RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Cole reports: "The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall."

Murders by firearms in Britain are 30 times fewer per capita than in the US. (photo: file)
Murders by firearms in Britain are 30 times fewer per capita than in the US. (photo: file)



58 Murders a Year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

22 July 12

 

umber of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2
(equivalent to 10 US murders).

For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

Do hunters really need semi-automatic AR-15 assault weapons? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so.

* British crime statistics are September to September, so 2011 is actually 2010-2011.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-85 # walthe310 2012-07-22 07:11
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.
 
 
+160 # Doctoretty 2012-07-22 08:06
The source of most of our freedoms is British common law. What we are that they are not, is a "gun culture."
 
 
+120 # Adoregon 2012-07-22 09:14
IMO, Doctoretty has "got it."

It is not so much that our nation is flooded with firearms as that our national culture is permeated with blood and killing.

Study the history of the U.S.
Soaked with blood.

Study much of our "entertainment. " Soaked with blood and homicide.

Study our national response to international problems.
Break out the guns and bombs.

And U.S. citizens, like deer caught in headlights remain paralyzed while pundits and politicians ineffectually drone on. (Pun intended)
 
 
0 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 15:06
Hear here!
 
 
+44 # bmiluski 2012-07-23 12:31
Hmmmm...I think if you study the British history you'll find it pretty much soaked in blood i.e. War of the Roses (1455 - 1485), The Hundred Years War, lasting from 1337 until 1453, etc. So maybe it is the flooding of firearms and the mentality that goes along with it.
 
 
-10 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 18:57
Quoting bmiluski:
Hmmmm... the flooding of firearms and the mentality that goes along with it.


Hmm from me..... wonder where their guns came from... could it be.... from....us? nah
 
 
-8 # X Dane 2012-07-22 21:34
Doctoretty.
You are half right: "Gun" NOT culture
 
 
+28 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 22:06
And it looks like from the British Home Office stats that the Brits have become a knife culture. Their comments:

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-relate d killings.

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London recently conducted some deeper analysis of the available Home Office's statistics.

It concluded that between 22,000 and 57,900 young people could have been victims of knife crime in 2004. However, it says without better official data it is impossible to know for sure - and that we need that data to improve the public debate.

The Home Office has pledged to change the way crime figures are presented to help the public better understand the impact on their area. One of the key changes is going to be separate knife crimes figures from 2008.
 
 
+13 # Alexis Fecteau 2012-07-23 06:28
Quoting Johnny Genlock:
And it looks like from the British Home Office stats that the Brits have become a knife culture. Their comments:

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings.

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London recently conducted some deeper analysis of the available Home Office's statistics.

It concluded that between 22,000 and 57,900 young people could have been victims of knife crime in 2004. However, it says without better official data it is impossible to know for sure - and that we need that data to improve the public debate.

The Home Office has pledged to change the way crime figures are presented to help the public better understand the impact on their area. One of the key changes is going to be separate knife crimes figures from 2008.


Yup...guess we better keep all our guns so we can continue to have 8,775 gun murders per year to prevent knife injuries...
 
 
+7 # Rascalndear 2012-07-28 01:20
[quote name="Johnny Genlock"]And it looks like from the British Home Office stats that the Brits have become a knife culture. Their comments:

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-relate d killings./quote]

I believe the stats in Canada are similar. The difference is, when you have to use a weapon like a knife you can't hide the fact that you are attacking someone. You have to get in close. Guns, especially high-powered rifles and automatic weapons, allow people to hide and kill randomly. That's very hard to do with a knife unless your a professional knife-thrower.. .
 
 
+6 # bingers 2012-12-09 07:45
Amen, guns are the weapon of choice of cowards.
 
 
+1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 00:43
Canada also has a greater knife culture because of the predominant ban of firearms other than for hunting. The difference is that you can't hide in a tower and mow down people like some stupid Rambo wannabe with a knife. You have to get in close and risk your own life in the process. That's a very different situation and mentality from firearms, especially automatics. I still don't get the argument for automatic weapons being owned by non-combatants. If you used one on a deer, there wouldn't be much left of the deer to hang over your mantlepiece, let alone eat it... as to squirrels, rabbits and partridges... let the hounds gobble up the leftovers. You won't even be able to prove that you killed something that moved. Also, a person's chances of surviving a knife would today are far higher than multiple gunshot wounds. NONE of America's tower killings could have happened without automatic (semi-automatic ) weaponry, We Have to Talk About Kevin notwithstanding .
 
 
+5 # shagar 2012-07-23 11:48
Sometimes the truth is even simpler than that. The USA is held hostage by a GUN CULT. That cult, or NRA for short, has permeated culture in all its forms. Look up any definition of a cult, and the obsessive, cultish attitude of "gun enthusiasts" and self identified "freedom lovers" becomes instantly clear. Now does it still make sense to debate the issue, or d'yall want some more koolaid? (Sorry if I'm preaching to the converted. Or is it the unconverted :)
 
 
+11 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 21:25
Yes, British Common Law. We kept what the Brits let slip away. What hypocrites, all! You authoritarians want Americans disarmed so you can have your way with us. UNITED NATIONS SAYS: ". . . Private ownership of firearms is incompatible with the legitimate power monopoly of the State . . ." What legitimate power monopoly? Since Magna Carta we have had rule by Consent of the Governed engraved into Common Law. Consent? Where is there consent in "legitimate power of the State"? These are two diametrically opposed concepts. One is true and the other false. What do 1.6 Billion rounds, 26 people, and 260 million people have connecting them? What threads these all together is that mass shootings have been used to invoke gun control for 150 years. 1.6 Billion rounds is what the US government purchased last year. That's four bullets plus for every citizen, purchased prior to the Sandy Hook 26 deaths. 260 million is the number of victims of disarmament, citizens murdered by their own government. 26 is horrible versus 260 million, unimaginable. 1.6 billion hollow point rounds, illegal in warfare according to Geneva Convention, but fit to use on your own citizens? Hollow point are not for target practice! Who in their right mind would disarm? You are balmy nuts, bollocks!
 
 
+19 # jlohman 2012-07-22 08:17
Yea, those of us who are alive...
 
 
+43 # Adlib 2012-07-22 09:02
And of course your chances of being killed by a gun are 30 times greater...but why worry?
 
 
+22 # carolsj 2012-07-22 11:16
Walthe--I hope your comment is sarcasm. If so, you don't deserve all the negatives.
 
 
+6 # independentmind 2012-07-22 12:24
Of course he is..
 
 
+4 # The Voice of Reason 2012-07-23 18:57
How could anybody not get Walthe's sarcasm?
 
 
+71 # reiverpacific 2012-07-22 12:47
Quoting walthe310:
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.

Actually, as most Brits and people of other more progressive nationalities are well aware, the US is one of the least free Western countries in spite of it's over-jingoistic , self-aggrandizi ng claims to the contrary.
"Freedom" here is only as good as the lobbyists and lawyers* one can afford to press one's interpretation thereof and so limit it to a few. So many others tend to live in a sense of fear, surveillance, mistrust of authority (possibly somewhat justified as the swing towards domination of the Corporate State continues) and suspicion of "The other", which may be why the *NRA is so powerful, fanning these flames of insecurity with their propaganda linking freedom to armed "readiness".
I'm a Scottish Brit' living here and can't wait to leave when I've accomplished what I came here to do. Hell, I grew up with the POLICE only being issued arms in situations of national emergency and this still exists to a large extent. Plus they will still come out in solidarity with labor and other publicly-funded workers against the current "austerity" attempts by Cameron's turncoat Tories, UNLIKE the increasingly militarized gendarmes here who are invariably turned loose to defend the interests and even protests against their wealthy and powerful masters in a vicious circle of "them against us".
Is THAT your idea of "Freedom"?
 
 
+28 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-22 15:23
It wasn't always that way here, at all. That has gotten much worse in the last 20-25 years. We used to be a pretty free country, indeed. And we had a better economy and happier people when we were.
 
 
+18 # readerz 2012-07-22 19:57
Don't forget Nixon.
The stuff the Tea Baggers say about President Obama would have caused an immediate arrest under Nixon. A boy at summer camp sent a post-card to his family saying something like Nixon sucks, and the F.B.I. came to the camp, and it was only with the pleading of the camp director explaining that the kid was too young to know that you don't insult the President on your postcard that they let him go. But everybody had to be careful to be very patriotic after that, even though we knew that Nixon had been doing lots of dirty tricks.
 
 
0 # rockieball 2012-12-13 09:14
Point well made. I know people living here from Scotland, England, Portugal and elsewhere and they have mentioned the same thing. It is to late for me now but I regret not moving to live with my cousin in Australia after the airline I worked was sold. He moved their in 1969 after meeting a girl while on R&R from Vietnam.
Was invited to come to help work his small spread. He has been back only 3 times and each time mentioned the more violent our society has become and how people are more free, less fearful, and more open.
 
 
+6 # xflowers 2012-07-22 14:14
Walthe, I assume you are being sarcastic.
 
 
+3 # Akeel1701 2012-07-23 00:49
Quoting walthe310:
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.


Yeah, free to be shot to bits!
 
 
+1 # rockieball 2012-07-24 09:50
I know people that live their as well as a few who live here and they would argue the opposite with you. In fact one that lives here was told by his friends that they do not come to visit because they are afraid of being shot. But maybe you are right at least when it comes to guns. We are freer to kill each other.
 
 
+1 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 18:58
Quoting walthe310:
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.

funneee!
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-12-08 18:25
Quoting walthe310:
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.


Don't try sarcasm in a computer age, those who use computers to help them think don't understand it.

Well anyway, most internet discussions are a lot more nasty than here, and comment period not closing leads to more thoughtful comments.
 
 
-6 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-09 10:57
I consider that I learn four times more in terms of relevance from the community of commenters than I do from the articles themselves. Good commenters of which there are many on Reader Supported News are able to hone the information for its finer points. All comments being a reflection of the culture we live in provide context. I believe interactive internet technology is helping us be part of a transformation of worldwide social-economic relations. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/5-collaborative-language
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-12-09 07:42
Quoting walthe310:
We must be 30 times freer here in the US than in Great Britain.



WOW! So many negatives for what seems to me to be a tongue in cheek comment. Is there something in this poster's history that shows him/her to have been serious?
 
 
+36 # bandz 2012-07-22 08:00
You're right! 30 times more free to die from gunshots!
 
 
+2 # DaveM 2012-07-22 08:02
England has had restrictions on firearms ownership for well over a century. So, to my knowledge, does Ireland. Though I seem to recall a rather heavily armed organization known as the Irish Republican Army, which operated largely on technically English soil.

There are almost as many guns in America as there are Americans. I cannot imagine that they will simply disappear if restrictions are put in place. Nor do I believe that those not inclined to obey the law are likely to give up their weapons even if demanded.

It may be a sad fact on some levels, but it is a fact nonetheless: American is a nation of guns. And it always will be.
 
 
+28 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-07-22 11:18
& who paid for a lot of IRA weapons? Good Boston & NY Citizens, in part....
 
 
+13 # reiverpacific 2012-07-22 21:58
Quoting DaveM:
England has had restrictions on firearms ownership for well over a century. So, to my knowledge, does Ireland. Though I seem to recall a rather heavily armed organization known as the Irish Republican Army, which operated largely on technically English soil.

There are almost as many guns in America as there are Americans. I cannot imagine that they will simply disappear if restrictions are put in place. Nor do I believe that those not inclined to obey the law are likely to give up their weapons even if demanded.

It may be a sad fact on some levels, but it is a fact nonetheless: American is a nation of guns. And it always will be.

For goodness sake, will some of you quit confusing "England" with the UK, which consists of Scotland, England, N. Ireland and Wales. This is a common and h'iggerant misnomer used all the time over here and is mentally and geographically lazy. It's like calling the USA "Texas" or Central America "Mexico".
 
 
+13 # bmiluski 2012-07-23 12:34
It would halp a lot if it was against the law to sell machine guns and/or any ,military arms.
 
 
+1 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 19:00
Quoting bmiluski:
It would halp a lot if it was against the law to sell machine guns and/or any ,military arms.


Yes - and the ammo can go too.
 
 
+59 # williamgaia 2012-07-22 08:03
I once asked my graduate students at the University of the South Pacific to respond to a front page Fiji Times story and to compare U.S. murder rates with those of Italy, France, Britain and other nations. Those data were extremely difficult to find. We Americans suffer under the delusion that we are a free country. But freedom depends upon having the right information. Our school curricula and media withhold from us the basic facts of our criminality. For example, almost 100% of the over 1 million convicted criminals in U.S. prisons have no affectionate relationship with their fathers. This simple fact is never mentioned in our curricula nor in the news reports of the crimes. Our innocent girls marry men unworthy of fatherhood. Why? "Keep them ignorant so that they will resist improving our Constitution."

The totals for one year, 1982, according to the Fiji Times were 6, 60, 160, 20,000 for Italy, France, Britain, U.S., respectively. Corrected for population that rate would be 1 1/2, 12, 32, 5,000. Had America had any sort of leadership that leadership would have been infuriated at such disparities and would have sought change. Alas there is no leadership in America.
 
 
-66 # sisu 2012-07-22 08:05
There is no proof that it is causal ... it's correlated ... could be due to different brains, cognition, attitudes, memes unconscious drives etc etc. That is, it may be more about who chooses to use firearms and/or kill people and why. Americans are more "murderous" than Brit's by 4 times! Americans have different brains!.
 
 
+39 # fliteshare 2012-07-22 10:05
No,
Life is different in the US compared to life in Britain. The US government can intentionally run individuals so completely into the ground that they are driven to begging or starvation without any consequences to the government. In Europe (including Britain) the government who will do so, will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot, because in Europe governments have the legal obligation to uphold a social safety net. And then as a consequence of their actions find themselves cleaning up the mess of their own creation.
 
 
+28 # reiverpacific 2012-07-22 13:02
Quoting sisu:
There is no proof that it is causal ... it's correlated ... could be due to different brains, cognition, attitudes, memes unconscious drives etc etc. That is, it may be more about who chooses to use firearms and/or kill people and why. Americans are more "murderous" than Brit's by 4 times! Americans have different brains!.

I was a-wondering if they have brains at all, softened and pummeled by decades of violent cop-worship serials full of almost by default, murder, mayhem, car chases, destruction and explosions as stuffing between increasingly lengthy commercials in a status-quo pattern of mind-numbing, predictable electronic death-circuses like the Roman spectacles of old.
It's fascinating to hear the same old faux-justificat ions by the pro-gun crowd posting here, that they have been trotting out like mindless echoes and ciphers mouthing off NRA platitudes about how "Guns = Freedom" in a self-imprisonin g cycle of inverse reasoning and as usual (like the antediluvian health care non-system and money-owned politics), out of step with more progressive nations who don't need arms to justify and propagate threats, fear of the other and distrust.
Fear conquers all and is part of the root that takes reason prisoner, permeating all who care to march in lock-step with such a medievalist culture.
 
 
0 # Mrcead 2012-07-24 02:25
If you dig deeper, there is a reason why the gun nuts cling to their guns. They know deep down inside that they are not free. Isn't that sad? (A well painted picture would tell this story perfectly, too bad the great art masters have all gone) So instead of voting to takes steps to change the situation, they vote the opposite way and make it worse, ultimately realising their fears with the increased discord as the gauge. Unfortunately we as humans are wired to cling to whatever we know, even when it's bad for us.
 
 
+69 # sapereaudeprime 2012-07-22 08:12
This is misleading. Every Swiss male over 18 has in his home a fully-automatic military rifle and ammunition, yet there are very few firearms murders in Switzerland. I suspect that good upbringing, a much more equal wealth distribution, and social mores have as much to do with firearms murders as the availability of firearms. Before there were guns, there were swords and spears, and bows and arrows, and they worked just as efficiently to promote mayhem in the world before gunpowder.
 
 
+10 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 19:54
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. So much of the gun deaths in America are related to gangs; either minority welfare or illegal alien gangs. A year or two ago we had gang members machine gun a sidewalk sale, killed a vendor.
I talked to a cop who said, "We are barely holding our own with the gangs." Yet the media under-reports the ethnic nature of it. Likewise, we've had several thousand deaths along the border with Mexico where the cartels are waging murderous war with each other and innocents in the wrong place. The real telling numbers are America's "disarmed" cities of New York and Chicago, where crime is out of sight. I don't know the exact gun death totals there as a subset of the larger murder. But really does it matter how you died in a violent crime? The egregious bias here is there are no statistics on how many violent crimes have been stopped by citizens having guns. Aurora is a great example of how a theater as a "gun-free zone" is a bad idea. A few properly trained, armed theater goers and that young man's spree would have been cut short. An interesting anecdote on WWII. Hitler asked permission for passage of his troops through Switzerland. The Prime Minister sent word to Hitler, "Our citizens will be lining the roadways to 'greet' you." Hitler chose a different route.
 
 
+9 # VLR 2012-07-23 14:24
There are statistics about "heros" with guns. You think the NRA wouldn't carefully note and tabulate every single "Grampa saves the day" story? It's probably right there on the NRA site. They publish stories like that all the time.

Thing is, if statistics were widely published, it would be obvious that gun crimes outnumber gun heroism by a factor of maybe 20. That grampa who shot two criminals was overwhelmed in numbers by the nut who shot 12 innocents.

The gun lobby claims that guns save lives, but they won't publish the stats because the stats belie it. As long as they don't, they can inflate their claims--even make them up. As long as the real numbers are kept secret. And they can also claim that "well, guns save lots of lives, but the heros don't get in the news because of George Soros," or one of their other ridiculous canards.
 
 
+13 # MJnevetS 2012-07-24 05:42
Your comment is misleading and untrue. In 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. Thus, Swiss males have military weapons with no ammo (They receive ammo if called to duty) When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed.
The sale of ammunition is available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
 
 
+18 # ereader 2012-07-22 08:23
Hey, walthe310, I think some readers have missed the sarcasm in your comment. Yeah, we're so much freer here than in Gt. Britain.
 
 
-17 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-22 08:36
A conclusion that gun control would work in the United States does not follow from these numbers.

First, Britain is a different culture.

Second, Britain reports "murders" differently than the United States. It reports homicides in the statistics, but unlike in the U.S., they aren't reported as "murders" unless unless someone has actually been convicted of the crime.

We HAVE statistics about gun control in the United States. We have been experimenting with restricting firearms ownership, in various states and municipalities, to various degrees, for over 80 years. We have been keeping statistics about it for over 50 years. And what those GOVERNMENT (DOJ) statistics show, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that in the United States anyway, gun control doesn't work.

Some statisticians have said they show no correlation, others have said that there is a NEGATIVE correlation (i.e., is has the opposite effect of what was intended).
 
