Another Shooting: This one is Wisconsin

[Smilin Assassin]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-several-people-reported-shot-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin?lite

At least four people were reported shot Sunday morning at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., according to local media.

Witnesses told NBC station WTMJ of Milwaukee that someone opened fire inside the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, 7512 South Howell Ave., south of Milwaukee, along Lake Michigan.

Oak Creek police, the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement agencies have responded, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Authorities closed roads and set up a staging area near the temple, WTMJ reported.


A witness told officers the shooter was a white male, with a heavy build, bald head and wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, Oak Creek Patch reported.

[huh??]

Remember when there seemed to be a rash of postal employees shooting people in confined spaces? That's where the term "going postal" came from. If this continues, I wonder if new terms will come up like, "going churchy" or "going all movie theater up in hea".

[s0phr0syne]

Can't remember any church shootings, especially at a Sunday gathering...I'm sure if I google I can find some.

This is really unfortunate.

[peacepipe]

Can't remember any church shootings, especially at a Sunday gathering...I'm sure if I google I can find some.

This is really unfortunate.

Dr. Goerge Tiller was shot at church. couple yrs ago.

[errand]

WTF is wrong with people these days?

[Garcia Bronco]

Can't remember any church shootings, especially at a Sunday gathering...I'm sure if I google I can find some.

This is really unfortunate.

I don't know about Sundays, but throughtout history there have been many church shootings. The globe just wasn't small enough for everybody to hear about it.

[barryr]

I remember a story of some kind towards the end of spring or so where it was speculated there would be heat waves and with that, expected a rise of violence in this country, if not the world.

[barryr]

I believe Jews are targets at churches more than anybody else it seems.

[Bacchus]

There have been a lot of church shootings. I think alot of them have been targeted for specific people and the shooter just knew they would be there.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Dude probably thought "Sikh" was Muslim, and of course Muslim = terrorist.

[RhymesayersDU]

Remember when there seemed to be a rash of postal employees shooting people in confined spaces? That's where the term "going postal" came from. If this continues, I wonder if new terms will come up like, "going churchy" or "going all movie theater up in hea".

Well, you're certainly going stupid.

[orinjkrush]

global psychotic warming.

[cutthemdown]

WTF is wrong with people these days?

It really isn't these days. We have had things like this since man walked upright. They find chimps in the wild that start murdering other chimps etc etc. As we get more connected we hear about things more, and then also I will concede you are right also could be getting worst. But I think what is wrong is the same thing that always has been wrong. Some of us are crazy and not right in the head.

[Pseudofool]

It really isn't these days. We have had things like this since man walked upright. They find chimps in the wild that start murdering other chimps etc etc. As we get more connected we hear about things more, and then also I will concede you are right also could be getting worst. But I think what is wrong is the same thing that always has been wrong. Some of us are crazy and not right in the head.This is overly simplistic. There has been an increase in mass-shootings over the course of the last 20 years. These kind of things didn't happen at the rate they do now 20 years ago.

Statements like "some people are just crazy" is a kind of social loafing and refuse to address the practical cultural concerns that give rise to mass murders.

There's an old saying, murders aren't born, they're created.

[KillerBronco#76]

WTF is wrong with people these days?

actually considering the scope of american history we are currently less violent than we have ever been... going to have a few bad apples in the basket, the price you pay for freedom i guess...

until the 1940's around 22,000 workers died a year in factories and mines. not to mention just general starvation.

not saying any of the actions are justified just responding to the question of what is wrong with people these days...

[Pseudofool]

actually considering the scope of american history we are currently less violent than we have ever been... going to have a few bad apples in the basket, the price you pay for freedom i guess...

until the 1940's around 22,000 workers died a year in factories and mines. not to mention just general starvation.

not saying any of the actions are justified just responding to the question of what is wrong with people these days...

starvation and working conditions are not the same kind of violence as mass murder.

the bad apple argument is just lazy...i'm not saying i have the answers, but assuming that there aren't measure we as a society can do to help prevent this kind of thing just seems lazy and irresponsible to me.

[KillerBronco#76]

starvation and working conditions are not the same kind of violence as mass murder.

the bad apple argument is just lazy...i'm not saying i have the answers, but assuming that there aren't measure we as a society can do to help prevent this kind of thing just seems lazy and irresponsible to me.

You could make an argument that it is a form of mass murder just systematized and not a sporadic incident. I would guess that if you wanted to actually do some research on the subject you find mass murders in one form or another more fequent than you think.

Of course there you can always look to mexico where finding a pile of dead bodies is seen as a monthly occurance.

Although I do have to agree that recently it seems that the mass murders in this country have been more Civillian on civillian, which in the history of the country most the mass murders of come from the either the State, Corporate, or terrorist organizations.

The sporadic nature is troubling yet overall violence is on a downward trend. Murders and homicides have been decreasing almost every year since around 1994 if I am remembering the information accurately.

So while you can label my argument as lazy, which it may be, as I do not feel like looking up statistics that can be a bit depressing. I think that the argument itself it not without some merit.

[KillerBronco#76]

I guess my posting name doesn't do me any favors in a thread like this...

[broncocalijohn]

Dude probably thought "Sikh" was Muslim, and of course Muslim = terrorist.

I guarantee you he did. A stupid idiot that doesn't know ****. Then again, he might be a white racist and knew they were foreigners. I remember sikh gas station owner got killed in Arizona right after 9/11.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I guarantee you he did. A stupid idiot that doesn't know ****. Then again, he might be a white racist and knew they were foreigners. I remember sikh gas station owner got killed in Arizona right after 9/11.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0tIVhI_8m0Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Guess I don't see the big deal. Just a guy invoking his Second Amendment remedies like Sharon Angle suggested.

[baja]

WTF is wrong with people these days?


People have always gone off the deep end and still do all over the world. You don't see this type of killings much in other countries. What is the difference you might ask. The USA has the most heavily armed citizenry in history.

Monkey brain + easy access to assault weapons = recipe for disaster.

Those that aspire to rule the world want you heavily armed. Want'a know why?

[LongDongJohnson]

I believe Jews are targets at churches more than anybody else it seems.

And I can see why. Nobody likes Jews.

[Cito Pelon]

And I can see why. Nobody likes Jews.

Was that supposed to be funny? It wasn't.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Was that supposed to be funny? It wasn't.

I prefer to like good Jews, and dislike bad Jews.

Albert Einstein = good Jew.

Bernie Madoff = bad Jew.

[Chris]

I prefer to like good Jews, and dislike bad Jews.

Albert Einstein = good Jew.

Bernie Madoff = bad Jew.

It wasn't the jew part that had any relevance on their being good or bad.

[Pontius Pirate]

No easy solutions to gun violence, but here's a start:

1) federal assault weapon ban
2) federal mandatory 21-day waiting period for any gun while background check clears
3) sale of guns only permitted with federal license i.e. sale of guns "underground" at gun shows and classified ads is hereby illegal and a felony
4) gun license/permits issued only for legitimate use i.e. for hunters (people who have hunting licenses) and civilians at high risk of crime (i.e. people who have been victims of crime or who live in a high crime area)

[Cito Pelon]

I prefer to like good Jews, and dislike bad Jews.

Albert Einstein = good Jew.

Bernie Madoff = bad Jew.

Was that supposed to be funny? It wasn't.

[baja]

No easy solutions to gun violence, but here's a start:

1) federal assault weapon ban
2) federal mandatory 21-day waiting period for any gun while background check clears
3) sale of guns only permitted with federal license i.e. sale of guns "underground" at gun shows and classified ads is hereby illegal and a felony
4) gun license/permits issued only for legitimate use i.e. for hunters (people who have hunting licenses) and civilians at high risk of crime (i.e. people who have been victims of crime or who live in a high crime area)

1. You bet

2. No biggie OK

3. No let the states handle the regulations

4. Hell NO!

[Swedish Extrovert]

^ Yeah, let's only give guns to angry poor people.

[Pontius Pirate]

^ Yeah, let's only give guns to angry poor people.

We should just keep piling guns on top of guns and arm every citizen. That'll fix everything. A world where we all have guns is the pinnacle of civilization.

[KipCorrington25]

Yeah this stuff has always happened but many incidents are forgotten. For examples go to you tube and search for a documentary titled The Killing of America which covers a lot of incidents that happened in the 70's, people taking hostages on the air at TV stations, mass shootings, kidnappings, etc. that are just as psychotic and violent but forgotten over time.

[cutthemdown]

No easy solutions to gun violence, but here's a start:

1) federal assault weapon ban why? Nope gotta be a way to own them

2) federal mandatory 21-day waiting period for any gun while background check clears Don't have a problem wit this

3) sale of guns only permitted with federal license i.e. sale of guns "underground" at gun shows and classified ads is hereby illegal and a felony
Nope I should be allowed to sell my gun to another law abiding citizen who passes his background check


4) gun license/permits issued only for legitimate use i.e. for hunters (people who have hunting licenses) and civilians at high risk of crime (i.e. people who have been victims of crime or who live in a high crime area) This one I don't understand, are you talking about concealed permits? LOL ok lets let ll the poor people gave guns but not rich people. You are sort of being dumb. We get it though you want to control guns

[Pontius Pirate]

We gotta get rid of guns on a mass scale.....limit use to only very contained & legitimate purposes.

[Pontius Pirate]

This one I don't understand, are you talking about concealed permits? LOL ok lets let ll the poor people gave guns but not rich people. You are sort of being dumb. We get it though you want to control guns

I think if you are a "poor person" and are at continued risk of crime and you want to go through a rigid/thorough process to obtain a gun legally, where you'd go through the background check & waiting period and can prove that you have gone through a gun safety course and the original application for a firearm was either 1) you are a hunter and need it to obtain food for your family or 2) you live in a high-crime area and have been victim of a crime or your neighbors have and the licensor agrees that, basis the above, owning of a gun would help you rather than risk you to further violence....

....then I am okay with that "poor person" having a gun. Why a "rich person" would need a gun....whether that's a CEO who just wants to dick around with guns or whether it's the parent of a future mass murderer....then I'm okay with "infringing" on that persons right to own a gun.

Or we just repeal the 2nd amendment. I'd be fine with that too. But I don't get a raging boner for guns so I apologize if I offend all you gun nuts with my crazy ideas.

[Johnykbr]

....then I am okay with that "poor person" having a gun. Why a "rich person" would need a gun....whether that's a CEO who just wants to dick around with guns or whether it's the parent of a future mass murderer....then I'm okay with "infringing" on that persons right to own a gun.


So per your logic, rich people are not the subject of violent crimes or robberies? I've never robbed someone but if I were to I would prefer that my victim have some money or valuables on them...you know...like rich people seem to.

[Pontius Pirate]

So per your logic, rich people are not the subject of violent crimes or robberies? I've never robbed someone but if I were to I would prefer that my victim have some money or valuables on them...you know...like rich people seem to.

No, rich people are getting shot up by ghetto thugs all the time. It's crazy. Like, if you just take a trip through a rich neighborhood, it's like all-out war. Really stark contrast to the inner city, where violent crime rarely happens. Statistically, rich people are the victimes of violent crime at an alarmingly high rate compared to the inner city poor and therefore they should all have guns because that's the way my brain works see cause guns solve problems.

[KillerBronco#76]

No, rich people are getting shot up by ghetto thugs all the time. It's crazy. Like, if you just take a trip through a rich neighborhood, it's like all-out war. Really stark contrast to the inner city, where violent crime rarely happens. Statistically, rich people are the victimes of violent crime at an alarmingly high rate compared to the inner city poor and therefore they should all have guns because that's the way my brain works see cause guns solve problems.

I think what they are trying to point out that you don't seem to understand is that a law like that would increase the risk of a popular uprising.

The law would increase risk of mass murder not decrease it...

I guess the other point would be that mass muders make up a very small amount of yearly total. You are essentially saying I would like to keep the murder rate up by giving guns to the people that kill eachother but mass murder which makes up less than 1% of murders in this country needs to be stamped out.

It just seems like you are ignoring the larger problem...

[Garcia Bronco]

No easy solutions to gun violence, but here's a start:

1) federal assault weapon ban
2) federal mandatory 21-day waiting period for any gun while background check clears
3) sale of guns only permitted with federal license i.e. sale of guns "underground" at gun shows and classified ads is hereby illegal and a felony
4) gun license/permits issued only for legitimate use i.e. for hunters (people who have hunting licenses) and civilians at high risk of crime (i.e. people who have been victims of crime or who live in a high crime area)

1)No.

2)it doesn't take 21 days to do a back ground check and you're hurting people that need protection quickly

3)Why not just say "no gun shows allowed"
4)This one requires no comment.

[Beantown Bronco]

This is overly simplistic. There has been an increase in mass-shootings over the course of the last 20 years. These kind of things didn't happen at the rate they do now 20 years ago.

Statements like "some people are just crazy" is a kind of social loafing and refuse to address the practical cultural concerns that give rise to mass murders.

There's an old saying, murders aren't born, they're created.

Me and my masters in criminology couldn't disagree more strongly with this. I assume you're basing it off of your personal feelings on the matter (which is largely created from enhanced media coverage) and not hard data.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

And to those blaming all mass murders on gun ownership, chew on this:

Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_ before_automatic_weapons_.html

[peacepipe]

So per your logic, rich people are not the subject of violent crimes or robberies? I've never robbed someone but if I were to I would prefer that my victim have some money or valuables on them...you know...like rich people seem to.I think more people get struck by lightning then rich get attacked.

[Bacillus Anthracis]

You can't take away everyone's guns, it's unrealistic. There are some 220 million+ guns in the hands of private ownership in the U.S. But what can be done is to stop the selling of ammunition and spare parts for handguns and non-hunting rifles, thereby rendering them unusable over time.

The death and injury statistics are well known as is the huge financial drag that guns have on the economy. The only thing keeping them legal is paranoia and an outdated interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

A sobering fact to consider is that all this latest spree does is up a one day average. If the average held, then about 30 other people in the U.S. were murdered with a gun on the same day. It doesn't get reported because it's not as dramatic.

[Pontius Pirate]

I think what they are trying to point out that you don't seem to understand is that a law like that would increase the risk of a popular uprising.

The law would increase risk of mass murder not decrease it...

I guess the other point would be that mass muders make up a very small amount of yearly total. You are essentially saying I would like to keep the murder rate up by giving guns to the people that kill eachother but mass murder which makes up less than 1% of murders in this country needs to be stamped out.

It just seems like you are ignoring the larger problem...

Worst slippery slope defense of gun control laws EVER. "Sorry bro, we can't have tight restrictions on guns because if we do then we will have a revolution man. I mean, just look at all the revolutions in Canada, UK, Australia, etc......oh, wait a sec.....

