Some facts about guns in the US

[iceaura]

The glib comparisons, without any respect whatsoever for the facts that a gun is designed specifically for killing, - - -

And your continual substitution of personal disparagement for consideration of argument is respectful of what, exactly?

remind of your priority.

Childrens' wellbeing extracted from perverse gridlock, in the example quoted. What's yours?

I'm no religious advisor, nor do I regard wisdom and right thinking in other people as proper goals of legislation. I'm not interested in handing the police powers designed to manage the mystique of weapons, rather than the weapons themselves. The intrinsic purposes or Platonic natures supposedly possessed by inanimate objects do not figure into my recommendations for legislation. In my gun control I don't care what a gun is "designed for", any more than I care what dynamite or cyanide or cell phone location tracking systems or GPS satellite networks were "designed for", in the first place.

So let's cut to the heart of the matter: Since the safety of others must necessarily be a demonstration of magnanimity instead of an appropriate societal obligation unto others, under what circumstances would you actually allow prosecution of a "responsible gun owner" for causing the death of an innocent person?

So the heart of the matter is an invalid presumption of someone else's stance, a strawman argument. The answer is "all of them", naturally, as built into the words "cause" and "innocent" and so forth, and a more accurate term would be something like "advocate" or "require" or "support" rather than "allow" - so?

Note that I have proposed standards for the criminal prosecution of firearms mishandlers and irresponsible possessors that do not require any harm at all to be demonstrated - the "no round in the chamber" rule, for example. The presumption would be, on the part of respectful readers, that my preferred and advocated handling of actual killings would be based on a firm, explicit, and well enforced legal codification of the responsibility of gun owners to prevent their guns from even endangering the innocent. So from the respectful reader's pov, I am advocating here for not only a societal obligation, but beyond that a legal one, to handle firearms in accordance with community standards of safely.

And pretty much everyone seems to agree with me in this. We have consensus, effectively.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I've been incapacitated for a coupled days. I will be back and forth as I can

For everyone out there, I would suggest going to this page: https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir
He talks sense and logic, and has the most intelligent arguments that I have seen yet.
I believe even the anti-gun people should go there.

I will also try to make this the last mega post as I am not Leo Tolstoy... and though this topic is near and dear to me, I will TRY to keep the posts shorter from now on

Might I suggest you stop with emphasizing every second word with upper caps and bold font as that is particularly aggressive and it comes off as if you are talking down to people. In forum terms, it is a tad rude to keep doing it.

I was not aware that this was a large issue. I will endeavor to alter my style of writing.

And that is all well and good, but that does not mean that others are wrong.

If we are discussing Fraggle's posts, to which my comment referred to, then you are absolutely wrong. If I were to use this same tactic on another thread I would be dinged for flaming/baiting as well as trolling. In fact, This point was driven home while dealing with Undefined/RealityCheck... which uses the same tactic as Fraggle in those two posts he made. There was nothing relevant and it was all emotional denigration of any pro-gun person. And as such, is more relevant to a rant thread. It was trolling, and there really wasn't any other way to describe it.

He does not believe he is wrong.

Perhaps he doesn't. But that is not an excuse, especially for a moderator.
Lets look at this from another POV
had this been Undefined/RealityCHeck posting the comment in this thread, it would definitely be called trolling by all parties. even some of his friends.

There was no redeeming value. the entire post was a malicious defamation of any gun user that seemed to be intended to elicit negative emotions and anger.

which, it seems, is a good definition of a troll post. Perhaps he should have been more specific in his target?

You are very in your face as well in how you post. Perhaps you should consider how you are also coming across..

I will take this under advisement. As I am new to the posting threads, I may make mistakes for a while.

You cite a myth.. The statistics clearly indicate that the 80 year old woman is more likely to be shot by her own gun in her own home.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

First off, you claim it is a myth and you posted two studies and two irrelevant links. I will read those links and generate a reply at a later date, when I have had time to research and look into them.

Secondly, my comment was not based upon any myth, but on first hand experience in my family, and in one other instance as a Truck Captain.

In the "boy scout" tradition, I feel it is better to be prepared for any emergency than not. You may perceive things differently.

So you would want to provide someone who is facing such a situation for the first time, who may not be trained or able to even identify what is going on in the moment of panic, a gun? This is how people get shot through doors and windows, and they are usually people who live in the house, visitors knocking on the door, or people just coming home late at night.

so you would rather put words in my mouth that are not said and then try to push the agenda that I am stupid rather than ask for elucidation? It doesn't take a rocket scientists to ask me what I mean or how I perceive that situation.

The situation was this: you said

Secondly, I cannot fault Fraggle for his strong opinions about guns. Mine are pretty much the same. I see no need or reason for people to own guns for reasons like personal safety, etc.

Then you cherry pick out everything but the following quote

Some people disagree with that, thinking that there is no need for firearms for personal protection, but most have also never been in the situation where it is life or death, and the criminal wants them DEAD as well as their stuff. Given the same situation, most people would likely change their minds.

Now I will add in the entire quote... and I will change the caps/bolds to appease your delicate sensibilities

That is your personal belief, and everyone has a set of them. It is good to have diversity in conversation. You, however, are not calling me names.

And I happen to disagree with you. As a matter of discourse, I would state that guns are the great equalizer and allow an 80 year old woman an equal chance to defend herself against a younger criminal.

Some people disagree with that, thinking that there is no need for firearms for personal protection, but most have also never been in the situation where it is life or death, and the criminal wants them dead as well as their stuff. Given the same situation, most people would likely change their minds.

And the ones that say they will not are deluding themselves. until they have been in that situation, there is no way for them to accurately say what they would do or feel. And I learned this lesson the hard way in the military. You can guess what you will do, and talk a mean and well spoken argument... but it is different than being put into a situation and actually experiencing it.

I still stand by my position. As you can see, I am not saying that we should all have large weapons which we fire through random doors out of fear to insure that the criminals are kept at bay... I am saying that most people, thrust into a life or death situation, would likely prefer to have a firearm rather than a philosopher, or even a stick. Especially considering certain circumstances.

Having been in that situation, quite recently actually, the absolute last thing I would have wanted in the house was a gun. Had there been one, I would be dead. And I say this with 100% certainty.

It is good for you that you did not need one to protect your family. If only we could live in a world so nice.

I think people put too much faith in firearms. The result is that people who own them are more likely to die from the firearms they own or they are more likely to shoot a loved one with it.

I disagree. I think that if someone own a firearm and is well versed in its use, shoots it regularly and is accurate in all its functions, I doubt that person would fall into your category of being shot by their own weapon.

YOu are likely going to throw a study out there supporting your position, and I encourage it. I would also suggest there be a study done with soldiers, cops and professional's who use, qualify regularly and are well versed in firearms... that would include instructors and concealed carry holders.

Taking all that into consideration, I am willing to bet hard money that the study would skew the results in my favor.

And when you put a gun in a violent situation, what happens then?

Ok, I will have to make a stand on something here. If you are going to present evidence in your favor, then make it evidence from a peer reviewed study published in a reputable source with a high impact in the subject matter.... your mother jones mag's are anti-gun and for every anti-gun article you find in a fanatical magazine, you can go to the other extreme and find a refute from another fanatical magazine.

I accepted your studies (and I will review them and comment on them at a later date when I can research them better, as I will have more time).

Now, taking that into consideration. Lets talk about reality.Putting a gun into a violent situation does not mean that the gun will be used tokill, maim or even be used. It only means that the gun is present. The people behind the situation are the ones you should be concerned about. A gun is only a tool, and it can only be used as any one uses a tool.

case in point: During hunting season, a large drunk man wielding a machete was wandering aloud on my property swinging it at whatever he wished, including personal items. My wife told him to go away or we were calling the cops. this enraged the man, who then ran yelling and screaming at my wife and grandchildren. I stepped out and he stopped short. I has a .45 revolver strapped down on my side and my hand was on it. I escorted said drunk from the property. Cops were called as soon as he was spotted by my son... it took them 35 minutes to respond. The situation was defused without ever having to draw or fire.

just because you HAVE a weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot and kill someone.