 
-12 # fliteshare 2012-07-22 09:53
That's because the genie can't be put back in the bottle.
 
 
+30 # Billsy 2012-07-22 10:01
If it doesn't work as you claim, it's because it's only been implemented half-ass statewide or locally. Anyone can travel to a gun show across state lines and buy their firearms then take them back home. It HAS been helpful to criminalize their possession in the case of gangs and other misfits that carry illegally obtained firearms. Britain has a different mentality BECAUSE they have controlled firearm possession for a century. When will we drop our delusion of being a frontier nation?
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2012-07-23 12:38
You realize that Britain is now a very much multicultural country....righ t?
 
 
+54 # bingers 2012-07-22 08:37
Somehow I don't buy that freedom to murder in a cowardly fashion is freedom at all.
 
 
-65 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 08:42
So what's your informed comment, Juan?? I'll continue to keep firearms for my and my family's protection. Never owned a crossbow but I hear they are fun to shoot. We have a violent crowd in the United States and I understand that England has real problems with Muslim extremists. I don't know why RSN called you an informed commenter when you refer to an AR15 as an assault rifle. Uneducated in firearms, are we?? Any weapon can be an assault weapon...I have known some Special Forces guys that all carry "assault" knives! I'll presume that you are just another gun control nut so I'll inform you that gun control laws only target the law-abiding. Hows that grab you??
 
 
+28 # ruttaro 2012-07-22 11:06
Help me out, here. What does the "AR" stand for in AR-15? I don't own one so I'm not sure. Does it stand for "Air Rifle"? Or is it pirate lingo before saying "fifteen"? Now seriously, what is the purpose of having such weaponry available to anyone who can buy it? Besides the usual "Right to bear Arms" argument, I don't think it is unusual for a society to say people can own guns but not any gun. And I think this is reasonable. Yes, overwhelming # of gun owners are law abiding but that is not the point. SOciety regulates even lawful activities. For example, after passing a drivers test I am legally licensed to drive a car, But even as I would not approach a 4-way intersection without caution, society determines it is in the best interest of everyone to place traffic controls (regulation) so we can all travel safely. We need to compromise here. I don't want to take away the right to own a gun but I don't want people to take that right like the NRA does and say it can be any gun, any caliber, for any purpose. SO why not regulate/contro l guns? We can do this many ways, too. Heavily tax the ammunition, for one. But I think we should have a central database on everyone who purchases guns, ammo, body armor, etc. As in the case in Aurora, if we set up thresholds where once crossed would alert police so they could follow the purchases maybe Holmes would have been interdicted. Seems in the info age we should be able to establish thresholds and follow through.
 
 
+2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 14:12
In all honesty ruttaro, I never thought about it. I'll do a little research and try to comment back to you. Why would anyone want to ban this type of rifle? Do you know that possibly more people in America own AR's than any other type of semi-auto rifle? They are used for matches, sporting events, general shooting fun, home protection, etc. I have a one of one thousand Colt Custom Shop Comp. HBAR that I've never fired and it has tripled in value.
 
 
0 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:05
Don't flatter yourself about the minuses, fella. People are more likely annoyed by your personal assaults on the author that don't especially show that you are an informed commentator yourself... :)
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:31
It stands for Automatic Rifle.
 
 
+5 # VLR 2012-07-23 14:26
I thought it stood for the manufacturer, Arkalite.
 
 
+2 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:43
Close. It stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed that type of rifle.
 
 
+5 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:46
ArmaLite, the company that developed the gun. Check out their website and read their history.
 
 
-7 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 19:34
Have you guys noticed?? If you speak the Liberal TRIPE about guns you get a plus but if you speak the truth about guns, no matter how well documented, you get a bunch of minuses! I guess what that really means is that True Liberals can't stand the truth! So go ahead, guys, I think I've got the record at minus 51, though Paul Revere is pushing me at minus 45. Jack B is far to the rear in the teens. I find it amusing that the Liberal mind cannot abide giving an honest thought to the facts as stated by their own dearly beloved Obama administration' s own Justice Department. Pity that these people actually vote! Ruttaro, I think Jack B and bingers are correct but I'll find out for sure tomorrow. Y'all keep giving us the zingers...maybe we'll set a record for Liberal intolerance.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2012-07-23 12:51
[quote name="skylinefi repest"]Have you guys noticed?? If you speak the Liberal TRIPE about guns you get a plus but if you speak the truth about guns, no matter how well documented, you get a bunch of minuses!

What truth were you speaking about? All I got was a bunch of macho talk. Nice job of making yourself a victim. Nice job of using any excuse to slime President Obama and anyone who doesn't agree with your mind-st.
 
 
+7 # VLR 2012-07-23 14:28
I don't see any documentation whatsoever in any of the gun-bunny comments. Documentation means a source from somewhere other than the NRA or Gun Lovers USA, but I haven't seen a shred of documentation. A claim is not documentation, little one. It's just a claim.
 
 
+6 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 21:44
[quote name="VLR"]I don't see any documentation whatsoever in any of the gun-bunny comments.

Civilian Guns
Compare
Number of Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001
Compare
Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people
Compare
Number of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 11
Compare
Rate of Privately Owned Firearms per 100 Population - World Ranking
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1
Source: gunpolicy.org (Australia)

Gun Death and Injury
Compare
Number of Homicides (any method)
ChartIn the United States, annual homicides by any means total

2010: 14,1595
2009: 15,241
2008: 16,272
2007: 16,929
2006: 17,030

Number of Gun Homicides
ChartIn the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2010: not listed
2009: 9,1467
2008: 9,48410 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 2.985 7
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43

My comment: dropping figures in the midst of rising gun ownership/conce aled carry!
 
 
+8 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 22:06
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
ChartIn the United Kingdom, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is
2010: not listed
2009: 1.212
2008: 1.3
2007: 1.5
2006: 1.4412 4
2005: 1.53

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2010: 4.67
2009: 4.965
2008: 5.35
2007: 5.61
2006: 5.70
2005: 5.66

You can get any number of conclusions from these figures, because it's apples and oranges. You are blaming gun culture, and you really, really think these numbers would go down without guns? I'm looking and saying, Hey, in a country with four times the likelihood of murder, I'd rather be armed, gentlemen. In San Antonio yesterday a crazed gunman began shooting in a theater. An armed off-duty woman cop put four bullets in him. No mass shooting! The media won't give it any air time. Now in Britain you may get off on being helpless victims. I guess that's your preference. The most intriguing fact revealed by these figures? Murder is going down in both countries. Why? If it was guns, then how do you explain the fact America has been setting records buying more guns per capita, 8 million sold since Sandy Hook, and the murder rate keeps dropping? ???
 
 
-8 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:01
skylinefirepest , tell the truth and you generally won't get so many negatives. Although as walthe is finding out, sarcasm is sometimes as bad as lying.

There will always be asses in any group, but as a general rule, liberals are far more honest, fair and intelligent than conservatives. If you don't believe that, check out NewsMax and try posting something mildly liberal there. Do that and you may change your mind about liberals talking tripe, but somehow I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to do so or to accept the obvious conclusions to be drawn from doing so.
 
 
+3 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:42
[quote name="ruttaro"] Help me out, here. What does the "AR" stand for in AR-15? I don't own one so I'm not sure. Does it stand for "Air Rifle"?

AR stands for ArmaLite. The first two letters of the name of the company that developed the AR-15 and a complete line of guns all of which start with "AR". It does not stand for Assault Rifle.
 
 
+11 # ruttaro 2012-07-22 11:14
PS. I do know it does NOT stand for "Automatic Rifle" or "Assault Rifle". But the point is that the shooter had a 100 round magazine on it and he fired rapidly into the crowd killing 12 people who only wanted to go out and enjoy a much anticipated movie. Whatever the AR officially stands for (ArmiLite, I believe) it is indeed, in fact, an assault rifle by the nature of its intended use. Assault rifles are for close to medium range firing, to fire rapidly as to cover a hell of a lot of ground by spraying the killing zone with maximum ordinance thus allowing for troops in combat to be much more separated so they can cover much more ground. The opposite might be muskets and the tactics used to compensate for the muskets wild inaccuracy.
 
 
+12 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 14:21
A quick answer ruttaro is stretching my memory to the breaking point. The Air Force first used the AR15 in VietNam. I believe that version was select fire and I think you are correct in stating it was an Armalite. Colt came along with a slightly later version which had problems because of the tight tolerances and couldn't handle the dirt of VN. When loosened up it became the standard ( M16 ) to which we are all now accustomed. Now there are a multitude of makers putting out some really quality rifles. Ruger came out with their first AR based rifle about a year or so back and it addressed some of the problems that are almost built in with the system. Problem is the Ruger version was out of my price range now that I'm a retired oldie. The problem with any more laws on firearms is that they only target the law abiding. The criminals by definition will not worry about the laws and the idea that "assault rifles are the favorite weapon of criminals" has been long debunked.
 
 
+7 # JackB 2012-07-22 17:40
The AR-15 & M-16 are basically the same weapon. The difference is the AR-15, the commercially available model, is semi-automatic - 1 round at a time. The M-16 - the military version, in addition to the semi-automatic option can also fire full automatic. When I carried it the rifle would fire as long as you held the trigger back - until you ran out of ammo. From what I understand the current version fires bursts of three rounds with one pull of the trigger.
 
 
+7 # ruttaro 2012-07-22 20:22
Thanks Skylinefirepost . Interesting review of the development of this weapon. But to your point that about gun laws only target the law abiding, I think that is too simplistic. Iit is more than that. We live in a society that provides many benefits for the individual. One of the requirements of living in a society is that we have to give up some freedoms for those greater benefits, That's why societies make laws and when we think about it all laws "target the law abiding" in that they spell out what we can't do or limit in our choices. Every law does that. And those who do not abide are criminals/outla ws. In this debate, we are at that point where we have to recognize that responsible, law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns for recreation and protection. But we also need to confront the fact that if we allow any weapons to be purchased than it will be much easier (as tragically shown) for anyone to obtain a very destructive weapon that can create havoc and death on multitudes - thus, break the law. Regulation won't be perfect but it would make it more difficult to obtain these weapons. The logic of the NRA, when taken to it's extreme could mean that law abiding citizens should be allowed to have any weapon maybe someday a chemical weapon. Ridiculous you may say? Well, we may have thought that about 50 cal rifles one time but now it can be bought on the internet and advertised as able to bring down a commercial jet. Is that sport? Protection?
 
 
-3 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:09
Quoting skylinefirepest:
The problem with any more laws on firearms is that they only target the law abiding. The criminals by definition will not worry about the laws and the idea that "assault rifles are the favorite weapon of criminals" has been long debunked.

Sweetie, just about all of the people who used assault weapons to kill scads of people from a distance were deemed "law-abiding" prior to the event. It's not professional criminals who commit these atrocities, so there goes your and the NRA's main argument. But after all, they were just shooting for fun, weren't they???
 
 
+1 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:52
The people that killed scads of people at a distance were all crazy. The system in the US does not allow for involuntary commitment to a mental institution. They have to do something wrong first. Once they kill a lot of people they can finally get help.
 
 
-6 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:33
Does so, dude. It came from "Browning Automatic Rifle", the famous BAR of WWII
 
 
+1 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:54
Here is the website of ArmaLite, the original makers of the guns in question. Notice that their name begins with "A" and "r" and the title for all their guns begin with "AR-".

http://www.armalite.com/Categories.aspx?Category=34924c3c-54fa-4b4b-9e48-e56d7c3c05f7
 
 
-6 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:03
ruttaro, I refer you to the famous BAR of WWII. It stood for "Browning Automatic Rifle." I believe I've made my point. I used to carry a BAR while in the Army. (A very long time ago)
 
 
+1 # Enviropal99 2013-01-28 21:49
If mass murder was his goal a shotgun would have been much more efficient. His 100-round magazine jammed.
 
 
+2 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:02
Quoting skylinefirepest:
So what's your informed comment, Juan?? ...I don't know why RSN called you an informed commenter when you refer to an AR15 as an assault rifle.

I'm not sure who's hte ignoramus here. According to Wikipedia, "The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation..." and it is issued to US military. That doesn't qualify as an assault weapon? True, any weapon is used to "assault" someone or something, but the term "assault weapon" is used to refer to automated weapons generally of military issue or intended for combat purposes. Dissing the commentator is the laziest way to make a point. Try showing that you understand something differently instead.
 
 
-54 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 08:48
400,000 deaths per year via misdiagnosis, hospital mistakes, incorrect prescriptions.

Get America off psychotropics and that miniscule 8,775 would probably dis-right-appear.

James Brady gets crippled and the entire left side of the political spectrum has a cause to distract.

Come on folks, these numbers are like worrying about getting struck by lightening on a bright sun shiney day in the Sahara.

...heh, a red thumbs delight...ey?
 
 
+49 # Alexis Fecteau 2012-07-22 09:11
Except that we get struck by lightning 8,775 times per year compared to Britain's 58...
 
 
+45 # Xpat_lib 2012-07-22 09:30
Quoting Alexis Fecteau:
Except that we get struck by lightning 8,775 times per year compared to Britain's 58...

I would suggest that it's more likely you'll be hit by lightening or win the lottery than need your gun to protect you in your home or business. Unless, maybe, you're a drug dealer or jewelry courier. If it's not on your person 24 hours a day, loaded and ready to shoot (and you're emotionally ready to use it) a gun is basically nothing more than a macho paperweight.
 
 
+15 # Regina 2012-07-22 11:18
And so phallic!!!
 
 
+7 # JackB 2012-07-22 17:56
A car alarm is protection against car thieves. People don't purchase them based on the likelihood of car theft. A gun is the same. A crime may occur & you may be the victim. A gun levels the playing field.
 
 
0 # Xpat_lib 2012-07-23 05:54
Actually, I would say that a car alarm is more of a deterrent than protection but that's just semantics. You're right saying that a crime "may occur" and you "may be a victim". "may" or "might" is the really issue in my view. What are the odds for that "may" to become "will". I'm suggesting they're pretty high for the average gun owner. So, it gets down to an emotional reason. A person "feels" safer, "feels" powerful, "feels" he/she has more control or security. But, that's all it is, a feeling, not reality. And, we've been sold that feeling just like we're sold everything else. Take it from someone who's been in advertising for over 35 years.
 
 
+3 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 22:13
Advertising? How about the feeling of helplessness that comes from being disarmed? I've already recounted I could have saved two lives if I'd been armed in a gang violence situation. But you don't have to believe me.


From Wikipedia:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp, DC, (born September 28, 1959)[1] is a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives , who represented traditionally Democratic[cita tion needed] District 54 (Bell, Burnet, and Lampasas counties) for ten years from 1997-2007. After surviving the Luby's massacre in 1991, Hupp became a leading advocate of an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon. She was elected to her first term in 1996, but did not seek a sixth two-year term in 2006. She has also written a book called From Luby's to the Legislature: One Woman's Fight Against Gun Control, published by Privateer Publications, San Antonio, Texas.[2][3]
 
 
-5 # rockieball 2012-07-24 09:55
I have yet to see or hear of a car alarm killing a person, or a person using a car alarm in a violent crime.
 
 
-6 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:09
Quoting JackB:
A car alarm is protection against car thieves. People don't purchase them based on the likelihood of car theft. A gun is the same. A crime may occur & you may be the victim. A gun levels the playing field.


Sorry, I accidentally left a positive for this nonsense.
 
 
+9 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:14
It's as I felt, the author's numbers have been carefully massaged.

From a university study:
Great Britain

"The first country to consider is Britain, where they have endured a serious crime wave. In contrast to North America, where the homicide rate has been falling for over twenty years, the homicide rate in England and Wales has doubled over the past thirty years. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000 (British Home Office 2001).


In response to rising crime, British politicians, both Conser-vative and Labour, have brought in laws that increasingly re-stricted firearms ownership by the general public. Important changes to the firearm laws were made in 1988, and then again in 1992, before banning all handguns in 1997 (Greenwood 2001; Munday and Stevenson 1996). The Home Office has also tight-ened up on enforcement of regulations to such an extent that the firearm community has been virtually destroyed. Shotgun permits have fallen almost 30% since 1988 (Greenwood 2001). And the result of this Draconian gun control law in Great Britain? It's not pretty. No end appears in sight for the continuing crime wave."

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GREAT BRITAIN?
 
 
-8 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 19:04
Din't their guns just come from us, though?
 
 
+3 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:13
using statistics to wreak havoc? going from 10 to 15 may be a "50% rise" but it's still trivial compared to US homicide statistics. It's all relative. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase, but is it significant?
 
 
-23 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 09:45
What is to compare?...the UK has one serveillance camera for every 14 people...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many+cctv+cameras/2291167.html


get a grip and get off the 'I so scared, we're not safe, life is just unsafe, nannystate, FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) soaked propagandized pov.

You don't dump the fear made decisions and the fear itself and you can do nothing but focus on the fear...life, especially in America is not near as dire as this thread and so much of the other one (The NRA's Dark Culture) on RSN tries to make out.

PSYCHOTROPICS...
 
 
-2 # reiverpacific 2012-07-23 17:33
Quoting paulrevere:
What is to compare?...the UK has one serveillance camera for every 14 people...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many+cctv+cameras/2291167.html


get a grip and get off the 'I so scared, we're not safe, life is just unsafe, nannystate, FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) soaked propagandized pov.

You don't dump the fear made decisions and the fear itself and you can do nothing but focus on the fear...life, especially in America is not near as dire as this thread and so much of the other one (The NRA's Dark Culture) on RSN tries to make out.
PSYCHOTROPICS...
j

To twist a well worn NRA faithful cliché around a bit, "It's not SURVEILLANCE cameras that kill, it's the security forces they unleash (if abused)".
Get a grip of the reality of rationalization .
 
 
+13 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 10:23
Yep, glad to see the NRA nutcases on this forum. They always have well informed comments. They get all their info from American Rifleman.
 
 
+6 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:33
As opposed to getting my information from the Brady Bunch I do get most of my information from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for any given year. And where did you say you get yours from??
 
 
+10 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-22 15:13
I am not a member of the NRA, and I get my statistics directly from the Department of Justice. And you know what? Surprise! They say the same things the NRA's statistics do.

You know why? The NRA gets its statistics from the Department of Justice, too.
 
 
-9 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:16
AND, like, Dude, your information is bulletproof? You've been propagandized. The finger you're pointing leaves three pointed back at yourself.
 
 
+2 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-24 09:47
Propagandized? By the U.S. Government?

That's what you're saying. That the Justice Department feeds us "propaganda" statistics.

