General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2170607

    What gun possession implies

    Locked

    by chdchan ·

    With gun weapons, one can protect or kill. Not too soon after Colorado shooting, Americans are tolling themselves again with the Connecticut shootout.

    The U.S. is a country respecting freedom. While the police and soldiers have guns, so do the general public. With freedom in American minds, privacy is also secured by Law, hence one can kill an intruder to one’s premises. The reasons behind this practice are: Americans are above-par wealthy and they need some extra security against crime (also reflected in their possession of most nuclear missiles in the world); Americans are relatively selfish and self-protecting (people are putting security of oneself above public safety by advocating gun possession, plus developing nuclear weaponry whilst disallowing poorer countries to follow suit); Americans think they are so morally superior that most people can restrain themselves from gun abuse.

    In fact, if some would like to prevent crime with guns, they should first think about how easily guns can cause crime. For the first time in history, after many gun-related crimes, people from the rest of the world should become hesitating when considering emigration or traveling to the U.S. and other gun-approving countries. As Chinese ourselves, we applaud for our own better-off personal safety without undiscriminated gun possession. When guns are publicized for eliminating their inner lack of security, Americans are haunted with even greater homicidal fears.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2425608

      But are guns really the problem

      by slayer_ ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      Without trying to sound pro or anti gun. Canadians have a lot of guns at home, from pistols to rifles. My family had 8 guns including old military guns. When I was young my father showed me how to shoot guns. What is really different between us as the USA? I do know our guns have to be locked in a secure storage container, I do not know US laws on gun storage.

      Can it be pure population density? Does the fact that the US has more people clustered together mean that statistically the likelihood of a school shooting is greater? But isn’t China and Japan even more densely populated? So what are their school shooting statistics?

      It can’t be just that Americans think they have a right to guns is it? How is having the right to have guns different than being allowed to have guns?

      My theory… The typical urban environments lend themselves to less gun safety talks with children. This theory could be tested by checking the gun violence rates in less urbanized states.

      • #2425604

        Gun crime statistics to ponder

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to But are guns really the problem

        No point in tinkering with “urban” and “rural”. The US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Total homicides for the USA are 4.3 per 100,000 with 1.2 per 100,000 for the UK.

        We just don’t have guns.

        Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100,000 population of which a handful were gun crime. They don’t have much murder or guns.

        However, with less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 40 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns so it’s just not possible to get any meaningful comparison.

        • #2425601

          Therefore what?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gun crime statistics to ponder

          But I will say this (ask this). You stated that in the US, [i]”….. there are 3.2 firearm homicides per 100,000….”[/i]

          Those danged statistics. A smart guy can make them say just about anything.

          Remove a few isolated spots from the USA, and what are the numbers? Take out of the equation New York City (with the Democrat mayor in sheep’s clothing, Michael Bloomberg – Mr. Gun Control in a city where such firearms are already illegal); or Detroit, a city with another Democrat mayor, Democrats on the city council, where social programs and unemployment are norm; or Chicago, the murder capitol of the world, the home of out Democrat president, Barack Hussein Obama, and all his Democrat Chicago cronies; and, of course, let’s not even mention race in the homicide statistics.

          Or I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are gang bangers battling over turf? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are ……..

          Your statistics are meaningless, Neil.

        • #2425585

          It’s your country, you do the math

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Therefore what?

          You have this habit of posting questions – “I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps”. You answer it, you asked it.

          I posted a single flat statistic which suggests that there is, per capita, thirty times more homicide by guns in the US when compared to the UK where the posession of a handgun is illegal.. If you want to post “therefore what?”, feel free but to do it in the way that you do here is just lazy. Remove a few isolated spots from the UK statistics and we can all get different numbers.

        • #2425520

          and why would you remove those spots ?

          by highlander718 ·

          In reply to Therefore what?

          they represent quite a chunk of American population and are part of America. I myself am not decided pro or anti-gun but this type of argument does not help the debate.

        • #2438286

          actually, what I’d like to see are ths stats for gun death broken up into

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Therefore what?

          1. gang and organised crime related murders;

          2. those killed by during crimes or resisting capture by police;

          3. individual murders for personal gain or revenge;

          4. accidental while shooting;

          5. accidental while handling a gun;

          6. terrorist related incidents;

          7. crazed gunman attacks;

          8. miscellaneous.

      • #2425602

        People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to But are guns really the problem

        I have my theories on the cause(s) of not only these mass killings, but other forms of violence and social breakdown, and none of them has anything at all to do with the existence of, or the availability of guns.

        But it’s obvious that the anti-gun lobby and the anti-gun sentiment in the USA will actually PREVENT any effort to address the REAL root cause(s). It’s easy to blame guns for jumping up and killing people; that way, people don’t have to acknowledge the REAL issues.

        I’d bet everything I own (which isn’t a hell of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these “mass killing” cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or ………

        But yeah, let’s blame the guns. It’s too painful to look at the REAL reasons.

        • #2425599

          i don`t blame guns

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          guns are just the tool…guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Whether it be with a gun, a knife, whatever the tool may be, that is the fact. Unfortunately, guns are a tool for a faster mass violence. And it doesn`t seem to matter what the demographic is either. I hear too many stories where someone took their parents` gun out of an unlocked closet and either accidentally or intentionally shot someone or mulitple people. As Slayer_ said, we`re under pretty tough laws to keep our guns locked up here in Canada. I was raised to understand that a gun was for nothing more than hunting or in drastic measures to protect ones home and family.

          Is it any wonder today`s society doesn`t know right from wrong…we`ve been told we`re not allowed to disipline our children anymore in fear we may hurt their self esteem. I tell ya, my uncle didn`t hurt my self esteem, but he wacked my butt when I didn`t do what I was told; my self esteem is fine and I sure as heck appreciate, love, and respect that man with all my heart. If I didn`t get my own way or a toy that I wanted, I darned well learned to live with (and love) what I did have. So today`s kids need to suck it up, we all don`t get what we want but if you don`t like what you have, I`m sure it can be given to some poor kid somewhere that will adore it. And if you don`t do what you`re told, there`s an app for that, it`s called grounded…no TV, no cell phone, no computer, no gaming system….read a book, better yet (and I`m not a religious girl at all but I do believe in morals) read the Bible; it`s full of lessons and morals that we all should re-learn to live by.

          And that`s my two cents for now.

        • #2425519

          guns don’t kill people

          by highlander718 ·

          In reply to i don`t blame guns

          but it sure makes it easier, ain’t it ?

        • #2425496

          Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to guns don’t kill people

          Obviously guns need a crazy person to pull the trigger to do their damage….so either we need fewer crazy people, fewer guns, or better ways to prevent the two elements from reacting.

          Part of this debate is around how we treat (or do not treat) mental illness, perhaps even a discussion about violent video games, but most importantly, how to have a grown up discussion about how lethal weapons are bought, sold, used, and abused.

        • #2438398

          and you don’t need guns to kill people, either -nt

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people

          nt

        • #2438225

          exactly

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people

          i stated that before but some ppl don’t seem to get it. In this case it’s guns that are the tool, in other cases, it’s something else. You’re close to the only one the seems to get that

        • #2438284

          so does a car – they kill more people than guns do each year, let’s

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to guns don’t kill people

          have a total personal car ownership and use ban as well.

        • #2438269

          As far as I know

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to so does a car – they kill more people than guns do each year, let’s

          There are far fewer intentional mass killing sprees caused by the use of a car as a deadly weapon.
          It is a useless comparison.

        • #2438264

          what you mean is —

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          there are far fewer killing sprees that we know of!

          What with all the road rage etc that goes on now, it’s hard to tell what was a rage attack and an accident in many cases.

        • #2438261

          Mass killing sprees are very different from road rage

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          both are areas of concern but you will find that a small percentage of deaths at the wheel are caused by road rage.
          According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the American Automobile Association, most automobile related deaths are caused by inexperience, distraction, and impairment. None of those causes have anything to do with an intent to kill.
          The American Automobile Association reported that between 1990 and 1996 there were 12,828 police-reported incidents of aggressive driving which resulted in injury or death. [b](not just death)[/b]
          Interestingly, in approximately 44% of violent traffic altercations, the perpetrator used a weapon such as a [u]firearm[/u], knife, club, or tire iron. In 23% the aggressive driver used the vehicle as a weapon, and in 12% a vehicle and a standard weapon were used.
          I couldn’t find any statistics on road rage mass killing sprees in the U.S.; probably because there aren’t any.
          I still say it is a useless comparison.

        • #2438260

          both are rage gone wild and symptoms of the same

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          underlying problem – however we have no idea how many would have ended up as shooting sprees since few involved firearms, but those that did one side was able to quickly drive away. we also don’t know how many people have died in car crashes caused by such rage attacks.

        • #2438251

          two unrelated subjects

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          Car related deaths are not the same as mass killing sprees. Period

        • #2438250

          and the majority of gun deaths are not part of mass killing sprees either

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          thus not relevant. Yet the causes of unreasonable rage would have the same basic underlying causes regardless of how the rage is displayed.

        • #2438242

          just an attempt to try to change the subject

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          Away from guns.
          I will no longer follow you down your rabbit hole.

        • #2438241

          no an attempt to deal with the subject of this sub-thread – causes

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to As far as I know

          this split off as a discussion of the causes as to why people go nuts with guns, and I simply pointed out there are other ways to kill people in numbers if you want to, but few look into why that’s happening or the causes behind any of the rage attacks.

          When someone walks into theatre and starts shooting people the media scream “nutter with a gun, let’s ban guns.” When someone flips for the same reason and drives their car at high speed into a bus load of people killing many passengers and them self the media say “man loses control of car and kills twelve in accident.” In the first case it’s clear the person was a nutter acting out of rage, in the second it’s not clear and totally ignored as a rage attack unless they left a note saying something.

          In any case where someone goes crazy with rage there has to be some reason why, and we (as a society) need to find out what that is and what’s causing it so we can treat the illness and no just one observable symptom.

        • #2438227

          a subject you initiated to change the discussion. nt

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to so does a car – they kill more people than guns do each year, let’s

          nt

        • #2438213

          no, I didn’t change it at all, follow the thread topics.

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to a subject you initiated to change the discussion. nt

          Slayer – But are guns the real problems
          Maxwell – People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)
          PurpleSkys – I don’t blame guns
          highlander – Guns don’t kill
          me – so does a car – they kill more people than guns do each year, let’s
          (admittedly I was being very sarcastic in the way I wrote it)
          then you respond about there being few mass car killings and I responded about not knowing if it was a rage attack and we had a few exchanges on that and causes.

