with public safety, in places where you have had mass shootings, it has been where everyone else was not armed, a really dangerous situation. Take that idiot in Sweden who killed all of those people, no-one else on the island was armed, he could just walk around killing people with no resistance. One bullet would have solved the problem but there was no-one there to shoot it.
Banning guns is the action of people like Hitler and Stalin, an item of political control where a disarmed population is easier to control and shoot. :icon13:
-
Start looking at the stats for Central America and those of the US fall well below those averages.
That's correct. Numbers are also higher in South Africa, Zimbabwe and some former Soviet Union states.
(there are no figures for China, but The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/us-china-death-penalty-amnesty) says they are the World's top nation for executions:
"Setting China aside, Amnesty said at least 527 executions were carried out last year. Almost half of those took place in Iran (252). North Korea executed 60, Yemen 53 and the US 46.")
-
I have no problems with some well reasoned regulations around guns. The gun loving parents photos were over the top. That kind of thing actually makes me less irritable toward neighbors popping off a few rounds fairly regularly. Of all the people I've ever met cops are the quickest to use deadly force at the least provocation.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/rochester_man_shoots_and_kills.html
You will not believe this video, and to make matters worse at the time this was being filmed they had already killed the innocent man that called 911 in the first place on the guy being shot at here.
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/07/18/columbus-10tv-footage-police-involved-shooting-learning-opportunity.html
I've never known a gun owner that reckless and I've met some doozies. If cops like this get to keep guns my neighbors are the least of my worries.
Edit: Spell check thought irritable should be irrefutable..
-
I want the return of the Brady law making it unlawful to own any form of assault rifle. The now expired Brady law prohibited sale of high capacity magazines and much of the ammunition purchased by Holmes. It was also supposed to prohibit sales of assault-style rifles but the gun industry found a way around the law by removing flash suppressors and limiting the capacity of the magazine. Had the Brady law still been in effect Holmes would have found it difficult to obtain the high capacity magazines that allowed him to slaughter people at will. The Brady law would not have prevented that nut job from walking into that theater and opening fire but it might have made it more difficult to amass such an arsenal of weapons or to purchase so much ammo.
Here is something to think about; Violence is endemic in America. Our children are not immune. With near 300 million guns in civilian hands, the terrible truth is that there is no place to hide from gun violence. Children and teens are not safe from gun violence at school, at home, or anywhere else in America. According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 3,042 children and teens died from gunfire in America in 2007 – one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 58 every week. Almost six times as many children and teens – 17,523 – suffered non-fatal gun injuries.
Gun Deaths have become a familiar American experience.
-
Something I have seen is that people who grow up with guns in the family also learn how to use them and that generally means responsibly where the kid that grow up playing fantasy video games where they run around phantom worlds blowing away everything they see have no idea of what guns are about or how to use them. As a kid a 22 was easy to use but the first .303 was PHARK it was loud and kicked like a mule. A 44 Winchester for popping wild pigs was like using a howitzer and sounded like it, you could cut down a 12 inch tree trunk in 2 shots.
In OZ we have a feral animal problem that is now out of control as there are so many restrictions on sporting shooters, dogs, cats, pigs, camels, donkeys, buffalo, horses etc .... and they are all PHUKING the natural habitat by displacing and killing off native species. Government backed culling of some epidemic species brings up the idiot fringe (Save The Cockroach etc) who oppose any animal culling even though they are killing off wildlife.
We are quickly losing a vast range of endangered species, particularly on the east coast, mainly small marsupials and particularly in the national parks, its feral dogs and cats that are doing the most damage. Then there are rabbit plagues and mixo no longer works very well and neither does the replacement for it. There is film footage from the 1950s of rabbits by the million eating their way across the country. There IS a reason why OZ has massive length rabbit proof fences, its to protect the remaining vegetation from being eaten right out of the ground.
Once years ago it was a common thing for many people to own a rifle to control pests local to their area, now its close enough to being banned due to the rediculous restrictions and the price is the escalating damage.
-
Again I am in strong agreement with hutch. I am a very strong conservationist, but often the best conservation policy involves allowing some culling, sometimes some very aggressive culling. From an ecological perspective the reason is simple. Before humans settle a region there are top predators which do this culling. The prey don't fair any better without the predators because going unchecked means their population explode, followed by a starvation dieoff. Which is more destructive than any predator. The predators are kept in check because when they over cull their prey they starve. Hence a quasi-balance is struck following what's called the Lotka Volterra equation.
Now when humans settle the first thing to go is the top predators. The reasons go beyond the fact we hunt them, we are also directly competing with their food supply. Also, domestic dogs produce are larger footprint on the ecology around humans, in modern times, than humans from the perspective of top predators. Simply due to harassment. Now when people are disallowed from sensible culling, initially populations will explode. Then collapses soon after due to over grazing. This process also often takes out the survival capacity for many more endangered species. Trophic cascades, in ecological circles, tend to refer to this destructive process when a single species acts as a trigger. In larger multi-tiered systems this same process is taking place world wide where smaller cascades are stacked on top of each other in sequence. The world, in terms of geological time, is having an epic extinction event at present.
Point is that coming in and destroying the top of the food chain, then passing animal protection (rights) laws to unequivocally protect what remains, without regards for the ecology of the system, is more destructive and kills more species than hunters even knows exists.
.......
As far as making it unlawful to own any form of assault rifle, when this law was in effect competition shooters who had never been hunting in their life, and only shot at paper targets, couldn't legally compete in a profession they made their living at. Any time any law doesn't allow exceptions it results in a lot of innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. Any time you allow exceptions it opens holes for the system to be gamed.
Better to just grow up and except that risk cannot, even in principle, be legislated out of existence. For the exact same reason that perfect protection of a programs source code, or unhackable server, is a pipe dream. We merely have to balance protection and risk such that the protection is not more damaging or restrictive than the risk, or visa versa. The politics and policies toward authority tend to ebb and flow much like the Lotka Volterra equation. Unlike the recent past, our policies on what authorities can do is at a tipping point at present, and the momentum will almost certainly carry it well beyond that tipping point, just like the equation predicts. The Nazi like events in history are events much like ecological cascades. We aren't in those shoes by a long shot at present, and those yelling nazi crap at cops are idiots. Yet given enough time it is highly likely to happen in some generation to come, however improbable in any given generation. Much like the housing bubble situation in the financial sector. The long term risk far exceed any risk or destructive power some idiot with an AK can even dream of.
I therefore meet straight up emotional appeals with a facepalm.
-
From an ecological perspective ... destroying the top of the food chain, then passing animal protection (rights) laws to unequivocally protect what remains, without regards for the ecology of the system, is more destructive and kills more species than hunters even knows exists.
One could start arguing over some details ;), but overall this is a remarkably good contribution, mywan :t
-
We Americans have become a paranoid balless pussified gun loving nation. Pathetic! :icon13:
Subsequent to the furor, a tourism official said the two young men who encountered Wawra were simply giving out free passes to the Calgary Stampede rodeo.
Canadians mock U.S. tourist who complained about not being able to carry a gun (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/10/canadians-mock-u-s-tourist-who-complained-about-not-being-able-to-carry-a-gun/)
-
I've probably mentioned this before...
Strict control or banning of guns will not stop people from killing, it'll just make it harder to do.
In most of these 'events' it's usually a nutter who gets hold of a gun, most probably due to the slack gun laws or availability of guns.
If this person is unable to get hold of a gun.... well he might try something else, but it not going to be easy.
If we all carried guns, imagine the ensuing scenario as we all pulled our guns to shred the guy, not to mention how many else standing around, due to those who cannot shoot to save their lives.
And last but not least... it's real fun to have a gun and go shooting... until somebody starts shooting back... somehow the fun disappears at this point ;)
-
Canadians mock U.S. tourist who complained about not being able to carry a gun (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/10/canadians-mock-u-s-tourist-who-complained-about-not-being-able-to-carry-a-gun/)
“They approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner,” he wrote, that the off-duty cop instinctively reached for where his sidearm would have been had he been south of the border.
So in fact this was an off duty cop :badgrin:
It's almost like cops are trained to get their panties in a wad whenever somebody looks at them funny.
Off-duty cop shoots, kills son after mistaking him for intruder (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57477320/troopers-ny-cop-shoots-and-kills-son-in-hotel/)
-
I think that this is paranoia resulting from too many guns 'floating around'.
One is always on guard, expecting and attack and any moment.
It'll be interesting to know the stats of 'home grown gun accidents' vs 'self protection event' of gun owners.
Not to mention the likelihood of house break-ins for the purpose of stealing a gun.
My motto about guns: "I only will own a gun if I'm going to kill somebody" (wartime) - Hence there'll never be any guns in my house.
;)
-
We had another of these shootings on Monday , 13 : http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/gunman-arrested-near-campus-of-texas-am/ . I barely heard this reported at all ( I happened to be listening to NPR at the time it happened ) on prime-time television. Its like it happens so often no one cares any more..... :(
-
It'll be interesting to know the stats of 'home grown gun accidents' vs 'self protection event' of gun owners.
Unfortunately numbers like this are hard to come by. The stats that are collected tend to group all gun incidence under one heading. People often presume "homicide" is murder. Not so. Homicide refers to the killing of another person for any reason. Also, you can be charged for murder even when you did not know, or are involved with, the shooter. For instance, a guy in California was charged with murder after he called the cops to report a thief stole from his car and had a gun. The cops shot the unarmed suspect, then charged the witness who called 911 for murder for falsely reporting the guy had a gun.
Between the "felony murder rule", accidental, criminal, and self defense all placed under the single heading of homicide, any attempt at sorting out what criminals do, what criminals get done to them, what happens accidentally, etc., is a statistical nightmare. Even when accidents and such are noted, it often gets multiple entries under homicide, criminal homicide (including when accidental or by a third party), self defense etc.
The closest you can come is surveys such as this:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
-
The closest you can come is surveys such as this:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
That is certainly a site full of facts, but first, the selection is somewhat biased, and second, some of these "facts" are just plain wrong. For example, in the section on climate change (http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp#actions-kyoto) you won't find a reference to the Mauna Loa record, very strange, but you will indeed find this:
Between 1997 (the year Kyoto was adopted) and 2008 (the start of its compliance period), the combined annual CO2 emissions of the developed countries that ratified the treaty increased by 1.3%. During the same period, the annual CO2 emissions of the United States decreased by 0.7%
That looks good, really good for the U.S. but IEA statistics (http://omrpublic.iea.org/archiveresults.asp?formsection=tables&formdate=%25&Submit=Submit) tell an entirely different story.
-
I wasn't suggesting the data was particularly good, which was the point of the preceding paragraphs and qualifying the link with "The closest you can come...".
However, I'm not sure how the IEA statistics relate to CO2 emissions. Those are oil market reports which mention nothing about CO2. If you try to draw a straight line between these reports, on the presumption they directly relate to consumption hence CO2, it has a plethora of problems.
1) Oil consumption accounts for about 40% of the world CO2 production, coal another 40%.
2) The US is relatively coal rich while being especially dirty in terms of CO2. Hence a change in coal consumption has a larger impact on US CO2 emissions than oil consumption.
3) Presumably these IEA statistics account for the oil bought by the US and processed to be consumed elsewhere.
4) The 11 December 2008 report shows a demand reduction in the US between 2006 and 2009 of 1.58 million barrels a day, down to 19.11 million barrels a day. All of North America had a drop of 1.57 million barrels a day.
So even if these oil reports didn't reflect a drop in oil demand, correctly accounted for oil purchases for refinement to sell to other nations, etc., you still can't draw a straight line between oil consumption and total CO2 production.
-
However, I'm not sure how the IEA statistics relate to CO2 emissions.
Who am I to contradict you, mywan :biggrin:
But the International Energy Agency tells a different story (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl6.xls):
Table 6. U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by End-Use Sector, 1990-2008
(Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide)
1997 2008 97-2008
Residential 1,086.2 1,220.1 12.3%
Commercial 919.8 1,075.1 16.9%
Industrial 1,812.2 1,589.1 -12.3%
Transportation 1,743.8 1,930.1 10.7%
Total 5,561.9 5,814.4 +4.5%
But of course, everybody is free to believe justfacts.com:
Between 1997 (the year Kyoto was adopted) and 2008 ... the annual CO2 emissions of the United States decreased by 0.7%
-
I do not doubt for a minute that the numbers on justfacts are inaccurate, just as I don't doubt the gun statistics are inaccurate. I'm not taking issue with that at all, and can only admire your healthy skepticism on the matter.
The problem is in determining what is good data, and how bad the any given data set on justfacts actually is. I attempted to check references on the justfacts data. Not only was that specific entry unreferenced but the nearby stuff that was referenced was chocked full of news article references. A rather sucky choice for authoritative references. What is striking is that on the same site your XLS data sheet was on is this:
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
Which effectively models the same CO2 graph provided on justfacts in the graph right under the text you quoted. Also on Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php) (EDGAR) is this document:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
The graph there shows a significant drop in the same time period on page 15, and even more significant after 2008. I would also be worth noting that the error bars over the 1997 to 2008 period is almost as large as the variation over the same period. Neither can we be accredited with effective CO2 policies for a reduction created by economic problems. This is also a per capita number, allowing population growth to moderate total numbers some. I doubt justfacts even took notice of these issues. Something else I don't know the answer to is why the annex I range on the US graph goes above the US graph.
The bottom line is I don't know what good data would actually look like here and take it all with a good dose reasonable skepticism. Your objection is very likely perfectly valid, and justfacts propensity toward news article references doesn't engender much confidence.
-
The Myth of Police Protection
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).
Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.
First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die
If you don't believe cops have no legal obligation to protect you read this article on policechiefmagazine:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007
Then do a google search to see just how shocking this can be...
-
The bottom line is I don't know what good data would actually look like here...
EIA is a pretty trustworthy source, as it is run by 28 OECD member states. Difficult to cheat in that context.
But apart from that observation, energy use in the U.S. is steadily rising, thanks to rising GDP and poulation, and there are only two factors working against this trend: rising oil prices and the 2008/2009 financial crisis.
Thus, what one should rationally expect is that 2008 figures are somewhat higher than 1997 (the 4.5%) but with a sharp decline starting with the financial crisis. The latter caused both shrinking GDP figures and lower oil prices, but in the short term the GDP effect prevails (price elasticity of oil takes several years to fully kick in). And of course it's a short term phenomenon - GDP will catch up again, and so will the oil price, especially with growing demand from China and India. And rising GDP plus higher oil prices will yield an upward curve that will start flattening soon.
I took that example because it's in my area of expertise, and the justfacts.com figure definitely smelled foul. But apparently it has been pushed into UN stats (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Handlers/ExportHandler.ashx?Type=Excel&Countries=156,250,276,356,380,826,840&Series=751), too.
Re guns & crime, the U.S. are, among OECD states, an extreme outlier both for firearm victims per population and for inmates per population. But of course you won't find that on JustFacts.com - omission is one popular method of manipulating statistics.
-
Re guns & crime, the U.S. are, among OECD states, an extreme outlier both for firearm victims per population and for inmates per population. But of course you won't find that on JustFacts.com - omission is one popular method of manipulating statistics.
Issue 1:
Living here I can say for large segments of the population a big part of the issue is a lack of confidence in the police. As I posted above the police do not even have any legal obligation to protect any citizen, including those who have obtained a restraining order against someone they fear. Yet the police presume that individuals legal obligation to protect them far exceeds their obligation to protect private individuals.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Greenland-officers-respond-to-motion-to-dismiss-lawsuit/-/9857858/16073278/-/item/0/-/ibsd2iz/-/index.html
This also feeds the gun rights people.
Issue 2:
The majority of incarcerated citizens are for non-violent offenses. Yet about 30% of murders are committed by people released from prison on violent offenses in the last 3 years. Often serving less time than than non-violent offenders. Only recently was Georgia sodomy laws, legally defined as a blow job for either sex, overturned and carried as much as 20 years. Sometimes used by woman to get custody of kids in a divorce, since women were never targeted by this law.
Issue 3:
The relationship between gangs and violence is so strong that gang on gang violence distorts national statistics. Gang violence is not counter per 100,000 gang members, but per 1000 gang members. With some counties exceeding 40 homicides a years per 1000 gang members. Which I think is massively underestimated.
(PDF) http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Bulletin-6.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57451996/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
For the average citizen the national murder rate is almost meaningless, unless you live in the midst of these gangs.
Issue 4:
The law is actually a significantly bigger threat to many people than criminals are.
Americans march against police brutality (http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-police-brutality-nyc/)
You can get on a mailing list to get real time news of the death of any police officer for any reason anywhere in the nation, mostly traffic accidents, but people are often arrested just for trying to file a complaint against the police when the police is the only place they know to go to complain. Here's what often happens when you try:
Wanna File a Police Complaint (Arrested for Trying) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ)
Educated Citizen attempts to file complaint and is Threatened with Arrest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kUMf3umtlA)
In other words even attempting to report police misconduct can be more dangerous and costly than criminals.
Issue 5:
Incarceration is such a big business here that judges have been caught in kickback for incarceration schemes.
US judges tragic kickback greed exposes prison system profiteering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9knn1uUM7E4)
Pennsylvania Judge Gets 'Life Sentence' For Prison Kickback Scheme (http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylvania-judge-gets-life-sentence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/)
(same) Kids for cash scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)
Lawyer in the same case only gets 18 months:
Lawyer Who Paid $725K Kickbacks to Judges in Pa. ‘Kids for Cash’ Case Gets 18 Months (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_paid_kickbacks_to_judges_in_pa._kids-for-cash_case_gets_18_month/)
For profit prisons (Nearly double the US average incarceration rate):
Louisiana is the world's prison capital (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html)
Issue 6:
The courts fair no better:
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news.html
So given this backdrop, which the social stratification in the US means entire classes of people are totally ignorant of, what are you going to ask citizens to trade in their guns for? Complete and total surrender to more of the above? And complete defenselessness against the criminals that are less dangerous than dealing with the law?
-
Crime of the violent type is an increasing disease in most western countries, especially over the last 20 years or so, throw someone who is poor out in the street, kill off all the jobs in his town or state, break up his family over poverty, replace people who have jobs with cheaper people from other countries and you have most of the formula in place for a breakdown of law and order in society. Then you change the law to be even more spiteful to poor people, bash the sh*t out of them with heavily armed police kissing the arse of the financial elite while mouthing moral platitudes about protecting society and you build in the mechanisms of crime that cannot be stopped.
Then you fill your jails with these poor bastards and use them as slave labour to cut down government costs of providing at least some services, usually menial mindless stuff like washing hospital linen or similar and HAY if he is black, you can lock him up for even longer and get real[tm] slave labour out of him. Then to offset the effects of such a badly skewed society, they take up importing and distributing drugs as it keeps the wolf from the door and guess what you need if you are a drug runner or drug dealer, nice nasty portable concealable guns so you can deal with the opposition and the police. These are not classy hunting weapons but cheap shitty Chinese imitation Glocks and other crap like that.
This scale of skewing of western societies at the top end money level cashes out at violent crime at the bottom end with desperate people doing desperate things to survive, it demonstrates that you reap what you sow, turn the bottom end of a society to CHYTE and you get results like this.
I am personally an old fashioned lasseiz faire capitalist where each person sells their skills for a price that is determined on the market but I have lived long enough to know that the more skewed a society is in economic terms, the less mobile its member at the lower end are and as the screws get tightened further, the ugly side effects jump up and bite you. I have no time for an economic elite, either national or global, an egalitarian capitalist society has a good track record but it must be protected by government to maintain prevention of unfair trading practices. As long as the corporate sector effectively control the bulk of western governments, their policies will remain skewed towards the interests of big money and at the expense of a working population.
-
Re guns & crime, the U.S. are, among OECD states, an extreme outlier both for firearm victims per population and for inmates per population.
Issue 1: lack of confidence in the police
Issue 2: ...30% of murders are committed by people released from prison... Georgia
Issue 3: gangs and violence
Issue 4: The law is actually a significantly bigger threat to many people than criminals are.
Issue 5: Incarceration is such a big business here
Issue 6: The courts fair no better
Deep in the s**t. And difficult to tell what is cause (1+2?) and what is symptom. Hutch identifies poverty as a central driver, and I agree, but still, that can't explain why the prison population per inhabitant is seven (!) times the Eurozone average.
One reason could be the ideology-driven, arbitrary and overly localised legislation, see Georgia (in Europe, you would not get 20 years in prison for that "crime", but rather a modest fine, and only if you performed the offense in public). One popular reading in European newspapers is about hand-cuffing six year olds for kissing their classmates etc - you have no idea how much the European perception of the U.S. society is driven by such stories.
Gang violence stems from a combination of poverty, war on drugs and easy guns. I am sure if you started taxing gun ownership, pot and cocaine etc the way you tax alcohol (most dangerous drug for society) and cigarettes (most dangerous drug for individuals), and if you used the revenue to offer education and jobs to the poor, then the illegal market would dry out in a few years.
Instead, in the last decade the war on drugs has been exported to Mexico. Now they are supposed to play police and stop the traffic before it enters the U.S., and we all know how it destroys that country. If I were Mexican President, the law would be that if the police found a ton of pot on a truck, the police would gently remind the driver that speeding is dangerous, that he is not allowed to sell non-taxed pot on Mexican ground, and that laws are different on the other side of the border. The drug war in Mexico would evaporate faster than the dotcom bubble. Add a hefty tax on property, and drug barons would disappear, too... have the U.S. (and Mexico) learnt anything from the times of Al Capone???