[Pontius Pirate]

1)No.

2)it doesn't take 21 days to do a back ground check and you're hurting people that need protection quickly

3)Why not just say "no gun shows allowed"
4)This one requires no comment.

You know, we could just follow the Australian view of this and simply say "personal protection" does not qualify at all....and simply limit it to hunters. Here's the Australian gun control limitations (I'm totally fine with rephrasing my #4 to how Australia does it):

Gun ownership is accessible only for those persons with 'genuine reasons' who can obtain a Permit to Acquire from local Police stations. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on primary production, licenced sport, animal control or employment requirements, and do not include 'personal protection.'

Australia, FWIW, has a fraction of the gun deaths per as a proportion of total population of the U.S.

[Beantown Bronco]

Australia, FWIW, has a fraction of the gun deaths per as a proportion of total population of the U.S.

So do hundreds of other countries that don't have that particular gun control limitation.

[Pontius Pirate]

BTW, the Milwaukee shooter is reported to have "legally" owned his gun. He was also known by SPLC as being a white-supremacist and the front man of a hate group. He was kicked out of the army for misconduct, had been convicted of a DUI before, and was demoted in the Army for being drunk on duty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-wade-michael-page-2012-8

[Pontius Pirate]

So do hundreds of other countries that don't have that particular gun control limitation.

Yes, thank you, there are a lot of other countries for us to learn from as well.

[Garcia Bronco]

You know, we could just follow the Australian view of this and simply say "personal protection" does not qualify at all....and simply limit it to hunters. Here's the Australian gun control limitations (I'm totally fine with rephrasing my #4 to how Australia does it):

Gun ownership is accessible only for those persons with 'genuine reasons' who can obtain a Permit to Acquire from local Police stations. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on primary production, licenced sport, animal control or employment requirements, and do not include 'personal protection.'

Australia, FWIW, has a fraction of the gun deaths per as a proportion of total population of the U.S.

Personal protection is a legit reason to own a firearm in the US. That may work for the Aussies, but this isn't Australia. We have different needs here.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes, thank you, there are a lot of other countries for us to learn from as well.

You are missin the point. Its the people here...it ain't the laws.

[Tombstone RJ]

We should just keep piling guns on top of guns and arm every citizen. That'll fix everything. A world where we all have guns is the pinnacle of civilization.

In defense of gun ownership, because I own guns and plan to continue to own guns:

Do you realize how many guns there are in the USA? Think about this just for a minute please. There are literally millions of pistols (semi-auto and revolvers), rifles (hunting and semi-auto) and shotguns (semi-auto and double, single barrells) out there.

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS.

Please, just line numbers up and you will see that the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are indeed, good people. And when you compare the number of people who actually have guns and don't misuse or abuse them then the numbers are literally quite staggering.

So again, don't punish me for the idiots in this world. Please, just stop.

[peacepipe]

ban all clips that hold more than 10 rds.
. as of right now I can sell my gun and not have to do a check. here in florida people sell/trade guns on the regular between each other without any BG checks. hell if you know how to look on craigslist,you can buy one there too.
have a gun tax similar to that of a property tax to assure people are honest about their gun ownership. If john doe owns 5 guns he pays a gun tax on all 5,if he sells 1 to a friend he needs proof of sale & bg check to eliminate that tax. the person that buys will have to register those guns under his name. the sale of guns, be it through a friend or licensed dealer, will always be regulated.

not a final idea, just an idea.

[Pontius Pirate]

You are missin the point. Its the people here...it ain't the laws.

Classic defense against gun control laws.

"But mom! We are a violent nation and therefore gun removal and gun restriction efforts are pointless and futile and so let's just arm each other to the teeth!"

If we believe that we are incapable of change, and if we believe we are, as a country, forever more violent than other countries, then we are doomed.

[Tombstone RJ]

How do librals fix things? Do they blame the perps for their actions? Hell NO! They blame you and me for the perps actions!!

So, punish everyone for the acts of the few!!

Yippy!!

[Tombstone RJ]

ban all clips that hold more than 10 rds.
. as of right now I can sell my gun and not have to do a check. here in florida people sell/trade guns on the regular between each other without any BG checks. hell if you know how to look on craigslist,you can buy one there too.
have a gun tax similar to that of a property tax to assure people are honest about their gun ownership. If john doe owns 5 guns he pays a gun tax on all 5,if he sells 1 to a friend he needs proof of sale & bg check to eliminate that tax. the person that buys will have to register those guns under his name. the sale of guns, be it through a friend or licensed dealer, will always be regulated.

not a final idea, just an idea.

and a very bad, and in fact an extremely crappy idea too.

and it's not a "clip" you moron, it's a magazine.

[baja]

I think everyone should be issued a suitcase nuke and promise to never use it no matter how mad or depressed we may get.

[Tombstone RJ]

Classic defense against gun control laws.

"But mom! We are a violent nation and therefore gun removal and gun restriction efforts are pointless and futile and so let's just arm each other to the teeth!"

If we believe that we are incapable of change, and if we believe we are, as a country, forever more violent than other countries, then we are doomed.

Tell me, how are the more stringent gun restrictions working out in California? Do they have less crime b/c of these fantastic, progressive, liberal laws?

[Garcia Bronco]

Classic defense against gun control laws.

"But mom! We are a violent nation and therefore gun removal and gun restriction efforts are pointless and futile and so let's just arm each other to the teeth!"

If we believe that we are incapable of change, and if we believe we are, as a country, forever more violent than other countries, then we are doomed.

We aren't doomed. Good grief. I also did not say we are a violent nation. We aren't. We just believe in liberty and acknowledge the fact the we have a right to protect ourselves. Further if you are really so concerned about deaths in this country. You might want to start some place else.

[Pontius Pirate]

ban all clips that hold more than 10 rds.
. as of right now I can sell my gun and not have to do a check. here in florida people sell/trade guns on the regular between each other without any BG checks. hell if you know how to look on craigslist,you can buy one there too.
have a gun tax similar to that of a property tax to assure people are honest about their gun ownership. If john doe owns 5 guns he pays a gun tax on all 5,if he sells 1 to a friend he needs proof of sale & bg check to eliminate that tax. the person that buys will have to register those guns under his name. the sale of guns, be it through a friend or licensed dealer, will always be regulated.

not a final idea, just an idea.

I'm good with that.

Also, for people who want guns for personal protection - I have a couple of compromises worth considering:

1) for gun permits issued solely for personal protection, only rubber bullets may be purchased for that firearm
2) If you are ever convicted of a violent crime after receiving that permit, your gun permit and firearm are taken away for some long period of time, perhaps including anger management classes, psychological evals, etc.
3) Mandatory annual re-certification process for the permit just like a drivers license.

[Garcia Bronco]

Tell me, how are the more stringent gun restrictions working out in California? Do they have less crime b/c of these fantastic, progressive, liberal laws?

They do not.

[bronco militia]

I'm good with that.

Also, for people who want guns for personal protection - I have a couple of compromises worth considering:

1) for gun permits issued solely for personal protection, only rubber bullets may be purchased for that firearm



LOL

nahh that's ok....I'll just use my kids Nerf gun.

[broncocalijohn]

No easy solutions to gun violence, but here's a start:

1) federal assault weapon ban
2) federal mandatory 21-day waiting period for any gun while background check clears
3) sale of guns only permitted with federal license i.e. sale of guns "underground" at gun shows and classified ads is hereby illegal and a felony
4) gun license/permits issued only for legitimate use i.e. for hunters (people who have hunting licenses) and civilians at high risk of crime (i.e. people who have been victims of crime or who live in a high crime area)

LOL! So you can only get a gun for high crime areas or been a victim? So, no protection until you have been killed or wounded. Let us also add the fact that you have just allowed peole in high crime areas only. So profiling is probably not ok to you but crime stat areas is a ok.

What has been wrong for the 14 day waiting period. Your 21 day turns to 28 and so on. BTW, you can go in and buy an antique gun right now. Let me know when you are going to can those and put on the waiting period.

You aren't very smart. You just cut out a huge portion of America for the 2nd amendment. So some citizens get protection of the constitution but not all and not based on age but where they live. Criminals can now feel safe robbing in Beverly Hills instead of Compton because there is no longer guns in those affluent areas.

[Pontius Pirate]

We aren't doomed. Good grief. I also did not say we are a violent nation. We aren't. We just believe in liberty and acknowledge the fact the we have a right to protect ourselves. Further if you are really so concerned about deaths in this country. You might want to start some place else.

Oh that's right. All those other countries DON'T believe in liberty and the right to protect yourself. That must explain it.

"If you don't like it, then you can git out!" - another NRA classic.

[Pontius Pirate]

LOL! So you can only get a gun for high crime areas or been a victim? So, no protection until you have been killed or wounded. Let us also add the fact that you have just allowed peole in high crime areas only. So profiling is probably not ok to you but crime stat areas is a ok.

What has been wrong for the 14 day waiting period. Your 21 day turns to 28 and so on. BTW, you can go in and buy an antique gun right now. Let me know when you are going to can those and put on the waiting period.

You aren't very smart. You just cut out a huge portion of America for the 2nd amendment. So some citizens get protection of the constitution but not all and not based on age but where they live. Criminals can now feel safe robbing in Beverly Hills instead of Compton because there is no longer guns in those affluent areas.

Actually I'm down with Australia's view of "personal protection does not qualify for gun ownership."

But I'm willing to compromise with all the Red Dawn fanatics on here who think they need some loopholes to allow gun ownership for personal protection. If you have a better wording for personal protection, let 'er rip Wyatt Earp.

[broncocalijohn]

I think more people get struck by lightning then rich get attacked.

then i think we should ban lightning strikes, especially at NASCAR races. That should solve the problems.

[broncocalijohn]

Actually I'm down with Australia's view of "personal protection does not qualify for gun ownership."

But I'm willing to compromise with all the Red Dawn fanatics on here who think they need some loopholes to allow gun ownership for personal protection. If you have a better wording for personal protection, let 'er rip Wyatt Earp.

So you are the type that thinks bringing a knife to a gun fight is a fair advantage. Or better yet you might repsond, "THere is always 911!". Because cops can be everywhere at everytime. You don't hear the protection guns have done for people either because the defense hasn't been called in to authorities or it doesn't get mass exposure. Shootings are more exciting than a citizen stopping a crime or death in progress for the quick 30 second blurp on your local tv station.

BTW, just from your post, you want to ban all guns and then start over. That is how your "loophole" can be put in. News flash, owning a gun isnt a loophole in the 2nd amendment. Also, go extreme by calling personal protection a "Red Dawn" experience. I think someone trying to break in on your home is a tad different than the Cubans and Russians attacking America.

[Pontius Pirate]

They do not.

California isn't necessarily a role-model, but then again they are hardly the worst when it comes to gun violence as a percent of total pop. Look at this state and tell me if any states that are "most pro guns" jump out to you as also being the problem states with gun violence. I'm looking at you dirty south.

Also, CA gun violence is not on the rise and actually has dropped in recent years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Hint: CA is #30 when it comes to gun violence as a percent of total pop

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

[Meck77]

Next time I go hunting I'll see if I can get the Elk to just lay on the grill for me. Rubber bullets for home protection....lmfao

[peacepipe]

and a very bad, and in fact an extremely crappy idea too.

and it's not a "clip" you moron, it's a magazine.

clip/magazine whatever. ther is no legit reason to have a "magazine" holding more than 10 rds.

[Beantown Bronco]

I'm no fan of guns. I can't see myself ever owning one. Having said that, I'd like to ask Pontius and the others that side with him this one question:

What good would taking away guns from those who own them legally do, when 99% of all murders in this country (that are committed with guns) are committed by those who got them illegally?

[broncocalijohn]

California isn't necessarily a role-model, but then again they are hardly the worst when it comes to gun violence as a percent of total pop. Look at this state and tell me if any states that are "most pro guns" jump out to you as also being the problem states with gun violence. I'm looking at you dirty south.

Also, CA gun violence is not on the rise and actually has dropped in recent years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Hint: CA is #30 when it comes to gun violence as a percent of total pop

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

You realize that the "3 strikes, you are out" law has been keeping these lifelong criminals in prison for California? Anyone remember the riots in LA just 20 years? See those Koreans and those rich people protect their businesses and neighborhoods by setting up shop with firearms? Good to know that in Pontius' world, only law abiding military, police and the few crime ridden area citizens can get guns. Regular Joe Shmoes get rubber bullets. No criminal will be able to get a firearm. Is this Utopia of yours in America?

[Meck77]

I'm no fan of guns.

I can certainly respect that position but I don't think guys like pontius think about the need for them. Just one example.

Do you like Steak? Lamb chops? How about pork chops? Goats milk?Ranchers who raise livestock need their guns to protect against fox, coyotes, etc. If it's not the direct predators it's prarie dogs which ruin pasture, make dangerous holes that can injury livestock.

Why do I need more than a 10 round clip? Try clearing out an infested field of prarie dogs with a single shot rifle. The other option is poison the **** out of them but that puts the greater food chain at risk/birds of prey.

The only answer I can think of is for people to take care of their kids and be more vigilant. In many cases the shooters friends and family say things like "I'm not surprised" this happened.

I bet right now many people on this forum might know someone who is capable of snapping. Hell I've come to the realization that some of them might be posters on this very forum.

[broncocalijohn]

^ Ive seen you at a tailgate two hand touch game. Ive seen your threads on the Transportation idiots in Colorado. YOu could have been next!

[Tombstone RJ]

clip/magazine whatever. ther is no legit reason to have a "magazine" holding more than 10 rds.

What about shooting competitions where a larger magazine allows you to reload less times? How about the fact that a larger magazine provides better protection from the bad guys in that I'm not fumbling around trying to reload (if it ever gets to that)? How about I'm just a lousy shot and need more ammo to hit my target? How about larger magazines actually cost less money for the consumer because they don't have to buy multiple magazines? How about I just want a pistol with a high capacity magazine?

[Meck77]

^ Ive seen you at a tailgate two hand touch game. Ive seen your threads on the Transportation idiots in Colorado. YOu could have been next!

Yeah the government threatened to label me a home grown terrorist because I didn't want to give them my property for 1/2 of what I paid. They weren't happy that citizens were standing up to their plan to steal hundreds of parcels of land from people.

I should of just given it to the crooks eh? Instead I went through legal channels, protected property rights in Colorado for other people, and the CRIMINAL who was organizing the entire scam resigned saving the tax payers of Colorado millions. I'm proud of that fight.

As far as the yellow coat. Yeah I could have handled that differently. Sue me.

John if you get your letter of eminent domain here is some advice. Fight your tail off. Or you can put your tail between your legs and have your life ruined financially. It happened to many people who believed they would be treated fairly.