        • #2438210

          me – so does a car = subject change nt

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to a subject you initiated to change the discussion. nt

          nt

        • #2438211
          Avatar photo

          What you mean like this

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to so does a car – they kill more people than guns do each year, let’s

          Vehicle Prohibition Act of 1996

          The recent death of 4 innocent pedestrians caused by the actions of a drunken driver in charge of a Stolen Automatic sedan has caused the following laws to be passed for public safety

          Surrender of Vehicles

          On or before 1st July 1997 all vehicles fitted with an Automatic Transmission must be surrendered to police at disposal points to be announced for demolition. It has been decided to include front wheel drive vehicles as well as Go-carts. These vehicles have been declared prohibited and compensation will be paid to owners at an amount to be fixed at some point in the future, payment may be also be made at that time.

          All parts including nuts, bolts, windscreen wipers, ashtrays used or new, and petrol tanks are prohibited. Sale or transfer of the above vehicles is immediately prohibited with severe penalties provided under The Act for infringement.

          The “Buy Back” scheme will be financed by a 5%increase in Statutory Registration charges. If not enough money is collected those surrendering their vehicles will not get full compensation.

          Licences will be allocated by enforcement authorities on a requirement basis, any person who has need for an automatic vehicle has to be the owner of a large property and the license will be allocated for a certain period only.

          Licenses for all vehicles will be allocated on a genuine need basis for a Two Year Period. {Personal Transport will not constitute a genuine need.}

          BREACHES OF THE ABOVE REGULATIONS CARRY A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $5,000,000.00 OR 200 YEARS MOTEL ACCOMMODATION.

          By Order of Council.

          However the only incident that I am aware of where a Motor Vehicle killed numerous people was a complete accident and happened at Le Mans in 1955 if I remember correctly. It involved a Mercedes after hitting a slower moving car hitting some bollards and literally stopping immediately but owing to the type of barrier the Engine & Gear Box and some other bigger parts tore out of the vehicle and traveled through the crowd while it was still running till it’s Inertia was exhausted.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Le_Mans_disaster

          I’m unaware of anyone deliberately doing anything similar unless of course you want to include using a Motor Vehicle packed with Explosives to kill people and destroy buildings. There are quite a few instances of that but the motor vehicle is more of a afterthought than a prime motivator in those events. It would be just as devastating to use a Horse and Cart to move the explosives or at a pinch The Little Red Wagon that where toys for so many children years ago.

          Col

        • #2426032

          exactly

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to What you mean like this

          My point was that the risk associated with driving is in no way comparable to [u]INTENTIONAL[/u] mass killing sprees with a firearm.
          Any attempt to bring it up in a firearms discussion is merely there to change the subject.

        • #2426030

          Col, the point I was making is that we do NOT know

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to What you mean like this

          of an incident where the driver dies as well is a true accident or an intentional action of some sort – our automatic action is to assume and accident. The recent case in Queensland where a bus went over the edge of a mountain and the driver died is being investigated as an accident, it probably was, but if the driver had flipped and wanted to kill or harm his passengers as well (all tourists from Asia) we’d have no way of knowing. The same applies to any number of cases where people have been driving on a crazy manner while behind the wheel of a car and caused harm to others.

          I admit I may be a lot more aware of this sort of odd rage behaviour than some, having been a significant witness in an event where a fellow in a rage deliberately rode his motorcycle into a crowd at a bus stop at speed in Queanbeyan back in the late 1980s. The only reason it was investigated as murder and not an accident while fleeing police custody was a I, and a couple of others, were able to testify about his rageroid riding half an hour before the police pursuit began. The police were all set to see it as an accident until the earlier behaviour was brought to their attention. It was on when confronted about the earlier sightings that he admitted his rage over his girlfriend dropping him a bit earlier that day.

          Teen on a motorbike killed on girl and put a dozen others into hospital because he rode into the pack of thirty people at 80 plus kph. If he had a car it would have been dozens dead.

          his going crazy and hurting people has an underlying cause that relates to people going crazy with guns, which is the point of the sub-sub-thread that guns are a tool and only a tool that other tools can be just as harmful if the causes aren’t researched and treated.

        • #2426029

          almost forgot, there have been a number of speedway crashes

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to What you mean like this

          where cars have left the track and killed people in the crowd – those were clearly accidents.

        • #2426028
          Avatar photo

          So what you are saying is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What you mean like this

          Any Tool will do when someone goes Nuts?

          Though I have to admit that people with Firearms going nuts do worry me more than people with cars unless of course the person with the car is unlicensed and been prevented from driving.

          Even then it’s generally speaking their car and they have to pay the bills for the repair of loss of the vehicle where in this country at least we tend to need Motor Vehicles.

          We have long distances where there is little to no human occupation and large areas where you can live off the land but with considerable difficulty. Lack of water being the biggest issue in AU.

          However by the same token it’s not that difficult to get a Fire Arm License here I could in all likelihood get one early next year if I was so inclined without too much trouble. I don’t have a Criminal Record or am subject of an AVO and other than working with computers are relatively sane so I really shouldn’t have any issues in getting a Long Arm License. I most likely could even get a Pistol License if I so desired but that’s highly unlikely as I just don’t see any need for one though going by my Uncle I must be doing a lot of Practice as when he dragged me to do some Target Shooting I just placed a big hole in the target with 9 rounds instead of little holes all over the target.

          But even you have to admit that the Laws in NSW are changing in a day or 2 and as of March next year Amateur Shooters can access National Parks and shoot the crap out of whatever it is that they want to aim at. I’ve seen way too many Armature Shooters seeming to believe that 2,000 rounds to kill an animal is perfectly OK and that if you only take the 1 shot and do the same job it’s no where near as much fun.

          I’ll admit that people like that scare me and having them let loose in National Parks isn’t a place I would be visiting any time soon. What way too many people forget or never knew in the first place is the range of those Rifles that they use and think that a couple of hundred yards is all you have to watch out for. YEA Right give me a break and stay in the Hole you dug till they pass.

          Add in some drinking at night while they argue/boast about the One That Got Away and you have a Recipe for Disaster no matter what the Shooters Association says is something you need to avoid.

          A few years ago I visited a sheep property in Northern NSW which boarded onto a National Park and not only did you not shoot in the National Park but you didn’t shoot over it either from outside it no matter what was going on. If there was something that you had to shoot it was fair game on the farm but the moment it went over the fence it was perfectly safe. The main reason for that was you never knew if there where any people just over the river/creek that boarded the National Park and it was a common thing to find Gill Nets in that creek that the Farm Owner reported to the National Park Authorities so there was always a fair chance that there where either National park Rangers or Poachers very close by and you acted accordingly. That place had feral pigs and they where really nasty little beasts so moving around more than a couple of hundred yards from the Homestead without a rifle wasn’t an option. Well at least not if you liked walking and not experiencing severe pain and suffering not to mention a slow painful death.

          Skippy’s where a nuisance because they competed with the sheep for food but the pigs where a completely different story, you had to be careful. Of course the Exchange Students he had there where thinking of little pink piglets and saying just how cute and harmless they where till they ran into one of them, who took a very dim view of them getting too close to her offspring. They didn’t believe that anything would attack a car which was the only thing that saved them as if they had of been walking they would have been in a world of hurt. 😀

          Col

        • #2426020

          Col, I’ve seen a lot of irresponsible handling of many tools

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to What you mean like this

          including cars, guns, etc over the years. Most of it has been due to no, bad, or poor training in their use. I agree that guns can be a hazard in the hands of a nutter, we’ve seen that. But those who really want to get them can, regardless of the laws, as has been proven. From the records here in Australia, and also overseas, most rage case nutters end up getting killed or killing themselves – as best as we can tell they start their rage attack with the intent of dying at the end of it.

          In this sub-thread I’ve been trying to get across three significant points:

          1. It matter not the tool used by the nutter, they can and will kill people unless some one can stop them very early in their rage.

          2. We need to identify and deal with the causes of their rage so they don’t go off.

          The way people are focussing on the guns and ignoring the underlying cause, and usually do in these cases, is a major concern as it seems they don’t mind the person going nuts, just object to them doing it with a gun.

          3. When some one dies and kills others in a motor vehicle incident we ALWAYS assume it’s an accident. Yet we have no evidence that is the case. It could be a case of rage and they decided to use a car instead of a gun. The fact they’re dead means we can’t ask them.

          In a recent incident a person was involved in a case of road rage, drove off, and smashed into someone else. Not so long back a fellow used his car to attack another several times in a case of road rage, if he’d managed to kill them both it would have been called an accident; because the other got away it’s a road rage incident.

          If I wanted to take out a lot of innocent people as a matter of rage, I’d not worry about a gun as it’s too limiting. Just wait until near lunchtime in any fair sized city, drive down the road until the pedestrians start crossing, plant the accelerator and plough through ten to fifty (depends on the city) then race off to the next crossing, keep up until stopped. Or I could just drive around running people into roadside obstructions, killing and hurting many, then go head on with a police car – – if I have an open bottle of whisky in the car and the place reeks of it, they’ll call it all accidents due to a drunk driver. The point here is the natural assumption is NEVER rage being involved, yet we do NOT KNOW.

        • #2425554

          Are you saying that?

          by chdchan ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          Are you saying those 20 kids should anyways be murdered otherwise by weapons other than guns or even simply traffic accidents? Your “guns are just the tool” concept means doctors can equally heal so many people without medicine.

        • #2425549

          So

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          Max, tell us what you do think the real causes are.

          It’s easy to say it’s not A and it’s not B and ….. How about some positive contribution.

        • #2425534

          Some positive contribution?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So

          I’ve been making [i]positive contributions[/i] in these threads for more than ten years. Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you consider alternative opinions to your own something other than positive.

          I’ve hinted (more than hinted) when I said, [i]”I’d bet everything I own (which isn’t a hell of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these “mass killing” cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or ……… But yeah, let’s blame the guns. It’s too painful to look at the REAL reasons. [/i]

          (See, you weren’t paying attention.)

        • #2425451

          Read That

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Some positive contribution?

          So tell us how we deal with what we have now. The kid has already grown up with problems. What do we do now?

        • #2425340

          Obviously Maxwell wants state-issued fathers.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Read That

          Right?
          I don’t see another way to handle the dearth of fathering. Can’t force bums not to be bums.

        • #2425507

          Not sure where you’re going with that

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          Apart from the fact that your hunch that a father-led family of “unconditional love and acceptance” never produces mass killers sounds like pure wishful thinking, what would that lead you to do? Institute nationwide fatherhood classes, and make divorce harder to get? Can you justify that degree of government intrusion? Think it would work?

          There are, by the way, countries (Scandinavia) where fathers are even less of a household feature than in America, and they don’t have our murder rate, and feature fewer mass killings. America has always been a more violent place, it seems. There’s something in our makeup that leads us to own more guns, to resort to killing as a way of ending an argument, and in the last 50 years, to mass killings to resolve difficult personality problems. Murder is as American as gun ownership, and if you got rid of all the guns, we’d keep on killing each other. Call it cowboy culture. Countries with few guns and few killings can’t credit their low murder rate to gun restriction. They just don’t breed as many killers. I think their people are just more passive, more indifferent, about governmental gun restrictions. I don’t see cause and effect; I just see two effects.