And as for the links supporting your cause... Just FYI, if it is not a peer reviewed study, published in a legitimate and reputable journal with a high impact in the subject matter, I will likely not even open it.

There are a myriad of reasons. Mostly because I see some fallacies on one particular link... your chart here

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

shows that illinois is far down the ladder in gun deaths, and gun ownership... but looking at the DOJ rankings which are linked through WIKI here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

you can see the numbers more clearly: lets take two extreme's from YOUR chart: Arkansas and Illinois

According to your mother jones site, http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png

Illinois is towards the bottom of the gun deaths and has fewer guns than Arkansas....
then we look at the DOJ chart on Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

state populat pop Murd- Gun Gun Murder Gun
density ers Mrdr ownrsp per 100,000 tr per 100,000
Arkansas 2,915,918 56.43 130 93 55.3% 4.5 3.2
Illinois 12,830,632 231.9 453 364 20.2% 3.5 2.8

Your mj chart makes places like california, new york, new jersy, florida and illinois seem idyllic, but the reciprocal is the truth. I've been to each and every state, and there are some very hostile places in all states, but according to your list, there are not that many in CA... (yeah, right... like walkin in LA is just another moonlit stroll through the arms of love)

sorry. But until I can see hard numbers on this, I am dismissing your links other than your studies. I will review those when I have more time... and then compare them to the DOJ statistics.

It is an exceptionally strong and dangerous correlation.

between irresponsible idiots and gun, yes, I can agree to that.

Two shootings in nearly 20 years.

no... two MASS shootings .
intentional emphasis on mass.
You said there were none.

But people could no longer just walk into a gun store and buy whatever they wanted. And we have yet to have a mass shooting since then. And that was nearly 20 years ago

Also note that you can fo to the wiki page and see just a small amount of detail about mass killings here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

So you definitely misspoke, through ignorance or some other reason.

But please note that it still applies to what I have been saying. The core problem is the violence and the irresponsible people... not the gun. the gun is inanimate.

I would say the gun laws and gun restrictions here have been very successful.

I wouldn't .
Until your numbers reach zero, then there is still the same underlying core problem, which I mave been pushing: Irresponsibility and violance

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

2011: 18816
2010: 234
2009: 228
2008: 234
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 28716 17
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 32417
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

So why are people against such restrictions?

there are too many reasons to count... from personal protection to groceries.... a blanket law cannot cover every possibility, nor can a police force insure the safety of people unless there is a 1for1 cop/public ratio (and likely then it is not going to work)

So allowing guns to remain in the equation just means that these people have an easier way to kill others. Do you think this is acceptable?

very emphatic redirection and broken logic... do not misunderstand my words: The core problem is the violence and lack of responsibility. It is easier to control guns than fire... anyone can make fire and most people carry lighters (that I know- you could be different and people you know could be different)

look, allowing guns to stay with training, responsibility and a mature mindset is not the problem you are discussing... you are arguing about the guns in the hands of the mentally challenged or the criminal. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. or they will find a means to do their nefarious deeds... and I tell you... listening to someone burn to death is one of the most horrifying things you could ever hear.

I would think removing the one that causes the most damage, that has resulted in the most deaths from mass shootings and killings would help reduce those numbers dramatically.

You have just now become an advocate for removing illegal weapons from the market, just like every NRA member I know. Good for you.
But in the US, I noticed that the last round of attacks were against "assault" weapons.... with a very vague definition of "assault" to signify what they were referring to.
Now, take into consideration that (depending on the source used) between 1 - 3% of the weapons used in crimes were assault weapons.... this seems ridiculous, don't you think?

If you notice one particular tool was killing more people than all of the others, wouldn't you want to restrict access to that tool? Or would you continue to sell it over the counter to all and sundry? Let's look at cars as a prime example. Before you get a driver's license, you need to go through a series of tests and checks, you need to learn how to drive and know all the road rules. In other words, the use of a motor vehicle is highly restricted in that those operating them need to have obtained a license after having undergone lessons, checks and tests. In areas where the use of a car would pose high danger to others (such as malls), they are banned from entering entirely.

This is a good point... but it also underscores how weapons are purchased. My past purchase was a .45 black powder Colt Army Revolver. I had to go through a test, file paperwork, establish my credentials, background check and then I was tested on that weapon for my concealed carry license. I also have to RE QUALIFY every 4 or 5 years. Which does NOT happen with cars... once you get your license, it is yours till you get too many points or you die.
Much like a car license, my carry license can be revoked for misuse as well as improper use of a firearm.

A tool is only as dangerous as the holder... and I can guarantee that I am far more dangerous with a screwdriver than most people are with a gun. That does not necessarily make me a bad person, it only makes me experienced.

So it stands to reason that when guns cause so many deaths and injury and when there are so many mass shootings and gun violence in general throughout the population, that removing or restricting access to this "tool" would prove beneficial to the whole.

Ok, bo back to the Aussie link I put up for mass shootings. You will notice that some mass killers have started looking for ways to accomplish their tasks with other means: fire

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6]
2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour seige.[7]
Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[8]

This is just another point supporting my conclusions that the core problem is not the gun, but the violence and irresponsibility of the perpetrators.

Well access to many are restricted.

For example, if you're a shifty looking person who goes to a petrol station and start buying gallons worth and a box of matches, you'd raise a few eyebrows. Cars and their use are highly restricted and controlled. Screw-drivers, if there were mass killings with those, I'd imagine they would be as well.

That's the thing that you are failing to acknowledge in your attempt to berate others with your bold upper caps. If something is seen to pose a threat and danger to others in society, then their use will usually be restricted and regulated.

I am not trying to berate anyone... makes me wonder if you are feeling attacked? I am new to this forum posting and I tend to add in emphasis where I think it is needed. If this offends you, perhaps you should just skip reading my posts?

To answer your above point: I am not failing to acknowledge this in any way. After all, the behavior is part of the core problem. I think that you give too much credit to the busy workers behind the desk, though. I've seen many kids ride up on a bike, fill a 5gallon can with gas, pay for it, buy watched and take off.... now, in my mind as a former investigator, I would say "wait! what do they need a 5 gal can of gas and matches for?" and I would dispatch a car immediately... however the desk worker at the station was oblivious to the kids... . it was just another transaction... and she was far more interested in who was dating whom at the moment... even to huff at me so I could call a cop. (the kid was found by the Nursing home getting ready to light the dumpster on fire)

some people pay attention.... most people do not. I've walked into stored asking for brake fluid and (certain other materials that are known to react violently with brake fluid) and I was handed both.... no questions asked.

Once again, we removed the ability for some in society to harm others with particular weapons. So we reduced the violence from that sector immediately. And any way you look at it, that is a good thing.

taking away the tool will not change the core problem

the core problems are violence, lack of personal responsibility

Paranoid woo does not belong in this forum.

it's not paranoia if it is true
killary was a 2000: advocate for national gun registry, and pushed for removal as well.

Clinton said that American gun owners opposed to universal background checks—an prerequisite for registration and confiscation— are terrorizing the rest of the nation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.

How much more universal can it get. In order to get a firearm, you must pass a background check... the only exceptions are private sales (and I don't know about elsewhere, but around here, gun shows are running background checks first before purchasing)

so it is not paranoia.
http://therighttobear.com/hillary-clinton-weve-got-to-rein-in-guns/

Personally, I would rather have trained law enforcement than some untrained yahoo who's ranting about his rights to own guns.

1- more cops would be better.... but where do you stop? people already complain about what they have to pay to keep cops in the area, then when the cutbacks come, we let them go... then they complain because we have fewer cops...
people are finicky and stupid in this regard...

2- So you perceive me as an untrained yahoo ranting about my rights?

Yes, you've made that point a few times now. You don't need to keep making it and making it bold and loud..

I disagree. With people like you pushing the argument willy-nilly and not focusing on the core issue, then it needs to be repeated often, loudly and so that everyone can be sure about what is really the problem.

Probably not a great or wise thing to do on this site.

why is that?
there is a core problem: violence, lack of responsibility... and this is the primary issue, no matter how you would try to hide it under the posts, links, redirection or whatever...

the core problems is violence and lack of responsibility.

