Two mass shootings in less than a week

[Spafranco]

Are we setting a record here.

I am delighted to see that the people at Salon.com stated that the gun enthusiasts and the NRA in particular would not mention a word about the DC shooting that had a man with a concealed carry permit kill a dozen people. Way to go NRA and your supporters. Tell the families how much protection you were able to offer. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from you.
300 million guns and how many mass killings and yet so many have ignored the simple fact that this country at the moment is vying with Yemen as the most violent in the world. Never mind the industrialized world. Hell, we have out paced that years ago. We are now in another category.
So when you hear the chants of USA #1; don't think, or let me rephrase that as there are few thinkers in the gun gallery. I mean we are #1 in murder by gun and mass shootings in any of the industrialized nations. When or if you decide to respond, take note, all of your defenses are asinine when it comes to guns, the 2nd amendment and all the other death dealing laws you have managed to put through the government and make it law.We see the proof on a daily basis.
You oppose everything and now in places like Arkansas, a very gun loving state ,a law was passed to allow teachers to carry guns into their schools. It did not take long for the gun support advocates to get all in a tizzy and you know why that tizzy occurred? Because the impact was on their children if something were to go awry.
Kill someone else as long as it is not one of mine.

[Rollo]

So when you hear the chants of USA #1; don't think, or let me rephrase that as there are few thinkers in the gun gallery. I mean we are #1 in murder by gun and mass shootings in any of the industrialized nations. When or if you decide to respond, take note, all of your defenses are asinine when it comes to guns, the 2nd amendment and all the other death dealing laws you have managed to put through the government and make it law.We see the proof on a daily basis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A more "perfect Union"? The "establishment of Justice"? How does it "insure domestic Tranquility" or even provide for the "common" defence? Does the destruction of people needlessly, really "promote the general Welfare"?

Clearly, yes.
Rather than being wrong, something is obviously very right with America or else pressure would be brought to bear to change the culture. The American people have decided long ago that the deaths of 10,000 people a year and the residual medical costs of gun violence are an acceptable price to pay for "freedom".
If this had happened anywhere in the 'civilised' world it would have been a tragedy, yet in America, 13 people in the grand scheme of things is neither impressive or statistically important.

America will do what it always does and that is flagellate itself for 11 days in the media and then on average wait approximately 78 days for another 10+ people to be destroyed; only to repeat the process.

The way I see it, each of those 13 deaths at the Naval Yard shouldn't be simply a statistic. Every one of those people was a father, a brother, a son, an uncle and very dear and special to someone. Yet because of the operation of the law which allowed someone access to the instruments of death, families are ripped apart, never to be healed. How about telling those families that the destruction of their loved ones and lives are really the "Blessings of Liberty"?

"yay" freedom...

[webberf1]

Quite honestly, the tightening of gun laws in America is really not going to change much in terms of death toll due to gun crimes.

The problem, overall (not just speaking of the occasional psychotic rampage killing) stems mostly from poverty and lack of economic opportunity - something the Obama administration has not helped one bit with his awful support for Bernanke's disastrous monetary policy, as well as making minorities more welfare dependent than ever.

Last I heard there was something like 9,000 gun deaths in America last year alone. Combine that with all the US soldier deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many 9/11's is that since 2001? My guess is about 60 9/11's at least.

The main issue is not gun control, instead its simply teaching Johnny how to read and write, and give him the opportunity to get a proper job instead of hustling all day long. Instead of spending trillions on trying to maintain the cracking and fraying US empire, it should be spent on getting the nation's own finances in order and creating better conditions for economic growth (i.e. becoming a republic once again).

[Spafranco]

So when you hear the chants of USA #1; don't think, or let me rephrase that as there are few thinkers in the gun gallery. I mean we are #1 in murder by gun and mass shootings in any of the industrialized nations. When or if you decide to respond, take note, all of your defenses are asinine when it comes to guns, the 2nd amendment and all the other death dealing laws you have managed to put through the government and make it law.We see the proof on a daily basis.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A more "perfect Union"? The "establishment of Justice"? How does it "insure domestic Tranquility" or even provide for the "common" defence? Does the destruction of people needlessly, really "promote the general Welfare"?

Clearly, yes.
Rather than being wrong, something is obviously very right with America or else pressure would be brought to bear to change the culture. The American people have decided long ago that the deaths of 10,000 people a year and the residual medical costs of gun violence are an acceptable price to pay for "freedom".
If this had happened anywhere in the 'civilised' world it would have been a tragedy, yet in America, 13 people in the grand scheme of things is neither impressive or statistically important.

America will do what it always does and that is flagellate itself for 11 days in the media and then on average wait approximately 78 days for another 10+ people to be destroyed; only to repeat the process.

The way I see it, each of those 13 deaths at the Naval Yard shouldn't be simply a statistic. Every one of those people was a father, a brother, a son, an uncle and very dear and special to someone. Yet because of the operation of the law which allowed someone access to the instruments of death, families are ripped apart, never to be healed. How about telling those families that the destruction of their loved ones and lives are really the "Blessings of Liberty"?

"yay" freedom...

Sorry to say but the number of deaths as a result of guns this year 2013 ,to date is approximately 24,980. That is a CDC number. Your number of eight thousand plus is correct in the sense that it is easily attainable for people who have been shot in a crime as victim or perpetrator so the information is readily available.
This week has been so wonderful for the NRA and surely they will have an influx of new members who, when they read about the young black UNARMED student with a 3.7 GPA in Chemistry who was shot 10 times. He had gone to the door of a house seeking help. The person in the house called 911, the kid was killed when he was shot by police ten times. Unarmed just like Trayvon Martin and killed as a result of ....well what would one ascertain is the reason?!. He had just been in a bad car crash and had escaped through the back window of the car. How dangerous was he? No danger. None whatsoever. His crime was he was black and don't let anyone say any different.
Then we have another incident this week. This time two idiots shot at each other as they stopped to contest a road rage incident.
Each had a concealed carry permit (fr***in joke, an insult to any thinking persons intelligence) and to assuage the danger of the other getting the upper hand they drew their weapons and each of them found their mark. Well done NRA, they were great shots and they killed one another. Just what you wanted. It would be laughable if it were not so sad.
Rollo, most Americans, the majority, want some type of control on guns.
This week, the very people that make it difficult to get any laws passed because of their perceived safety if they are armed ended up as being perpetrators of violence and resulted in their own deaths as well of many innocents.

Nothing will ever be done in this country because the gun culture has no idea nor the intelligence to recognize that when they get a bill for a emergency room visit they can't understand why a simple MRI costs so much. Well , in addition to the number of other common causes of illness that demands hospitalization the cost of treating gun shot victims is astronomical and so trickles down to everyone.They want guns and more of them. Why??? They say because the criminals have them. Well, the criminals do have them and the more of them that are around (guns) the more the criminals can get their hands on. F************!
Wait another week as suggested and maybe we will have someone ask that we be allowed to hitch a .50 caliber machine gun on to a truck because going through the streets of Naperville Illinois is highly dangerous and we can act like the Taliban and accost any black person, even a 3.7GPA student, who looks at us the wrong way and shoot him. We will be on Hannity and O'Reilly and even Megyn Kelly and they will cheer from the balconies and scream USA #1. They will be correct. #1 in gun deaths. That's what.

[Starter]

I just returned from vacation so am catching up. The originator of this thread is on my ignore list, so imagine my surprise when I discovered the thread had nothing to do with either an unhappy event at a Catholic church or the bagging of two trophy masses for mounting on the wall. :confused:

[Starter]

The way I see it, each of those 13 deaths at the Naval Yard shouldn't be simply a statistic. Every one of those people was a father, a brother, a son, an uncle and very dear and special to someone. Yet because of the operation of the law which allowed someone access to the instruments of death, families are ripped apart, never to be healed. How about telling those families that the destruction of their loved ones and lives are really the "Blessings of Liberty"?
Hmm, the "instrument of death" turned out to be a shotgun. So you are saying that all shotguns should be banned and no one allowed access to them? Please clarify.

[Starter]

The problem, overall (not just speaking of the occasional psychotic rampage killing) stems mostly from poverty and lack of economic opportunity - something the Obama administration has not helped one bit with his awful support for Bernanke's disastrous monetary policy, as well as making minorities more welfare dependent than ever.

Last I heard there was something like 9,000 gun deaths in America last year alone. Combine that with all the US soldier deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many 9/11's is that since 2001? My guess is about 60 9/11's at least.

The main issue is not gun control, instead its simply teaching Johnny how to read and write, and give him the opportunity to get a proper job instead of hustling all day long. Instead of spending trillions on trying to maintain the cracking and fraying US empire, it should be spent on getting the nation's own finances in order and creating better conditions for economic growth (i.e. becoming a republic once again).
You have a point about what causes the vast majority of intentional killings each year. Not just during the commission of crimes, but also from inter personal or domestic disputes in that people have never had any education in better ways to resolve those differences. Poverty and ignorance are hard to overcome.

[slorydn1]

I am only going to point out that yet again we have a mass casualty incident involving a deranged individual carrying a deadly weapon, who was granted as much time as he needed to indiscriminately pick and choose who he was going to shoot as he was in a "gun free zone".....No wait, make that a gun free zone WITHIN a gun free zone. What that means that not one of his victims, save for the police officer and security guard that were shot by him had any hope of defending themselves.

Background check? Done and passed (somehow).
Law preventing possessing a firearm in that area? On the books, and heavily enforced.
Police presence in the area the incident took place? Moderately heavy, which had swelled to unbelievable proportions while events were unfolding.

Yet an individual who was armed in an area where it is illegal to possess a weapon was able to gain access to a secure area
and shoot multiple people.

What does that mean? You be the judge.