[houghtam]

Me and my masters in criminology couldn't disagree more strongly with this. I assume you're basing it off of your personal feelings on the matter (which is largely created from enhanced media coverage) and not hard data.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

And to those blaming all mass murders on gun ownership, chew on this:

Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_ before_automatic_weapons_.html

It's also important to note that, statistically, there's no proof that society is any more violent or criminal than it has ever been. Wherever you get lots of people, you get crime. The same was true for ancient Rome, the same is true for anywhere, any time in history.

Now, I'm all for stricter gun laws and all, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to evaluate why these things happen, not react after the fact while tensions are still at a boil.

I'm much less concerned with gun control than I am with hate groups and supremacists like the shooter allegedly was. Freedom of speech is a right, but where do you draw the line between "Group X should be rounded up and shot" and "I'm going to round up Group X and shoot them"? I fully support someone's right to say, for example, that they believe Muslims and Islam in general are evil, regardless of how ridiculous a statement it is. When you get to the point where you're saying they should be killed, well...that's very close to a threat.

You can't scream FIRE in a theater...and I highly doubt you could get away with loudly proclaiming "YOU KNOW, IT WOULD REALLY BE A SHAME IF SOMEONE LIT A FIRE IN THIS CROWDED THEATER", just as you wouldn't get away with saying the same thing about a bomb on a plane. Saying a group should be rounded up and put into camps isn't freedom of speech, it's hate speech, and should be punishable, IMO.

[Tombstone RJ]

In defense of gun ownership, because I own guns and plan to continue to own guns:

Do you realize how many guns there are in the USA? Think about this just for a minute please. There are literally millions of pistols (semi-auto and revolvers), rifles (hunting and semi-auto) and shotguns (semi-auto and double, single barrells) out there.

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS.

Please, just line numbers up and you will see that the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are indeed, good people. And when you compare the number of people who actually have guns and don't misuse or abuse them then the numbers are literally quite staggering.

So again, don't punish me for the idiots in this world. Please, just stop.

hmmm...

[cutthemdown]

What about shooting competitions where a larger magazine allows you to reload less times? How about the fact that a larger magazine provides better protection from the bad guys in that I'm not fumbling around trying to reload (if it ever gets to that)? How about I'm just a lousy shot and need more ammo to hit my target? How about larger magazines actually cost less money for the consumer because they don't have to buy multiple magazines? How about I just want a pistol with a high capacity magazine?

Peacepipe such an idiot. He acts like he knows the legit reason for everything. Tons of uses for high capacity magazines. I can go along with fully automatic being against the law, as a compromise, but that is as far as I can go.

[peacepipe]

What about shooting competitions where a larger magazine allows you to reload less times? How about the fact that a larger magazine provides better protection from the bad guys in that I'm not fumbling around trying to reload (if it ever gets to that)? How about I'm just a lousy shot and need more ammo to hit my target? How about larger magazines actually cost less money for the consumer because they don't have to buy multiple magazines? How about I just want a pistol with a high capacity magazine?how about if you want to own 50 lbs of C4? how about if I want to own 2 or 3 nukes? Just cause you want it doen't mean it should be legal.

If I lived in syria,africa or somolia,you would have a justifiable case to make in saying larger magazines provide better protection. if hitting a target is a problem than more stringent rules like taking a class in shooting a firearm may be needed. you have to take a test for a drivers license,why not a gun.

[BroncoBeavis]

We need to get rid of the guns so we can move onto our next target.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,129943,00.html

Sharp objects.

[Tombstone RJ]

how about if you want to own 50 lbs of C4? how about if I want to own 2 or 3 nukes? Just cause you want it doen't mean it should be legal.

If I lived in syria,africa or somolia,you would have a justifiable case to make in saying larger magazines provide better protection. if hitting a target is a problem than more stringent rules like taking a class in shooting a firearm may be needed. you have to take a test for a drivers license,why not a gun.

No. Lousy argument and the argument of a person who in reality, has no legitmate position. This is commonly known as a deflection from the real discussion.

[cutthemdown]

It's also important to note that, statistically, there's no proof that society is any more violent or criminal than it has ever been. Wherever you get lots of people, you get crime. The same was true for ancient Rome, the same is true for anywhere, any time in history.

Now, I'm all for stricter gun laws and all, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to evaluate why these things happen, not react after the fact while tensions are still at a boil.

I'm much less concerned with gun control than I am with hate groups and supremacists like the shooter allegedly was. Freedom of speech is a right, but where do you draw the line between "Group X should be rounded up and shot" and "I'm going to round up Group X and shoot them"? I fully support someone's right to say, for example, that they believe Muslims and Islam in general are evil, regardless of how ridiculous a statement it is. When you get to the point where you're saying they should be killed, well...that's very close to a threat.

You can't scream FIRE in a theater...and I highly doubt you could get away with loudly proclaiming "YOU KNOW, IT WOULD REALLY BE A SHAME IF SOMEONE LIT A FIRE IN THIS CROWDED THEATER", just as you wouldn't get away with saying the same thing about a bomb on a plane. Saying a group should be rounded up and put into camps isn't freedom of speech, it's hate speech, and should be punishable, IMO.

Yes but Rome did pass a law in 13bc where swords could be no longer then 3 feet in the city. Also no crossbows or catapults were allowed to be owned by slaves. :) I am just kidding before someone takes me serious.

[Beantown Bronco]

you have to take a test for a drivers license,why not a gun.

Again, what difference will it make?

The goal should be thinking of ways to get the guns out of the hands of the 99% who murder people with ILLEGALLY obtained guns and who would clearly ignore the licensing requirement anyway......not penalizing the 1% who own them legally and will never commit a crime with them. Do you disagree?

[Beantown Bronco]

Yes but Rome did pass a law in 13bc where swords could be no longer then 3 feet in the city. Also no crossbows or catapults were allowed to be owned by slaves. :) I am just kidding before someone takes me serious.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c5OPu9gmzNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[houghtam]

how about if you want to own 50 lbs of C4? how about if I want to own 2 or 3 nukes? Just cause you want it doen't mean it should be legal.

If I lived in syria,africa or somolia,you would have a justifiable case to make in saying larger magazines provide better protection. if hitting a target is a problem than more stringent rules like taking a class in shooting a firearm may be needed. you have to take a test for a drivers license,why not a gun.

I'll be the first to say that if someone is a terrible shot, I do NOT want them to have MORE ammunition.

...but WAIT. Why is it the same people who said that a person with a CC permit could have improved the situation in a crowded, poorly lit theater full of tear gas, screaming people running for their lives, and a person shooting at them...are the SAME ones saying they need more than a 10 round clip? If you're pumping more than 10 rounds in that situation, you probably just killed a bunch of innocent people yourself.

So, which is it? Are CC permit holders good enough to take out people in adverse conditions they haven't trained for? Or do they need more than 10 rounds to do it?

[peacepipe]

No. Lousy argument and the argument of a person who in reality, has no legitmate position. This is commonly known as a deflection from the real discussion.

that's a weak response. you make claims that can't be backed up,but yet I'm deflecting with no legitimate response.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Would it really be that bad of a thing to have a mandatory 21 day waiting period to get a gun? Can someone tell me why that's bad?

How about a mandatory class to learn how to properly use, store, and fire a weapon? Where's the bad part of that?

We require driving tests because someone who doesn't know how to drive and is driving a vehicle is a danger to himself and others... but we don't do the same for an item that is made specifically for killing things?

[cutthemdown]

how about if you want to own 50 lbs of C4? how about if I want to own 2 or 3 nukes? Just cause you want it doen't mean it should be legal.

If I lived in syria,africa or somolia,you would have a justifiable case to make in saying larger magazines provide better protection. if hitting a target is a problem than more stringent rules like taking a class in shooting a firearm may be needed. you have to take a test for a drivers license,why not a gun.

Is there a federal test for a DL? Nope. Why do you want feds to do everything? States already regulating guns. Also 50 lbs of c4? nothing in our constitution about explosives for private citizens. Sort of a ridiculous argument to compare 50 pounds of high end explosives to a 30 shot semi autoor full auto hunting/assault rifle. Many states do make you take a test, Calif for one. You have to demonstrate you understand the weapon. Let me guess you don't own weapons and are mostly talking out you man pussy again.

[peacepipe]

actually I own a .22 henry rifle, a high pointe .45 acp carbine. & i have a a springfield .45 1911 on layaway.

you can own a gun,but the constitution doesn't say that it can't be regulated.

[cutthemdown]

Would it really be that bad of a thing to have a mandatory 21 day waiting period to get a gun? Can someone tell me why that's bad?

How about a mandatory class to learn how to properly use, store, and fire a weapon? Where's the bad part of that?

We require driving tests because someone who doesn't know how to drive and is driving a vehicle is a danger to himself and others... but we don't do the same for an item that is made specifically for killing things?

Why make people wait 21 days? What if my rifle is old, someone asks me to go hunting, and we leave in 15 days and I want a new rifle? Why? because its added regulation for nothing. It wouldn't stop anyone from doing a crazy act. It would only cause more hoops for people when they buy a gun.

What proof is there guns are killing people because the owners don't know how to operate them. Give me a few instances. You know stories like Kentucky man buys rifle to learn how to shoot, points it wrong way and kills himself. LOL!. Or Calif man doesn't realize gun shoots bullets, kills wife.

Its just more fed regulations were the states can already make you take a competency course.

How about this you let us all carry weapons, we will all take a test proving we know how to use them and wait 21 days to buy them. Deal?

[cutthemdown]

actually I own a .22 henry rifle, a high pointe .45 acp carbine. & i have a a springfield .45 1911 on layaway.

you can own a gun,but the constitution doesn't say that it can't be regulated.

I agree but let the states do it. If you want a fed ban on fully auto weapons I will support it. But trying to pretend there is no use for a 30 shot magazine is junk. It sucks here in Calif with our 10 rounds only. But I agree states should be able to regulate, just not go against Constitution, which is left up to Supreme Court. They have ruled Calif can regulate like that and that is the end of it.

[cutthemdown]

So I guess my point is there is no way a longer wait period, a law saying only this many rounds in a clip, is going to make you safer. It just gums up commerce and people trying to buy guns. It won't make you safer.

[Pontius Pirate]

I can certainly respect that position but I don't think guys like pontius think about the need for them. Just one example.

Do you like Steak? Lamb chops? How about pork chops? Goats milk?Ranchers who raise livestock need their guns to protect against fox, coyotes, etc. If it's not the direct predators it's prarie dogs which ruin pasture, make dangerous holes that can injury livestock.

Why do I need more than a 10 round clip? Try clearing out an infested field of prarie dogs with a single shot rifle. The other option is poison the **** out of them but that puts the greater food chain at risk/birds of prey.

The only answer I can think of is for people to take care of their kids and be more vigilant. In many cases the shooters friends and family say things like "I'm not surprised" this happened.

I bet right now many people on this forum might know someone who is capable of snapping. Hell I've come to the realization that some of them might be posters on this very forum.

In my points above, you'd probably qualify as a hunter i.e. have a hunting license and have a legitimate need for a rifle of some sort.

[Tombstone RJ]

that's a weak response. you make claims that can't be backed up,but yet I'm deflecting with no legitimate response.

Nobody is arguing for owning nukes or C4, those are not constitutionally protected items. Your argument is invalid.

[cutthemdown]

Yeah comparing it to nukes is pretty funny because Peace always acts like his arguments are so reasonable and everyone else crazy.

[cutthemdown]

You want a 30 shot magazine! ARRRRG whats next Nukes and explosives!

[Tombstone RJ]

actually I own a .22 henry rifle, a high pointe .45 acp carbine. & i have a a springfield .45 1911 on layaway.

you can own a gun,but the constitution doesn't say that it can't be regulated.

they are already taxed and regulated. People will always find a way to skirt or abuse the system, that unfortunately is one of the issues a "free" society has to deal with.

Sometimes bad people do bad things.

[Pontius Pirate]

BTW - some interesting (and recent) polling stats on what Americans feel about gun control:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Also, a pretty good article on the dogmatism on both sides of the gun control debate (guilty as charged)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/07/30/which-side-of-human-biology-favors-gun-control/

[broncocalijohn]

Again, what difference will it make?

The goal should be thinking of ways to get the guns out of the hands of the 99% who murder people with ILLEGALLY obtained guns and who would clearly ignore the licensing requirement anyway......not penalizing the 1% who own them legally and will never commit a crime with them. Do you disagree?

I have no problem having safety course before owning a gun. A responsible owner should know how to handle, clean, dislodge, use safety when handling (just like taking a hunting course), situational setups and of course target shooting. It is good for as many guns as you need.

Safety is the most important and there should be a mandatory class on it and not sure why there has not been a law on this (at least in liberal California).

[baja]

I'm good with that.

Also, for people who want guns for personal protection - I have a couple of compromises worth considering:

1) for gun permits issued solely for personal protection, only rubber bullets may be purchased for that firearm
2) If you are ever convicted of a violent crime after receiving that permit, your gun permit and firearm are taken away for some long period of time, perhaps including anger management classes, psychological evals, etc.
3) Mandatory annual re-certification process for the permit just like a drivers license.

Were you allowed to watch Ghostbusters as a toddler?

[broncocalijohn]

Yeah the government threatened to label me a home grown terrorist because I didn't want to give them my property for 1/2 of what I paid. They weren't happy that citizens were standing up to their plan to steal hundreds of parcels of land from people.

I should of just given it to the crooks eh? Instead I went through legal channels, protected property rights in Colorado for other people, and the CRIMINAL who was organizing the entire scam resigned saving the tax payers of Colorado millions. I'm proud of that fight.

As far as the yellow coat. Yeah I could have handled that differently. Sue me.

John if you get your letter of eminent domain here is some advice. Fight your tail off. Or you can put your tail between your legs and have your life ruined financially. It happened to many people who believed they would be treated fairly.

You took my post way too seriously. Exactly why I posted it.

[Pontius Pirate]

Were you allowed to watch Ghostbusters as a toddler?

Have you ever seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Why make people wait 21 days? What if my rifle is old, someone asks me to go hunting, and we leave in 15 days and I want a new rifle? Why? because its added regulation for nothing. It wouldn't stop anyone from doing a crazy act. It would only cause more hoops for people when they buy a gun.

What proof is there guns are killing people because the owners don't know how to operate them. Give me a few instances. You know stories like Kentucky man buys rifle to learn how to shoot, points it wrong way and kills himself. LOL!. Or Calif man doesn't realize gun shoots bullets, kills wife.

Its just more fed regulations were the states can already make you take a competency course.

How about this you let us all carry weapons, we will all take a test proving we know how to use them and wait 21 days to buy them. Deal?

My god you're obtuse. I've known that for a while, but you're just... wow. Incredible.