Well yes, criminals have guns. That is why they are criminals.

and they will always be able to get the guns... that is another thin that makes them criminals

But we don't believe in guns for self protection or the need for such things. As the statistics clearly show, having a gun on one's person or in one's home for protection is more likely to result in one's own demise from said gun. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that the core problem there are the weapons themselves. Should it?

if the issues of violence and responsibility are addressed, then there may come a day when firearms will be used strictly for sport or show.

so I disagree... the core problems must be addressed before taking away guns from those who need them.

Studies also found that people who own guns tend to be more aggressive, which I am finding personally right now...

you actually fear me reaching through your computer?
be serious.

and aggression comes in many forms. Do you call Donald Trump aggressive? Bill Gates? I would call them aggressive... most successful business people are.

Do not project your fears and inadequacies onto me because you think I am being "aggressive". I am downright calm considering some of the other posts I have seen... especially the Fraggle posts...

And yet the "tool" factors so strongly with violence.

so do screwdrivers, hammers and cars

violence knows no restrictions...

The correlation between having one and violence is quite strong. In other words, having a gun on a person has been found to more often than not, make them more aggressive and threatening towards others.

and I still say that this is because of poor training, knowledge and background as well as the violence and lack of responsibility (which are the core to that problem)

Really?

Are you saying that one cannot go to a gun show and purchase automatic military weapons in the US if that is what one wants?

I am saying this: In our area- NO, you cannot/
But... elsewhere, you likely can... but it is still illegal. in order to purchase, own and maintain a fully automatic weapon or military auto's... I will give you the link that I got from the local sheriff

First you need to get one of three different FFLs
Type 1 Title 1 dealer or gunsmith. NFA (with class 3 tax stamp) other than destructive devices.
Type 7 Title 1 dealer and manufacturer of firearms, including NFA (with class 2 tax stamp) other than Destructive Devices, ammunition and ammunition components other than Armor Piercing ammunition
Type 10 Manufacturer of Title 1 firearms, ammunition and ammunition components, including NFA Destructive Devices but no other NFA items, and not including Armor Piercing ammunition

then you must pay a special occupation tax
Class 2 manufacturer of NFA firearms
Class 3 dealer of NFA firearms

That's where the term 'Class 3' comes from. Class 3 really isn't a type of FFL, but a class 3 tax you pay in addition to your FFL.

That allows you to sell and trade fully auto weapons. But these weapons must already be registered. The registry was closed in 1986 (?).

The one exception to this is a company that is set up to produce full auto weapons for the sale to militaries or police may buy samples of full auto weapons not on the list for 'research purposes' and may also convert, and of course build their own, even just prototypes. However, it must be a legitimate business, and the guns technically belong to the business, and when the business ends the rights to those guns end with it.

While some states have additional restrictions, you don't need an FFL or a 'Class 3' to buy a full auto gun, you simply need to fill out a bunch of paperwork, pay a bunch of special taxes, submit your fingerprints to the FBI for an extensive background check, and notify the chief LEO in your area that you are doing so. Then you can buy a full auto gun that is on the registry.

of course, because the registry is closed, there is a limited pool of registered full auto guns. This means although a brand new full auto AK can be made and shipped to the USA for $500, there are only a handful of old ones already registered. Supply (small) and demand (large) means these registered ones sell for $10,000. -akluis

Location makes a big difference. The laws where I am are pretty restrictive on military hardware, whereas Alaska may be more lenient.

Hmmm..

We have excellent laws... look up your state statistics. find out how many felons applied for a firearm and then how many were refused,,, and how many were prosecuted.

Or private sales of guns should be banned completely and force people to have to register and go through criminal and mental health checks before being allowed to purchase a gun?

which is it? banned completely or the health/welfare checks?
AFAIK the background check includes if you have taken any mood altering meds, including anti-depressants.
I know they popped up on some people I know when they went to purchase a .22.

Or you can simply remove guns from the equation and you would see the number of such shootings drop dramatically.

yep. like Chicago, D.C, south Miami and NYC.
worked wonders there

Also, armed police officers in schools have yet to be able to stop a mass shooting before it happens. Columbine had an armed officer on site. He was unable to do anything. Same with Virginia Tech.

I would rather there were law enforcement present than having an open field of fire against unarmed children and their teachers.

Or you can just have more effective gun control measures in place..

like I keep saying... we have effective gun control already, but it is not enforced as it should be. Just like we have plenty of resources for returningh veterans, but it is (apparently) the VA policy to insure the least amount is done for the vets.

I never said anything about religious ideology.

What I am saying is that the belief that it is fine for children to own and use firearms is one and the same.

you are saying the belief that it is fine for children to own and use firearms is the same as ISIS and it's jihadist extremist war?

The same with cars. Would you let your 5 year old drive a car if you are sitting next to them while out on the freeway? How about a chainsaw? Sharp knives? Fireworks? After all, if they are being used properly and under supervision, shouldn't be an issue, right?

First off... I live rural. so yes, I would/will/have teach/taught my children and grandchildren to use a car, chainsaw, sharp knives, explosives. I did it with care and with safety first and foremost.
My kids couldn't reach the pedals so learned how to drive the wheel first, then the shifting and wheel, then all together... all with me present ... and no, not on a freeway... only an idiot city slicker takes a kid that can't drive to a freeway for a turn at driving. That is unsafe and stupid. I can also state that my grand-kids are better drivers than most other kids too...
I also taught them on the chainsaw, & sharp knives too./ Because we all have chores. But they don't get "free time" to play tag with junior with the running chainsaws... they are supervised and highly constrained for safety.
As for fireworks... we use certain explosives for getting rid of stumps. Works better than Mules and faster than a backhoe.
and I have never lost a kid or grand-kid to injury or death doing it.
They have learned to be cautious and responsible, and respect the tools.... not play with them.

Does proper supervision include having an instructor stand next to them? That 9 year old girl learned first hand how well that went.

I said it before, i will say it again: that instructor screwed up
he made the mistake... not the girl. so your argument there only supports my arguments about keeping the core issues involved and paying attention to the core issues.

It is clear enough that you are being overly emotional about this subject. From the upper caps, bold upper caps, describing how you picked up dead bodies, etc..

Perhaps you should calm yourself before responding.

you don't know me. and I am not getting emotional.
I am making points and i was trying to emphasize some of the important core issues.

You like to throw in emotionally charged topics (ISIS and girls holding guns, etc) but that is just emotion talking. it is irrelevant.

taking it in context that the core issues are violence and responsibility, it means nothing.

address the core issues .... until then, we might as well ban screwdrivers, hammers, sticks, stones, fire, automobiles, anything metal, and any chemicals.

And yet, this is a recurring issue in the US.

Why is that?

it is a reoccurring issue in the world
the US is not the ONLY place that has violence problems

Had there been less guns, many of those that you had to clean up and pick up after would still be alive today.

and this is personal conjecture without evidence
just like assuming that taking guns will somehow alleviate the violence and crime statistics

In conclusion, you can take away the guns, Bells, but you cannot take away the violence or the homicide. You can make more and more laws and restrictions, and when you do you make bigger loopholes and better ways to confuse others and get firearms
you can write till your heart explodes and you will still come to the same conclusions:

Until the Violence issue and the Responsibility issue are taken care of, there will always be a homicide etc issue, with or without guns (see GB for proof of that)

Any decent law abiding gun owner who is responsible will also pass on this responsibility to their own, and anyone they teach. If they are responsible enough, they will realise why they've been taught in such a manner. if they are not responsible... they become a statistic.

the problem is not the gun, just like it is not the hammer, car, screwdriver, water, electricity or any other factor... it is the person who chooses to do the deed: the homicide.

and until we can fix that problem, then it doesn't matter how many gun bans are out there. they will find them, or find something that is equivalent (see LA, or Aus) and they will kill.
If you want a level headed talk about guns and what they can/cannot do.... and about the politics behind some of the media posts, then I suggest going here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir

he is well spoken and intelligent. He also makes a lot of sense. try it out.

 

[Trooper]

He makes a lot of sense.

And so do you.

Well done, Captain! :bravo:

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

And so do you.

Well done, Captain! :bravo:

:shy:

Thank you Trooper

Colion Noir makes it look easy... I am no where in that league.
I DO enjoy his video's though.
He is well spoken and logical.