But can anyone tell me (again) how piling even more regulation on the possession of firearms is going to prevent incidents such as this from ever happening again?

[webberf1]

The problem, overall (not just speaking of the occasional psychotic rampage killing) stems mostly from poverty and lack of economic opportunity - something the Obama administration has not helped one bit with his awful support for Bernanke's disastrous monetary policy, as well as making minorities more welfare dependent than ever.

Last I heard there was something like 9,000 gun deaths in America last year alone. Combine that with all the US soldier deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many 9/11's is that since 2001? My guess is about 60 9/11's at least.

The main issue is not gun control, instead its simply teaching Johnny how to read and write, and give him the opportunity to get a proper job instead of hustling all day long. Instead of spending trillions on trying to maintain the cracking and fraying US empire, it should be spent on getting the nation's own finances in order and creating better conditions for economic growth (i.e. becoming a republic once again).
You have a point about what causes the vast majority of intentional killings each year. Not just during the commission of crimes, but also from inter personal or domestic disputes in that people have never had any education in better ways to resolve those differences. Poverty and ignorance are hard to overcome.
That's the thing. A lot of people just immediately blame the gun laws because it is conveniently easy to do so. But they completely overlook the core of the problem. Guns alone don't cause violence. Poverty, lack of education and lack of economic opportunity cause violence. As I say, the Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone. The government and their partners in crime at the Federal Reserve have not only continued, but ramped up the failed policies of the Bush administration, destroying the middle class and leading to levels of poverty not seen since the great depression.

[webberf1]

I'm also sick of the European members on here acting high and mighty on these issues regarding America. Europe is probably even more economically and socially screwed up right now.

[Spafranco]

I am only going to point out that yet again we have a mass casualty incident involving a deranged individual carrying a deadly weapon, who was granted as much time as he needed to indiscriminately pick and choose who he was going to shoot as he was in a "gun free zone".....No wait, make that a gun free zone WITHIN a gun free zone. What that means that not one of his victims, save for the police officer and security guard that were shot by him had any hope of defending themselves.

Background check? Done and passed (somehow).
Law preventing possessing a firearm in that area? On the books, and heavily enforced.
Police presence in the area the incident took place? Moderately heavy, which had swelled to unbelievable proportions while events were unfolding.

Yet an individual who was armed in an area where it is illegal to possess a weapon was able to gain access to a secure area
and shoot multiple people.

What does that mean? You be the judge.

But can anyone tell me (again) how piling even more regulation on the possession of firearms is going to prevent incidents such as this from ever happening again?

It won't ever "stop happening" because it is now ingrained in our society. You have an organization like the NRA that whine and moan and will not yield on any given point presented.
How to stop something or giving the authorities a chance is to take Kabul,Islamabad and all the other killing zones out of this country and make it safe.
Concealed carry, and two guys kill each other because of road rage. Where else in the industrialized world are you going to see or hear about something like that? Gone back to Wyatt Earp and the days of the wild west. No more than 10 rounds in a clip for anything. No more sales to your "buddies" so it does not have to be reported. No more sales of assault weapons. No more sales at gun shows from the trunk of a car. No more glorifying guns.
Gun sales have skyrocketed but the numbers sold are to the same people buying more and more. The numbers of new legitimately purchased guns to new individuals has not grown by any significant number.
All of you lovers of the NRA are contributing to this mass fear and death that has permeated this once great country. When a three year old is shot in Chicago and all I see is people like Starter more concerned about his damn shotgun that the child and the other 30,000 plus killed or injured it makes me want to purge.

[Roamy]

Many of the people getting shot in this country are ones that should be shot. When you spout numbers spout only innocent people numbers. Also when
you compare numbers you have to compare to equal population.

[TheFamousEccles]

Many of the people getting shot in this country are ones that should be shot. When you spout numbers spout only innocent people numbers. Also when
you compare numbers you have to compare to equal population.

You're trolling, aren't you?

America - knock yourselves out. The next time some stupid bastard looks the wrong way at you, give 'em both barrels and a full clip for good measure. They deserved it, obviously.

(Any reasonable Americans who may read this, sorry to generalise so. But your country has been hijacked by paranoid, ill-educated conspiracy freaks, and it's best that you either keep your heads down, or get to somewhere safe)

[Ranger]

Awful news, condolences to the victims' friends and families.

However it seems pretty clear that one new law isn't going to solve anything fast.

Good thing I don't have to solve it. :\

[Tazio]

(Any reasonable Americans who may read this, sorry to generalise so. But your country has been hijacked by paranoid, ill-educated conspiracy freaks, and it's best that you either keep your heads down, or get to somewhere safe)

It's never crosses my mind to be concerned enough with being a victim of gun violence to consider carrying a firearm or take any extraordinary measures to "stay safe" as I've gone about my 60 years of living in the good ol' USA.

Thanks for your concern, however I'll keep my head up and continue to go where I please. It is not something that affects my day to day life bro. I put myself in about 1000 times more danger every time I jump on the freeway on my suicide machine....and I consider that more fun than adults should be allowed to have (in sunny Southern California) with their clothes bro on.
No worries over here scro’

Best wishes,
http://i.imgur.com/DbzmSFl.jpg

[Roamy]

Hey we are nothing compared to the Kenyans!!!! Hey Famous I have lived here for over 60yrs with no problems. But I have to admit I don't go clubbing in Detroit at 1.30 am :)
I pack when I travel or hike up remote streams fly fishing but I feel pretty safe going to the grocery store in Arizona :) The gang people are going to shoot it out and I don't like to see any innocent person killed but I really don't give a sh!t about drug up gangster killing one another. A side note on that however is the loss of life in Mexico where so many young people have been forced into gangs. Mexico is such a beautiful country but sadly to say I am scared to even piss on the fence we are building.

[Rollo]

Poverty, lack of education and lack of economic opportunity cause violence.

This is a lie.
How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?


As I say, the Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone. The government and their partners in crime at the Federal Reserve have not only continued, but ramped up the failed policies of the Bush administration, destroying the middle class and leading to levels of poverty not seen since the great depression.

The Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone? Real wages peaked in the United States in 1977. That's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter who all were at the wheel; moreover, it's economic decisions from Wall St which choose to move production off shore.
Yet it is the American people who continue to choose to buy ever increasing stockpiles of weapons; that is entirely voluntary. The American people who continue to choose shoot each other, not the government.

[Spafranco]

Hey we are nothing compared to the Kenyans!!!! Hey Famous I have lived here for over 60yrs with no problems. But I have to admit I don't go clubbing in Detroit at 1.30 am :)
I pack when I travel or hike up remote streams fly fishing but I feel pretty safe going to the grocery store in Arizona :) The gang people are going to shoot it out and I don't like to see any innocent person killed but I really don't give a sh!t about drug up gangster killing one another. A side note on that however is the loss of life in Mexico where so many young people have been forced into gangs. Mexico is such a beautiful country but sadly to say I am scared to even piss on the fence we are building.

Other than your reference to Kenya (over my head) I like your post. Wish they would (criminals, trackers human and drugs) would get caught in one of their underground tunnels. Switch off the lights and wait for mother nature to take care of them when they can't exit.

[Spafranco]

Poverty, lack of education and lack of economic opportunity cause violence.

This is a lie.
How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?


As I say, the Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone. The government and their partners in crime at the Federal Reserve have not only continued, but ramped up the failed policies of the Bush administration, destroying the middle class and leading to levels of poverty not seen since the great depression.

The Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone? Real wages peaked in the United States in 1977. That's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter who all were at the wheel; moreover, it's economic decisions from Wall St which choose to move production off shore.
Yet it is the American people who continue to choose to buy ever increasing stockpiles of weapons; that is entirely voluntary. The American people who continue to choose shoot each other, not the government.

Obama, damn , how can any sane minded person blame Obama for the needless deaths of thousands of young American in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 (omitting the civilians here and in Iraq on top of this). Losing billions of dollars, screwing up the economy of which I am a victim amongst thousands.
The real mess was created by the lobbyists with self interest which is all I can gather from being a conservative or republican.
Guns, damn, they are like manna from heaven for them.

[Spafranco]

Awful news, condolences to the victims' friends and families.

However it seems pretty clear that one new law isn't going to solve anything fast.

Good thing I don't have to solve it. :\
Too true. Lets start with AR-13's, limit gun bullet capacity, limit number of guns to each household and not have a arsenal in so many homes. No guns within so many yards of a school, or workplace except for law enforcement. Seems as though the pedophiles have to obey these laws. Why not the more obvious guns. (not comparing gun owners to molesters ).

[Spafranco]

Many of the people getting shot in this country are ones that should be shot. When you spout numbers spout only innocent people numbers. Also when
you compare numbers you have to compare to equal population.

People like whom need to shot?

Do you fail to understand how one compares the death to population ratio in countries?

[Roamy]

Many of the people getting shot in this country are ones that should be shot. When you spout numbers spout only innocent people numbers. Also when
you compare numbers you have to compare to equal population.

People like whom need to shot?

Do you fail to understand how one compares the death to population ratio in countries?


Meth dealer/makers - child molesters - murderers etc Spafranco were you born this way or did you work at it your whole life?

[TheFamousEccles]

(Any reasonable Americans who may read this, sorry to generalise so. But your country has been hijacked by paranoid, ill-educated conspiracy freaks, and it's best that you either keep your heads down, or get to somewhere safe)

It's never crosses my mind to be concerned enough with being a victim of gun violence to consider carrying a firearm or take any extraordinary measures to "stay safe" as I've gone about my 60 years of living in the good ol' USA.