What motivation might they have to do that? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2012-07-24 05:57
Quoting paulrevere:
400,000 deaths per year via misdiagnosis, hospital mistakes, incorrect prescriptions.
You are correct in this statement, yet it doesn't address the question of gun violence. Further, the T-Party/Republi can position on these types of deaths is to DENY people's rights for compensation, by making it harder to hold NEGLIGENT doctors accountable. It is laughable to see the staunch right use the well DOCUMENTED numbers of medical malpractice deaths in any argument when they ignore and/or deny those numbers when demanding 'tort reform' (that means "the denying the right of a victim to lawful compensation for injuries received due to another's negligent conduct").
 
 
+44 # Broger 2012-07-22 08:49
See "Bowling for Columbine" where Michael Moore did a service to us by investigating Canada's gun situation. They have as many guns in service per capita as we do. Yet they have very few deaths by firearm. After going thru all the rationale of what it could be that makes us difference, it was found that their social system, complete with medical service for anyone who needs it was a capitol reason for their lower numbers of killings.
We in the USA are put into desperation because of our huge for profit medical industry that shuts out anyone from services if they can't afford insurance. This exploitation for huge profits put most people in desperation. If your mother or any loved one can't receive medical help they desperately need to survive, it puts so many in a position to do something drastic. Robbing to get money to survive is seen by some as the only way.
I believe if we had even minimal coverage for everyone the desperation factor would shrink significantly. This was the only reasonable explanation to the conundrum of why so many killings in the USA.
That being said, I agree that there's no need to have assault rifles in the hands of the public. Let's hear any reasonable argument for the perceived necessity of these types of weapons
in the hands of the general public.
 
 
+8 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:22
REASONABLE ARGUMENT:
In the past few months (2002), widely televised tragedies in France, Germany, and Switzerland have spurred politicians to introduce changes in their countries' already strict gun laws to make them even more restrictive. Perhaps you remember the headlines? A depressed student in Germany ran amok and killed several people in his school after he'd been expelled. In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have stormed into local councils and began shooting legislators indiscriminately.

This is not a new story. We've seen this show before. First, there is a horrible event, say a disturbed student shoots people in a school, or a maniac goes on a rampage in a public place. Media coverage is intense for a few weeks. "Experts" on television wring their hands in concern about the danger of "gun violence." Then the government feels it must do something to protect the public, so the police are given sweeping new powers, or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms. Afterwards, the media rush off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there is another tragedy somewhere else, and the process starts all over again.

Does this sound familiar? It should. This has been the pattern followed by virtually every gun law that has been introduced in the twentieth century around the world.
 
 
+7 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:23
REASONABLE ARGUMENT II:

In the 1990s, we've seen this drama on television from Australia, Great Britain, the United States, not to mention Canada, as well other countries. It's time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep occurring? And not just in places where the gun laws are comparatively lax, but in countries where it is all but impossible for an average person to own a handgun. Guns are banned in schools. How could gun attacks happen in "gun free" zones such as schools?
If gun control is supposed to reduce violent crime, then eventually this must be demonstrated to be true, or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. However, most criminologists admit (albeit reluctantly) that there is very little empirical support for the claim that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms reduce criminal violence (eg, Kleck 1997). Frequently, assertions that gun laws work turn out to be bogus. In Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that gun control laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been falling even faster in the United States.
 
 
+14 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:27
REASONABLE ARGUMENT III:

Gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US. Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates. In his scholarly book, More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of the US (Lott 2000). His study is the most comprehensive analysis of American crime data ever completed. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians.
 
 
-8 # VLR 2012-07-23 14:33
JOHN LOTT? That phony? Please.
 
 
+23 # jwb110 2012-07-22 08:55
Thirty times freer to kill or to die. I am a big believer in the right to bear arms. The sole purpose of which is to protect the country from outside attack or the imposition of a dictatorial Gov't. Killing people in a high school or from a bell tower or in a theatre is not a protected right except maybe in TX and CO.
 
 
+17 # Vauban 2012-07-22 08:59
Guns are not the problem, Testosterone is.
 
 
+10 # Adlib 2012-07-22 09:28
Guns don't kill people...people with guns kill people.
 
 
-5 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 19:06
American people.
 
 
+4 # fliteshare 2012-07-22 09:48
If testosterone was the problem, bare breasts wouldn't create the same outcry as a dozen or so people killed in a movie theater.
 
 
+27 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 10:25
No, both things are the problem. Remember if George Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, Travone Martin would be alive today. So much for the damn carry concel permit bullshit. Nothing but a license to murder.
 
 
+2 # JackB 2012-07-22 13:26
Yes, but would George Zimmerman?
 
 
-18 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:41
Once again, you speak from a position of ignorance. Do your research before harping on others. Guns save lives. Just a small comment to maybe peak your interest..."acc ording to the Clinton Justice Department there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self defense with a firearm every year." The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"-a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig. And if Trayvon had attacked me the same way he apparently attacked Zimmerman I can only say the result would have likely been the same.
 
 
+25 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 15:19
Zimmerman STALKED Martin for over 20 minutes...again st the admonitions of the police dispatcher.
 
 
-18 # JackB 2012-07-22 18:30
You sound like one of the terminally righteous media types who have tried, convicted & sentenced Zimmerman.
 
 
+4 # gogogrl47 2012-07-22 22:54
Hmmmmm,,, do you think he could have just shot him in the foot? Or just maimed him? Nope. He was so afraid of an unarmed young man who was in front of him (not behind him) th at he had to kill him. Because that is the reality---that a young man is dead because of Zimmerman. What the heck?? This makes no sense on any logical level. I will never believe that Zimmerman did not have a choice and that he was so reactionary because Trayvon was BLACK. ,".....how far have we come? Nowhere. We are still so prejudice. Amazing to me. Cheryl from Illinois.
 
 
-2 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:20
Paulrevere is right on. Totally correct in his assessment. Sorry NRA clones, I don't dig the fairy tale you are laying down.
 
 
+2 # MJnevetS 2012-07-24 06:09
Quoting JackB:
You sound like one of the terminally righteous media types who have tried, convicted & sentenced Zimmerman.

As opposed to Zimmerman, who tried, convicted and EXECUTED an unarmed man, AFTER Zimmerman was told by police NOT to follow him. No one on this cite knows the full details, but when you stalk someone against police orders and then kill them, that is not self defense. (And yes, I DO know, I am a retired prosecutor; I DO own a gun and I AM in favor of gun control...It is the UNREGULATED distribution and redistribution of guns that places guns in the hands of criminals...Whe re do you think they get them? They are not homemade. and generally, in the cases I have seen, they were legally purchased and then sold and re-sold. If sales were better regulated (NOT prevented, but regulated, with proper police checks) then the illegal weapons could be kept from criminals. Unfortunately, the NRA is against ALL gun regulation. So, yes, as someone above stated, the NRA position runs counter to what law enforcement would want as sensible regulation.
 
 
-4 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 19:37
I don't know where you got your twenty minute information from but remember in the United States one does not have to have the permission of the "authorities" before following someone suspicious. The police cannot tell you what to do, isn't that fabulous?? Try that in most other countries and see if you survive it.
 
 
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:22
Yea, well this is different because he was in the neighbporhood block watch who reportedly worked closely with the police. The guy was a nut and a loose cannon and only NRA freaks would defend this crap.
 
 
-2 # MJnevetS 2012-07-24 06:15
Quoting skylinefirepest:
I don't know where you got your twenty minute information from but remember in the United States one does not have to have the permission of the 'authorities' before following someone suspicious. The police cannot tell you what to do.

Wow, so you are an anarchist? vigilantism is ILLEGAL. Tracking someone and the confronting them with a weapon is not legal even under Florida's 'stand your ground' law.
 
 
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:19
So you're saying you would kill somebody rather than get into a fistfight? Boy I'm glad we didn't carry guns in high school because there would have been a bunch of dead students./ Get real. You would rather kill somebody than punch him? Sick.
 
 
-23 # macleod77 2012-07-22 09:08
"..You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like,(1.4 million people will die of heart disease), or (30,000 people will die of septicemia), nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old (movie theater will get shot up & 12 people die), well then everyone loses their minds!"

High-income countries Deat hs in millions % of deaths
Ischaemic heart disease 1.42 15.6%
Stroke & cerebrovascular disease 0.79 8.7%
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 0.54 5.9%
Alzheimer and other dementias 0.37 4.1%
Lower respiratory infections 0.35 3.8%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 0.32 3.5%
Colon and rectum cancers 0.30 3.3%
Diabetes mellitus 0.24 2.6%
Hypertensive heart disease 0.21 2.3%
Breast cancer 0.17 1.9%
Gun Deaths America 0.008775 .00002%
Gun deaths Britain .0000 58 .0000009%
 
 
+31 # Adlib 2012-07-22 09:22
True stats, perhaps, but concern over gun violence doesn't actually correlate with "everyone loses their minds", in my opinion. And I (and the parents and loved ones of these victims) don't envision a 6 year-old or a man dying on his 27th birthday as "part of the plan". Sorry.
 
 
-9 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 15:23
Sloppy sentimentality. ..the imposition of a victims plight being used in courts as an emotional clubs to twist jurors thinking results in no less than a miscarriage of justice. To judge a crime and judge another, emotions MUST be tabled for they are no less than prejudicial ploys used to arouse irrational thinking.
 
 
-27 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 09:49
EXACTLY and BRAVO macleod77!! "then everyone looses their minds"...I believe that hysteria is induced by a frenetic group of people who found a cause and then blew it all out of proportion...th ands again for the WONDERFUL comparison to REALITY!
 
 
+17 # Observer 47 2012-07-22 10:19
Your paraphrasing of the Joker's rant in The Dark Knight doesn't add anything constructive to this discussion. Quoting a maniac rather undercuts your credibility.
 
 
+15 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 10:28
You're post is totally without merit. You compare accidents and disease to homicide by firearm. And we haven't even mentioned the number of people accidently killed by firearms. How about the recent case where a small boy killed his father when the real gun he was playing with went off?
 
 
-5 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:47
Do your homework, Todd. Another quote for your edification..." in a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from blows to the head, heat stroke, etc. as students who were killed with firearms during the same time period."
 
 
+4 # sameasiteverwas 2012-07-22 20:27
Sorry...not so academic when it was my nephew shot point-blank, dying at age 16 from fooling around with his friend, who held a supposedly not-loaded shotgun to his chest & pulled the trigger. Guns and alcohol, guns and carelessness, guns and curious children, guns and outright stupidity, guns and outraged testosterone, guns and paranoid mania, guns and madness -- what is the lethal part of the equation in every instance?
 
 
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:25
You know, I'm getting rather bored with people trying to tell me to "do my homework." You do your homework, dude. I said you cannot compare accidental death or death by disease stats to murgers by gun. That is a fact and as much as you guys don't like it, it's the truth. You do your homework!
 
 
-3 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:24
Pray tell, what's the difference between "accidental homicide" with a gun and "deliberate homicide" with a gun? The person is needlessly dead in either case."
 
 
+6 # readerz 2012-07-22 20:25
Accidents are no accidents: Nader first got his fame with "Unsafe at Any Speed;" the car industry and truck industry could make the vehicles much safer. And why are all those huge trucks ruining highways, and not on safer tracks?
The FDA takes a million dollar "fee" for every new drug, and does none of its own research, and puts people on its investigation board who are high up in the drug industry: the FDA persecutes people who find cures for cancer, even while at the same time violating patents (look at Dr. Burzinski, but not the only case). This is personal to me, as my husband has cancer: it is no accident, nor is the continued pollution that causes cancer.
Mistakes are no mistake: a few might be, but try to stay awake for two days straight and then do a medical procedure: the medical mistakes out there, including neglect to even look for the drug interactions and side effects clearly labeled, are no accident. Nor is a bacteria-laden alcohol swab, or e-coli laced foods.
Then we have outright murder. It is very wrong. But compare that outright murder with the casual food poisoning, or toxic alcohol wipes, or exhausted resident, or endless meaningless argument with an honest researcher: these are all purposeful decisions.
To belittle the gun murders is not right. But to belittle the other murders, covered by "reasonable" expectations, is also very wrong, and should be criminal, not civil cases.
 
 
+14 # carolsj 2012-07-22 11:39
Macleod--Your point could be clearer. Instead of "losing our minds" about gun deaths, we should be "up in arms" about the state of our healthcare and also the number of deaths caused by medical mistakes. Somehow people don't find that shocking.
 
 
+11 # independentmind 2012-07-22 12:37
Yes, but gun deaths are unnecessary and preventable.
 
 
-10 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:48
And what exactly would have prevented this tragedy?? No criminal or health record to send up any red flags. What would have prevented it???
 
 
-2 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 15:27
Maybe mandatory weekly monitoring by the doctor who prescribed the psychotropics?
 
 
+6 # sameasiteverwas 2012-07-22 20:28
Maybe the purchase or 6000 rounds of ammo? Or is that so common that no one would notice?
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 12:17
You know what would have prevented it? Not having a freaking gun in the hands of a nutcase, that's what. Duh!
 
 
+6 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:41
Like prohibition?
That kind of preventable?

Y'know it's all really about a sloppy ol concept called primacy. Who decided to go first at a four-way stop? We execute thousands of judgments a day while motoring the roadways, yet cannot handle simple matters like being armed.

Do you know that every Israeli citizen must serve in the IDF, their military? Every Israeli is responsible to be armed, have their arms in working order ready to use if called upon. Forget the Swiss, the Israelis have double, triple redundancy. The only issue if some nut opens fire in a restaurant are "field of fire" concerns by those taking the nut out.

Now why is it Israelis are deemed authorized to be armed, but as American citizens, . . . . we're just not sure anymore? You wish to live as a nation of adolescent imbeciles. Who then is going to take care of you, change your diaper?
This is not a rational conversation, it's just masquerading as one. I mourn the death of Aaron Zellman, founder of JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. Aaron used to say that if the Jews of German had refused to give up their arms there would have been no holocaust. I think he's correct. In the Netherlands when the Nazis posted an edict that all Jews must wear a yellow star on their jacket, the next day the entire population sewed yellow stars on their jackets. The Nazis gave up. Do you get it?
 
 
-6 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:22
Yes, and people fight these other causes as best they can. The thing is that murder is completely preventable. Period.
 
 
-38 # ssculptor 2012-07-22 09:21
As usual the statistics are skewed to prove the point that the writer is trying to make. Britain outlawed the possession of handguns many, many years ago. So what do the criminals use instead? Knives. Britain has a problem these days with the rise in murders by use of knives. A murderer will use what is handy. If they cannot find a gun they will use knives, clubs, whatever they can find. I guess the thing to do over there is to ban knives, then glass bottles and clubs. IN the USA we will have to ban baseball bats. The problem with ultra liberal people is they are always telling everyone else what to do and not do. That is why the Democrats have traditionally shot themselves in the foot when running ultra liberal candidates for president. The people of the USA want nothing to do with them so they vote Republican. Surprise surprise.
The liberals will never say that their positions are open to debate because they Know that their opinions are absolutely correct because when they walked by a bush that was burning without being consumed by the flames God then told them to ban guns. I've
been voting Democratic for 50 years but this time I may vote Republican to express my disgust with the know it all ultra liberals.
 
 
+30 # Observer 47 2012-07-22 10:26
I can't speak to the statistics in Britain about murders with knives. But your argument, by definition, is a sophistry. A man in Colorado just mowed down 50 people in a few seconds, 12 of whom are dead. Pretty tough to rack up the same figures with a knife. At the very least, we should be banning rapid-fire weapons with 20-, 30-, 50-round clips. I do not use the term "assault rifle" here, because some of the more nit-picky have been ranting about the technical aspects of various gun-type weapons. But you get my drift.
 
 
+19 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 10:33
Ridiculous comment, ssculptor. I too am an ultra liberal and have been so for over 45 years. I own a .38 handgun for home defense only. I would NEVER carry it in public concealed or otherwise. I am against assault weapons and against carry conceal permits. And I am not a "know it all ultra liberal." That is an insult to all of we progressives. Go ahead and vote for Lord Romney. You're not a person I would like to see in the Democratic Party. Your comments were way off base.
 
 
+23 # BlueReview 2012-07-22 11:20
Yet, how many people can you kill at one time with a knife? No, the lower death rate doesn't make the killing any more moral, but at least with a knife, once you start stabbing, people have a chance to run away and save themselves. You can swing that knife and slice more than one person at a time, but you only can reach the length of your arm plus the length of the knife. And once you're that close, it's easier to knock the knife out of your hand. Yes, there are incidents of massacres by knife, but it's mostly children that died--and that doesn't seem to be happening as often as our gun massacres are happening.

And no, God didn't "speak unto me," there was no burning bush--I figured this out on my own. I can think, despite your assertion otherwise--if I couldn't, I wouldn't be arguing with you. I'd've already said, "YES MASTER YOU'RE RIGHT I'M SORRY I EVER DOUBTED."

Yes, if someone is determined to kill, they'll find a way. But I see nothing noble in making it easy for someone to find the weapon to do their mass murders. I refuse to be their enabler.
 
 
+3 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:46
Mass murder = holocaust = 6 million disarmed people.

Total number of disarmed people murdered by their own governments in the last century?
260 million

That is the victory of disarmament. Let's really work progressively to turn this country into North Korea. Will you burn with pride then?
 
 
+16 # BlueReview 2012-07-22 11:32
"Do hunters really need semi-automatic AR-15 assault weapons? Is that how they roll in deer season?"

Better be careful saying things like that, Mr. Cole. I used the same analogy several months ago in a different forum and some guy threw a hissy fit--apparently people don't buy semi-automatics to hunt deer. And here I thought that was my point! (Silly me!)
 
 
+8 # Regina 2012-07-22 14:43
How does a would-be killer mow dozens down with a knife???
 
 
+9 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:39
Maybe so, but to kill with a knife you have to get up close and personal. The gun is the coward's weapon of choice.
 
 
+1 # ENetArch 2012-07-22 09:25
Has anyone else noticed that this is the 4th article concerning deaths by guns in a week. Who would benefit by using the public's furor over the massacre to drive through new gun control legislation?
 
 
+11 # BlueReview 2012-07-22 16:14
ENetArch--"Who would benefit by using the public's furor over the massacre to drive through new gun control legislation?"

We the living.
 
 
-3 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 20:53
Are you sure about the "living" part of that?

Maybe you should stick with "We, the Disarmed."

Post a sign in your front yard, "This house is a gun-free zone." You progressive types love to use the power of the vote to compel performance from the rest of us. That is cowardice. The right to bear arms is a secured right, never to be separated from the American people. Yet you social tinkerers never agree to just leave it alone. You always have to reform the world with the conviction of your heart. But it's a lie. So is your compassion. You just hunger for an American people who can no longer resist your utopian yearnings (which always end in catastrophe). Study history!
 