 

[sculptor]

Wowie Zowie

 

[iceaura]

Any decent law abiding gun owner who is responsible will also pass on this responsibility to their own, and anyone they teach. If they are responsible enough, they will realise why they've been taught in such a manner. if they are not responsible... they become a statistic.

The problem is not that they themselves become a statistic - the problem is that other people become statistics.

The problem is not only that we do not enforce current law, in the US, but also that some completely irresponsible behaviors are legal - and in addition, all attempts to either enforce current law well or patch the gaps in accountability are met with dug heel obstinacy and paranoid political ravings, backed by frankly ridiculous fantasies of fighting off angry wolves by handgun and the like, from a crowd of gun owners who keep doing things like 1) hit passing cars with rifle bullets during deer season (think how many times these guys had to have been shooting blind over the highway to create even odds of hitting a single car, let alone the number they hit)

and 2) more importantly, in my view, voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away.

This is a problem. It has done more harm to my neighbors than their guns have prevented.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The problem is not that they themselves become a statistic - the problem is that other people become statistics

No, the problem is that there are people willing to trample all over the rights of law abiding responsible citizens.. the problem is that those same people like to throw around arguments like "the problem is that other people become statistics" without realizing that :
1- the responsible law abiding shooter knows what's behind the target in case of a through and through
2- the responsible law abiding shooter will be prosecuted if caught shooting across a road and they know it
3- you cannot dump your fears onto the general public because you cannot get the core problem addressed...

which brings us full circle to the core problem: Violence and Irresponsible idiots

The problem is not only that we do not enforce current law, in the US, but also that some completely irresponsible behaviors are legal - and in addition, all attempts to either enforce current law well or patch the gaps in accountability are met with dug heel obstinacy and paranoid political ravings, backed by frankly ridiculous fantasies of fighting off angry wolves by handgun and the like, from a crowd of gun owners who keep doing things like 1) hit passing cars with rifle bullets during deer season (think how many times these guys had to have been shooting blind over the highway to create even odds of hitting a single car, let alone the number they hit)

and 2) more importantly, in my view, voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away.

This is a problem. It has done more harm to my neighbors than their guns have prevented.

wrong again. the problem is : Violence and Irresponsible people
it doesn't matter how many guns are or are not out there. There is violence inherent in the species... the problem is not the people who want to preserve their right to keep and bear arms... nor is it the people who want to defend themselves.

the problem is the violence and irresponsible behavior of people

You can say that people like me "voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away" [sic] is somehow the problem, but what will it be next week? When you get rid of us, who will you blame? It s not a conspiracy if those people really do want to undermine the constitution and get rid of guns. and some of us need guns... and forget that non-sense about carrying bricks. I don't know of any sane person willing to go into the wilds of Alaska with two bricks for defense. that is ludicrous.

you can overlook the problem all you want. Assuming that getting rid of guns will somehow put the world into some fairy-dream state of peace suddenly is a delusion, not reality. The reason is simple: Violence and irresponsible people... this is the underpinning of the criminal element. It is how the criminal element became criminals and went to jail... there will always be criminals and they will always get guns... and there is proof of that everywhere you look ...


the core problem is violence and Irresponsible behavior.

And the more you lash out about it and denigrate those around you, the more you support that conclusion.

EDIT: @iceaura
I will also note that your "fears" are addressed by Mr. Colion Noir here https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir

I would also like to note that a great many of our wonderful laws are not upheld unless it is voting time. Case in point: how many known felons were stopped from purchasing weapons in your state and how many of those felons were tracked down and thrown back into jail (it is a felony to try to purchase a weapon as a felon)
look into your local and state records... you will be surprised at how few are prosecuted

 

[pjdude1219]

No, the problem is that there are people willing to trample all over the rights of law abiding responsible citizens.. the problem is that those same people like to throw around arguments like "the problem is that other people become statistics" without realizing that :
1- the responsible law abiding shooter knows what's behind the target in case of a through and through
2- the responsible law abiding shooter will be prosecuted if caught shooting across a road and they know it
3- you cannot dump your fears onto the general public because you cannot get the core problem addressed...

which brings us full circle to the core problem: Violence and Irresponsible idiots




wrong again. the problem is : Violence and Irresponsible people
it doesn't matter how many guns are or are not out there. There is violence inherent in the species... the problem is not the people who want to preserve their right to keep and bear arms... nor is it the people who want to defend themselves.

the problem is the violence and irresponsible behavior of people

You can say that people like me "voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away" [sic] is somehow the problem, but what will it be next week? When you get rid of us, who will you blame? It s not a conspiracy if those people really do want to undermine the constitution and get rid of guns. and some of us need guns... and forget that non-sense about carrying bricks. I don't know of any sane person willing to go into the wilds of Alaska with two bricks for defense. that is ludicrous.

you can overlook the problem all you want. Assuming that getting rid of guns will somehow put the world into some fairy-dream state of peace suddenly is a delusion, not reality. The reason is simple: Violence and irresponsible people... this is the underpinning of the criminal element. It is how the criminal element became criminals and went to jail... there will always be criminals and they will always get guns... and there is proof of that everywhere you look ...


the core problem is violence and Irresponsible behavior.

And the more you lash out about it and denigrate those around you, the more you support that conclusion.

EDIT: @iceaura
I will also note that your "fears" are addressed by Mr. Colion Noir here https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir

and you just proved ice's point. and i'll take it a step further. the irresponsible gun nuts like your self incapability of any sense of accountability is the problem. you rely on fear to make your points.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

and you just proved ice's point. and i'll take it a step further. the irresponsible gun nuts like your self incapability of any sense of accountability is the problem. you rely on fear to make your points.

Pjdude ... back to trolling and attempting to start a flame war because you have no means of logical discourse?

by all means, please show how I "rely on fear to make" my point?

and please demonstrate how I am irresponsible and incapable of accountability?

*************

The core problem is violence and irresponsible people, not guns.

we will always have ignorant people who wish to blame others for their own faults... who fear personal responsibility and who want someone else to take the blame for their inadequacies... and since you put me in that corner, you may now demonstrate why you chose to malign and slander without just cause.

 

[sculptor]

Those who would abrogate the rights of others are would be tyrants.

Choose carefully and choose wisely. Tyrants suffer at the whims of other tyrants

 

[iceaura]

which brings us full circle to the core problem: Violence and Irresponsible idiots
- - -
the core problem is violence and Irresponsible behavior.

So you would be expected to support closing the various obvious gaps in our laws that allow violent and irresponsible gun handling to escape accountability, and support bolstering the enforcement of those laws that do exist now so that they succeed in holding violent or irresponsible people accountable for their endangerment of their neighbors and the public in general.

And so would all those other responsible gun owners.

Because such community efforts deal with an important aspect of the core problem you have so strenuously identified - violent and irresponsible behavior, in this case with guns - and one would expect you guys to back up your big mouths with some political cooperation.

But we don't see that, do we.

You can say that people like me "voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away" [sic] is somehow the problem, but what will it be next week? When you get rid of us, who will you blame?

Blame for what? I'm blaming you doorknobs for being possibly the most gullible and damaging voting bloc in the country (some competition from the fundys in general, but your excuses are sillier). It's not "somehow" a (that's "a", not "the") problem: the manner in which it's a problem is one of the most spectacular features of the American political landscape. Where in hell do these Congressmen come from?

And there is no getting rid of you, but we can sure as hell rub your noses in what you've accomplished - 8 years of W&Cheney, for starters (won on the gun vote, when tens of thousands of damn fools listened to paid liars tell them military veteran Al Gore and military veteran John Kerry were going to abrogate the US Constitution and confiscate their guns). Norm Coleman and the death of single payer health care in my State. A Congress where one of the major Parties is filibustering its own bills and shutting the government down to avoid taxing rich people in wartime. Idiocy upon idiocy, folly after folly, con into con, and where are they getting the votes? right here:

people like me "voting for ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits because they heard on the radio the fuckwit's opponent was going to take their guns away"

 

[Bells]

If we are discussing Fraggle's posts, to which my comment referred to, then you are absolutely wrong. If I were to use this same tactic on another thread I would be dinged for flaming/baiting as well as trolling. In fact, This point was driven home while dealing with Undefined/RealityCheck... which uses the same tactic as Fraggle in those two posts he made. There was nothing relevant and it was all emotional denigration of any pro-gun person. And as such, is more relevant to a rant thread. It was trolling, and there really wasn't any other way to describe it.