Thanks for your concern, however I'll keep my head up and continue to go where I please. It is not something that affects my day to day life bro. I put myself in about 1000 times more danger every time I jump on the freeway on my suicide machine....and I consider that more fun than adults should be allowed to have (in sunny Southern California) with their clothes bro on.
No worries over here scro’

Best wishes,
http://i.imgur.com/DbzmSFl.jpg

Apologies - I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are as unconcerned about being victim to conceal and carry, NRA boosters as you are. I was merely venting at the level of discourse on this thread (particularly the quote in my previous post) and the way that it is almost tacitly accepted as the norm for some clown with a gun can go and kill as many people as they can before being killed themselves - at least they make the news, eh? Look, I'm famous! I was on TV.

And this seems to happen on a regular basis - I am sure that there are many other atrocities happen in USA #1 that the rest of the world doesn't get to hear of.

As for another clown trying to point to 3rd world countries and the level of lawlessness and gun related violence that occur in these countries - there is a fundamental difference between Kenya or the Congo and the US. Your country is an apparent democracy, with rule of law. A highly sophisticated, civilised nation that generally relies on it's citizens to act rationally. The 3rd world states are and have been hamstrung by tribal differences and megalomaniac leaders that rob them blind and "disappear" anyone who looks like a threat to their status quo.

From where I sit, it just seems like the US is on an ever accelerating race to the bottom, and I find that distressing. That an organisation like the NRA can hold such disproportionate influence over a nation of 330+million is staggering to my mind.

Anyway, what the hell can I do about it? 10/10ths of SFA is the true answer I guess. But knee-jerk idiots spouting crap on a motorsports forum website just give me the shits. So again, sorry Bro.

BTW - nice ride! And what does "Scro" mean?

[Tazio]

It's an expression used instead of bro in the movie "Idiocracy" bro. :)

[555-04Q2]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.

[555-04Q2]

I am only going to point out that yet again we have a mass casualty incident involving a deranged individual carrying a deadly weapon, who was granted as much time as he needed to indiscriminately pick and choose who he was going to shoot as he was in a "gun free zone".....No wait, make that a gun free zone WITHIN a gun free zone. What that means that not one of his victims, save for the police officer and security guard that were shot by him had any hope of defending themselves.

Background check? Done and passed (somehow).
Law preventing possessing a firearm in that area? On the books, and heavily enforced.
Police presence in the area the incident took place? Moderately heavy, which had swelled to unbelievable proportions while events were unfolding.

Yet an individual who was armed in an area where it is illegal to possess a weapon was able to gain access to a secure area
and shoot multiple people.

What does that mean? You be the judge.

But can anyone tell me (again) how piling even more regulation on the possession of firearms is going to prevent incidents such as this from ever happening again?

Good post. There will always be guns. If you outlaw and ban them from the average man, the criminals will still get them on the black market.

Instead of banning guns, ban things like McDonalds, they cause more deaths from heart problems and cholesterol levels than guns kill people.

[henners88]

These threads do nothing but invite nastiness to the forum. We all know where we stand on guns here after countless threads already. I really haven't given these shootings a second thought.

[555-04Q2]

Such is life hey!

[D-Type]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.
In every society there will be psychopaths, angry people, misfits, etc - in summary potential killers. If said person has ready access to a gun he will obtain one and use it. If he doesn't have access he won't and will use another method. And we know that guns are an extremely effective instrument for killing people. This suggests that if you make guns less readily available the success of potential murder attempts will go down, ie the statistic 'killings per capita' will be lower.

In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them

If we accept these two concepts and accept that in combination a problem exists in the USA, what can be done? We are talking of changing a whole nation's mindset.

The only analogue I can think of is smoking. In, say, the thirties smoking was normal and we frequently saw a cigarette as a prop in films. Cigarette adverts flourished and a generation grew up believing it was 'cool' to smoke. The fifties saw knowledge of the ill health effects of cigarettes spread but the tobacco lobby did its best to suppress the evidence. The sixties saw direct cigarette advertising banned so we saw sponsoring of sport: The John Player cricket league, the Winston Cup, and of course tobacco sponsored Formula 1 and Sports Car teams. We have seen smoking bans in cinemas, offices and public places. We see pockets of resistance with people opening smokers' pubs, pubs creating smoking gardens - enclosed spaces with heating and the maximum legally interpreted shelter including a roof spaces. In summary society has turned its back on smoking but there is some resistance. Indeed the current generation of teenagers are seeing smoking as a form of rebellion. The change is happening but slowly.

So, how can the US society re-educate itself to change the entire attitude to gun ownership?

One starting point is more legislation restricting sales and ownership. But we know this will be vigorously opposed by the NRA and others.

It would be nice to think that some form of anti-gun education could be introduced in schools, but at present the pro-guns element is too strong.

What can be done?

[555-04Q2]

[quote="555-04Q2":l34uxp89]Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.
In every society there will be psychopaths, angry people, misfits, etc - in summary potential killers. If said person has ready access to a gun he will obtain one and use it. If he doesn't have access he won't and will use another method. And we know that guns are an extremely effective instrument for killing people. This suggests that if you make guns less readily available the success of potential murder attempts will go down, ie the statistic 'killings per capita' will be lower.

In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them

If we accept these two concepts and accept that in combination a problem exists in the USA, what can be done? We are talking of changing a whole nation's mindset.

The only analogue I can think of is smoking. In, say, the thirties smoking was normal and we frequently saw a cigarette as a prop in films. Cigarette adverts flourished and a generation grew up believing it was 'cool' to smoke. The fifties saw knowledge of the ill health effects of cigarettes spread but the tobacco lobby did its best to suppress the evidence. The sixties saw direct cigarette advertising banned so we saw sponsoring of sport: The John Player cricket league, the Winston Cup, and of course tobacco sponsored Formula 1 and Sports Car teams. We have seen smoking bans in cinemas, offices and public places. We see pockets of resistance with people opening smokers' pubs, pubs creating smoking gardens - enclosed spaces with heating and the maximum legally interpreted shelter including a roof spaces. In summary society has turned its back on smoking but there is some resistance. Indeed the current generation of teenagers are seeing smoking as a form of rebellion. The change is happening but slowly.

So, how can the US society re-educate itself to change the entire attitude to gun ownership?

One starting point is more legislation restricting sales and ownership. But we know this will be vigorously opposed by the NRA and others.

It would be nice to think that some form of anti-gun education could be introduced in schools, but at present the pro-guns element is too strong.

What can be done?[/quote:l34uxp89]

Well there are far more dangerous things in this world that kill people than guns, but guns are always targeted to be banned. Cars kill more people than guns every year (including deaths in wars) so why don't we just ban cars? There are food products that kill more people than guns etc the list goes on.

There is are nothing wrong with guns, it's how people use them that is a problem. Rather than ban an inanimate object that cannot harm anything without outside influence, rather make stricter criteria so that the nutters don't get them. As with everything in life, a few pr!cks spoil it for everyone else.

[Starter]

In every society there will be psychopaths, angry people, misfits, etc - in summary potential killers. If said person has ready access to a gun he will obtain one and use it. If he doesn't have access he won't and will use another method.
You are quite correct in this. The place where we differ is in the solution. I would say the more proper way is to identify those people and restrict [i]their[i] access to guns. as well as provide treatment for them.


In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them
You are wrong on two counts here. First, cowboys as folk heros is out of date and has been for some time - that dates to the 1930 through 1960 era of movies and television. Second, the founding fathers intention was not just for a citizen militia.Though not expressly stated in the Constitution, it has been made clear in the Federalist Papers, written by the founders, explaining in more detail the reasons for what they enacted.


So, how can the US society re-educate itself to change the entire attitude to gun ownership?
Given the above, why would we want to do that?


One starting point is more legislation restricting sales and ownership. But we know this will be vigorously opposed by the NRA and others.
Here is where we move from the realm of law (the Constitution) to the practical daily reality. There are currently over 300 million citizens in the US. No one knows how many guns there are, legal and otherwise. Estimates run all over and as high as 150 million and up. Please explain just how you are going to take those existing guns away from people. Pass a law against ownership and some will turn theirs in. Personally I have several guns and have no intention of using them against another person except in self defense. I also have no intention of EVER turning them in. My opinion is that most legal gun owners feel this way. Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

[555-04Q2]

Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

Very well put :)

[Rollo]

Here is where we move from the realm of law (the Constitution) to the practical daily reality. There are currently over 300 million citizens in the US. No one knows how many guns there are, legal and otherwise. Estimates run all over and as high as 150 million and up. Please explain just how you are going to take those existing guns away from people. Pass a law against ownership and some will turn theirs in. Personally I have several guns and have no intention of using them against another person except in self defense. I also have no intention of EVER turning them in. My opinion is that most legal gun owners feel this way. Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

This is largely why I said in the second post:
America will do what it always does and that is flagellate itself for 11 days in the media and then on average wait approximately 78 days for another 10+ people to be destroyed; only to repeat the process.

This is something to consider:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://icasualties.org/
From Lexington in 1775 to recent operations in Afghanistan, the total death toll of all Americans killed in war is 1,171,177.
By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the CDC and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.

Arguably the issue of slavery in the United States wasn't resolved until a war happened, whilst in the UK it took mere legislation. For an issue like gun control, Starter is correct. Even if you assume that the United States is at war with itself (which is borne out by the statistics) then there is literally no logical hope whatsoever. You aren't going to take people's guns away, it's simply not going to happen.
To that end, I predict that the next massacre in which more than ten people are destroyed in the United States will happen on or before December 7.

Yay "freedom"...

[555-04Q2]

You aren't going to take people's guns away, it's simply not going to happen.

To quote JB, "Never say never". They did it here a few years back and still continue to disarm the law abiding citizens here today while we have an estimated 10+ million illegal guns in the hands of the criminals. And you know what they say about bringing a knife to a gun fight! Criminals 1, citizens 0.