          Even if you were to try to clamp down, in a country where 300 million guns are present, where so many people want to own guns, and where personal identity is for many people tied inseparably to having a gun collection, there is zero chance you’d ever be able to abolish or even control them. It’s politically and logistically impossible.

        • #2438285

          I suspect a lot of the schoolboy goes nuts cases are due to excessive

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          bullying by the school jocks sending them over the edge.

        • #2426031

          You may be correct

          by jjfitz ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          that broken home may be a factor in mass killings but it was not evident in the Columbine incident. Both Harris and Klebold came from two parent homes. Harris even wrote about the fact that his family were the only ones who did not pick on him.
          Deadly seems to have hit the nail on the head that bullying plays a factor. At least it did in this instance. Harris and Klebold were both bullied relentlessly in their school – often while the teachers watched and did nothing.
          I’m not excusing their behavior but just pointing out that the lack of a father’s presence was not a factor.

        • #2426013

          Societal breakdown?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to People in the USA don’t care what the root cause(s) is (are)

          Like what? People shopping at Walmart even though it means cutting themselves out of a job?

          Or maybe you mean gay marriage? Or divorce? Or any of the other things the US has in common with the rest of the first world, with widely varying degrees of violence to follow.

      • #2438411

        I’d say your theory is correct -nt

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to But are guns really the problem

        nt

    • #2425606

      A price to deserve?

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      Out of the vast population of North America, the gun-protected population is still far greater than gun-killed population, this makes the very sense….that a minor part of people should die for the majority.

      • #2425598

        would you like to clarify that statement

        by purpleskys ·

        In reply to A price to deserve?

        because i would not like to believe you mean it the way that i read it….no one should die for the “majority“

        • #2425556

          Don’t you?

          by chdchan ·

          In reply to would you like to clarify that statement

          Don’t you mean you still want millions of guns around if your wife, kids or parents get guns pointed at their heads? What mandates your thought that they are expendable.

        • #2425548

          Nothing

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Don’t you?

          But no one else is more expendable simply because I don’t know them.

        • #2425536

          i’m the wife

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Don’t you?

          and no i don’t…no one is expendible…but for some reason, you think they are. I believe we have a language barrier between us as you don’t get my meaning whatsoever. It’s pretty simple, guns are for hunting and in extreme cases, protecting your home and family, but you will not find guns in my home, end of discussion on that topic, my husband lost that arguement. I live in a society where the chance of your scenario happening to me is slim to none, not impossible, just impropable.

        • #2425518

          language and culture barrier

          by highlander718 ·

          In reply to i’m the wife

          I believe .. (it is barrier and not barrior, right ? :-))

        • #2425499

          yes

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to language and culture barrier

          you’re right…darn spell check 😉 thank you 🙂

        • #2425483

          I didn’t argue with you about

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to i’m the wife

          removing the guns from our home….the main reason they are gone is because I believed (like you) that they were not safe around our children.

        • #2425442

          thank you dear

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to I didn’t argue with you about

          i appreciate the fact that you did remove them 🙂

        • #2425450

          Purple

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to i’m the wife

          My response was to cdhchan’s comments.

        • #2425448

          oh…well

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Purple

          lol…I misunderstood 😉 I suppose I could delete it so i didn’t feel quite so silly lol…

    • #2425551

      Why some men dare not allow mercy killing but advocate murdering guns?

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      Are they conflicting stances?

    • #2425547

      Its your country

      by j-mart ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      and have enshrined the right to be better armed than is sensible or necessary in your Constitution.

      I live in a peaceful society, in a backwater of a country, I can have access to hunting rifles and shot guns only, which as hunting and fishing are readily accessible and not very expensive pastimes, is as it should be. Handguns assault rifles machine guns and other automatic weapons are only useful for murdering, maiming and killing the innocent. I know that at the Wharehouse ( similar to your Walmart ) boxing day sale, an irate bargain hunter is not going to whip out a pistol and start shooting to grab a bargain that another customer is also trying to grab. The Police, who are not normally armed are not likely to get involved in a shootout as the bad guys can’t easily get firearms. If I desire a firearm for hunting as well as being vetted by the Police, I am required to attend a firearm safe use course, pass this course and also provide proof that I have strong safe lockable cabinet to store these firearms in.

      This makes it harder for nutters and criminals to get their hands on weapons, and extremely hard if not near on impossible for them to get full automatic weapons and assault rifles.

      At the time your 2nd Amendment was added, your country was a wilder and less civilized place, as was the rest of the world. Are you sure that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment still apply ? Which is a more important freedom, Bearing any arms by any sane or insane, law abiding, or not law abiding person may so desire or restricting weapons in your society to types of firearms are made only for hunting not urban warfare eg. pistols assault rifles, and automatic weapons, or the freedom for your children to go to school a much lessened risk that some nut case with a chip on their shoulder will go on a mass killing spree. How many dead children is wide open gun controls worth ?

      As I said its your country, your choice, but I feel much safer and as a result much freer in my backwater of a country with the right sort of guns available and none of the type only useful for evil things

      • #2425490

        The second ammendment

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to Its your country

        When it was enacted, there was a real power struggle going on between Federal and State government, and the guns (kept in an Armory) were something that the States believed to be critical in case their was some arbitrary Federal action, or some other event, like a war breaking out.

        Therefore the ‘right to maintain a well armed Militia’ was something that was very important, especially to those who had just fought a war for independence from England. Those people had first hand knowledge of what government tyranny looked like, so the state militias were their counter to that.

        Keep in mind that firearms in 1791 were as far from modern weaponry as they could get, and these were stored in the armory; pistols were very uncommon, and realistically with one bag of lead shot and another bag of black powder, exactly how many rounds-per-second could a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle fire?

        The purpose of the second ammendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership, never has, never will.

      • #2425489

        reasons for the 2nd Amendment

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to Its your country

        I do not know the reasons for the 2nd amendment. I do know the reasons Maxwell and the NRA give nowadays, of course, but I doubt that those are the ones the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind. Can someone come up with a relevant quotation from the Congressional debates which led to the Bill of Rights being proposed to the states for ratification?

        • #2425399

          john.a.wills groups me with the NRA

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to reasons for the 2nd Amendment

          And he knows my reason for the 2nd Amendment.

          Please enlighten me. I don’t recall specifically discussing it, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t.

        • #2425967

          the biggest arguement from the documents of that time was

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to reasons for the 2nd Amendment

          to deal with not having to pay the extra taxes to create a standing army of a suitable size. Thus the amendment that was soon followed by a law requiring white male citizens to purchase what they’d need to be part of the militia and be ready to answer the call. Events soon proved that system did not work at all due to the wide range of what people had in the way of muskets and other guns, and their lack of interest in it.

        • #2425949

          There was, at the time

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to reasons for the 2nd Amendment

          A strong antipathy to the idea of a standing army. It was believed a militia would suffice for national defense.

          More information on how the US gun “controversy” got to where it is today: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

    • #2425543

      But having more guns is still the way out

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      When gun-possessing society is more aware of weapon danger, people tend to buy more guns to protect themselves. Despite this undeterrable cause and result, if firearm is banned and gun purchasing power all goes to charity or other positive spending, would it be much better? Some people just do not have enough to eat.

      • #2425535

        ya only need one gun

        by purpleskys ·

        In reply to But having more guns is still the way out

        end of message.

        • #2425517

          I don’t need a gun.

          by highlander718 ·

          In reply to ya only need one gun

          eom

        • #2425515

          in reality highlander

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to I don’t need a gun.

          neither do I…i prefer no guns. I’ve stated before, there are no guns in my home, nor will there ever be. I was trying to say that if a person feels the need to have to protect their home and family, they don’t need multiple guns or semi automatic weapons…one should suffice in necessity.

        • #2425511

          Of course

          by highlander718 ·

          In reply to in reality highlander

          I got that, just to make sure of the nuances :-). And on top, I don’t live in the U.S. so easy for me to say I guess….

        • #2425503

          same here

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Of course

          I’m Canadian and pretty close to the border…but i still don’t get it… 😐 I often try to guess too…but it eludes me

        • #2425502

          The concept is foreign to us

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to same here

          I live in Winnipeg, the murder capitol.

        • #2425500

          i’m just outside of Halifax

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to same here

          in Colchester….and as much as there’s gun violence in the city, here in Truro it’s rare….so yes, you’re so right

        • #2425479

          Halifax is 2nd behind Winnipeg….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to same here

          even though Halifax is a very small city, it still had 75 shooting incidents last year. If more people in Halifax carried concealed weapons I suspect that number would be higher.

        • #2438400

          There are no guns in your home, and by golly . . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to in reality highlander

          …… if you don’t think anyone else “needs” guns in their homes either, then that’s the way it should be.

        • #2438382

          for someone that thinks everyone

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to There are no guns in your home, and by golly . . . . . . .

          is always putting words in your mouth, you sure like to put words in other’s mouths….maybe you should re-read what she said….or is that just what you “think” she said?

        • #2438236

          max

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to There are no guns in your home, and by golly . . . . . . .

          i have no need to defend my statements any more than you do. I asked you to explain your statements before and you “didn’t feel the need to”, I don’t feel the need to explain mine to you. I have my beliefs, you have yours….live with it. And Darryl is right, read what I say, not what YOU think I say.

        • #2425394

          Why stop there?

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to I don’t need a gun.

          You don’t “need” a car that goes faster than 55.
          You don’t “need” a house in a certain neighborhood.
          You don’t “need” expensive jewelry.
          You don’t “need” a computer.
          etc., etc.

          Just because YOU don’t “need” something doesn’t mean it should be banned for others.

        • #2425332

          Speed limits on your roads

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Why stop there?

          particularly given the woefully low limits on your roads, seem to smack your argument down rather hard. You are already controlled within an inch of your life in “The Land of the Free”. You limit driving for everyone. Even Sebastian Vettel would have to crawl along your roads.

        • #2438557

          Speed Limits

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed limits on your roads

          You’re saying that you “need” a car that goes faster than 55? Or are you saying that you prefer to drive faster and want a car that can perform to your expectations? My argument about “needs” and “wants” still holds but nice try.

        • #2438494

          Need

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Your collective “need” for a gun has contributed to the deaths of one million Americans since the assassination – by gun – of Martin Luther King.

          Because of legislation , the safety of cars is improving all the time, seat belts, tighter restrictions on drunk driving, even stupidly low speed limits.

          Yet guns remain unchecked by proper legislation. Guns proliferate, mental health issues go unchecked, fear escalates.