Perhaps he doesn't. But that is not an excuse, especially for a moderator.
Lets look at this from another POV
had this been Undefined/RealityCHeck posting the comment in this thread, it would definitely be called trolling by all parties. even some of his friends.

Firstly, you are relatively new here, and you are obviously unaware of the issues this site has had with undefined/realitycheck. So perhaps you really should not speak about issues/people you clearly do not understand.

Secondly, your manner of posting has been equally aggressive and denigrating.

Thirdly, if you have an issue with how someone posts, perhaps you could PM them or hit the report button.

There was no redeeming value. the entire post was a malicious defamation of any gun user that seemed to be intended to elicit negative emotions and anger.

which, it seems, is a good definition of a troll post. Perhaps he should have been more specific in his target?

He is very open about how he feels about guns, just as you and others are vapidly open about how you feel about your guns and what you deem to be your rights.

First off, you claim it is a myth and you posted two studies and two irrelevant links. I will read those links and generate a reply at a later date, when I have had time to research and look into them.

You haven't read them but you already deem them to be irrelevant?

That's interesting.

Secondly, my comment was not based upon any myth, but on first hand experience in my family, and in one other instance as a Truck Captain.

In the "boy scout" tradition, I feel it is better to be prepared for any emergency than not. You may perceive things differently.

It is a fact that you are more likely to be killed by your own gun. That is a fact. The 80 year old grandmother you are lauding over is also more likely to be killed by her gun, statistically. And studies support that.

so you would rather put words in my mouth that are not said and then try to push the agenda that I am stupid rather than ask for elucidation? It doesn't take a rocket scientists to ask me what I mean or how I perceive that situation.

The situation was this: you said


Then you cherry pick out everything but the following quote


Now I will add in the entire quote... and I will change the caps/bolds to appease your delicate sensibilities



I still stand by my position. As you can see, I am not saying that we should all have large weapons which we fire through random doors out of fear to insure that the criminals are kept at bay... I am saying that most people, thrust into a life or death situation, would likely prefer to have a firearm rather than a philosopher, or even a stick. Especially considering certain circumstances.

And I will stand by my position and the facts that a gun owner is more likely to be killed by their very own gun that they bought for personal safety than if they did not have a gun - in other words, the facts and statistics which have been linked in this thread clearly show that not having a gun in such a volatile situation is more likely to result in your walking out of it alive. Having someone inexperienced and in a stressful and terrifying and strange situation and having them armed is more likely to see them killed with their own gun. If you have statistics that show this is not the case, then please show them. What I provided clearly show that I am correct.

It is good for you that you did not need one to protect your family. If only we could live in a world so nice.

The world is not nice. Mine certainly is not. Having a gun or adding a gun to that equation would just make it that much more 'not nice'.

I disagree. I think that if someone own a firearm and is well versed in its use, shoots it regularly and is accurate in all its functions, I doubt that person would fall into your category of being shot by their own weapon.

How many people are such individuals?

YOu are likely going to throw a study out there supporting your position, and I encourage it. I would also suggest there be a study done with soldiers, cops and professional's who use, qualify regularly and are well versed in firearms... that would include instructors and concealed carry holders.

Taking all that into consideration, I am willing to bet hard money that the study would skew the results in my favor.

And why do you think that is?

Guns are part of your country's psyche. The very thought of restricting access to certain people (such as the mentally ill) results in a moral panic. The thought of restricting access to semi-automatics results in panic. I mean really, you need militarised semi-automatic weapons for self protection? The mere thought of applying restrictions to such weapons has gun worshipers peeing in their pants.

Ok, I will have to make a stand on something here. If you are going to present evidence in your favor, then make it evidence from a peer reviewed study published in a reputable source with a high impact in the subject matter.... your mother jones mag's are anti-gun and for every anti-gun article you find in a fanatical magazine, you can go to the other extreme and find a refute from another fanatical magazine.

I accepted your studies (and I will review them and comment on them at a later date when I can research them better, as I will have more time).

Now, taking that into consideration. Lets talk about reality.Putting a gun into a violent situation does not mean that the gun will be used tokill, maim or even be used. It only means that the gun is present. The people behind the situation are the ones you should be concerned about. A gun is only a tool, and it can only be used as any one uses a tool.

case in point: During hunting season, a large drunk man wielding a machete was wandering aloud on my property swinging it at whatever he wished, including personal items. My wife told him to go away or we were calling the cops. this enraged the man, who then ran yelling and screaming at my wife and grandchildren. I stepped out and he stopped short. I has a .45 revolver strapped down on my side and my hand was on it. I escorted said drunk from the property. Cops were called as soon as he was spotted by my son... it took them 35 minutes to respond. The situation was defused without ever having to draw or fire.

And if he had been armed with a gun, what then?

In cases of violent households, for example, the victim is more likely to be killed by the gun she buys for her own protection. This happens time and again.

In your instance, you were lucky.

just because you HAVE a weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot and kill someone.

And as for the links supporting your cause... Just FYI, if it is not a peer reviewed study, published in a legitimate and reputable journal with a high impact in the subject matter, I will likely not even open it.

If you refuse to read the links provided, then that is your issue, not mine.

There are a myriad of reasons. Mostly because I see some fallacies on one particular link... your chart here shows that illinois is far down the ladder in gun deaths, and gun ownership... but looking at the DOJ rankings which are linked through WIKI here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

you can see the numbers more clearly: lets take two extreme's from YOUR chart: Arkansas and Illinois

According to your mother jones site, http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png

Illinois is towards the bottom of the gun deaths and has fewer guns than Arkansas....
then we look at the DOJ chart on Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

state populat pop Murd- Gun Gun Murder Gun
density ers Mrdr ownrsp per 100,000 tr per 100,000
Arkansas 2,915,918 56.43 130 93 55.3% 4.5 3.2
Illinois 12,830,632 231.9 453 364 20.2% 3.5 2.8

Your mj chart makes places like california, new york, new jersy, florida and illinois seem idyllic, but the reciprocal is the truth. I've been to each and every state, and there are some very hostile places in all states, but according to your list, there are not that many in CA... (yeah, right... like walkin in LA is just another moonlit stroll through the arms of love)

sorry. But until I can see hard numbers on this, I am dismissing your links other than your studies. I will review those when I have more time... and then compare them to the DOJ statistics.

The MJ chart is from a site that copied it from the CDC.

I mean I get how wiki may be more 'scientific' for you...

And also, the graph on the Mother Jones site and cited and sourced from the CDC is from 30 years worth of data. The table you are referring to is looking only at 2010. Do you need me to explain the difference for you?

no... two MASS shootings .
intentional emphasis on mass.
You said there were none.

Okay, so 2 mass shootings in all of that time..

Also note that you can fo to the wiki page and see just a small amount of detail about mass killings here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

So you definitely misspoke, through ignorance or some other reason.

But please note that it still applies to what I have been saying. The core problem is the violence and the irresponsible people... not the gun. the gun is inanimate.

Okay, now, 2 "mass shootings" in about 20 years after gun control measures came into place.

How many has the US had in that time?

I'll make it easier for you. How many have there been this year alone? Up to 200 this year alone, which includes multiple injured and deaths. If we count those that had multiple injured and at least one death, the number is over 85.. I stopped counting 3/4 of the way down the list.

And that is just for 2014.

Do you really want to tell me guns aren't an issue in the US and are you really going to nitpick 2 mass shootings in about 20 years after gun restrictions were put in place, compared to over 85 in just one year alone of deadly mass shootings and killings in the US? Really? I can assure you, you aren't going to win that argument on the numbers alone.

I wouldn't .
Until your numbers reach zero, then there is still the same underlying core problem, which I mave been pushing: Irresponsibility and violance

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

2011: 18816
2010: 234
2009: 228
2008: 234
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 28716 17
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 32417
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

Do you want to look at the numbers for the US? In comparison?