[Spafranco]

Many of the people getting shot in this country are ones that should be shot. When you spout numbers spout only innocent people numbers. Also when
you compare numbers you have to compare to equal population.

People like whom need to shot?

Do you fail to understand how one compares the death to population ratio in countries?


Meth dealer/makers - child molesters - murderers etc Spafranco were you born this way or did you work at it your whole life?

Don't insult me with your ignorant remark. If you want to go down that road I am quite capable of doing so. One question I have for you. How many murderers, child molesters, methdealers/makers were killed in Sandy Hook or in the DC Navy Yard?

[Spafranco]

Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

Very well put :)

Well put?. The predominant number of guns in the hands of criminals is due to the lax laws on the books. With all the murders in this United States how many innocents are murdered by a convicted criminal? How many lives were saved by concealed carry John Wayne wannabe's?

[Spafranco]

Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

Very well put :)

Well put?. The plethora of guns in the hands of criminals is due to the lax laws on the books. With all the murders in this United States how many innocents are murdered by a convicted criminal? How many lives were saved by concealed carry John Wayne wannabe's?

[555-04Q2]

Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.

Very well put :)

Well put?. The predominant number of guns in the hands of criminals is due to the lax laws on the books. With all the murders in this United States how many innocents are murdered by a convicted criminal? How many lives were saved by concealed carry John Wayne wannabe's?

It must be great being ignorant like you. Criminals will use guns whether by way of legal processing or on the black market. Thats why we call them criminals.

[gadjo_dilo]

Criminals will use guns whether by way of legal processing or on the black market. Thats why we call them criminals.
However I recall that during the communist period when we could get almost everything on the black market it was impossible to get a gun. Or was it because nobody needed it? :confused:

[TheFamousEccles]

If the law enforcement agencies weren't so busy cleaning up the mess left behind by law-abiding, god-fearing, constitution mangling delusionals slaughtering each other with their legally acquired and concealed weapons, they may well be then able to deploy more effectively against "the criminals"? It's just a hunch.

But no! Once "the criminals" are dealt with, the GOVERNMENT with then turn against the saps who didn't hide their Mach 10's and their Desert Eagles and their Franchi Spaz assault 12 gauges and force them to break rocks in the hot sun. Damn nazi communists!

"Hell no, from my cold, lifeless hand!" OK - but careful what you wish for..

[Spafranco]

[quote="D-Type":3tgcalyr][quote="555-04Q2":3tgcalyr]Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.
In every society there will be psychopaths, angry people, misfits, etc - in summary potential killers. If said person has ready access to a gun he will obtain one and use it. If he doesn't have access he won't and will use another method. And we know that guns are an extremely effective instrument for killing people. This suggests that if you make guns less readily available the success of potential murder attempts will go down, ie the statistic 'killings per capita' will be lower.

In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them

If we accept these two concepts and accept that in combination a problem exists in the USA, what can be done? We are talking of changing a whole nation's mindset.

The only analogue I can think of is smoking. In, say, the thirties smoking was normal and we frequently saw a cigarette as a prop in films. Cigarette adverts flourished and a generation grew up believing it was 'cool' to smoke. The fifties saw knowledge of the ill health effects of cigarettes spread but the tobacco lobby did its best to suppress the evidence. The sixties saw direct cigarette advertising banned so we saw sponsoring of sport: The John Player cricket league, the Winston Cup, and of course tobacco sponsored Formula 1 and Sports Car teams. We have seen smoking bans in cinemas, offices and public places. We see pockets of resistance with people opening smokers' pubs, pubs creating smoking gardens - enclosed spaces with heating and the maximum legally interpreted shelter including a roof spaces. In summary society has turned its back on smoking but there is some resistance. Indeed the current generation of teenagers are seeing smoking as a form of rebellion. The change is happening but slowly.

So, how can the US society re-educate itself to change the entire attitude to gun ownership?

One starting point is more legislation restricting sales and ownership. But we know this will be vigorously opposed by the NRA and others.

It would be nice to think that some form of anti-gun education could be introduced in schools, but at present the pro-guns element is too strong.

What can be done?[/quote:3tgcalyr]

Well there are far more dangerous things in this world that kill people than guns, but guns are always targeted to be banned. Cars kill more people than guns every year (including deaths in wars) so why don't we just ban cars? There are food products that kill more people than guns etc the list goes on.

There is are nothing wrong with guns, it's how people use them that is a problem. Rather than ban an inanimate object that cannot harm anything without outside influence, rather make stricter criteria so that the nutters don't get them. As with everything in life, a few pr!cks spoil it for everyone else.[/quote:3tgcalyr]

If there was nothing wrong with guns this thread would not exist. Guns are an instrument of death. Plain and simple. Comparing a car ;a transportation device has in no way correlation to guns no matter how many people die.

The guns don't kill people, people kill people is probably the most obtuse and idiotic metaphor. In fact if they got it right they should have stated that it is the bullet that kills or a step farther, the injuries sustained. No, the lack of breath killed the individual.

[Spafranco]

[quote=D-Type]In every society there will be psychopaths, angry people, misfits, etc - in summary potential killers. If said person has ready access to a gun he will obtain one and use it. If he doesn't have access he won't and will use another method.
You are quite correct in this. The place where we differ is in the solution. I would say the more proper way is to identify those people and restrict [i]their[i] access to guns. as well as provide treatment for them.


In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them
You are wrong on two counts here. First, cowboys as folk heros is out of date and has been for some time - that dates to the 1930 through 1960 era of movies and television. Second, the founding fathers intention was not just for a citizen militia.Though not expressly stated in the Constitution, it has been made clear in the Federalist Papers, written by the founders, explaining in more detail the reasons for what they enacted.


So, how can the US society re-educate itself to change the entire attitude to gun ownership?
Given the above, why would we want to do that?


One starting point is more legislation restricting sales and ownership. But we know this will be vigorously opposed by the NRA and others.
Here is where we move from the realm of law (the Constitution) to the practical daily reality. There are currently over 300 million citizens in the US. No one knows how many guns there are, legal and otherwise. Estimates run all over and as high as 150 million and up. Please explain just how you are going to take those existing guns away from people. Pass a law against ownership and some will turn theirs in. Personally I have several guns and have no intention of using them against another person except in self defense. I also have no intention of EVER turning them in. My opinion is that most legal gun owners feel this way. Then you have the criminals. Please explain just exactly how you are going to take their guns away - they've already amply demonstrated just exactly what they think of following the law.[/quote:2aot1xki]

Here we have the typical representation of our country that causes the rest of the world to shun us. Has he been to Europe of late? Doubtful. Has he been outside his state?I suspect he has. Has he looked into the cost of gun violence? Has he ever in his life sat back and thought of the THREE year olds gunned down. Doubtful in my opinion. His first thought would probably be to wonder what affect this would have on his guns.
The poster that stated that cowboys were a role model and looked upon was not incorrect as stated by the responder who used the 30's through 60"s as his example of when they were hero's. They were looked up on as brave men and their stories well told right up and through the nineties and into the new century. Take Unforgiven, Dances with Wolves, Open Range and others I am unable to think about without looking them up. All relatively recent. It is my contention that people like the responder to this post who claims he has all these guns is one who preaches the sanctity of life but fails to see that he/she may be a contributor to the demise of others. How, steadfast as an Orangeman in Ulster who hates because he can.

[Starter]

If the law enforcement agencies weren't so busy cleaning up the mess left behind by law-abiding, god-fearing, constitution mangling delusionals slaughtering each other with their legally acquired and concealed weapons, they may well be then able to deploy more effectively against "the criminals"? It's just a hunch.

But no! Once "the criminals" are dealt with, the GOVERNMENT with then turn against the saps who didn't hide their Mach 10's and their Desert Eagles and their Franchi Spaz assault 12 gauges and force them to break rocks in the hot sun. Damn nazi communists!

"Hell no, from my cold, lifeless hand!" OK - but careful what you wish for..
Just some facts for consideration (All figures are from 2010):

Total US population 308,745,538

Deaths by all causes 2,468,435
Heart Disease 597,687
Cancer 574,743
Respiratory disease 138,080
Stroke 129,476
Accidents 120,859 (includes gun accidents)
Alzheimer's 83,494
Diabetes 69,071
Nephritis 50,476
Influenza & Pneumonia 50,097
Suicide 38,364 (includes gun suicides)

Total gun deaths (all causes) 31,076
Suicide 19,392
Homicide 11,078
Accidental 606

A few (biased) conclusions:
Not counting suicides (that's somebody's choice for themselves) there were 11,684 gun deaths in 2010. That's .47%
of all deaths (if my quick math is correct). You can do the math for the percent of total population. So I'd have to say that most people who live here don't spend a lot of time worried about being gunned down in the streets, Personally, I'm much more worried about the teenage girl texting while driving or the drunk behind the wheel.

[Spafranco]

If the law enforcement agencies weren't so busy cleaning up the mess left behind by law-abiding, god-fearing, constitution mangling delusionals slaughtering each other with their legally acquired and concealed weapons, they may well be then able to deploy more effectively against "the criminals"? It's just a hunch.

But no! Once "the criminals" are dealt with, the GOVERNMENT with then turn against the saps who didn't hide their Mach 10's and their Desert Eagles and their Franchi Spaz assault 12 gauges and force them to break rocks in the hot sun. Damn nazi communists!