 
-1 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:29
Socia tinkerers? My God,don't you realize social tinkering is putting dangerous weapons in the hands of untrained civilians on the steet? That's sick shit.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 22:36
I can't believe your comment, Todd! Untrained civilians? You mean like everyone on the American frontier, . . untrained civilians a hundred, two hundred years ago? When I was in kindergarten most of the men in the neighborhood, the fathers, all had served in WWII. Everybody had guns!!!, even those who did not go to war. So, what happened? Did the entire country turn into adolescent imbeciles? Or is it just your progressive viewpoint?, . . . that Americans are adolescent imbeciles? And then what gilted omophor automatically rests upon the shoulders of those "authorized" to bear arms; those in law enforcement, military? Who waved the magic wand and converted them from imbecile untrained civilians into the all-wise ones we must be protected by? Is it the 100 I.Q. limit hiring they do down at your local police department which guarantees their superior judgment?
 
 
0 # BlueReview 2012-07-23 13:29
"You progressives types love to use the power of the vote to compel performance from the rest of us."

And you will use your weapons to compel performance from the rest of us? This is YOUR idea of morality? You think that doing nothing makes you superior to the rest of us? NOTHING gets done by pessimism, by those who say, "It can't be done." You create nothing--you can only destroy.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 22:52
No, Dear, that's the jack-booted thugs' hands in your pants down at the local checkpoint. The principles of British Common Law some of us still respect and practice is that my rights stop at trespass of your rights. But liberals cannot figure that out. They think their RIGHTS are universally to be applied onto the backs of all, or they're being hampered somehow. It's this internal aggression of the Passive Mental types, who wish to fashion a tyranny of their good intentions. There is no greater good than each be free. I am the active mental, Staff thinker. We produce pretty much everything you see around you. It all involves abstract calculation in its production. Abstract projections are foreign to the self-involved Circle thinker. We measure twice, cut once. It's a different world, Baby. It's what is. Albeit, it ain't utopia. But why is it each time you progressives invoke utopia it means digging deeper into my back pocket or my personal space? Ayn Rand discerned it: producers and looters. What kind of bird are you, did you say?
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:57
Sory you didnt deserve the point I gave you it was purely accidental! We the living do not need anymore gun legislation anymore than we need a cancer operation without having cacer!
 
 
+3 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:41
Everyone who cares about people other than themselves.
 
 
+30 # Majikman 2012-07-22 09:26
We are a violent nation. When we impoverish our citizens, cut social programs to increase military spending to further enhance a bloated MIC how can we not expect that ethos to permeate our culture? If one is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail...and every world problem can be solved by smashing it with our military might.
The inane "support our troops" applies only as long as they're still able bodied and capable of killing. Once they become disabled, they're thrown on the trash heap.
Can't imagine why so much gun violence in this country? One has only to look at its priorities...th e MIC.
 
 
+20 # Smiley 2012-07-22 09:26
We compare to England, but why not also to Switzerland or Canada where % of gun owners is higher or the same as in the US, but the murder rate is far,far lower? The number of guns may be a factor, but it's not the only one.
 
 
-18 # ditorac1 2012-07-22 09:44
I read somewhere (don't know if true) that during WWII the reason the Japanese were hesitant to invade America is that they knew we were all armed with guns and would use them as a massive militia. Sounds logical
 
 
+5 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:46
Couldn't be that we had so many more people than them and mostly superior forces and equipment? I can tell you from experience that when invading without concern for civilian deaths a "well armed" populace is no match for a military operation. You just get tons of people dead. Mostly civilians. Look at Iraq, they had lots of weapons and we lost a few thousand compared to their nearly one million.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:07
If you were better informed you would know that Chinese generals have written white papers stating that the reason China would never contemplate a ground attack on America is that the populace is heavily armed. Why would they mention it if it were never on the table as an option?

Bingers has obviously never heard of guerilla warfare, French Resistance, Belgian Resistance, etc. Or how about the German losses going into Russia; the Russian women abandoned on their farms who would rather die fighting than die being raped, whose marksmanship took a massive toll on the German Army, both in numbers and psychologically .

So finally someone who admits the nearly million dead in Iraq, our own national war crimes. We can be lied to about Yellow Cake, or Kuwaiti babies being thrown out of incubators, and we are willing to kill a million mostly civilians in a far off land. What of the Weathermen and their plans to imprison 50 million, kill off 25 million of them, right here in the US of A? It could never, never happen here, right?
 
 
0 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:34
[quote name="Johnny Genlock"Or how about the German losses going into Russia; the Russian women abandoned on their farms who would rather die fighting than die being raped, whose marksmanship took a massive toll on the German Army, both in numbers and psychologically .
First of all, Germany invaded Ukraine and most of its march was through Ukraine, so it wasn't "Russians" or "Russian women." Secondly, you seem to be watching too many soviet-made or modern movies on the subject. Hitler lost for the same reason Napoleon lost and Carl XII of Sweden lost: military miscalculations . In Ukraine, the German Army was welcomed with open arms initially because people hated the Soviet Union so much, but then the Germans started treating them as "Slav sub-humans" and that was the end of that. What this has with gun control, I don't know but I can assure you ordinary soviet citizens were not only gun-free, they were often also food-free and life-free for their efforts against communism.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:32
Johnny G, I probably know a hell of a lot more about guerilla warfare than you. My qualification on the question, in case you didn't notice, was invading without concern for civilian deaths. An all-out attack on a million well armed amateurs would result in the massacre of 3/4 of them. The Russian example was a joke, right? they lost about ten times the number as the Germans and were prepared to lose many more. Stalin issued an order that anyone retreating was to be shot to death. A better example is the Warsaw ghetto which was wiped out almost to a man despite a well organized resistance.

The only reason the Russians survived at all was that we finally came to admit that we needed them to keep the Germans occupied in the East and finally sent them help with military equipment.

No resistance will ever defeat a well trained army and will never be effective without another combatant army against the one you are resisting. The French resistance was totally dependent on allied supplies and intelligence. In your addled argument that a bunch of NRA nut jobs could resist the Army or Marines is just dumb.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:34
The weathermen? A small group from the 60s? Are you insane? Do you believe in the FEMA concentration camps too? Good grief Johnny, you need to find a good shrink.
 
 
0 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 04:30
You probably read it in that astute, intellectual publication called "American Rifleman."
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2012-07-23 17:34
Quoting ditorac1:
I read somewhere (don't know if true) that during WWII the reason the Japanese were hesitant to invade America is that they knew we were all armed with guns and would use them as a massive militia. Sounds logical

NO!
 
 
+7 # Douglas Jack 2012-07-22 09:54
Humans subconsciously try to recreate tragedy again and again until we understand the spirit in which we are engaged. The Batman and Columbine High School massacres as well as thousands of others are mysterious until we understand our historical foundation. Not far from either of these Colorado massacres was a US government massacre still not acknowledged.
Here are links to the film Ghosts of Sand Creek and some of the eye witness accounts that went into the film, on the film's website: http://sandcreekmassacre.net/witness-accounts/
to read MNN: "Aurora Today's Sand Creek Massacre 1864" go to www.mohawknationnews.com www.indigenecommunity.info
 
 
+2 # readerz 2012-07-22 21:00
So, how close is Sand Creek to Columbine and Aurora? Sometimes it does seem as if there is a hole ripped in the psyche somehow, but Colorado is a big state.
 
 
-6 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 10:06
The historical cultural context of england is differing from the US. England retains monarchy. Monarchy is a extension of feudalism the feudal state. It draws from nobel knights kings and all the rest..staples of feudalism.
In every feudal state the common folk were specifically disallowed weapon ownership and use it was restricted to the nobility and extension of the same..knights.
This was to reinforce societal role...nobels owned and protected..serf s worked and received a bit the proceeds of their toil..without ownership.

So england being a monarchy retains some aspect of feudalism...no weapon/gun ownership and kingship.
Our founding fathers not only absolved any monarchy they absolved completely any change of a monarchy.
Since the trapping of monarchy contain the nobel class and essentially a feudal reinforcement.. .and the democratic form of government in the US strictly rises up against that...we have weapon ownership potential in the US.

We are not educated the real why of how things are but only corporate nonsense in histories we are taught...so we don't know much about anything sat times.
Point being england and the US cannot be compared in some fashions equally...there is history of a different sort here.
Essentially in a serfdom you exchange freedom and ownership for safety...
Assault weapons are still nonsense as are extended clips, in both places by citizen held.
 
 
-2 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 15:33
Next to last sentence?...STE LLAR!!
 
 
+6 # sameasiteverwas 2012-07-22 20:47
Next to last sentence...ridi culous. What the hell was the Patriot Act if not diving for cover, throwing our rights aside with both hands? The generation of kids growing up since 2001 have been inculcated with cowardice and slavish servitude to any leader who "promises" homeland security. On one of these threads the other day I saw a gun-rights fanatic quoting Robert Heinlein to bolster his argument. Now may I take the opportunity to do the same: "There was NO security in this world and only damn fools and mice thought there could be." Each of us can only die once. In that we are every one equal. I own guns, but I am not willing to kill to save my possessions or out of anger or to sanctify some ideologue's idiocy. I am, however, willing to die for my family, or my country. Maybe that is the fundamental difference between living in cowardice/serfd om and living with some reality-based sense of freedom. I do, however, agree that assault weapons and extended clips are nonsense. We should ALL join the NRA and change their culture from the inside, so that reasonable laws can be passed.
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 06:28
Oh yea, I was once a member of that astute organization. But the NRA I once knew taught gun safety, and hunter's safety. Look at the NRA now. Go ahead, pick up a copy of American Rifleman. This is a far right wing organization that is controlled by the firearms manufacturers. Look at the ads in the magazine and tell me the NRA doesn't have a vested interest in opposing ALL forms of gun control. Gee, when I was in the NRA one of the tennants was "guns and alcohol don't mix." Now please tell me why the NRA backs carrying concealed guns in bars and restaurants? Senseless crap.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-07-23 17:47
@ Ron----"
"Nobel" knights??? Didn't know that there was a "Nobe"l prize for "Knnnn-iggits" (per Monty P').
And there you go again, representing the "England" confused with UK crowd.
"England" retains a monarchy as taxpayers now but with no power or say whatsoever. Just (mostly American) tourists and Windsor sentimentalists . And by the way, Queen Liz' owns a good chunk of Manhattan real estate, me ould dahlin'.
Scotland has no truck with that nonsense and is a basically a socialist nation (not ONE Tory seat). Wales is close behind as is Northern England and Northern Ireland.
The US is by far the closest to serfdom -Corporate that is- and I'm not feeling much safety from the average doped-out on wanton ignorance US citizen. Not to be nit-picky but you might check y'r spelling a bit, especially in using words central t' your posting.
 
 
+11 # venusman 2012-07-22 10:09
One should not forget that people don't kill people, and guns don't kill people. It is bullets that kill people! So, don't control guns - develop techniques to control bullet sales. Even go so far as to learn how to mark bullets, so that they are linked to the purchaser. Expensive? Of course, but set a price on a life. The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, but it doesn't mention ammunition.
 
 
+1 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 19:12
Quoting venusman:
One should not forget that people don't kill people, and guns don't kill people. It is bullets that kill people! So, don't control guns - develop techniques to control bullet sales. Even go so far as to learn how to mark bullets, so that they are linked to the purchaser. Expensive? Of course, but set a price on a life. The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, but it doesn't mention ammunition.

yes but very difficult. and Americans with guns and bullets kill people.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:39
Quoting venusman:
One should not forget that people don't kill people, and guns don't kill people. It is bullets that kill people! So, don't control guns - develop techniques to control bullet sales. Even go so far as to learn how to mark bullets, so that they are linked to the purchaser. Expensive? Of course, but set a price on a life. The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, but it doesn't mention ammunition.


The second amendment requires your being a member of a "well regulated militia" to keep and have guns. There is NO outright right to own guns, despite what the most corrupt SCOTUS in history ruled.
 
 
+29 # julianj 2012-07-22 10:28
Hi all,

I am British and live in the UK. It is my perception that Brits are more hard-drinking and inclined to belligerance than the average American person. Often our cities can become flashpoints on weekends when there are large numbers of drunken people around. Though troubled, America, in my albeit anecdotal experience, is more civilised, with fewer aggressive drunks.

Where we do differ is: Guns.

It is very difficult to get hold of guns in the UK, so a momentary bit of stupidity doesn't result in firearm death, likewise, feeling down one day, you can't blow your head off and so life goes on.

This is in my view, purely down to the availability of guns in the US.

Nobody wants guns in the UK for just this reason. 99% (at a guess) of British citizens, even if they love other aspects of American culture, think having guns available easily is completely crazy.
 
 
-14 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 12:17
...and you allow surveillance cameras to the tune of one for every 14 citizens...?

One man's rational is another man's irrational?
 
 
+3 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:56
You are aware that we're doing the same thing? We just haven't caught up yet, but we're getting there.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 06:31
No eqaution with julianj's post. I'd rather have surveillance cameras over concealed weapons any day. In fact, a well-placed camera might have prevented Trayvon Martin's death.
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:51
Maybe if the cameras were being monitored but most of the time thy are only for experiences that have already occured unless your at a casino where they monitor for employees and slight of hand guests... If I had a choice I would pick a gun over a camera any day due to the effect that a camera doesnt protect it only prevents if the criminal isnt stupid, in most cases the criminal is Stupid...
 
 
-8 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:22
We think paying obeisance to the Queen is bollocks.

What is your current rate of taxation? I've heard as high as 80%. Is that correct? We fought for American independence saying, "No taxation without representation. "
 
 
+3 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 10:28
There is a comedy skit based upon that premesis..one thousand dollars for a bullet and few would be killed accidentally.

Peoples training in gun usage police hunters and other routinely I would guess in each session expend at least a hundred bullets.
Most police train with their weapons at least quarterly. Hunters about three or so times before the hunt is my guess.
Target shooters are a really small population compared to the other groups I would guess but they spend many many rounds monthly in their training. Thousands
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-07-22 17:57
However, many people make their own ammunition.
 
 
+13 # lesmcf 2012-07-22 10:48
I'm sure glad that I'm not one of these cowards who carry a gun because they are afraid of being assaulted. Let's face it, carrying a weapon is a macho thing.
 
 
-4 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:52
What a silly comment. You may defend your wife and kids against assault however you durn well please...and you will have to given that the courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. I however, have arthritis in my hands so, if you don't mind, I'll use a firearm. Commen sense, nothing macho about it.
 
 
-1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:38
I would love to see your statistics on how many men protected their wives and children from an attack this past year... you're still in the covered wagon stage of development.
 
 
-2 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:24
Victims-r-US, hey, lesmcf?
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:46
With all due respect my friend,Im sorry but its not cowardice its being able to protect oneself and family from drug addicts and thugs and theives and i really dont need to go on. Macho is not the word I was thinking of when I bought my gun. Its protecting oneself from the infraction of getting robbed or beat up by some obnoxious infidel who takes human life for granted... Have you ever been beaten up for no reason and have your wallet stolen or your girlfriend raped??? Think about it for a while and think how you would feel! I would not call anyone a coward who finds it necessary to protect themselves!
 
 
-12 # cordleycoit 2012-07-22 11:06
One can see there is an ignorance about why firearms are a necessity in a Republic.
England is a kingdom. It has been ruled by one family or another since Roman times.The English people have been bred to ne docile for almost two thousand years. They deported the Scots and the Irish to other lands after subjugating them brutally. The British state is armed and suppresses dissent with great force and violence.The English People are ruled by an unpublished constitution and live with petite rights. The English people are gentle, weak, respecters of authority.Ameri cans are different that that sorry picture.We have a predatory government and a predatory law enforcement and law making community.We are ripe for revolution and have done that twice in short history.To stifle revolt a tyrant would have to disarm their unruly subjects. And the Liberals want to try...That be foolish thinking.
 
 
+6 # readerz 2012-07-22 20:53
England's problems are not our problems, that is true, but we have mercilessly put down "rebellions" of Native Americans and others in our past. Beyond revolting behavior, Americans can learn to change what is wrong with our country without sapping it of all resources (by not allowing tax giveaways for those who could afford to help out), and we can change other laws to make a stronger nation. To buy guns but refuse to fund schools seems rather contradictory: you would rather own a gun than make friends with an army of children who could grow up to be doctors.
 
 
-4 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:27
Hey, cordleycoit,
I clicked on the green hand to give you a thumbs up. Not only did it not record my approval, it increased the - thumbs down - by 1. That's fraudulent vote counting!


*** RSN MODERATOR'S NOTE ***

I promise you, Johnny Genlock, we do not contract to Diebold for the thumbs-vote count.

While you are reading a comment many other people are also reading it, and voting. When you click a thumbs up or down it refreshes the count with the total of all the votes during that period of time - not just yours.

To see an accurate reflection of your vote just refresh the page and vote right away.
 
 
+1 # cordleycoit 2012-07-23 05:28
A voice of reason glad to hear someone agrees with me and Tom Jefferson.
 
 
+2 # gogogrl47 2012-07-22 23:17
That makes no sense. Thge Brits are smart and very bright. Don't disparage them. I am a history professor so be careful. Of course it ish your OPINION!,
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 06:37
I am a freaking ultra liberal and I never suggested disarming our citizens. All I want is to do away with carry concealed laws and ban assault rifles. Is that too much to request? I don't feel comfortable going to a tavern knowing the asshole next to me is armed with a Glock. Now you tell me honestly what's wrong with that?
 
 
+2 # BlueReview 2012-07-23 13:54
Thumbs up to Todd Williams.
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:36
You truly do have a right to your opinion it may be wrong in the eyes of many but its still your opinion, but maybe that guy with a glock could save your life someday, did you ever think of that?
 
 
+15 # pagrad 2012-07-22 11:07
Don’t confuse the Boobus Americanus with logic or with common sense.
The National Rifle Association is an industry gun lobby for manufacturers.
Besides, the second amendment has nothing to do with guns. It allows the Revolutionary Army soldiers to take their rifles home, since they had no barracks.
 
 
-3 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:32
Revolutionary Army???? Oh, that's right. They were armed, disciplined, trained, by who? These were the shopkeepers, the mule skinners, the farmers. The definition of Revolutionary Army solder is a militiaman. In other words, every able-bodied man from 17 to 60. Read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, prior to spouting your opinion.
 