-
I to am an unapologetic capitalist, with a very heavy, but not complete, lasseiz faire attitude. Total lasseiz faire would in fact be better than what we now have. What we have is a pay to play system, and if your not paying to play more money is extracted from those who are to protect them from you.
Here is the kind of risk you face for calling cops thinking they will help you:
This woman called because someone else assaulted her, and the cop arrested her without even asking questions. Then this happened...
Female arrested forcibly strip searched nude by ohio male cops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgixrRZ-Avg)
This man spent 2 years in solitary confinement for an alleged DUI, but NEVER seen a judge the entire time.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/25/10233835-man-spends-2-years-in-solitary-after-dwi-arrest?lite
This speaks for itself:
POLICE STATE - Cop Caught On Tape Threatening To Make Up Evidence Against Innocent Men (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnIGY9fOwzI)
Police were exonerated!
Are they interested in drugs? Proof they're not:
(Yes they can take your money without charging you, even.. uhh.. funnier? is when the cops get in a fight other over who gets to rip this person off)
Police robbing Citizens on Highway. Who are you gonna call??? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O6Ui7TPYRI)
A beating a day.. or more... (Clear cut innocents of a man taking a beating):
POLICE BRUTALITY - Total Proof Cops Are Power Tripping Thugs & Habitual Liars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah0WoUDLiEg)
Just an assault of a handcuffed woman:
Lincoln cop caught on tape assaulting woman at Twin River (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqCNW_hGiOg)
And this same cop had a previous assault conviction, which cost him a 30 day suspension:
Lincoln Officer Had Prior Assault History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryh3r7KF1OI)
Yeah, this is one of those gun statistics used to argue for gun control:
Cops Shoots Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPhC916GQM)
Warning. This man dies dies on camera...
And the cops, not knowing about the video tries to switch their official report when they learn of it...
Cops Caught on Camera MURDERING KELLY THOMAS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8z2bx_dD0c)
If you think these are isolated incidence you are either clueless or delusional...
I have dealt with many cops, and generally know how to handle it. Greatly diminishes but doesn't completely remove the risk though, and have observed countless incidence of similar violation.
For good measure, just a few incidence of planting drugs on people:
Cops Plant Drugs On Suspect video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhHd6M2Sjg)
Police plant drugs on homeless black woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N7yoBtfnJk)
Utica Police Officers Plant Drugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhDUBGKzKQ)
police murder 92 year old woman then plant drugs-NewsForNatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDGg_8O23kA)
How many more do you need? What about this one?
NYPD Police Officer: "I Fried Another Ni**er" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYtzGHTLJk)
Of course we need to show a hero cop also, they DO exist:
Hero Cop! Soon to be fired . . . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbSMYuA_fBs)
AVTM exclusive: New Orleans cop comes clean on murder, theft, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFNSueFs4KE)
I would say probably 70% of the [New Orleans police] department should probably be fired or indicted.
Source: Ex New Orleans police officer (quoted from video).
Now who you going to call???
-
I to am an unapologetic capitalist, with a very heavy, but not complete, laissez faire attitude. Total laissez faire would in fact be better than what we now have.
Laissez-faire is inefficient. Take education: Permanently drunk daddy prefers to buy beer instead of sending little Jim to privatised school for 6,000 bucks per year. That looks OK in the eyes of some paleo-liberal economists, but it is utterly inefficient for society not to educate the boy.
This is not the place to dig out more examples (there are many), but as an observation, modern societies perform overall best if their taxpayers finance roughly half of overall GDP. Scandinavian countries, Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc fall into that category, and of course the 50% "state quota" is heavily contested by right-wing parties claiming to represent the taxpayer.
-
I am sure if you started taxing gun ownership, pot and cocaine etc the way you tax alcohol (most dangerous drug for society) and cigarettes (most dangerous drug for individuals), and if you used the revenue to offer education and jobs to the poor, then the illegal market would dry out in a few years.
Yes, control over the drug trade, driven by drug laws, is the prime factor behind it. A bigger indicator of localized murder rates than gun ownership is corrupt police forces. Such as New Orleans in the last video above. There is absolutely nothing you can do about gun ownership. The gangs will not be paying any gun tax regardless, nor be denied access to guns through legal restrictions. The laws are already such that a felon with a simple gun possession charge often gets more time than straight murder.
Cops are not interested in busting violent criminals for a very simple reason. They are expected to make a certain amount of arrest. Like the New Orleans cop in the above video gives 5 arrest per night. Busting real criminals is just too hard and you can't keep up with the collars. In New Orleans if a cop gets their 5 arrest early they often simply go home. If they get a gun/drug combo arrest they get a whole day off called a gun day. So basically they leave real criminals alone, since pumping large numbers of arrest to drive the statistics they then use to justify themselves is so much easier.
For the average gun owning citizen guns are merely a pragmatic alternative to police. The one naive enough to call the police thinking that the police will help too often end up being killed by the police. And no, you will not find any statistics because the various agencies simply fail to report it to any national agency, and getting the local reports often requires going to court for a FOI request. Especially if they don't like what your asking for.
-
I to am an unapologetic capitalist, with a very heavy, but not complete, laissez faire attitude. Total laissez faire would in fact be better than what we now have.
Laissez-faire is inefficient. Take education: Permanently drunk daddy prefers to buy beer instead of sending little Jim to privatised school for 6,000 bucks per year. That looks OK in the eyes of some paleo-liberal economists, but it is utterly inefficient for society not to educate the boy.
This is not the place to dig out more examples (there are many), but as an observation, modern societies perform overall best if their taxpayers finance roughly half of overall GDP. Scandinavian countries, Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc fall into that category, and of course the 50% "state quota" is heavily contested by right-wing parties claiming to represent the taxpayer.
I agree that Laissez-faire is inefficient, and certain bad cycles can takes years for a free market to bust itself lose from. Though it generally will sooner or later. Neither do the top players like to be challenged by the market forces that got them to the top, and tend to be actively hostile to maintaining free enterprise once on top. On the other hand, when crony capitalism gets entrenched the resistance is not limited by free market dynamics, and can be held indefinitely or until a highly destructive public resistance builds strong enough to challenge power structures. Thus Laissez-faire and crony capitalism are at the opposite ends of the spectrum with a reversal of the cost benefit ratio. Government is the wild card, which can benefit from cronyism, pass with Laissez-faire, or go in between and grease the wheels a bit when Laissez-faire economics gets stuck in a tragedy of the commons. Problem is nobody can agree on what wheels to grease, especially when no wheels are in need of grease.
Market forces is the reason I not too keen on overreacting to the cronyism in play at present, even though it's far worse than in my own past. Conversely, crime is by far under better control than in my past. That is why you have a generation my age that appears so blind to what's happening. I can recall when the opposite extremes in public sentiment was prevalent, and extremes are bad in any direction. Letting free market social forces take hold to swing around and get the cronyism back under control will take time. Which is risky because it provides time for it to become more thoroughly entrenched. Hopefully soon enough that things will not get too messy.
-
I am sure if you started taxing gun ownership, pot and cocaine etc the way you tax alcohol (most dangerous drug for society) and cigarettes (most dangerous drug for individuals), and if you used the revenue to offer education and jobs to the poor, then the illegal market would dry out in a few years.
Yes, control over the drug trade, driven by drug laws, is the prime factor behind it. A bigger indicator of localized murder rates than gun ownership is corrupt police forces. Such as New Orleans in the last video above. There is absolutely nothing you can do about gun ownership. The gangs will not be paying any gun tax regardless, nor be denied access to guns through legal restrictions.
What is cause, what is effect? Cops are human beings, and they have the choice between a) declaring war on heavily armed drug dealers and b) establish a peaceful and profitable cooperation with them. Would you risk your life?
Re gun taxes: Don't underestimate the power of the finance authorities. Try getting tax-free beer or wine in your neighbourhood tonight, and report tomorrow if you've been successful :biggrin:
Good taxation means finding the exact point where the incentive to avoid them is a little bit weaker than the tax itself. Good rules help, e.g. "your first rifle is tax-free, except if you get caught with it outside your premises".
The gangs need that protective feeling? OK, raise a modest tax on one registered hand weapon for "self-defense", but seize their whole property, cars first, if they get caught with a second one. Once you strip off the ideological ballast, you will get plenty of good ideas how to solve this problem. Provided you are ready to admit that being an extreme outlier in the OECD is a problem.
-
Re gun taxes: Don't underestimate the power of the finance authorities. Try getting tax-free beer or wine in your neighbourhood tonight, and report tomorrow if you've been successful :biggrin:
Not even a small problem.. want it within the hour?
Edit: Don't worry about cost, there is none.
-
Try getting tax-free beer or wine in your neighbourhood tonight, and report tomorrow if you've been successful :biggrin:
Not even a small problem.. want it within the hour?
So you have your own brewery :biggrin:
You might like The Scourge of Crony Capitalism (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/12-06-20/the_scourge_of_crony_capitalism.aspx).
-
Well.. the USA police are definitely down on the scoreboard... the RSA police now beats them hands-down ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-shoot-striking-miners?newsfeed=true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-shoot-striking-miners?newsfeed=true)
-
:biggrin:
> Good taxation means finding the exact point where the incentive to avoid them is a little bit weaker than the tax itself.
I personally have problems with this view, even though it is popular among left wing politicians, it means the rich can have anything and the poor must make choices. It would be fine in a perfectly egalitarian society where everyone had the same financial resources but that world does not exist.
The crude distinction is "resources" for the rich and "sustainability" for the poor, a variant flavour of Ronny Raygun's trickle down economics modified to fit the financial elite, cars, fuel, Lear Jets, tropical islands and personal resorts, all of the trappings of a global elite. I well understand why the French so long ago cut their heads off, the palaces were disgusting and the waste alone would have fed half of Paris.
There is something to be said for control by regulation, not price, if you regulate that private citizens cannot own their own MIG 29, then it does not matter how much money you have.
I agree with JJ to this extent that a pure lasseiz faire system will not do the job but then that is the case with any notion of a pure political system. Pure communism never existed, Nazism was by no means Fascist and even Mussolini did not achieve true Fascism. All political systems below the bullsh*t and rhetoric are hybrid systems and it is here where I have a number of choices that appear to have worked over time. There are at least some tasks like infrastructure that require a government scale of operation to succeed, military, roads, airports, hospitals, education, some areas of manufacturing yet a purely government system leads to disasters like the old Soviet where efficiency was appalling and productivity collapsed.
A hybrid of lasseiz faire and government control of trading conditions prevents abuses of capitalism like monopolies, dirty deals behind closed doors and so on, the examples of the UK industrial revolution, the early 20th century US and early 21st century China are good examples of limited regulation and raging capitalism that worked, its when productivity and motivation are crippled by inappropriate regulation that the economies go down and stay down.
-
Try getting tax-free beer or wine in your neighbourhood tonight, and report tomorrow if you've been successful :biggrin:
Not even a small problem.. want it within the hour?
So you have your own brewery :biggrin:
You might like The Scourge of Crony Capitalism (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/12-06-20/the_scourge_of_crony_capitalism.aspx).
Yes!!!! Two of 'em. Guess....
Shampoo, conditioner, electrical power home & car, spaghetti sauce, salad dressings (all), compost, candles (?), the garden, and oh my gosh, now the list is long, and there's more. But, yes.
This conversation seems long-winded and deep. To some. Not here. Long-winded & deep is good, if one is inclined. No criticism, though--just a smile.
Fine. Let 'er rip. I grew up on a farm in Wisconsin and I "get" guns. I've seen them used peacefully to shoot the face off a deer. A bull. A cow. A hog. A chicken. A dog. A neighbor. A house, and... a car. But, never an intruder.
One question: In today's world, now that we're more civil, what are guns used for?
-
> Good taxation means finding the exact point where the incentive to avoid them is a little bit weaker than the tax itself.
I'm going to expand on Hutch's objection to this, given an economic perspective.
Fundamentally all economies grow richer by increasing the efficiency of production. Simply paying more money to employees is recipe for bankruptcy past some limit. Paying too little can also make profitability impossible, for lack of customers. Money just determines a potential share of the production. If you burn your money it is equivalent to giving whatever you produced to everybody else, in proportion to their money, since you didn't use that money to take from production what you put into it, or provide it to a single person to take it by giving the money away.
So basically you have a set of people P=[a,b,c,d] with a production limit of L=[i,j,k,l]. Now to form a governing body you need people, so you take G=[d]. Your producing set of people P=[a,b,c], which knocks your production down to L=[i,j,k]. Now hopefully [d] will provide something of value, or an increase in productive efficiency, governments usually provide at least some value, even if the cost is often excessive relative to the economy. With money payed to government [d] can now hire [c] to do their bidding. Our productive force is now P=[a,b] with a production limit of L=[i,j]. Yet these goods and services [i,j] must still be distributed among [a,b,c,d] per their relative income. If G=[c,d] manage some productive or efficiency increases at half the efficiency of P=[a,b] then the goods and services available effective become L=[i,j,k] distributed among [a,b,c,d]. Which is a net economic loss of 25%. Granted, some government services are a necessary paper losses to maintain economic viability, just like advertizing products, police in governments, etc.
Now when you start justifying taxes on the basis of incentives or disincentives then this money, or cost moment, cost more than the initial cost the buyer chose, for the following reason. [.d] takes possession of this extra money payed, which can now be used to hire [.b]. We now have a production force of P=[a], with a producing limit L=. If government maintains the same per capita efficiency boost to production, i.e., a 50% boost in government, then the effective total wealth becomes L=[i,j/2] distributed among [a,b,c,d]. This net loss to total wealth is predicated on discouraging an individuals behavior or purchasing patterns. You can reduce taxes elsewhere to invalidate this, though that never happens and even it did it makes the government dependent on a continuation of the same behavior it was seeking to discourage. Even worse, since the government is counting money turnover as a proxy for wealth no loss is apparent. Meanwhile the production losses are making the lowest payed individuals relative cost of living more unaffordable. The government then blames it on wages, capitalism, greed, whatever, and seeks more taxes to help the poor, of which 90 cents out of every dollar goes to paying administrators to determine which people are poor enough to receive it. Not much left of [a] at this point. The above scenario has traditionally depended on technological increases to increase the productivity of the remaining work force in excess of these losses.
Why taxing the rich taxes the poor:
This is not to say the rich shouldn't be taxed, perhaps (highly questionably) even exclusively. Rather this is to combat the notion that taxes on the rich can be used to alleviate taxes on the poor. Neither is this entitlement based set pseudo-numbers particularly relevant today when the vast majority of welfare these days is corporate welfare, but the principle is the same. The main difference is rather than money per say, corporate benefactors are after protection of their markets (market advantages through law).
Somebody [a*] owns company M with employees M=[a*,b,c,d,e]. We'll assume government G=[g], and this defines the entire economy such that the goods and services are L=[i,j,k,l,m,n] (including government services). Here [a*] is the wealthiest since they own M, probably followed by [g], the tax man. [g] decides to tax [a*] more to provide the worker class [b,c,d] with a fatter share the money or services which [g] chooses. Only [g] gives themselves a pay raise and hires administrators to handle the paperwork for deciding who among the working class gets a cut of money from [a], which the working class must apply for. Now the wages of [a*] went down, and wages of [g] went up. The working class [b,c,d] gets some small percentage from what is left over from the share kept by [g] and the administrative cost. Administrative cost of 90% are not that uncommon. So in effect, for the money that could have added a dollar to your wages you are now stuck with a dime from [g]. If [a*] was being that stingy with the money [g] could have simply required a minimum wage increase 10 times larger than the return from the entitlements, at effectively zero administrative cost. Only now, with the administrative cost in place, there's as much less money available for providing or requiring wage increases. You have [g], and all their administrators, coming to your pot luck dinner without a pot, while wondering why there's not enough for the hungry to have seconds. Meanwhile [g] is selling you the idea that they should take more from [a] to provide more of the stuff they are consuming rather than producing.
This does not mean that their should not be safety nets for which we pay the administrative cost for. Not everybody can stay employed at all times, or afford the cost of emergencies. But it must be recognized that the cost of such services must come at a cost to the rich and poor alike. The only real solution is efficiency and fairness of rules. [g] unfortunate doesn't care for fair rules because selling people on the notion that they should be Robin Hood is so much more profitable, at least in terms of their personal share of whatever is left of the production.
The same is true whether it's corporate welfare from republicans or working class welfare from democrats. If we had rule based fairness, rather than Robin Hood based fairness, we could easily afford far more safely nets for those in troubled times. Taxing by government is a necessary evil, like buying a toilet. The question should predominately be how much of the total economy the government is limited to rather than simply who should pay more. In the long run it makes no difference whether that limit is taken exclusively from the rich or equally from everyone, the cost will be to everyone regardless.
edit: Should have known better than to use brackets.
-
I don't drink and don't actually have my own brewery, though I probably have enough equipment for one around. There's enough people around that do make their own that if I asked for a quart or so it wouldn't be a big deal.
-
> Administrative cost of 90% are not that uncommon
You make quite a number of interesting assumptions :bgrin:
But your basic assumption seems to be that government is inefficient. That would be stuff for a lengthy special thread, if I had time and energy and were young enough to enjoy reading and writing Cobb-Douglas etc equations, and to dive into tons of statistical garbage, pardon: evidence.
So let me just observe that highly industrialised, highly civilised countries (Scandinavia, Japan, Eurozone etc) typically have a government share around 50%.
Or, on a more anecdotical level: The British are not happy with their privatised railways, and Italians go on the street to protest against privatisation of water supply...
You can also see it the other way round: Laissez-faire capitalism would require that the nuclear industry gets insured against all of their risk, including demolition and long-term storage costs, instead of charging that on future taxpayers. Same for our friends the banksters: Too big to fail = privatise the profits, socialise the losses, the perfect synthesis of capitalism and socialism. Where would Boeing be without orders from the military budget paid by the taxpayer? And don't tell me it's the government, otherwise I'll quote Eisenhower (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) ;)
But the issue is a different one. Imagine you opt for a state quota of, say, 20%, and you need to finance that, so you impose a 20% tax on income. Your population consists of two individuals:
1. John Poor has been particularly careless when choosing his parents, but still, thanks to hard work at school and later, he earns 100,000 bucks a year.
2. Bill Rich is the grand-grand-grandson of Thomas Alva Edison, and inherited 1,000,000,000 bucks. He invested them in Italian government bonds at 7% and, subtracting 3% inflation, earns 40,000,000 bucks per year.
Now, leave Robin Hood aside for a moment, and concentrate on a few questions:
1. Is it fair that John Poor earns, after taxes, only 0.25% of what Bill Rich earns?
2. Is it compatible with the right-wing "who works hard must be rewarded" ideology?
3. Is it efficient for society, economically speaking, that Bill Rich can spend 40 times what John Poor spends, without ever moving a finger or getting his hands dirty?
4. Is it good for democracy that Bill Rich, given that he won't be able to spend 32,000,000 bucks per year, will continue to accumulate a fortune, and eventually will have so much power that he can dictate the economic policies to the elected government?
-
> Administrative cost of 90% are not that uncommon
You make quite a number of interesting assumptions :bgrin:
But your basic assumption seems to be that government is inefficient.
Not necessarily, but within certain domains they can be massively inefficient. Our roads and such are a good example of well spent money, even if the biggest road projects gets doled out as political favors. On the other hand, an entire set of administrative cost for the sake of providing something a simple rule of law can provide for at essentially zero administrative cost is massively inefficient no matter how efficient the administrators may be.
1. John Poor has been particularly careless when choosing his parents, but still, thanks to hard work at school and later, he earns 100,000 bucks a year.
2. Bill Rich is the grand-grand-grandson of Thomas Alva Edison, and inherited 1,000,000,000 bucks. He invested them in Italian government bonds at 7% and, subtracting 3% inflation, earns 40,000,000 bucks per year.
Now, leave Robin Hood aside for a moment, and concentrate on a few questions:
1. Is it fair that John Poor earns, after taxes, only 0.25% of what Bill Rich earns?
What's really ironic in this setup is that he is earning his money off government bonds here. Hence the government is charging much poorer people to pay his dividends from which his taxes are then payed. If the rich think it's a good deal to purchase the governments money, why do governments think it's a good deal to sell it to them? Oh yeah, could it be because Mr Rich is willing to donate large chunks of money to the politicians personal coffers in exchange for the deal? If Mr Rich wants to invest why can't he invest in Mr Poor? Because it's more profitable and less risky to pay the government to take Mr Poor's money to pay Mr Rich's dividends, from which the politician draws donations. Meanwhile Mr Poor is talking a lot about how Mr Rich needs to pay a higher share of the tax from the money he's getting from Mr Poor.
Fair or not income equality is a pipe dream that will never happen, under any system. Even a purely agrarian system. Even ecological systems structure around effectively the same system hierarchy. If you think some system could make it possible and remain productive let me know. The best you can do is provide a rule set under which the rich must either help benefit the total wealth the system, by investing in Mr Poor's future, or else watch their wealth slowly dissipate through consumption. Instead, the above scenario has Mr Rich living off the Mr Poor's money that Mr Rich bought off of Mr Poor's government, to the effect that Mr Poor's government representative now gets their own share or Mr Poor's money in their personal non-government coffers.