"Hell no, from my cold, lifeless hand!" OK - but careful what you wish for..
Just some facts for consideration (All figures are from 2010):

Total US population 308,745,538

Deaths by all causes 2,468,435
Heart Disease 597,687
Cancer 574,743
Respiratory disease 138,080
Stroke 129,476
Accidents 120,859 (includes gun accidents)
Alzheimer's 83,494
Diabetes 69,071
Nephritis 50,476
Influenza & Pneumonia 50,097
Suicide 38,364 (includes gun suicides)

Total gun deaths (all causes) 31,076
Suicide 19,392
Homicide 11,078
Accidental 606

A few (biased) conclusions:
Not counting suicides (that's somebody's choice for themselves) there were 11,684 gun deaths in 2010. That's .47%
of all deaths (if my quick math is correct). You can do the math for the percent of total population. So I'd have to say that most people who live here don't spend a lot of time worried about being gunned down in the streets, Personally, I'm much more worried about the teenage girl texting while driving or the drunk behind the wheel.

Why is this poster....oh, someone tell him that a person actually used an expletive and has not been banned. Lawlessness I say. Back to the point. What has death from disease got to do with gun death? They are totally and absolutely germane to each other. As for his remark pertaining to suicide, that is another fallacy where he considers it a choice. That would be correct if all the circumstances were the same. They invariably are not.

The problem with guns and their owners is that vehemently ignore the will of the population is a narcissistic and mental infallibility to separate the dangerous object from reality. They live in a nether world. The population wants a form of control. The NRA send leaflets stating that the president wants to take their guns (all of them). It was never stated as such and it would never happen. I have two 12 gauge shotguns. Hunting guns. I have no fear of them being taken away or having them registered.
Have all weapons registered. Have a police presence at gun shows. No straw deals, no trading with "buddies" no claiming the population is the side of the NRA when in fact within the NRA itself,most people are willing and want to make changes. Until a child or family member is killed in a classroom , the streets , a naval yard none of these minorities in our country will ever change their minds.

[555-04Q2]

If there was nothing wrong with guns this thread would not exist. Guns are an instrument of death. Plain and simple. Comparing a car ;a transportation device has in no way correlation to guns no matter how many people die.

The guns don't kill people, people kill people is probably the most obtuse and idiotic metaphor. In fact if they got it right they should have stated that it is the bullet that kills or a step farther, the injuries sustained. No, the lack of breath killed the individual.

So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

This thread only exists because someone posted it. There is nothing wrong with guns at all, only the people that use them.

[gadjo_dilo]

So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

I'm a bit confused....
Knives might be instruments of death but still we can use them for "peaceful"purposes like cooking, eating...
But guns?
Cars kill people only accidentaly. Their main purpose is not killing.....
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
.
.
.

[henners88]

So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

This thread only exists because someone posted it. There is nothing wrong with guns at all, only the people that use them.
I think the problem here is the difference in cultures. Knives are useful everyday objects in cooking and cars are useful everyday objects because they are a form of transport. I use both these things daily, yet in my 31 years on this earth, I have never had the need for a gun and thankfully they are not used widely in my country. We still have a small problem with guns in major cities amongst criminals, but your average man on the street has no need for one. I suppose when you live where I do, the thought of people like me in other countries defending their right to have weapons just seems mental. I appreciate in South Africa and parts of the States though, the societies aren't quite as safe. Guns probably work there, but they wouldn't where I live.

It has nothing to do with being free either. I say this because I see many American's claiming they are free because of their rights to bear arms and its simply not true. No society is truly free unless they have no government. The problem is, we all need governance as free societies simply don't work. Anarchy and civil war seem natural to human beings without guidance and law and guns don't give a citizen any more power in any case. On a forum like this where we all seem to come from all corners of the world, it is difficult to understand each other. Some countries have a bigger problem with gun crime than anywhere else and to be honest, I couldn't really care less as long as its not going on near me. We all have the power to change things and this is where voting carries the most power. If people don't stand up and attempt to solve issues that affect their society, then they can't exactly seek sympathy from elsewhere IMO. You have to be blunt and to be honest I am sick of seeing these threads. 'And yet you contributed will be the response' lol.

[henners88]

[quote="555-04Q2":2lmt550u]
So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

I'm a bit confused....
Knives might be instruments of death but still we can use them for "peaceful"purposes like cooking, eating...
But guns?
Cars kill people only accidentaly. Their main purpose is not killing.....
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
.
.
.[/quote:2lmt550u]
Indeed. A knife has many purposes and can be used to kill, but is predominantly an everyday object used for cooking. A car can kill but is designed as a mode of transport. A gun on the other hand is a device designed solely to kill. I can't think of any other purpose a gun would be used for unless you are shooting targets for fun, but even then it is practice with killing in mind.

This is why it is difficult for many of us to understand in our parts of the world. Why do law abiding citizens who have no intention to kill anybody, have the desire to own a weapon designed to kill. I think that is something that is rarely addressed here and it would be good to hear from those who own guns as to their purpose. :)

[555-04Q2]

[quote="555-04Q2":3gh2cc2d]
So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

I'm a bit confused....
Knives might be instruments of death but still we can use them for "peaceful"purposes like cooking, eating...
But guns?
Cars kill people only accidentaly. Their main purpose is not killing.....
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
.
.
.
Indeed. A knife has many purposes and can be used to kill, but is predominantly an everyday object used for cooking. A car can kill but is designed as a mode of transport. A gun on the other hand is a device designed solely to kill. I can't think of any other purpose a gun would be used for unless you are shooting targets for fun, but even then it is practice with killing in mind.

This is why it is difficult for many of us to understand in our parts of the world. Why do law abiding citizens who have no intention to kill anybody, have the desire to own a weapon designed to kill. I think that is something that is rarely addressed here and it would be good to hear from those who own guns as to their purpose. :)[/quote:3gh2cc2d]

You hit the nail on the head with the shooting for fun. A lot of people have guns for this purpose only. There is nothing wrong with that obviously. But, as with anything in life, they can be used for criminal activities.

I disagree about cars though, there are thousands of cases of people using their cars to intentionally kill people. Happens every single day around the world.

The point is though, guns are no more dangerous than many other objects man has made. In the end it comes down to who has them and what their objectives are. A gun is still an inanimate object that is harmless until someone decides to use. The same goes for knives, cars etc.

[henners88]

I disagree about cars though, there are thousands of cases of people using their cars to intentionally kill people. Happens every single day around the world.
What did I say that you disagreed with concerning cars?


A car can kill but is designed as a mode of transport. A gun on the other hand is a device designed solely to kill. I can't think of any other purpose a gun would be used for unless you are shooting targets for fun, but even then it is practice with killing in mind.
I said a car 'can kill'. It is not designed to kill but as with many everyday objects it could be used to kill people. I think that is a fact.

I understand guns can be used to shoot for fun. Believe it or not we have shoots in the UK and responsible people can obtain shotgun licenses to shoot game and for some this is a fun activity. We don't allow people to own handguns and semi automatic weapons though. I don't believe those types of weapons are designed for game shooting. I also think there is a difference between a single shooter weapon or a shotgun that has a very limited capacity with the types of weapons people have used to shoot children in schools elsewhere. High capacity magazines and weapons that enable a higher rate of fire are simply not my idea of something I would have in my home. I'm not saying to ban all guns, but the types of guns that really have no purpose other than to kill people in large numbers. Weapons the military use. Responsible shotgun owners who are checked out and enjoy shooting for sport generally don't commit crimes and although they have here in the UK, it is remarkably rare. This also means that less people own guns because shooting is not regarded as a wide spread pass time. You are less likely to have guns in circulation too. It all contributes to a slightly safer society, IMHO :)

[555-04Q2]

I disagree about cars though, there are thousands of cases of people using their cars to intentionally kill people. Happens every single day around the world.
What did I say that you disagreed with concerning cars?


A car can kill but is designed as a mode of transport. A gun on the other hand is a device designed solely to kill. I can't think of any other purpose a gun would be used for unless you are shooting targets for fun, but even then it is practice with killing in mind.
I said a car 'can kill'. It is not designed to kill but as with many everyday objects it could be used to kill people. I think that is a fact.

I understand guns can be used to shoot for fun. Believe it or not we have shoots in the UK and responsible people can obtain shotgun licenses to shoot game and for some this is a fun activity. We don't allow people to own handguns and semi automatic weapons though. I don't believe those types of weapons are designed for game shooting. I also think there is a difference between a single shooter weapon or a shotgun that has a very limited capacity with the types of weapons people have used to shoot children in schools elsewhere. High capacity magazines and weapons that enable a higher rate of fire are simply not my idea of something I would have in my home. I'm not saying to ban all guns, but the types of guns that really have no purpose other than to kill people in large numbers. Weapons the military use. Responsible shotgun owners who are checked out and enjoy shooting for sport generally don't commit crimes and although they have here in the UK, it is remarkably rare. This also means that less people own guns because shooting is not regarded as a wide spread pass time. You are less likely to have guns in circulation too. It all contributes to a slightly safer society, IMHO :)


Maybe I started the sentence wrong, apologies :)

There are guns designed purely for target practice, competitions etc. So not all guns are designed to kill. Where we could maybe draw the line is getting rid of access to guns like machine guns etc for the average citizen. Hand guns and shotguns etc are fine as far as I'm concerned, the rest are really just overboard.

But these are just my opinions which I think are right, which are different to others on here who think they are right! At the end of the day, we are all right to a certain degree :)

[henners88]

Maybe I started the sentence wrong, apologies :)

There are guns designed purely for target practice, competitions etc. So not all guns are designed to kill. Where we could maybe draw the line is getting rid of access to guns like machine guns etc for the average citizen. Hand guns and shotguns etc are fine as far as I'm concerned, the rest are really just overboard.