          By 2015, more people will die by guns than on your roads. I wish you joy of the future of your country.

        • #2438465

          Perhaps

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          you should do more research regarding the laws already in place regarding gun control. I think you’ll find sufficient laws are in place.

          But you don’t see any criticism about lack of enforcement. Do you really think that those who already break the law are going to be affected by a bunch of new laws if they decide they “want” another item added to their collection?

        • #2438461

          You have passed the point of no return

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          You quite obviously did not have sufficient curbs on the ownership of guns else you would not be in the position of having a murder rate by firearms and a suicide rate by firearms that are both multiples of any other western country. I really don’t see the point in researching the minutiae of differences in gun laws between the states when the elephant in the room – one million killed by guns in the last twenty-five years – is ingored.

          And, anyway, I don’t reckon there is any point in anyone trying to pass any legislation now. You have more legal guns in circulation in your country than anywhere else in world. As a consequence of this, because guns are easier to steal than flat-screen TVs, you have more illegal guns. You, as a country, are painted into the most appalling corner imaginable. You live in fear of armed criminals, so you arm yourselves. You live in fear that your government will disarm you, so you arm yourself more.

          Personally, I’d put severe curbs on posession of ammunition. Then you can still blow away the odd crim, but you won’t have enough to toast a school of year two kids.It even gets around that silly Second Amendment. You can bear your arms, but just not fire them.

        • #2438453

          I see you have allies in your argument…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

        • #2438425

          The Chinese

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Why does that upset you so? Are the Chinese implicitly wrong and the straight-shootin’ Merkin implicitly right? Get over yourself. Who the hell do you think you are?

          Sttrange as it may seem to you, I live in a society that I consider no less free than yours -possibly more so. I get to make my own mind up.

          Muppet. go and buy another gun – or maybe a monster truck.

        • #2438383

          “Why does that upset you so?”

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Who said I was upset? I was just pointing out that your view mirrors the view of the Chinese communists who aren’t exactly poster children for an individual’s rights.

          You seem to be the one who is upset. Take a chill pill and relax, you’re starting to hyperventilate.

        • #2438381

          The Chinese revisited

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          I was just wondering why you chose to post about them at all. You posted the link for a reason and I question your motives. Were you trying to make me ashamed that I agreed with something coming from such an egregious regime so I would change my mind? What?

          What does it have to do with MY post to YOU that your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms.

          That’s all.

          By the way, I’d still like you to answer about the million dead in the last twenty five years and stop with the distractions. But you have no answer so you’re trying a bit of a diversion. Relax? It’s not my society that has so many dead.

        • #2438374

          Chinese Revisited…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          I posted the link to show some of the types of people that agreed with your views. That’s all. Trying to make you feel ashamed? Trying to make you change your mind? Not hardly.

          I doubt if any Internet forum post could change your mind just as I know that your posts won’t change mine.

          But you post that “your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms” is only your opinion. Personally I think you’re wrong, and since you don’t even live here, should leave US politics to Americans that are ultimately affected by any decisions made.

          The million that have died in the last 25 years? I give it as much thought as all of those who have died by disease, drug abuse, wars, and accidents. No more and no less.

        • #2438332

          “I give it as much thought…”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Then, I suspect, we would have nothing else to say to each other and I would wish you joy of the future of your society. However, given the jingoistic zeal with which your country seems to want to export your idea of freedom and democracy and suppress the legal governments of others, I have every right to post that I think that you ought to get your own house in order before you push your warped ideas on the rest of us.

          When your senior politicians go on record with garbage like this, “We dont need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values”, Newt Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”, I have every right to say whatever I like right back at you all.

          What are you going to do? Shoot me? Send a drone missile over to kill my neighbours’ kids? What?

        • #2438330

          You’re doing it again…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          getting all worked up because someone doesn’t agree with you.

          You’re entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong your are. No one should threaten you for stating your opinion. If you think I have, please supply my post so I can see where you misunderstood me.

          I just find it rather sad that people like you use a tragedy like this to further your liberal agendas.

          I’ll continue to mourn for ALL humans who have died needlessly while you only seem to care about those that you can use for political purposes.

        • #2438311

          We have a saying in my country

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Americans don’t understand irony. Woo! Is that ever true here.

          OK, lets put this to bed. Last post to you. I should have stopped earlier but I like trying to push buttons. I’m not at all worked up.

          It’s rather silly of you to suggest that I have a political agenda, liberal or otherwise, as I have no vote in your country and I’m not a liberal. For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist humanist, left-wing, sardonic Brit. I can fake “nice” quite well, sometimes. But I see no point in faking it here.

          The senseless Sandy Hook deaths occurred in your country, not mine. Your country, not mine, has a succession of this sort of senseless killing spree. And each time it happens, nothing is done. Nothing will happen this time. And, alas, next time. And the next.

          I’m posting another point of view to you to see if you can accept that the circumstances that pertain in your country, the monstrous quantity of arms available to just about anyone, are anomalous and, to put it simply, stupid.

          I’m glad that you appreciate that the deaths were needless. It’s a start.

          What do YOU propose to do so that “suicide by cop” doesn’t continue to be a national US pasttime and a national US disgrace?

          I can do nothing. I’m only armed with words and you have a bullet-proof mind.

        • #2438293

          It’s a start?

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          Insinuating that a person would not consider the deaths of innocent children as needless deaths just because they own guns or advocate gun ownership really shows your ignorance.

          I would venture to say that everyone in the world considers these deaths to be needless.

          The argument here is how to stop this type of event in the future. You want to ban the tool. I want to stop the evil person committing the deed. Here you had a very sick person who was known to have mental issues for years and a very stupid individual who left dangerous weapons around for him to access, even though she knew he was violent. It’s not the gun’s fault. It’s the stupid people who won’t take the proper precautions and get the proper care when dealing with mentally disturbed individuals.

          But go ahead and keep blaming the tool and ignoring the real cause(s). I look forward to your rants about banning forks to solve the growing health care issues caused by obesity.

        • #2438273

          You just don’t see it, do you?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Speed Limits

          You can do BOTH.

          Fool.

        • #2438234

          nah

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Why stop there?

          just not issued to those not stable enough to use and store properly.

          I have a soccer mom mini van (because it suits my needs)
          I have a trailer in a trailer court (yep, I’m trailer trash)
          I wish I had expensive jewelery (my simple diamond engagement ring and my simple wedding band to show my commitment to Darryl)
          and I need a computer to do my job (as Darryl requires it for his) otherwise, we don’t make a living
          but I don’t need a gun, you may (for whatever reason suits you) outside of living in a questionable neighbor, I don’t see the need for a semi automatic weapon. If for some reason in the future that changes, I will re-evaluate that if and when the time comes

        • #2438402

          Yes you do

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t need a gun.

          Obviously, PurpleSkys has assumed the role of deciding who needs what, so if he/she says you “need” something, end of story.

          How can one person (PurpleSkys and others) have the audacity to suggest what another person may or may not “need”? Who in the hell made him/her the Grand Pubah of Need?

        • #2438233

          there’s need

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Yes you do

          then there’s obssesive…and once again, you’re not reading what i post, but hey, what else is new with you.

          and if you have paid attention at all, i’m a she…a mother with a strong opinion, if you can’t take it, too bad for you

          edit to add: most folks are aware that Darryl and I are a couple, max hadn’t realized that?

    • #2425521

      a bit funny

      by highlander718 ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      it is true that in China one is safer than in the US when it comes to gun violence. But funny you don’t mention workplace safety for example ? Or extreme poverty which brings health risks ?

      • #2425513

        Safer?

        by jp85257 ·

        In reply to a bit funny

        • #2425504

          At least they all survived

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to Safer?

          A quote from that article
          [b][i]He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county. [/i][/b]

        • #2425434

          What if it is life-terminating laser?

          by chdchan ·

          In reply to Safer?

          If there is portable life-terminating laser invented some day, should it be carried all around the streets like knives by our citizens? c.f. ancient people never thought of guns as weapons like we think of life-terminating laser today.

      • #2425508

        You can over analyze if you want to

        by slayer_ ·

        In reply to a bit funny

        But workplace safety is not a contributor to gun violence, poverty is but….

        China has greater poverty, but less gun violence.
        http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/12/01/china-usa-comparing-poverty-lines/

        • #2425962

          I suppose those killed at Tiamen square don’t qualify for gun related death

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to You can over analyze if you want to

          by the anti-gun lobby.

        • #2425944

          They don’t know how many were killed

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to I suppose those killed at Tiamen square don’t qualify for gun related death

          But I did some searches on google and found numbers between 800 and 3000. And most assume it was higher.

          A search for “number of gun deaths per year in America” shows numbers much higher every year for America, one site said over 32,000.

          Maybe that means the Chinese army was less murderous than the American public.

        • #2425939

          slayer, did those stats for the USA tell you how many of

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to They don’t know how many were killed

          the gun related deaths were inter-gang shooting, how many were criminals shot by police during crimes or resisting arrest, or even break them down by hand gun as against rifle etc. There is no way any gun control laws will alter the ownership or use of guns by criminals, and thus those parts of the stats would continue to happen the same no matter what. That’s why the raw stats used in this discussion are so misleading.

        • #2425926

          This is crime reporting only

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to slayer, did those stats for the USA tell you how many of

        • #2425924

          What proof do you have about criminals getting guns?

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to slayer, did those stats for the USA tell you how many of

          I mean, I have most of the civilized globe as proof that gun control works. So where is your proof that it doesn’t? You will need proof outside the USA as we all know, the USA is pretty much the worst example.

          Actually, forget proof, why are you so opposed to trying gun control, how can it possibly be worse than it is now? Where people can buy assault weapons at walmart, walk into an elementary school and shoot up the place, or start fires and shoot the first responders. This is terrorist like activities.
          This sort of thing is rare in the rest of the world, but its nearly a yearly occurrence in America.

        • #2425863

          Assault rifles cannot be owned or purchased

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to What proof do you have about criminals getting guns?

          by the general public. This has been the case in the United States since the Firearms Act of 1934 was passed.

          An assault weapon [u]must[/u], by definition, be capable of select fire. That is, the shooter can select either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (one pull spews multiple rounds). The weapons Walmart and other retailers sell are assault-[u]style[/u] weapons. They resemble the military weapons they are based on, but they [b]are not[/b] capable of fully automatic operation, nor can they be easily converted to fully automatic operation.

        • #2425825

          Oh thats a huge significant difference….

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to What proof do you have about criminals getting guns?

          ….That makes no difference as someone still bought a assault-like weapon from Walmart and went and shot children in an elementary school.

          Also, I heard someone recently shot up a police station this time. Maybe it’s time America called back its armies and dealt with the terrorism happening with in its own borders.