These leaching mechanisms to permanently live off Mr Poor's production is too numerous to count. It's fortuitous you pick a scenario that made it appear much simpler than it actually is, even though the effect really is essentially the same.
2. Is it compatible with the right-wing "who works hard must be rewarded" ideology?
Don't know which right wing ideology you are referring to, but:
Back in the 80s, when these taxation claims first started being posited, they were more or less based on valid arguments, given the extremes of the tax policies of the time. At this time you could buy a 6 month CD with a return of just a few tenth of a percent off 18%. Puts that 7% to shame. Actually risking your money on real investments was crazy, and actually paying the official tax rate on that income was even crazier. Nobody, repeat nobody, payed those tax rates listed in the tax book.
Todays economic environment is a complete opposite. The tax rate arguments are not even based on fairness, economic realities, or any other sane reality these days. In fact that 15% top tax rate partly payed by Romney doesn't even apply to every rich person earning the same money. Such as those actually running a productive business, Rather it applies only to those rich people living off of straight monetary investments, such as those the bankers got rich on before crashing. Such as your Mr Rich in the above scenario. Taxi cab drivers pay more tax than that! The pseudo-arguments that pass as right wing ideology today is word soup made up to sound passable to an older generation that hasn't noticed what was is not what is. And the backlash when the political winds turn again will almost certainly be an opposite extreme to what we now have.
3. Is it efficient for society, economically speaking, that Bill Rich can spend 40 times what John Poor spends, without ever moving a finger or getting his hands dirty?
If it was money that either Mr Rich, or his father, or his grandfather, actually produced then it may not be fair in any absolute sense, but it's not automatically unfair either. The problem is that Mr Rich is not consuming his money for a living, or producing anything for a living. Rather he bought Mr Poor's future money so that Mr Poor is the one paying him for doing NOTHING, while Mr Rich effectively spends none of his own money in order to consume Mr Poor's production. The REAL unfairness is due to those facts, not the fact that they lucked onto a big wade of money at birth.
4. Is it good for democracy that Bill Rich, given that he won't be able to spend 32,000,000 bucks per year, will continue to accumulate a fortune, and eventually will have so much power that he can dictate the economic policies to the elected government?
And there you have landed on the real stench of the situation. If Mr Rich actually made that 32 mil from investing in Mr Poor, and increasing Mr Poor's productivity to many times that 32 mil then fine. That might be the case for Bill Gates, but certainly not for older money such as you described. And no, that is NOT fair under any stretch of the imagination.
This used to be done through bonds, while taxes were avoided through holding corporations. Last time I heard one of these ex super rich people, ex owner of one of the investment corporations that sheltered rich people from actually paying the tax rates listed on the books, crying because Reagan put them in the poor house was about 12 years ago. He was begging 40k from a friend, who knew him when he was a millionaire, to help build a car wash. That is why so much money got diverted to wall street since the 80s. That is what todays right wing babbling is (falsely) predicated on, as those doing the babbling gets drunk on our money.
Ideologies that are held as truth independent of the reality of the circumstances under which they are applied ALWAYS suck.
-
I believe we are approaching a point where the economy will change very radically. At the moment we are in a TECH revolution somewhat like the industrial revolution(that changed society a LOT) and I believe we may be entering another revolution that goes beyond the changes the TECH one has caused. One cannot deny that the TECH REV has changed our society in many radical ways. I am watching very closely the major breakthroughs and there are a few that may trigger a very rapid change. They have found a way to create Hydrogen now cheaply from water and found a catalyst(to replace Platinum) that is cheap and abundant. The Hydrogen engine is also now using a new catalyst that is cheaper(it used to use Platinum also) the new Cat is Cobalt and this may usher in a much cheaper source of power. The main cost for manufacturing comes from labor and the cost of power. With the cheap power may come much more use of robots and almost eliminate human labor,making the production cost almost at a level approaching Zero. Robots are not used as much because of the cost of power,but that may change very fast now.
-
anunitu,
You are right that tech is going to change things is ways few people have any clue how to guess. They even invented a word for their blind spot in the future... the "singularity".
The hydrogen technology is promising. But there's one problem not mentioned. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy storage device. Nonetheless, being able to effectively store and transport energy, from effectively any source, greatly increases our options for actual energy sources. Its importance in that respect cannot be overlooked.
-
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy storage device.
What energy “source” isn’t ultimately an energy storage device?
-
What energy “source” isn’t ultimately an energy storage device?
Think of photovoltaics and wind energy...
-
Photovoltaics are used to convert energy stored in solar radiation to electrical power. Wind energy is energy stored in moving air masses.
-
You are pushing the "storage" concept a bit far, Michael :biggrin:
-
And it all started with the big bang :biggrin:
-
Hi Michael,
And it all started with the big bang :biggrin:
and the centre of the big bang is the earth, of course. :lol:
Gunther
-
Photovoltaics are used to convert energy stored in solar radiation to electrical power. Wind energy is energy stored in moving air masses.
You didn't store it there, and you can't save it there for a rainy day :lol:
-
Photovoltaics are used to convert energy stored in solar radiation to electrical power. Wind energy is energy stored in moving air masses.
You didn't store it there, and you can't save it there for a rainy day :lol:
You're as bad as the rest of us for nit-picking... Programming in Asm does this to you :icon_mrgreen:
-
Not to worry about energy or the economy folks,you can always just catch the Space ship home.
http://zadishefreeman.com/bugarach-upside-down-mountain-cult-of-20000-awaiting-aliens-salvation-on-dec-21-2012/
Travel company's are even selling discount one way tickets to there,so you can escape the doomsday on the cheap!!
-
I’m truly beginning to believe we American’s are losing our minds. More handgun madness!
Woman shoots man to death in apparent road rage shooting at Houston gas station (http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-09-18/woman-shoots-man-death-apparent-road-rage-shooting-houston-gas-station#.UFhjybJlTPw)
These road rage shootings happen much too often. I’ve had a couple vehicle accidents in my life where it was the other persons fault and I lost my cool and began screaming at the idiot that almost killed me. Of course I never gave any thought to the fact I could have been shot to death.
-
I’m truly beginning to believe we American’s are losing our minds. More handgun madness!
Woman shoots man to death in apparent road rage shooting at Houston gas station (http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-09-18/woman-shoots-man-death-apparent-road-rage-shooting-houston-gas-station#.UFhjybJlTPw)
These road rage shootings happen much too often. I’ve had a couple vehicle accidents in my life where it was the other persons fault and I lost my cool and began screaming at the idiot that almost killed me. Of course I never gave any thought to the fact I could have been shot to death.
A more complete description can be found here:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Road-rage-ends-in-fatal-shooting-in-NW-Harris-3871363.php
I think, given a more complete description, calling it a road rage shooting is misleading.
1. She called 911 before pulling over for the guy.
2. When she pulled over she reported he began hitting her car.
3. She reported he attempted to open her drivers door while hitting her drivers side window.
I would want more confirmation than her word that she wasn't just overreacting, but as reported the guy went well beyond simply getting irate and running his mouth. It doesn't take a gun for these kinds of incidence to turn deadly. Just read this:
Virginia woman run over and killed in possible road rage attack (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-06/news/31600600_1_road-rage-virginia-woman-virginia-police)
Now if this Virginia woman had shot this guy we would have been reading about it here in the context of gun violence. Instead this innocent woman is dead, no gun involved, and we hear nothing about it except in rebuttal to another woman apparently defending herself. Would we even hear about this woman here if she hadn't used her gun and was killed?
-
If what she said is factual, and per the article her account did match that of the witnesses, she had every right to shoot him and should have shot him. Going after a woman like that he should have expected a harsh response, if not from her then from a male bystander.
-
Will she may have been less traumatize had she simply drove away leaving the pissed off driver standing there. Now she will spend the rest of her life with the fact that she murdered a fellow human being simply because she freaked out over reacted and put two bullets in the mans chest.
-
Now she will spend the rest of her life with the fact that she murdered a fellow human being simply because she freaked out over reacted and put two bullets in the mans chest.
She didn’t overreact. With the way he was behaving, when he tried to open her door he presented a threat to her life. If the sheriff’s deputies had shown up and seen the way he was behaving before the shooting, they would have been pointing guns at him too. And it’s unlikely that the sheriff’s deputy would have made the statements that he did if he did not agree with her actions.
-
I tend to go with MichaelW here. If it was me with the gun I would need a couple more steps taken before I would sleep well after pulling the trigger. First would be to give the guy a chance to back off after the gun is pointed at him, and second for him to continue to the point of getting my door open and lay hands on me. After that point my conscious would be clear. Just look at the road rage deaths in which no guns are involved.
However, I don't expect a scared woman, or most anybody else for that matter, to be as calculating as I would be in the midst of a high adrenaline situation. Expecting people that scared to afford an assailant every last moment you can afford is not always very realistic. Even heavily trained people often fail miserably in that respect.
Bill, you expect a certain amount of leniency and understanding when venting a little steam after an accident. I agree that raising voices a bit it absolutely no reason to be shot, or even physically attacked. However, you must also realize that you are inviting them to vent their own steam. No matter how nonviolent your venting is, you are taking a larger risk from this behavior than your average gun toter is taking by having a gun. This behavior invites retaliation, regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Guns make up about 37 percent of the weapons of choice in a road rage confrontation. The vehicle itself is the weapon in about 35 percent of cases. Others include knives, tire irons, baseball bats, etc., all used with deadly force. Making sure that driver has no gun does not make it any safer to vent your steam. Knowing how many people are killed by road rage rage every year, how can you not take take some responsibility in diffusing the fear people might feel toward you? It's far safer for you, when confronted by someone with a tendency to vent with deadly force, and far more productive when it's just an average Joe.
-
First would be to give the guy a chance to back off after the gun is pointed at him...
However, I don't expect a scared woman, or most anybody else for that matter, to be as calculating as I would be in the midst of a high adrenaline situation. Expecting people that scared to afford an assailant every last moment you can afford is not always very realistic. Even heavily trained people often fail miserably in that respect.
The consequence is clearly that somebody who is not able to handle such a situation should not be given a deadly weapon. Give her a taser, pepper spray, whatever, but not a gun.
I have been victim of road rage, the guy shattered the side window with his elbow - and that was it. He stared at me angrily for some seconds and then went away.
But that is Europe, of course. We don't kill people just because we "feel threatened".
-
The consequence is clearly that somebody who is not able to handle such a situation should not be given a deadly weapon. Give her a taser, pepper spray, whatever, but not a gun.
At the risk of stating the obvious, she did handle the situation. I would guess that in not hesitating and putting two bullets in him, she was doing what she had been trained to do in the course of getting her concealed-carry license.
But that is Europe, of course. We don't kill people just because we "feel threatened".
Here, as I’m sure it is there, it depends on the nature of the threat. If he had limited himself to yelling at her and threatening a lawsuit, and maybe even kicking in a fender or two, he probably would have survived.
-
:biggrin:
JJ, if you had have whipped out a 44 magnum (like Dirty Harry) and blasted away I have no doubt he would not have broken any more windows and that is even if you did not shoot him. :P
-
I believe this woman will have nightmares about murdering that guy for the rest of her life. She could have avoided the whole thing if she had simply driven away leaving that guy standing there. Sheer stupidity and over-reaction on her part. I hope she suffers all her life for murdering that guy!
-
... Shot Dead By Houston Police (http://blog.chron.com/texasliberal/2012/09/double-amputee-in-wheelchair-shot-dead-by-houston-police/)
Claunch trapped one of the officers in a corner, authorities said...
The rest you can imagine: the officer "felt threatened" and had to "defend himself" by killing the threat.
-
And the moral of this and similar stories is that one should avoid assaulting police officers.
-
I would never knock on the window of a car. From inside the knocking can be quite intrusive but I guess not all people are wary of that. :(
-
And the moral of this and similar stories is that one should avoid assaulting police officers.
Yes indeed. That officer was "assaulted" by a man in a wheelchair. Quite naturally, the officer had to kill the guy. People in wheelchairs are so damn dangerous...
-
It is generally well known that american police officers have bad rumors but let's not forget the stress they are put under daily. This kind of stress can lead to that kind of behavior, it is the same with soldiers in a war, stress can lead soldiers to doing silly things like shooting puppies, animal cruelty or taking a pee on a corpse.
Being a police officer you see idiots every day, meet violent people every day and you sort of adapt a primitive role in society where violence is part of your daily life. Aggression probably does trigger some primitive behavior in people and probably also with police officers.
-
I have ALWAYS had one rule I go by with Cops. Even in my most drunken state I never gave them any reason to hurt me. When confronted with a Cop,I always went passive. They have the guns,and the law on their side.
Once when I was arrested for drunk and disorderly I had a switch blade in my back pocket(in Oakland,California that was almost a must). I told the Cop I had the knife,and he said as he took it,we don't need this and tossed it. If I had acted like an As*hole I would have probably have been charged with a concealed weapons charge.
-
Risk reduction comes with age, it is natural. I will probably also become more passive but there is a limit to where passiveness isn't very appealing. I've never had problems with the police in face to face situations, I don't know if that is because the police are highly trained to stay passive themselves. I don't like the police they have much authority so I try to avoid them when possible. But the times I meet with a police officer I get a good impression, they smile, say hello, even the police dog isn't looking in my face, it is trained to look away.
-
Ha,it seems obvious you have never run into an American Cop. Some can be very nasty,training or not. Always best here in the States not to piss them off, Certain cities have really nasty cops here,and always good to know how cops are in other cities. When in America,remember our police aren't always your friend or protector and that depends on your race here also.
-
That officer was "assaulted" by a man in a wheelchair.
Judging from what I have read of the incident so far, he was. Try looking up the legal definition of assault. They were called because he was threatening other occupants. When they tried to convince him to stop, he threatened them and indicated that he had a weapon. They told him to drop the weapon, he continued the assault, and boom. The question is whether or not he presented a credible threat. In my view the running opinions are focused too much on his disabilities, and too little on his abilities.
-
he threatened them and indicated that he had a weapon
And the police officer felt immensely threatened by the kalashnikov, so he had to kill the guy.
From the Houston Chronicle—
“A schizophrenic double amputee waving a writing pen from his wheelchair was fatally shot early Saturday by a Houston police officer, authorities said….Police were called to the East End personal care home around 2 a.m. because resident Brian Claunch had become agitated after his caretaker refused to give him a soda and a cigarette…. ”He was approaching them aggressively,” said Houston Police Department spokeswoman Jodi Silva. “He was attempting to stab them with what is now found to be a pen.”.
-
From the Houston Chronicle—
“A schizophrenic double amputee waving a writing pen from his wheelchair was fatally shot early Saturday by a Houston police officer, authorities said….Police were called to the East End personal care home around 2 a.m. because resident Brian Claunch had become agitated after his caretaker refused to give him a soda and a cigarette…. ”He was approaching them aggressively,” said Houston Police Department spokeswoman Jodi Silva. “He was attempting to stab them with what is now found to be a pen.”.
what a crazy story! Very strange.
Gunther
-
Unfortunately, in the US it’s not that strange. These days we have too many deranged people, some of them harmless, some of them not.
-
Unfortunately, in the US it’s not that strange. These days we have too many deranged people, some of them harmless, some of them not.
All societies have their share of mentally disturbed persons, like Claunch or the man from Times Square. What is very strange is the approach of U.S. police in "handling" them. However (but that can't be an excuse for killing a sick person), only in the U.S. does a police officer have a 50:50 chance that citizen John Doe suddenly pulls out a handgun. Maybe this explains why they are scared shitless (always assuming they don't kill on purpose).
-
Claunch’s amputations were probably the result of a series of bad decisions that he made. His death was the result of a series of bad decisions that he made. Is society supposed to protect these people from their bad decisions, when doing so will require taking the control of their life away from them? I think he would not have wanted that, or accepted that.
-
Michael,
Unfortunately, in the US it’s not that strange. These days we have too many deranged people, some of them harmless, some of them not.
deranged people do we have in Europe, too.
Gunther
-
In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 60 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.
America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)
-
Have a look at this list
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Does it sound bad for you. Lots of country that ban guns had less death because of firearm. But he is right, allowing firearms will make coward think twice before they shoot.
-
When it comes to America's love of guns we are no different then a third world country. It is incredible that we Americans who love to brag that we are the greatest most civilized nation on earth have come to this.
The program, called A.L.i.C.E. -- alert, lockdown, inform, counter, evacuate -- has been implemented in 300 schools since it was founded in the mid-2000s by former SWAT officer Greg Crane and his wife, a former school principal.
Crane and other A.L.i.C.E. proponents want to empower the people in a shooting situation — even children — to make those life-and-death decisions. At least 1.6 million students in almost 300 school systems, from elementary schools to colleges and universities have had A.L.i.C.E. training. Crane says he's even taught it to kindergarteners.
ALICE, The New Lock Down (http://www.thenewscenter.tv/news/headlines/ALICE_The_New_Lockdown_149143855.html)
Teaching School Students to Fight Gunmen (http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/students_fight_gunmen.html)
-
HATE FOR GUN
-
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/guns.jpg)
-
Bill, your post are dancing with propaganda again.
-
Webster: Propaganda (Noun) - information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
I wonder where these kids get the guns they use to terrorize with?
Here are but a few shootings just from the past couple months.
Student shot at Baltimore-area high school (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/student_shot_at_baltimore-area.html)
School Shooting Linked to Sniper Attacks (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91160&page=1#.UKC-_OR9KJs)
North Dakota freshman makes apology, shoots self in front of class (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/11/us/north-dakota-school-shooting/index.html)
Teen charged in fatal shooting at York County birthday party (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/teen_charged_in_fatal_shooting.html)
13-year-old boy charged with killing his grandparents (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/13-year-old_boy_charged_with_k.html)
3 shot during fight in stands at children's football game (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/3_shot_during_fight_in_stands.html)
Northwest Indiana Mall Evacuated After Shooting, 3 Teens Arrested (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/10/northwest-indiana-mall-evacuated-after-report-of-shooting/)
This year over 85,000 people in America have been shot.
EVERY DAY (on average) 270 people in America, 47 of them children and teens are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, and police intervention. 87 people die from gun violence, 33 of them murdered. 8 children and teens die from gun violence. 183 people are shot, but survive their gun injuries. 38 children and teens are shot, but survive their gun injuries.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
-
Webster: Propaganda (Noun) - information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
Webster’s Dictionary, Second Edition, 1979:
Propaganda n.
1. In the Roman Catholic Church…
2. Any organization or movement working for the propagation of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc.
3. The ideas, doctrines, practices, etc spread in this way.
4. Any systematic, widespread, deliberate indoctrination or plan for such indoctrination: now often used in a derogatory sense, connoting deception or distortion.
-
Did you know that some 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010?
That on average, firearms were stolen in an annual average of about 4% of the 2.4 million burglaries occurring each year, in 2% of the 529,200 robberies, and in less than 1% of the 13.6 million other crimes involving theft from 2005 through 2010.
And from 2005 through 2010, 86% of burglaries and 75% of other property crimes involving a stolen firearm were reported to police.
Handguns were the most commonly stolen firearm from 2005 through 2010. At least one handgun was stolen in 63 percent of household burglaries and 68 percent of other property crimes involving firearm theft. More than one gun was stolen in 39 percent of burglaries and 15 percent of other property crimes involving gun theft.
And did you know the majority of Americans, including police chiefs, gun owners, NRA members, “blue state” voters and high school students, support common sense gun laws.
Did you know that?
94 percent of police chiefs favor requiring a Brady criminal background check for all handgun sales.
82 percent of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all rifle and shotgun sales.
87 percent of Americans support background checks on private sales of guns, including sales at gun shows.
83 percent of gun owners support background checks on private sales of guns, including sales at gun shows.
87 percent of “new blue” voters in the states of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia support background checks for all gun sales, including those at gun shows.
92 percent of high school students support background checks for all sales.
86 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of gun owners, support requiring gun retailers to inspect their own inventories at least once a year to make sure no guns have been stolen or gone missing.
80 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of gun owners, support requiring gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked from selling their guns without a background check .
82 percent of Americans support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons.
79 percent of Americans supports requiring a police permit before the purchase of a gun.
70 percent of American voters mistakenly believe that a system of licensing and registration already exists in the U.S.
79 percent of Americans support requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government.
96 percent of high school students support mandatory registration of guns.
Join us, we need solutions to the handgun madness here in the U.S. right now!!
http://www.bradycampaign.org
-
Congrats, America!
Broadwell starred as a submachine gun subject-matter expert in a promotional video for a company trying to win U.S. military contracts and Kelley allegedly positioned herself as someone who could broker a multibillion-dollar energy deal with South Korea and asked for an $80 million commission. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/16/Petraeus-scandal-Kelley-sought-80M-fee/UPI-54231353054600/)
:dazzled:
-
U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus: (http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/handjob.gif)
I always find it incredible that men in power can be lead astray so effortlessly by what they see as beauty (I’d call her average). Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Beauty to ones eye so deep it uncontrollably bedazzles a man. These beauties are masters of seduction to such a point that the testosterone induced male freely and willingly lets her lead him by the penis as she would a leashed dog. Lust and sex, men are driven to madness for it!