But these are just my opinions which I think are right, which are different to others on here who think they are right! At the end of the day, we are all right to a certain degree :)
Very true. The reason I support handguns being banned is because they can be concealed rather easily and allow the user to use a high capacity magazine. We banned handguns in the UK after Dunblane where a previously responsible gun owner who enjoyed shooting targets at his local club, went mad one day and decided to execute an entire class of 6 year old children. It was devastating shook the entire country to the core. Had that maniac gone in with a knife or even a shotgun, I think he would have killed less people and may have been over powered at some point. Pure speculation though. A couple of years later a nutter tried a similar thing when he entered a nursery with a machete but this time he injured children and their teacher before being restrained. It shows knives can be used as weapons to me, but you have a much better chance than somebody executing people at a distance on a repeat fire. That is just my views on this and thankfully the law changes have improved things greatly here. I have no issues with certain guns being owned for sport, but anything that allows so many bullets to be fired repeatedly is just something a society does not need. I can understand in SA you probably need them more for protection than most places in the world so it would be difficult to imagine where I am coming from. Shootings are rare here and I hope the closest my children get to guns are seeing them in the movies. :)

[555-04Q2]

Maybe I started the sentence wrong, apologies :)

There are guns designed purely for target practice, competitions etc. So not all guns are designed to kill. Where we could maybe draw the line is getting rid of access to guns like machine guns etc for the average citizen. Hand guns and shotguns etc are fine as far as I'm concerned, the rest are really just overboard.

But these are just my opinions which I think are right, which are different to others on here who think they are right! At the end of the day, we are all right to a certain degree :)
Very true. The reason I support handguns being banned is because they can be concealed rather easily and allow the user to use a high capacity magazine. We banned handguns in the UK after Dunblane where a previously responsible gun owner who enjoyed shooting targets at his local club, went mad one day and decided to execute an entire class of 6 year old children. It was devastating shook the entire country to the core. Had that maniac gone in with a knife or even a shotgun, I think he would have killed less people and may have been over powered at some point. Pure speculation though. A couple of years later a nutter tried a similar thing when he entered a nursery with a machete but this time he injured children and their teacher before being restrained. It shows knives can be used as weapons to me, but you have a much better chance than somebody executing people at a distance on a repeat fire. That is just my views on this and thankfully the law changes have improved things greatly here. I have no issues with certain guns being owned for sport, but anything that allows so many bullets to be fired repeatedly is just something a society does not need. I can understand in SA you probably need them more for protection than most places in the world so it would be difficult to imagine where I am coming from. Shootings are rare here and I hope the closest my children get to guns are seeing them in the movies. :)

100% :)

Yeah there are more illegal guns than legal ones over here so we do need our legal firearms for protection. My gun saved me once before (I managed to stop several armed robbers who entered my home) and I hope I never need it again, but it's there if I do :)

[henners88]

100% :)

Yeah there are more illegal guns than legal ones over here so we do need our legal firearms for protection. My gun saved me once before (I managed to stop several armed robbers who entered my home) and I hope I never need it again, but it's there if I do :)
In your situation I can see why you would need one, scary stuff. Over here armed burglaries are rare in the extreme. The only times I have seen them reported have been at mansions where they stand to walk away with substantial amounts of money. Even those are rare though. Most burglars rob your house in the daytime here when nobody is home and usually come armed with a screwdriver to get in. My house has a good alarm system that is zoned and would alert me should anybody want to get in. My next door neighbour is also a soldier who has done 5 tours abroad and is a useful guy to have watching over your house lol. I also have a cricket bat in my wardrobe :p.. If burglars did pick my house at random and decided to use a gun, I would be very very unlucky. Thankfully the chances of that happening are in the many hundreds of millions I would have thought. Owning a gun is not on my radar as I really wouldn't need one. This is why it is difficult to relate to those who say they need one even if they live in a relatively peaceful country. I know a couple of people who have moved to Britain from SA and understand it is very different. :)

[555-04Q2]

100% :)

Yeah there are more illegal guns than legal ones over here so we do need our legal firearms for protection. My gun saved me once before (I managed to stop several armed robbers who entered my home) and I hope I never need it again, but it's there if I do :)
In your situation I can see why you would need one, scary stuff. Over here armed burglaries are rare in the extreme. The only times I have seen them reported have been at mansions where they stand to walk away with substantial amounts of money. Even those are rare though. Most burglars rob your house in the daytime here when nobody is home and usually come armed with a screwdriver to get in. My house has a good alarm system that is zoned and would alert me should anybody want to get in. My next door neighbour is also a soldier who has done 5 tours abroad and is a useful guy to have watching over your house lol. I also have a cricket bat in my wardrobe :p.. If burglars did pick my house at random and decided to use a gun, I would be very very unlucky. Thankfully the chances of that happening are in the many hundreds of millions I would have thought. Owning a gun is not on my radar as I really wouldn't need one. This is why it is difficult to relate to those who say they need one even if they live in a relatively peaceful country. I know a couple of people who have moved to Britain from SA and understand it is very different. :)

Welcome to our world where guns are, sadly, a necessary tool for defence :(

[BleAivano]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.

"You know a gun never killed nobody,you can ask anyone, people get shot by people, people with guns." (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Put-Out-The-Fire-lyrics-Queen/184123471389B14B482568940006BF32)

Sure we can blame the instrument, it is what the user uses to kill.
Take away the instrument and the users becomes much less lethal.

[555-04Q2]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the instrument, blame the user.

"You know a gun never killed nobody,you can ask anyone, people get shot by people, people with guns." (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Put-Out-The-Fire-lyrics-Queen/184123471389B14B482568940006BF32)

Sure we can blame the instrument, it is what the user uses to kill.
Take away the instrument and the users becomes much less lethal.

:erm: How, may I kindly ask, can an inanimate object be blamed for being anything other than what it is? :eek:

[Starter]

I think the problem here is the difference in cultures. Knives are useful everyday objects in cooking and cars are useful everyday objects because they are a form of transport. I use both these things daily, yet in my 31 years on this earth, I have never had the need for a gun and thankfully they are not used widely in my country. We still have a small problem with guns in major cities amongst criminals, but your average man on the street has no need for one. I suppose when you live where I do, the thought of people like me in other countries defending their right to have weapons just seems mental. I appreciate in South Africa and parts of the States though, the societies aren't quite as safe. Guns probably work there, but they wouldn't where I live.

It has nothing to do with being free either. I say this because I see many American's claiming they are free because of their rights to bear arms and its simply not true. No society is truly free unless they have no government. The problem is, we all need governance as free societies simply don't work. Anarchy and civil war seem natural to human beings without guidance and law and guns don't give a citizen any more power in any case. On a forum like this where we all seem to come from all corners of the world, it is difficult to understand each other. Some countries have a bigger problem with gun crime than anywhere else and to be honest, I couldn't really care less as long as its not going on near me. We all have the power to change things and this is where voting carries the most power. If people don't stand up and attempt to solve issues that affect their society, then they can't exactly seek sympathy from elsewhere IMO. You have to be blunt and to be honest I am sick of seeing these threads. 'And yet you contributed will be the response' lol.
First, what a refreshing post. An actual honest look at the issue, realizing that everything isn't the same everywhere.

It seems to me that the difference between the two camps boils down to the following two attitudes. For gun owners its "I have guns for my own private use. Self defense or hunting or target shooting. But I understand if you don't like them, and that is certainly your right for sure. I would never dream of making you own or use one.". For many gun opponents its "I believe Guns are "instruments of evil" so I am not going to allow you or anyone else to own one. It makes no difference that you are an upstanding citizen and never been convicted of any crime. Only the police and military can have access to guns.".

[Rollo]

We banned handguns in the UK after Dunblane where a previously responsible gun owner who enjoyed shooting targets at his local club, went mad one day and decided to execute an entire class of 6 year old children. It was devastating shook the entire country to the core.

Likewise Australia bannned semi-automatic weapons after a nutter killed 35 people and injured a further 23 at Port Arthur in 1996. Since then, there have been zero mass shootings in Australia.

It's curious that the right to bear arms was enshrined in law in the UK (and ergo across the Commonwealth) in the Bill of Rights Act 1689:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Willa ... troduction (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction)
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
There's been various negation acts with regards to the word "Protestants" at law but the subordinate clause "suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" does have good standing in other legislation. English Law and by inference all following Dominions have what's known as the test of a "reasonable person" and re this, what might be suitable to one's conditions could very well be different if someone was living in an urban or rural environment,

Aside:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... -2015.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html)
Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.
- Bloomberg, 19 Dec 2012

I did the maths and concluded that the economic consequence of widespread firearm ownership in the US is roughly 6% of GDP. That's very much in the realms of the broken window fallacy. Still, I suppose that that is deemed acceptable. I just think that as a nation, 6% of GDP could be put to better use.

[Spafranco]

If there was nothing wrong with guns this thread would not exist. Guns are an instrument of death. Plain and simple. Comparing a car ;a transportation device has in no way correlation to guns no matter how many people die.

The guns don't kill people, people kill people is probably the most obtuse and idiotic metaphor. In fact if they got it right they should have stated that it is the bullet that kills or a step farther, the injuries sustained. No, the lack of breath killed the individual.

So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

This thread only exists because someone posted it. There is nothing wrong with guns at all, only the people that use them.

In order to draw an analogy between one item and another they must have a commonality of purpose. What you have stated does not meet even the remotest of standards.
That you are comparing these items to guns to formulate an argument is in itself sad and ignorant of how studies are conducted.

[555-04Q2]

If there was nothing wrong with guns this thread would not exist. Guns are an instrument of death. Plain and simple. Comparing a car ;a transportation device has in no way correlation to guns no matter how many people die.

The guns don't kill people, people kill people is probably the most obtuse and idiotic metaphor. In fact if they got it right they should have stated that it is the bullet that kills or a step farther, the injuries sustained. No, the lack of breath killed the individual.

So are knives instruments of death but we still use them everyday. So are crossbows, bows, batons, spears, hell even cars are "instruments" of death that kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. How about we just ban everything then so the world can be a perfectly safe place for all?