      • #2425470

        i was a bit amused too.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to a bit funny

        But I was struck by the incongruity that in the US, we’re allowed to freely discuss our Constitution and leaders on the Internet without fear of imprisonment (or worse). I at least know that if I get shot, it will most likely not be by my own government.

        • #2425435

          If you are a citizen detrimental to any local government, ….

          by chdchan ·

          In reply to i was a bit amused too.

          or strong social powers, you’ve got to be miserable, any countries being the same. Is it too difficult to quote an example of political jeopardy or murder in the U.S.?

        • #2425339

          Of course not…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to i was a bit amused too.

          they can, after all, detain you indefinitely :^0
          Nice job of that committee to drop the Senate bill to stop it, huh?

    • #2425443

      US government disapproves other countries’ development of nuclear weapons

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      Why? Because they fear one day those countries will become BANDIT attackers. Every country is saying nuclear weapons are for self-protection; however, Americans want to eliminate that possibility of getting out of control. So why guns are not banned similarly to nullify the possibility of abuse? Is this Americans’ “egotistic-privilege-ism”?

    • #2425354

      Can we conclude….

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      That gun possession is adovcated at the expense of gun crimes. And the TOLLs are justified by the majority of Americans. If you compare gun-killed statistics with knife-killed ones, you can visualize that over-worrying of gun crimes is unnecessary. So let’s look forward to next bloodshed(s).

      • #2425352

        Let’s not. NT

        by purpleskys ·

        In reply to Can we conclude….

        Edit to add…looking forward to bloodshed is kinda sick.

    • #2425342

      I will once again infuriate Maxwell…

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      and suggest that there are two major causes.
      One is crime. The US has a lot of it, and lots of crime means lots of criminal enforcing their own kind of justice on each other.
      The other is unhealthy attitudes.
      The Swiss have a lot of (army) weapons in their homes, but they don’t really have a desire to own weapons.
      To many in the US, firearms seem to be a symbol of “fuckyeahfreedom”. That’s not something that engenders a sober attitude towards them.
      So, there, “expert” statement, sure to make Maxwell apoplectic.

      • #2438478

        With some and their obsession

        by j-mart ·

        In reply to I will once again infuriate Maxwell…

        with feeling the need for owning a large number of weapons of mass mayhem, military style, high rate of fire people slaughtering totally unnecessary hardware, could be down to having no real Balls, small di*ks and foolishly thinking a big powerful gun is a way of compensating for this.

        • #2438464

          Another proud graduate…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to With some and their obsession

          of the Granville Sawyer School of Psychology.

        • #2438415

          Of course

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to Another proud graduate…

          Granville Sawyer is much more intelligent than all those small dic*ed gun toting fools than think freedom is determined by how much firepower one has lying about the place. Real freedom is not weapons but living in a place where people slaughtering guns are not are a requirement. Granville makes much more sense than the NRA and the 2nd amendment.

        • #2438239

          Guns and cars limit your freedom, not the other way around.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Of course

          Sure, a car can help you get around, but mobility is not freedom.
          Moment you sit behind the wheel, you’re clapping a neck-iron and iron shackles on yourself. All of a sudden you’re obliged to do a lot of things you don’t need to worry about without the car.
          Guns are worse, just owning one (as evidenced with all too great frequency) obliges a person to make sure nobody else gets to it.
          That’s not freedom except where the threat of violent subjugation is even greater.
          And even then, getting the fluck out of there would be a much easier and safer way to achieve the same freedom increase, or greater.

    • #2438491

      Ansu: I’m not sure that you’re completely right

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      The rise in gun purchases following the recent school massacre have been attributed to two causes.

      Firstly there have been a number of people who have bought into the environment of fear that seems to pervade much more of the US population than I, for one, had appreciated. Fear – I/my wife needs a gun to protect my children/property/belongings, etc. There is a lot of that attitude, Even on the threads here despite the fact that burglaries are of about the same per capita rate as the UK although, (you’ll be happy to know) more than Finland.

      Secondly, there are a significant number of gun nuts who have gone out and purchased a whole load of automatic weapons just in case the government does have the nuts to do something.

      Lots of people own guns or don’t own guns but would restrict legislation simply because of the Second Amendment, which I truly do not understand. But I’m also lacking real understanding in the whole US Constitution with its rhetoric of liberty thing anyway and I just tend to lump it in with the other ancient Holy Books that I can’t understand people’s facination with.

      But, when it’s all added up, more Americans DON’T own guns than own them. It’s just got to the situation that those who do own guns now own more guns and more sophisticated and powerful guns.

      Interestingly, all ten of the states with the highest gun ownership rates, 50% or more, are considered staunchly Republican states. I’d rather not speculate on the racial profiling of gun owners lest I hit a nerve. Or speculate whether it’s a Christian thing…

      p.s. The Swiss are WEIRD! Any country that has laws that forbids the flushing of a toilet after 10pm (and legislates that men pee sitting down after 10pm) and forbids the washing of a car on Sunday cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. Invoking “the Swiss do/have” is beyond Godwin’s Law.

    • #2438431

      When a beast gets in your way…

      by chdchan ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      That might be case does happen for people living near or in a forest, when a gun couldn’t be more useful. Taking into account existing and near future legislation will fail to prevent massacre shooting cases in history, but I have a futuristic idea: digital locks should be installed in all guns by which the triggers can be disabled by schools’ radio frequency broadcast. Or simply a RFID tag should make gun detectable in those sensitive areas.

      • #2438379

        But all the millions of “current”

        by darryl~ ·

        In reply to When a beast gets in your way…

        guns would not have them & there would be no way to install them on them nor could you force people to modify/destroy their older weapons (nor should they be forced to do so)….and people would find a way to disable such a device.

    • #2438413

      is that why so many Chinese are stabbing and hammering people today -nt

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      nt

      • #2438380

        Unfair

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to is that why so many Chinese are stabbing and hammering people today -nt

        Body count, please. Reference data, please. ‘nt’ just doesn’t cut it. (sick pun intended)

        • #2438375

          I had the links in the other thread like this, but here they are again

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Unfair

          these are from the website This is True that does articles on unusual or funny news items and then starts some open dialogue on some.

          http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-thinking_about_newtown.html

          http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-asking_the_right_questions.html

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29

        • #2438368

          These have been all over US pro-gun sites

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I had the links in the other thread like this, but here they are again

          which was why I asked – to see if you had some others.

          The total body count for all of the attacks is less than the single shooting in Sandy Hook which does give some credence to the argument that the weapon that the attacker can obtain is key in the number of dead.

        • #2438363

          neil, I could triple that count in a matter of minutes by using

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to These have been all over US pro-gun sites

          a different type of weapons if I want, and that’s before I get onto kitchen chemistry and home made poison gases. I ask one question, how many kids would have been shot if the teacher had been armed or allowed to carry on school grounds?

          I very strongly suspect that one of the reasons some people go to the schools to do their shooting is they know there will NOT be any armed opposition as no one is allowed to carry on a school property.

        • #2438359

          That’s a bit of a strange argument

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to neil, I could triple that count in a matter of minutes by using

          The point is that the number of deaths in the China episode – caused, it seems, by similar sort of mental health issues as in the US – simply didn’t result in a similar number of deaths.

          I have a degree in chemistry and biochemistry. Like you, I could make all sorts of stuff with or without further research. Much as the Tube Bombers did in London in 2005. But I don’t do this.

          The issue we are debating, here, is the crazy, the psychotic who requires immediate action. In the Sandy Hook killers case, he has no need to research, he could just take his mother’s guns to commit what was, in effect, extravagant suicide. That’s what ALL of these types of massacres are. Spectacular suiclde.

          The Sandy Hook killer was wearing kevlar body armour. That suggests that the teacher or the putative “school guard” would have to have been alert and lucky. Again, I ask, is there nothing that can be done to reduce the chances that this won’t happen again without this continual escalation.

          For what it’s worth, an English Primary School Headmistress was asked by an American reporter about her school’s plans in the event of this sort of episode. It was like watching a conversation between a Frenchman and a German when neither understood the others language.

        • #2438340

          so the issue isn’t so much about the guns as the proper safe storage

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to That’s a bit of a strange argument

          so that they’re only available to the authorised owner.

        • #2438331

          Storage would be a start

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to neil, I could triple that count in a matter of minutes by using

          But the problem can be seen throughout this site and the Internet as a whole where the idea that ones defensive gun should be unloaded and stored separate from the ammunition is not even remotely acceptable to any gun-owners that I’ve seen posting.

        • #2438327

          Most responsible gun owners I’ve known over the years have had three

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Storage would be a start

          basic storage positions.

          1. None direct use storage of any sort of weapon is unloaded and in a gun safe.

          2. Direct use handguns loaded and in a holster on them or in a keypad access secured container near by. Like a car gun safe while in certain places where guns aren’t allowed at all, licence or not.

          3. Direct use rifles / shotguns loaded and in a gun rack above head height where children and youths can’t reach them. The most traditional being above the door.

          The issue of improper handlers getting a hold of weapons is usually due to them not being safely stored when not in the direct immediate vicinity of the owner.

        • #2438312

          DE, to reiterate the position of the US gun-owner

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Storage would be a start

          Or, at least, those posting here and across the Net, “What use is an unloaded gun when I require defence from atheists/rapists/atheist rapists/…”.

          I’ll leave off the more obvious choices from that list.

        • #2438309

          neil, as I said before RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Storage would be a start

          the responsible gun owners carry loaded guns on their person or kept in a handy spot close by where kids can’t get at them. If they go out without taking the gun with them, RESPONSIBLE gun owners unload them and lock them up – most will take them out with them. It’s untrained and irresponsible gun owners who leave loaded guns lying around where the kids can get at them.

          In short, the issue is people, not guns.

        • #2438237

          And survival rates of those attacks are quite high

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I had the links in the other thread like this, but here they are again

          With guns, the ones who survive are the ones who don’t get seen.
          So, you fielding such a ridiculous comparison seems to rather work against the side you’re defending.

        • #2438212

          wrong, many do get wounded and survive too as a lot

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to And survival rates of those attacks are quite high

          depends on the skills of the shooter

        • #2425977

          Rates and “many” don’t mix.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to wrong, many do get wounded and survive too as a lot

          Rates are relative, whereas “many” are neither here nor there…

    • #2438412

      Here in Australia we have very tight gun control laws and have so for many

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      years, yet we have lots of shooting. pre gun control they were civilian grade rifles, now they’re military grade weapons as they all cost the same and have the same penalty now. Also, the crimes can be sure that 99.99% of the city population have nothing to shoot back with.

      • #2438401

        I’ve asked this question of our US chums, DE

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Here in Australia we have very tight gun control laws and have so for many

        I’d be interested in an Ozzie take.

        Given a situation that only criminals own guns – and they surely do in my country, too – Is the fact that Joe Public doesn’t have a gun more or less likely to get him or her shot? That’s shot. Not robbed or anything else.