Edit: Wanted to add the appropriate emoticon above.
-
Hi Bill,
Lust and sex, men are driven to madness for it!
seems to be true. On the other hand is the audience in the US very prudish.
Gunther
-
Prudish? Only publicly Gunther. Behind closed doors American’s are like animals! :biggrin:
-
Hi Bill,
that information is new for me and a bit surprising. :lol: But joke apart, the entire Petraeus story is very strange.
Gunther
-
AFAIK he was standing in front of the screen, effectively above the crowd, and under those conditions an armed person with the right skills could have easily killed him. No taxpayer funds spent on a prosecution, or multiple appeals, or long-term incarceration, ...
A courageous lady with the right skills in Bolivar, Missouri just prevented a new "Batman" shooting (http://www.freep.com/article/20121117/NEWS07/121117004/Man-charged-with-plotting-Twilight-mass-shooting?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE) :t
-
My thoughts on guns.
A big problem is when people see alarming behavior and then don't say something to someone.
For example, someone who has untreated or undiagnosed major depression can become a danger to himself or others.
Most times they will show signs of it long before they start thinking of doing harm.
If someone sees disturbing behavior that can lead to a dangerous situation, they have at least a moral obligation to tell someone about it.
I think the right to carry is a good law and it has probably saved some lives.
I personally would not carry a gun because I figure if it's not safe where I live and work, I will try to find someplace else to move to.
With all the frivalous lawsuits, if you did legally shoot an intruder, you would have to shoot to kill instead of say a leg shot.
Some neighborhoods have gone the other way.
They feel safe enough to leave their doors unlocked and shades open.
Seems pretty foolish to me.
Outta here,
Andy
-
We are indeed a sick minded handgun loving nation!
7-year-old fatally shot by father outside gun store in Pennsylvania (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/08/15780233-police-7-year-old-fatally-shot-by-father-outside-gun-store-in-pennsylvania)
Two boys, ages 11 and 7, use gun in attempted robbery, carjacking (http://www.nwcn.com/home/182760431.html)
Jovan Belcher Shot the Mother of His Baby Nine Times, Police Say (http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/12/02/jovan-belcher-shot-the-mother-of-his-baby-nine-times-police-say/)
When is enough enough? When do we as Americans do something to stop this mindless love for handguns?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
-
When is enough enough? When do we as Americans do something to stop this mindless love for handguns?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
That's the 64 thousand dollar question, Bill. The weapons industry has a very strong lobby. This is the main obstacle in my eyes.
Gunther
-
There is advantage legalizing guns on your country, when your country attacked, 200 milions people ready to fight, it is different with country which ban guns which only depend on their army.
-
Maybe you could try seeing some positive things going on ?
It helps me.
Andy
-
America's handgun madness has turned us into a frightened society. People buy handguns because they're afraid of all the psychos and criminals with guns. Handguns bought for defense are rarely ever used to shoot an attacker. More often then not they are used in family quarrels, drug and drunken suicides or much too often tragedies involving children. Many handguns are stolen by burglars which then raises the gun peril on the streets making frightened people buy more handguns for some delusion that it will protect them.
Compared to most other democracies America is a brutal dangerous place. The U.S. murder rate is many times higher than in all other industrialized nations. Most of the killings involve handguns. A handgun adds finality to an argument. There is no out running a bullet. Handgun fans say the Second Amendment gives everyone in America a right to own a handgun. I don't believe this and I think neither do most Americans. My opinion is every person who goes around in public armed in the midst of a peaceable community is of vile character and themselves a criminal.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/handguns.jpg)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
-
These are hard facts, Bill. :t
Gunther
-
Bare numbers don't take population into account, not that it looks better if you do.
| Country | Gun Deaths | Population | Gun Deaths |
| in 1 Year | (2011) | per Million |
| England & Wales | 39 | 56,077,000 | 0.695 |
| Spain | 60 | 46,163,116 | 1.300 |
| Australia | 35 | 22,837,174 | 1.533 |
| Germany | 194 | 81,874,000 | 2.369 |
| Finland | 17 | 5,426,290 | 3.133 |
| Canada | 200 | 35,004,200 | 5.714 |
| USA | 9484 | 314,918,000 | 30.116 |
(2011 Population counts taken from Wikipedia.)
-
What about our totally open door policy to immigration ?
"Go on everyone, come on over and work and do whatever."
We'll even give you a free bus ride home.
Andy
-
What about our totally open door policy to immigration ?
What the hell does that have to do with Americas love for gun ownership which is the subject of this thread??
-
The problem is the average handgun owner is very stupid having little knowledge on the proper use or safe storage of a handgun. And yet these stupid Americans believe they are safer because they own a handgun. This stupidity is why the U.S. has a rate of homicides of children that is nearly 16 times greater than the rates in 25 other industrialized countries combined. It is estimated that approximately one million children bring a handgun to school each year here in the U.S. because of their stupid paranoid parents.
In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from handguns in the U.S. and 2,793 died in 2009 for a total of 5,740. That’s one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years. The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009 was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan (5,013).
What is the best word to describe the average handgun owning American parent? The word is “Stupid”!
-
The problem is the average handgun owner is very stupid having little knowledge on the proper use or safe storage of a handgun.
Then why don't they make the gun owning process more difficult?
For example, prospective owners have to demonstrate being able to handle & store the gun properly (probably a certification required)
before buying?
-
Bill,
In 2008 and 2009 there were roughly 5 times as many kids and teens killed on the roadways of the U.S. as were killed by handguns, so why aren’t you concentrating your energies on the bigger problem? And since a large portion of these fatalities involved a teen driving, why not campaign for tighter restrictions on young drivers? After all, it is estimated that far more than a million teens bring an automobile to school each year, because their parents are too stupid to be paranoid.
-
Spain 60 46,163,116 1.300
Wow, I had no idea that so many people were killed in Spain by handguns last year. I suppose that many of them were relationed with drugs...
I respect every point of view, of course, sure. But, in my modest opinion, if we don't want to live in the far west we have to leave guns to the police. I have a vague remember about a western film where the sheriff removed the guns to people that got into his town, a good idea for a safer life.
The question would be If the police do not work properly or there're many evil people around there, where they come from?.
-
Then why don't they make the gun owning process more difficult?
For example, prospective owners have to demonstrate being able to handle & store the gun properly (probably a certification required)
before buying?
Exactly! This is what most Americans want to see happen.
-
Bill,
In 2008 and 2009 there were roughly 5 times as many kids and teens killed on the roadways of the U.S. as were killed by handguns, so why aren’t you concentrating your energies on the bigger problem?
Michael,
What is the subject of this thread? If you want to discuss the dangers of teen driving why don’t you start up a thread about those dangers? There is no relationship between automobiles and gun deaths other then stupid people are both at fault when one occurs. My battle is with morons that own handguns not morons that drive cars. This country of ours would come literally to a halt without automobiles. Having no private ownership of handguns would have zero effect on this supposedly civilized society we call America other then stopping countless deaths by stupid owners of handguns. I get so sick of the ignorance of those who continually try to compare the two.
-
My battle is with morons that own handguns not morons that drive cars. This country of ours would come literally to a halt without automobiles. Having no private ownership of handguns would have zero effect on this supposedly civilized society we call America other then stopping countless deaths by stupid owners of handguns.
I agree that that this country would grind to a halt without motor vehicles, but why are you comparing “no private ownership of handguns” to “this country…without automobiles”? The only valid comparison I see here is between prohibiting idiots from owning handguns and prohibiting idiots from driving. The latter would presumably save the lives of approximately 5 times as many kids and teens as would the former. You see a good use for automobiles so you’re willing to overlook the deaths they are associated with? But since you see no good use for handguns, the much smaller number of deaths they are associated with are unacceptable, so to solve the problem we must end private ownership of handguns? In my view you are extremely biased here.
-
deleted
-
The measure is lawyers per capita.
Good point :t
> the mean annual salary for lawyers was around $129,440
I expected much more ::)
-
It has gotten to the point here in the states that you must fear for your family’s safety when they are out Christmas shopping.
Motive unclear in shooting at busy Oregon mall that left three dead, one badly hurt (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57558659/motive-unclear-in-shooting-at-busy-oregon-mall-that-left-three-dead-one-badly-hurt/)
By the way, a record was broken in 2012; over 8 million guns were sold this year to private individuals here in America. Bet is most of those buyers have no clue on the proper use and storage of those guns.
As to some who like comparing auto deaths to gun deaths, fine, then lets regulate gun ownership just as we do automobile ownership.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/carsguns.png)
-
It has gotten to the point here in the states that you must fear for your family’s safety when they are out Christmas shopping.
Yes, it has. So despite all your paranoia accusations, you do see that there is a very real risk.
Motive unclear in shooting at busy Oregon mall that left three dead, one badly hurt (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57558659/motive-unclear-in-shooting-at-busy-oregon-mall-that-left-three-dead-one-badly-hurt/)
Again, an armed person with the right skills could potentially have reduced the deaths to one.
By the way, a record was broken in 2012; over 8 million guns were sold this year to private individuals here in America. Bet is most of those buyers have no clue on the proper use and storage of those guns.
You would probably win that bet. Then again, you would probably win such a bet on any large group and in any area of knowledge. Sensible, intelligent people are a minority.
As to some who like comparing auto deaths to gun deaths, fine, then lets regulate gun ownership just as we do automobile ownership.
I was comparing auto-related deaths of kids and teens to gun-related deaths of kids and teens. Despite your apparent indifference to the larger problem, we really need to do something about it first, before the minority that you associate yourself with starts hacking away at our constitutional rights.
-
Yes, it has. So despite all your paranoia accusations, you do see that there is a very real risk.
So your answer is even more handgun ownership? In other words even more madness!
Again, an armed person with the right skills could potentially have reduced the deaths to one.
Nonsense! We are talking Oregon here, a stand-your-ground concealed handgun state. Where was the person carrying a gun to shot down that madman? The idea that someone would be composed enough to take down that nut in such a situation is absurd and more likely there would have been more people harmed or killed with bullets flying all about. Simply more madness!
Sensible, intelligent people are a minority.
And yet you feel it is ok for anyone to easily purchase a handgun?
I was comparing auto-related deaths of kids and teens to gun-related deaths of kids and teens. Despite your apparent indifference to the larger problem, we really need to do something about it first, before the minority that you associate yourself with starts hacking away at our constitutional rights.
First it is important to note that no right is absolute even those supposedly granted in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue.
It would be called libel and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and scream that there is a fire (if there is not) because the ensuing panic may cause injury or death.
The reason abridgment of rights is sometimes valid is that rights can very easily clash. In the example above my right to free speech clashes with the people in a theatre's right to not be trampled to death. The same analysis can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. If the right to own a handgun interferes with public safety, as it most certainly does here in the states. That right can morally be abridged in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position as follows.
Throughout the history of the US many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia.
Since the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).
A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. The reality is that the right to keep and bear a handgun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).
America needs stricter gun laws, that fact is demonstrated on a near daily bases.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
-
Good morning Bill.
http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
happynews.com
Volunteering is a lot of fun.
I help out at the Armand Bayou Nature Center and it is very rewarding.
It takes my mind off of the negative things going on in the world.
Take care,
Andy
-
You go ahead and hide your head in the sand Andy if that’s what works for you. ;)
-
. . .before the minority that you associate yourself with starts hacking away at our constitutional rights.
Minority? Again you're wrong!
Survey | Slim Majority of Americans Support Passing Stricter Gun Control Laws (http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/08/august-2012-prri-rns-survey/)
-
Bill,
there is a big difference in "stricter gun control laws" and "taking guns away"
this country faces much bigger problems
-
. . .before the minority that you associate yourself with starts hacking away at our constitutional rights.
Minority? Again you're wrong!
Survey | Slim Majority of Americans Support Passing Stricter Gun Control Laws (http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/08/august-2012-prri-rns-survey/)
I admit that it looks somewhat like a survey, but it smells like more sleazy political BS. My own survey of the people around me tells me something very different. If anything resembling a majority of the population supported stricter gun control laws then somewhere in all the conversations I have had with people someone would have expressed that opinion.
-
really, the phrase "stricter laws" is pretty open-ended
i am in favour of stricter laws
but, let's see what new laws they propose before i approve or disapprove
i am for methods that make it harder for non-citizens to acquire handguns
i am for methods that make it harder for violent-crime felons to acquire handguns
i am against taking handguns off the market, altogether
if they wanted to add a requirement for certification, i'd probably support that
you take a test and get certified - the test should not cost too much
it could include a written exam and a range certification
they can verify that you know how to handle and fire the pistol :P
you have to present a certificate and a picture ID to buy a handgun
if you are in possesion of a handgun, you should be able to prove you are certified
-
Yes, it has. So despite all your paranoia accusations, you do see that there is a very real risk.
So your answer is even more handgun ownership? In other words even more madness!
No, that was not my answer. You have repeatedly attributed people’s desire to be armed to paranoia, when you have now admitted that there is a real risk.
Again, an armed person with the right skills could potentially have reduced the deaths to one.
Nonsense! We are talking Oregon here, a stand-your-ground concealed handgun state. Where was the person carrying a gun to shot down that madman? The idea that someone would be composed enough to take down that nut in such a situation is absurd and more likely there would have been more people harmed or killed with bullets flying all about. Simply more madness!
Bill, you really need to think more about the subject before you start formulating your attacks. You may not have been composed enough to do it, but you’re not in any position to be speaking for other people who, by fact of their being armed, obviously have a very different mindset than you do. And you might have sent bullets “flying all about”, but you’re not in any position to be speaking for other people who, because of their mindset, probably put substantial effort into learning how to shoot. And then there are the people in our society that have been through military training, and a smaller number that have seen combat. And you could improve your credibility by spending some time with “handgun people”, so you aren’t limited to blind speculation about what is and is not possible.
Sensible, intelligent people are a minority.
And yet you feel it is ok for anyone to easily purchase a handgun?
No, I don’t, but that is much preferable to your solution of ending private ownership of handguns. And I think you could probably see the problems with that solution if you would stop letting the Brady Campaign do your thinking for you.
I was comparing auto-related deaths of kids and teens to gun-related deaths of kids and teens. Despite your apparent indifference to the larger problem, we really need to do something about it first, before the minority that you associate yourself with starts hacking away at our constitutional rights.
First it is important to note that no right is absolute even…
America needs stricter gun laws, that fact is demonstrated on a near daily bases.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts
And here I thought that you would actually deny your apparent indifference.
-
if they wanted to add a requirement for certification, i'd probably support that
you take a test and get certified - the test should not cost too much
it could include a written exam and a range certification
they can verify that you know how to handle and fire the pistol :P
you have to present a certificate and a picture ID to buy a handgun
if you are in possesion of a handgun, you should be able to prove you are certified
That would work for me Dave! ;)
-
And here I thought that you would actually deny your apparent indifference.
You must live in a very dangerous place Michael (America?). The issue isn’t handguns with folks like you, no, the real issue is “freedom”. Of course it is. A handgun can be purchased here in America as easily as one can buy a six-pack of a favorite brew. That in itself is vey alarming to say the least. But what the hell, you keep on hugging that teddy bear you care so much about. I wouldn’t want you to lose your freedom.
Personally I’d feel we had a helluva lot more freedom if it were made difficult for people to own a handgun. I’d certainly feel a lot safer when I’m out in public.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/handgunlovers.jpg)
-
Hi,
Oh goodie, heard on the radio this morning that Florida
has issued its one millionth concealed gun permit. Most
to white males between 51 and 65 years old (FWIW). And
more than any other state. Hm, can't find a link?
Regards,
Steve N.
-
Hi Steve N,
So Florida has a million folks running around with a concealed handgun. And you can be assured that most of them have little experience in the safe use and storage of them. Must make a Floridian feel much safer when out and about in public I bet? :shock:
By the way, a friend of a friend of mine’s daughter just recently got arrested for trying to board an airplane up Cleveland way with a handgun. She claims she forgot it was in her purse. Makes my point just how stupid many handgun owners can be. It really is frightening when one stops to think about the many millions of handgun owners that just haven’t a clue and yet they are permitted to purchase a handgun as easily as one can buy a candybar. :icon13:
-
don't know about Florida
but, here in Arizona, you have to take a fairly comprehensive course to get a concealed weapon permit
-
don't know about Florida
but, here in Arizona, you have to take a fairly comprehensive course to get a concealed weapon permit
That daughter of a friend of a friend of mine holds an Ohio handgun permit and is ex-military. Stupid is what stupid does.
Makes one feel safe when out in public, yes indeed! :icon13:
-
Dave,
Arizona makes it easy as pie to obtain a permit. In my opinion too easy!
N. An applicant shall demonstrate competence with a firearm through ANY of the following:
1. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class that is available to the general public, that is offered by a law enforcement agency, a junior college, a college or a private or public institution, academy, organization or firearms training school and that is approved by the department of public safety or that uses instructors who are certified by the national rifle association.
2. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Arizona game and fish department or a similar agency of another state.
3. Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course.
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies or other divisions or subdivisions of law enforcement or security enforcement and that is approved by the department of public safety.
5. Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
6. A valid current or expired concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or license that is issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state and that has a training or testing requirement for initial issuance.
7. Completion of any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualification to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties.
8. Completion of any other firearms safety or training course or class that is conducted by a department of public safety approved or national rifle association certified firearms instructor.
-
except for number 6, that isn't too bad
the "Arizona Department of Public Safety" is what they call the Arizona state police, in case you didn't know
so, except for number 6, they are pretty much military or police courses
the college courses are probably even better, so i don't have a problem with that
in the military, everyone has to go through basic training
you have to qualify with a .45 colt acp 1911 and (when i was in) an M-16
and - they drill into your head all kinds of safety, cleaning, and handling precautions
i was in the infantry, so i got training on a number of other things that go boom - lol
and - i was in a "weapons platoon", so i got even more training
4.2 inch mortar, 81mm mortar, 50 cal machine gun, 7.62 machine gun, 106mm recoiless rifle,
claymore mines, hand grenades, and plastic explosives
i think i can manage a party of 4 to table 6 :lol:
(my favorite quote from "King of the Hill")
-
except for number 6, that isn't too bad
You're correct I suppose Dave. I guess I’m seeing it thru the eyes of 50 years experience in handling guns so I’m a bit prejudice. I just feel a few days of firearms safety training does not qualify one to handle and operate something as dangerous as a handgun especially when out in public. I find it frightening that so many are carrying with such little experience.
-
well - i see your side, too
it would be nice if everyone who had a handgun was trained by the US marshalls office
they get extensive training on when to pull a weapon and when not to
however, that is expecting way too much
it's a big jump from the current condition to that one
better to shoot (pun) for an expectation that might actually be realized and implemented
-
You must live in a very dangerous place Michael (America?). The issue isn’t handguns with folks like you, no, the real issue is “freedom”. Of course it is. A handgun can be purchased here in America as easily as one can buy a six-pack of a favorite brew. That in itself is vey alarming to say the least. But what the hell, you keep on hugging that teddy bear you care so much about. I wouldn’t want you to lose your freedom.
I live in a large urban area, with the full range of problems typical of such areas in the U.S. The issue for me is ensuring that responsible, law-abiding people can continue to legally protect themselves and others in their home and in public places.
-
You're correct I suppose Dave. I guess I’m seeing it thru the eyes of 50 years experience in handling guns so I’m a bit prejudice. I just feel a few days of firearms safety training does not qualify one to handle and operate something as dangerous as a handgun especially when out in public. I find it frightening that so many are carrying with such little experience.
I can’t understand how you can fail to see the gaping hole in your logic here. Prior to the concealed carry licensing there were a large number of handguns in the hands of some very bad people. Which is the greater threat, a responsible law-abiding person with limited experience carrying a handgun or a criminal/gang member/thug/psychopath carrying a handgun?
-
there is something to be said for anyone that gets the certification
even if the test is simple - lol
that is - they are the people who obey the rules
that, in itself, is a pretty good place to start as far as qualification goes
the fact that they went through the process is a fair indicator that they are law-abiding citizens
these aren't the same people that go ape-shit and start shooting people for fun
-
Prior to the concealed carry licensing there were a large number of handguns in the hands of some very bad people.
So how did the introduction of the license stop these bad people from carrying their guns?
A propos license: Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that driving cars costs more lives than carrying guns. We take it for granted that in order to get the permit to drive a car, you need at least a dozen hours of training with a licensed teacher. Shouldn't that be the absolute minimum to get the license to kill (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/)?
-
license to kill ?
no - it's a license to carry a handgun
murder is still a crime - it did not change that fact
-
Depends on the state you live in. Take Florida, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin).
-
that case hasn't been decided, if i'm not mistaken
-
Prior to the concealed carry licensing there were a large number of handguns in the hands of some very bad people.
So how did the introduction of the license stop these bad people from carrying their guns?
Actually, by “in the hands of” I did not mean literally carrying, but “under the control of”. As to the people carrying, it stopped the ones that were killed, or wounded and subsequently incarcerated. There is in general no other way to stop them. Other than the ones that get caught with a gun, there is no workable method of taking guns away from them. For the ones that are not too stupid and/or self destructive to care, the increasing number of concealed carry licenses exerts a deterrent effect, that more or less benefits everyone.