This thread only exists because someone posted it. There is nothing wrong with guns at all, only the people that use them.

In order to draw an analogy between one item and another they must have a commonality of purpose. What you have stated does not meet even the remotest of standards.
That you are comparing these items to guns to formulate an argument is in itself sad and ignorant of how studies are conducted.

You are incorrect, as usual. Here's why:

There are guns made for killing people (army, police etc) and guns made for sports (competition skiing, target practice etc). There are knives made for killing people (army, marines etc) and knives made for everyday use (home, work, restaurant etc). The guns made for sport can also be used for killing as can the knives that are made for everyday use. Like I said, if you going to want to ban guns ban knives too. When you done with that ban McDonalds for killing fat Americans everyday, ban smoking, ban alcohol, these are also designed to kill you, just slower than a gun does.

Now I'm not going to continue with this ridiculous argument about how guns are bad. They're not, they are just inanimate metal objects. It's people that are the problem, not the guns.

Welcome to my ignore list!

[Rollo]

Second, the founding fathers intention was not just for a citizen militia.Though not expressly stated in the Constitution, it has been made clear in the Federalist Papers, written by the founders, explaining in more detail the reasons for what they enacted.

It's just a pity that you apparently haven't read them.

Number 29:
By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
- Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Militia, January 10, 1788

Number 46:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops
- James Madison, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, January 29, 1788.

The right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers as least, is always seen in the context of how it relates to the proposed militia. That's perfectly understandable considering that the Continental Congress was by all accounts totally and utterly useless. Rather than bother to work with it, the whole thing was torn down and replaced.

Secondly, D-Type's comment is backed by the Supreme Court no less:

In the USA (which I have never visited) we appear to have a culture that condones gun owning. The cowboy is a folk hero. The founding fathers' intention that the right to have an armed volunteer state militia has by stages been allowed to evolve into a right for individuals to carry guns. As a consequence, many law-abiding people feel the need to carry a gun for self defence - and use them

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Well that settles it doesn't it? Whatever actually was "the founding fathers intention" can just as easily be struck off by the Supreme Court, can't it? Are we to also assume that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" from the First Amendment is just merely another "prefatory clause"?
What was the point of the first clause then unless it was meant to be read as a whole? Mere rhetoric? It would appear so because any intention to impose the first four words "A well regulated Militia" is met with complete scorn and derision. I'd go so far as to say that a giant two finger salute has been raised at "the founding fathers intention" was was spelled out, also in Federalist Paper Number 29:

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance, that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the Government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it.
- Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Militia, January 10, 1788

Can anyone honestly say that the great teeming masses are even close to being disciplined or well regulated?

[Starter]

It's just a pity that you apparently haven't read them.
Actually I have read them. All of them and not just the part about the 2nd amendment.


Secondly, D-Type's comment is backed by the Supreme Court no less:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Well that settles it doesn't it? Whatever actually was "the founding fathers intention" can just as easily be struck off by the Supreme Court, can't it? Are we to also assume that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" from the First Amendment is just merely another "prefatory clause"?
I recommend you read the book 'Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts" by Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner. Granted that, unless you are a lawyer, it can be a slow read - took me a while to get all the way through. They discuss at length the issue of people, including lawyers and judges, reading into the Constitution what they would [i]like[i] it to say as opposed to what it actually does say as in the highlited part of your quote.


Can anyone honestly say that the great teeming masses are even close to being disciplined or well regulated?
Can any country say that? ;)

[555-04Q2]

Can any country say that? ;)

Monaco? :p:

[Spafranco]

In order to draw an analogy between one item and another they must have a commonality of purpose. What you have stated does not meet even the remotest of standards.
That you are comparing these items to guns to formulate an argument is in itself sad and ignorant of how studies are conducted.[/quote]
55504-Q2
You are incorrect, as usual. Here's why:

There are guns made for killing people (army, police etc) and guns made for sports (competition skiing, target practice etc). There are knives made for killing people (army, marines etc) and knives made for everyday use (home, work, restaurant etc). The guns made for sport can also be used for killing as can the knives that are made for everyday use. Like I said, if you going to want to ban guns ban knives too. When you done with that ban McDonalds for killing fat Americans everyday, ban smoking, ban alcohol, these are also designed to kill you, just slower than a gun does.

Now I'm not going to continue with this ridiculous argument about how guns are bad. They're not, they are just inanimate metal objects. It's people that are the problem, not the guns.

Welcome to my ignore list![/quote]
Spafranco

Scared of a rebuttal? Post clap trap and then off you run. Put me on your ignore list. I t has become so difficult to explain in a cogent manner to the likes of you I see no hope for the majority of Americans who have to deal with imbecilic arguments which only enforces the idea that YOU are the one without comprehension of how ludicrous your post is and shows without you even knowing that the correlation between what was said and the rebuttal by you with you knives and forks. It would be humorous if it were not so sad.

[555-04Q2]

In order to draw an analogy between one item and another they must have a commonality of purpose. What you have stated does not meet even the remotest of standards.
That you are comparing these items to guns to formulate an argument is in itself sad and ignorant of how studies are conducted.
55504-Q2
You are incorrect, as usual. Here's why:

There are guns made for killing people (army, police etc) and guns made for sports (competition skiing, target practice etc). There are knives made for killing people (army, marines etc) and knives made for everyday use (home, work, restaurant etc). The guns made for sport can also be used for killing as can the knives that are made for everyday use. Like I said, if you going to want to ban guns ban knives too. When you done with that ban McDonalds for killing fat Americans everyday, ban smoking, ban alcohol, these are also designed to kill you, just slower than a gun does.

Now I'm not going to continue with this ridiculous argument about how guns are bad. They're not, they are just inanimate metal objects. It's people that are the problem, not the guns.

Welcome to my ignore list![/quote]
Spafranco

Scared of a rebuttal? Post clap trap and then off you run. Put me on your ignore list. I t has become so difficult to explain in a cogent manner to the likes of you I see no hope for the majority of Americans who have to deal with imbecilic arguments which only enforces the idea that YOU are the one without comprehension of how ludicrous your post is and shows without you even knowing that the correlation between what was said and the rebuttal by you with you knives and forks. It would be humorous if it were not so sad.
[/quote]

No, tired of conversing with an idiot. Now go argue with a mirror.

[webberf1]

Poverty, lack of education and lack of economic opportunity cause violence.

This is a lie.
How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?


As I say, the Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone. The government and their partners in crime at the Federal Reserve have not only continued, but ramped up the failed policies of the Bush administration, destroying the middle class and leading to levels of poverty not seen since the great depression.

The Obama administration has the blood on its hands more than anyone? Real wages peaked in the United States in 1977. That's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter who all were at the wheel; moreover, it's economic decisions from Wall St which choose to move production off shore.
Yet it is the American people who continue to choose to buy ever increasing stockpiles of weapons; that is entirely voluntary. The American people who continue to choose shoot each other, not the government.
Because their level of poverty causes them to die more from things such as starvation and malnutrition, because economic opportunity is absolute zero.

At least in the slums of america, you have the economic opportunity of either hustling or pimping. Both of which require you to be strapped.

Moving production offshore was far more an active decision of the government than commerce. Ever heard of the marshall plan, for example? The US government always wanted the likes of West Germany and Japan to re-emerge as economic giants through manufacturing in order to stop them from the perceived threat of them going communist. The expense was paid by US workers.

Back to the original point, I'll quote someone who understood more about violence than all of us combined, Gandhi: "poverty is the worst form of violence."

You can thank the likes of Obama for the perennial underclass that is forming, thanks to his support of bailing out wall street and the support of the Federal Reserve's inflationary 'strategy' which is wiping out the middle class as they print $85 billion a month. And of course Obama's predecessors have a ****load to answer for as well. No doubt. But as president your job is to right any wrongs of the last administration. If you not only fail to do that, but actually continue or even expand on the failed policies of the previous administration then you are even more culpable.

[Starter]

At least in the slums of america, you have the economic opportunity of either hustling or pimping. Both of which require you to be strapped.
There is also the point that being poor in America is not really the same as being poor in India or Bangladesh. Those people would love to be poor in America. It would be a major step up.

[Rollo]

At least in the slums of america, you have the economic opportunity of either hustling or pimping. Both of which require you to be strapped.
There is also the point that being poor in America is not really the same as being poor in India or Bangladesh. Those people would love to be poor in America. It would be a major step up.

In theory then, the levels of violence in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal and Afghanistan should be higher then, if what you and webberf1 have asserted is true but it isn't. So then what?
Answer the question:
How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?

[webberf1]

At least in the slums of america, you have the economic opportunity of either hustling or pimping. Both of which require you to be strapped.
There is also the point that being poor in America is not really the same as being poor in India or Bangladesh. Those people would love to be poor in America. It would be a major step up.

In theory then, the levels of violence in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal and Afghanistan should be higher then, if what you and webberf1 have asserted is true but it isn't. So then what?
Answer the question:
How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?
So you pretty much completely failed to grasp the point I was making hey.

The reason why starvation and/or malnutrition is a bigger cause of death in those countries is because (and forgive my generalisations) the poorest people there have ZERO economic opportunity. They don't even have the opportunity to support themselves through endeavours such as hustling and pimping. Therefore, there is no economic gain to be had out of owning a weapon for those people.

In the ghettos of America, however, the poverty is terrible to the point where the one remaining economic opportunity is that you either pimp or deal. Doing that requires you to have a weapon. If you don't have a weapon you're not going to last long in that business. So it is, by definition, economically advantageous to have a gun.

So again, the point is that alleviating poverty through creating more economic opportunity for these people will do infinitely more to reduce violence than an attempt (that will fail anyway) to reduce guns will ever do.