A 21 day waiting period might help if a guy goes to buy a gun because he's pissed off at his neighbor or coworker.

A test would just be, I don't know, an intelligent ****ing thing to do. You're buying a deadly weapon. There should be a requirement that you learn how to properly operate the ****ing deadly weapon. Jesus, again, you're so goddamn stupid it really is remarkable.

Is any ONE law going to fix every problem? Of course not. But until we're actually doing SOMEthing to try and avoid this sort of thing, we can't throw our hands up and claim there's nothing to be done.

As for your anecdote about "wanting a new rifle" for hunting in 15 days, well...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2C2W_O9BX4g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Either buy it ahead of time, or you'll have to "suffer" by using your old rifle for one more hunting trip. I hope you'll survive with such horrid government regulation. :roll:

[Bacillus Anthracis]

How do librals fix things? Do they blame the perps for their actions? Hell NO! They blame you and me for the perps actions!!

So, punish everyone for the acts of the few!!

Yippy!!

Liberals? How about thinking people who have a developed sense of where their personal and social philosophy lie.

Is human life valuable above all things or is there a greater overall good that comes from the loss of life due to private ownership of guns in the U.S.? It's not an illegitimate question and one that should be examined.

The quick and dirty is that about 30,000 people die yearly due to murders, accidents, and suicides due to guns. Another 70,000 are hospitalized in some form or another.

Now, the gun industry through direct and indirect employment (trucking, mining, shops, etc.) contributes about $29 billion a year to the economy.

So the most logical question is this: Does that offset the cost to the taxpayers in terms of damage? If it did, then there could be a set of arguments from economic circumstance that might justify the continuance of firearms sales as is. Unfortunately, the cost to U.S. taxpayers is around $100 billion a year; a net loss of around $70 billion.

So what we have is a significant loss of life that's a $70 billion dollar a year drag on the economy. There is no greater good served in any capacity. There is nothing else like this phenomenon in the country. It is morally and economically unviable. If any other company made a product that caused half the damage that guns do, they would cease to exist in very short order and the owners would likely face jail time.

The argument that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the barrel is bereft of insight because the barrel is being spoiled. My question to you is this: why should the taxpayers and insurance companies have to continue to fund the damage done by such a product? Why are companies like Colt, Browning, and Remington not held responsible for the "misuse" of their products when any other company making any other product would be? There isn't a single compelling argument for gun laws to remain the way they are.

As I said earlier, you can't just take people's guns away. There are too many. But banning further sales of handguns and assault rifles, the ammunition required to use them, and the spare parts needed to maintain them would over time bring down the body count and the costs associated with it.

[Bacillus Anthracis]

You realize that the "3 strikes, you are out" law has been keeping these lifelong criminals in prison for California? Anyone remember the riots in LA just 20 years? See those Koreans and those rich people protect their businesses and neighborhoods by setting up shop with firearms?

The L.A. riots were in what, 1991? That's about 21 years ago or so. About 10,000 people are murdered every year with a gun, so... 210,000 deaths (!) and a total overall cost of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 trillion dollars is acceptable in order to thwart incidents that are incredibly rare?

ETA: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/kouri/2004/kouri112904.htm

As to the issue of illegal guns being used in most crimes, it's true and it isn't. For example, a gun not purchased at a store but acquired through friends/family is illegal and that makes up close to 40% of what's considered an illegal gun acquisition. However, the vast majority are initially purchased legally and then sold or given to someone else illegally later on.

The above source isn't picture perfect definitive but it seems objective enough for this discussion.

[Beantown Bronco]

I have no problem having safety course before owning a gun. A responsible owner should know how to handle, clean, dislodge, use safety when handling (just like taking a hunting course), situational setups and of course target shooting. It is good for as many guns as you need.

Safety is the most important and there should be a mandatory class on it and not sure why there has not been a law on this (at least in liberal California).

I agree with you completely. Some states that I know do have such programs. All states should.

I'm just trying (for the 3rd time now) to get Pontius to acknowledge that not one single idea of his will do ANYTHING to address the real issue: murders committed by illegal gun owners. He keeps dodging or ignoring it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I agree with you completely. Some states that I know do have such programs. All states should.

I'm just trying (for the 3rd time now) to get Pontius to acknowledge that not one single idea of his will do ANYTHING to address the real issue: murders committed by illegal gun owners. He keeps dodging or ignoring it.

That's all well and good, and I agree with you. It's a problem. There's no doubt about it.

Both of the mass slayings in the last two weeks were made by men who purchased guns legally, so it's just not really what we're talking about right now.

You're 10000000000% right about "all states should have" those programs. How do you get all states to have those programs? By making it a federal regulation.

Once that's in place, we can start targeting the illegal guns in this country.

[BroncoBeavis]

That's all well and good, and I agree with you. It's a problem. There's no doubt about it.

Both of the mass slayings in the last two weeks were made by men who purchased guns legally, so it's just not really what we're talking about right now.

You're 10000000000% right about "all states should have" those programs. How do you get all states to have those programs? By making it a federal regulation.

Once that's in place, we can start targeting the illegal guns in this country.

Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than guns. Almost all of them were driving vehicles that were purchased legally.

Clearly there needs to be a month-long waiting period on purchasing a vehicle.

[Pontius Pirate]

So you are the type that thinks bringing a knife to a gun fight is a fair advantage. Or better yet you might repsond, "THere is always 911!". Because cops can be everywhere at everytime. You don't hear the protection guns have done for people either because the defense hasn't been called in to authorities or it doesn't get mass exposure. Shootings are more exciting than a citizen stopping a crime or death in progress for the quick 30 second blurp on your local tv station.

BTW, just from your post, you want to ban all guns and then start over. That is how your "loophole" can be put in. News flash, owning a gun isnt a loophole in the 2nd amendment. Also, go extreme by calling personal protection a "Red Dawn" experience. I think someone trying to break in on your home is a tad different than the Cubans and Russians attacking America.

#1 - I said I'd be fine with rubber bullets for anyone who thinks they need a gun. I know you guys are all heros, stopping crimes all the time with your Glocks and whatever.....just do it with rubber bullets. No one appointed you as the executioner & hander out of justice.

#2 - Nope. I've said "limit guns for legitimate uses" and I think "personal protection" is somewhat flimsy, but I'd be okay with rubber bullets for a personal protection permit. On the 2nd amendment - yes, I would erase it and write a new version that reflects our current realities.

[Pontius Pirate]

Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than guns. Almost all of them were driving vehicles that were purchased legally.

Clearly there needs to be a month-long waiting period on purchasing a vehicle.

Gun deaths now outpace motor vehicle deaths in 10 states. Nationwide, "motor vehicle deaths have declined over the last decade while gun related deaths" have gone up.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/30/nra-researcher-makes-dubious-comparison-to-down/186723

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than guns. Almost all of them were driving vehicles that were purchased legally.

Clearly there needs to be a month-long waiting period on purchasing a vehicle.

Just ****ing STOP. That line of reasoning is so patently absurd, there's zero surprise that you're the one bringing it to the table.

A car's purpose is to drive humans from point A to point B. It is not to have the human get drunk and drive and kill someone.

A gun's purpose is to use deadly force to kill things. Whether you're buying it to shoot clay pidgeons or target shoot or anything else, the fact is the reason the gun was invented was to end life. Period.

Yes, there should be a ****ing waiting period. What difference does it make to you?

I'm a hunter, and I have no problem with a waiting period.

[houghtam]

I agree with you completely. Some states that I know do have such programs. All states should.

I'm just trying (for the 3rd time now) to get Pontius to acknowledge that not one single idea of his will do ANYTHING to address the real issue: murders committed by illegal gun owners. He keeps dodging or ignoring it.

I agree with this, and with TEKO.

Do you then support a federal law requiring states to conduct firearm safety training at their own (or the gun owner's) expense with the purchase of each new type of firearm?

Or is this just another one of those "states should have the right to govern themselves, even when they refuse to do something that the majority of people want them to, solely in the name of states rights" things?

[Bacchus]

Next time I go hunting I'll see if I can get the Elk to just lay on the grill for me. Rubber bullets for home protection....lmfao

When you go hunting do you take an assault rifle with a hundred bullet clip?

[Fedaykin]

and a very bad, and in fact an extremely crappy idea too.

and it's not a "clip" you moron, it's a magazine.

Pedantry is an auto-concession of pretty much any argument.

[Beantown Bronco]

I agree with this, and with TEKO.

Do you then support a federal law requiring states to conduct firearm safety training at their own (or the gun owner's) expense with the purchase of each new type of firearm?

Or is this just another one of those "states should have the right to govern themselves, even when they refuse to do something that the majority of people want them to, solely in the name of states rights" things?

I'd support the fed getting involved if the states wouldn't do something on their own.

[Bacchus]

Gun deaths now outpace motor vehicle deaths in 10 states. Nationwide, "motor vehicle deaths have declined over the last decade while gun related deaths" have gone up.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/30/nra-researcher-makes-dubious-comparison-to-down/186723

Wow, that is pretty telling there. You know at this point I do not even care. I live in a small town and hope I can just stay out of the line of fire from all the nutjobs. We'll just keep having all these massacres and people will still fear they will lose their right to own an assault rifle with extended clips because it is so imortant to them.

[Fedaykin]

What proof is there guns are killing people because the owners don't know how to operate them. Give me a few instances. You know stories like Kentucky man buys rifle to learn how to shoot, points it wrong way and kills himself. LOL!. Or Calif man doesn't realize gun shoots bullets, kills wife.


Are you *really* going to argue that firearm accidents due to inadequate firearm training don't exist?

Hilarious!

[Pontius Pirate]

I agree with you completely. Some states that I know do have such programs. All states should.

I'm just trying (for the 3rd time now) to get Pontius to acknowledge that not one single idea of his will do ANYTHING to address the real issue: murders committed by illegal gun owners. He keeps dodging or ignoring it.

Dude, I get it: when people want a gun, they can get it illegally. But our lax gun control measures don't help.

And how do you suppose that guns "become" illegal anyways? Many times they are sold under the table at gun shows or private transactions where no govt. oversight is in place. I.e. the original gun owner maybe went through all the right channels and obtained it legally - but then was able to turn it over in a private transaction, unregulated. I would make that a felony, but would allow a "safe harbor" if someone brings an unregistered gun into the police, wanting to own it legally under the right circumstances (hunting or personal protection).

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I'd support the fed getting involved if the states wouldn't do something on their own.

They're obviously not getting involved, or they would have gotten involved already.

What would you propose? "If you haven't passed a statewide ballot measure by 20**, the Federal Gov't will pass it for you"? Seems like a lot of wasted time, and who knows how many more murders before it went into effect.

Just pass the federal law. Waiting period. Mandatory classes.

It won't fix everything, but it's a start.

Still don't understand why anyone needs an assault rifle. Best reason I've heard so far: "because I want one." Which is the common American mistake of confusing "want" with "need."

[baja]

Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than guns. Almost all of them were driving vehicles that were purchased legally.

Clearly there needs to be a month-long waiting period on purchasing a vehicle.

Everyone that is born dies therefore the cause of all death is sex. Outlaw sex and no one dies.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

LOL U GYZ IF WE OUTLAW CIGARETTES FOR MINORS ONLY MINORS WILL HAVE CIGARETTES LOL

[houghtam]

They're obviously not getting involved, or they would have gotten involved already.

What would you propose? "If you haven't passed a statewide ballot measure by 20**, the Federal Gov't will pass it for you"? Seems like a lot of wasted time, and who knows how many more murders before it went into effect.

Just pass the federal law. Waiting period. Mandatory classes.

It won't fix everything, but it's a start.

Still don't understand why anyone needs an assault rifle. Best reason I've heard so far: "because I want one." Which is the common American mistake of confusing "want" with "need."

One way to do it would be to say that if your state's gun related death rate is above the national average over the past X years since they've been keeping track, you must immediately implement these measures or lose federal funding for a variety of programs, including wildlife and environmental programs, which will basically force the state into compliance. The hunters, who should be all for gun safety courses to begin with, wouldn't want to lose federal funding which could adversely affect their ability to hunt in their own state, so they will either get behind the law or eventually have to go elsewhere to hunt.

Then, as gun-related deaths do go down, you reevaluate by dropping the baseline 5% every 5 years. Eventually, you hit a point where either all states have mandatory safety courses, and gun-related deaths have gone down as a result.

[Beantown Bronco]

They're obviously not getting involved, or they would have gotten involved already.

What would you propose? "If you haven't passed a statewide ballot measure by 20**, the Federal Gov't will pass it for you"? Seems like a lot of wasted time, and who knows how many more murders before it went into effect.


Ummmm, we're talking about firearm safety training. What do murders have to do with that? Training doesn't prevent murders. It prevents accidents.

[Dukes]

BTW, the Milwaukee shooter is reported to have "legally" owned his gun. He was also known by SPLC as being a white-supremacist and the front man of a hate group. He was kicked out of the army for misconduct, had been convicted of a DUI before, and was demoted in the Army for being drunk on duty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-wade-michael-page-2012-8

If he was dishonorable discharged he couldn't "legally" own a firearm. So ya.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Ummmm, we're talking about firearm safety training. What do murders have to do with that? Training doesn't prevent murders. It prevents accidents.

Either way a person is dead. Sorry if I don't see the difference.

Also, I wasn't trying to flame you. Just making the point that the states already have the right to implement said laws, and they haven't, so what the hell are we waiting for?

Also, safety programs are used to show the responsibility as a gun owner; that it's more than just fun and games, and that there are real consequences of firing a weapon. Might make people think twice. Might not, but it might.

It wouldn't make things worse. So what's the problem?

[BroncoBeavis]

Just ****ing STOP. That line of reasoning is so patently absurd, there's zero surprise that you're the one bringing it to the table.

A car's purpose is to drive humans from point A to point B. It is not to have the human get drunk and drive and kill someone.

A gun's purpose is to use deadly force to kill things. Whether you're buying it to shoot clay pidgeons or target shoot or anything else, the fact is the reason the gun was invented was to end life. Period.

Only a PETArd should have difficulty separating hunting as a completely separate utility from murder.

Yes, there should be a ****ing waiting period. What difference does it make to you?

I'm a hunter, and I have no problem with a waiting period.

The problem is a waiting period would do no good in these types of scenarios. Holmes spent months stockpiling for his rampage. Likely a similar story for the Wisconsin guy. He was tied to some white supremacists, and probably already had access to firearms all along.