-
I can’t understand how you can fail to see the gaping hole in your logic here.
Really? Is it that difficult to understand? Come on, its common sense Michael.
All that legal handgun owners do in urban areas is give criminals an endless supply of easily obtainable handguns that they use to kill people with. In urban areas if you stop the easy access to handguns you will lower handgun crimes. Your average handgun totting criminal does not get hold of a handgun in a legal way they steal them, most often then not, from those who have purchased them legally. You can bet they are easily found by a thieve rummaging thru your home, they know where to look.
I too am a city dweller where we have maybe 3 to 6 home break-ins per week and as I’ve stated before if you feel the need for protection buy a twelve gage shotgun. Rubber band a couple shells to the barrel and put the gun where you can get to it quickly. If a criminal breaks in while I’m at home they’re going to get their fucking head blown off, you can be assured of that!
My hunting guns are kept in leather zip-up cases that are locked away in a closet but I have an inexpensive single barrel 12 gage that sits in the corner of my bedroom where I can grab it quickly. I always make it a point to keep my bedroom door locked when kids are around. Even if I was to be robbed when not at home and the thieves were to take my single barrel it is very unlikely that it would ever be used in another crime.
As to concealed carry, show me the stats where the average idiot handgun carrier stops a crime. I doubt you'll find any. It rarely ever happens in the way you seem to believe.
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/bang.jpg)
-
<Your average handgun totting criminal does not get hold of a handgun in a legal way they steal them, most often then not, from those who <have purchased them legally. You can bet they are easily found by a thieve rummaging thru your home, they know where to look.
You are incorrect. I used to have an ATF license and went to ATF meetings.
Many guns are bought thru straw buyers.
Here is one cycle. Sell drugs in U.S. -> buy guns thru straw buyers -> take guns back to country of origin
Andy
I think keeping a loaded gun is not a good idea. (maybe if it was locked up)
What if someone broke in while you were gone ?
They could use you gun on you or someone else.
If things were that bad, I would definitely move.
-
I can’t understand how you can fail to see the gaping hole in your logic here.
Really? Is it that difficult to understand? Come on, its common sense Michael.
Common sense? If you place a law-abiding person with limited experience carrying a handgun in the “frightening” category, where do you place a criminal/gang member/thug/psychopath carrying a handgun?
-
Breaking news:
Shooting at Newtown, Conn. Elementary School, Gunman Is Dead (http://gma.yahoo.com/breaking-conn-school-district-locked-down-shooting-report-151955384--abc-news-topstories.html)
Apparently one of the armed kids defended her classmates :t
Edit: At the time I wrote this post, the news only said the gunman was dead. My sincere apologies to the parents who lost their children. This is a tragedy, there is no room for sarcasm.
-
I think it was more likely to have been a teacher, but I doubt that a teacher would be allowed to have a gun in school even with a permit.
-
Breaking news:
Shooting at Newtown, Conn. Elementary School, Gunman Is Dead (http://gma.yahoo.com/breaking-conn-school-district-locked-down-shooting-report-151955384--abc-news-topstories.html)
Apparently one of the armed kids defended her classmates :t
Jochen,
America has lost its mind. Something must be done to stop this insanity. Is there anywhere else in this world were guns are so easily obtained by anyone who wants to own one. No, there is only us Americans who think its ok for anyone, thats anyone who wants a gun in some delusion it will make them safe. Complete madness!
Multiple Deaths, Including Children, At Sandy Hook School Shooting In Newtown (http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-police-responding-to-incident-in-newtown-20121214,0,3969911.story)
-
I think it was more likely to have been a teacher, but I doubt that a teacher would be allowed to have a gun in school even with a permit.
Michigan: Bill allowing concealed weapons in schools approved by House committee (http://www.michiganradio.org/post/bill-allowing-concealed-weapons-schools-approved-house-committee)
-
it's not the guy with a concealed permit that i am worried about - lol
it's the guy with no permit at all and an extra box of ammo
however, it seems like a stupid bill, and i don't know why they would even present it for a vote
there must be a money angle in there, someplace
i can see, if you were a school security guard, where it might be desirable
although - no reason for concealment - maybe better to let the students know the guard is armed
in some cities, like Detroit, a number of the students are probably packing
-
Reports are 27 children were murdered today by one or more madmen with guns. When will we learn that the freedom for anyone to buy a gun leads to innocent deaths. It is a very sad day here in America.
-
My condolences to the family and friends of the Conn. school shooting.
There are things in life that I do not know why they happened.
But oftentimes good comes out of a horrible trajedy.
Andy
-
This is very sad. Whats more troubling is that nothing will ever be done to correct this situation in America. We will simply grieve for the victims and wait for the next tragedy. My condolences ........
-
It's a great tragedy. Why?
Gunther
-
About 20 children were killed by a gunman in an elementary school in Conneticut.
-
You can still kill people with a knive, the problem is a hard punishment for a murderer. Eyes for an eyes, it will give a detterent effect for anyone before they kill somebody. Look at the advantage, when your country attacked, 200 millions people carrying a guns.
-
yes, our condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones
a senseless tragedy
-
An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-elementary-school-massacre-20-children-among-28-killed-in-connecticut-slaughter?lite
AR-15 is a millitary grade rifle, right? Is it legal for cilivians to own such thing?
Anyway, this is a very bad incident indeed.
-
i think it's considered an "assault rifle" - it is semi-automatic .223
it is a commercial copy of the military M-16, which is fully automatic
i saw someplace that they also detained some guy in the nearby woods wearing camos
maybe that is related to the AR-15
-
Ah I see. I'm not really well versed about guns :redface:
But then, what have we learn from this?
Some people blame such violences are due to computer games (Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, etc), drugs, or mental ilness.
Whatever the real cause is, in the end, they use guns. So obiously, a stricter gun control is needed.
-
this guy obviously had some issues with his family members - and was not mentally stable
he shouldn't have had access to any guns
and those around him (family and friends) could likely have prevented this
-
I heard that he had a bullet proof vest.
I guess anyone can buy one.
My daughter is a teacher at an elementary school.
They have a protocol in which every visitor has to come to the office to see anyone.
After this incident, there will probably be an armed guard or a hidden switch in the office like they have at banks.
My daughter is a little scared because her room does not have any windows.
This incident probably could not have been anticipated and we will need to wait until all the facts are out.
Andy
-
Handguns were used to massacre those kids who were ages 5 to 10. The gunman was clad in black wore a bullet proof vest and used two handguns to murder 20 small children and six adults at the school. America needs stiffer gun laws now! Contact your local and state representatives and demand action to make semi-automatic weapons illegal and demand that politicians make it difficult for anyone to buy a handgun. Ownership of assault rifles must be made illegal. If you are an American it is your duty to demand laws that stop this growing madness.
Will Connecticut school shooting spur gun control action? (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559325/will-connecticut-school-shooting-spur-gun-control-action/)
Mass Shootings In U.S. Since 2005 (MAP) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-shootings-around-the-us-amp_n_2303432.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada)
Please send your condolences here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/)
-
this guy obviously had some issues with his family members - and was not mentally stable
I think you are right. Gun control is not the only issue in this case.
But still, I'm wondering. What if, like Bill suggested, the gun control laws were made tougher?
Or to the extreme: civilians were prohibited to own guns at all.
:idea:
-
it's hard to say with what little information they are going to release to the public
we aren't likely to know if it would have helped or not
my position is, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll get one
in this particular case, the guys mental state should have tipped someone off
unfortunately, brady bill proponents will hype this case and use it as a "poster child"
the families of the children that were lost will be used to invoke an emotional response
whether such a bill would have or would not have prevented the loss is unknown
-
a little further....
one of the predominate responses i have heard to this is
"time to go get my concealed weapons permit"
law-abiding people now seem more intent on arming themselves
with the thinking that they might have taken this guy out
that IS a scary thought
the idea that the average citizen is going to play super-hero
that has the potential of turning a bad situation into a worse one
again, we will never know the truth about such cases
the information found by investigators is kept fairly secret - even after a case is closed
even the information that is released may not be printed because of a lacking media
-
It is ludicrous to believe that handgun ownership by civilians will save the day, it rarely happens that way but it is very clear we Americans have a growing epidemic of crazies with easy access to handguns and assault rifles that are killing innocent children and adults. I don’t honestly know what the answer is other then stronger laws that make it difficult to own cheap guns but it’s very clear where other nations have strict laws against the easy availability to guns they rarely if ever have acts of slaughter as we do here in the states. It is becoming a common occurrence here in the U.S. and I ask how can we as a civilized nation allow this insanity, this love of guns, to continue?
If it were up to me I’d confiscate every handgun and every assault rifle in this country except for those used by law enforcement and make it a felony if one is found in your possession. Not only would that stop the slaughter it would end the common supply of guns to criminals. Criminals don't buy guns they steal them from those who purchase them legally.
-
Ditto..
Another thing is that this is probably an indication of the world youth of today - The immediate gratification trend resulting from ill discipline and negligence of youth control by parents and state.
Not to mention many other factors - Factors like "I'll whip the sh1t out of you if you do that, boy" like the good old days where kids were too sh1t scared to say 'boo to a goose', but with great rewards for hard work and good behaviour. We as parents also act as an open book - no secrets, no lies and talk freely if you want too !!
This is exactly how I treat and discipline (without the beatings that I got) my kids, and they're (so far ;) ) balanced males, and doing very well.
:biggrin:
-
It is ludicrous to believe that handgun ownership by civilians will save the day, it rarely happens that way but it is very clear we Americans have a growing epidemic of crazies with easy access to handguns and assault rifles that are killing innocent children and adults. I don’t honestly know what the answer is other then stronger laws that make it difficult to own cheap guns but it’s very clear where other nations have strict laws against the easy availability to guns they rarely if ever have acts of slaughter as we do here in the states. It is becoming a common occurrence here in the U.S. and I ask how can we as a civilized nation allow this insanity, this love of guns, to continue?
If it were up to me I’d confiscate every handgun and every assault rifle in this country except for those used by law enforcement and make it a felony if one is found in your possession. Not only would that stop the slaughter it would end the common supply of guns to criminals. Criminals don't buy guns they steal them from those who purchase them legally.
It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite songs by Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Saturday Night Special", it goes:
Well hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
The simple fact is that a study by the "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery" concluded that the gun murder rate in the US is 20 times higher than in the next 22 richest contries in the world combined. Also a study by the University of Pennsylvania concluded that if you carry a gun you're 4.2 times more likely to be killed by one. Since Martin Luther King was shot there have been over 1 million murders in the US using guns.
Edgar
-
this guy had a long history of mental issues
his mother home schooled him since jr high (age ~12 or 13) because he was having problems at school
and - she owned several guns, including all the ones he used - how smart is that ?
obviously, she did not keep them locked up well enough to boot
-
The mothers of America are growing very angry and they being the most powerful voting block here in the states make me hopeful that stricter gun laws will come to pass. Since 1982 there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the U.S., with killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. And in most all cases the killers obtained their weapons legally.
I truly hope I never again have to read about a shooting as horrible as the one in Newtown Connecticut but unless we Americans demand stricter gun laws chances are I will and as troubling as that sounds I see it happening again sooner then later. Unless we Americans make it much more difficult to buy guns you can be certain it will happen again and again and again and again. . . .
*
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, responded to the tragedy Friday evening stating that:
“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun-free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”
People like Pratt want to see everyone everywhere in America packing heat. Pratt and all those like him are the ones who are sick in the mind, even more so then the madmen who commit these awful crimes. I can only hope that people like Pratt soon drop dead!!
-
Photos are beginning to be released of the little kids that were slaughtered in Newtown Connecticut. What horrors the parents of these babies must be going thru. It breaks your heart!
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/justlittlebabies.jpg)
Photo credit: Facebook/AP handout | Left: Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6, in a photo from her Facebook memorial page, was among those killed when a gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Center: Noah Pozner, 6, in a handout photo, was also killed during the shooting. Right: Emilie Parker, 6, another student killed, is pictured in this family handout photo.
Here is a full list of names and ages of all those slaughtered.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/sandy-hook-victims-names-ages-released-1.4337288
-
Larry Pratt makes a very good point. Consider what it took to get the FFDO program going.
-
Larry Pratt makes a very good point. Consider what it took to get the FFDO program going.
More nonsense! If America was serious about improving security of the flight deck then mandate secondary cockpit barriers. Show me where FFDO's have increased the safety in US flights. Many large 747, 777, 767, etc fly in and out of the US everyday from places that do not have FFDO's from where the thought of arming pilots is considered total madness. BALPA conducted a study and a vote on FFDO's and concluded they increased the risk to safety rather than reducing it. Further BALPA members voted heavily against the introduction of FFDO's.
Larry Pratt is an idiot! More guns are always the answer with you gun proponents. :icon13:
-
My deepest condolence to the families of the victims.
But to put the topic in a nutshell:
I see a naked woman beside me, so I fuck her.
I have a doner in my hand, so I devour it.
And if I have a gun in my hand, I use it.
There have nothing more to be said.
-
Here is a thing that people must understand,way to many people consider owning a gun a right,but here is the thing,in this country(US) driving is NOT a right and this is how it is defined,it is a privilege. One must go through a series of tests and then prove you can be trusted to to drive and can follow ALL the rules in order to be safe on the road. A car is as much a lethal weapon as a gun,and perhaps more so. As I see it owning a gun is also a privilege and you must earn the right to have one as with driving. A training course and a test of your knowledge on safety,and the knowledge that if you show disregard for these rules you may have your gun taken away. To me this does not seem unreasonable. We live in a different time than when gun ownership was a right,back then there were more dangers where a gun was mainly needed for safety. Wild animals, outlaws running pretty much wild, people living in isolation on farms,and of course simply to hunt for food. Today a gun is mainly to protect yourself,and to hunt(but not really needed because hunting is not a way to insure you have food) target shooting..But with ownership comes responsibility to insure the safety of anyone that might gain access to your gun. A license to own and perhaps a yearly re-certification of this license to insure you are complying with all safety rules. To me this seems a sensible approach to gun ownership. I know this might not prevent every bad act with guns,but many people own guns and have NO understanding of responsibility by owning them.
Just my two cents,I have owned guns and was trained in their safe use while in the service. Some would advocate arming EVERYONE but that is not really a solution,it just makes more chance for misuse or someone reacting from anger and instead of shouting shoot another person.
-
Larry Pratt makes a very good point. Consider what it took to get the FFDO program going.
More nonsense! If America was serious about improving security of the flight deck then mandate secondary cockpit barriers….
Bill, how did you go from a statement pointing out what it took to get the FFDO program going (a major tragedy), to a rant about the effectiveness of the program?
-
School grounds proper protection around the perimeter.
Each must pass detetora on weapons and hand guns available before entering the
-
There is no less dangerous madmans in others countries.
The only fact who explain the less number of murders is that those madmans had no gun.
It is the only protect available.
HATE FOR GUN
-
Another incident:
Marcos Gurrola Arrested After Firing 50 Shots In California Mall Parking Lot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/marcos-gurrola-arrested-_n_2309425.html)
No one was injured, fortunately.
-
nice shootin, tex :P
-
If someone flew a plane into a building the US government and people would say "Its OK to place a few restrictions on our freedom in the name of security". However if a gunman walks into a school and shoots 20 children the pro-gun lobby yells "its wrong to react to an individual incident by contracting our rights".
The problem is that it's not an individual incident anymore, in the last 50 years of the worst 25 mass shootings (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/) 15 occurred in the US, second place goes to Finland with 2 mass shootings. A study of mass shootings (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map) shows that 3/4 of all the guns used were obtained legally. In every case more guns = more homicides (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html), this fact holds true across all locations, age, race and social status groups.
And to top off the sad story, when you include the murders in Connecticut 12 of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have occurred since 2007, the problem is getting worse yet the gun lobby is still saying its too soon to react, freaking retards...
-
Another incident:
Marcos Gurrola Arrested After Firing 50 Shots In California Mall Parking Lot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/marcos-gurrola-arrested-_n_2309425.html)
No one was injured, fortunately.
nice shootin, tex :P
He sounds Mexican... :icon_mrgreen:
-
that was a line in GhostBusters - lol
i am sure it was originally from some older movie with john wayne or somebody
maybe an old wwii movie or the lone ranger :biggrin:
could have been a spaghetti western
(http://2008.italianfilmfestival.com.au/brisbane/images/films.retro.tcmt.jpg)
-
If someone flew a plane into a building the US government and people would say "Its OK to place a few restrictions on our freedom in the name of security".
There are plenty of idiots who would, but any sensible person would first need to see some plausible connection between the loss of a freedom and an increase in our security.
However if a gunman walks into a school and shoots 20 children the pro-gun lobby yells "its wrong to react to an individual incident by contracting our rights".
I hope they didn’t actually use the word “incident”.
It’s wrong if the reaction doesn’t do anything meaningful to prevent such tragedies, or if it sets us up for some other sort of tragedy in the future.
In every case more guns = more homicides (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html), this fact holds true across all locations, age, race and social status groups.
I have no doubt that it works that way. The problem I have is with simple-minded people who seem to think that any arbitrary plan they can dream up for reducing the number of guns circulating will reduce the number of homicides.
-
people are killing each other more than likely due to socio-economic issues
this case, i think, was an exception to that
the kid was mentally ill and his mother had numerous guns and a lot of ammo laying around
that is stupidity, plain and simple
-
The problem I have is with simple-minded people who seem to think that any arbitrary plan they can dream up for reducing the number of guns circulating will reduce the number of homicides.
Try a less arbitrary plan, then. But at least stop closing eyes in front of blatant statistics and terrible tragedies. The U.S. are an extreme, very extreme outlier among the civilised world in terms of
- murder per capita
- gun victims per capita
- share of inmates
But why look at boring statistics if you can indulge in sweet dreams of saving kids with an assault weapon in your hands?
-
changing gun laws may have prevented this one incedent
but that does not mean it will prevent the next one, or the one after that
that's a little like closing the barn door after the horse is out
-
Try a less arbitrary plan, then.
You should tell this to the people who are making the arbitrary plans. And while you’re at it you could encourage them to put more effort into thinking and analyzing.
But at least stop closing eyes in front of blatant statistics and terrible tragedies.
I don’t close my eyes - I see the statistics and the tragedies.
The U.S. are an extreme, very extreme outlier among the civilised world in terms of
- murder per capita
- gun victims per capita
- share of inmates
The U.S. is not anything like the other countries in terms of history, constitution, or current reality. Why would you expect us to not be an “outlier”? We are in the middle of a complex problem that has been brewing for 200+ years. There are no simple solutions.
And for the three statistics you list, we, the law-abiding people, are not responsible for most of the numbers. Our representation in those statistics is mostly as victims.
-
really, if this guy hadn't had access to guns, he probably would have used a home-made bomb
we have deterrents in place for people who want to harm others
you drink and drive - the punishment is more severe than in the past
if a guy wants to kill a bunch of people and then commit suicide, there is no deterrent for that
short of locking someone up in a mental institution, there simply is no deterrent for suicide
you have to look beyond the means and look to the cause
-
I think it is also important to look at the reasons how people get to such a state that they commit murder.
I think it starts with how parents raise their children.
Last week I went to a Christmas light festival with my daughters and grand kids.
There were 2 kids running along the path bumping into the Christmas lights which took many hours to put up.
I asked the kids to stop running. They looked back to see if I was still around.
I later found out that they parents had seen me talking to their children.
If I had done what those kids had done, my dad would have scheduled an appt. with his belt. :biggrin:
Andy
-
The problem I have is with simple-minded people who seem to think that any arbitrary plan they can dream up for reducing the number of guns circulating will reduce the number of homicides.
Appears to be working in New York City. Do you feel Bloomberg is simple-minded?
There have been 127 shooting incidents this year in Manhattan, with 152 victims. Nineteen of those victims were shot to death.
Fortunately, shootings are down in the city and murder is down 18 percent. We are on track to establish a new record low this year. We’ve accomplished this through proactive policing strategies like Operation Impact. Through Operation Crew Cut — aimed at loosely affiliated groups like those selling guns in this case — we hope to make the city even safer.
Stat Check: Manhattan Vehicular Killings Outpacing Gun Deaths in 2012 (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/10/16/stat-check-manhattan-vehicular-killings-outpacing-gun-deaths-in-2012/)
Gun Deaths Exceed Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html)
-
Blaming slaughters like Shady Hook solely on mental illness, violent video games or violent movies, as gun proponents so often do, is absurd. There has always been mentally ill people thru-out world history. There are crazy people everywhere on this planet yet you do not see slaughter as you do here in the United States (that has become so common) and no where else on this planet is a gun so easily obtained by anyone who so desires one.
James Madison conceived the Second Amendment in a different time under different circumstances with very different weapons in mind. The muskets that the minutemen took up against the British were a good match for the weapons they would be facing on the battlefield. That’s certainly not the case with modern guns. What is ignored is in the days of James Madison none of these modern deadly weapons existed nor was there any conception that they ever would. There was no way an individual could kill even two people before being subdued let alone 32 as at Virginia Tech, or 26 in Sandy Hook Elementary school.