 
+18 # Working Class 2012-07-22 11:25
The answer to violence isn't as simple as restricting gun ownership. For the purpose of disclosure, I must state I own several guns. If I thought turning them in would stop one act of violence I would be the first in line. The answer to violence, both by mad men and criminals, no matter what the instrument of delivery, is less porverty, more resources for the educational system, more resources directed to mental health, a revised criminal code/prison system that does not house non-violent and violent prisoners together, a prison system that acutally strives for rehab for first offenders, and yes, better background checks for all gun purchases. Unfoturnately a background check would probably not have stopped the latest mad man. He was in a PhD program, and probably would have gotten his hands on a gun even under California's restrictive gun laws.
Ban all the "Assault" weapons you want, mentally unstable people will still be unstable, and will find a way to lash out at whatever demons they imagine. The answer is not simple, and will take a serious redirection of resources in our society. Ironically many who treat gun ownership almost as a religion also politically oppose the expenditure of public resources on the social componets necessary to address this issue.
 
 
+6 # Majikman 2012-07-22 13:09
Excellent, Working Class. Although I don't own a gun and live in a semi rural area where gun ownership is almost a religion, I have no issue with legal ownership. We have enclaves of survivalists up in the mountains. Strange folks indeed.
What I find interesting is those who own assault weapons, etc. to protect themselves from the "gummint" takeover of their "freedoms". They've already lost and don't know it.
 
 
+2 # MainStreetMentor 2012-07-22 11:28
It's the mind process BEHIND the trigger which causes the problems. Hate,Greed and unstable minds are the motivators - and if there were no such things as guns, Hate, Greed unbalanced minds would find other means of lethal expression.
 
 
-19 # JackB 2012-07-22 11:31
The "informed" comment is zib-zab. Liberals make a big show of righteousness about "gun control" when they really mean controlling legally owned guns. The overwhelming bulk of the gun related crimes are committed with illegal guns.

The stats of the commenter are almost all illegal gun stats. The stats for legal guns would put us among the safest counties.

The commenter's stats claim the US has 24+ murders per day from guns. 8775 per year. How come the terminally righteous liberal community only goes nuts when a crime is committed using legally owned guns.

The massacre at Ft Hood by the Muslim Major was, according to Divine Barry, a workplace incident. All the dead & wounded a water cooler disagreement. Is Barry going to Colorado to tell the people that insane massacre was a movie critique?
 
 
+1 # independentmind 2012-07-22 13:02
How many of your illegal weapons were once legal?
 
 
+1 # JackB 2012-07-22 13:38
Interesting question. I have no idea. How would one find out?

Are you suggesting that people acquire guns legally, go through the hassle of getting them registered & then turn around & sell them illegally? That would be done knowing that the person's name & the serial number of the gun are on file?

Isn't that what Fast & Furious is all about?
 
 
+1 # readerz 2012-07-22 20:43
Many guns are stolen. The usual scenario is not a gun owner defending their home, but the gun owner scrambling to get the gun but the criminal getting there first. Or the criminal taking the gun in a burglary. Then the stolen guns enter the black market, and are re-sold, so that what was once legal becomes illegal. If guns are not around, there would be fewer illegal guns too.
 
 
0 # sameasiteverwas 2012-07-22 20:51
They don't bother registering them...they walk out of the gun show and "sell" them by the dozen to the men who fronted them the money to purchase...rely ing on lax prosecution by state D.A.s to save their sorry butts.
 
 
+14 # BlueReview 2012-07-22 11:34
Quoting ENetArch:
Has anyone else noticed that this is the 4th article concerning deaths by guns in a week. Who would benefit by using the public's furor over the massacre to drive through new gun control legislation?


We the living.
 
 
-8 # MidwestTom 2012-07-22 11:35
Over 35 thousand deaths by automobile in the U.S. per year, and the University of MIchigan claims that that umber could be cut i half by making daytime only till 21 years old, and midnight to 5 am for those over 24 years old. Lets get the kids off of the road; they are more dangerous than guns.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 13:06
Again, a spurious comment. Kids in traffic accidents are NOT intentionally trying to kill themselves or others. Nuts with guns are intentionally killing. Big difference.
 
 
+16 # Rich Austin 2012-07-22 11:44
Darcy Burner, candidate for Congress in Washington’s 1st Congressional District had this to say:

“It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.”

“...we have not had a real conversation about guns in many, many years. The National Rifle Association (NRA) threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation.

“...our country has not discussed assault weapons – which have no use except killing large numbers of people...”

“We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence.”

“ We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload.”

“ We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be.”

“Enough.”

“It’s time we took steps to stop the mass killings.”

“It’s time we had an adult conversation about guns in this country. The NRA can go to hell.”

Thank you Darcy for telling it like it is.

I am supporting Darcy.

We need people like her in Congress. She champions social and economic justice, and peace.

Send Darcy a campaign contribution.

And to hell with the NRA.
 
 
+3 # gogogrl47 2012-07-22 23:21
Yeah!!!!'. I support Darcy. What an intelligent thought process.
 
 
-5 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 11:48
The idea americans could rise up with their guns to forment revolution is, no personal offense intended,....ab surd. Sound cannons drugs energy waves.....

Colonialism serves as example of how to subject populations, western governments have been masters in that. Peoples are not mastered by force of arms...balances are changed that is all.
A native population of thousands upon thousands was conquered and held...and the holding is the important thing...by several hundred spaniards...how ....by allegiance...an d by that changing balance...in the end power balance..

Peoples talking guns weapons reasoning revolution or protection from government spouting usually hitlers words on gun control.....Hit ler held territories for less time than any other conqueror, active insurgencies in every place conquered.....

.colonialists...they held territories and bent them to their will for hundreds of years....weapon ry restriction...n ot part of their play book.
Perhaps we look at the roman playbook.... did not their christ put back the ear of one temple person, cut off by another with sword....the romans the greatest holder of territory and benders to the will others....did not restrict weaponry ownership by their subjects... a jew held that sword, not roman.


Change things... revolt against your rulers using you weaponry being key....sorry no never.
 
 
+12 # Swift 2012-07-22 11:53
Two things: one, our history of Indian Wars, the great success of our armies until Vietnam, at least, have engendered a political theology of arms: all power comes from the barrel of a gun. And then there's the political lobby which spreads insane propaganda about the sacredness of gun rights, as evidenced by a few of the posters on this very page. The recent Supreme Court decision was a great departure from the "Originalism" the court has said it was following. It did so until it became politically advantageous to read the 2nd Amendment in a way it had never been discussed at the time; the decision that was written by the NRA.
 
 
+12 # tinker22 2012-07-22 11:58
This whole debate is not now, nor will it ever be, a numbers game, although the stats are sobering. It is a matter of what is decent and fundamentally moral. Murder is wrong. Mass murder is abhorrent. We can all agree on that. Must we make it so easy by not making the acquisition of handguns and more deadly automatic weapons more difficult? (Please don’t tell me there are adequate safeguards in place already. That is simply an indefensible position when anyone can walk into a gun show with a pocketful of money and walk out with an AK47.)

[macleod77: Comparing death from illness to death from gunfire is not a valid argument. Last time I checked, it was not yet a crime to be sick. When it is anyone’s time to die, I hope it will be from natural causes, not violence.]

Then there is the consideration of the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791. The arms of the time were single-shot weapons which were loaded through the muzzle and fired by means of a flintlock. That is what the lawmakers of the late 18th century knew to be the available technology. There was nothing automatic about them. There was nothing multiple about them. There were no magazines. You fired one musketball at a time and it took a while to do that. There is an excellent discussion here on a Columbia Law School blog: http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html

What do you say we limit your right to “keep and bear arms” to your right to a musket?
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 23:15
If I gave a tinker's damn, . . . Sorry, cold not resist. You purport a logical, heart-felt argument. But it is a fallacy. The musket was the military weapon of the moment. The right to bear arms is based upon a parity between civilian and military arms for the intent of avoiding a monopoly of power by the military. A novel idea! But why do we have the different branches of government? It was to avoid a monopoly of power by any one of them. The Executive was meant to be encumbered by the Legislative and Judicial branches. Why? So the people would individually have freedom. Is that so foreign an idea to y'all? Separation of powers? Ultimately this is supposed to be a government of the people by consent of the governed. The other side of consent is the ability to just say no, which we are quickly losing. We have Tea Party on the Right and Occupy on the Left. These are people just saying "no" to things we see going wrong with the System. There will always be bad people. There is already a black market in arms. Google FAST AND FURIOUS. That is your government shipping 20,000 assault rifles, grenade launchers, across the border to the Mexican cartels. Why? To demonize the 2nd Amendment. They said it in emails. That's not me. It backfired, but no one's gone to jail. Figure that into your equation!
 
 
-11 # ArtII 2012-07-22 12:35
More Americans suffer from depression than coronary heart disease (17 million), cancer (12 million) and HIV/AIDS (1 million).

Between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, the suicide rate among U.S. males aged 15-24 more than tripled (from 6.3 per 100,000 in 1955 to 21.3 in 1977). Among females aged 15-24, the rate more than doubled during this period (from 2.0 to 5.2).


Could all this be due to the hopelessness they feel? The lack of control over their lives?

Every time I turn around there is another vote in Congress to rip more of our rights away.

The less freedom the more suicides? I'd say so. Now compare this to gun deaths.

Over 36,000 people in the United States die by suicide every year.
 
 
+10 # Todd Williams 2012-07-22 13:11
Spurious baloney! How many of these suicides were due to GUNS? These arguments using stats are crap now and have always been crap. This is the NRA's way of confusing the shit out of shallow thinking people. Wake up to the threat of this mean spirited group. The NRA is our enemy.
 
 
-6 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 13:57
Todd, the NRA is not your enemy any more than I am your enemy. If it seems like I'm picking on you it is because you haven't done your homework about firearms and it shows. If you hate guns and don't want guns then don't buy any...but don't try to tell me how to protect myself and my family. I expect I have a little more association with law enforcement than some others and I speak from a position of experience and knowledge.
 
 
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 06:49
First of all, don't tell me I have not done my homework. I know as much or more about this topic than anyone else posting here. Secondly, I've owned small arms for more than 45 years and have NEVER had to use one in my defense. Third, I keep my gun in my house and would use it to protect my family. I am against carry conceal permits and assault weapons. Now I suppose you think that is unreasonable, but tough crap. That's my opinion and no right wing guns nuts and NRA tools will ever change that. Got it?
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:28
Todd I like your spunk! I agree with you on almost everything except the conceal carry, Im not out o kill anyone but would come to the rescue of someone getting raped or mugged and would only employ the gun if necessary...I do not think its unreasonable at all... in fact I promote having a gun in the house for protection, in fact I applaud it. Kudos!
 
 
-2 # ArtII 2012-07-22 16:21
If someone wants to kill themselves, there are quite a lot of choices besides guns. If you are suggesting that the removal of guns will reduce suicides then I have to ask: "How can you possibly support that claim?"

As to the numbers I posted. I found them easily using Google.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 23:23
All this focus on the NRA is simply Liberal talking points. Among real gun owners, 2nd Amendment folks who understand, the NRA are a bunch of compromising pussies. They actually wrote gun control legislation. When you attack the NRA you simply demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. NRA are sell-outs. They are like the politicians of both parties here in this country, who universally sell out their constituency. Same deal. Gun Owners of America, true 2nd Amendment folks, as are JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership; the real deal. No, Todd, you have not done your homework. Neither has the vast majority of the Left.
 
 
+2 # pagrad 2012-07-22 13:14
What a bunch of idiots!

Have you noticed that civilizations which have a low crime and homicide rate also has laws in which the community does NOT have guns?
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2012-07-22 13:19
Don't know if anyone noticed, but majority of those who are opposed to gun control are the same people opposed to abortion, birth control and family planning. Could it be that they want to ensure an ample supply of live targets to shoot at?
 
 
-16 # patriot9878 2012-07-22 13:45
All those wars fought against Germany were not necessary. Germany left alone would have kicked the Commie arse and then it owuld have been over for them by 1942. But the plan was to trap Germany and the best country in Europe was destoryed by the same ones who committed 9/11.
 
 
+5 # paulrevere 2012-07-22 16:10
no offense meant, but don't you think you are being a bit simplistic in your historical analyses here?
 
 
-1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-07-22 21:48
google Interrogation of Christian Rakovsky. That can clarify the situation that Hitler was also a Rothschild puppet, created when they calculated they had lost control of Stalin, whom they accused of "going Bonaparte" on them. Hmmm. Stalin agreed to play ball and Hitler drew the short straw. History is a strong brew when served real cold.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:51
Quoting Johnny Genlock:
google Interrogation of Christian Rakovsky. That can clarify the situation that Hitler was also a Rothschild puppet, created when they calculated they had lost control of Stalin, whom they accused of "going Bonaparte" on them. Hmmm. Stalin agreed to play ball and Hitler drew the short straw. History is a strong brew when served real cold.


Right, Hitler was controlled by Jews? Just how anti-semitic are you?
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 23:44
Y'know, Bingers, I replied to your comment, but I don't see it published; so I'll repeat my reply. I am so anti-semitic that the Church I tithe to just purchased new X-ray equipment for an Israeli hospital near the border with Lebanon. You owe me an apology for label slinging, disparaging a person's character.

And if you truly knew your history you would know what I am saying is true. Hitler was funded by the British Rothschilds in London. That's why when things went silent, he sent his closest confidant, Rudolph Hess, in 1941 to find out why the funding had ceased. Later in 1943 the cover of a purported peace proposal was presented as the reason for Hess's secret journey. If that were true, it should be reason for some great interviews of Hess. But they don't exist. Why no interviews? Why was he held incommunicado as the sole inmate of Spandau Prison for the rest of his life, dying in 1987? If you haven't checked out the Interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, don't go around tossing labels, bingers.
 
 
-1 # wrknight 2012-12-08 20:37
Quoting patriot9878:
All those wars fought against Germany were not necessary. Germany left alone would have kicked the Commie arse and then it owuld have been over for them by 1942. But the plan was to trap Germany and the best country in Europe was destoryed by the same ones who committed 9/11.


This is a sad commentary on the state of education in the U.S.
 
 
-1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 11:16
Quoting wrknight:
Quoting patriot9878:
All those wars fought against Germany were not necessary. Germany left alone would have kicked the Commie arse and then it owuld have been over for them by 1942. But the plan was to trap Germany and the best country in Europe was destoryed by the same ones who committed 9/11.


This is a sad commentary on the state of education in the U.S.


I assure you this is not anything that is taught in US schools, or in any public schools in the world for that matter. There is some evidence, I don't know personally how reliable, that both World Wars were allowed to happen on some level to weaken Germany. But that's not something I am a qualified commentator on. What I do think is, had Germany been allowed to take out Stalin, the Allies could then have taken over the Nazis with far less loss of life and Eastern Europe would not have suffered 50 years of communist rule.
 
 
-1 # wrknight 2012-12-09 13:43
I sure hope you're right, maybe this guy didn't bother going to school or just slept through classes. On the other hand, they teach some weird shit in some states.

As far as Germany taking over the Soviet Union, that could never have happened. Napoleon tried it and found out Russia is a BIG, BIG place and it's very very cold in the winter. The standard defense is to retreat eastward and burn the land in front of the enemy so there's no food. Without food and fuel, the Germans would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon's army.
 
 
0 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 15:13
Quoting wrknight:
I sure hope you're right, maybe this guy didn't bother going to school or just slept through classes. On the other hand, they teach some weird shit in some states.

As far as Germany taking over the Soviet Union, that could never have happened. Napoleon tried it and found out Russia is a BIG, BIG place and it's very very cold in the winter. The standard defense is to retreat eastward and burn the land in front of the enemy so there's no food. Without food and fuel, the Germans would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon's army.

The scorched earth policy was not applied to Ukraine. Ukraine was simply occupied for two years. There were serious military mistakes made when the Germans tried their pincer operation in the northwest (Belarus and Russia). Had the Germans not wasted the good will they initially had in Ukraine, that could have been used to great advantage in the war. But they started shipping young people to Germany as slave labor instead (Ostarbeiter). Stalin was prepared to lose every last soviet man, woman and child to win the war and it was that as much as anything that made it hard to beat him. BTW, he had executed the entire officer class early in the war, which meant his armies were being led by ideologues rather than generals in many cases. So they had to hold guns to the backs of their soldiers to get them to keep fighting. Most POWs were executed when returned after the war. Returned civilians were exiled to Siberia.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 23:53
Stalin executed all POW soldiers returned to him. The Allies were aware they were loading POW's onto trains. As soon as the Soviets got them back, they would order them off the trains at gun point and kill them all on the spot. The Allies kept sending them because Stalin was promising the return of GI's. He never did. Finally the US gov't wrote off over 30,000 of our POW's, declared them KIA/MIA, informed their families they'd died while Stalin worked them in the camps. The gov't'd been writing off POW's for a very long time prior to Vietnam. I believe this is all laid out in two books: The Boys We Left Behind & Other Losses
 
 
-3 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 15:08
That has to be some sort of reverse type of debate....sayin g those absurd things which are about indefensible and historically of course incorrect.. and that person of course advocating gun ownership.

so my say on that..... peoples who believe in rational gun contol but not total gun restriction of ownership are not necessarily of that sort.....we are just perhaps rural when you are urban

Some of us know not your life and some of you know not ours....

Those things to say them...a bit silly, about giving nothing of substance to the discussion.
Someone from the right painting a picture of gated communities some sort of la la land and then stating those are gun control advocates....I' d say that is about the same and leads not to discussion of this issue...but to something else.
What is accomplished with that something else....has anyone asked themselves that?
 
 
+10 # Rich Austin 2012-07-22 16:42
National Rifle Association campaign contributions to Federal Candidates - 2012 Cycle

Total: $513,646

$15,500 to individuals

$498,146 to Political Action Committees

$67,550 to Democrats

$446,096 to Republicans

26 Democrats got NRA money

206 Republicans go NRA money

The GOP wants to privatize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education.

The GOP wants to enact more job-killing free trade agreements.

The GOP wants to give more tax breaks to the “super rich” (despite the fact that they hide over $21 trillion in “tax havens”. Yes. 21. Yes. Trillion!)

Why any working class person would join or support the NRA is beyond reason. The NRA supports lawmakers who want to keep working families under their thumbs.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 06:52
Right on. Now those are the type of stats that a very germaine to this discussion. I appplaude you.
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:22
I am an Nra member and applaud their efforts in helping with our gun rights. Conservatives need some allies. the democrats have their so called union pals. Wh tell their workers to vote democratic. In regards to the super rich remark most politicias both democratic and republican are pretty super rich. Ever wonder why Obama is attacking the rich? Hes trying to create a seperation in the united states and push this class warfare concept because hes nothing but a radical marxist, he wants to take guns away! Ever hear of the bolshevic revolution, ever read anything by Ayn Rand. Ever hear of a gentleman by the name of Thomas Sowell. Im an independent and haven given well over 60 hours to the research of candidates and made a startling discovery of what the president is... ever read the book rules for radicals maybe you should its chocked full of what Obama has taught at acorn... if you dont believe me go look it up in your local library ... its all fact... Good day!
 