"Well, I'd like to plan a rampage, but geez, 21 days? Not worth the headache. Guess I'll just go bowling instead"

[bronco militia]

If he was dishonorable discharged he couldn't "legally" own a firearm. So ya.

ahh damn...so much for gun laws

[broncocalijohn]

Gun deaths now outpace motor vehicle deaths in 10 states. Nationwide, "motor vehicle deaths have declined over the last decade while gun related deaths" have gone up.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/30/nra-researcher-makes-dubious-comparison-to-down/186723

You do realize we have 50 states, correct. Even if you were to use Obama's 52 states claim, those 10 states are the minority.

WHoever claimed that Colt, Browning, Etc. should be sued like other product manufacturers, when was the last time a functioning Ford be held liable (FORD) for running over 10 people at a Farmer's Market because the driver wanted to do so? Should Ford be sued because they wanted to build a 1 ton pickup instead of being environmentally conscience and built just the Ford Fiesta? Why not? Because a human, with his actions, caused the accident.

The only difference is normally people don't buy vehicles to mane someone. A gun can be purchased for that purpose (doing so illegally like murder).

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

You do realize we have 50 states, correct. Even if you were to use Obama's 52 states claim, those 10 states are the minority.

WHoever claimed that Colt, Browning, Etc. should be sued like other product manufacturers, when was the last time a functioning Ford be held liable (FORD) for running over 10 people at a Farmer's Market because the driver wanted to do so? Should Ford be sued because they wanted to build a 1 ton pickup instead of being environmentally conscience and built just the Ford Fiesta? Why not? Because a human, with his actions, caused the accident.

The only difference is normally people don't buy vehicles to mane someone. A gun can be purchased for that purpose (doing so illegally like murder).

"Normally" they don't buy cars to run over people? Really? You think so, chief? Strong take. LOL

Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. That is their purpose. Arguing that a vehicle is the same is wantonly obtuse. Considering the source, that ain't surprising.

[Garcia Bronco]

"Normally" they don't buy cars to run over people? Really? You think so, chief? Strong take. LOL

Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. That is their purpose. Arguing that a vehicle is the same is wantonly obtuse. Considering the source, that ain't surprising.

In terms of deaths, this is the part he's comparing. Not the design of mechanics or design.

[houghtam]

"Normally" they don't buy cars to run over people? Really? You think so, chief? Strong take. LOL

Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. That is their purpose. Arguing that a vehicle is the same is wantonly obtuse. Considering the source, that ain't surprising.

I honestly do not understand this logic. We're comparing a method of transportation...to an implement of death.

If I use a car properly, I get where I need to get without dying. If I use a gun properly...something (or someone) dies.

Are you guys seriously that ****ing obtuse and disingenuous to make that comparison? It's not just childish, it's offensive.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

In terms of deaths, this is the part he's comparing. Not the design of mechanics or design.

Yeah, I get that. But you can't have one without the other.

Intent and purpose of being are two things that need to be considered, and why the "HERPA DERP PEEPL KILL WID CARS 2!!!" argument is absurd.

[Beantown Bronco]

Either way a person is dead. Sorry if I don't see the difference.

Also, I wasn't trying to flame you. Just making the point that the states already have the right to implement said laws, and they haven't, so what the hell are we waiting for?

Also, safety programs are used to show the responsibility as a gun owner; that it's more than just fun and games, and that there are real consequences of firing a weapon. Might make people think twice. Might not, but it might.

It wouldn't make things worse. So what's the problem?

No problem. I obviously agree regarding the need for the safety programs. I just want to clearly separate the two discussions: one regarding the need for a uniform safety program, and the other regarding ways to actually prevent gun related deaths....which are almost exclusively the result of gangs/criminals/etc. that involve illegal gun ownership. There are over 30,000 deaths by gunfire each year and just 500 of those on average are the result of preventable accidents. Safety programs are just one (very) small step here.

[Pontius Pirate]

You do realize we have 50 states, correct. Even if you were to use Obama's 52 states claim, those 10 states are the minority.

WHoever claimed that Colt, Browning, Etc. should be sued like other product manufacturers, when was the last time a functioning Ford be held liable (FORD) for running over 10 people at a Farmer's Market because the driver wanted to do so? Should Ford be sued because they wanted to build a 1 ton pickup instead of being environmentally conscience and built just the Ford Fiesta? Why not? Because a human, with his actions, caused the accident.

The only difference is normally people don't buy vehicles to mane someone. A gun can be purchased for that purpose (doing so illegally like murder).

Ha - okay bud. If that's the way your brain works. "Gun violence now outpacing vehicular violence in 10 states.......As long as it's still not the majority! Let's go shoot things!"

[snowspot66]

Australia is doing pretty good on the whole stop people from dying due to rampaging psychos with guns thing. Maybe take a look at them?

[BroncoBeavis]

"Normally" they don't buy cars to run over people? Really? You think so, chief? Strong take. LOL

Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. That is their purpose. Arguing that a vehicle is the same is wantonly obtuse. Considering the source, that ain't surprising.

No offense, guy, but you remind me of those MADD types who want to lower the BAC limits to .000001%

You ask them "Is there any evidence that would do any good?" And they shriek and yell "People Died! We have to DO SOMETHING!"

And so every time something bad happens, they want to lower limits, even though the driver was already twice the legal limit.

Unless you have some evidence that some murder impulse fell on these guys one day and they rushed out to make it happen right away... the wait period thing is nothing but useless feelgoodism. The only people it hurts are the law abiding.

[Pontius Pirate]

Australia is doing pretty good on the whole stop people from dying due to rampaging psychos with guns thing. Maybe take a look at them?

Pointed that out above and got the classic "if you don't like it here you can git out" and "liberty & right to protect yourself" rebuttals.

[BroncoBeavis]

Ha - okay bud. If that's the way your brain works. "Gun violence now outpacing vehicular violence in 10 states.......As long as it's still not the majority! Let's go shoot things!"

If you look at the study, it has far more to do with declines in vehicle fatalities (proportionate to population) than anything that has changed with firearms.

Roads and vehicles keep getting safer.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, I get that. But you can't have one without the other.

Intent and purpose of being are two things that need to be considered, and why the "HERPA DERP PEEPL KILL WID CARS 2!!!" argument is absurd.

Would you prefer prescription drugs?

[houghtam]

No offense, guy, but you remind me of those MADD types who want to lower the BAC limits to .000001%

You ask them "Is there any evidence that would do any good?" And they shriek and yell "People Died! We have to DO SOMETHING!"

And so every time something bad happens, they want to lower limits, even though the driver was already twice the legal limit.

Unless you have some evidence that some murder impulse fell on these guys one day and they rushed out to make it happen right away... the wait period thing is nothing but useless feelgoodism. The only people it inconveniences are the law abiding.

Fixed your post.

I have to wait longer for a library card than I do a gun where I live.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

No offense, guy, but you remind me of those MADD types who want to lower the BAC limits to .000001%

You ask them "Is there any evidence that would do any good?" And they shriek and yell "People Died! We have to DO SOMETHING!"

And so every time something bad happens, they want to lower limits, even though the driver was already twice the legal limit.

Unless you have some evidence that some murder impulse fell on these guys one day and they rushed out to make it happen right away... the wait period thing is nothing but useless feelgoodism. The only people it hurts are the law abiding.

I'm nothing like those people. Not remotely. The argument is ridiculous.

We've had two mass murders in two weeks. BOTH instances, the guns were obtained legally. Your response: "Well we can't DO anything." Brilliant.

You say "the only people it hurts are the law abiding." How does it "hurt" or damage them in any way to wait to get a firearm?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Would you prefer prescription drugs?

Were prescription drugs made with the intent of killing people? No? Then it's just as ridiculous an argument.

[Garcia Bronco]

Were prescription drugs made with the intent of killing people? No? Then it's just as ridiculous an argument.

Well...that would depend on who you ask. Same with guns. How about alcohol.....or smokes? there are guns designed to kill people and there are guns designed do other things. But if we're talking about net deaths in the US....guns kill a very small fraction compared to many other things.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Well...that would depend on who you ask. Same with guns. How about alcohol.....or smokes? there are guns designed to kill people and there are guns designed do other things. But if we're talking about net deaths in the US....guns kill a very small fraction compared to many other things.

Oh, well in that case...

smh

[houghtam]

Well...that would depend on who you ask. Same with guns. How about alcohol.....or smokes? there are guns designed to kill people and there are guns designed do other things. But if we're talking about net deaths in the US....guns kill a very small fraction compared to many other things.

Are you talking about nail guns?

LOL WTF ???

[BroncoBeavis]

I'm nothing like those people. Not remotely. The argument is ridiculous.

We've had two mass murders in two weeks. BOTH instances, the guns were obtained legally. Your response: "Well we can't DO anything." Brilliant.

Well, at some point, you can't DO anything. Because bad things happen every day with or without the approval of the federal government.

Just as a .05 blood alcohol limit doesn't stop the guy who killed someone at .2, a 21 day waiting period won't stop a guy (like Holmes) who plotted violence for months.

And in this new Wisconsin case, you have a white supremacist who apparently spent years talking about race wars and the like. What exactly is having him wait a few weeks going to accomplish? He's the kind of guy who was probably well armed years before he decided to go off.

Again, you're proposing a new standard in response to violence that would've done nothing to stop that violence. Just like those MADDsters that want to lock up everyone who uses scope in the morning for driving a car.

[Pontius Pirate]

No offense, guy, but you remind me of those MADD types who want to lower the BAC limits to .000001%

You ask them "Is there any evidence that would do any good?" And they shriek and yell "People Died! We have to DO SOMETHING!"

And so every time something bad happens, they want to lower limits, even though the driver was already twice the legal limit.

Unless you have some evidence that some murder impulse fell on these guys one day and they rushed out to make it happen right away... the wait period thing is nothing but useless feelgoodism. The only people it hurts are the law abiding.

I don't think anyone is saying the waiting period is the SOLE way to stop gun violence. It's one of many measures that should be considered. If there is evidence that it actually does more harm then good, then I have no qualms with repealing it. There have been studies on waiting periods and they are inconclusive as to whether they prevent gun crime

http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/gun-safety/evidence-brief/waiting-period-laws-gun-permits

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Well, at some point, you can't DO anything. Because bad things happen every day with or without the approval of the federal government.

Just as a .05 blood alcohol limit doesn't stop the guy who killed someone at .2, a 21 day waiting period won't stop a guy (like Holmes) who plotted violence for months.

And in this new Wisconsin case, you have a white supremacist who apparently spent years talking about race wars and the like. What exactly is having him wait a few weeks going to accomplish? He's the kind of guy who was probably well armed years before he decided to go off.

Again, you're proposing a new standard in response to violence that would've done nothing to stop that violence. Just like those MADDsters that want to lock up everyone who uses scope in the morning for driving a car.

Still waiting on a reason that a 21 day wait affects anyone adversely. What the hell difference would it make to someone buying a gun?

[BroncoBeavis]

Still waiting on a reason that a 21 day wait affects anyone adversely. What the hell difference would it make to someone buying a gun?

Someone just gave you an example. And it's more about where you draw the line than anything. 21 days? Why? The gold standard used to be 5. And once 21 days fails (because it doesn't make any sense) what then? 60 days? 90? A year?

Once you concede to arbitrary limits, there will be no end to the excuses for even more arbitrary limits.

[Bronco Yoda]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5k4xUnyp_nw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

150 round drum. Do I need one? No.... Do I want one? Hell yes!!!

[Bronco Yoda]

This would be handy for the impending zombie apocalypse. 1000 rounds!!!! I knew there was a good reason I got a sunroof with my Durango :)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7h0s_62jXuk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Garcia Bronco]

Are you talking about nail guns?

LOL WTF ???

Hunting rifles are really designed for hunting game for example. They aren't designed for supressive fire in urban warfare.

[Garcia Bronco]

Still waiting on a reason that a 21 day wait affects anyone adversely. What the hell difference would it make to someone buying a gun?

I think there are a number of examples. Bottom line is you might feel your life is in danger and need protection immediately.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I think there are a number of examples. Bottom line is you might feel your life is in danger and need protection immediately.

THAT'S what we're looking for. Some dip**** doesn't know how to hire trained guards and would rather protect himself using a gun he's not qualified to use.

Hooray!

[BroncoBeavis]

THAT'S what we're looking for. Some dip**** doesn't know how to hire trained guards and would rather protect himself using a gun he's not qualified to use.

Hooray!

Nice alternative.

Feel like you need protection? Well you're going to have to wait a month. Or hire a bodyguard. Your choice. LOL

[Garcia Bronco]

THAT'S what we're looking for. Some dip**** doesn't know how to hire trained guards and would rather protect himself using a gun he's not qualified to use.

Hooray!

Oy veh. So a woman that a victim of dometic abuse wants to protect herself she needs to hire the A-Team? wtf....

They do say if you can find them that maybe you can hire them

[Pontius Pirate]

Nice alternative.

Feel like you need protection? Well you're going to have to wait a month. Or hire a bodyguard. Your choice. LOL

Or, I dunno, call the cops? Here's a few other options:

Stun-gun
Mace
Tazer

I wonder if they sell bean-bag guns or pepperball guns that only fire non-lethal ammo. If so, theres some more options.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Oy veh. So a woman that a victim of dometic abuse wants to protect herself she needs to hire the A-Team? wtf....

They do say if you can find them that maybe you can hire them

I forgot. They closed all the safe houses. Going to a friend's house is out of the question. Calling the police is out of the question.

You're right. Guns ARE the answer. Hilarious!

[Bronco Yoda]

Friends house.... now that's a good idea.... Hopefully THEY have a gun :)

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Friends house.... now that's a good idea.... Hopefully THEY have a gun :)

I'd hope she'd be smart enough not to tell the man where she's going. But you can't fix stupid.

What you CAN do is give the stupid assault rifles.

Mission Accomplished, right guys?

[Meck77]

When you go hunting do you take an assault rifle with a hundred bullet clip?


No. 300 winchester short mag. 3 in the clip and 1 ready in the chamber. Usually just takes one shot. To be honest though the odds of even getting a good shot are slim when you hunt in the dark timber which we do.

When I'm clearing land of prarie dogs we are lobbing lead like it's going out of style. Large clips are ideal.

Dove hunting. It's fast pace. Holding multiple rounds is key. Yes I concede assault rifles are not necessary to hunting.

[BroncoBeavis]

Or, I dunno, call the cops? Here's a few other options:

Yeah sure. Just request a police escort. I'm sure they'll hook you up, NQA. LOL

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Yeah sure. Just request a police escort. I'm sure they'll hook you up, NQA. LOL

Who said anything about a police escort? If a victim of domestic abuse calls the cops, do you know what they do? THEY ARREST THE OFFENDER.

But you're right. That wouldn't help. :rolleyes:

[swaiy]

I wonder how long these mass "shootings" go on until they're labeled as acts of terrorism.

[Pontius Pirate]

I wonder how long these mass "shootings" go on until they're labeled as acts of terrorism.