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

US total is 396646

And Australia's, without the footnotes which you left in, making it look stupidly inflated as you did not designate they were footnotes.. same number of years:

2011: 188
2010: 234
2009: 228
2008: 234
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347

Australia's total is 3389..

I would say that is a very clear indication that we have much less of an issue with gun deaths compared to the US. So while you may prattle about how you will take it seriously when it reaches zero.. Since 1999 to 2011 we had less gun deaths combined than any year in the US during that same timeframe.

So once again, do you really want to make that argument that guns aren't an issue in the US?

I'll remind you again.. Total gun death from the site you linked for Australia is 3389. Same timeframe and total for the us is 396,646..

there are too many reasons to count... from personal protection to groceries.... a blanket law cannot cover every possibility, nor can a police force insure the safety of people unless there is a 1for1 cop/public ratio (and likely then it is not going to work)

Nearly 400,000 deaths since 1999 clearly indicates that your guns aren't doing much to cover every possibility either. Compared to Australia's figures which are so much lower, that it isn't even funny. In fact, it's kind of sad and pathetic that your figures are so high. Your beliefs that every situation must be covered with a gun is killing you in large and increasing numbers.

very emphatic redirection and broken logic... do not misunderstand my words: The core problem is the violence and lack of responsibility. It is easier to control guns than fire... anyone can make fire and most people carry lighters (that I know- you could be different and people you know could be different)

look, allowing guns to stay with training, responsibility and a mature mindset is not the problem you are discussing... you are arguing about the guns in the hands of the mentally challenged or the criminal. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. or they will find a means to do their nefarious deeds... and I tell you... listening to someone burn to death is one of the most horrifying things you could ever hear.

Then if we are going to take the nearly 400,000 deaths in the US since 1999, an overly large proportion of your population violent and irresponsible. And all are able to easily acquire firearms. What a comforting thought and ideal.

You have just now become an advocate for removing illegal weapons from the market, just like every NRA member I know. Good for you.
But in the US, I noticed that the last round of attacks were against "assault" weapons.... with a very vague definition of "assault" to signify what they were referring to.
Now, take into consideration that (depending on the source used) between 1 - 3% of the weapons used in crimes were assault weapons.... this seems ridiculous, don't you think?

You misunderstand. I support the removal of all guns that do not require a police and mental health check and firearms training and ongoing firearms training, locked gun safes to keep firearms for those who require their guns for sporting reasons. I don't see why others should be arming themselves. There is absolutely no need for it.

This is a good point... but it also underscores how weapons are purchased. My past purchase was a .45 black powder Colt Army Revolver. I had to go through a test, file paperwork, establish my credentials, background check and then I was tested on that weapon for my concealed carry license. I also have to RE QUALIFY every 4 or 5 years. Which does NOT happen with cars... once you get your license, it is yours till you get too many points or you die.
Much like a car license, my carry license can be revoked for misuse as well as improper use of a firearm.

Zimmerman got his gun back after he killed Trayvon Martin.

A tool is only as dangerous as the holder... and I can guarantee that I am far more dangerous with a screwdriver than most people are with a gun. That does not necessarily make me a bad person, it only makes me experienced.

Now imagine guns being in the hands of a multitude of people with the same skill level you have with a screw driver. Imagine many of those being able to walk into gunshows and buy whatever kind of guns they desire.

Ok, bo back to the Aussie link I put up for mass shootings. You will notice that some mass killers have started looking for ways to accomplish their tasks with other means: fire

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6]
2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour seige.[7]
Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[8]

All of which still resulted in less deaths than you had in a year in the US from guns alone.

So your point is what? That people will resort to using fire to kill people instead? The Childer's fire was bad because of the lack of smoke alarms and sprinklers and lack of fire exits. The Quaker's Hill Nursing Home fire was in an aged care facility, with residents having limited mobility and were elderly, with the fire started at a time where there were less staff on duty. The vast majority survived. Had he had a gun, the number of deaths would have been higher as he could have walked from room to room and killed much more people. Over 100 people survived. As a result, laws changed. In fact, the reason more than 100 people survived the Quakers Hill fire is because of the policies and laws adopted after the Childers backpackers hostel fire.

This is just another point supporting my conclusions that the core problem is not the gun, but the violence and irresponsibility of the perpetrators.

Nearly 400,000 deaths from gun violence from 1999 to 2011 tells me that you are kidding yourself.

I am not trying to berate anyone... makes me wonder if you are feeling attacked? I am new to this forum posting and I tend to add in emphasis where I think it is needed. If this offends you, perhaps you should just skip reading my posts?

To answer your above point: I am not failing to acknowledge this in any way. After all, the behavior is part of the core problem. I think that you give too much credit to the busy workers behind the desk, though. I've seen many kids ride up on a bike, fill a 5gallon can with gas, pay for it, buy watched and take off.... now, in my mind as a former investigator, I would say "wait! what do they need a 5 gal can of gas and matches for?" and I would dispatch a car immediately... however the desk worker at the station was oblivious to the kids... . it was just another transaction... and she was far more interested in who was dating whom at the moment... even to huff at me so I could call a cop. (the kid was found by the Nursing home getting ready to light the dumpster on fire)

some people pay attention.... most people do not. I've walked into stored asking for brake fluid and (certain other materials that are known to react violently with brake fluid) and I was handed both.... no questions asked.

Which says what in general? Complete lack of restrictions under the 'it's my right' banner..

taking away the tool will not change the core problem

the core problems are violence, lack of personal responsibility

We took away guns, the rate of deaths from gun violence is dramatically lower than yours... Astoundingly lower than yours. What does that tell you is the problem?

it's not paranoia if it is true
killary was a 2000: advocate for national gun registry, and pushed for removal as well.

"Killary"?

Are you serious?

How much more universal can it get. In order to get a firearm, you must pass a background check... the only exceptions are private sales (and I don't know about elsewhere, but around here, gun shows are running background checks first before purchasing)

so it is not paranoia.
http://therighttobear.com/hillary-clinton-weve-got-to-rein-in-guns/

Weren't you the one whining about Mother Jones and you post from a gun rights site?

1- more cops would be better.... but where do you stop? people already complain about what they have to pay to keep cops in the area, then when the cutbacks come, we let them go... then they complain because we have fewer cops...
people are finicky and stupid in this regard...

2- So you perceive me as an untrained yahoo ranting about my rights?

You referred to Hilary Clinton as "Killary". Do you really want me to answer that question?

I disagree. With people like you pushing the argument willy-nilly and not focusing on the core issue, then it needs to be repeated often, loudly and so that everyone can be sure about what is really the problem.

Which has been smashed to smithereens with the obscene number of gun deaths you have and the fact that you refer to Hilary Clinton as "Killary"..

why is that?
there is a core problem: violence, lack of responsibility... and this is the primary issue, no matter how you would try to hide it under the posts, links, redirection or whatever...

And using language such as "Killary" helps matters much? Is that responsible? Not violent in any way?

and they will always be able to get the guns... that is another thin that makes them criminals

And in the US, anyone can own a gun. Funny that.

if the issues of violence and responsibility are addressed, then there may come a day when firearms will be used strictly for sport or show.

so I disagree... the core problems must be addressed before taking away guns from those who need them.

I would think, at the very least, dealing with the core problems of violence and lack of responsibility before allowing them to arm themselves would be a better option. It seems you clearly disagree.

you actually fear me reaching through your computer?
be serious.

"Killary".. Enough said.

I mean what kind of message does that send?

and aggression comes in many forms. Do you call Donald Trump aggressive? Bill Gates? I would call them aggressive... most successful business people are.

Do not project your fears and inadequacies onto me because you think I am being "aggressive". I am downright calm considering some of the other posts I have seen... especially the Fraggle posts...

Your making up names like "Killary", in regards to Hillary Clinton tells me that perhaps you are not so responsible as you may wish to imagine. Violent messages is not what I would deem to be responsible behaviour.

so do screwdrivers, hammers and cars

violence knows no restrictions...

Indeed.. You are a very good example of that.

and I still say that this is because of poor training, knowledge and background as well as the violence and lack of responsibility (which are the core to that problem)

Reading through your post and response in this thread makes me more supportive of gun restrictions.