 
+1 # readerz 2012-07-22 20:35
The right-wing claims to have the guns, and speaks loudly in favor of concealed-carry . However, what happens if those right-wing folks are foreclosed by their banks? I don't think it is in the bankers' political party best interest to promote those guns so much.
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:11
Well to inform you that it hasnt happened so far is quite a unique concept because one would assume that something like your scenario might occur but it probably wont. Many disgrunteled foreclosed homeowners do however smash out the windows or destroy a few things on the way out, that isnt uncommon!
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-02 23:59
Geez, readerz. I think you've really hit on something. Do you suppose it's the bankers behind this push for gun control? But I really cannot imagine some responsibility- conscious concealed carry conservative breaking the law because they couldn't come up with their mortgage payments. That sounds like an emotional entitlement liberal to me doing that. But I'll bet you're right on target about the bankers and gun control.
 
 
-2 # macleod77 2012-07-23 05:09
Quoting Observer 47:
Your paraphrasing of the Joker's rant in The Dark Knight doesn't add anything constructive to this discussion. Quoting a maniac rather undercuts your credibility.



Madness & Genius often go hand in hand. Despite his being a completely insane, violent sociopath, the Joker's speech touches on an unbelievably important point of human perception: it's tragically Linear. millions of years of evolution have made us keenly aware of the occasional Lion & it's ability to eat us, but completely unable to detect the bacteria in the food we are about to eat.

This analogy is proven in the statistics I showed: We Hyper-focus on the event that has less probability of killing us than winning the lottery on a crashing Commercial Airliner while suffering a heart attack after being struck by lightning.

Septicemia killed 30,000 people last year. Guns, 3.7k. Septicemia is almost 10 TIMES more likely to kill you.

Watch this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_schneier.html
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-12-09 08:54
3700 gun deaths? Are you insane? Remember that Time magazine issue with the facts on all 24,000 gun deaths from one year?
 
 
+1 # Douglas Jack 2012-07-23 07:43
Entirely what is missing from the 'gun-debate' and our society at large is the 'dialectic' ('both-sides') right to engage our fellows in society, business and government in formal equal-time, recorded and published 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the fight'). The foundations of our culture before our colonial and imperial period: law, academia, media & government were originally founded upon 'dialectic' engagement of differing opinions and the pleasure of dialogue together. 'Law' originally contained a multihome neighbourhood 'fractal' whereby in friendship and in perceived adversity people engaged each other in formal recorded equal-time conversation to understand each other. Even families have little formal dialectic engagement although cultural engagement is really the only way to learn verbal and listening skills. Aggressive institutional (soldiers, police, security), civil (neighbourhood- watch), protest (organization) and individual (citizen, criminal & insane) intervenors are unfortunately inexperienced and untrained in dialogue. Dialectic isolation and lack of structure festers in all of us. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-both-sides-now-article
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 21:05
I love what your thinking its not often that I bump into a learned critical thinker but do honour the moments that I quantly bump into such an academic like yourself Douglas, Its an honor and privelidge...Wh at you are describing is true argumentation without the deragotory remarks and having respect for your opponent even though you may not agree with them wholeheartedly. Its a wonderful unique concept I must say but these particular rules are also a wonderfual addition to a persons well defined respect for oneself and of course of other individuals as well. It is relative to the concepts of Steven Coveys book the seven habits and what comes to mind is HABIT 4: Think Win/Win and HABIT 5: Seek First to Understand I enjoyed your info and Kudos!
 
 
-2 # my2cents 2012-07-23 08:54
First, let me say I am a very strong proponent of gun control. I see no reason for any citizen to own an assault weapon. I am not a hunter (or a gun owner) but I am also a very strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment for the purpose it was intended. I believe all guns owned by citizens should be kept at home to protect love ones, home, and to rise up against any government or foreign invader should a truly extreme measure become necessary. I would like to point out that no system is perfect, and when England was invaded in WWII, their citizens were left helpless due to the fact they were not permitted to own firearms. The Constitution was meant to be a living, maleable blueplate of laws, the spirit of which to follow, not to substitute uzi's for muskets.
 
 
+5 # JH Gordon 2012-07-23 09:31
106,000 people in the USA die from legal prescription drugs. Did you know the Attorney General was directed to collect data on all police related shooting deaths in the US and hasn't done it? When you Google that question, there is no answer.

There are supposedly over 300,000,000 guns in this country and 330,000,000 people. With less than 9,000 shootings, the percentage surprises me.

The point is America is a knee jerk nation. We're always so ready to put prohibitions on ourselves. We've watched our freedom erode, our privacy disappear, and our representatives become rulers instead of public servants. We allow corporations to kill ten times more people with "legal" drugs than are killed with guns. We allow corporations to pollute our water, our air, our food, our election system, our economy, and our future on the planet. And we are bamboozled into knee-jerk illegal undeclared wars for profit despite our Constitution and nobody seems to mind.

The new patriotic austerity means fewer police and therefore protection for the populace and now they want to disarm us too.

Prohibitionists would have to suspend the Constitution while the "authorities" kicked open every door in America to find every single gun. They never mention that.

535 insanely powerful people can destroy the earth a thousand times over. Why don't prohibitionists disarm them?
 
 
+4 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:50
I forone can comprehend where your comin from. I use to live in the ghetto in Milwaukee Wisconsin and people were murdered in fromt of our house and down the street from my house, My FATHER wa very protective of the family and taught us kids how to shoot responsibly and never ppoint the gun unless you intend to use it if your life is threatened. I myself am a pretty level headed person and not one of these hot heads in fact I am a psychologist and have written several books and truly beleive in the well meaning people who live in America who only wish to pursue their goals of having a family andteaching their progenies the difference between right and wrong and have the necessity to protect thier family Thats it!, I recently applied for a carry conceled license and would only use it if there was a threat, we as citizens are not asking for much but we want the right to protect ourselves when need be. The police cant be there because most of the time theyre busy elswhere and anything can happen between the time you call 911 if you can get through and the time someone breaks in.... I would really like to see some of these gun bashers have their house broken into an threatened, maybe they would think twice if it happened to them!
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2012-07-23 11:10
tinker22- Just so you know, one of the little known facts of gun history is there were semi-automatic rifles in the 18th century. They were air-rifles and they were quite effective. In the early 19th century they had developed rifled barrels up to .49 caliber capable of up to 20 smokeless shots a minute with a quickly replaceable air tank. And they were very effective for hunting large and small game, defense, and some were used in the Revolution (they were expensive). Lewis and Clark carried a .31 caliber to "astonish" the Indians. Many had an air pressure reservoirs in the stock or that looked exactly like the copper or brass globe/floats found in toilet tanks. Just Google the history of the air rifle. So, Congress did know multiple shot weapons existed and they still ratified the amendment.
 
 
-1 # Todd Williams 2012-07-23 12:22
That bit of weaponry trivia is meaningless in the context of this conversation. Obviscation is you main thrust here, isn't it?
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2012-07-23 13:41
No Todd, there's no obfuscation to addressing another commenter who has made an erroneous statement. It may be uncomfortable but the truth is the Congress did know of semi-automatic rifles at the time of the 2nd amendment. They didn't look much like what are labeled "assault rifles" today but they were every bit as effective. I countered Tinker22's statement that Congress couldn't foresee semi-automatic technology. The technology had been in existence as early as 1590. The truth is hardly trivial.

If you had read Tinker22's statement that Congress was ignorance of semi-automatic weapon technology when they ratified the 2nd amendment in 1791, you would see my comments were on point. However, from reading your comments, you seem more interested in acting as a self appointed moderator. When an incorrect statement is countered, it is neither meaningless nor out of context. The fact that there are people with valid arguments who disagree with you taking away our Constitutional right to self defense is something you have to live with. Your opinion as to what is meaningless is meaningless and your accusation petty . Nothing personal.
 
 
+3 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:38
Thanks for the info I had no Idea...
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-07-23 11:42
This article by Juan Cole is the most popular. However the article most persuasive for those against gun contrail to think about it is by a gun owner on this RSN blog,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/437-2nd-amendment-rights/12532-because-i-felt-like-it-


Is the purpose of advocacy to excite the base or to convince new people. Unfortunately unpaved armatures think that massage the base is what is important and the left can't afford to hire professions who know better like the right can.
 
 
+1 # Electricrailwaygod 2012-07-23 13:22
?Sick 'em up!' With possibly the exception of the two world wars, Amerika has been the murder capital of planet Earth -- and that truely is a shame!
 
 
0 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 19:14
Quoting julianj:
Hi all,

I am British and live in the UK. It is my perception that Brits are more hard-drinking and inclined to belligerance than the average American person. Often our cities can become flashpoints on weekends when there are large numbers of drunken people around. Though troubled, America, in my albeit anecdotal experience, is more civilised, with fewer aggressive drunks.

Where we do differ is: Guns.

It is very difficult to get hold of guns in the UK, so a momentary bit of stupidity doesn't result in firearm death, likewise, feeling down one day, you can't blow your head off and so life goes on.

This is in my view, purely down to the availability of guns in the US.

Nobody wants guns in the UK for just this reason. 99% (at a guess) of British citizens, even if they love other aspects of American culture, think having guns available easily is completely crazy.

Yes and a disgrace too.
 
 
+1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:27
I do understand where your coming from and ive been to England and found your country wonderful but never realy understod why guns were banned and if I take your explanation to heart I understand and maybe I was not in those places which you describe that get a bit rowdy on the weekends, but in the US many people interpret the 2nd amendment as a right to bear arms and I too think in the same mannerisms to a fualt sometimes becaus I beleive in our constitution and am very patriotic. I do beleove that owning a gun is a resposability and one hat should not be taken lightly there are safety courses available for those who are responsible gun owners and then there are those other individuals who obtain guns illegally and have gang wars. We are speaking of two different states of mind. Take into consideration that the cities that have gun bans are the ones with the most gun deaths...Washin gton DC, Chicago, NewYork are the worst.
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:35
Murder capital of the planet? I beg to Differ unfortunately we cant get distinct or accurate statistics but I know many individuals in Russia and know as a matter of fact in may places its like the wild west not to mention mexico with with the drug wars and lets go back to the seventies to a diminutive country in the killing fields of cambodia Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups. Most of these, a likely near 2,400,000, were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge. I dont think I need to go on, By the way socialists and communist governments have killed more people than any other form of government not to mention killing their own people... Kudos!
 
 
-3 # pagrad 2012-07-23 16:02
What do you call a group that advocates shooting up a movie theater …or a railroad car? That's right, the NRA is the most horrific domestic terrorist organization!
The only reason for the Second Amendment was so Revolutionary Soldiers could take their rifles home. Today, the military locks them up.
 
 
+3 # Livemike 2012-08-02 18:42
The NRA has nver advocated shooting up a movie theater or a railroad car. But I bet you're an Obama supporter and he has. Hell he's ordered it. Your moronic claim about history just shows you'll make up any excuse to ignore the text. The Revolutionary Soldiers could take their rifles home anyway, they were mostly their property idiot.
 
 
+3 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:17
Im sorry but I dont quite agree with blaming the NRA for shooting up a theatre, the guy who shot and murdered individuals in the theater was evidently mentally impaired and unfotunately had ownership of guns... I beleive guns should not be sold to individuals with a predisposition to having mental anomolies. One can not place the blame on an organization that advocates gun safety...
 
 
-5 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-08 21:01
The definition of psychopathic paranoia is owning a gun for supposed 'security'. The definition of collective dementia is 4.3 million paranoids joined together in the NRA spending billions of dollars feeling powerless in their inability to make the world a place of healthy relationships & complaining.

Try getting to know your neighbours & fellow humans, make healthy ecological livelihood & build the biosphere resources of the earth 100 times (10,000%) back to their pre-colonial days. Give thanks for the inter-dependent work of billions of people worldwide & live in respectful solidarity with all. If you have money fear-burning a hole in your pocket asking to buy a gun, think about investing in making the world a better place with these resources. Invest in youth, in natural resource generation, in life. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/design/1-indigenous-welcome-orchard-food-production-efficiencies
 
 
0 # tgrimwall 2012-12-09 15:07
I also noticed there are viruses on this page and it keps trying to download while I type... if your not doing it on purpose then you better check it out. Iam out of here! permanantly bye!
 
 
+1 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 07:21
Wow, the NRA advocates shooting up movie theaters? Really? Where's a cop when you need one? The NRA should be arrested for that. Makes you want to keep a gun in your house, doesn't it? -What a silly statement.-
You're a little confused. Colonists brought their own guns to fight the Brits and then took them home with them. Those who were provided with guns (Continental soldiers) may have been allowed to keep them but I doubt it. GI is "Government Issue", not government gift.

I don't like what the NRA has become. But think about it friend. an educational organization has been usurped by corporations, place blame where it's due if you want to demonize something. Now if the NRA declared open season on Lobbyists and PACs we all might feel little differently.
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-07-25 12:42
I think the articles by Gun Owners for reasonable gun laws will persuade more then this one, "Murders a Year by Firearms in Britain . . ."

Cheer Juan Cole, but spread around,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/419-gun-control-/12597-dark-knights-in-colorado-dark-days-in-america

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/437-2nd-amendment-rights/12532-because-i-felt-like-it-
 
 
-1 # James Smith 2012-07-26 03:10
I have an essay about responsible laws at: http://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/guns-or-no-guns/ I propose exactly that.
 
 
+3 # James Smith 2012-07-26 03:09
These statistics are worthless. As my father used to say, "FIgures don't lie, but liars can figure."

It conveniently leaves out the killings by knives, clubs, and even rocks. Humans are violent, unstable creatures by temperament and will find ways to kill other people no matter what restrictions are invented. It's easy to blame weapons because that requires no thinking or effective action, only slogans and more useless laws.
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:11
Your right James, Basically we demonize the weapons and not the behavior in conferences like these... We have prisons for people who perform ignominious acts and should really be doing something about behavior, instead many serve short terms and are out on the street to perform more illegal deeds....
 
 
0 # wrknight 2012-12-08 20:52
You're right James. People have always found lots of ways to kill others and will continue to do so with or without guns. But guns make it soooo much easier.
 
 
+5 # lat22 2012-08-02 10:47
As the good people of Syria are now observing, it isn't necessarily a good idea for only the government to have guns.
 
 
+4 # Livemike 2012-08-02 18:40
"The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall."

No they don't and you know it. Otherwise you would have included more than one country in your comparision. You would also have compared the same country before and after changes in gun ownership per capita. In America they bought a lot more guns and crime, particularly homicide, went down. Face it, the anti-gunners have lost the battle when they resort to this sort of single comparision rubbish.
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 08:43
Ronald Reagan effectively shut down more social safety nets and diverted taxes to power and corporations then any president prior in US history. Mental hospitals were shut down wholesale. Mental health programs became privatized essentially and that is far from all.

We, as citizens receive far less from our tax dollar than ever before, and the gluttons demand even more austerity on our part as the rich keep getting disproportionat ely richer and government becomes better armed for corporate imperialism. They can't protect us from a determined enemy foreign or domestic or from Them- and especially not in our homes.

If I were running a government like that, I'd want to collect all the guns I could. I think there's little difference between psychotic with a gun and a uniformed kid with a joy stick and a drone under orders of even bigger psychopaths. The only difference being one of them is sanctioned and allegedly bringing democracy to the world- The other is full of self-hate-bent on destruction and seeking a moment of infamy- And likely loaded on prescription drugs or off the wagon thereof.

Government cuts back on cops and disarms us so we live in more fear. Destabilization and fear makes government more powerful. Look what our government does to other countries and you'll see what they are doing here. It's a pattern and it begins with knee-jerk propaganda no matter how well meaning and/or corporatized the source.
 
 
-1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 14:21
Comparing the US to England is a bit short sighted, Take into consideration that England has a gun ban and its quite a bit smaller than louisana, So your going to have to come up with better stats....Import ant: they have a gun ban and there is still 53 and I think this is really 73 not 53!
 
 
-2 # Alexis Fecteau 2012-12-08 16:31
What are you brain dead? Britain's population is one fifth that of the United States and 13 times the size of Louisiana's.

The Pacific Ocean is a thousand times the size of the US and Britain combined and they've had no gun murders....ufb.

Not to mention, British are educated compared to Louisiana...
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 19:44
What are you juvenile and like to be disrespectful? Grow up!England has an area of 50,337 square miles,Louisiana covers 51,843 square miles Get your facts Straight!I suppose you know all the statistics right? The point Im making is that there is a gun ban in England and there was still 73 deaths from guns ! So gun bans really are ineffective because there were still 640 murders in 2011 and 73 were gun deaths so they found other ways to kill people!
 
 
-2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 14:26
Also many individuals know that Obama is a marxist hiding under the banner of a democrat and do not trust him what so ever another reason he was brought up a radical So my question is what is there to trust about him? Dont marxists have an agenda and dont they take your guns away to force even more rule upon you so you become another common worker while the upper echolon enjoys your hard earned labor?
 
 
-1 # sapereaudeprime 2012-12-08 18:21
Quoting tgrimwall:
Also many individuals know that Obama is a marxist hiding under the banner of a democrat and do not trust him what so ever another reason he was brought up a radical So my question is what is there to trust about him? Dont marxists have an agenda and dont they take your guns away to force even more rule upon you so you become another common worker while the upper echolon enjoys your hard earned labor?
This is utter nonsense. Learn what a Marxist is before you throw the term around. If Obama is a Marxist, my cat is the resurrected St. Francis.
 
 
-1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 19:55
Sows you how much research you do you better start calling your cat Saint Francis! Do your homework thats why Obama got in because of indiividuals who refuse to believe a democrat could lie about his ideology!Look at his background"Forw ard" is a communist slogan and used for the last seventy years in many communist periodicals and newspapers. One in particualr is the Chicago star during the late 40's early 50's. Oh thats a coincidence right? nope because the chief editor of the newspaper at that time was Frank Marshall Davis a crad ccarrying member of CPUSA, he is the the presidents mentor, and David Axelrod who happens to be the presidents aid was weaned on marxism as well he was taught by another member of CPUSA,David Rose... The presiddent taught classes at Acorn on Saul Alinsky the book was entitled "rules for radicals" and the book was dedicated to Lucifer... So go look this stuff up if you dont believe me... Its all fact Before I vote I do at least 60 hours of research on my candidate unlike many othr peole who sit idle and just listen to commercials which is all propaganda!Enjo y!
 
 
+1 # James Smith 2012-12-09 02:57
You're a liar. Obama is not a Marxist or a communist. You clearly do not know anything about any of those. Nor do you know anything about socialism except you have been told it's the same as communism.

But never mind, keep exposing your willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. It amuses those with an IQ above room temperature.
 