The Sikh shooting is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Makes sense seeing as how the guy was part of a hate group.

[BroncoBeavis]

Who said anything about a police escort? If a victim of domestic abuse calls the cops, do you know what they do? THEY ARREST THE OFFENDER.

But you're right. That wouldn't help. :rolleyes:

Yeah, they just lock 'em up. Indefinitely. Just based on your word. That's how it works.

[Pontius Pirate]

Nice alternative.

Feel like you need protection? Well you're going to have to wait a month. Or hire a bodyguard. Your choice. LOL

I bet you'd like Florida's gun laws. George Zimmerman sure does! Fact: his gun permit has not been revoked nor can it be by police. He can immediately go out and get a gun and take it with him legally to 35 other states.

[Tombstone RJ]

Liberals? How about thinking people who have a developed sense of where their personal and social philosophy lie.

Is human life valuable above all things or is there a greater overall good that comes from the loss of life due to private ownership of guns in the U.S.? It's not an illegitimate question and one that should be examined.

The quick and dirty is that about 30,000 people die yearly due to murders, accidents, and suicides due to guns. Another 70,000 are hospitalized in some form or another.

Now, the gun industry through direct and indirect employment (trucking, mining, shops, etc.) contributes about $29 billion a year to the economy.

So the most logical question is this: Does that offset the cost to the taxpayers in terms of damage? If it did, then there could be a set of arguments from economic circumstance that might justify the continuance of firearms sales as is. Unfortunately, the cost to U.S. taxpayers is around $100 billion a year; a net loss of around $70 billion.

So what we have is a significant loss of life that's a $70 billion dollar a year drag on the economy. There is no greater good served in any capacity. There is nothing else like this phenomenon in the country. It is morally and economically unviable. 1. If any other company made a product that caused half the damage that guns do, they would cease to exist in very short order and the owners would likely face jail time.

The argument that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the barrel is bereft of insight because the barrel is being spoiled. My question to you is this: 2. why should the taxpayers and insurance companies have to continue to fund the damage done by such a product? Why are companies like Colt, Browning, and Remington not held responsible for the "misuse" of their products when any other company making any other product would be? There isn't a single compelling argument for gun laws to remain the way they are.

3. As I said earlier, you can't just take people's guns away. There are too many. But banning further sales of handguns and assault rifles, the ammunition required to use them, and the spare parts needed to maintain them would over time bring down the body count and the costs associated with it.

1.: How about the death of people from cars and transporation in general? Can it not be argued that cars are "dangerous" and can be used as weapons in the hands of a few bad people? Cars certainly aid criminals when they try to flee right?

2.: What about people who eat unhealthy food, how much do they cost the insurance industry? You gonna now tax and overburden the fast food industry for the "deaths" of people who choose to eat fast food instead of organically grown veggies? Hey, do you want to also blame the roads that criminals drive on too? After all, perps have all these damn roads which make it easier for them to get to whatever crime they commit, damnit, something needs to be done about that!!

3. Can you prove this? What evidence do you have?

I really don't get our modern society. People like you want to minimalize an individual's responsibility for perpetrating crimes and instead punish everyone else for their crimes!

Yet will you protect the unborn? Will you step up and speak about the rights of unborn children, 50+ million who have been aborted since RvW, hell no! Nope, that's not a big deal, that's nothing to be concerned about.

Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hey, look at how all the gun restrictions are working for CA! The same state that doesn't even count how many abortions are performed in the state each year.

CA, the state of stupidity.

[Garcia Bronco]

I forgot. They closed all the safe houses. Going to a friend's house is out of the question. Calling the police is out of the question.

You're right. Guns ARE the answer. Hilarious!

You are assuming a number of things. I can think of a 1000 reasons for owning a gun, but the reasons I carry a .45 is for those things I can't think of. Give peace a chance dude, but I got you covered incase it doesn't work out.

[Garcia Bronco]

Or, I dunno, call the cops? Here's a few other options:

Stun-gun
Mace
Tazer

I wonder if they sell bean-bag guns or pepperball guns that only fire non-lethal ammo. If so, theres some more options.

Yeah...if one were to break into my house and I catch them, I assume one thing and they won't be coming back...ever.

[swaiy]

...current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

There are 33 states that have not taken any action to close this loophole. Guns aren't going anywhere.

[Pontius Pirate]

1.: How about the death of people from cars and transporation in general? Can it not be argued that cars are "dangerous" and can be used as weapons in the hands of a few bad people? Cars certainly aid criminals when they try to flee right?

2.: What about people who eat unhealthy food, how much do they cost the insurance industry? You gonna now tax and overburden the fast food industry for the "deaths" of people who choose to eat fast food instead of organically grown veggies? Hey, do you want to also blame the roads that criminals drive on too? After all, perps have all these damn roads which make it easier for them to get to whatever crime they commit, damnit, something needs to be done about that!!

2. You mean like electricity which can be very dangerous, or how about all those cars that people die in, or all the fatty foods that people eat?

3. Can you prove this? What evidence do you have?

I really don't get our modern society. People like you want to minimalize an individual's responsibility for perpetrating crimes and instead punish everyone else for their crimes!

Yet will you protect the unborn? Will you step up and speak about the rights of unborn children, 50+ million who have been aborted since RvW, hell no! Nope, that's not a big deal, that's nothing to be concerned about.

Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hey, look at how all the gun restrictions are working for CA! The same state that doesn't even count how many abortions are performed in the state each year.

CA, the state of stupidity.

See folks, this is how you argue. You take a very nuanced & complicated matter like gun control and very slyly insert an even more complicated issue. AKA "poisoning the well" or "kettle logic" or "red herring"

Welp (wipes hands), debate is over folks. Guns win out because ABORTION.

[BroncoBeavis]

I bet you'd like Florida's gun laws. George Zimmerman sure does! Fact: his gun permit has not been revoked nor can it be by police. He can immediately go out and get a gun and take it with him legally to 35 other states.

You mean they can't just revoke his second amendment rights without him being convicted of anything? What kind of tyrannical ****hole is this? :kiddingme

[Pontius Pirate]

You mean they can't just revoke his second amendment rights without him being convicted of anything? What kind of tyrannical ****hole is this? :kiddingme

They can in New York State. But, you know, they are a bunch of commie fascists up there.

[Tombstone RJ]

See folks, this is how you argue. You take a very nuanced & complicated matter like gun control and very slyly insert an even more complicated issue. AKA "poisoning the well" or "kettle logic" or "red herring"

Welp (wipes hands), debate is over folks. Guns win out because ABORTION.

Just drawing a comparison here. Don't you find 50+ million abortions just a tad disturbing. Especially when you compare it to the number of deaths by guns?

Nothing more than food for thought.

[swaiy]

Just drawing a comparison here. Don't you find 50+ million abortions just a tad disturbing. Especially when you compare it to the number of deaths by guns?

Nothing more than food for thought.

How does abortion and death by guns correlate to each other?

[houghtam]

How does abortion and death by guns correlate to each other?

He's just making a comparison, sheesh.

LOL

[Blueflame]

Um... well... once the topic shifts to a hot-button issue like "abortion", it's time for this thread to be in WRP.

[Pontius Pirate]

Guys, I know we're talking about gun control and all.....BUT WHAT ABOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

AND CLIMATE CHANGE!

[swaiy]

He's just making a comparison, sheesh.

LOL

No ****. How can you compare the two? More importantly, what in the hell does abortion have to do with guns?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

No ****. How can you compare the two? More importantly, what in the hell does abortion have to do with guns?

I'll take this one, Jim.

Nothing. It has nothing to do with guns. Less than nothing, in fact.

[houghtam]

I'll take this one, Jim.

Nothing. It has nothing to do with guns. Less than nothing, in fact.

Well, considering automobile deaths have nothing to do with guns, and abortion has less to do with guns than cars...I would say yes, your maths are correct. Less than nothing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551916_512538165438366_1515250255_n.jpg

[mhgaffney]

A mass murder in the US -- every five days?

This is according to Jeff Rense. I cannot confirm this is accurate -- but even if it's not exactly true, why are so many of these incidents happening at this time?

Check out this dialogue with Rense and Gerald Celente.

Rense & Celente - Making Mass Murderers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXZUrjFRLz0&feature=youtu.be

[BroncoBeavis]

They can in New York State. But, you know, they are a bunch of commie fascists up there.

Good Point. Nanny Bloomberg highlights exactly this dangerous type of thinking and how it creeps to all facets of life. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good Point. Nanny Bloomberg highlights exactly this dangerous type of thinking and how it creeps to all facets of life. :)

I can just hear you saying this with the same drawl as those rednecks in the Pace Salsa commercial...."get a rope!" :D

[Bacillus Anthracis]

1.: How about the death of people from cars and transporation in general? Can it not be argued that cars are "dangerous" and can be used as weapons in the hands of a few bad people? Cars certainly aid criminals when they try to flee right?

Cars are necessary form of transportation. Especially in the U.S. More importantly, cars are not used to murder people with except on the freakish occasion. The utilitarian functions of cars to people and the economy are too numerous to mention.

2.: What about people who eat unhealthy food, how much do they cost the insurance industry? You gonna now tax and overburden the fast food industry for the "deaths" of people who choose to eat fast food instead of organically grown veggies? Hey, do you want to also blame the roads that criminals drive on too? After all, perps have all these damn roads which make it easier for them to get to whatever crime they commit, damnit, something needs to be done about that!!

When was the last time a cheeseburger murdered 15 people in a movie theatre? What you're trying to do is compare consumer issues with the massive amount of violence and money that guns inflict on others.

3. Can you prove this? What evidence do you have?

There are lots of things you can look up that are readily available. It would be good for you to do your own research on the topic. I did post a link to one source but there are many others out there. My stats on economics are factual but something of a chore to go back to. However, I don't imagine that the work I did on them a year ago are much different than they are today.

I really don't get our modern society. People like you want to minimalize an individual's responsibility for perpetrating crimes and instead punish everyone else for their crimes!

I wish it were so simple, but it's not. What happened in Colorado and what's now happened in Wisconsin and what happens about 30 times a day in the country can't be undone. Those people are dead and are never coming back. And so of course, we punish the criminal. I don't think anyone's advocated not doing so. But what does that do in the future? It certainly doesn't prevent it from happening again and again.

Controls on almost any product you can think of exist because they need to be there. It protects the public safety. And what product in the world is a worse threat to public safety than one who's only purpose is to kill something and does so to the tune of 10's of thousands of people every year at an enormous cost?

Yet will you protect the unborn? Will you step up and speak about the rights of unborn children, 50+ million who have been aborted since RvW, hell no! Nope, that's not a big deal, that's nothing to be concerned about.

This is outside the scope of the conversation. I won't address it unlesss you or someone else starts a thread covering the issue.

Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hey, look at how all the gun restrictions are working for CA! The same state that doesn't even count how many abortions are performed in the state each year.

CA, the state of stupidity.

California, the 7th largest economy on the planet. But I will agree with you about the stupid gun control laws, but for different reasons. They don't work because they don't go far enough. It's like putting 5 stitches in a wound that needs 100 stitches. Of course it's not going to work.

Now, I've been courteous enough to answer your questions directly. I expect you to do the same. Answering a question with another question is evasive and dishonest. You need to provide good reasons why you think gun laws should remain the way they are. What is the overall benefit to the nation given all the costs, injuries, and loss of life?

ETA: Your question about what you numbered as 3: It's an idea not an empirically researched and absolutely guaranteed solution. But it seems to be the only viable alternative to demanding that every gun owner turn in their weapons and ammo at the nearest collection facility.

One more thing worth mentioning. It seems that the gun laws are unsustainable and if the industry (NRA included) doesn't do something to police itself somehow, then it will eventually go the way of the brontosaurus. Every ten years 100,000 are murdered with guns; 700,000 are injured; and another 200,000 die of accidents or suicides. The cost: over a trillion dollars to the tax payer.

Are those numbers acceptable to you? If so, you need to justify why.

[Pontius Pirate]

Good Point. Nanny Bloomberg highlights exactly this dangerous type of thinking and how it creeps to all facets of life. :)

Note the stark contrast in gun deaths (per 100,000 civilians) between Florida and NY.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

Interestingly, the NRA is probably most popular in the 30 worst states in terms of gun deaths. Actually that's not interesting at all. It's sadly obvious.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Note the stark contrast in gun deaths (per 100,000 civilians) between Florida and NY.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

Interestingly, the NRA is probably most popular in the 30 worst states in terms of gun deaths. Actually that's not interesting at all. It's sadly obvious.

If it means repeating Columbine and Aurora ad infinitum, then that's a price these rednecks are willing to pay to defend an ideology.

[Tombstone RJ]

No ****. How can you compare the two? More importantly, what in the hell does abortion have to do with guns?

ok, just for you, I'll explain the comparison. You see, guns (which are constitionally legal) kill way less people in the USA than abortion does. Abortion, is not constitutionally legal, and only became legal since RvW. Yet it has managed to kill 50+million babies.

I'm making a very easy comparison. You see, others on this thread have pointed out the number of deaths related to fire arms. I have also completely dismantled this argument by pointing out that the guns per capita are far larger than the deaths per capita caused by guns. But whatever, you'll just ignore that little fact.

I've also pointed out that things like cars and unhealthy diets are also directly related to health insurance costs and the overall cost on our society which deals with the ramifications of owning cars and unhealthy diets. But never-you-mind that fact, 'tis unimportant to the liberal progressive agenda.

Hey, if you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy of liberal states like CA, that's fine with me. If you want to deny that the more stringent gun laws in CA have had absolutely NO effect on crime, that is fine with me.

I just thought it was interesting to point out the fact that a liberal state like CA that has more stringent gun laws, also does not count the number of abortions it allows in the state. I just find that odd. These more stringent gun laws have had no measurable effect on crimes nor deaths.

So, will more stringent gun laws stop some person with an agenda from killing people? I seriously doubt it. Someone who wants to harm a large number of people will find a way to do it. You take away guns and this person will use something else like home made explosives.

Anyhow, JMHO, carry on.

[Tombstone RJ]

If it means repeating Columbine and Aurora ad infinitum, then that's a price these rednecks are willing to pay to defend an ideology.

Columbine can be blamed on uninvolved parents. If the parents of Klebold and Harris had any involvement in their lives, Columbine would have never happened.

I was there, I lived in Denver during that time so please spare me your opinion because unless you were there, daily, reading all the stories and watching all the local news agencies you really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Pontius Pirate]

ok, just for you, I'll explain the comparison. You see, guns (which are constitionally legal) kill way less people in the USA than abortion does. Abortion, is not constitutionally legal, and only became legal since RvW. Yet it has managed to kill 50+million babies.