We as Americans if we are ever going to limit mass murders such as Sandy Hook need to remove from public society the modern day killing machines that make it possible. Every year in America thousands of people are killed 70 percent of them with handguns, many committing suicide by shooting themselves to death in the home where a handgun is readily at hand. If you add them all up since the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968 well over a million Americans both children and adults have been shot to death.
Studies and the clear facts from those studies show over and over again that homes which do not have a handgun in the drawer are safer than those which do because the mere sight of such a weapon provokes immediate action with no thought given to the outcome. Most all handgun murders at home are perpetrated not by an intruder but by a member of the family or an acquaintance yet this fact is continually ignored by handgun owners.
Just the other day Republican Jay Dickey told a news media journalist that “it’s really simple with me. We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.” This nutcase can only mean one thing, that it’s his freedom to kill he fears he may lose which he appears to cherish higher than the freedom to be governed democratically. It is indeed a very frightening remark because the US government, of which he was once a member, is seen as the enemy.
I as many others in my community are sick of it and have contacted our state representatives demanding much stricter gun laws. This demand for stricter gun laws is growing and with the certainty that more slaughter is to come, and I fear sooner then later, new gun laws are coming and it is not soon enough as far as I’m concerned.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
-
Blaming slaughters like Shady Hook solely on mental illness, violent video
games or violent movies, as gun proponents so often do, is absurd.
you sound like a news reporter
you have offered your slant on this with "as gun proponents so often do"
and, as i said, we need to look to the cause of these problems, rather than the means
do you think you can solve the mid-east crisis using the same logic ?
no - it has to be solved at the root of the cause
There has always been mentally ill people thru-out world history.
throughout the history of the world, there have always been murders and weapons
there were plenty of guns available in the US during the 1800's
did you see mass murders like these happening, then ?
have you ever heard of some guy in 1880 going off and killing innocent school children ?
no - and the opportunity was just as available, perhaps moreso
something else has changed - that something else is what needs to be addressed
by bringing the gun issue to the foreground, you obscure the real problem
so - you would have handguns taken away
then, the next time some guy goes off his rocker, he uses a home-made bomb and kills 100
yah - that's much better
-
so - you would have handguns taken away
then, the next time some guy goes off his rocker, he uses a home-made bomb and kills 100
Dave, according to this logic there should be plenty of killings using home-made bombs in all those countries that do not allow hand guns (UK for example - ask Z).
Have a look at the statistics, I know it's boring but it helps a lot to clarify the concepts ;-)
-
no - you are reading something into the equation that isn't there
you are assuming that the motivation to do this is the same in other countries
it would seem obvious that the US has a different set of socio-economic problems
the statistics you might offer are always slanted to accentuate the point of the presenter
i know you are aware of this, Jochen :P
you mentioned England - not too long ago, they had their own crisis in London and in Birmingham
-
The problem I have is with simple-minded people who seem to think that any arbitrary plan they can dream up for reducing the number of guns circulating will reduce the number of homicides.
Appears to be working in New York City. Do you feel Bloomberg is simple-minded?
Appears to be working per a carefully worded press release is not the same as actually working. As to whether he’s simple-minded I would guess no, but where he actually stands on anything or where he is actually headed, I have no idea. In case you have not noticed, politicians tend to lie a lot.
-
This is a good start! :icon14:
Newtown Fallout: Cerberus Retreats From Guns (http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-18/newtown-fallout-cerberus-retreats-from-guns)
-
Nuts!!
Sixth Grader Brings Gun To School, Says Parents Told Him To Carry It For Protection After Newtown Shootings (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sixth-grader-brings-gun-to-school-says-parents-told-him-to-carry-it-for-protection-after-newtown-shootings/)
-
Isabel Rios, a fellow student, told teachers he pointed the gun at her head and said he was going to kill her.
One night in jail, to cool down (for the parents, of course, not the 11-year-old boy...)
-
i doubt the parents sent him to school with a gun
that sounds like the story of a little boy
nonetheless, they are stupid for leaving a gun where he can get his hands on it
-
One night in jail, to cool down (for the parents, of course, not the 11-year-old boy...)
Jochen, if it were up to me I'd remove that kid from those moron parents quicker then you can spit!!
-
Good news! It’s going to get a lot harder to buy a gun me thinks, not hard enough but harder then it is presently.
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that Vice President Joe Biden will lead an administration effort to develop recommendations no later than January for preventing another tragedy like last week's school shooting in Connecticut that left 20 young children and six adults dead.
Obama: Biden to lead effort against gun violence (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/obama-biden-to-lead-effort-against-gun-violence/)
-
hard to say how that goes - Biden will be bucking against a lot of money, i suspect
at any rate, if they do pass something, it might have a good, unintended side-effect
that is that they will see that the legal acquisition of guns is not the real issue
maybe, after that, they can focus on the actual problems
-
maybe, after that, they can focus on the actual problems
You nether watched the video or read the article did you Dave?
The "complex" issue demands action on gun laws and work in making "access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun," he said.
The country also needs to tackle a "culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence," he said.
"And any actions that we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts."
-
no, Bill
i don't have time to read every article you point to ::)
besides - they are politicians
they will say whatever they think the public wants to hear
then, they will go and do whatever they were going to do, to begin with
when something actually happens, i will read the article
on the bright side, they at least realize it is not strictly a guns issue
that doesn't mean their actions will reflect it, but we know that they know
i wouldn't hope for any free mental treatment, any time soon
-
what we can expect to see is companies like rockstar north, et al, being
punished because they don't have a big lobby with money behind it
in reality, GTA probably has nothing to do with this tragedy, whatsoever
-
no, Bill
i don't have time to read every article you point to ::)
Do not have the time, really? This coming from a guy with over 1500 posts here on the new masm32 board? Seems to me as the top poster here if its one thing you do have its time at least enough to read about something as important as this.
-
lol
don't lay that shit on me
what do you think you are ?
a jedi knight or something ? :lol:
-
after all the articles you have pointed to concerning this issue - and the election...
people don't want to read or listen to politically biased, one-sided BS
you're looking a bit like the guy that cried wolf, here
we have more than enough stuff to read on MSDN, already
-
lol
don't lay that shit on me
what do you think you are ?
a jedi knight or something ? :lol:
Twenty 6 and 7 year old children were slaughtered last Friday and you find the importance of that event funny? You know if more Americans would quit sitting around with their thumbs up their ass and demand that our elected officials do as we say this would be a much better country to live in.
-
Bill,
you are not going to guilt me into anything
i can't figure out whether you are going into politics or the media business
you aren't going to do any harm to me - i am ok with it
however, please don't exploit those children in order to convince others to see things your way
that's just not right and you should have better sense than that
if you want others to see things your way, use a good foundation of logical argument
not a bunch of biased articles, statistics, and polls
and certainly not public emotions after a terrible tragedy
you're trying to manipulate me and others and i, for one, don't appreciate it
-
How dare you imply that I am exploiting the event that just occurred last Friday. Those mister are fighting words and be thankful your not standing in front of me pal. No one makes you read my posts here on the subject of Americas love for guns. I truly feel sorry for you and any American that may share such a lowly opinion about what is happening here in the States. Your "I don’t give a damn" do nothing attitude makes me sick to my stomach. This thread is approaching near 4000 views so don’t assume that unlike you nobody cares. My examples site stats show me that at least 50 or more visitors a day come from Steve’s masm32 website to my site and of those half are from America. Yes it is true I am trying to influence the minds of Americans to get off their lazy asses and do something about what is happening here in America. You obviously don’t give a damn, what a pity! :icon13:
-
well, Bill, this is your thread, and i'll let you do what you like with it
but, since the pre-election stuff, i have been seeing you bullying people into thinking your way
you are using a lot of the tactics that politicians use - must be getting it from the media guys
i like you and have a lot of respect for your coding abilities - i have learned a lot from you
so - i will leave this thread to you and bow out
-
well, Bill, this is your thread, and i'll let you do what you like with it
Well how kind of you, as if I need your permission. ::)
-
America has truly become a very sick dangerous place to live.
From California to Connecticut, police in the past five days have arrested more than a dozen individuals in Indiana, South Carolina, Maryland and elsewhere who were plotting or threatening to attack schools.
Schools Face Threats Nationwide Following Sandy Hook Shooting (http://abcnews.go.com/US/schools-face-threats-nationwide-sandy-hook-shooting/story?id=18019370#.UNNBnaz5Who)
Here in western PA many school districts have hired armed guards to patrol within the school buildings. This is beginning to occur thru-out the country. I believe this is a good thing but what does it say about the civilized society we so often call America the land of the free?
-
Isn't it Christmas soon ? !!
;)
-
Isn't it Christmas soon ? !!
;)
There certainly won’t be for twenty families who lost the dearest loves of their lives. Just imagine waking up Christmas morning and not seeing your adorable little-ones running to the pile of presents under the Christmas tree. All those babies who were slaughtered last Friday, that’s what I will be thinking of!
America, shame on you! :icon13:
-
Hi,
Interview on "Fresh Air", a bit long, but I found it interesting.
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market
Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market
Regards,
Steve
-
Interesting read Steve. What those who know little about guns don’t realize is though the Bushmaster is a single shot that is to say one shot per trigger pull anyone with experience with such a gun can fire it nearly as fast as an automatic. This is also true with most any semi-automatic handgun such as a Glock 9mm.
Warning: Gun loving idiots firing weapons.
http://youtu.be/EFjRyo8hmCo
http://youtu.be/pkawXiWa1qM
In some states these types of guns can be purchased online thru Wal-Mart. Here in PA you must pick them up at the store. That is how easy it is to buy a gun here in America.
Insane isn't it?
Buy a gun online at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=Rifle&resultDisplayType=1&adid=22222222220122117305&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=b&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=30708642578&wl4=)
-
The NRA gave a speech today Friday 12/21/12 after being silent for a week about the slaughter of twenty children and what was their solution? Their solution is the same as all gun loving whackos and that is “we need more guns to make us safe!”
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/moreguns.jpg)
They and all those who believe as they do can all go to hell!!
-
The NRA gave a speech today Friday 12/21/12 after being silent for a week about the slaughter of twenty children and what was their solution? Their solution is the same as all gun loving whackos and that is “we need more guns to make us safe!”
That's pure NRA cynicism.
Gunther
-
Bill, why do you have a shotgun in the corner of your bedroom?
-
That's pure NRA cynicism.
Gunther
Hi Gunther,
I must ask does Germany have armed guards policing the halls of your public schools?
The link below shows that Germany has about 30 guns per 100 people compared to Americas 89 per 100 people. Those stats also show that Germany has about 158 total homicides per year compared to Americas 10,000 per year.
On Guns, America Stands Out (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121220&_r=1&)
-
Bill, why do you have a shotgun in the corner of your bedroom?
Michael, you know damn well why I have a 12 gage single shot shotgun available. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend the difference between someone who has owned guns for near 50 years for hunting purposes and those who are inexperienced and ill equipped to be owning any type of gun in the first place, most often a handgun placed somewhere in the home where it is easily found by a child or an adult. Now stop playing dumb ass games with me and admit the fact that there are way too many guns (mostly handguns) of the type whose only designed purpose is the killing of people here in America.
Show me an instance of a child accidently shooting themselves or someone else with a shotgun. Show me a case where a family quarrel ended with a death from a shotgun. Show me where a mass murderer killed women and children with a shotgun. Show me where a criminal has used a shotgun to commit a home break-in. A shotgun is only useful at close rage and makes a much better weapon then a handgun ever could in the rare case of an intruder entering your home. Lets get real here, even if my single shot shotgun was stolen, unlike a semi-automatic handgun, the likelihood that my shotgun would ever be used in another crime is nil!
-
Bill, why do you have a shotgun in the corner of your bedroom?
Leaving a loaded gun in plain site is short sighted.
An unarmed burglar could use it against me.
It could fall and go off.
Kids could find it.
I knew a guy who fell asleep with a lit cigarette.
He kept a loaded pistol under his mattress.
He woke up with his bed on fire and the pistol discharged some of the rounds.
He survived, hope he learned something.
He also used gasoline to start his charcoal.
I didn't eat anything off his grill. :t
Andy
-
Here where I live in Calgary we have a rodeo called the Stampede, every year young people are given free tickets to distribute to tourists. One of the funniest incidents was Walt Wawra, this guy is a paranoid freak who bitched that border services took his handgun away when he entered Canada and was subsequently approached by 2 menacing young men trying to give him free tickets:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/canadians-mock-paranoid-us-gun-owner-walt-wawra
http://www.news.com.au/news/canada-mocks-unarmed-us-tourists-fears/story-fnejlrpu-1226448016733
he said. "I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort."
Or if not a weapon maybe a couple of free tickets ???
-
The "Travelers Guide to the Firearm Laws of the 50 States" says "Canada prohibits the importation of any handgun without an Authorization to Transport (ATT). These ATTs are rarely issued to Americans and are given to Canadiens on a highly discretionary basis. Travelers without an ATT who attempt to enter Canada with handguns will have their weapons confiscated, their vehicles impounded and could face prosecution. Securely casing the handgun and stowing it in the trunk will not prevent seizure. Mere possession of a handgun anywhere in a vehicle without an ATT is illegal."
-
I can see no problem with restrictions on handguns and laws on long guns are pretty reasonable.
How to Obtain an Authorization To Transport
Your Legally-Owned Private Property
So you have your firearms license, you've bought a gun, and now you want to go shoot the thing. Yes, you need yet another permission slip to be able to take your personal property to the range. Fortunately the steps have gotten easier over the years.
Step 1: Download the application form from the Canadian Firearms Centre
Step 2: Fill in as follows * :
The three pages of instructions can be ignored by those BC shooters who need an ATT to take their restricted firearms and 12-6 handguns to the range, to a gunsmith or back and forth across the border.
Complete all of Section "A".
Leave Section "B" blank.
In Section "C", check the following boxes ONLY: "d', "i" and "m", and fill in the name of your home shooting club.
Leave Section "D" blank.
Leave Section "E" blank.
Sign and date the form.
*The requirement to belong to a gun club is “policy” and not supported by either legislation or regulation.
Step 3: Find out the address of your local Chief Fireams Officer to send the completed application form. Affix the correct postage and mail the form to your local CFO.
BC residents can send their completed application to: Canadian Firearms Centre, British Columbia and Yukon District Office, 400 - 10470 152 Street, Surrey, BC V3R 0Y3 or fax it to 604-586-2402. Expect to receive your ATT in about one week. Those who require a “short term” ATT should call the CFC at 1-800-731-4000.
Step 4: Wait until the bureaucrats get around to you.
If you don't have a firearms license, the application for one is here.
Enjoy "gun control"!
* This information taken from the Responsible Firearms Owners of BC June 2002 newsletter and has been updated to reflect changes in the BC CFO contact information.
Last Updated: January 17, 2012
-
Actually Magnum, an ATT would not apply here as he didn't want to just transport the gun he would have required an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is a completely different beast and I personally don't know of a single civilian who has one, or anyone who has even applied for one. They are exceedingly difficult to get, generally they are given to people in the wilderness so they can carry a handgun for protection from wildlife.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/wild-sauvage-eng.htm
Outside of that its freaking near impossible to get one.
-
Outside of that its freaking near impossible to get one.
Poor Canadians! Since all the bad boys carry illegal weapons anyway, and the good boys cannot defend themselves, that probably means that in Canada the per capita victims from handguns are much, much higher than in the U.S., right?
-
Actually Magnum, an ATT would not apply here as he didn't want to just transport the gun he would have required an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is a completely different beast and I personally don't know of a single civilian who has one, or anyone who has even applied for one. They are exceedingly difficult to get, generally they are given to people in the wilderness so they can carry a handgun for protection from wildlife.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/wild-sauvage-eng.htm
Outside of that its freaking near impossible to get one.
I noticed that some long guns are restricted.
So I guess a Barrett 50 cal might be restricted.
There are occasions when a guy may have to shoot at a 1000 yards at a rabid moose. :t
Andy
-
that probably means that in Canada the per capita victims from handguns are much, much higher than in the U.S., right?
Well, the last year I have seen statistics for was 2006, there were 109 hand gun homicides in Canada out of 183 total homicides where a firearm was used. But that said, the gun homicide rate has dropped by nearly half since 1975 in lock step with tighter and tighter gun controls.
-
> there were 109 hand gun homicides in Canada
It's a pity that half of the Forum got the NRA vaccination against statistics :(
-
Bill, why do you have a shotgun in the corner of your bedroom?
Michael, you know damn well why I have a 12 gage single shot shotgun available.
No I don’t know Bill, I’m still guessing. I think it is to avoid a situation where an intruder enters your home with a weapon and you have nothing to fight back with.
You don’t seem to be able to comprehend the difference between someone who has owned guns for near 50 years for hunting purposes and those who are inexperienced and ill equipped to be owning any type of gun in the first place, most often a handgun placed somewhere in the home where it is easily found by a child or an adult.
If your experience were something unusual then it might boost your credibility, but the reality is that most gun enthusiasts have been owning and using guns, for hunting, since they were kids. Your opponents here include a very large number of gun enthusiasts. In this thread you have repeatedly used characterizations that don’t apply to them any more than they apply to you. You are obsessed with taking handguns away from the “inexperienced and ill equipped”, and don’t seem to care if the solution also takes them away from people who are experienced and well equipped.
Now stop playing dumb ass games with me and admit the fact that there are way too many guns (mostly handguns) of the type whose only designed purpose is the killing of people here in America.
I will agree that there are too many guns here in the wrong hands. Your view of the design purpose is IMO irrelevant - a very wide range of weapons and non-weapon objects can be used to kill, people or animals.
Show me an instance of a child accidently shooting themselves or someone else with a shotgun. Show me a case where a family quarrel ended with a death from a shotgun. Show me where a mass murderer killed women and children with a shotgun. Show me where a criminal has used a shotgun to commit a home break-in. A shotgun is only useful at close rage and makes a much better weapon then a handgun ever could in the rare case of an intruder entering your home. Lets get real here, even if my single shot shotgun was stolen, unlike a semi-automatic handgun, the likelihood that my shotgun would ever be used in another crime is nil!
Shotguns must be responsible for some number of deaths. And you know as well as I that at close range a shotgun is a very effective, lethal weapon. I think the preference for handguns is a mostly a matter of availability and convenience, and if handguns were to become unavailable short shotguns or rifles would replace them.
And regarding children getting shot with their parent’s gun, the problem is with the parent, not with the parent’s ability to purchase a gun. I think that parents should be prosecuted for this, just as they should be prosecuted for the injury or death of a child that they failed to properly restrain in a vehicle, or that they allowed to drown in their swimming pool, etc. But our society seems to generally regard the loss of a child as punishment enough, and admittedly the loss probably is enough to prevent a recurrence.
-
Well, the last year I have seen statistics for was 2006, there were 109 hand gun homicides in Canada out of 183 total homicides where a firearm was used. But that said, the gun homicide rate has dropped by nearly half since 1975 in lock step with tighter and tighter gun controls.
> there were 109 hand gun homicides in Canada
It's a pity that half of the Forum got the NRA vaccination against statistics :(
Edgar, Jochen,
Handgun and assault rifle proponents are oblivious to the facts of too many guns easily obtainable in a society, that is until one of their own is slaughtered. We are by the clear and unarguable facts a paranoid people whose only solution to that paranoia is guns and more guns.
-
I will agree that there are too many guns here in the wrong hands. Your view of the design purpose is IMO irrelevant - a very wide range of weapons and non-weapon objects can be used to kill, people or animals.
Michael, so you do admit there are too many guns in America and that they are too easy to obtain, that’s a good beginning. But I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince a handgun lover such as yourself that you are so wrong about the common ownership of handguns here in America. There are many Americans that are becoming convinced that this gun worship this gun fetish that has infected us in the past quarter century or so must be stopped. New stricter guns laws are coming and the growing outcry of Americans such as myself who truly care will see that it happens. That measly 4 million membership of the NRA is soon going to become irrelevant.
Handguns and assault rifles are socially and ethically worthless. They add nothing of positive value to a culture or a country. They only destroy and display a sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor. America’s culture of gun fanaticism feeds our madness clearly showing us that insanity really does love guns. Guns devastate more families then they could ever safeguard, they do not protect more than they destroy, they do not save more lives than they kill, they do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism or hate. This god-like worship of guns must stop before it destroys us all.
There are exactly two rock-solid actionable facts in the Adam Lanza story. He lived in a home filled with firearms and had he not had access to semi-automatic weapons he would not have been able to take 26 lives away in a matter of seconds.
-
I will agree that there are too many guns here in the wrong hands. Your view of the design purpose is IMO irrelevant - a very wide range of weapons and non-weapon objects can be used to kill, people or animals.
Michael, so you do admit there are too many guns in America and that they are too easy to obtain, that’s a good beginning. But I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince a handgun lover such as yourself that you are so wrong about the common ownership of handguns here in America. There are many Americans that are becoming convinced that this gun worship this gun fetish that has infected us in the past quarter century or so must be stopped. New stricter guns laws are coming and the growing outcry of Americans such as myself who truly care will see that it happens. That measly 4 million membership of the NRA is soon going to become irrelevant.
Handguns and assault rifles are socially and ethically worthless. They add nothing of positive value to a culture or a country. They only destroy and display a sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor. America’s culture of gun fanaticism feeds our madness clearly showing us that insanity really does love guns. Guns devastate more families then they could ever safeguard, they do not protect more than they destroy, they do not save more lives than they kill, they do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism or hate. This god-like worship of guns must stop before it destroys us all.