I am saying this: In our area- NO, you cannot/
But... elsewhere, you likely can... but it is still illegal. in order to purchase, own and maintain a fully automatic weapon or military auto's... I will give you the link that I got from the local sheriff

Location makes a big difference. The laws where I am are pretty restrictive on military hardware, whereas Alaska may be more lenient.


We have excellent laws... look up your state statistics. find out how many felons applied for a firearm and then how many were refused,,, and how many were prosecuted.

I guess that depends on where you live.

which is it? banned completely or the health/welfare checks?
AFAIK the background check includes if you have taken any mood altering meds, including anti-depressants.
I know they popped up on some people I know when they went to purchase a .22.

Elliot Rodger clearly disagrees with you. He had a history of mental health issues.

yep. like Chicago, D.C, south Miami and NYC.
worked wonders there

They weren't removed. As I said, compare the US and Australia. :shrug:

I would rather there were law enforcement present than having an open field of fire against unarmed children and their teachers.

Why do you keep comparing something that cannot be compared?

like I keep saying... we have effective gun control already, but it is not enforced as it should be. Just like we have plenty of resources for returningh veterans, but it is (apparently) the VA policy to insure the least amount is done for the vets.

Ya.. over 400,000 deaths from 1999 to 2011 shows just how effective it really is.

you are saying the belief that it is fine for children to own and use firearms is the same as ISIS and it's jihadist extremist war?

Perhaps you can read what I actually said and not make up what you think I said?

First off... I live rural. so yes, I would/will/have teach/taught my children and grandchildren to use a car, chainsaw, sharp knives, explosives. I did it with care and with safety first and foremost.
My kids couldn't reach the pedals so learned how to drive the wheel first, then the shifting and wheel, then all together... all with me present ... and no, not on a freeway... only an idiot city slicker takes a kid that can't drive to a freeway for a turn at driving. That is unsafe and stupid. I can also state that my grand-kids are better drivers than most other kids too...
I also taught them on the chainsaw, & sharp knives too./ Because we all have chores. But they don't get "free time" to play tag with junior with the running chainsaws... they are supervised and highly constrained for safety.
As for fireworks... we use certain explosives for getting rid of stumps. Works better than Mules and faster than a backhoe.
and I have never lost a kid or grand-kid to injury or death doing it.
They have learned to be cautious and responsible, and respect the tools.... not play with them.

I said it before, i will say it again: that instructor screwed up
he made the mistake... not the girl. so your argument there only supports my arguments about keeping the core issues involved and paying attention to the core issues.


you don't know me. and I am not getting emotional.
I am making points and i was trying to emphasize some of the important core issues.

You like to throw in emotionally charged topics (ISIS and girls holding guns, etc) but that is just emotion talking. it is irrelevant.

taking it in context that the core issues are violence and responsibility, it means nothing.

address the core issues .... until then, we might as well ban screwdrivers, hammers, sticks, stones, fire, automobiles, anything metal, and any chemicals.


it is a reoccurring issue in the world
the US is not the ONLY place that has violence problems


and this is personal conjecture without evidence
just like assuming that taking guns will somehow alleviate the violence and crime statistics

In conclusion, you can take away the guns, Bells, but you cannot take away the violence or the homicide. You can make more and more laws and restrictions, and when you do you make bigger loopholes and better ways to confuse others and get firearms
you can write till your heart explodes and you will still come to the same conclusions:

Until the Violence issue and the Responsibility issue are taken care of, there will always be a homicide etc issue, with or without guns (see GB for proof of that)

Any decent law abiding gun owner who is responsible will also pass on this responsibility to their own, and anyone they teach. If they are responsible enough, they will realise why they've been taught in such a manner. if they are not responsible... they become a statistic.

the problem is not the gun, just like it is not the hammer, car, screwdriver, water, electricity or any other factor... it is the person who chooses to do the deed: the homicide.

and until we can fix that problem, then it doesn't matter how many gun bans are out there. they will find them, or find something that is equivalent (see LA, or Aus) and they will kill.
If you want a level headed talk about guns and what they can/cannot do.... and about the politics behind some of the media posts, then I suggest going here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir

he is well spoken and intelligent. He also makes a lot of sense. try it out.

If you want to be taken seriously about your opinion on guns, then using terms like "Killary" and the blind indifference to the sheer issue of gun violence is not going to help your cause. I also does not help that you keep harping on about responsibility and violence even while using such violently laden words against another person while completely disregarding the facts and statistics around gun violence and the simple fact that you won't get anywhere with violence and responsibility if you still allow people to remain armed to the teeth.

 

[pjdude1219]

Pjdude ... back to trolling and attempting to start a flame war because you have no means of logical discourse?

Says the guy who flies off the handle at the drop of hat. and can't be bothered to you know actualy read the thread he's posting in it. I have used logic. you on the other hand essential argument has been nuh uh.

by all means, please show how I "rely on fear to make" my point?

your entire argument on why people need their killing implements revolves around fear. hell the entirityy os the "second amendmenter's" is stoked in the rhetoric of fear.

and please demonstrate how I am irresponsible and incapable of accountability?

you refuse to admit you love affair with killing implements puts others in danger. you've relied heavily on a version of the no true scottsman fallacy to defend your self.

*************

The core problem is violence and irresponsible people, not guns.

no the core problem here isn't violence and irresponsiblity. its the ease of access to killing implements. that you focus on the impossible to protect your imaginary rights is telling. guns here are the core problem here. that we need a more long term solution to dealing with the violence problem( which dove tails quite nicely with ice's point again. the pro gun politicians you and yours vote for almost universally oppose doing anything that would meaningfully deal with the causes of crime) doesn't mean we ignore ignore short term( and lets be honest its also a long term one as well) of reducing the number of violent deaths.

we will always have ignorant people who wish to blame others for their own faults... who fear personal responsibility and who want someone else to take the blame for their inadequacies... and since you put me in that corner, you may now demonstrate why you chose to malign and slander without just cause.

you mean other than the fact that with the anger issues you've demonstrated in this thread makes the fact you haven't lost your shit and killed someone a miracle? again you refuse to admit the risk you chose to inflict on others without their consent and against there wishes. because you want a gun in your mind your entitled to one. you probably belived that before the NRA supreme court successly manufactured it after 40+ years



and cause i just really don't you and your arrogance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So you would be expected to support closing the various obvious gaps in our laws that allow violent and irresponsible gun handling to escape accountability, and support bolstering the enforcement of those laws that do exist now so that they succeed in holding violent or irresponsible people accountable for their endangerment of their neighbors and the public in general.

And so would all those other responsible gun owners.

Because such community efforts deal with an important aspect of the core problem you have so strenuously identified - violent and irresponsible behavior, in this case with guns - and one would expect you guys to back up your big mouths with some political cooperation.

But we don't see that, do we.

Blame for what? I'm blaming you doorknobs for being possibly the most gullible and damaging voting bloc in the country (some competition from the fundys in general, but your excuses are sillier). It's not "somehow" a (that's "a", not "the") problem: the manner in which it's a problem is one of the most spectacular features of the American political landscape. Where in hell do these Congressmen come from?

And there is no getting rid of you, but we can sure as hell rub your noses in what you've accomplished - 8 years of W&Cheney, for starters (won on the gun vote, when tens of thousands of damn fools listened to paid liars tell them military veteran Al Gore and military veteran John Kerry were going to abrogate the US Constitution and confiscate their guns). Norm Coleman and the death of single payer health care in my State. A Congress where one of the major Parties is filibustering its own bills and shutting the government down to avoid taxing rich people in wartime. Idiocy upon idiocy, folly after folly, con into con, and where are they getting the votes? right here:

Making more laws restricting guns will not address the core problems at all.
When have any criminals ever obeyed the law?
When have the irresponsible and violent ever got to the counter for a background check/application for firearm purchase and said "well, gee... Iceaura says we need to have stricter gun laws, so we should listen to that one!"

they don't. One major reason is that they don't care. There is no empathy.