        The perception in the US is that they need to be armed because the criminals have guns. They may be right because there are just so many, many guns and there is, now, an environment where arming ones self is habitual. The people whose comments that I’ve been reading on the Net seem so fearful.

        In the UK, gun crime seems to be between rival gangs, turf wars, etc. It causes national outrage if, as had happened, an innnocent bystander gets shot. I don’t believe there is much robbery using guns. Bruglars don’t appear to working armed. The majority target empty houses, I would guess because the penalties for any form of aggressive burglary are so much greater and the chances of being caught are greater if you have beeen seen.

        What’s the situation in Oz? We’ve never really had many guns, just a few hobbyists. Oz has had guns and then got rid of them.

        • #2438397

          neil, to properly answer this i have to back up about 20 years.

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I’ve asked this question of our US chums, DE

          It used to be legal for a civilian to own a civilian grade longarm – in most states that came out as: a rifle or shotgun with an action of single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic (one trigger pull one round fired), was not over .50 calibre if rifled, had a total length of 600 mm (2 feet) or more, a barrel of 450 mm (18 inches) or more, and had a butt stock (pistol grip only not allowed). All military grade weapon and full auto weapons were not lawful, except in very specialised cases. Hand guns required a special license and a real need – such as armed security guard or bank teller.

          At that time the great majority of guns used by criminals were stolen civilian grade weapons sold on the black market. Most were cut down rifles and shotguns, a few were stolen pistols. Some were used in armed robberies, but most were used in gang wars. The laws were such that having an unlawful civilian weapon was only a fraction of the penalty for having a full military weapon; often it only resulted in a fine and confiscation unless it could be proven it was used in a more serious crime. Military grade weapons were more than ten times the cost of civilian grade weapons on the black market.

          Following a major effort to disarm the civilian population after the Port Arthur shooting, the civilian grade weapons became unlawful to won except under a few very specialised situations, and even then the semi-automatics were unlawful no matter what. Rifles and shotguns were handed in to police stations, or confiscated, and destroyed. The civilian grade weapons became harder to get and the penalty for a military weapon and civilian grade weapon became the same. This has resulted in more of the military grade weapons being sold on the black market and more of them being owned and used by the criminals. Many of the older criminals have stayed with the civilian style guns they’ve had all along and are sued to, but the younger ones tend to go for the ‘more bang for your buck’ style full-auto weapons.

          Luckily, the majority unlawful gun use has always been, and still is, for inter-gang warfare. The sad part is the rate of accidental shooting of bystanders has gone up a lot due to over spray of the bullets.

          The police still turn up people who find rifles and the like amongst the effects of deceased older people who never handed them in. And the total number handed in is way short of the total number known to have been out amongst the public when the laws changed, but no one has any idea where they are.

          One interesting factor that was recently told to me by an Army sergeant from a nearby recruit training camp is that the anecdotal evidence from the older instructors is that nearly none of the new recruits have any idea on how to safely or properly handle a gun or use one as they’ve not been near one before.

          It would be fair to say that until the 1980s the majority of the Australian adult population knew how to safely handle and use a firearm, but now you would have to limit that to a very low percentage and then nearly all would be ex military or ex cops. In short, it’s now a damn sight easier for someone to safely invade Australia without having to worry about the population taking up arms against them they have no idea how to do so. Yet, prior to the 1980s the civilian population could have put up a realistic defence by themselves.

          ……………

          The most common weapon used by non gang associated criminals is a knife, even some of the younger or smaller gangs use knives only. Very few of the petty criminals (especially the career ones) go armed with any weapon at all as it makes a heck of a difference to the sentence if caught.

          ………………

          personally, I believe in the right of the population to undertake proper training to obtain a licence to carry a civilian grade handgun or to keep a civilian grade longarm on their property. But the training would have to be a lot more than what you see the US citz getting. If the population had been armed as a matter of course I doubt any of the serious shooting we had would have gone so bad due to people being able to fight back. However, the real issue is not the guns but the people using them. The nutcases shooting people in a spree, and those standing behind the guns to stop the nutcases.

          It all comes back to the citizens being prepared to stand up and defend themselves if they can, and far too many won’t do that now because they’ve been too well indoctrinated by the government to be overgrown sheep. Thus arming them won’t have any benefit, but arming the sheepdogs out there will.

          Oh, almost forget. One down issue with the wholesale removal of rifles and shotguns from the civilian population in Australia – it’s now almost impossible for the locals to keep the roos and rabbits under control as next to no-one goes out hunting them any more due to the lack of weapons and weapons skills.

        • #2438378

          I accept your philosophical stance concerning guns for defence,

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to neil, to properly answer this i have to back up about 20 years.

          although I disagree with you more than I can put over in print, but I was after a simple answer as to whether there are fewer gun deaths.

          As to whether there have been concomitant negative spinoffs such as you describe, I obviously can’t say so I’ll take what you say as given.

        • #2438373

          the stats on gun deaths aren’t clear down here at all. To put them together

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I accept your philosophical stance concerning guns for defence,

          requires finding the relevant sections of the various state police departments’ annual reports and then they don’t break them up into relevant sections. In the last decade we’ve had a rash of suicide by police deaths where people will continue to attack the cops with a knife or the like until shot. We’ve also had a rise in inter-gang killings with guns. In the past where they may get a couple with civilian grade weapons, they now spray a few dozen rounds about the area and get a few more than the one or two they were after.

          I’m against indiscriminate gun ownership in that I believe the owners need to be trained and licensed first. I’m also for tighter controls on handguns, and a total ban on the military grade weapons, but honest citizens should be allowed to prove they can responsibly handle firearms and own them.

        • #2438367

          Statistics

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to the stats on gun deaths aren’t clear down here at all. To put them together

          You would hope that someone would put in the effort and get the numbers. It would be nice to know if the gun ban worked or was a waste of time.

        • #2438364

          the one time I saw some statistics was about 5 years after the ban

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Statistics

          and they were very soon suppressed as they showed a rise in the number of gun related deaths. However, they were raw statistics, which is all you ever see on this issue – the type of x number of deaths. Whereas what we need to see is the figure in relation to the population and other crime stats for the area.

          The stats are a matter of public record, but require people to take the time to dig them out and amalgamate them, and no one down here is particularly interested as we do NOT have a big pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby didn’t like the answers they got last time they put in the effort.

        • #2438325

          Here’s some statistics for you…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Statistics

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

          Since hands and feet caused more deaths than rifles, I guess we had better figure out how to ban those. Or at least create laws limiting their use.

        • #2438321

          Interesting data JP85257

          by av . ·

          In reply to Statistics

          Considering the populations in each of those states, gun crimes are actually very low percentage wise. Those statistics are from 2011 as well, when the the semi-automatic assault rifle ban was not in effect.

          AV

        • #2438313

          AV, what do you mean by “low”?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Statistics

          Are we looking at the same statistics? The percentage of murder by firearms averages out at over two thirds of all murders. I don’t know why jp666 posted them. It does the pro-gun cause no good at all.

          The UK figure is 6% of all homicides committed by fiearm. You should be examining your conuntry’s record against other western democracies.

        • #2438308

          JP, with regards to those stats, what would be interesting would be to see

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Statistics

          know if where in them they include the deaths where law enforcement and security people shoot criminals, and how they go as a percentage of violate crimes in the states and percentages of population, and percentages of licensed gun owners. I’d also like to know how many lawfully owned guns were used in the crimes too.

        • #2438305

          ir would be interesting to see how the stats compare population percentage

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Statistics

          wise with the few western societies where they have significant gun in the house ownership due to compulsory military service. Last time I saw those, over a decade back, the countries with the compulsory keep a loaded gun handy due to compulsory military service had very low rates of gun related deaths.

        • #2438304

          DE. Are you thinking of Switzerland? Israel. perhaps?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Statistics

          It used to be the case that the Israelis and Swiss had freely available guns because of the way their military service worked. That hasn’t been the case for some years. The way it works, now, is the way it works in most countries; ownership of guns is controlled. These days, you don’t have a right to own a gun, you need a reason to own a gun. And you need to rejustify that reason or get rid of the gun.

          The Swiss have always restricted the storage of guns and mandated the separation of guns and ammunition – to the point that, now, ammunition is generally held in depots. The Swiss homicide rate, by gun, is still low but the suicide rate by gun is quite high. Make of that what you will.

        • #2438302

          Neil, it’s so long ago I’m not sure who, but I do think they were both in

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Statistics

          northern Europe and may now be under different laws due to being in the EU.

        • #2438299

          DE so what do you want me to do?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Statistics

          Do your research for you? “Northern Europe”, hmmm. In the EU – OK we’re down to a dozen countries. The EU doesn’t have gun laws, by the way. We can all do what we want.

        • #2438235

          The Swiss army personnel keep their guns at home… but no ammo.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Statistics

          So, um, yeah…

        • #2438219

          Neil

          by av . ·

          In reply to Statistics

          Neil,

          I mean considering the population in any of these states and the millions of guns we have, murders committed using guns is very low.

          For example, in NJ there are about 8.8 million people and 269 gun murders. Considering the size of the population and the fact that many people own guns here, murder by guns is pretty rare, though even one murder is one too many. I’m sure most of those murders is gang-related violence.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

          AV

    • #2438301

      OK, I wish to raise a few points to be considered in this discussion.

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to What gun possession implies

      1. For millennium the majority of households have had weapons in them and readily available to occupants for their defence.

      2. We have a special word for when people go crazy and kill people, it’s been around for thousands of years too; berserker.

      3. Since the beginning of time people have murdered and killed other people. I differentiate as murder is usually a one on one crime for personal crime, while killing can be in self defence or as part of warfare or as part of enforcing the law.

      4. Guns have been around for only a few hundred years, but for most of the eighteenth century the majority of households in Europe had one or more rifles, shotguns, or handguns in them. The Europeans living outside Europe had an even higher rate of guns in their households, almost one hundred percent in many countries. Many households had multiple guns

      The guns improved and the rate of guns in houses went up in the nineteenth century. This was the case for the first three quarters of the twentieth century, with the exceptions of efforts to disarm populations by invading forces during wars.

      5. Today we have a group of the population who want to disarm the general population. We also have a group of the population who wish to keep the general population armed.

      5a. Whatever happens in regards to the discussions and laws arising from the point above the criminals are going to continue to go armed when they want to and people wanting to get guns for criminal purposes will continue to get them.

      …………

      All the above are facts and easily proven via the history books and newspapers etc.

      The misuse of guns by a percentage of the population has been a problem since guns have been available. However, in general the population as a whole has always had a good understanding of the proper care and usage of guns, until the last quarter of the twentieth century. Prior to that parents taught their children about the safe care and use of guns. But for some reason this behaviour slowed and down a great deal towards the end of the twentieth century. I suspect a part of this was the negative media influence being pushed on gun ownership, but can’t prove that.