There are exactly two rock-solid actionable facts in the Adam Lanza story. He lived in a home filled with firearms and had he not had access to semi-automatic weapons he would not have been able to take 26 lives away in a matter of seconds.
short ---- If you want peace prepare for war
your school has no defence when the weapons are almost free
-
Here are two goodies that I found on an Italian blog:
Walmart Sells Assault Weapons But Bans Music With Swear Words (http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-sells-assault-weapons-but-bans-music-with-swear-words-2012-12)
In response to Video games and shooting: Is the NRA right? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1223/Video-games-and-shooting-Is-the-NRA-right):
America had 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. Japan had 11. Does anyone know if they play video games in Japan? (https://twitter.com/Bill_Gross/status/282561216424058881)
-
I will agree that there are too many guns here in the wrong hands.
Michael, so you do admit there are too many guns in America and that they are too easy to obtain, that’s a good beginning.
No, I don’t. Try reading my statement again.
But I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince a handgun lover such as yourself that you are so wrong about the common ownership of handguns here in America. There are many Americans that are becoming convinced that this gun worship this gun fetish that has infected us in the past quarter century or so must be stopped. New stricter guns laws are coming and the growing outcry of Americans such as myself who truly care will see that it happens. That measly 4 million membership of the NRA is soon going to become irrelevant.
Who are you trying to convince with this? Your “handgun lover”, “gun worship”, and “gun fetish” tags are just more characterizations that don’t apply to your opponents as a group any more than they apply to you. Instead of sleazy political bullshit you should be using logical arguments. And if you think your opponents are limited to the NRA members, you’re seriously in need of a reality check.
Handguns and assault rifles are socially and ethically worthless. They add nothing of positive value to a culture or a country. They only destroy and display a sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor. America’s culture of gun fanaticism feeds our madness clearly showing us that insanity really does love guns. Guns devastate more families then they could ever safeguard, they do not protect more than they destroy, they do not save more lives than they kill, they do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism or hate. This god-like worship of guns must stop before it destroys us all.
See above. “Your” points would be better made without the silly “god-like worship of guns”, and imprecise wording that can easily hide half-truths.
There are exactly two rock-solid actionable facts in the Adam Lanza story. He lived in a home filled with firearms and had he not had access to semi-automatic weapons he would not have been able to take 26 lives away in a matter of seconds.
Even with a single-shot gun he still could have taken the 26 lives before help arrived.
Our reality today includes a bunch of problems that we inherited. And one of those problems is a large number of guns in the hands of some very bad people. We have no viable means of completely disarming these people. We can partially disarm these people by choking off the supply of stolen guns, as you suggested, but this would be through a process of attrition that would take a substantial amount of time to have a meaningful effect. Meanwhile, the law that you suggested to make this all happen would have, in a majority of the states, effectively disarmed the law abiding people, leaving them no means of protecting themselves, or others, in public places.
The bottom line is that any gun control law that significantly disarms the law-abiding public, without equally disarming the “bad guys”, has very little chance of becoming reality, no matter how much SPB you apply.
-
I have a reasonably simple view about firearm ownership, you should NOT be able to conceal them. I gather some states in the US require that handgun owners must carry them openly in a holster. I am less worried about many of the assault rifles, an M16 is really had to fit into your back pocket. The things I would like to see restricted is any rapid fire concealable weapon, Uzzis and the like have absolutely no use outside of being anti-personel weapons.
A large assault rifle is useful in some forms of feral animal control, the main problem is the type that can be configured for rapid fire like a machine gun, this capacity has no use at all outside of warfare.
The other factor is that of protection of members of society should extend to schools and universities, not just airports, government buildings and streets in towns. I find it incredible that it is so easy for a nutter to identify a school or a university as an easy disarmed target for them to massacre before topping themselves. Why are the most vulnerable people in society denied the basic protection that an ordinary citizen walking the streets has ?
While I do not support a gun culture, I am highly suspicious of the gun grabbers as it would appear that they simply don't care how many people get killed by loonies in gun free areas, their end result is to disarm a society so it can be controlled at the point of a gun. Innocent women and children are simply fodder in their campaign to disarm society and they do this by attacking an individuals right to defend themselves. I would advocate that society actually acts to protect the most vulnerable people in society, not pander to the "lefty" gun grabbers trying to control society.
-
Steve,
Where else in the industrialized world has mass slaughter by an insane citizen with a gun become so commonplace as it has here in the states? Guards at schools just won’t do it. Are you saying as the NRA has stated that even more guns are the answer to Americas growing gun madness? These people that wish to slaughter will simply dress armored. The guards will be the first ones murdered by these determined madmen. There are some 300 million guns in America that are owned by perhaps 42% of the population. Stopping the easy access to guns is the only answer to America’s fetish for guns.
I know that America would never end ones right to own a gun but this extreme easiness at which anyone can purchase them is insanity. You can go to a gun show here in PA and without any background check buy as many guns as you have the money to purchase. There was a resent arrest where a buyer bought 60 handguns without question then sold them on the streets of New York City. 5,000 gun shows take place each year in the United States. A few states have a one gun a month law and it has proven that there are fewer guns going through the illegal gun trafficking pipeline.
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby.
Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him.
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html)
-
U.S. society feels like a war zone to me.
I'm going to live in such a manner in my own country, the land of the free, the home of the brave? We’re all going to carry so we can be the armed sheep dogs waiting for the next attack? We’re going to turn the malls into OK Corrals waiting to happen? Maybe we should all carry and use what we have learned from weaponized robots, like drones with Hellfires.
We have the technology to arm surveillance cameras. We could put an aim dot on the lens, just like the .50-caliber-machine-gun mounts on the armored trucks driven around Afghanistan, and mount rifles on the side of the cameras. Somebody could monitor from a secure room and pan over the crowd looking for the wolf. Are we really going to turn our public spaces into shooting galleries?
As an individual, I say no.
Don’t Arm America: A Soldier’s Reply to Connecticut Shooting (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/don-t-arm-america-a-soldier-s-reply-to-connecticut-shooting.html)
-
That was a good article.
Courage is a good thing to strive for and develop.
Andy
-
Where else in the industrialized world has mass slaughter by an insane citizen with a gun become so commonplace as it has here in the states? Guards at schools just won’t do it. Are you saying as the NRA has stated that even more guns are the answer to Americas growing gun madness? These people that wish to slaughter will simply dress armored. The guards will be the first ones murdered by these determined madmen.
Why, again, do you have a shotgun in the corner of your bedroom? Why bother? After all, the intruder can simply wear armor, or just shoot you first.
-
"A little handgun in each child's sock"
Good news for folks on the right,
as we approach this Christmas night.
Old Santa’s been hired by the NRA,
he’s hired Ted Nugent to drive his sleigh.
He’s putting a little handgun in each child’s sock,
sometimes a Colt, but more often a Glock.
Tossed beneath the tree as he races the clock,
a Bushmaster with a Red Ryder BB gun embossed on the stock.
For each teacher to carry when returning to school,
a machine gun and a copy of the make my day rule.
For janitors, school nurses, even teacher’s aides,
flack jackets, helmets, and a couple of grenades.
So listen closely come Christmas Eve night,
for a sad old voice, quivering with fright,
Merry Christmas to all, but especially the Right!
Van Tobin
-
And why do you assume that the guard would be such a pushover. The security guards here for anything that matters are police officers. And in places were problems are more likely, they are young, obviously fit, likely ex-military, and wearing vests. And if they can’t handle a problem, backup is typically only a few minutes away.
-
The best option for a school or university campus is a guy who is not in any uniform and no-one knows who he is or that he carries a gun. I still come back to that cretin in Norway that killed so many people because there was no-one there to stop him. We have police forces to prrotect society, why are vulnerable people abandoned as easy targets ?
-
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html)
There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus, and you see what happened. Fifteen dead...
The strange thing is that the fraction who got the NRA vaccination against evidence, and who ask for a 007 in every classroom, is the same that wants less (social) security and less taxes, especially for those who earn more than a Million bucks per year. If hypocrisy was painful, there'd be a lot of screaming in the U.S.
-
You don’t need “007 in every classroom”. You need one competent armed guard as part of an intelligently designed security and access-control system.
-
I do not believe that having armed guards would work. Even well trained police often hit civilians in crowded shooting situations like that which occurred earlier this year at the Empire State Building where nine bystanders were injured by police fire. In the case where an armed guard is fired upon and he must return fire to keep from being killed himself there is no time to consider where his own bullets may land. One can easily imagine the carnage that a shooting crossfire would create in our public schools. And imagine the fear that it will bring to our kids when walking down school corridors that are patrolled by armed guards wearing flak jackets and semi-automatic handguns strapped to their sides.
Let’s take the Columbine High School tragedy as an example. A sheriff's deputy was at Columbine High School during the shooting. The deputy fired his weapon multiple times missed the madman four times and in the crossfire the total number of victims rose to 13. And let's not forget the deadliest shooting where 32 people were murdered and 17 injured, you remember, the one that occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007, which like many of our universities, has its own police department on campus. That didn’t stop the madman.
I’ll never understand the insanity that spews out of the mouths of the NRA and those who believe we need more guns is the answer that will stop the countless homicides that occur each and every year. There is but one way to describe this growing gun fetish we see here in America and that is “pure unadulterated madness!”
There is but one true sane solution to lower the tens of thousands of killings here in America each year and that is strict gun control.
-
I still come back to that cretin in Norway that killed so many people because there was no-one there to stop him. We have police forces to prrotect society, why are vulnerable people abandoned as easy targets ?
Well Steve that is but one case of slaughter in Norway. Have there been any others there compared to the many we have had here in America? There are over 300 millions guns owned by an estimate 100 million people here in the states. Hasn’t done anything to stop the growing slaughter here has it? No, in fact the extremely easy access to guns and the growing number of those who get hold of them without any background checks has, if anything, increased the slaughter. But hey we Americans wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of owning a gun, no sir.
Here is but a few of the killings here in the U.S. not counting the Sandy Hook slaughter of 26 children in the past 12 years.
December 25, 2012. WEBSTER, N.Y. - Police say the man who lured firefighters in Webster, N.Y., into a deadly ambush had the same make and caliber semiautomatic rifle as the one used in the Connecticut school massacre. Spengler killed two firefighters and wounded two others before fatally shooting himself.
December 22, 2012. Blair County Pennsylvania - A man killed two men and one woman Friday in central Pennsylvania, then died in a gunfight with state troopers, authorities said.
December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
February 27, 2012. Three students were killed by Thomas “TJ” Lane, another student, in a rampage at Chardon High School in Chardon, OH. Three others were injured.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MS in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7 before killing himself.
December 26, 2000. Edgewater Technology employee Michael “Mucko” McDermott shot and killed seven of his coworkers at the office in Wakefield, MA. McDermott claimed he had “traveled back in time and killed Hitler and the last 6 Nazis.” He was sentenced to 7 consecutive life sentences.
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.
-
Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood? (http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-)
The site is slow, it seems to be very popular. Strangely enough, some of the proud arms owners were not happy to see their names on the web ::)
-
I do not believe that having armed guards would work. Even well trained police often hit civilians in crowded shooting situations like that which occurred earlier this year at the Empire State Building where nine bystanders were injured by police fire.
Show me some “real” statistics to support your use of “often”.
In the case where an armed guard is fired upon and he must return fire to keep from being killed himself there is no time to consider where his own bullets may land.
An armed guard who doesn’t understand that the bullets go where the gun is pointing?
And imagine the fear that it will bring to our kids when walking down school corridors that are patrolled by armed guards wearing flak jackets and semi-automatic handguns strapped to their sides.
An effective system would not have security guards patrolling the corridors.
Let’s take the Columbine High School tragedy as an example. A sheriff's deputy was at Columbine High School during the shooting. The deputy fired his weapon multiple times missed the madman four times and in the crossfire the total number of victims rose to 13.
The sheriff's deputy did not shoot any of the victims, none of the victims were in the vicinity of the sheriff’s deputy when he was shot at, and he may have saved the life of one of the victims when he distracted Harris.
There is but one true sane solution to lower the tens of thousands of killings here in America each year and that is strict gun control.
And the logical arguments to support this are?
-
I still cannot see the logic of shutting the door after you have some millions of firearms at large in the US. I can see the logic of phasing out concealable weapons or forcing all handguns to be worn in a visible holster and there is some sense in preventing rapid fire weapons from being available but you are only addressing new purchases with this approach, not the millions in circulation. In the mean time if you only had 0.001% of gun owners who went bezerk like these other loonies have done, you will have similar massacres for next few hundred years.
The policy of disarming an entire society will never work as there are too many guns in circulation and of course the other thing is, loonies are not going to give up their guns, the only solution is to provide security for the vulnerable in society. For the life of me I cannot fathom the logic of having a police force that is supposed to protect society yet have society allow the most vulnerable to remain exposed to loonies looking for easy targets. Pandering to the gun grabbers will only result in more shootings, what is needed is a massive increase in the risk factor of some loonie going into a school armed and ready to kill at will.
One bullet would have stopped Brevik but there was no-one there to fire it, same with this little sh*t that killed the kids recently, one bullet would have stopped him and the kids would still be alive. Now this does not mean that a 5 year old must master an Uzzi, it means that at least someone is armed in a school or university so a loonie does not have free reign. Be it a policeman, be it a security guard or even a teacher, it sure beats being an easy target to another loonie.
-
Two 19-year-old males entered the Palms Internet café brandishing a baseball bat and a handgun. One suspect swung the bat at a computer screen while the other pointed the gun at customers. One customer, 71-year-old Samuel Williams, took action. Williams pulled out his .380-cal. pistol and fired at Henderson. Both intruders suffered non-life threatening gunshot wounds and fled. They were later arrested and treated for their injuries. One suspect later said their plan had been to “barge in, get the money and leave” and he “never expected anyone to be armed.” (The Blaze, Marion County, FL, 7/17/12)
It was about midnight when 66-year-old Rosa Myles’ nightly prayers were interrupted. She heard a noise coming from the back of her home. Myles, who must use a walker to get around, went to investigate when a man suddenly lunged at her with a knife. The man pushed Myles and demanded jewelry and money. He followed her to the bedroom where Myles kept some cash. As he stood counting the money, Myles was able to retrieve her gun and shot the man twice. The 19-year-old suspect was later arrested and arraigned on first degree home invasion and assault with a charge of intent to rob while armed. (The Muskegon Chronicle, Flint, MI, 7/3/12)
John Mutter was asleep in his bed around 2:15 a.m. when he was awakened by a man with a shotgun pointed at his head. Mutter, a paraplegic living alone, kept his own gun nearby for protection. He quickly grabbed his gun and fired multiple times killing the intruder. Police investigating the incident believed the man had entered the home looking for medication, money or anything of value. (The Columbus Dispatch, Johnstown, OH, 7/22/12)
Gerald Mirto, 67, heard noises coming from his backyard and went to investigate. When he noticed the screen door had been broken, Mirto spotted the culprit standing just outside. The 25-year-old suspect was not wearing any clothing and was asked to leave repeatedly. There was a struggle in which Mirto was bitten in the arm and punched in the head. Mirto was able to escape and retreat to the second floor of his home where he retrieved a handgun. He then found the intruder attempting to steal his television. The intruder reportedly instigated a second physical altercation. That is when Mirto shot the man in the chest. Police apprehended the intruder a short time later. (Milford Patch, Milford, CT, 7/23/12)
A 19-year-old male allegedly knocked on the door of a rural home early one morning with ill intent. When the homeowner came to the door, the suspect threatened the man with a gun and stole $150 in cash and his licensed medical marijuana. The man didn’t stop there. Instead of leaving the residence, he continued to threaten the homeowner by pointing his gun through the dog door. The homeowner retrieved his own firearm and shot the suspect six times. He was taken to the hospital for treatment and is expected to be charged after his release. (KOAT7, Taos, NM, 7/16/12)
A man entered Smith’s Marketplace one afternoon and purchased a knife. Police say the man then used the knife as a weapon and attacked several people. One victim was stabbed in the abdomen while another was stabbed in the head and arms. All the while, the knife-wielding assailant had been yelling at his victims that they had “killed his people.” Before he was able to locate another target, a citizen with a concealed firearm intervened. The man with the knife was told to drop his weapon or be shot. He complied and was detained until police arrived. (ABC4, Salt Lake City, UT, 4/27/12)
When a homeowner heard noises coming from the first floor of his home, he called out. One of two intruders reportedly identified himself as a police officer so the resident descended the stairs to investigate. One man hurled a hatchet at the homeowner, but missed. The resident fought back and fired a shotgun striking one of the intruders. Both men fled upon hearing the gunshot. The wounded suspect was later arrested when he sought medical treatment. (Kitsap Sun, Tacoma, WA, 6/28/12)
Ruby Hodge, 89, heard someone knock at her back door twice before she decided to answer. By the third knock, however, Hodge heard the door being kicked in. The intruders, two males ages 31 and 42, entered her home and went into the guest bedroom opposite her own. When they turned around Hodge had her .38-cal. pistol waiting. Both men fled, but were later caught. Sheriff Fred Knight said, “I was just amazed. When she told me she met the intruders with a handgun pointed at them, she said they went out faster than they came in. She is my hero!” (SCNOW, Blenheim, SC, 7/24/12)
-
And the logical arguments to support this are?
Logical arguments? Are you kidding me? I’ve been posting statistics thru-out this thread but you gun advocates deny them. Why should I waste my time digging up more truths that you would simply refuse to admit are true? But what the hell, I will repeat myself and list a few important facts about guns here in America one more time just for you Michael.
FACT: There are more mass murders in the United States then there are in all other industrialized countries combined.
FACT: There are more than 58,000 gun shops in the United States. (There are fewer than 20,000 Starbucks in the whole world).
FACT: There are more than 5,000 gun shows each year in this country where no background check is required to purchase a gun.
FACT: There are over 300 million guns in the United States and facts are many of them are in the possession of crazy people.
FACT: A child is killed by a gun every 3 hours, 8 every day, 55 every week.
FACT: Way too many guns are in the hands of criminals who purchased them at gun shows, steal them from legal owners or acquired them in some other illegal easily available means.
FACT: Most gun owners have little or no experience in the proper use of a gun and that in too many cases they are stored in the home improperly where they are easily found by children or thieves.
FACT: The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, an average of 88 per 100 people and that 60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a handgun.
FACT: The gun-homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia, 10 times that of India and four times that of Switzerland.
FACT: With only 5% of the world’s population, America owns nearly 50% of all the world’s guns.
FACT: Last year on Black Friday, over 280,000 guns were purchased. (Merry Christmas)
FACT: Firearm deaths are significantly lower in cities and states with stricter gun control legislation. http://thebluereview.org/sensible-gun-control/
-
The policy of disarming an entire society will never work as there are too many guns in circulation and of course the other thing is, loonies are not going to give up their guns, the only solution is to provide security for the vulnerable in society. For the life of me I cannot fathom the logic of having a police force that is supposed to protect society yet have society allow the most vulnerable to remain exposed to loonies looking for easy targets. Pandering to the gun grabbers will only result in more shootings, what is needed is a massive increase in the risk factor of some loonie going into a school armed and ready to kill at will.
Steve, your own country of Australia with its much stricter gun control has kept you from seeing the types of mass murders so common place as seen here in America has it not? When was the last mass shooting in your country? Was the 2002 Huan Yun Xiang shooting where 2 were killed and five injured the last one Australia experienced? When one looks at Australia’s mass killings they appear to be few at best compared to the U.S.
Though I wish there was not one single handgun or assault rifle owned by a civilian here in the U.S. there is no one in America that I know of who wants the second amendment abolished. The first amendment which is without doubt our most valued of them all was changed in 1919 to make it a felony to cry out “fire” when there is none to cause panic within a group of people. Like the other rights in our bill of rights that have been amended to better fit within our modern times the second is in dyer need of a change.
Must every man woman and child carry in some delusion that it will make us safe? As I’ve stated before there are loonies all about the world but only here in America can a loony so easily obtain a weapon and commit mass murder. America needs stricter gun control laws similar to how we handle vehicle ownership perhaps. If a person wants to own a gun they need basic training on proper use, a license to own it that would require renewal each year, local police be informed you have a gun.
As to armed guards anywhere, anyplace, where are the facts that they stopped a loony from committing mass murder? I do not believe people give any thought to how one would react in a situation where bullets are flying at you. As the New York Empire State Building case (as do others) clearly show that when law enforcement is required to return fire in the heat of it shots too often go astray. That perfect aim perfect shot in a gun battle happens only in ones imagination. It just doesn't happen that way and too often in a gun fight innocent people are injured or killed.
-
And the logical arguments to support this are?
Logical arguments? Are you kidding me? I’ve been posting statistics thru-out this thread but you gun advocates deny them. Why should I waste my time digging up more truths that you would simply refuse to admit are true? But what the hell, I will repeat myself and list a few important facts about guns here in America one more time just for you Michael.
And you follow this with a list of facts. Where are the logical arguments? Demonstrate to me, through logical argument, how these facts support your position.
-
Obsession
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
An obsession is a focus on one thing with little interest in anything else. (noun)
An example of an obsession is a child wanting to talk only of trains.