And then there is the fact that we don't actually enforce all the laws we do have now.
What then? do we pick and choose which ones are in season?
Do we color code them and enforce the ones that match the presidential tie at the time (which seems to be the current practice lately)?
Do we write another 300 laws restricting gun ownership while only enforcing the 4 or 5 cool ones?

but I see what is really going on here now...

you just wanted to vent and call people names.
okee dokee.
I can handle that.
Since you obviously know nothing about me other than what you are surmising based upon my pro-gun stance, then fire away.
Call me whatever names you want (you already called me a doorknob and you seem to think I am responsible for "the death of single payer health care in your state") ...
you don't know how I vote. you don't know what I have accomplished... so you are not rubbing my nose in anything.

you are only feeding your violent side and venting on line... which does, by the way, circle back to my original stance : the problem is not the guns, it is the violence and irresponsible people

the reactions you are giving above are indicative of the underlying problem. You are only supporting my position with acerbic hostility and blaming me for your inadequacies (or the gov'ts, or the current state of affairs, or ... etc etc etc...do I have to spell it out more clearly?)

back to my point: there is a core problem in the world, and especially in the US. It is Violence and Irresponsible behavior.
it is glorified in the media
it is overwhelmingly pushed in the gaming world
it is flooded all over into areas you would not normally associate it with and no, I am not blaming video games, the media or anything else... because people make their own choices.

All the violence you see out there can be viewed as a mirror held up to society

We glorify violence and we idolize those who are irresponsible

take care of the core problem and there will be no more gun problem... even if you flood the market with them and make it a law that every biological life form owns at least ten.

 

[Write4U]

This entire debate sounds as if someone (government) is trying to ban guns. Strangely everyone agrees on sensible gun regulation, not prohibition.

Al laws are restrictive in their very nature, but these restrictions are not intended to interfere with responsible and "law abiding" citizens. They are intended for the "irresponsible gun owners. While stricter regulationsthis may present an inconvenience to the "good" guys, they are essential for the "bad" guys.

Rather than painting everything in black and white, why don't we discuss which regulations would benefit society, without an exessive burden on responsible gun owners.
Questions such as asking if military weapons are appropriate for use by civilians is a reasonable subject for debate, IMO.
Questions such as standardized background checks for all gun buyers and sellers is a reasonable subject for debate, IMO.
Questions such as registration of specific guns and purpose of use by gun buyers and sellers are reasonable subjects for debate, IMO.

The point I am trying to make to alarmist which see any discussion of reasonable regulation as an attempt to disarm the citizenry is wrong. It is a Constitutional Right. However, constituional rights are not unlimited in view of the technical advances made in the abilities of certain weapons. The point which I am trying to make is that there are weapons which are inaprpropriate for use in public places.

Before we start drawing weapons, lets discuss the subject with critical reasoning and and an open mind to what may be considered "REASONABLE" regulation.

 

[pjdude1219]

It is a Constitutional Right.

only since june of 2008.

 

[iceaura]

Making more laws restricting guns will not address the core problems at all.
When have any criminals ever obeyed the law?

But enforcing, and where necessary still making, laws establishing accountability for violent or irresponsible behavior does address an important aspect of the core problem, which is lack of accountability for violent and irresponsible behavior with guns.

And then there is the fact that we don't actually enforce all the laws we do have now.
What then? do we pick and choose which ones are in season?

If you read my posts above, and throughout, you would know the answer to that one - I recommend waiting a few years, until the adults can get a word in edgewise, and these adults sitting down and devising a strategy for enforcing the laws we have now and the couple of new ones we need to fill in the gaps. We have to wait, because right now the gun vote has filled the air with rants and the legislatures with non-adults, (and the anti-gun vote has filled the air with threats and even elected a few nannies, although less of an obstacle). Will you support that effort?

Since you obviously know nothing about me other than what you are surmising based upon my pro-gun stance, then fire away.
Call me whatever names you want (you already called me a doorknob and you seem to think I am responsible for "the death of single payer health care in your state") ...
you don't know how I vote. you don't know what I have accomplished...

I know you haven't been reading my posts with anything like comprehension, (you've been mistaking me for someone who wants to see government-enforced reductions in gun ownership and numbers, for example), and you have been handing me the same bs excuses for voting for fuckwits that I get every election season from the gun vote guys around me, and I never blamed you for the death of single payer health care in my State - I blamed the gun vote in my State, and quite accurately btw (I was there, following the various key election returns). I do know what the gun vote guys have accomplished - are you objecting to being included in that category?

back to my point: there is a core problem in the world, and especially in the US. It is Violence and Irresponsible behavior.

And since we can't do anything about violent and irresponsible behavior in any way, especially not by holding any gun owners accountable for their violent or irresponsiible behavior with guns, once you have identified the problem as that one you need do nothing more, especially not engage in political cooperation with reasonable adults who are trying to do that. For example: You have fulfilled your responsibility here as a gun owning adult by pointing out that current gun laws are not well enforced - cooperating with anti-gun folks to get them better enforced is of course impossible for you.

 

[billvon]

I recommend waiting a few years, until the adults can get a word in edgewise, and these adults sitting down and devising a strategy for enforcing the laws we have now and the couple of new ones we need to fill in the gaps.

Adults who use language like "I'm blaming you doorknobs for being possibly the most gullible and damaging voting bloc in the country" "there is no getting rid of you" "we can sure as hell rub your noses in what you've accomplished?"

When, even before you start the discussion, you are convinced that your opponents are "ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits" - you're not an adult having a discussion, you are a child having a tantrum. And if that's the sort of discourse you want, keep it up.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Those who would abrogate the rights of others are would be tyrants.

Choose carefully and choose wisely. Tyrants suffer at the whims of other tyrants

You can abrogate a treaty, but the term of art in law is "deprivation of a constitutionally protected right".

As for tyranny: there is no tyranny greater than taking a life.

Those who profit from the proliferation of weapons deprive victims of their constitutionally protected right right of "life, liberty and property". And the toll keeps mounting, in the manner of "aggravated deprivation of civil rights", or say, a 100,000 counts of depriving victims of their constitutionally protected rights. Or: 100,000 counts of "proximately causing" the death of victims, under the statutes against manslaughter and attempted murder. Under the heading of doing this for profit, it is labeled as participation in organized crime and/or conspiracy to commit murder. In addition, they proximately cause all of the crimes committed at gunpoint, from kidnapping to bank robbery to rape to carjacking -- you name it. In a just world, all of the dealers would need to be tried in mass for aiding and abetting all of the people who ever pointed a weapon at anyone in the commission of a crime.

Sentencing is said to be just when assessed in proportion to the gravity of the offense. Since these offenses exceed the worst of all crimes known (except for ethnic cleansing, war crimes, etc) then the appropriate assessment is the most severe punishment available: the death penalty.

I also note that the post count here is the optical inverse of 666, so if you're superstitious, you can call my post "sacred" and I'll understand.

 

[iceaura]

Adults who use language like "I'm blaming you doorknobs for being possibly the most gullible and damaging voting bloc in the country" "there is no getting rid of you" "we can sure as hell rub your noses in what you've accomplished?"

Quite possibly, yes. Since we will show up, do the work, and so forth. And people like you won't even follow the discussion.

When, even before you start the discussion, you are convinced that your opponents are "ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits" - you're not an adult having a discussion, you are a child having a tantrum.

And when after reading my post, you think I was referring to my "opponents" by that phrase, you are (once again, in your case) simply making a mistake.

Normally when an adult goes out of their way to berate and insult another person from a position of simple error like that, the next thing out of their mouths is an apology. We all have our misunderstandings, after all. Some more than others, of course.

Or: 100,000 counts of "proximately causing" the death of victims, under the statutes against manslaughter and attempted murder. Under the heading of doing this for profit, it is labeled as participation in organized crime and/or conspiracy to commit murder. In addition, they proximately cause all of the crimes committed at gunpoint, from kidnapping to bank robbery to rape to carjacking -- you name it. In a just world, all of the dealers would need to be tried in mass for aiding and abetting all of the people who ever pointed a weapon at anyone in the commission of a crime.

Under the principles of MAD, you probably want to start with the dealers who supply the military, and then the police, and the rest of us last. Otherwise you have a conspiracy to commit self defense, which is not going to sway the jury much - just world or no.