I'm making a very easy comparison. You see, others on this thread have pointed out the number of deaths related to fire arms. I have also completely dismantled this argument by pointing out that the guns per capita are far larger than the deaths per capita caused by guns. But whatever, you'll just ignore that little fact.

I've also pointed out that things like cars and unhealthy diets are also directly related to health insurance costs and the overall cost on our society which deals with the ramifications of owning cars and unhealthy diets. But never-you-mind that fact, 'tis unimportant to the liberal progressive agenda.

Hey, if you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy of liberal states like CA, that's fine with me. If you want to deny that the more stringent gun laws in CA have had absolutely NO effect on crime, that is fine with me.

I just thought it was interesting to point out the fact that a liberal state like CA that has more stringent gun laws, also does not count the number of abortions it allows in the state. I just find that odd. These more stringent gun laws have had no measurable effect on crimes nor deaths.

So, will more stringent gun laws stop some person with an agenda from killing people? I seriously doubt it. Someone who wants to harm a large number of people will find a way to do it. You take away guns and this person will use something else like home made explosives.

Anyhow, JMHO, carry on.

See guys, it's that simple:

Abortion + Cars + Twinkies = Gun Control is Dumb

[Tombstone RJ]

See guys, it's that simple:

Abortion + Cars + Twinkies = Gun Control is Dumb

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Columbine can be blamed on uninvolved parents. If the parents of Klebold and Harris had any involvement in their lives, Columbine would have never happened.

A lot of kids have "uninvolved parents."

In fact, the Reagan Revolution spawned a whole generation of latch key kids when mom had to join the workforce so the family could make ends meet.

However, not all of those children of uninvolved parents become mass murderers who exploit lax gun control laws.

I was there, I lived in Denver during that time so please spare me your opinion because unless you were there, daily, reading all the stories and watching all the local news agencies you really have no idea what you are talking about.

That argument is just ridiculous on its face.

[Pontius Pirate]

ok, just for you, I'll explain the comparison. You see, guns (which are constitionally legal) kill way less people in the USA than abortion does. Abortion, is not constitutionally legal, and only became legal since RvW. Yet it has managed to kill 50+million babies.

I'm making a very easy comparison. You see, others on this thread have pointed out the number of deaths related to fire arms. I have also completely dismantled this argument by pointing out that the guns per capita are far larger than the deaths per capita caused by guns. But whatever, you'll just ignore that little fact.

I've also pointed out that things like cars and unhealthy diets are also directly related to health insurance costs and the overall cost on our society which deals with the ramifications of owning cars and unhealthy diets. But never-you-mind that fact, 'tis unimportant to the liberal progressive agenda.

Hey, if you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy of liberal states like CA, that's fine with me. If you want to deny that the more stringent gun laws in CA have had absolutely NO effect on crime, that is fine with me.

I just thought it was interesting to point out the fact that a liberal state like CA that has more stringent gun laws, also does not count the number of abortions it allows in the state. I just find that odd. These more stringent gun laws have had no measurable effect on crimes nor deaths.

So, will more stringent gun laws stop some person with an agenda from killing people? I seriously doubt it. Someone who wants to harm a large number of people will find a way to do it. You take away guns and this person will use something else like home made explosives.

Anyhow, JMHO, carry on.

I guess I'll post it again because I know it's hard to pay attention when you're so lost in the logical fallacy that you're unable to read other posts:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

See all those "liberal" states at the top of the gun violence list (per 100,000 civilians)? Oh, wow, look at that - California and all the "liberal" states that are pro- gun control are at the BOTTOM of the gun deaths list. Interesting.

Also, gun deaths have been declining in California faster than the nation-wide norm. And here's a little quote to think about:

"Quite frankly, if the U.S. had California's laws we would be a safer place," says Brian Malte, director of legislation for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/26/local/la-me-cap-guns-20120726

[houghtam]

I guess I'll post it again because I know it's hard to pay attention when you're so lost in the logical fallacy that you're unable to read other posts:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

See all those "liberal" states at the top of the gun violence list (per 100,000 civilians)? Oh, wow, look at that - California and all the "liberal" states that are pro- gun control are at the BOTTOM of the gun deaths list. Interesting.

Also, gun deaths have been declining in California faster than the nation-wide norm. And here's a little quote to think about:

"Quite frankly, if the U.S. had California's laws we would be a safer place," says Brian Malte, director of legislation for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/26/local/la-me-cap-guns-20120726

God, you quoted the Brady campaign. Now the gun nuts will have nothing to DO but come out of the woodwork. Nevermind the facts, the SOURCE is the problem.

[Tombstone RJ]

A lot of kids have "uninvolved parents."

In fact, the Reagan Revolution spawned a whole generation of latch key kids when mom had to join the workforce so the family could make ends meet.

However, not all of those children of uninvolved parents become mass murderers who exploit lax gun control laws.

Certainly not all kids who have uninvolved parents end up trying to kill everyone in their high school, but that doesn't change the fact that had Klebolds and Harris' parents been involved in their kid's lifes, things would be different.

It's always better for parents to be involved in their kid's lifes, I think we can agree on that.



That argument is just ridiculous on its face.

Just pointing out the fact that I saw the whole thing and how it was handled and who blamed who for what. It was very, very sad. In the end everyone was blamed for Columbine--the school, the police, the neighborhood where they grew up. People were looking for answers to this tragedy.

In the end, the people most directly responsible (Harris and Klebold) became the sideshow. And the parents of Harris and Klebold were ignored. Had the parents of Harris just walked into his room and looked around they would have seen an arsenal of epic proportions and hate material everywhere. They would have seen his plans to blow up the school, etc. But they were so out of touch, so disengaged with Harris that they never even set foot in his room.

[swaiy]

ok, just for you, I'll explain the comparison. You see, guns (which are constitionally legal) kill way less people in the USA than abortion does. Abortion, is not constitutionally legal, and only became legal since RvW. Yet it has managed to kill 50+million babies.

I'm making a very easy comparison. You see, others on this thread have pointed out the number of deaths related to fire arms. I have also completely dismantled this argument by pointing out that the guns per capita are far larger than the deaths per capita caused by guns. But whatever, you'll just ignore that little fact.

I've also pointed out that things like cars and unhealthy diets are also directly related to health insurance costs and the overall cost on our society which deals with the ramifications of owning cars and unhealthy diets. But never-you-mind that fact, 'tis unimportant to the liberal progressive agenda.

Hey, if you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy of liberal states like CA, that's fine with me. If you want to deny that the more stringent gun laws in CA have had absolutely NO effect on crime, that is fine with me.

I just thought it was interesting to point out the fact that a liberal state like CA that has more stringent gun laws, also does not count the number of abortions it allows in the state. I just find that odd. These more stringent gun laws have had no measurable effect on crimes nor deaths.

So, will more stringent gun laws stop some person with an agenda from killing people? I seriously doubt it. Someone who wants to harm a large number of people will find a way to do it. You take away guns and this person will use something else like home made explosives.

Anyhow, JMHO, carry on.

First and foremost, why is it that every time someone disagrees with you, they're a liberal? Secondly, I never stated what I thought about guns one way or the other. Third, as far as abortion goes, I just don't see how you can diminish the rights of women all because guns "kill less."

How many of those abortions were because it would kill the mother if she carried to term? How many of those abortions were because of rape? Abortion isn't just used by people that failed to use contraception which I'm sure you're aware of.

Anyway, you explained your comparison and while I don't agree, it's your opinion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

God, you quoted the Brady campaign. Now the gun nuts will have nothing to DO but come out of the woodwork. Nevermind the facts, the SOURCE is the problem.

I've always chuckled at the irony that the wingnuts despised Brady and everything he stood for when Brady was wounded while trying to protect their hero from a nut with a gun.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Certainly not all kids who have uninvolved parents end up trying to kill everyone in their high school, but that doesn't change the fact that had Klebolds and Harris' parents been involved in their kid's lifes, things would be different.

It's always better for parents to be involved in their kid's lifes, I think we can agree on that.





Just pointing out the fact that I saw the whole thing and how it was handled and who blamed who for what. It was very, very sad. In the end everyone was blamed for Columbine--the school, the police, the neighborhood where they grew up. People were looking for answers to this tragedy.

In the end, the people most directly responsible (Harris and Klebold) became the sideshow. And the parents of Harris and Klebold were ignored. Had the parents of Harris just walked into his room and looked around they would have seen an arsenal of epic proportions and hate material everywhere. They would have seen his plans to blow up the school, etc. But they were so out of touch, so disengaged with Harris that they never even set foot in his room.

I don't dispute anything you're saying about the parents, but I think it's unwise to use this as an argument to ignore gun control issues.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess I'll post it again because I know it's hard to pay attention when you're so lost in the logical fallacy that you're unable to read other posts:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

See all those "liberal" states at the top of the gun violence list (per 100,000 civilians)? Oh, wow, look at that - California and all the "liberal" states that are pro- gun control are at the BOTTOM of the gun deaths list. Interesting.

Also, gun deaths have been declining in California faster than the nation-wide norm. And here's a little quote to think about:

"Quite frankly, if the U.S. had California's laws we would be a safer place," says Brian Malte, director of legislation for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/26/local/la-me-cap-guns-20120726

Game, set, match. :thumbsup:

[Tombstone RJ]

First and foremost, why is it that every time someone disagrees with you, they're a liberal? Secondly, I never stated what I thought about guns one way or the other. Third, as far as abortion goes, I just don't see how you can diminish the rights of women all because guns "kill less."

How many of those abortions were because it would kill the mother if she carried to term? How many of those abortions were because of rape? Abortion isn't just used by people that failed to use contraception which I'm sure you're aware of.

Anyway, you explained your comparison and while I don't agree, it's your opinion.

You are the one who refused to see the simple comparison I was making, sorry if I offended you with my response, my bad.

As for a woman's choice, I seriously doubt that when RvW decision was made, the judges thought that 50+ million babies aborted would be the end result. I'm just pointing out the numbers.

I don't know how many abortions are done out of a simple lifestyle choice or out of eminent harm to the mother or rape, but I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of abortions done in the USA are because the woman got pregnant and simply chose to have an abortion due to her pregnancy being inconvinient or out of wedlock or whatever.

[Tombstone RJ]

I don't dispute anything you're saying about the parents, but I think it's unwise to use this as an argument to ignore gun control issues.

fair enough, I shouldn't have derailed the thread this way.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Chilling Interview with Oak Creek Shooter Wade Michael Page

Written by Samuel Warde (http://samuel-warde.com/author/samuelblog/) | August 6, 2012
http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wade-Michael-Page-2-150x150.jpg (http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wade-Michael-Page-2.jpg)
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Haanstad has identified Michael Page as the gunman responsible for killing seven people at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek before being killed by the police.

Page joined the U.S. Army in 1992 and was discharged in 1998 according to a defense official who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

According to other sources, Page spent his time in the military in the field of PsyOps (Psychological Operations) and was dishonorably discharged after being reduced in rank.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/alleged-sikh-temple-shooter-former-member-of-skinhead-band) (SPLC), an organization who studies and charts hate crimes and groups, reported Monday that in 2000 they discovered that Page had “attempted to purchase goods from the “neo-Nazi National Alliance (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/shipwreck-ten-years-after-the-death-of-its-founder-the-once-dominant-national-alli), then America’s most important hate group”.

Heidi Beirich, director of the center’s intelligence project, said there was “no question” Page was an ardent follower and believer in the white supremacist movement. She said her center had evidence that he attended “hate events” around the country and “was involved in the scene”.
http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wade-Michael-Page.jpg (http://samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wade-Michael-Page.jpg)
F.O.A.D.: “**** off and die”

The SPLC also reported that Page was a “frustrated neo-Nazi who had been the leader of a racist white-power band” End Apathy (http://www.myspace.com/endapathyband) and a member of Definite Hate, described by them as:

“a band whose album “Violent Victory” featured a gruesome drawing of a disembodied white arm punching a black man in the face. In the drawing, the fist is tattooed with the letters “HFFH,” the acronym for the phrase “Hammerskins Forever, Forever Hammerskins.”
The Hammerskins is a nationwide skinhead organization with regional factions and chapters that once dominated the racist skinhead movement in the United States.”


Full story and interview here:

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/08/chilling-interview-with-oak-creek-shooter-wade-michael-page/

[cutthemdown]

A lot of kids have "uninvolved parents."

In fact, the Reagan Revolution spawned a whole generation of latch key kids when mom had to join the workforce so the family could make ends meet.

However, not all of those children of uninvolved parents become mass murderers who exploit lax gun control laws.



That argument is just ridiculous on its face.


Rather have women barefoot in the kitchen huh LABF? Enlightened indeed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rather have women barefoot in the kitchen huh LABF? Enlightened indeed.

Dumbest spin ever! :oyvey:

[BroncoBeavis]

Game, set, match. :thumbsup:

You're looking at the wrong number.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're looking at the wrong number.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun

Not at all.

Pontius Pirate had it right, as did Brian Malte.

The numbers you cite simply show a percentage of homicides in which guns were used.

Pirate's numbers represent the overall firearm death rate - state by state.

[baja]

Rather have women barefoot in the kitchen huh LABF? Enlightened indeed.

The orchestrated break up of the traditional family has and will continue to have dire consequences to how society functions.

I realize unless you are an old fart like me you probably don't know the difference.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The orchestrated break up of the traditional family has and will continue to have dire consequences to how society functions.

I realize unless you are an old fart like me you probably don't know the difference.

In his disingenuous attempt to put a spin on my comment, cutthemdown ignored the key word, i.e., I said "mom had to join the work force..."

[Pontius Pirate]

You're looking at the wrong number.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun

I guess this chart is telling us that.....some small sliver of murders are caused by things other than guns? Wow. Pretty insightful. Thanks for sharing Columbo.

So, if you're keeping track at home: it's not guns that kill people folks, it's swords.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess this chart is telling us that.....some small sliver of murders are caused by things other than guns? Wow. Pretty insightful. Thanks for sharing Columbo.

So, if you're keeping track at home: it's not guns that kill people folks, it's swords.

L0L! :D

[BroncoBeavis]

I guess this chart is telling us that.....some small sliver of murders are caused by things other than guns? Wow. Pretty insightful. Thanks for sharing Columbo.

So, if you're keeping track at home: it's not guns that kill people folks, it's swords.

Yeah, because when tracking the effectiveness of gun control on murders, the percentage of murders involving guns is totally irrelevant.

BTW, Gun Happy South Dakota's 33% is laughing at your idea that California's gun restrictions save the day.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, because when tracking the effectiveness of gun control on murders, the percentage of murders involving guns is totally irrelevant.

But the numbers you referenced don't reflect any such thing - they merely represent, as a percentage, homicides in which a gun was used.