-
My grandfather told me once:
"If you don't have a bomb in your house it won't explode".
-
Bill,
There are cultural differences between the US and OZ, while ownership of full sized rifles has a long history here, handguns have always been very restricted. Now the price of the gun grabbers here in OZ is very noticable, we have a massive feral animal problem in Australia, once many people used to go hunting for pigs, rabbits, foxes and many other introduced species but with the ever tightening gun control, most don't bother any longer as its not worth the hassle or the risk of police intervention for not dotting the "i"s in the application form or whatever other bullsh*t is used as an excuse to come busting into your house in the middle of the night to grab your guns. The old slogan is "Registration, Confiscation".
This may suit city dwellers with neurotic views but its a disaster for indigenous species of animals that are being displaced and hunted by introduced species. These things used to be well under control years ago but as the neurotic got enough legislation passed to outlaw most firearms it went well out of control and is now damaging property and decimating indigenous species.
Now with something like 20 years of repressive gun laws, the murder rates have not changed over a very long period so it served no safety purpose but it did serve another purpose, that of disarming society so it can be controlled at the point of a gun.
-
Hi,
Heard about this on NPR. It uses Flash, so this computer
can't see it in all its glory. Let me know if it's worth visiting
on a newer computer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
Regards
Steve N.
-
Hi,
Heard about this on NPR. It uses Flash, so this computer
can't see it in all its glory. Let me know if it's worth visiting
on a newer computer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
Regards
Steve N.
Steve N., there has been nearly 300 killings by guns sense the Sandy Hook slaughter.
-
And you follow this with a list of facts. Where are the logical arguments?
So what you are saying is an argument is to be believed over that of facts?
I could point out the dangers we are facing if something isn’t done to stop this growing gun fetish that is occurring here in the U.S. until I’m blue in the face and you’d never be convinced. You who told the story of a girl who shot at her boy friend with a shotgun and missed on another thread. And I quote; “Although she fired repeatedly, she was such a bad shot that she hit him only twice”. Thank goodness she didn’t have a handgun and that no bystanders were around, even with her using a shotgun, there could have been a blood bath of innocent deaths do to her (as do most other gun owners) lack of gun experience.
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html)
The data is clear; gun control works (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/12/data-clear-gun-control-works)
Other countries prove that gun control works (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2012/Dec-21/199347-other-countries-prove-that-gun-control-works.ashx#axzz2GLJ9qOex)
Canada's gun controls 'work,' Harper says in wake of Newtown (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/19/pol-cp-harper-newtown-shooting-reaction.html)
Study shows restrictions reduce gun deaths (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Study-shows-restrictions-reduce-gun-deaths-4147699.php)
The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/)
I'm only interested in the facts not some silly argument!
-
Bill,
There are cultural differences between the US and OZ,
Steve,
I visit various boards both here in the states as well as abroad where the extreme easy availability of guns in the U.S. to most anyone even ex-felons is discussed. I tend to dismiss most opinions even those that I agree with do to the fact that they come from anonymous posters who are too cowardly to state who they really are. I’ve even been threaten by some of these anonymous posters who are diehard gun advocates.
But even so, the absolute fact is America has had 18, let me repeat that, 18 mass shootings this year 2012, leaving too many innocent people dead because of the easy availability of guns here in the states. There is no other logical reason to explain why these mass killings are occurring other then guns are too easily obtained by anyone especially madmen (has anyone ever considered why there has not been a woman involved in a mass murder case in this gun crazed society called America?).
The argument that guns don't kill people, people do, is meaningless babble in my opinion. In 10 states (and growing) in this country you are more likely to be killed by a gun than in a car accident. This is astonishing when you consider that 90 percent of households have cars and millions of hours are spent in a vehicle everyday while less than a third of the population owns the over 300 million guns in this country where mass murder has become commonplace. Cars could be equally lethal objects, there’s no argument about that, but the reason why cars are safer is because they (as guns should be) are regulated and auto safety is demanded by we Americans, but not when it comes to gun ownership.
The United States, one of the richest nations on earth suffers from gun violence that rivals the very worst in poorer nations. The reality of being soft-on-guns in America is that we have sacrificed our fundamental rights to personal safety in order to accommodate the selfish whims of a minority of gun worshippers and their paid patron politicians.
Anyway my friend enough said, you Steve are one of the few people whose opinion I value, but you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree about America and its increasing fetish for guns.
-
What about the people that have been killed by easily obtainable fertilizer, knives, airplanes, highly flammable fuel ?
Let's not forget cigarettes and alcohol.
The dangers of smoking have been well documented since the 60's.
I think smokers should be required to take a course on what cigarettes do to themselves and others.
I think smokers should pay double the health insurance rate as non-smokers because of all the damage they cause to society.
Andy
-
And you follow this with a list of facts. Where are the logical arguments?
So what you are saying is an argument is to be believed over that of facts?
No, I’m not. I want to know how you see these “facts” logically supporting your position here, because I can’t see how they do. Some of them are clear indicators that we have serious problems that we need to solve, but I cannot see the logical connection to the solutions that you want to apply. It looks to me very much like you decided on the solutions, for whatever reason, and then set about finding excuses to apply them. Had you started with the problems, and sought solutions through a process of logic, then you would have logical arguments to support your position.
-
Michael,
I think this is what is going on.
Andy
"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
-
It is shameful beyond words that gun control only becomes worthy of public debate following a horrifying massacre such as the one at Sandy Hook and even more shameful that these mass killings occur so often. What I find so alarming is it is absolutely certain mass murder will continue to be commonplace in the U.S. unless America stops this gun worshiping insanity.
What can not be denied is in America people who snap for whatever reason are a hell of a lot more likely to have easy access to guns to commit mass murder then in any other industrialized country. The private ownership of semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles save lives we’re told. Show me the statistics that this is true.
What we do know, and the statistics show, is that guns kill near 32,000 Americans each year. In the world of real numbers the FBI counted an average of only 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. Yes guns have saved lives but not nearly as many as they have taken.
Nancy Lanzas owned a half dozen guns that she was heard to say was for her own protection and pleasure. Didn’t do her much good now did they? Nope, but it sure made it easy for her whacko son to get hold of them to slaughter 20 children, 6 adults and even herself. The irony of her love for guns was made very clear by her sick minded son.
We are the one and only country that regularly experience horrors of this sort. The difference is that the United States treats the gun as a secular god. We must depose of this false deity that infects the minds of a good third in this country. The easy availability of semi-automatic handguns, of semi-automatic assault rifles, and the talk amongst the NRA and its blind followers to legalize the purchase of silencers has got to come to an end.
There are fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns. The younger age having less interest in gun ownership then the older generation does. In southern states where there are much larger regions of uneducated there are higher numbers of gun owners. Men owning guns outnumber women that do. Conservatives owning guns outnumber moderates and liberals that do.
The writings on the wall, stricter gun control is coming, it can not be stopped. The Sandy Hook massacre may have been the straw that broke the camels back, perhaps not. But as the gun slaughters continue here in America, as they surely will, the outcry for gun control will grow and grow.
Question: Who is the most powerful voting block in America? Answer: Women!
There are 84 million mothers in the United States and only 4 million NRA members. We are the wave of change. Like Mothers Against Drunk Driving helped change lax laws in the 1980s, One Million Moms for Gun Control will not rest until common sense gun control regulations are put in place at both the national and state level.
The rapid growth of social media and the organizing power of the Internet will ensure our success. It is said that a mother’s love for her child is unstoppable; be sure that One Million Moms for Gun Control is as well.
http://www.onemillionmomsforguncontrol.org
-
What can not be denied is in America people who snap for whatever reason are a hell of a lot more likely to have easy access to guns to commit mass murder then in any other industrialized country. The private ownership of semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles save lives we’re told. Show me the statistics that this is true.
What we do know, and the statistics show, is that guns kill near 32,000 Americans each year. In the world of real numbers the FBI counted an average of only 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. Yes guns have saved lives but not nearly as many as they have taken.
The justified homicide statistic is not any reasonable measure of lives saved, because this actually depends on who was killed and what they may have done in the future. Consider the lives that could have been saved by a homicide of Adam Lanza, justifiable or otherwise, at any time prior to the tragedy. And you are leaving out the lives potentially saved by the deterrent effect of so many people being armed. And you are apparently not considering that ending private ownership of handguns, and to a lesser extent assault rifles, may ultimately increase the loss of life, by a mechanism that should be obvious to you even if it had not been pointed out to you repeatedly.
And again, the suicide numbers, which make up ~60% of the total, are meaningless here. You seem to be trying to blame all of the deaths on the easy availability of guns, when there is no logical connection to most of them.
Nancy Lanzas owned a half dozen guns that she was heard to say was for her own protection and pleasure. Didn’t do her much good now did they? Nope, but it sure made it easy for her whacko son to get hold of them to slaughter 20 children, 6 adults and even herself. The irony of her love for guns was made very clear by her sick minded son.
Again, demonstrate to me, by logical argument, how gun control would have prevented the Sandy Hook School tragedy. As has been stated repeatedly, gun control ensured that none of the law-abiding people there could have the means to stop Adam Lanza. How many times has this happened?
There are 84 million mothers in the United States and only 4 million NRA members.
Again, if they think that their opponents are limited to the NRA members they are in serious need of a reality check. And I’m virtually certain that the vast majority of these mothers are involved with a man, and it seems unlikely to me that her stance on gun rights would be far from his.
-
Bill,
> The Sandy Hook massacre may have been the straw that broke the camels back
Here you have just stated the "gun grabber's" manifesto, keep insisting that innocent young children, their teachers, university students and the like are denied the protection that most ordinary citizens have with their police force so that each time another loonie goes into a school or university for easy targets, the gun grabbers can bleat about the evils of guns and how they should be banned.
The solution is not to leave the most vulnerable people in society to the mercy of loonies but to protect them like any other citizen. Gun free zones are just an easy "killing field" where your children and young people are lambs for the slaughter.
I have tried to warn you about what a "gun grabber" society looks like, if you lived in Australia you would not be allowed to own your hunting rifles and if you did not hand them in you could be arrested, charged and jailed. Surrender your second amendment rights to the gun grabbers and you will lose one of your basic rights.
We have a successful "gun grabber" society where you have drive by shootings in Sydney, turf wars between competing bikie gangs to control the drug market and terrorists that have arsenals of exotic weapons and more recently teenage kids buying illegal hand guns to protect themselves from other armed kids.
Welcome to "gun grabber" paradise.
-
For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/health/americans-under-50-fare-poorly-on-health-measures-new-report-says.html?_r=0)
(too many hamburgers? ::))
-
The main problem is the majority of people here who engage in risky behavior, some to the point that their apparent goal is to do themselves in. It’s another of life’s IQ tests.
-
These statistics that are being quoted are badly misleading in a number of ways. For one the comparison between US and Australian numbers comes with a population differential of over 12 to 1. That means the equivalent of a once a year US average would correspond to 1 incidence per 12 years on average in Australia, or 1 per 6 years to match a 2 per year US average. Yet even these averages can be highly misleading due to the sample sizes selected. By selecting per year sample sizes the sample size becomes very small, which makes the year to year variability much larger. Thus quoting a large number selected from a given year becomes statistically meaningless.
People almost universally perceive randomness and an equal distribution over a set. I have even used this perception of randomness to convince people I was psychic by guessing 90% or more of the doors in a set they were instructed to secretly select at random. This same fallacy is well represented in many of the statistical arguments I'm seeing here.
Given any set of random data with a per year average containing a small sample size it is a mathematical certainty that select years will contain numbers well in excess of that average. The smaller the sample size the greater the excesses in particular post selected years. Selecting clusters and characterizing it as a trend is just bad logic. As is reselecting a new cluster in a few years to justify the fallacy of labeling the previous cluster a trend.
Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062
-
A gun-carrying grandmother in Milwaukee foiled an attempted robbery when she pulled a firearm on the suspect as he grabbed for her grocery store cash register.
Ernestine Aldana, 48, was behind the counter at the San Ignacio Market when a man in a dark hat pulled a knife on her and attempted to rob the store register, police said. Aldana pulled a handgun from behind the counter on the man, causing him to flee.
“All I remember is being scared,” Aldana told ABC News. “I believe if I would have had my finger on the trigger I would have shot, thank god it actually didn’t come to that, everybody thinks it’s easy to pick up a gun and shoot someone, it’s really not.”
Aldana said she was thinking about firing, but by then the suspect had already had turned to flee.
The remarkable incident was all caught on surveillance video released by the Milwaukee Police Department, which is searching for the man. Aldana described the man as Hispanic, about 35 and between 165-180 pounds with pock marks on his cheeks.
Aldana says her son, who took her to a firing range to train her to shoot, bought the gun for the store. The family never thought they would need for the firearm, but are now grateful. “If I didn’t have the gun there, he would have hurt me, once I had the gun there it changed everything,” said Aldana.
In December 2011, Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill passing the “Castle Doctrine” in the state, which protects home and business owners using a gun in self-defense on their property.
Aldana added that she is now skeptical of restrictions on gun ownership. “[The gun] saved my life,” she said.
-
Aldana added that she is now skeptical of restrictions on gun ownership. “[The gun] saved my life,” she said.
Congrats, that is exactly the kind of statistical evidence we need so desperately :t
-
It is easy to have guns for Americans.
Do you know how easy to move continental rockets ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXzicwhcHI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAXzicwhcHI)
-
I agree with a poster.
It's probably a distillation column. (vodka ?)
-
For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/health/americans-under-50-fare-poorly-on-health-measures-new-report-says.html?_r=0)
Isn't this un-patriotic, criticising themselves like that... tut tut ;)
-
Not surprisingly the phenomenon of declining health tends to go hand in hand with declining living standards and this has happened across much of the western world in the last 15 years. Effectively the case of ripping the guts out of the local economies, stock market excesses, imports killing off local industry and thus employment and diminished interest by governments to fix the problem while supporting those folks who are at the bottom of the spectrum economically.
Here you have the shift of displaced people towards aside effects like drugs, booze, violence and sex abuse as the arse falls out of their world. The Chinese are laughing at how stupid western countries are behaving in destroying their own people while they educate their own, improve their living standards and strengthen their economies. England decimated itself between ww1 and ww2 with the support of its class system at the expense of the country generally and from ww2 onwards it has been in decline as a consequence.
The US has its own flavour of class warfare doing much the same level of damage, destroy your own people in a dirty war of financial atrition and you eventually destroy the country.
The rising stars are Brasil, Russia, India and China, the BRIC block and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Don't feel alone, its being done here in OZ as well.
-
The rising stars are Brasil, Russia, India and China, the BRIC block and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Don't feel alone, its being done here in OZ as well.
Brasil is one of the worst cases in terms of income inequality, Russia and China are heading towards "class warfare", too. India is neatly split into extremely poor (2/3) and wealthy (1/3). But I agree with the rest of your post.
-
Yes they do have some unhappy examples, a few months ago I watched a documentaryon a town in Russia just above Kazakstan which was on a truck route and it was on a synthetic opiate reverse constructed from Codeine Phosphate called "crocodil" and it was truly horrendous. A year or so after the kids get hooked on it it kills them. The name is associated with how their skin looks in the final stages of their life.
Interestingly enough as Russia seemed to have done better out of the GFC, things may be improving under the more rigid regime with Putin as he appears to be willing to negate the effects of western countries by removing the civil rights of their citizens. I gather Brasil has tried to do something about the shanty towns on the outskirts of their bigger cities by stopping some of the drug barons but they have a big problem and a long way to go.
-
Yes they do have some unhappy examples, a few months ago I watched a documentaryon a town in Russia just above Kazakstan which was on a truck route and it was on a synthetic opiate reverse constructed from Codeine Phosphate called "crocodil" and it was truly horrendous. A year or so after the kids get hooked on it it kills them. The name is associated with how their skin looks in the final stages of their life.
Interestingly enough as Russia seemed to have done better out of the GFC, things may be improving under the more rigid regime with Putin as he appears to be willing to negate the effects of western countries by removing the civil rights of their citizens. I gather Brasil has tried to do something about the shanty towns on the outskirts of their bigger cities by stopping some of the drug barons but they have a big problem and a long way to go.
Take away prejudices. Learn russian language and welcome to Russia. Don't stop at Moscow. Walk to Kursk Belgorod, Bryansk Ryazan, Vladimir. Walk to Ufa with Donkey to watch Hockey.
-
deleted
-
Nah! Hutch you've got it wrong...
In africa we have a bunch of Zots, hell bent on destroying themselves before the year is out, that it will look like a paradise this/next year, while south america and the world are still playing catchup!!!
:icon_mrgreen: :biggrin: :greenclp:
-
:biggrin:
Rockphorr,
No prejudice, I recently watched a travelogue documentary on Russia and its a truly fascinating place but most of it is too cold for me, I can tolerate 35c - 45c temperatures but not the minus 60 that you get up north in the winter. If I am ever rich enough I will do the Trans-Siberian rail trip from Vladivostok to Moscow just to see the place.
-
Our summer is from may to august +15 ~ +30 (at jule) in my climatic zone (600km south from Moscow).
It will be very comfortable to you.
-
What city ?
-
What city ?
for sample anyone of -- Kursk, Belgorod, Bryansk
-
I know the name Kursk from ww2 tank battle but they are easy enough to find on Google Earth, close to the border with Ukraine.
-
Kursk was the approximate area of the battleground, whereas it actually occurred over about a week, but in a very wide large area. ;)
-
Battle of Kursk:[nb 7]
203,000[13]-500,000[14] casualties
760[15]-1,612[16] tanks and assault guns
Battle of Kursk
The eastern front at the time of Operation Citadel. Orange areas show the destruction of an earlier Soviet breakthrough that ended with the Kharkov offensive operation. Green areas show German advances on Kursk.
The Battle of Kursk was a World War II engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front near the city of Kursk, (450 kilometers / 280 miles south of Moscow) in the Soviet Union in July and August 1943. It was both the largest series of armored clashes, including the Battle of Prokhorovka, and the costliest single day of aerial warfare in history. The battle was the final strategic offensive the Germans were able to mount in the east, and the decisive Soviet victory gave the Red Army the strategic initiative for the rest of the war.
-
Pennsylvania Gun At Center of Terrorist Threat (http://nj1015.com/pennsylvania-girls-bubble-gun-at-center-of-terrorist-threat-should-the-child-have-been-suspended-poll/)
One more reason for armed guards!
-
Yes, this is genuinely serious, based on such intelligence the next generation of terrorists will be armed with weapons so dangerous that they can blow bubbles. For such an audacious abuse of national security the perpetrator should have to face a firing squad of soap bubble guns. Now can you imagine the dangerous nature of Slobodan Bin Gadaffi Junior being armed with a high powered soap bubble gun to the refrains of "I'm forever blowing bubbles" that national security will be seriously compromised by the fact that everyone who heard the thread died laughing. :P
-
<A Pennsylvania elementary school allegedly suspended a 5-year-old girl for making a “terrorist threat” <after the child told a friend that she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty bubble gun.
<The unidentified kindergartener was initially suspended for 10 days following the Jan. 10 incident at Mount <Carmel Area Elementary School in Northumberland County, PennLive.com reported.
“This little girl is the
< least terroristic person in Pennsylvania,” Robin Ficker, a lawyer for the girl’s family, told the website.
First it says "allegedly" then it says she was suspended.
Which is it ? :dazzled:
I am sure there is some truth in this story.
Reminds of a favorite toy of mine when I was young.
It was a plastic rocket that you put water in it and pumped it full of air.
I think it went about 50 ft. high.
About 20 years later I asked a toy store manager if they carried the water rocket.
He said, "No, someone sued the manufacturer and so they stopped making it."
When I worked at Macy's I was told that about 15% of the price of clothing is attributable to loss of profit due to lawsuits.
What happened to personal responsibility ?
-
in the first sentance, they are reporting directly
in the second one, they are quoting someone else
the word "allegedly" is used to cover their asses, legally, in the event that it turns out to be incorrect
when they quote someone else, that isn't necessary, as they are reporting what someone else said
-
The term “allegedly” applies to any criminal incidence, in this case “terrorist threat”, in which guilt is not explicitly been established by a court of law. It's basically a legal technicality.
-
in the first sentance, they are reporting directly
in the second one, they are quoting someone else
the word "allegedly" is used to cover their asses, legally, in the event that it turns out to be incorrect
when they quote someone else, that isn't necessary, as they are reporting what someone else said
Seeing what some reporters report on, I don't think they have much to worry about in terms of being successfully sued.
I have some experience with reporters, and some of them have a "conscious" that is "seared."
I am trying to keep this clean. ;)
Andy
-
they do have an editor and a legal department, though :lol:
if you watch the news on tv, you will hear the word "allegedly" used a lot
-
Editor is not in the picture when they are broadcasting live.
-
Citizens should have a weapons. If they don't have it - will be a dictatorship in the country (such as in Russia or Ukraine).
USA is great.
-
Honestly I love guns too.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5cjGWVGY8dM/UZ5EES_4B5I/AAAAAAAABPg/VC_RCRbHF-8/s1600/CIMG4082.jpg)
Just bought an air gun for 75USD. There is no firearm here. I'd like to have one. I only afford to buy a 250USD gun.