      What is known is that where most young people growing up prior to the 1970s were taught how to safely use and care for guns by their parents, since the early 1970s this has very rarely happened. Thus we have generations who haven’t had good training in the care and use and storage of guns the way their ancestors did.

      Now the bit in the paragraph above shouldn’t be that important, yet it seems to be very important as we now have what appears to be a growing number of people going berserker and some are using guns when they do. We do NOT have any reasonable statistics on if the percentage rate of berserker behaviour is rising or if the raw figures are just rising due to increased population numbers. I suspect we do have an increase in the per 1,000 head of population rate of berserker behaviour, and I think this is due to a societal and mental version of over population.

      People are fairly well spread out as best as they can be today, but are also in higher population densities than they used to be. We also under a lot of pressure via the media and communications systems, it’s to the point where it’s almost impossible to get away from it. Pressures from excessive and intrusive laws add to the problem too. Thus even when the people are physically apart, they are not as separated from each other in regards to communications wise as they used to be or should be at times.

      I believe the issue that needs addressing is NOT the one of having guns in houses, but what’s causing the people to go berserker now. This is an issue of how the society is operating, or not operating, not an issue of what tools the individuals have available to them. Having said that, I do also think there is an issue to do with the proper training on the care, usage, and storage of guns that also needs addressing.

      • #2438300

        Wrong, wrong, wrong

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to OK, I wish to raise a few points to be considered in this discussion.

        I’ve considered your points and decided they are irrelevant. What’s next? Point 5 is probably the most obvious. Duh! Do you think so?!

        I think you need to consider your post as it STILL doesn’t explain why, of the G8 countries, only in the US is this appalling chain of dead bodies. One million in the past twenty-five years.

        The UK population density is far above that of the US. We have our share of nutters but we don’t we don’t have gun killings in the quantity that the US because WE DON’T HAVE GUNS.

        Of COURSE it comes down to what people have available to them.

        p.s. You might want to try and get a proper handle on mental health before pontificating about “berserkers” – point 2. That was a particular mental state entered into by warriors, mostly Norse but the Scots were up for it too, on the field of battle. Mental health issues can come about by many causes, some internal and some external. Read up on the subject before you post, please.

        • #2438298

          So historical facts are seen as totally irrelevant. But, they are relevant

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Wrong, wrong, wrong

          as they show this current concern some people have about guns is a recent issue, that the number of guns per head of population and general ownership did NOT have these sort of problems before, despite higher rates of gun ownership by the general population. Thus it’s not the guns or the number in the public hands as they’re old factors. Something knew has come in.

          Yes we stole the word berserker from the Norse who used it to describe an overly emotional warrior, but it’s also used to describe anyone who ‘goes berserk’ which is a state of frenetically and violent derange destruction. As such, anyone who commits a lot of violent destruction while in a rage can be called a berserker. And yes, mental health problems come from many issues, and what is or isn’t done about guns won’t affect the people going nuts. The cause needs to be identified and treated, not part of the symptom.

          Yes the UK has a higher population density, despite having only one fifth of the total population. So, on a per 1,000,000 head of population you should have only one fifth of the cases where some one goes nutty and causes trouble – be it with a gun or otherwise. Of course, that’s assuming everything else in the society is the same – which it isn’t.

          No, it doesn’t always come down to what people have available. There have been incidents where the people have planned the attacks and taken time to gather the weapons they want. However, if someone wants to kill large numbers of people they can do so in many ways, guns, knives, bombs, cars – they’ll decide what they want and get it.

          The million in 25 years you mention, is that just nutters going off or are you covering all the deaths by guns – such as those killed in inter-gang warfare, those committing crimes and stopped by police having to shoot them, and deliberate murders — all cases where no amount of changes to gun laws will affect the killings or killing rates.

        • #2438290

          History is a relative thing

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to So historical facts are seen as totally irrelevant. But, they are relevant

          The world is not the same as it was 200 years, 100 years, 50 years or even 5 years ago. What was valid in the past is not always valid in the wold of today. Weapons, especially high rate of fire military style people slaughtering weapons, there is no logical reason for these to be readily available in any so called civilized society, as they have no purpose that is beneficial to a proper functioning society.

          So why the obsession with these weapons, there is no logical reason that can be given for being so readily available to one’s citizens as they have no legal or practicable use.

          You can throw in any statistics you may wish to drag up but none of them can support a valid reason for allowing society to have freely available such a dangerous and unnecessary thing as assault weapons for all that want them.

          There will always be some who can’t cope, will go crazy, so why have a tool totally unneeded, that will enable them to cause mayhem and pain readily available, just because there are still other ways for determined obsessed people to carry out their crazy plans, is not good reason to work towards removing one tool from easy access.

        • #2438289

          Please provide your definition

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to History is a relative thing

          of a “proper functioning society”.

          They can have no legal or practicable use? Since they’re currently legal weapons, they DO have a legal use for those who want them or already own them. As far as practicability, who gets to decide what is practical and what isn’t? Is a 10 round magazine too large? What about 5? What about 20? Do we use the same standards for handguns as we do for rifles? If not, who decides the difference?

          This is nothing more than another liberal knee-jerk response to a much larger issue without any consideration for the actual causes.

        • #2438267

          Liberal thinking is free thinking

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to Please provide your definition

          freedom to me is being able to go anywhere in my country without fear, without more firepower than found in some small countries. I have not even bothered to lock my door for years. In sensible countries like mine only genuine hunting rifles and guns, licensed to approve persons only. This has been decided by our citizens and no government is going to be allowed to change that. As a result of tight gun controls our police force is not normally armed. Crazy happens but crazy without weapons is much easer to deal with.

          Forget all the crap and brainwashing you have grown up with, and think about the society you wish to have, not the paranoid violent one you have. But I feel deep down there is more chance of a tiger turning vegetarian than for your society to ditch its obsession and addiction to guns.

          So I will thank my lucky stars that I was fortunate to be born and live in my country and not yours and all of this is not directly my problem.

        • #2438283

          j-mart, what you say about no rational reason for military assault weapons

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to History is a relative thing

          in private hands is very true (NB: I totally agree on that one) however it does neatly underline the point Maxwell has been making that I agree with (damn, that hu8rt to type – me agree with Max) that there IS another underlying issue that needs to be dealt with. It’s that issue that creates the ‘I want a bigger gun than you’ mentality etc.

          I VERY strongly suspect a large part of the issue in the US is the sports jock mentality in the schools and how they’re allowed to get away with a lot of mental and physical abuse of non-sports students because they’re good at sports. Lets put the school kids who go nuts under a microscope and find out how many had been subject to mental and physical abuse at school.

        • #2438266

          Bulling in schools

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to j-mart, what you say about no rational reason for military assault weapons

          is a world wide and serious problem and regardless of any gun control or not is a problem that should be given more attention world wide.

          I look back over my lifetime and the world is a much nastier and meaner place than it was when I was a kid. I think there has been over this time a changing focus from quality of life to a much more materialistic quantity of life all these thinks are factors in some people loosing it.

        • #2438263

          yes, but from what I’ve read and heard from people

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Bulling in schools

          who went to school in the US the bullying is very much an institutionalised part of the jock culture in many areas in the US, whereas it’s not such a major factor elsewhere. The reason for the difference is a lot of the school administrators in the US let many of the jocks get away with their bullying in order to have them available and winning on the sports field – other countries don’t accept that to the same level.

        • #2438288

          Guns can be part of the cause

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to So historical facts are seen as totally irrelevant. But, they are relevant

          and not just a symptom. Some are addicted to the power of guns, obsessed with them wanting more, bigger and greater killing power. They have been on news items as part of this whole tragedy, drooling over them, as many with a gun addiction problem, are panic buying, in case their fix becomes hard to get their hands on.

        • #2438282

          yeah, and what caused that addiction, as it wasn’t there before? -nt

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Guns can be part of the cause

          nt

        • #2438275

          Does it really matter?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to yeah, and what caused that addiction, as it wasn’t there before? -nt

          It can be suppressed.

          By a change in a society’s values. For example, drink driving was, to previous generations, an accepted minor risk. Attitudes changed and it became socially unacceptable over here.

          By a change in laws making it difficult – and expensive – to follow the spiral of firepower.

          Lose the Second Amendment. Times change. To lock a society to a two hundred year old document penned by rich white men who had no idea how the world would turn out is insane.

          Then it can be said that you have no right to a weapon. If you need one, justify that need. Then you may have one.

          Won’t ever happen. None of it.

        • #2438268

          The Second Amendment.

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          The Second Amendment was created because of your country so I can see why you would advocate it’s revocation:

          Sir William Keith advised the British Parliament to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

          Our President is a joke and our Congress has an approval rating in the single digits. Do you really think we should give up ANY right to these fools?

          George Mason explained that “We The People” are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations.

          The Second amendment isn’t about arming ourselves against rapists and burglars as you have claimed, it’s about preventing our Government from taking complete control of all of our rights.

          I prefer to protect my rights from the liberal morons in Washington. Since you’re from a foreign country, I seriously doubt if you could ever understand the principle.

        • #2438248

          The Second Amendment

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          “The Second Amendment was created because of your country so I can see why you would advocate it’s revocation.”. No, you can’t see your nose in front of your face. You have made that obvious!

          Anyway, that was then and I wasn’t born. This is now and I live now. Sir William Keith died in 1749, This is about to be 2013. Whatever.

          To an outsider like me, the Second Amendment is just another religious text. A little bit more recent than the Bible and a little less recent than the Book of Mormon. Like them, it’s regarded as the infallible word of the Creator – in this case, the Founding Fathers – yet, like them, it is picked over and interpreted and argued over. There are innumerable definitions as to what it was intended to achieve back then and what it means, now, in a society that is far beyond the knowledge of the (rich, white) men who penned it.

          Don’t you think you should agree on what you think it means? Better get on it because the demographic of your country is shifting. Your precious, infallible Constitution had to be amended so that blacks could sit in the front of the bus (although it took a little longer for it to actually happen). How do the Blacks and Hispanics feel about all of this – mainly white – gun stuff? Well, the NRA is mostly made up of white men so I leave you to suss that one out for yourself.

          Merry Christmas. I’m gone.

        • #2438232

          Pot, meet kettle

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          So there’s never been racism in Great Britain?

          “Racism in one form or another was widespread in Britain before the twentieth century, and during the 1900s particularly towards Jewish groups and immigrants from Eastern Europe. The British establishment even considered Irish people a separate and degenerate race until well into the 20th century.