Why do people in well-off countries who have a lot of guns like Switzerland and Finland have low gun crime rates? Because poverty levels there are very low. People in Switzerland have the luxury of not having to own guns to protect their turf from rival gangs. They own them for pure recreation and the fact that military service is compulsory there.

Do you need the real issue spelled out to you any more clearly?

What you need to understand is that murder is almost always an act of pure desperation - whether you shoot, stab, or blow yourself and another hundred people up with explosives. No sane, comfortably-living and opportunity-bestowed person has an inclination to kill people. Reduce poverty and you reduce the desperation that leads to killing.

[Spafranco]

Another shooting at a school. Teacher dead, two kids wounded. So, how many more are to come??

[Koz]

In the ghettos of America, however, the poverty is terrible to the point where the one remaining economic opportunity is that you either pimp or deal. Doing that requires you to have a weapon. If you don't have a weapon you're not going to last long in that business. So it is, by definition, economically advantageous to have a gun.

Dude, what the fuck are you smoking?
So everyone is a pimp, dealer or and every woman is a crack whore?

[Koz]

How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?

For Nepal:
1) There are almost no handguns in circulation.

2) Firearms were seized between 95-2007. Most people who own guns there today are from the old aristocratic class, and they were passed down from generation to generation, and these people were mostly immune from seizures.

3) The civil war was bad enough that the Maoists were at times fighting with home made muskets... I kid you not. There was an incident in 2004, where two brothers barricaded in their home, shot dead 28 musket armed Maoists who had come to "chop them up".

4) The judiciary is extremely corrupt. It was extremely easy for anyone with money to get away with anything and everything. In the higher tiers of society, where everyone really is related to everyone else, the army, police and judiciary - people were simply immune, they didn't even need to resort to money. This has of course changed in the last 5 years or so.

5) For the reason above, crime isn't reported either: nothing will happen to the rich and/or connected. The court system is excruciatingly slow. It will easily take 15+ years to get any "justice", so matters are solved by either apologies for "accidents" and cash or the Maoist "People's court" which usually ends up in "give them cash/property, we get x% or we chop you up".

6) Most attacks that do happen usually involve khukuris - people get chopped up, but for the most part survive. This can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time. It is scary as fuck.

7) Most shootings that happen (extremely rare) are politically or ethnically motivated and cause mass riots which end up with all cars/trucks/buses/ambulances in sight being burned.

Since the war ended, thing have gotten worse. Every week you hear about someone you know getting kidnapped or threatened.

My point is: violence exists. Gun violence, does not.
Most statistics coming out of the third world aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

[Spafranco]

How is it that places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal; heck even Afghanistan all have lower per capita rates of homicide than the United States?

For Nepal:
1) There are almost no handguns in circulation.

2) Firearms were seized between 95-2007. Most people who own guns there today are from the old aristocratic class, and they were passed down from generation to generation, and these people were mostly immune from seizures.

3) The civil war was bad enough that the Maoists were at times fighting with home made muskets... I kid you not. There was an incident in 2004, where two brothers barricaded in their home, shot dead 28 musket armed Maoists who had come to "chop them up".

4) The judiciary is extremely corrupt. It was extremely easy for anyone with money to get away with anything and everything. In the higher tiers of society, where everyone really is related to everyone else, the army, police and judiciary - people were simply immune, they didn't even need to resort to money. This has of course changed in the last 5 years or so.

5) For the reason above, crime isn't reported either: nothing will happen to the rich and/or connected. The court system is excruciatingly slow. It will easily take 15+ years to get any "justice", so matters are solved by either apologies for "accidents" and cash or the Maoist "People's court" which usually ends up in "give them cash/property, we get x% or we chop you up".

6) Most attacks that do happen usually involve khukuris - people get chopped up, but for the most part survive. This can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time. It is scary as fuck.

7) Most shootings that happen (extremely rare) are politically or ethnically motivated and cause mass riots which end up with all cars/trucks/buses/ambulances in sight being burned.

Since the war ended, thing have gotten worse. Every week you hear about someone you know getting kidnapped or threatened.

My point is: violence exists. Gun violence, does not.
Most statistics coming out of the third world aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Are you on a mission of self destruction? You have two posts both laced with inappropriate language and no rebuttal but an attempt to steer the topic in your own direction and yet you make the point for Webber. No guns no gun violence. But, here in the US we can't even mention one word about certain guns or their capability. Are we a violent people? No, is my my answer. It is extremist views like yours that keep us from having a debate.

[Koz]

You, sir, have missed the point.

Webberf1 said that poverty in American ghettos is so bad that the only option is to be a pimp or a dealer and murder is almost always about desperation and protecting one's turf. You don't think that is silly, ignorant and extremist?


And for my second post, rebuttal to what? Change direction?
I was just trying to share some insight about a country of which many people know very little. I don't see it fit to compare statistics from one first world country to failed states in the third world. I also gave reasons why.

I never said "no guns no violence", I said the opposite.

I honestly don't see what is so extremist about my post.

[BleAivano]

another shooting today, this time at a Navy support base in Millington Tennessee.
Two people shot following dispute. Neither suffered lethal injuries.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/4 ... -1.1495522 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/4-shot-millington-tenn-navy-base-article-1.1495522)

[555-04Q2]

There is something inherently wrong with US society. Kind of like ours.

[Spafranco]

In order to draw an analogy between one item and another they must have a commonality of purpose. What you have stated does not meet even the remotest of standards.
That you are comparing these items to guns to formulate an argument is in itself sad and ignorant of how studies are conducted.
55504-Q2
You are incorrect, as usual. Here's why:

There are guns made for killing people (army, police etc) and guns made for sports (competition skiing, target practice etc). There are knives made for killing people (army, marines etc) and knives made for everyday use (home, work, restaurant etc). The guns made for sport can also be used for killing as can the knives that are made for everyday use. Like I said, if you going to want to ban guns ban knives too. When you done with that ban McDonalds for killing fat Americans everyday, ban smoking, ban alcohol, these are also designed to kill you, just slower than a gun does.

Now I'm not going to continue with this ridiculous argument about how guns are bad. They're not, they are just inanimate metal objects. It's people that are the problem, not the guns.

Welcome to my ignore list!
Spafranco

Scared of a rebuttal? Post clap trap and then off you run. Put me on your ignore list. I t has become so difficult to explain in a cogent manner to the likes of you I see no hope for the majority of Americans who have to deal with imbecilic arguments which only enforces the idea that YOU are the one without comprehension of how ludicrous your post is and shows without you even knowing that the correlation between what was said and the rebuttal by you with you knives and forks. It would be humorous if it were not so sad.
[/quote]

No, tired of conversing with an idiot. Now go argue with a mirror.[/quote]

Define idiot. Then define obtuse. Then after that define double standard. And, if you are capable, define exactly the reason why it is a known fact that the mortality rate compared to every other industrialized country as a result of gun violence that you should shout USA #1 when half the world is scared to come here. You can call me all the names in the world and pretend to ignore me. Doing so is indicative that you have evidently been paying attention to what is being said.
I won't stoop to your playground juvenile ranting by name calling, but, I'm sure you get the gist.

[Spafranco]

October 29th and we have another mass slaying in Texas.
LaPierre or whatever his name is and all those that defend multiple gun purchases and any type of gun with unlimited magazine capacity, buying from a "buddy" or from the trunk of a car will not be swayed until one day one of their own is killed by the likes of THEMSELVES.

[Koz]

And now a shooting at LAX.

[Spafranco]

And now a shooting at LAX.

Yes sir. Those gun controls are really helpful. :rolleyes:

[Spafranco]

Three more shot today in Pittsburgh.
Looking for a number of shooters this time, not the lone wolf type.

[Roamy]

Hey bring the toxology report before you spout bullish!t - ah you can't because the government won't. Take all the murders in this country and
look at the drugs involved. Do you really think this is the Christians shooting up the neighborhood. If meth is involved kill them all.
everyone who tests positive for meth should get a 10mm straight in the head.

[henners88]

Hey bring the toxology report before you spout bullish!t - ah you can't because the government won't. Take all the murders in this country and
look at the drugs involved. Do you really think this is the Christians shooting up the neighborhood. If meth is involved kill them all.
everyone who tests positive for meth should get a 10mm straight in the head.
If you shoot the gunman dead for his crimes, surely you'd then have to shoot the guy who shot him because he's a murderer too? Then the guy that shot the guy would need to die.... A firing squad with some using blanks would solve it I suppose. Time for a cuppa.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Spafranco]

Hey bring the toxology report before you spout bullish!t - ah you can't because the government won't. Take all the murders in this country and
look at the drugs involved. Do you really think this is the Christians shooting up the neighborhood. If meth is involved kill them all.
everyone who tests positive for meth should get a 10mm straight in the head.
If you shoot the gunman dead for his crimes, surely you'd then have to shoot the guy who shot him because he's a murderer too? Then the guy that shot the guy would need to die.... A firing squad with some using blanks would solve it I suppose. Time for a cuppa.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Great response to the weird and scary post. I thought Halloween was over.

[Roamy]

Awful news, condolences to the victims' friends and families.

However it seems pretty clear that one new law isn't going to solve anything fast.

Good thing I don't have to solve it. :\
Too true. Lets start with AR-13's, limit gun bullet capacity, limit number of guns to each household and not have a arsenal in so many homes. No guns within so many yards of a school, or workplace except for law enforcement. Seems as though the pedophiles have to obey these laws. Why not the more obvious guns. (not comparing gun owners to molesters ).


wrong - -- Lets start executing violent criminals :

“For the fun of it,” one teen said in the video.

In September, a 13-year-old boy was sentenced to 18 months of confinement for the beating death of a 51-year-old man in upstate New York.