Not as significant as the numbers showing the overall firearm death rate.

[BroncoBeavis]

But the numbers you referenced don't reflect any such thing - they merely represent, as a percentage, homicides in which a gun was used.

Not as significant as the numbers showing the overall firearm death rate.

Firearm death rates includes accidents, however. So a higher concentration of gun ownership will lead to a higher number of accidental deaths by firearms.

Exposure creates hazard. This is like arguing that Subways are dangerous because cities that have Subways have the most subway accidents.

It's self-fulfilling.

The only rational way to look at how gun control affects violent crime is to look at violent crime.

[cutthemdown]

Yeah LABF because liberals are all about traditional family values. You want gays to marry, baby killing legal, and no one to go to church, but it was Reagan forcing all the women to work that ruined family values.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Firearm death rates includes accidents, however. So a higher concentration of gun ownership will lead to a higher number of accidental deaths by firearms.

Exposure creates hazard. This is like arguing that Subways are dangerous because cities that have Subways have the most subway accidents.

It's self-fulfulling.

The only rational way to look at how gun control affects violent crime is to look at violent crime.

Are you seriously suggesting the percentage of firearm deaths caused by accidents is enough to skew the argument in your favor?

If so, then I have some oceanfront property in Kansas that might interest you.

[Pontius Pirate]

Yeah, because when tracking the effectiveness of gun control on murders, the percentage of murders involving guns is totally irrelevant.

BTW, Gun Happy South Dakota's 33% is laughing at your idea that California's gun restrictions save the day.

This must be the "wookie defense" of gun rights.

"See, over here we got South Dakota. South Dakota both doesn't shoot people and, when they do kill people, they rarely use guns. And South Dakota has no gun control. And so therefore, we must not have gun controls. Pay no attention to all those other statistics please and just focus on South Dakota."

[cutthemdown]

So what is the liberal gun control plan. Let's hear it!

[cutthemdown]

This must be the "wookie defense" of gun rights.

"See, over here we got South Dakota. South Dakota both doesn't shoot people and, when they do kill people, they rarely use guns. And South Dakota has no gun control. And so therefore, we must not have gun controls. Pay no attention to all those other statistics please and just focus on South Dakota."

I really think he is just trying to say that people can find other ways to kill people. Murder been around longer then guns. Oh and its the Chewbacca defense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah LABF because liberals are all about traditional family values. You want gays to marry, baby killing legal, and no one to go to church, but it was Reagan forcing all the women to work that ruined family values.

In your hysteria, you missed one small detail:

I never mentioned family values - that was baja.

At any rate, you believe gay marriage is a threat to family values?

You believe the lack of a belief in God precludes family values?

(Don't even want to dignify your asinine definition of abortion.)

Thanks for reaffirming your status as a bigot. :wave:

[cutthemdown]

What part of our country has the strictest gun laws?

[lonestar]

Rather have women barefoot in the kitchen huh LABF? Enlightened indeed.

that argument should have been aimed at Johnson who started the war on poverty..A Welfare program that has cost us trillions and we are still where we were back then if not worse..

but what the hell he will never let facts get into the way of being right..

if it is not in his daily talking points email he would not know what to say..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So what is the liberal gun control plan. Let's hear it!

You live in CA and you have to ask?

Maybe they forgot to draw you a picture?

In any event, the numbers prove the "liberal gun control plan" works better than the Bubba Belt plan.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that argument should have been aimed at Johnson who started the war on poverty..A Welfare program that has cost us trillions and we are still where we were back then if not worse..


ROFL!

I doubt even your fellow wingnuts would back you up re: Johnson.

Where do you get this fantastic stuff, anyway?

You should write for Disney.

[cutthemdown]

In your hysteria, you missed one small detail:

I never mentioned family values - that was baja.

At any rate, you believe gay marriage is a threat to family values?

You believe the lack of a belief in God precludes family values?

(Don't even want to dignify your asinine definition of abortion.)

Thanks for reaffirming your status as a bigot. :wave:

LOL what do you think unborn babies are? You think they just turn into little humans once they pop out? No LABF they are in there swimming around waiting to be ready to join the world. Then suddenly they get sucked out life over. That is what you support. But you go all crazy when some owner of a restaurant says he doesn't think gays should marry.

Not going to church doesn't preclude family values, but it does help.

[cutthemdown]

You live in CA and you have to ask?

Maybe they forgot to draw you a picture?

In any event, the numbers prove the "liberal gun control plan" works better than the Bubba Belt plan.

So you just want restrictions on size of magazine, no fully auto, waiting period for purchase. I can live with all of that.

But if calif we have tons of gun crime so not sure why you think it works.

[lonestar]

LOL what do you think unborn babies are? You think they just turn into little humans once they pop out? No LABF they are in there swimming around waiting to be ready to join the world. Then suddenly they get sucked out life over. That is what you support. But you go all crazy when some owner of a restaurant says he doesn't think gays should marry.

Not going to church doesn't preclude family values, but it does help.

glad your around to keep this maroon from idlely repeating his point.. some other moron will start to believe it..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL what do you think unborn babies are? You think they just turn into little humans once they pop out?

Must be nice to live in such an easy, unthinking, black-or-white world.

That way, you don't have to distinguish between early vs. late term, or even accept scientific facts re: the question of when life begins.

Nor do you have to evaluate the medical issues or the morality of abortions on a case-by-case basis.


But you go all crazy when some owner of a restaurant says he doesn't think gays should marry.

You're so disingenuous in your straw man arguments it's absolutely shameful.

tsk tsk

The fact that your homophobe buddy doesn't think gays should marry isn't the issue.

The issue is that this handjob financially supports an organization which is committed to removing legal impediments to executing gays simply because they're gay.

Not going to church doesn't preclude family values, but it does help.

:bs:

There is no necessary connection between religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and morality.

[lonestar]

So you just want restrictions on size of magazine, no fully auto, waiting period for purchase. I can live with all of that.

But if calif we have tons of gun crime so not sure why you think it works.

the maroon thinks that the gangs will give up their weapons because they are illegal typical moron speak..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

glad your around to keep this maroon from idlely repeating his point.. some other moron will start to believe it..

Translation: "I wasn't up to the task myself, so I had no choice but to put him on ignore and let the right-wing brain trust take over."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So you just want restrictions on size of magazine, no fully auto, waiting period for purchase. I can live with all of that.

But if calif we have tons of gun crime so not sure why you think it works.

There you go with "tons" again.

You're the poster boy for "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

For the rest of us, there are the actual numbers:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/

[Pontius Pirate]

Firearm death rates includes accidents, however. So a higher concentration of gun ownership will lead to a higher number of accidental deaths by firearms.

Exposure creates hazard. This is like arguing that Subways are dangerous because cities that have Subways have the most subway accidents.

It's self-fulfilling.

The only rational way to look at how gun control affects violent crime is to look at violent crime.

"See folks, over here you got Subways. People sometimes die in or near Subways. But we don't tightly regulate Subways so why would we tightly regulate guns? What's that? Oh, we tightly regulate Subways? Well...ahem....carry on."

[BroncoBeavis]

Are you seriously suggesting the percentage of firearm deaths caused by accidents is enough to skew the argument in your favor?

If so, then I have some oceanfront property in Kansas that might interest you.

I'm absolutely suggesting that. I'd guess in most rural states accidental gun deaths far outnumber gun homicides.

[Pontius Pirate]

I'm absolutely suggesting that. I'd guess in most rural states accidental gun deaths far outnumber gun homicides.

I'd guess you'd be epically wrong then because 3% of all gun deaths are accidental. Here you go:

55% of gun deaths - suicide
40% - homicide
3% - accidental
2% - undetermined.

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/gun-deaths-suicides-statistics.aspx

[Pontius Pirate]

Firearm death rates includes accidents, however. So a higher concentration of gun ownership will lead to a higher number of accidental deaths by firearms.

Exposure creates hazard. This is like arguing that Subways are dangerous because cities that have Subways have the most subway accidents.

It's self-fulfilling.

The only rational way to look at how gun control affects violent crime is to look at violent crime.

BTW, you're right: the prevalence of more guns is directly linked to proportionately more gun deaths. And so it stands to reason that reducing the prevalence of guns (both legal and illegal), through gun control, is one logical step to reducing gun violence.

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/96411.pdf

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd guess you'd be epically wrong then because 3% of all gun deaths are accidental. Here you go:

55% of gun deaths - suicide
40% - homicide
3% - accidental
2% - undetermined.

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/gun-deaths-suicides-statistics.aspx

Ooops! :D

[BroncoBeavis]

I'd guess you'd be epically wrong then because 3% of all gun deaths are accidental. Here you go:

55% of gun deaths - suicide
40% - homicide
3% - accidental
2% - undetermined.

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/gun-deaths-suicides-statistics.aspx

That's your problem with applying national stats to rural states (or comparing rural gun deaths to urban as if they have the same cause)

Montana, for instance has probably 140-170 gun related deaths a year.

Usually less than 20 are homicidal. In 2010 it was 12. Suicide is probably the largest single cause. But that is what it is.

The murder rate in California is usually at least double Montana's per 100k people. And as we've already seen, a bigger proportion of those murders involve firearms. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of California-style gun control.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's your problem with applying national stats to rural states (or comparing rural gun deaths to urban as if they have the same cause)

Where did he do this?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The murder rate in California is usually at least double Montana's per 100k people.

Not a very meaningful stat when you factor in population density, etc.

[ant1999e]

:)

[Pontius Pirate]

That's your problem with applying national stats to rural states (or comparing rural gun deaths to urban as if they have the same cause)

Montana, for instance has probably 140-170 gun related deaths a year.

Usually less than 20 are homicidal. In 2010 it was 12. Suicide is probably the largest single cause. But that is what it is.

The murder rate in California is usually at least double Montana's per 100k people. And as we've already seen, a bigger proportion of those murders involve firearms. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of California-style gun control.

Homicide gun rates in rural counties are still higher than accidental gun deaths at a ratio of .8 per 100,000 to .1 per 100,000

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/25/us-gun-deaths-idUSTRE64O3OY20100525

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun control legislation. Good night.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

[BroncoBeavis]

Not a very meaningful stat when you factor in population density, etc.

Uh, ok. Look at this then...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Montana had 12 firearms related murders. California is about 37x the population of Montana, so multiplying 12 * 37 gives you 444. So for gun related homicides in California to be proportional to those in Montana, there should've been less than 500 gun related murders in California.

But there were 1,257. Gun murders were almost three times as frequent in California per capita And Montana has some of the most open gun ownership laws in the country. And that's no exception. Compare California to pretty much any other rural "gun rights" state and you'll see a similar story.

[BroncoBeavis]

Homicide gun rates in rural counties are still higher than accidental gun deaths at a ratio of .8 per 100,000 to .1 per 100,000

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/25/us-gun-deaths-idUSTRE64O3OY20100525

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun control legislation. Rural areas have proportionately the worst gun deaths as a percent of total population. Good night.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

Again, you keep using the word "deaths" instead of murders. Accidents and suicides should have no bearing on gun control as a crime deterrent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Again, you keep using the word "deaths" instead of murders. Accidents and suicides should have no bearing on gun control as a crime deterrent.

Um, no, that's not at all what he said.

He just provided proof that (a) homicides where guns are the weapon of choice are more frequent than accidental gun deaths in rural counties, and (b) rural areas have more gun deaths as a percentage of the total population.

Accidents and suicides should have no bearing on gun control as a crime deterrent.

Heh!

I see what you did there.

BTW, are you suggesting suicide isn't a crime?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Uh, ok. Look at this then...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Montana had 12 firearms related murders. California is about 37x the population of Montana, so multiplying 12 * 37 gives you 444. So for gun related homicides in California to be proportional to those in Montana, there should've been less than 500 gun related murders in California.

But there were 1,257. Gun murders were almost three times as frequent in California per capita And Montana has some of the most open gun ownership laws in the country. And that's no exception. Compare California to pretty much any other rural "gun rights" state and you'll see a similar story.

Your stats don't tell the whole story insofar as they don't take population distribution into account.

In other words, there are fewer places in Montana where there are enough people living in close enough quarters to make the probability of homicide all that great.

[cutthemdown]

Most of our gun crime occurs in like 20 cities nationwide. All of them have the same problem. But most of our cities are safe and there isn't a gun problem. So to single out a state like LA, because New Orleans has a bunch of crazy hoods shooting each other is unfair IMO. Just like singling out Michigan because Detroit has a ton of violence.

Maybe just do what NY did. If a city has a problem then tightly restrict guns. If you don't like it move.

But the feds should stay out.

[BroncoBeavis]

Your stats don't tell the whole story insofar as they don't take population distribution into account.

In other words, there are fewer places in Montana where there are enough people living in close enough quarters to make the probability of homicide all that great.

That's an interesting argument to say the least. But as far as the point of gun restrictions leading to less gun crime, it flies in the face of your point.

Gun ownership is far more widespread in Montana. Yet the gun murder rate is far less. If criminals in California want guns, they get them. The only people those restrictions inhibit are the people who care about the law in the first place.

[cutthemdown]

NY has reduced gun crimes but they stop a lot of people on the street and pat them down. A lot of black people say they get stopped weekly in NYC and patted down. I'm sure that has led to less people, even common criminals from carrying them. They know its likely they get stopped and patted down.

I just don't think you need to do that to people in Billing Montana lol. Maybe our big crime ridden cities it does need to happen.

[swaiy]

NY has reduced gun crimes but they stop a lot of people on the street and pat them down. A lot of black people say they get stopped weekly in NYC and patted down. I'm sure that has led to less people, even common criminals from carrying them. They know its likely they get stopped and patted down.

I just don't think you need to do that to people in Billing Montana lol. Maybe our big crime ridden cities it does need to happen.

NY is freaking terrible for this.

[Bacillus Anthracis]

Brilliant. Ten+ pages and not a single gun nut has been able to make one legitimate argument. Not a single one.

By now I would have expected some well read* bumpkin to trot out the 2nd amendment and start blowing intent of the founding fathers out of their ass. But apparently their strongest argument is "Look at Californee! It ain't perfect so gun control don't work!!"

It's would be okay if only gun nuts shot each other. Then they could all take the personal responsibility they're so fond of and pay each other's hospital and funeral costs. Unfortunately, death and injury are to them, thing that happen to other people--people who probably deserve it anyway. What's going to happen are that guns in the U.S. are going to to the way of the dinosaur someday because of the mindless, immoral, and fervent efforts by groups like the NRA to resist every single solution that's offered. Unfortunately, it's going to be a decade or two before that happens.

*By "well read", I mean someone who's managed to actually read something in the past few days. I don't actually mean someone who's been formally educated to some degree. That'd be way too much to hope for.