          Since World War I, public expressions of racism have been limited to far-right political parties such as the British National Front in the 1970s, whilst most mainstream politicians have publicly condemned all forms of racism. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that racism remains widespread, and many politicians and public figures have been accused of excusing or pandering to racist attitudes in the media, particularly with regard to immigration. There have been growing concerns in recent years about institutional racism in public and private bodies, and the tacit support this gives to crimes resulting from racism.

          The Race Relations Act 1965 outlawed public discrimination, and established the Race Relations Board. Further Acts in 1968 and 1976 outlawed discrimination in employment, housing and social services, and replaced the Race Relations Board with Commission for Racial Equality.

          The Human Rights Act 1998 made organisations in Britain, including public authorities, subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Race Relations Act 2000 extends existing legislation for the public sector to the police force, and requires public authorities to promote equality.”

          Although various anti-discrimination legislation do exist, according to some sources most employers in the UK remain institutionally racist including public bodies such as the police and particularly the legal profession. It is also nearly impossible for persons subject to such institutional racism (who are normally economically disadvantaged) to seek legal redress, as in the UK public funding (legal aid) is not available at employment tribunals. The situation with the implementation of Human Rights law is similar. The Terrorism Acts, which came into law in 2000 and 2006, have caused a marked increase in racial profiling and have also been the basis to justify existent trends in discrimination against persons of Muslim origin (or resembling such) by the British police.”

          I guess your country must be run by those same evil rich white men that you despise so much. Why don’t you get your own country in order before commenting on ways to change mine?

        • #2438220

          Neil guns have had

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          no role in determining the amount of freedom your population has in your country. In taking your citizens from the Charles Dickens era of exploitation by the privileged of the less fortunate to a more equitable society that you have now , there was no armed revolution, just some good old fashioned socialism with the underclasses standing up for themselves, a few general strikes and letting the upper classes know that there is not much they can do without the co-operation of the masses.

        • #2438218

          jp85257

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          If requiring your citizens to be heavily armed to control your government is a necessity to prevent them from screwing you, there is not the freedom and liberty that you keep boasting to the rest of the world, in your county

        • #2438217

          j-mart…

          by jp85257 ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          It’s not a requirement; it’s a right. Big difference.

        • #2426011

          What about the other rights?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          You know, those established in the Constitution itself and by all those other amendments (particularly the 9 that make up the remainder of the Bill of Rights)? Does the right to bear arms supersede those?

          Throughout American history, the right to bear arms has been based on the militia clause. (Why else would Congress pass a law specifying that all those not in the organized militia were part of the unorganized militia?) The [u]individual[/u] right to bear arms was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

        • #2426006

          Nick, I find it hard to accept a 2008 Court decision is what

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          gave an individual the right to bear arms. It may be the latest confirmation of it, but I’ve been hearing the constitutional right of an individual to bear arms coming out of the US media since the 1960s and seen it in stories written in the 1950s and before, and since. It’s been well covered in US films for over 50 years too.

        • #2426005

          That’s been the popular misconception

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          And it’s been sold well. But until DC v. Heller, that individual right was, as far as legal precedent was concerned, nonexistent. That’s why Congress passed the law making all Americans part of the “unorganized” militia.

          http://www.newyorker .com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

        • #2425993

          Neil, I don’t think it’s a popular misconception at all as the wording is

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          very explicit

          “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

          The constitution overrides and underpins the laws and the legislature. That wording says outright the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

          What has happened in recent years is people have worked very hard to twist and change the meaning and intent of the words used by the original writers of the US Constitution, Amendments, and laws in general; that’s happening a lot all over the place. That has resulted in matters being put to the courts for clarification, and that’s what’s happened in 2008 and 2010 – the courts have attempted to make a clarification of the intended wording, not give it a force of law as it already had that. Once that was done some legislatures tried to force it in a direction they wanted and passed more laws.

          A classic case of how the US Constitution and Amendments have been warped in recent decades is the way the First Amendment aspect on religion are now applied. The wording is clear:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          The government can’t make laws about religion, one way or another, and they must allow the free exercise of religion. Some court cases have upheld the government may not support a religion in any way as well. Yet we’ve seen a rash of cases of people stopping people from exercising their religious freedom because they were in a government facility. In the last few years there have been cases in the news about students being suspended from public schools in the US because they stopped to give a blessing on their food before lunch – – seem the bureaucrats read the First Amendment as being a Freedom FROM any and all religious practices. In another case in the news a student selected to give a speech at the graduation ceremony was reprimanded for closing her speech with thanks to God. Others were refused the right to mention God in their speeches.

          Just a few examples of how people are seeking to warp the meanings and intents of the originators and their words.

        • #2425980

          It’s a matter of interpretation, Ernie

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          The precedent has long been set that government can limit what arms the people are entitled to bear. As the article I linked points out, the prefatory clause in the Second Amendment was implemented as requiring militia members to provide their own weapons. It’s historical fact that the Founder regulated guns heavily, [u]requiring[/u] militia members to purchase weapons of the right type [b]and[/b] maintain their quality to meet the militia’s needs. The National Firearms Act of 1934 taxed machine gun and automatic weapon sales, with the intent of greatly reducing their availability. That law was challenged in court and the tax provisions found constitutional.

          But until DC vs. Heller in 2008, an explicit individual right to bear arms did not exist in American jurisprudence or case law.

        • #2425979

          Neil, from my reading of the information and historical records available

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          the Constitution was amended in 1789 with enacted in 1791 with –

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

          Summarised as two things joined – We need a militia to keep the state free. To do that the people have the right to bear arms and we won’t infringe that right.

          Because it was part of the constitution it did NOT need and jurisprudence or case law to support as the legislation and laws draw their authority from the constitution, as does the congress. Although many in the congress and the judiciary toady are trying to turn that around and say they can overrule the constitution.

          Then in mid 1792 during controversy over a standing army the congress passed a law establishing a uniformed militia and requiring all white male citizens 18 to 45 to be enrolled (with a few exceptions) and they had to supply their own musket, bayonet, etc – in short outfit themselves for the militia. Later laws were passed setting out what the domestic arms companies had to make as an appropriate musket, but the laws did not state what men had to buy and they varied a lot. The system was soon proved to be totally inadequate.

          During the 20th century argument arose about the meaning of the amendment and some claimed it only applied to the right of the state to arm militia, while others said it gave individuals the right to be armed. And that’s what those to court cases you mention did – they reaffirmed the rights applied to individuals and not states. In short, they shot down and attempt to amend the meaning of the constitution.

          Under the constitution people have the right to bear arms – end of story. However, that does NOT mean the federal or state government can not regulate them a bit. Thus the laws on concealed carry are constitutional. I’d even go so far as to say that the federal and state governments could constitutionally limit the arms to only those that can be easily carried and operated by an individual – thus squad and two person weapons are ruled out as they are not individual arms. Beyond that you get in the grey areas the lawyers make big money out of.

          I would support restrictions on full auto weapons and the use or arms registers. However, I’m not a US citizen, so what I support don’t matter.

        • #2425819

          jp85257: Racism?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          “Why don’t you get your own country in order before commenting on ways to change mine? ”

          Again, I can do BOTH.

          Fool.

        • #2438271

          I would say

          by j-mart ·

          In reply to yeah, and what caused that addiction, as it wasn’t there before? -nt

          the addiction has been there awhile.

        • #2438262

          only for a few decades, and gee how long has this been an issue?

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I would say

          about the same length of time -hmm!

        • #2438274

          All deaths by gun, DE

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to So historical facts are seen as totally irrelevant. But, they are relevant

          Surely, they all count. They are, after all, just as dead by guns. Intentional homicide by firearm, suicide by firearm and accidental death by firearm. These don’t happen where there are no guns. They happen much less where guns are few, expensive and difficult to acquire. This is so simple that I don’t know why you resist the logic.

        • #2438272

          they count as deaths, as do deaths by knife, hand, and car, but

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to All deaths by gun, DE

          the causes and reasons vary. Here in Australia we’ve had more gun related deaths since the gun ban and the disarmament of the general public. But the great majority of gun related deaths here have always been due to criminal activity with police having to shoot armed criminals as the second most common cause – now they’re about the only causes. That was true pre gun ban, and is still the case, despite the major increase in the number of unlawful military grade weapons held and used by criminals.

        • #2438249

          More gun deaths?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to they count as deaths, as do deaths by knife, hand, and car, but

          I’m not disputing what you say but I would like to see the figures.

        • #2438246

          neil, I’ve not got the time or interest to go through all the states stats,

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          however, here’s a a bit of info from wikipedia

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_shootings

          In NSW weapons like and SKS were never lawful for private ownership – military standard and pistols have always been under tight control. The 1996 changes made just about anything unlawful across Australia. You can look up the details yourself. Mind you, one was by a tourist, one was a gang shooting, a few committed suicide, and of the few who did go prison some had to wait until they’d had enough psychiatric treatment to be judged fit enough to try. However, that’s not all the shootings that have occurred in this time. Gangs like the Rebels, Commacheros, Banditos, and others have been shooting at each other for forty years, mostly in small groups – at the moment there are two related shooting deaths under investigation in Sydney. Hardly any two months go by without another news report of a shooting in Sydney, usually between the major gangs taking shots at individuals or small groups of other gangs.

          Of the last five shootings listed three involved the use of unlawful firearms.

        • #2425936

          DE, gang violence is due to drug laws, not gun laws.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          Oh what a tangled web we weave, eh?
          *knowwhatImean?knowwhatImean?*nudge*nudge*wink*wink*

        • #2425933

          Ansu, that’s my point – no gun laws will change that sort

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          of shooting or the related gun deaths, and it’s not always drugs either.

        • #2425925

          Prohibition of anything has never worked as intended

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          People will do what they must to get what they think they need: alcohol, drugs, whatever.

        • #2425858

          DE – Make time!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          If you “don’t have the time” to check what you are lecturing us about, don’t bloody well do it! You have a habit of this sort of lazy debate. Your “list of Australian shootings” is meaningless, quite insulting to anyone here who has the slightest intelligence and certainly offers nothing to this debate.

        • #2425762

          Can we make a prohibition of shooting school children?

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          Or is that too much to ask?

        • #2432819

          The drug laws help create a criminal sub-economy.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          The criminal economy creates violence.

        • #2432815

          I agree that the way the illicit drugs are dealt with helps

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          to fund and maintain many criminals – although if people didn’t buy the drugs they’d make no money. But it was the 1920s prohibition of alcohol laws that created a lot of the current organised crime in the US by allowing the small existing groups an opportunity to make quick big profits and expand into other fields.

          Anyway, how to properly deal with drugs is another issue and needs it’s own thread.

        • #2432807

          Legalize some of the drugs

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to More gun deaths?

          I mean, I am against legalizing drugs, but it would cut some avenues of major profits for drug gangs.
          Not all however, we still have problems with illegal cigarettes being sold cheap, so some drugs may follow.

Viewing 13 reply threads