 
-1 # tgrimwall 2012-12-09 14:32
No Jamesplease look in the mirror and keep telling yourself you didnt vote for a communist... you didnt vote for a communist and maybe youll believe it if you say it enough... Most people do not do any research ontheir candidate they just listen to the BS thats circulating around and if it repeated enough they believe it and most of the people still believe hes a democrat after blatantly showing everyone the opposite... marxist, communist, socialist, collectivist... all the same but Obama is a marxist hands down, he doesnt deny...AND THERE IS OVERWHELMING PROOF It boils down to either not knowing, in denial, or your a communist, one of the above... Just ask Frank Marshall Davis! It figures James I have been called a lot worst than that, doesnt bother me one scintilla, I do reseach on a daily basis, I am writing books for thesis for my masters on psychology I know how rude people behave and your a crowning achievment yes just remember those words"forward, hope and change" The next few paragraphs are taken from a book called the communist by Paul Kengor. Phd.To illustrate another modern-day parallel, Davis and his publication routinely vilified the wealthy, invoked class warfare, consistently accused high-income earners of “not paying their fair share,” blasted “big oil,” and loathed beyond words (wait for it) General Motors.

“If Frank Marshall Davis could have nationalized GM in the 1940s,” Kengor began, “he would have.”

“Obama was his pupil.”
 
 
0 # tgrimwall 2012-12-09 14:39
Quoting James Smith:
You're a liar. Obama is not a Marxist or a communist. You clearly do not know anything about any of those. Nor do you know anything about socialism except you have been told it's the same as communism.

But never mind, keep exposing your willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. It amuses those with an IQ above room temperature.
James,Usually people quote things like this because they dont know and want to draw attention away from their own naivete... I am really amused by yourjuvenile capability to defend your point of view, not very well but at least an attempt was made!
 
 
-1 # Eduardo3 2012-12-09 19:09
I wonder if it was Marxists who took away your ability to use basic punctuation marks like periods and apostrophes?
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 09:00
Labeling Obama won't help. Better to speak to power in any form and leave the branding out of it. All nations who have banned guns have become less democratic. Whether they've become more socialist, or national socialist, or communist isn't the point, really- it's about the power to do so and power protecting itself. Reasonable and logical gun control makes good sense. Education makes good sense. Saying we should ban all guns would make sense if we could, but we can't. Criminals would still have guns. If it were remotely possible to disarm everyone including the government, I'd jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat. So, better we invest in better mental health because that's how government can protect a lot better. And having a real FDA doing it's job would help. Prescription drugs can make people crazier just masking symptoms at best. The MSM in general heighten the reward mass murderers seek even posthumously. We can't apply logic to a sick mind. We don't need to know "how it feels" to live in the next town over from a murder scene. The media may not be the cause, but irresponsible reporting just makes it worse. The mass murder is somehow glorified. It's not the gun, it's the worm in some people's heads. We don't need to make the stars.
 
 
0 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 14:32
If they want to ban anything maybe they should ban cars because they are the biggest problem On average in 2009, 93 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day. Planned parenthood kills 1.3 million INDIVIDUALS in abortion committed each year. Theses are the stats you should be looking into not guns, guns are a drop in the hat compared to this!
 
 
-4 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-08 18:43
GUNS ARE FOR COWARDS. If people could come to the maturity of requiring both parties in dispute or research to openly 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') in equal time, recorded & published media widely circulated any grievance, before any acts of supposed 'self-defence' or aggression, then there is no reason for war. Mohandas Gandhi's 'Satyagraha' (Hindi 'truth-search') is based in the question to all parties simultaneously, "What are your best intentions & how can we help you fulfill these?"

A key is getting all supposed 'diplomacy' out in the open where all parties are accountable for what they say. All of us everywhere at every level should engage each other in such 'dialectic' dialogues in our homes, buildings, communities, business, schools, government, media, institutions etc. Aggression, injury, war, armament production & hidden financing of conflict is for cowards only. Violent cowards although armed-to-the-te eth are the most afraid & immature people alive. Transparency & revelation of the truth is what gun-holders & soldiers are afraid of. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-both-sides-now-article
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-09 14:45
Wow Doug I am taken aback first you seemingly know argumentation and then you contradict yourself by calling people names like coward???? I thought you knew the rules, I guess not. No Doug nobody is a coward because they have guns, many people go hunting and use them in an apropriate way and many peple who live in bad neighborhoods use them just in case they have to protect themselves. I know its hard to beleive but its a fact... I tell you what lets move you and your family in a mixed neighborhood, lets just say because you lost your job and can only afford so much to live on. all of a sudden three males break in your house, they have knives and you dont have a gun which would probably scare them off if they saw one to begin with... But no you dont have a gun, do you know kung fu? I hope so! Because now your faily is in peril!
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 09:29
Douglas, your do-it-yourself dictionary should have been written in erasable pencil instead of crayon.

"The definition of psychopathic paranoia is owning a gun for supposed 'security'. The definition of collective dementia is 4.3 million paranoids joined together in the NRA spending billions of dollars feeling powerless in their inability to make the world a place of healthy relationships & complaining."

You should have a blog so fewer people would realize you're an intellectual myopic attempting to dazzle with a gospel according to you.

As a Canadian hocking communal condo living in the utopian north, your peace-love-Harr y Krishna's Bar and Grill philosophy might work for a few easily controlled grazing dim-wits, but you're as much of an instigator as anyone. You only prove it when you resort to name calling to grab attention for your posts.

Calling people you don't know anything about "cowards" is easy from a key board in a tee pee in the wilderness. I recommend you do it in person a time or two- even in Canada.
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-02 11:18
tGrimwall & JH Gordon, I thank both of you for taking the time to get to know my writing a bit. I do stand up to say publicly that; purchasing, carrying or using guns instead of cultivating life opportunities & engaging in formal debate is cowardly. Its a matter of priorities for what each of us values with our time, resources & money. When people & whole nations adopt the 'big-stick' persona of John Wayne, GW, Obama & Canada's Stephen Harper as their way of introducing themselves, then its time to re-establish eye-contact & open up discussions about love & fear (cowardess). Mohandas Gandhi made statements about the gun toting as being cowards for ignoring their responsibilities.

I spent a decade living in & travelling through poorer parts of USA & Canada, hitch-hiking over 100,000 miles, riding rails, bicycling, sleeping under bridges, hired in social work, special-educati on, crisis-counsell ing & more. I spent the 70s living among 1st Nation, Russian Dukobour, German Mennonite & English Quaker pacifist communities. I've been incredibly lucky to have been received with such kindness. Recently having come haphazardly upon a riot here in Montreal. A police officer had dropped a briefcase due to aggressive protestors. I stopped, picked up the spread articles, handed these to the police & chastised 6 masked youth face to face. I'm 60, live & work in the city. Word history & language is a 50 year passion. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 13:30
Douglas, the way you take over a site is an annoyance. I've come to know your writings from trying to make heads or tails out of them. As such, where you stand publicly on your feet or on verbose fantasy is of little import to me.

I'm sorry to read that you're not very well traveled, it shows. But it's nice to know you're polite to riot police. Such haphazard ramblings are indicative of your posts as well. You and Gandhi, quite the comparison if a bit narcissistic. It's humbling.

Thanks for the website of your meandering musings, it was disappointing. But it's obvious to a lot of people you're more than trying.
 
 
+1 # James Smith 2012-12-09 02:54
Did you know that 25 to 49% of all pregnancies end in natural abortions? (misnamed miscarriages) That makes your god the biggest abortionist of all.
 
 
-1 # Alexis Fecteau 2012-12-08 17:42
Great, another double digit IQ foxtard, did you notice we regulate cars and abortions?

You should look up Marxist in the dictionary before using it again. It is inadvisable to use words for which you have no idea of the meaning.
 
 
0 # tgrimwall 2012-12-08 20:06
Im sorry you dont have any inkling of what Im talking about, but rest assured your really good at being juvenile and disrespectful to people you dont even know. At least I have the courtesy to show my respect and not call you derogatory names. I happen to know exactly what a marxist is because I use to be a very subversive marxist in my younger days... Do you think just because Obama is running on the democratic ticket that hes not a marxist? Look into his past my good man, there is a lot to be discovered. Like I told an interesting individual a few moments ago I do research because its my job and I put at least 60 hours of research into looking at the candidates while other people are idle and listen to the propaganda commercials...I see no point in discussing this further becaue some people just dont do the homework. PS. I dont watch TV so if your reffering to me as watching fox news network your wrong, the last time I watched TV was about three years ago and it was the national Geographic channel So dont speculate because one can only stick their foot in their mouth! Signing off!
 
 
0 # wrknight 2012-12-08 20:57
Now you have aroused my curiosity. What have you read by Karl Marx?
 
 
-1 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-09 09:41
Karl Marx & Engels did some extensive anthropology research both of worldwide literature, from involvement & from extensive visits to various regions of Europe for human economy & organization. Das Kapital (The Capital) & other works such as the Origin of the Family, Private Property & the State are well researched pro-active pieces of writing quite apart from the reactive violent opposition Marx has been interpreted for & on occasions acted in.

Das Kapital's accounts for the cultural relationship between labour (expertise, time, coordination) & 'capital' (Latin 'cap' = 'head' or 'wisdom') elaborate on its accounting components for book-keeping & economic cycles should be essential reading for accounting, business & political science. Marx's research on different historical & current enterprise ownership models describe hierarchal, cooperative & participatory entities. Marx's preferentially describes the Swiss participatory models.

Lenin, financed by German backers, upon launching the 'Soviet' (Russian 'village-counci l') revolution, adopts the 'co-op' as a singular national model for supposed 'communism'. Kropotkin's 'Mutual-Aid' based in labour accounting & progressive ownership over lifetimes in the Guilds are discouraged & even banned. Co-ops don't account for labour, discouraging participation with simplistic one-member/one- vote structure & bureaucracy which inevitably destroy them. 46 years https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
 
 
+2 # tgrimwall 2012-12-09 14:59
Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei aus das Karl Marx,Ich bin deutsch und ungarisch und einige von meinen Vorfahren wurden mit verwickelt und wurden in der boshevik Revolution gestorben. Also my grandfather perished, I should say he froze to death in an interment cap during the revolution, A multitude of books that I read through some communist and others like rules for radicals by Saul Alinsky This is a favorite of Obama...he taught it at Acorn... The book has a dedication in to "Lucifer".Writt en in 1971 I was a radical and disrespected everyone who was establishment then I grew up and became aindependent!
 
 
-1 # sapereaudeprime 2012-12-08 18:18
Throughout the colonial period, every free adult male in New England was required by law to keep a firearm, ammunition, and a fighting edged weapon in his home, on penalty of being fined and publicly humiliated. Yet there was very little homicide with those weapons. Why? Because it wasn't a homicidal culture, and nearly every county seat had a public gallows, whipping post and stocks. People knew that if they shot someone for any reason other than self-defense, they would be publicly hanged. Now people assume that if they shoot someone (or many) they will get a lot of media attention followed by free room, board and medical care, which is more than they're getting out in the public. Switzerland still has compulsory military training, and every Swiss male between 18 and 55 has a fully-automatic military weapon and ammunition for it in his house, yet there is almost no homicide with firearms in Switzerland--th ey have a much more homogeneous culture than we do, and a much more homogeneous economy, even though they have four official languages. We have deliberately sold our birthright for gratuitous titillation, and hatred in the name of Christ. We are the very horror our founding fathers wished to avoid.
 
 
-1 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-08 18:37
sapereaudeprime , You state their was no homicide during the colonial period with the invasion of lands, the spread of disease intentionally and the gun murders of tens of millions of First Nations. hmmmm!! Are you human or some other form of being?? www.indigenecommunity.info
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-12-08 18:31
Quoting Adoregon:
IMO, Doctoretty has "got it."

It is not so much that our nation is flooded with firearms as that our national culture is permeated with blood and killing. . .


I think because of our Christian history we feel guilty faster. We been lectured so frequently that Buddhism stands for nonviolence that we believed it until the bloodbath in Burma got in the way of the illusion.
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-12-08 18:33
One gun nut I miss is Ron Paul. Is there a tendency of those who want private guns not to want war, or is it only that the few that think that way make it known?
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 13:38
Although I object to the term "gun nut", I'll respond as an owner. I don't want war of any kind. Ron Paul appreciates the Constitution as written, I don't see how that makes him a "gun nut". But, if you feel qualified to label a majority of the population as gun nuts, it's a free country. I think it should be more free than it's become. People who want to take away my right to personal protection are anti-Constituti onalists, they should try that label on for size.
 
 
+2 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-08 21:54
Is Douglas Jack the voice of logic? Hell no! I am alive today because of the presumption on two occasions I might have a firearm. Does the law protect? Hell no! I gave evidence in a Federal case and had my office building perforated by an Uzzi with me inside. Had to spend thousands relocating inside security guard gates. You folks are clueless. You're not living in the real world.
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-09 10:14
Johnny, I agree with you. I lock my doors, ascribe to police services & live in Canada, protected by the USA's nuclear weapons. I feel ashamed of being a contributing part of this economic system appropriating (stealing) resources for security (40% of USA, Canadian & NATO economies) when most of the people producing this wealth worldwide are being exploited in forms of slavery & biosphere-envir onmental destruction. There are transformative options, besides feeding the monster. Indigene Community compiles humanity's universal worldwide indigenous heritage for abundance & security. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/indigenous-circle-of-life
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 14:03
I agree with you Johnny Genlock Even the presumption of being armed makes criminals with Uzis more circumspect if more not actually polite.

But if the right of self-protection is ever taken away, it will be open season. And there will be a lot more criminals because many citizens will not comply with a ban. Gun control is a must. Too bad the government does such a lousy job at it.

But it's the same with drugs, poverty, ignorance,menta l health, massive white collar crime, and the clear loss of democracy. No wonder they want all the guns, honest people might get upset...

I'm not worried about mass murderers, the media creates and glorifies them. They will continue so long as they're treated like that Hilton bimbo or an overdosed rock star. The media creates a cult in the mass murderer's head. Go figure.

I'm more concerned about the pharmaceutical induced criminal kicking in my door willing to kill for a stereo or a wallet. A remote possibility? Close enough.

Let's quit feeding the troll.
 
 
+1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 01:52
Anybody who wants some insight into the mentality of brutal men who think they have the right to lord over everybody with their guns, check this out: http://sandcreekmassacre.net/witness-accounts/
A bully is a coward when confronted by someone stronger. Guns have allowed too many cowards to become bullies.
 
 
-1 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-02 15:57
Rascal, Thanks for giving the issue of coward-bullies a clear voice. Nancy Lanza's training of her son Adam in point-blank violence encapsules the reactive fear which many gun compulsives are expressing.

Unfortunately compulsives don't take responsibility for the world, which their reaction is constantly creating. Compulsives have trouble deconstructing the negative human-relations , which drive their fears. Deeper is ability to compassionately understand our perceived adversary as one's self.

Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy-of-N eeds' helps to break down the chain of events which drive fear-reaction in our population. As basic food, shelter, clothing, warmth & health needs are ignored, a complex chain of events are set in motion.

To conjecture based on some of the knowns. Nancy's alcoholism, Adam's possible Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, fits the description of inherent fetal alcohol brain damage. Putting Adam on a pharmaceutical diet of anti-depressant s, seem to have liberated his unfulfilled & drug-perverted id (imagination) with marksman training to fulfill the coward-bully cycle.

Individuals & whole nations in such reactive fear-cycles don't pro-act in mutual-aid for meeting primary needs. Colonial society is fraught with violence & self-righteousn ess in denial of genocide we've inherited & perpetuate. The 'RIGHT-TO-BARE- ARMS' must become one of rolling up our sleeves to help each other. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-02 17:46
My mistake in misreading articles. There is no dependable link to alcoholism by Nancy nor Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for Adam. The rest remains.
 
 
+1 # James Smith 2012-12-09 03:05
Here in Brazil, gun laws are much more restrictive than even in England. It's almost impossible for a private citizen to own a handgun and long guns are not much easier.

Yest, the criminals here have no problem getting anything they want. Traficantes (drug dealers) often are better armed than the police.

As in the USA, most killings by guns are one criminal shooting another. Naturally, the anti-gun lobby chooses not to make that distinction when tossing around their statistics.

We can ban all guns, then it will be knives. After all knives are banned and we must live on soup, it will be baseball bats. When those are banned, it will be rocks and forks. The real problem is people. Shall we ban those, too?
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 14:12
Living just west of you currently,(Paci fic side) and it's the same here. As a businessman I'm entitled to have a weapon. I suppose that's elitist, but people are knocked to the ground for a cell phone in broad daylight and robberies are an everyday occurrence. But not if they think you have a gun. They think I do. They stay away in droves. People come running when there's trouble. No one follows. There's a lesson there somewhere.
 
 
0 # sapereaudeprime 2012-12-09 06:36
Here's a question. When every free male over 18 was required by law to keep a firearm and ammunition in his home (every New England colony had that law, and the laws persisted well into the 19th century) there were very few firearm murders. Do you suppose that the paucity of gun murders was at all due to the fact that nearly every county seat had a public gallows, and when someone was convicted of murder, he was publicly hanged? Everyone old enough to fall under the firearms requirement had seen one or more convicted felons publicly hanged without a hood, and probably had second thoughts about shooting an antagonist.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 11:45
This is in response to Douglas Jack's GUNS ARE FOR COWARDS. Douggie, Bro. How about guns are for concerned citizens. If I had been packing I could have saved two lives on the High Five in Dallas, Texas a few years back. Because I had no weapon to defend the couple, my best guess is they were stun gunned and dumped over the edge of the highway up about 8 stories. I saw the four hispanic gang members had them cornered as I was passing in traffic. By the time I had run through possible options traffic had already carried me too far to be of any help. If I had stopped unarmed, I could have made it a menage a' trois suicide instead of the double suicide the paper reported. Los Zetas kills here in Dallas just to make their bones, prove out new members. Then they retire south to Austin to hang out. Two people died because I was unarmed and unable to help. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's famous quote: "How we burned in the camps, . . . " Disarmament is a fool's parade.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 11:55
Douglas Jack, . . . the light that is darkness, the light of Marxism. Marxism is administrative government with compelled performance for the people (in place of consent of the governed). I have a whole essay on the subject matter entitled The Staff & The Circle. You may be wearing a skirt, Douglas, but your Adam's Apple gives you away. Compassionate socialism barely conceals its tyrannical core. All such systems must go through their "monthlies", their purges of the individuals who would "prefer not to." Scapegoats must be found, blood must be spilt, to satisfy the purification lust of what can never be pure.
 
 
+1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 12:24
I have to agree with this one, though it's unrelated to gun control... communism has not had a positive historical manifestation anywhere in the world, other than Salvador Allende in Chile. It has always been tyrannical and bloody and has always eaten its own. There must be something inherently wrong with it, given the results.
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-09 19:01
Johnny G & Rascal, I agree with you both about the way Marxism became expressed by Lenin & in the co-op movement worldwide. They literally "eat-their-own" . I lived with about 65,000 Russian Dukobour, German Mennonite, English Quaker & US draft dodgers in a region of British Columbia 1969 - 80. I helped launch the BC Fedup Natural Food Co-op network & then helped operate a similar Quebec network during the 1980s both part of a North American system. Some realized that; the bureaucracies we created weren't recognizing multiple stakeholders, engaging people for their strengths nor accounting for & empowering member contributions.

While working as a chemical laboratory technician at a Pulp Mill, I started a Pollution Control Committee for the union. Fellow Dukobour & Mennonite workers informed me a participatory mill in my home Quebec. We received enthusiastic collaboration from management & launched multistakeholde r participation for Managers, Workers, Suppliers & Consumers which then expanded to a network of pulp-mills.

What does Marxism, Capitalism, Communism etc have to do with Gun Control? These are systems we live, work, consume & interact with daily. Because they're all unbalanced, without feedback & communication for most of the people involved, they set a stage of underlying violence, inefficiency & a growing scarcity, destroying the biosphere. Participatory incorporation. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/3-rateable-corporations
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-02 14:19
Since the coup of '63 we have to add capitalism to the list of bloody regimes. Although it could be said that those who took over weren't actually capitalists. Too much power must be resisted. No matter how you label it. Real democracy does that, but since ours can be bought by corporations, we don't have one anymore. Federally fund elections and you make votes the only currency. Perhaps we can restore who we think we are.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 12:05
bingers,
I'm so anti-Semitic that the church I tithe to just paid for new x-ray equipment for an Israeli Hospital near the zone with Lebanon. I'm also so anti-Semitic that I attended a lecture last night given by Bryan Mark Rigg, purchased a signed copy of Rigg's book, Lives of Hitler's Jewish Soldiers; a compilation of research and interviews with surviving Jewish soldiers of the Third Reich. I asked Rigg what motivated him, a Jew, to do the research. He said he was researching his own Jewish roots and came across this untold story. Not only was Hitler supported by wealthy Jewish bankers, Hitler had approximately 10,000 Jewish or part-Jewish soldiers faithfully serving the Third Reich. Ain't real history interested! BTW, Rigg is a Marine.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 12:17
bingers, in the heat of battle you missed my point completely. You very well may be correct about the ineffectiveness , even cowardice of the Russian men. I was commenting about the Russian women, who could thread a needle and accurately point a rifle, who absolutely decimated the advancing German troops numerically. The Russian women were dug in and fighting to the death. Tell me you didn't know that.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 12:31
bingers,
Somehow I missed your qualifications for expert testimony on guerilla warfare. Sure, military could pull a Fallujah here in American against their own people. How many million troops are they prepared to come up with when the American people go berzerkers (as my Norwegian friend calls it)? Sure, you can "take" turf, but can you "hold" it?
 
 
+2 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 12:44
bingers,
My first intro to guerilla warfare was meeting and befriending a member of the Belgian Resistance. She, Fanchette, was raped by a German soldier at age 13, decided to turn that proclivity into an advantage and killed many German soldiers and some officers by prostituting herself to get close to kill them. Later when the military gave orders and the Germans quit using female prostitutes, . . . she joined a stakeout team which would attack and kill German soldiers on the roadways. In the process the Resistance was able to arm themselves from confiscated armaments and explosives. Then she joined a snorkel team and blew bridges with the dynamite they had recovered.

When I was in Brussels last trip I went to a flea market and found a large volume listing over 10,000 names of Belgians executed for being in the Resistance, or being suspected of being in the Resistance. 10,000 stories, some lengthy, most short, of Belgians who died fighting for their country AFTER the Nazis took over.

I still have a fond memory of Fanchette holding up a glass of red wine and singing Golden Earrings. The Belgian Resistance survived by living with the gypsies, stealing chickens with them, using maggots to clean their wounds and then later frying up the maggots for protein. Never underestimate the home turf advantage.
 
 
+1 # Rascalndear 2012-12-09 15:17
Johnny, there's a book or three in there... stop blogging and start writing!!! I'm impressed. Being post-WWII myself, I say thanks for sharing!
 
 
0 # patriot9878 2012-12-09 12:58
What about we can drop bombs and kill innocent people by the millions, but if someone screws me out of money and they need killing and I kill them, because they are a no good useless piece of shit they want to cry. I know two guys right now that need killing. Both are fat useless garbage.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 13:02
bingers,
You disparage FEMA concentration camps, use it like "anti-Semitic" as a label. Interesting pathology, label-slinging. Got any more labels in your six-shooter label maker, Pard? And then you fantasize you have won debate. What? Who needs a shrink? Confusing "consensus" again with proof. Sounds like a break from reality to me.

My first evidence on the FEMA concentration camps was interviews I did of: Vietnam Special Forces Air Combat Controller; (25-year CIA deep-cover agent; US Army pilot flying classified missions during the US invasion of Grenada; Iran-Contra pilot flying cocaine shipments labelled as medical supplies; and member of the ultra-secret, international G8-run Pegasus "hit team"...this is the extraordinary story of Gene "Chip" Tatum.) I conducted interviews of Tatum at the behest of a former head of the Los Angeles FBI, SAIC Ted Gunderson; who previously had run the Dallas Office, previous to that the Memphis Office, . . . Tatum testified that as a member of the then ultra-secret Task Force 160 (later public as 160th Aviation), he flew night vision goggle flights in extremely dark green helicopters known to the public as the black helicopters (another label???), and did R.O.N.'s (Rest OverNights) at many closed military bases and other bases converted for civilian detention. These are your FEMA bases, not the duds Glenn Beck straw-debunked on his program.
 
 
0 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 13:15
bingers,
My second source on FEMA concentration camps is/was a plans and policy man for FEMA by the name of Col. John R. Brinkerhoff. I heard and taped Brinkerhoff's lecture at the Strategic Indirect Warfare Conference, February of 2004, hosted by Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque. Brinkerhoff's lecture was on Catastrophic Emergencies, which went all the way from nukes down to a prolonged power outage or an ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. Brinkerhoff's solution--remem ber this guy wrote policy for FEMA and now Homeland Security--is to employ a minimum of 400,000 "armed, disciplined, organized and trained" troops to surround/quaran tine a metro area, to evacuate EVERYONE to relocation centers (RELOCATION CENTERS!)-no exceptions-and to deal very sternly with (kill) resisters. What is missing from the official version released later by the Sandia team was the Q&A from a Special Forces officer in the audience. He questioned Brinkerhoff's approach and stated that Special Forces goes into 3rd World countries and in 8 months trains locals to take care of themselves in any contingency/eme rgency. He said it might take 12 months in America where everyone watches TV, but with as little as 2,000 Special Forces troops deployed across this country, Americans could be trained in a year to take care of themselves in emergencies, . . . just like 3rd World nations. Brinkerhoff replied, "Sorry, we're not going to do that."
 
 
-1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 13:18
bingers,
So, you would ostracize FEMA concentration camps when it comes right from the lips of their own Plans and Policy man who was formerly the author of Rex 84? Who is the kook here? You must have drunk the Koolaide the Mainstream Media is serving out. Bon appetite!
 
 
+2 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 13:35
James Smith,

I was attempting to schedule to interview James Hatfield, author of Fortunate Son, . . . but then he committed suicide. I was also in on a phone conversation and was attempting to get down to Houston area to interview Margie Schoedinger, a black woman who claimed Bush, Jr., had raped her while serving as Governor. I didn't make it before she committed suicide as well. I was not on my way to interview Gary Webb (Dark Alliance) when he committed suicide by double tapping himself in the back of the head. The press lady for the Sacramento County Medical Examiner's Office claimed shooting one's self twice in the head was not that unusual. They had several other cases on file of suicides with two shots to the head!!! So, . . . with trepidation I mention the strange case of Joel Gilbert who claims he is NOT suicidal, yet has written a book about Obama entitled: Dreams From My Real Father. My prayers are with him. Does the name Frank Marshall Davis ring any bells? Being uninformed can truly be an art form. It allows one the option of supererogating to one's self qualities of intelligence and wisdom amidst the small pond subset, while willfully choosing to ignore the ocean of information which might wash away all question of being knowledgeable.
 
 
-1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-09 13:57
bingers,
"Weathermen, a small group from the Sixties, are you insane?"

Hey, Bing, I thought that's how Marxist groups always start out, . . . small group. Are you going to tell me I'm a conspiracy theorist because I noticed?
* * *
An FBI Informer with the Weathermen” alleges Bill Ayers, a friend of President Obama, told Grathwohl that Bernardine Dohrn, who later became Ayers’ wife, placed a pipe bomb outside a San Francisco Police Department building Feb. 16, 1970.

The shrapnel from the antipersonnel bomb’s explosion killed Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell. Another officer, Robert Fogarty, was wounded in the face and legs and left partially blind.
* * * *
In Leon Trotsky's book, THE PERMANENT REVOLUTION, Trotsky outright claims that if you do not support terrorism, you do not support the revolution. I think we should take ol Leon at his words and not ignore the blood on the hands of these Marxist social engineer types. I cannot count the number of times these educated idiots tell me (when I bring up the several hundred million victims) that "It just needs a little tweaking" to get it right. I am sorry for y'all that you have bought the lie that gun control will curb violence. Even if it did, it sets the stage for Marxist mass-murderers to have their way with you, your wives, your children. Gun control is not something a responsible adult should engage in, unless the control refers to marksmanship.
 
 
+1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-11 19:32
Douglas Jack said, "What does Marxism, Capitalism, Communism etc have to do with Gun Control? These are systems we live, work, consume & interact with daily. Because they're all unbalanced, without feedback & communication for most of the people involved, they set a stage of underlying violence, inefficiency & a growing scarcity, destroying the biosphere. Participatory incorporation."
* * * * * *
Douglas, there are some people left of center I have respect for, for their acumen in getting things done; such as Catherin Austin Fitts, for instance. The right has a penchant for focusing on being right over giving attention to the human details of how we get things done. Yet there is a fine line distinction between community activity and coerced collectivism. For a balanced view on the situation, there are several books to read. This list would include two of W. Cleon Skousen's works, The Naked Communist,(and) The Naked Capitalist. Two very good books, may be out of print or hard to obtain: Tragedy & Hope by Prof. Carroll Quigley; The Fabian Freeway by Rose Martin. This is an excellent study primer on how those in power pursue keeping it and extending it further.

Douglas, historically slaves are disarmed. What is a stakeholder but a slave in a high-tech collective? A tyranny always disarms it citizens, while militarizing an enforcement portion. I am amazed by the inability of readers to understand Aurora as a False Flag op. Cui Bono?
 
 
-1 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-12 09:17
JG Its a privilege to receive your research on political-econo mic system's. Although I identify with leftism, most leftists look at me askance when I promote the importance of: capital (most haven't read Das Kapital), accounting, frugal-spending & Asset-Based-Com munity-Developm ent-Economy ABCDE. 'Community' from Latin 'com' = 'together' + 'munus' = 'gift or service'. Humanity's participatory indigenous economy pre-dates both capitalism & communism, integrates them holistically. I agree with Ron Paul about there being no need for coercion at any level.

I agree with gun owners that; if someone is harming the lives of innocents, then protect them however we can. However having held, carried & shot firearms myself, I know they are heavy & inaccurate as well as a hazard to innocents themselves. Even well trained police & soldiers injure & kill an incredible number of innocent citizen by-standers with firearms weekly in the USA.

Given the low rate of violent incidents, the expense & weight of carrying over the course of an hour, day, week, month, year, decades, one must calculate energy expended & the results achieved.

We've many options in daily living to invest time & energy far more effectively to make a better world. eg. When individuals with differences are brought together 'dialectically' ('both-sides') to 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') we gain perspective from both-sides. www.indigenecommunity.info
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2012-12-12 10:17
Johnny G. As far as Aurora being a supposed 'false-flag', I would call this a distraction from human responsibilitie s. All forms of conspiracy are possible, but at some time we're responsible for doing the algebra, weighting factors for knowns & leaving unknowns in their rightful uncertainty. Collectives such as corporations & governments especially super-powers like the USA do have the resources & are complicit in many conspiracies & false-flags. Individuals usually don't have the resources or time for such complicity.

Given: 1) our short finite lives, 2) people worldwide who are contributing to our livelihood, then it is incumbent upon us to perform our collective duty & contribute to essential (food, shelter, clothing, warmth & health) services for all everywhere. Perpetual fear & paranoia isn't an excuse for not doing our part.
 
 
-1 # Johnny Genlock 2012-12-14 17:33
Douglas Jack, another tragedy of a "gun-free zone." When will people learn this is an invitation to psychopaths and nutcases?
* * *
Hours ago a gunman took the lives of at least 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. According to the New York Times, the gunman, also found dead at the scene, has been identified by a law enforcement official as Adam Lanza. His mother, who was a teacher at the school, along with 20 students, was shot and killed mostly in one classroom. He also shot and killed five other adults. Reports say that Lanza was carrying four weapons and was wearing a bulletproof vest. A semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster, a Glock, and a Sig Sauer were recovered from the scene.
* * *
Gun-free zone = guaranteed access to victims. Douglas, why don't you outlaw psychopaths? See how much luck you'd have with that. The Dude killed his own mother, m'God, then had the bad manners to die himself before questioning!
 
 
0 # geeves011 2012-12-17 14:50
In the UK it is necessary for a gun to be kept in a locked steel cabinet. I believe that ammunition is kept separately under lock and key from the weapon. This alone probably prevents quite a few 'domestic murders' as it would be difficult to just grab a gun and start shooting in a fit of pique. I also think ours is a much more secular society than the USA an I do wonder if our dismissive regard for organised religion and our wonderful self deprecating humour helps in our ability to not want to kill each other in quite such large numbers.
 
 
-2 # Hescores 2013-01-01 10:39
Guns don't kill people (plural), automatic weapons do.
 
 
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2013-01-02 14:42
The US has 750 in jail per 100 thousand people, England 96. Those in US prison with weapons offense as the main charge is scattered in this link,
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt
Minority members accused of a crime is more likely to be incarcerated.


I’m in Philadelphia which makes it a fetish to long incarcerate people for weapons offense.
http://whyy.org/cms/news/regional-news/2010/03/18/pa-attorney-general-announces-arrests-in-illegal-gun-sales/34034

A gun bought by a timid neighbor or a mother unable to feed her children unless she gets a gun for her boyfriend leads to children raised without parents. Gentle people who are pushed around have a harder time in prison then tough guys.

There are ways to discourage gun deaths without overcrowding our prisons. For instance if the gun in a gun free zone or in possession of someone who has no right to have them is found locked up upon arrest, the charges could be far less. There are now fingerprint controlled boxes to hold locked guns some small enough to carry in a side pouch. One way or another we in this country need to try to solve our problems without putting a lot of people in jail,

More on less gun crime and less jail time @
http://www.dailypaul.com/268070/outlawing-guns-in-cities-requiring-cell-phones-only-locked-in-trunk
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/15338-the-real-story-of-barack-obama
 
 
+2 # Xpat_lib 2013-01-03 06:15
Lots of discussion on this topic but something should really be made clear: For all your other arguments for having a gun the 2nd Amendment was NOT about protecting us from a tyrannical government and it was NOT about the right to defend yourself. It WAS about creating a standing militia that could be called upon to defend the existing U.S. Government from interference for either inside or outside the country. Read up on the Shey's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion to learn more about why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights.
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-05 15:01
Obviously; we all have a problem with human insecurity, coward-aggressi on cycles, isolation, one-side thinking & technology-enha nced aggression of many kinds, as you have listed. The key is taking responsibility for every part of the whole cycle. The 'Right-to-bare- arms' or each of us rolling up our sleeves to pitch-in for making the world a better place, each in our own way. Tell me about your own efforts. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/9-right-to-bare-arms
 
 
-1 # JH Gordon 2013-01-05 18:46
Expat_lib, at the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment virtually all homes had guns in them. So 'it goes without saying' the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Had the government tried to infringe on that right at the time, we'd have a different government now; the right was not in question.

Guns were as much a necessity as an axe for firewood or flint to make a fire. You can't apply today to yesterday, any more than you can define your neighbor's need or their definition of necessity.

I think it's clear the 2nd Amendment included gun ownership rights to non-militia citizens for obvious reasons. The right to self defense was unquestioned then, to do so would have been illogical. The founders were not illogical.

The right exists today because of the very real perception of necessity. Just as you have the right to relinquish it. There are far more people who disagree with that idea judging by the number of guns.

The 2nd Amendment approved the formation of local militias and forbade government interference with those militias or a citizen's right to bear arms. Your interpretation lacks logic.
 
 
0 # Xpat_lib 2013-01-06 00:10
The right to self defense is widely recognized and universal. The how, by what means and the level of that defense is determined by law in most countries. That's not my argument. There is nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment that suggests or hints at self-defense. The circumstances that let up to adding the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights - and Washington's reasons for doing so - is well documented. You only have to Google "Shey's Rebellion and the 2nd Amendment" to learn about it. The 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable in today's society. The idea that we need to form militias is not necessary because we have both a standing army and the National Guard. The argument about the right to own a gun - whether for self defense or other reasons -, what kind of gun should be allowed and how guns are regulated should be completely independent from the Constitution.
 
 
0 # JH Gordon 2013-01-06 11:41
The common sense of self protection wasn't arguable then and it's not now. It wasn't a question. To question it would have been the same as discussing the right to eat or sleep or to live. There was no debate over the right to own a frying pan either, or a cannon. By the way, you can own a cannon, just not many people do.

You are making a foolish argument. The right to bear arms is established and attempting to tweak the accepted interpretation which by common action and interpretation is the law of the land- is ludicrous.

If you and I chase down an armed burglar who has just invaded a neighbor's house we are a posse. We may not subject the suspect to punishment or deadly force but we may act in self defense and in the interests of preventing further crime or danger. On they other hand, you can stand by and allow crime to happen, even Twitter and put video on YouTube, but you'll find I'm right. We are responsible under the law. I prefer to not be under-equipped in that regard. So far, I have the right to be equipped despite attempts at re-interpretati on. You can't stand by and watch the commission of a crime. In fact, you'll find, as lately in Ohio, you can be named as a conspirator if you do. If you want to gripe about bad interpretations , look at the underlying decision justifying Citizen's United. It's based solely on a County Clerk's mistake in the case synopsis. Now we don't have democracy because it can be bought. And you're worried about guns...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN