Moyers writes: "The gunman in Colorado waited only for his opportunity. So there you have it - the arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death. And the NRA? The NRA is the enabler of death - paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion."
Bill Moyers delivered a blistering attack on the NRA, one day after the aurora shooting. (photo: PBS)
The NRA's Dark Gun Culture
21 July 12
ou might think Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of and spokesman for the mighty American gun lobby, The National Rifle Association, has an almost cosmic sense of timing. In 2007, at the NRA’s annual convention in St. Louis, he warned the crowd that, "Today, there is not one firearm owner whose freedom is secure."
Two days later, a young man opened fire on the campus of Virginia Tech, killing 32 students, staff and teachers. Just last week LaPierre showed up at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty here in New York and spoke out against what he called "Anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense."
Now at least 12 are dead in Aurora, Colorado, gunned down by a mad man at a showing of the new Batman movie filled with make-believe violence. One of the guns the shooter used was an AK-47-type assault weapon that was banned in 1994. The National Rifle Association saw to it that the ban expired in 2004. The NRA is the best friend a killer's instinct ever had.
Obviously, LaPierre's timing isn’t cosmic, just coincidental; as Shakespeare famously wrote, "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves." In other words, people. People with guns. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, one in four adult Americans owns at least one and most of them are men. The British newspaper The Guardian, reminds us that over the last 30 years, "The number of states with a law that automatically approves licenses to carry concealed weapons provided an applicant clears a criminal background check has risen from eight to 38."
Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. Firearm violence may cost our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns.
So why do we always act so surprised? Violence is alter ego, wired into our Stone Age brains, so intrinsic its toxic eruptions no longer shock, except momentarily when we hear of a mass shooting like this latest in Colorado. But this, too, will pass and the nation of the short attention span quickly finds the next thing to divert us from the hard realities of America in 2012.
We are after all a country which began with the forced subjugation into slavery of millions of Africans and the reliance on arms against Native Americans for its Westward expansion. In truth, more settlers traveling the Oregon Trail died from accidental, self-inflicted gunshots wounds than Indian attacks - we were not only bloodthirsty but also inept.
Nonetheless, we have become so gun loving, so blasé about home-grown violence that in my lifetime alone, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined. In Arizona last year, just days after the Gabby Giffords shooting, sales of the weapon used in the slaughter - a 9 millimeter Glock semi-automatic pistol - doubled.
We are fooling ourselves. That the law could allow even an inflamed lunatic to easily acquire murderous weapons and not expect murderous consequences. Fooling ourselves that the second amendment’s guarantee of a "well-regulated militia" be construed as a God-given right to purchase and own just about any weapon of destruction you like. That's a license for murder and mayhem and it's a great fraud that has entered our history.
There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says: "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"
The killer in Colorado waited only for an opportunity, and there you have it - the arsenal of democracy transformed into the arsenal of death and the NRA - the NRA is the enabler of death - paranoid, delusional, and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel hoax, a cruel and deadly hoax.
|
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. |













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
the flip side of this is invariably on this thread will come response stating....all guns everywhere must be disallowed...wh ich is unrealistic considering some rural environments and professions(cat tle or sheep ranching for instance)....
So the NRA uses that...to support this....assault weaponry...any abridgement on a right to own a gun leads to outlawing all guns...which is a completely irresponsible position in some circumstances.
so they have support in rural communities.... because in a sense the opposition to the NRA is so fervent in their ideology.
I don't like to blame the victim...but that is the situation in this national discussion.
The baby is thrown out with the bathwater..in the interest of urban safety the rural experience is discounted and rendered extreme is the position of gun control..when really it is not....
Even rural peoples singularly considered know...assault rifles with extended capacity clips...have not a place in america.
Mix that with no guns at all and you get...support for no restrictions on gun ownership.
The NRA are equal opportunity corrupters. Where there are no GOP politicians, they make sure to get their hooks into whatever politicians are available.
Even where the GOP has a solid lock on the electorate, opposition candidates get contributions from the NRA - insurance against the possibility of an upset.
When the Earth goes Pooof It will not care they will go poof too.
The flip side of it all is that the U.S. is producing, as I have said, psychotics, due to all manner of social ills and little parenting. Teachers have seen it coming for decades. How to overcome that?
Availability of guns would not be an issue if there weren't psychotics, angry unhappy individuals, and soon, very desperate people without jobs. Fear and anger are a deadly duo.
Don't forget to write!
When people lose everything they lose the ability for rational thinking...We are also seeing suicides among people who have given up! This is a direct result of government corruption and Bank corruption...a feeling of hopelesness breeds this type of incident
Reviewing the history of the U.S., religion, economics, drugs, the confusion among young people, child abuse, you name it, would enlighten a lot of citizens. Check the number of serial killers and mass murderers over the decades - who were they? This is nothing new.
While working in an emergency room at a university hospital in the sixties, the wounds coming in were not gunshots. It was knives. After that, tire tools, chains, etc. If people want to kill, they will find a way. It is psychosis, not the NRA.
By the way, they have poor people in gangs in Europe. A LOT OF THEM.
That guy in the theater could have taken out a lot of people with a baseball bat had he started at the back of the theater and worked hard and fast. His was showmanship as much as killing. The desire to kill is the driving factor.
The people you saw in the emergency room were the ones who survived. The ones who were shot, not so much. Also, in the 60's guns were not NEARLY as available as now. Assault weapons weren't even on sale. And neither were rapid fire pistols. The gun nut religionists conveniently forget to mention that when they bemoan the lack of prayer causing all the mass assaults. So much for it all being socioeconomic and nothing to do with availability of increasingly lethal weapons.
The NRA has to be made to be much more responsible. Their philosophy and greed are not more important than people's lives.
Our people are still enthralled with the likes of "A Clock work Orange"!
You are too much caught up in the gun thing, which I understand completely, to see beyond the tool at the real problems. The issue is the same with schools in which kids arrive hungry, tired, overloaded with crap in their heads from movies and computers, and then those problems get blamed on the schools and teachers, rather than local society and parenting, or lack thereof.
NONE of us want to witness killings and do want the guns under control, but there are larger issues. As I say, if someone wants to kill, they will find a way even if every gun were taken from every person in the U.S. and being able to kill 50 rather 5 means nothing to those eager to kill.
Maybe not Glen, but it means a lot to the 45 not killed.
He was able to buy over 6,000 rounds of ammunition without any problem. Is there any legitimate reason why a person would want to do that?
They knew exactly the game ball they were playing. Heston didn't mind at all.
However, if you look at the mind set at the time ReaGun for President and Heston promoting NRA These men would not sell out America.
For many this became bible in guns and owning them. People like being led, told what to do, after all then it is not their fault.. the blame game starts and everyone's conscience is clear.
Sorry it is everyone's fault that NRA has stepped all over America to make a Profit. That is what they do...not unlike their Corporate and Political Buddies.
It certainly isn't giving people access to assault weapons!! That way lies insanity.
The NRA is not "offensive," "offensive" is a bad smell or a nasty waitress. The NRA is DEADLY! We are living in a Culture of Fear and the incentive to incite fear in the general public is not altruistic, it is motivated by greed and power, desire to achieve political goals, to amass more wealth and finally, to control.
I believe you have the relationship reversed. The Republicans are captive to the NRA, who are there for the gun manufacturers who actually fund them.
Who would the Pres. get to take away all the guns? The gun toting police, the army, maybe the peace corpse or hoards of illegal immigrants? I know, his secret army of inner city youths, led by disgruntled postal workers and Occupy protesters trained by the FBI and the CIA, backed with funding from Space Aliens. Its all so clear what his secret agenda is, once you think about it.
Thanks, Barbara, for telling it like it is. There's also the unfortunate aspect of the male psychology which equates a gun with that part of their body which they consider most important. Some men can deal with this rationally, but most, I fear, cannot.
I shoot, I own a gun...however, I am not brandishing a moron attitude. I hate guns, I hate Video Games, Violent Movies.
I hate Gangs of any type.
When we have to live in fear because we do not take the time to learn we become slaves to others lies and to our fears. No one should live like that. Believe we were supposed to out of the Dark Ages?
Absolute nonsense. There is almost no one in the pro gun control community who is for a total ban on weapon ownership. It is almost unknown. I notice that no one in the comments are calling for total gun bans. This is a red herring and detracts from the real argument.
I grew up in the back woods. The rural argument is silly, again only the US has rural communities?
The problem is simply the easy access to guns. PERIOD.
Many gun owners don't.
550 times 4.83870967742 = 2,661
2,661 is considerably less than 9,000.
Do you agree?
lets all get on the same page Moyer through all issues of deaths from guns into the same barrel, when you are talking about guns like any method of killing you have to break it down between Homocide and suicide and accident...
Moyer has not done that he has presented false statistics because he presented a dishonest picture. If we are to talk abour accidental deaths we need to break them down to by Car, by medical malpractice by guns, by poisioning, and drowning. otherwise the statistics are really false and portrayed as propaganda...
98,000 deaths a year are caused by medical malpractice... so doctors cause more deaths per capita then guns...
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. Cars kill even more people then guns...perhaps we need to take a look at ending car ownership?
o you get the idea yet?
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_accidents_a_year#ixzz21Jpy3UEb
By your own logic, cars are more fatal than medical malpractice. Does that mean we should do nothing about malpractice? While we're at it, Cancer is a lot more fatal than car crashes. Does that mean we should make seat belts illegal because they infringe on our freedom?
Do you get the idea yet?
So, you've finally given up on calling MoyerS a fraud for quoting accurate statistics? Good! That's progress!
Now, I'm not sure how the rate of medical malpractice means we should turn a blind eye to the gun problem.
Here let see if you can tell the difference?
UK (1.2 gun homicides per 100,000)
Germany (0.3 gun homicides per 100,000),
Holland (0.3 gun homicides per 100,000),
Denmark (0.22 gun homicides per 100,000)
Hong Kong (
I find it disturbing that in the past decade not one person has been killed or injured in America by a terrorist attack coming from outside the nation but we have virtually destroyed our rights and freedoms guarding against such events. On the other hand, in the same decade, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been blown away by out-of-control guns in the hands of those cited above and we want to do nothing about that.
I also find it interesting that when it comes to voting, the right has no problem making eligible citizens jump through hoops to get a picture ID card even if they have to travel a hundred miles away (regardless of their physical condition) and pay a not-inexpensive fee, but they want nothing in the way of getting a gun. Voting only involves a "minor inconvenience" but any evidence you would be a responsible gun owner is a "total destruction" of our freedom.
Thank you for joining the thread!
None of you have even brought up the biggest weapon we hand our kids...Video Games....what is your kids playing with today.
How about telling our kids how great it is to serve our Country. We teach them that Killing is Wrong, against God's Rules then we send them to the Military... Look at who the Morons are now...
felons and career criminals, street gang members, people adjudicated mentally unfit or diagnosed as mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, are already barred from weapon ownership. Those people cannot purchase weapons legally. The FBI maintains a database of such individuals and every gun dealer must consult it before selling a gun. The buyer must present picture ID and fill out an application listing prior addresses, date and city of birth, and social security number, for purposes of conducting the check. That's just the federal requirement. Most states - even most southern states - have additional state requirements. In my state, to buy a handgun, you have to go to the sheriff's office, fill out an application similar to the NICS questionnaire, and wait a week for the sheriff's office to conduct a background investigation. After a week, you can pick it up, go to the gun store or gun show, present the permit to them, then go through the FBI NICS check and if you pass that, then they can accept your money and give you the firearm. You must go throug both processes for each gun you buy sheriff's office, wait a week, gun store, FBI background check. It's not a super convenient process.
Auctions are great way to bypass with shotguns It is Gangs who deal a lot in weapons, so does the Military. Who better than Military to get their hands on weapons? There was a lot of WWII who had grenades...it was scary to think about it but I would guess lots of Army Navy of the fifties and sixties had arsenals of weapons.
Theft, Pawnshops...I may not always agree with Mr Locke but really Weapons...do you realize how many weapons have been confiscated and put back on market. Grow up people the fact of those weapons they know of is probably tripled for how many are actually owned Adults are probably majority but kids...they got guns. Men...women are catching up. Start some real reading if you want facts on Weapons. A bottle of Whiskey is a Weapon...do not need bullets to do damage or kill people.
What right is it of yours to dictate how many weapons he chooses to own?
I'm beginning to see that the fact you're not voting for Obama in November was NEVER because he's "not progressive enough" for you as you previously pretended. Your comments against liberals on this very thread are proof of that. You had an agenda all along. I was wrong not to call your bluff on it sooner.
I shoot with Cameras. But I have lots of weapons. I have fertilizer in spring for gardening. I have flour, sugar. I have had paint thinners, stains. These are all dangerous. I own knives, I have vehicle also weapon.
Difference it seems is I have not gone off point yet. I hope I never do. I have reasoning. I have hope that we will put down our need to kill.
I do not understand why this child lost his balance and jumped. But we are losing our children .... I believe most of it is because we allow children to be on Computers and Video Games because we are too busy. We are creating monsters and blaming everyone else.
NRA is a large problem but who allowed them to become the Problem. We did.
It's quite possible to burn buildings down with lot's of people inside them, or use your car on a highway in such a manner as to cause multiple fatalities.
A knife/broken glass fight broke out in a rural bar and 10 people died outright or bled to death on the way to the hospital. Did not make national news.
Those who are compelled to kill will find a way. And yes, kids are becoming more and more immune to human contact and reality, for a number of reasons. Brainwashing exists, and many adults don't see it.
Guns are out there but few have offered a means of getting them under control and out of the hands of demented individuals. It's pretty much too late. The U.S. is the biggest gun dealer on the planet.
NE USA have laws I do not know all the others but not every state allows gun sales like candy so why thumb down????
Now internet sales I am not familiar with but the companies are supposed to follow the law. If they do not then it is time to Audit gun and ammo sales.
But do research States first before thumbing down someone. By the way, weapons of any sort have always thru centuries been easy to get or to make. Doesnot take a genius to make a gun or a knife. And you can look on any computer to find out how to make bombs, ammunition why the Homeland Security isn't doing their job....ask them.
In what state may children legally buy guns? Where are dealers allowed to sell guns to people under 18?
Federal law prohibits dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to anyone under 18, and prohibits dealers and private sellers from selling handguns to anyone under 21. This applies to all 50 states, and supercedes state law.
Florida sets the minimum age at 18 for anyone to purchase any firearm, from anybody.
Texas sets the minimum age at 18.
Arizona sets the minimum age at 18.
Those are the three states you mention, none allow the sale of guns to minors. Which states do?
When purchasing a gun through the internet, in all 50 states, the gun cannot be delivered to the purchaser. It must instead be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in the purchaser's state of residence. Once the gun arrives at the dealer's facility, the purchaser goes to the dealer and conducts the transaction as he would any other transaction at that dealer's store. Same background checks, same application, same check to see if the purchaser is prohibited, as any other purchase.
A___Holes live everywhere. I see more gangs and violence in Towns and Cities but unfortunately with the rise in Trailer Parks and Campgrounds, do to Economy the nomadic tribe has the ability to travel and take their racism with them.
Personally, I wouldn't trust an elderly person with a gun. I'm 62 and I can't see clearly without my glasses.
"Locks and window alarms work just fine".
I hope your windows are thick and shatterproof... Police state that Locks are to keep the honest people out...but not the criminal...as for an alarm a break in with an armed intruder would kill you before the police arrived!
There either everywhere because "it's so safe".
Or they're everywhere "because it's so dangerous".
Either way, they're everywhere because they're everywhere.
It's self-perpetuati ng and circular, like your logic.
"Gladly there is no crime here." Really????
Really Utah (9.7 gun deaths per 100,000) How does that work?
In 2009, it was reported that 260 Utahns died from gun deaths, compared to 256 killed in motor vehicle accidents, according to the news release.
But while fatal accidents in Utah have been decreasing — there were 322 in 2007, and 306 in 2008 — the number of gun deaths have not followed any trend.
There were 253 gun deaths in 2007, and 238 in 2008.
According to CDCP data, 217 of the 2009 firearm deaths — more than 80 percent — were classified as suicides....!!!
John Malouf, a psychologist from Valley Mental Health, said guns are the most common method used in completed suicides, while pills account for the most attempted suicides.
Are you ok with the idea that some of us think suicide is bad too?
Do you have any reliable statistics on how often gun owners have been able to successfully dissuade a potentially dangerous situation? If so, then compare those statistics with the rate of accidents resulting in deaths and serious injuries from mishaps in gun-owning households. And get back to us, if you would, on what you find out.
Heck I wonder what the people in other Countries felt like when the cops came and shot them because dispatch had the wrong address.
But that is fine if it like the gun is near you. Other wise stay calm, or pretend you are sleeping.
I have a dog...People robbed have had their dogs beaten or killed. I know for a fact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homici des. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
The vast majority of those advocating stronger gun controls do NOT seek to remove guns from homes of people who wish to defend their "castle." But assault weapons with 30 or 50 or more rounds are not needed or even suitable for that purpose, and anyone with that need should be (and is) able to obtain the required permit and keep the gun at home. Yours is simply not an argument against legitimate limitations on gun purchases by unstable people, terrorists, etc.
The NRA has done a fantastic job of scaring the Stupid People that their 2nd Amendment Rights are being taken away just because they can’t have magazines with 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells.
And I agree that the NRA are FEAR MONGERS.
I knew a woman who got upset because the cops were constantly ticketing her for speeding. She felt she had the right to drive as fast as she wanted.
1. Quit blaming Obama. Even I know that the ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, during the Bush administration, so he’s equally guilty in my opinion. I seem to remember hearing Bush saying he supported extending the ban, then let it expire anyway.
2. I notice you wrote, "the NRA has bought all the Republicans and most of the Cowardly Democrats." Are you saying that the Republicans are more noble, for having allowed themselves to have been bought? Or the Democrats who didn't allow themselves to be bought are cowardly? Or are all Democrats cowardly, whether or not they've been bought? Please clarify.
Last year there were just over 8,000 deaths by guns and 1800 by a knife combined they are no where even close to what this appologist for the liberal movent has claimed, his false propaganda has just discredited him as a truth teller!!!
We need less of these fools and more intellectual arguments!
It's not that complicated.
And the number of gun related injuries is over 70,000.
And, the number of gun related assaults is over 300,000.
Moyers was right. You were wrong.
The TOTAL number of GUN RELATED DEATHS was 31,000.
Of those, 9,000 were murder.
The number of gun assaults was over 300,000.
The number of non-fatal injuries was over 70,000.
That's the WHOLE picture.
Moyers said 30,000 gun deaths, the statistics you are citing are for homicides by guns; two different things.
Gunshot homicides generally run from 10,000-12,000 a year and have been down somewhat lately. Total deaths by guns have usually run more than two or three times that of homicides.
The table shows a total of 30,000 deaths from guns in 2010. That includes intentional homicides, accidents, suicides by gun, and undetermined intentions (they don't know why the person was shot).
To need to shoot repeatedly means either you should not have a gun at all or you are going to intenionally kill people.
Only people I knew with clips, were racists and lied to themselves that they needed a gun.
Sad thing for the farmer is having to put his animal down. Assualt weapon is not needed, a good rifle and usually one bullet. It is nothing anyone wants to have to do.
Anyone who believes in a Creator should know that the Commandment says Thou Shalt Not Kill, their was no riders or amendments or legal clauses.
It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!
Answer:
Ask these bloody corporations when is enough enough?
Multiple home invaders or to be sure you kill one who has a gun aimed at you!
Everything your have written shows that to be untrue. Your guns are specifically because you live in fear. If you did not fear you would not need guns.
John, you just lost any credibility you have ever had. Why not give it up and go find something else to do?
Because he's Rambo. I am always amazed at the people who vastly over estimate their abilities with Guns. John Locke, How many people have you shot in your life?
Oh, really? And how does that work? The ones with the guns make the rules? Yeah, that sounds like democracy, all right.
If those who use psychotropic drugs get so loosened emotionally that they see insanity and violence as their deal, then maybe those who use them should be more closely monitored by those who prescribe the drugs...ey?
You propose to take away a privilege/right of tens of millions while the 'drug inhibited' walk the streets?
How about a law that states that if a doctor prescribes a psychotropic, then they MUST meet with the patient once a week and monitor their behavior?
What do you say about a criminal who's waiting for the guns first before he commits the crimes he has in mind - like the Colorado looney?
I am in favor of finding a way to keep guns out of their hands, but that won't stop their intent. they will find a way and buy them on the Black market...but a psychology test would be a good start!
Also, the fact that guns are so available makes them easy to obtain by anybody legally or otherwise. This means more bad guys have guns which forces more scared people into getting more guns.
Do you see a pattern here?
Guns will always be easy to obtain, if there is a profit to be made they will find a way to steal and sell guns...
really? they don't buy from individuals needing no background checks or a gun show with no background checks? Nonsense.
Private sellers do come to gun shows hoping to sell or trade firearms. They could do so outside the gun show as well. There is no special exception about the gun show that removes the requirement for DEALERS to conduct a background check. I have only bought from dealers at gun shows. The process was exactly the same as buying a gun from a brick and mortar gun store. Same application, same NICS check, same purchase permit.
In several local gun shows, there was a pretty active contingent of undercover police, supposedly, looking for straw buyers and private sellers who were in violation of the law. They didn't net many, but it's true such behavior is hard to police. It's riskier to undertake at a gun show than it is at a private venue.
Easy access for psychotropics is done through a prescription overseen by a qualified medical doctor. How can you attempt such a facile parry?
Maybe doctors should place people taking these drugs on a don't buy a gun list...and maybe the guns should be removed from their homes...then they will only have access to militove cocktails and the like!
Not every one on these drugs goes out and kills however those that have were on these drugs!
Unless you think England is a magical land of fairy princesses and unicorns where bad guys never tread...
It's the kinds of guns the people who use them are able to obtain.
Add in the fact that so many who should not be able to obtain guns can so easily evade the minimal restrictions in our laws. Why is no one ever prosecuted for providing guns to crazy people? Or for providing guns to known criminals?
That statement is too over simplified. And I am sick of hearing it.
"It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!" you keep hearing that statement because we are hopeful it will sink in and you will begin to understand it!
John, good buddy, you finally came up with a winner.
As someone else said, if bazookas become illegal only criminals will own bazookas. How many bazooka related murders were committed in this country last year?
You made my point.
It's even easier to buy stolen guns. No messy background checks & the prices are usually considerably lower than what you'd have to pay a legitimate dealer.
Why are kids being attracted to this? Are the video games and all of the murder they watch on TV programming their brains? Do we glorify war with marching bands, medals, parades and ribbon stickers on our cars? Do we buy our kids toy guns for play? Who is raising out kids, parents or the TV? Is this country in such a state of fear and anxiety because of the clowns in Washington that this toxic atmosphere is affecting our kids? Are the kids witnessing massive amounts of for-profit dysfunction everywhere they look? Isn't their behavior a sign of adult dysfunction? Our kids aren't growing up with peace and love, they are growing up with hostile dysfunction and you wonder why they are going on shooting rampages??? Wake up!
Which so-called "right" of the Constitution is UNMODIFIED and constantly misread ? Is this not a case for the communities' rights to protection from harm ?
throw out...no guns at all.
throw out....all guns are OK
then go from there.
Both sides continuing to verse untenable positions only serves those extreme positions....
It is like with immigration consideration...
Say we must have completely open borders is extreme.
Saying we must have no immigration at all is extreme.
Throw out those two extremes....and start there...it is standard negotiation procedure.
Do that research on the connection between psychotropics and mass murders...it sheds an entirely different perspective on the issue.
They would not allow themselves to be coerced by threat of violence from any non-governmenta l source, whether it's a lone criminal or organized gang.
That's WHY my neighborhood is so nice.
United States Firearm Death Profile, 2003
Number Rate*
Total Firearm Deaths 30,136
Suicides 16,907 (56.1%)
Homicides 11,920 (39.6%)
Unintentional 730 (2.4%)
Legal Intervention 347 (1.2%)
Undetermined 232 (0.8%)
*Death rate per 100,000 population.
Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
Look up the definition of assault before trying to continue this discussion.
I'm glad that you're accepting my other statistics although you still don't know what assault means. Your opinions have dramatically changed in one day. Earlier you said there were only 8,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. See! It helps to look things up!
Now, look up how many people were killed with guns in Europe and Japan last year.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
But you knew that, didn't you?
So its time to stop all sports activities that are killing our children!
You right wingers don't do nuance, do you?
What does make me nervous is when somebody from outside the gun culture, who's never shot or used guns in a legitimate way before, suddenly acquires an arsenal and body armor. Why the sudden change in interest? Still doesn't make them a criminal, but maybe some scrutiny would be on order.
Can a financial link be made between the NRA or its leaders and the Mexican cartels that arm themselves with weapons purchased in the US?
Wayne LaPierre and the people behind him may well just be true believers, but if it can be shown that there are material rewards or incentives, their credibility will be damaged.
The gun manufacturers are the main financial backers of NRA lobbying efforts. The NRA would be bankrupt many times over if they had to rely on membership dues for funding.
The links between the NRA/gun manufacturers and Mexican cartels are more tenuous.
Straw purchases of the guns that end up south of the border certainly fatten the bottom line for the gun manufacturers.
The NRA's successful lobbying against registration & record keeping of gun purchases, particularly the gun-show loophole, has clearly benefited straw purchasers who supply the Mexican cartels with weapons. The problem is proving intent.
All of this has been widely known for years and years, and hasn't affected the NRA's "credibility" one iota.
The NRA will tell the true believers what to think, and the NRA does not care what the rest of us think. They can rely on the true believers to refudiate any proposal that smacks of common sense.
That means that in order to prevent weapons from going into Mexico, they need to be regulated, a situation that does not now exist. The whole point of Mr. Moyers' article is that we need rational weapon regulation, the basis for which you have just provided.
Guns in America are regulated. Not just anyone can legally buy a gun. They are even more heavily regulated in Mexico - Mexico has an all out ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Not exactly a land of peace and tranquility. Gun and drug prohibition work the same way: they both foster corruption, create blackmarkets, enrich and empower criminals, drive up the profits to be made from the prohibited goods, encourage violence due to the high risk/high profit associated with dealing in contraband goods, and encourage a militant, civil liberty eroding police force. Every applicable argument against drug prohibition also applies to gun prohibition.
Can a financial link be made between the NRA or its leaders and the Mexican cartels that arm themselves with weapons purchased in the US?
Would be very informative to know if this is happening,and it most likely is. Unfortunately we are too dumb to understand how to track this to get a true picture. Fast and Furious was supposed to see if drug cartels were purchasing weapons in the U.S. -- TRUE -- American teenagers going in to gun shops and coming out with $20,000 worth of guns and turning them over to Mexican drug cartels. Well intended but stupidly thought out program that went horribly wrong.
So does gun prohibition. Mexico has very very strict prohibitions on civilian gun ownership.
I think the greater link between Mexican Drug cartels and the US can be made between the cartels and the state dept., via the US produced arms that we sell to the Mexican government. Things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, etc. are already hard to get - especially cheaply - in the US civilian market. But a great many are produced by US arms companies (and companies like Beretta and Fabrique Nationale under contract) and exported to Mexico. Cartels are fueled - and armed - by police and military corruption in Mexico, more than by the US civilian market.
But that's 80 - 90 % of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of guns seized in Mexico. There are better, cheaper sources for Cartel weaponry than straw purchasers, especially for the full-auto weapons favored by those organizations.
The fact that these folks would willingly disarm YOU, to leave YOU and YOUR FAMILY defenseless is unconscionable. A gun is a great equalizer in the battle of Good vs Evil, primarily because the Police/Military aren't there to watch your back. You, and you alone are responsible for your safety.
On Thursday, Evil won, again, because of the various efforts of the aforementioned do-gooders who'd rather see your chalk outline on the ground, next to a puddle of blood, than allow you to exercise your Natural Right to Self Defense.
Regardless of your thoughts about the NRA or Brady Campaign, if you're immorally prepared to cede your Right to Self Defense (from madmen and tyranny, for that matter), well, knock yourself out. But don't continue to deny me that Natural Right...how dare you?
Mr. Holmes passed whatever requirements were needed to purchase his guns...but the WEAPON was his warped mind, not the guns, gas, etc. He chose to use them in the manner he did against defenseless victims.
The argument to which I take exception is that of banning gun ownership or further restricting gun possession by such Citizens (of which, Mr. Holmes was one, at least until Friday). You cannot legislate Evil away...you can only mitigate it with positive efforts to defeat it...and that means by not removing the means of self-defense from LACs, don't you agree?
It seems to me that most commentators on this site have never been at the wrong end of a weapon, be it a gun, shovel, hammer, etc. and have never had to make a decision to defend themselves against Evil. It's a very difficult decision and shouldn't be taken lightly at all! However, seventy people in that cinema had that decision made FOR them by folks who argue they should be disarmed and, by definition, victims.
"none of the gun dealers bothered to check that out." -- yes, they did! Cho bought his weapons at a gun store that conducted the federal NICS check, just as they were required to do. Dealers do not have a choice in the matter.
David Cho had a history of mental illness, but had NOT been adjudicated mentally unfit, committed to a mental institution or diagnosed as dangerous to himself or others. Thus he passed a background check, for the same reason Holmes did - he hadn't done anything YET that would disqualify him.
Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act - HR 2640 I think - in response to the Virginia Tech. shooting.
At the gun show, you must present the purchase permit (if buying a handgun) to the dealer, fill out the NICS form, and wait while he accesses the NICS system electronically to make sure you pass the FBI background check. If he's satisfied that your purchase permit is valid, and you pass the NICS check, then he may accept your money and give you a handgun.
Long guns are not subject to a waiting period or purchase permit, but you must still pass the FBI NICS background check to get one. The NICS check takes about 15 minutes.
Every gun show I've been to, this is the process I had to go through.
The confusion comes in because private individuals, who are not licensed dealers, do not have access to the NICS system. They are still required to obtain - and keep - a valid pistol purchase permit from every buyer to whom they sell a handgun. Gun shows sometimes serve as swap meets for private sellers.
Weapons that can fire 30 or 100 rounds "at a time" are fully automatic weapons, they have been illegal to import or manufacture since 1986.
It is unfair and unreasonable to ban gun sales to people on the terror watch list, for the same reaosn it is unfair and unreasonable to ban them from air travel for being on the terror watch list.
You can still buy a machine gun if it was imported or made before 1986 (grandfathered) , but you'll pay upwards of ten grand for it, and only if you can satisfy the requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. It's expensive and difficult to own NFA weapons, and the scrutiny and background checks are intensive.
The 1994 ban applied to semi-automatic weapons, with certain features like the ability to accept detachable magazines (which would allow for high cap mags to be inserted), heat shields, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and pistol grips.
The 1994 assault weapons ban was about SEMIautomatic weapons that had certain features dubbed "military" - the ability to accept detachable box magazines, having pistol grips, heat shields, flash hiders, or bayonet lugs, for instance.
The '94 ban did not outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, but it restricted magazine capacity and banned semiautos that had certain features dubbed scary. I never understood what was so bad a bout a pistol grip vs, straight stock rifle, or why a heat shield that kept you from scorching your hand if you touched the top pf the receiver or the barrel, were such evil features.
The odds of anyone being struck by lightening or hit by a golf ball are about the same as anyone being around a psychotropic drug addled mass murderer.
All this knee-jerk about being safe is just a psycho-trick to keep Americans in fear...it's just not all that relevant in the true scheme of how life unfolds.
And if someone had done so, it would have been a gun battle in a crowded movie theatre, not a scenario I'd like to imagine.
Your attributing the deaths in Aurora to gun control advocates is obscene.
Perhaps someone in the audience DID have a gun, but chose NOT to use it (that's their prerogative, certainly).
If someone had a gun and did choose to engage the shooter, at least they (and other victims) would've had a chance. The alternative, and the reality, is that 12 people died because they were left defenseless by the very people sworn to protect that right...pure and simple.
Too, if the shooter had been initially deterred from his actions by laws that favored Concealed/Open Carry by law abiding citizens, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
Ask my cousin who was a competitive shooter and had won several trophies. Oh that's right. You CAN'T ask him. He accidentally blew his head off in his garage after he tripped. That may sound cold, but it's the honest truth. We were close and I don't think he's offended by me mentioning the truth of what happened to him.
I'm curious why only "negligent" "irresponsible idiots" have these accidents, but when CHENEY SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE, all the gun huggers claimed it was an accident and it could have happened to anybody?
You can't have it both ways. Should Cheney have been locked up for reckless endangerment?
Since his victim didn't die, he could still be charged with reckless endangerment. Unless, it was just an accident - the kind that could happen to anybody.
It's a simple question. What's your opinion?
I had a cousin killed by a chainsaw. He was working in a tree and the person belaying him lost hold of the rope and he fell. The saw cut off, but not before it clipped brachial artery as he, and it, fell to the ground.
Yet, I do not support a chainsaw ban, or blame the saw for the carelessness of it's operators.
ot sure if a concealed weapon would have done much good in that situation, I wouldn't have tried to shoot back under such circumstances for fear of hitting other patrons, unless he got close enough for a contact shot, or within a few feet. Which he did do, according to some eyewitnesses.
The shooter did not have an automatic weapon.
but hardly more dangerous than the unimpeded deliberate fire of the assailant. The attacker was ALREADY sending lead into the crowd. If he focused his fire on a defender returning fire for a second or two, that's a second or two wherein he's not aiming at other victims.
The US is NOT the only country in the world. Are you implying that criminals run wildly through Denmark, Germany, Singapore? Absolute nonsense.
Your "argument" fails in so many ways.
Why do you need a gun then?
You're right. IT IS RAMPANT.
... foaming at the mouth because Moyers doesn't know the difference between an AK- and an AR-.
Semiautomatic = one pull of the trigger sends one bullet downrange, and the next bullet loads ready for another trigger pull.
The shotgun was a pump action, that require the user to manually reload a shell by pulling back on the forearm after every shot.
Seems you are implying that everyone should go around with a holster and a couple of guns at all times. Sure that's just what this country needs more death because someone has access to a gun and looses their temper and shoots the guy who insulted him. Natural Rule?? What natural rule? where is this rule written down and don't quote me the second ammendment, that has been kidnapped by the NRA.
Has an investigative piece ever been done on HOW the NRA established such a foothold in this country? I wonder. Has to be money, but would love to read something about that.
"Hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer," D.H Lawrence about the essence of the American soul. Don't like to think it is true. But we hurtle on, one horrible killing after another.
South Africa leads the number with
31,918 homocides. The US last year with 9,369 a far cry from Myers BS Propaganda. Iceland (0) total death from guns world wide 100,693
Here's a question for you: Where do you think you'll get better treatment for a gunshot wound? In the U.S.? or in South Africa?
According to the Harvard Gazette every year more than 30,000 people are shot to death in the U.S. from murer, suicide and accidental death.
MOYERS WASN'T LYING. YOU ARE.
An additional 65,000 of those are shot by guns each year but don't die. In South Africa most of those additional 65,000 would die as well.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html
According to the CDC it's 31,000 gun deaths per year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
and 70,000 gun shot wounds that are treated without death:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Is the CDC "lying" too? Is the Harvard Gazette a rag for idiots?
Be honest. What's your response to the fact that my statistics disproved yours?
Japan had 47 gun murders last year. Germany had 269. The U.S. ranked THIRD!
Japan has 127 million people.
Germany has 82 million people.
THANK YOU FOR FURTHERING MY POINT!
Still, 9,000 DOES NOT account for the other 22,000 gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. every year, does it?!?
It doesn't account for the 70,000 gun injuries or the 300,000 gun assaults.
Bill Moyers statistics were accurate and after complaining what a fraud he was, you proceeded to PROVE that they were accurate.
GOOD JOB. THANKS.
Just ignore the zeros, then add them later.
Here's another idea: get a calculator. Maybe it would help.
Did you look up the definition of "assault" yet?
we have been discussing Homocide you can't take into account suicides without including suicide from all sources...that is where your statistics fall apart! Homocides are around 9K
The number of self inflicted suicide attempts were 666000 for 2009!
Mortality
All suicides
•Number of deaths: 36,909
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.0
•Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
•Number of deaths: 18,735
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1
Suffocation suicides
•Number of deaths: 9,000
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.9
Poisoning suicides
•Number of deaths: 6,398
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1
If we are going to talk about suicide lets do it correctly and not mix apples and pears!!!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
One question. Did you bother to read your own statistics on this comment or did you just copy and paste them and assume it proved your point?
You also left out gun related accidental deaths which is over 5,000, gun related non-fatal injuries which is over 70,000 and total gun assaults which is over 300,000.
Did you look up the definition of "assault" yet?
Furthermore, Mr. Moyers explicitly stated that "Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. " The CDC statistics that you were quoting confirmed Mr. Moyers' statement. Unlike you, he never made any statement that the number of deaths were only homicides. And your statement that "we have been discussing Homocide (sic)" is false. We have been discussing deaths by firearms. But you knew that, I'm sure.
It is however, significantly more difficult to kill a dozen people at a time (or to wound an additional 50+) with "rope, knives, shovels, baseball bats, etc."
The it ain't the guns "argument" is a good indication of why we have these problems.
The logic error expressed here is better stated, “the inanimate object is not a significant part of the equation.” This is the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.
This argument is over-simplistic . The "human factor" in this "equation" is a constant, not a variable. If we want to change the outcome of the "equation" we have to change the variables.
Here is a thought experiment. Imagine 2 separate groups of ten men each. These groups both have an equal desire (human factor) to clear a large forest that is situated next to their respective villages. But only one group has access to chainsaws or power saws. The other group only has knives. Which group (of equal motivation) will be more successful at clearing the forest? CHAINSAWS DON'T CLEAR FORESTS, PEOPLE CLEAR FORESTS.
Guns are power tools for killing. They are enablers. The argument is, "How do we severely reduce killings?" One very effective way is to reduce access to these power tools for killing.
The U.S. is raising kids to enter the military as well as become psychotic.
Hitler did not institute gun control.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerk e.
Try again! Read "Gun Control" Gateway to tyranny The Nazi Weapons law March 18, 1938 then correct your comment!
Where was your outrage against violence and the murder of innocent people when you served as LBJ's press secretary from 1965 to 1967 while LBJ was murdering Vietnamese by the hundreds of thousands and ultimately killed on the order of two million of them, in a criminal war?
In 1936 Spanish workers in Barcelona seized all the guns they could from arms depots and gun shops to fight the fascists--compl etely illegally. They were absolutely right to do it. Would you on the contrary have objected to this arming of the civilian population? Would you have called for "Gun Control"? If so, the fascist General Franco would have agreed with you.
Until people like LBJ and General Franco, such as Obama and Bush I and II) and other mass murderers with armies at their command are disarmed, your call for gun control serves them, not us.
The best way to reduce wrongful violence in the U.S. is to create an economy and culture based on egalitarianism and mutual aid instead of inequality and dog-eat-dog competition (which leads some to kill innocent people); this will take a revolution. Bill, until you call for such a revolution, you're just implicitly supporting the likes of modern LBJs, shifting blame from them onto ordinary Americans. Shame on you!
Saddam armed his populace prior to the first American invasion. How did that work out for them?
Once it got too ridiculous, those folks, who have families, friends and neighbors who will be part of the angst and ire directed at that 'modern' gov't. would either give up their posts, turn against their directors or join the rebellion outright...they are not stupid enough to believe that a few million or whatever their unified number can win against the masses that WETHEPEOPLE are.
Cops are the same - too many of them are not on our side and have no compunction about using their own power.
If a similar raid had been conducted against a marijuana farm, liberals would be outraged at the violence and brutality - and rightly so. But since they were getting arrested on gun charges instead of drug charges, everyone on the left feels ok about it.
Seriously, if you're planning on overthrowing the government of the United States of America, not only will it crush you like it crushes everyone else who tries, but I will personally get involved and HELP it crush you! So will millions of other Americans.
The Iraqi army was a pushover for the vastly superior US army (all volunteer armies tend to be better trained, more disciplined and have better morale than armies of conscripts.)
But the Iraqi people were able to mount a fierce insurgency that hasn't been fully quelled after ten years and billions of dollars. A disarmed populace could not have done that.
I do believe a civilain population has the right to resist, by arms, a totalitarian government or dictatorship. The US government is not such a government.
Well Saddam passed out fully automatic weapons to the populace shortly before the American invasion. How did that work out for them? As someone with 8 years in the military I can tell you that small arms against a modern Army means YOU DIE FIRST!
I wonder why Hitler didn't disarm his pollution? If you post the false quote floating around the internet where Hitler supposedly says he did, remember that I am fluent in German and I am going to show you that you are wrong from the people who knew him well. Funny how the "Hitler Gun Control" quote is on many gun fetish sites but unable to be found in German.
Well, it helped them fight a deadly, expensive and intractable insurgency against the occupying force for upwards of ten years, and kept the occupying force from firmly cementing it's control over the population, and drove up the cost of that invasion and subsequent occupation to such ruinous levels that any sane country would have withdrawn, and that may yet bankrupt the country unwise enough to occupy Iraq. I'm not happy about any of that, BTW, as I love my country and lament the ruinous decision to invade in the first place.
As for 'you die first' - don't conflate the right of resistance with the ease of resistance. Small arms beat harsh language.
Hitler didn't disarm Germany's whole population - he implemented a politicized registration and licensing scheme that served to disarm those select elements of the population that he wished to oppress. That's similar to the earliest gun control measures passed in the US south, (including my states 'purchase permit' system) which were part of Jim Crow law, and expressly designed, if not worded, to disarm blacks.
It also ignores the question of personal defense against violence. The stae's monopoly on violence, in a free society, can never be so complete as to eliminate the possibility of violent crime, nor can the state always protect a citizen from violent actors. The citizen deserves some leeway to defend himself in extremis, and IMO he deserves effective, modern tools with which to do so.
So you agree that the argument that weapons are necessary to protect against government aggression is bogus? You can't have it both ways.
I guess the truth doesn't fit your agenda, huh?
I agree that there are corrupt and overly influential lobbyists, but there's this "right to petition the government" mentioned in the constitution. You can't outright ban lobbying without infringing on that right.
There are lobbying reforms that would make sense - like requiring greater transparency of political donors, esp. sponsors of PACs and superPACs.
A Scarlet "G" of sorts...
I want no part of a paranoid gun owner!!
Is our U S Constitution, which fairly preceded the NRA, created by a bunch of savvy humans also 'Paranoid'?
Is Obama (& our Congress) Paranoid.
These, our 'Leader People, Murder dozens of Innocents, every day, in a vast scheme of War crimes.
(no? ask anyone in Afghanistan Pakistan Iraq etc)
and we wonder why Insane individuals commit insane violence. '....
Perhaps they are Emulating their 'Leaders', not the NRA 'nut' cases?
But, In any case, 'stronger Gun Laws' will only inhibit their flow to Law Abiding folks. Yes, the Nut Cases, (including War Criminals) will continue to have them...
and we will be distracted from 'Stopping War Crimes' into
'demanding the Blood of a Nut Case'.
Wow nonsense again. How many gun deaths in China last year (pop 1.3 billion)? 77
If bazookas are outlawed only outlaws will have bazookas. How many crimes committed in the US last year with bazookas? 0.
According to your (non) "logic" criminals in the US are armed with bazookas since the law only prevents law abiding citizens from having them
If TOW missiles are outlawed only outlaws will have TOW missiles. How many crimes committed in the US last year with TOW missiles? 0.
This is why we have this problem. The populace becomes more out of touch with reality
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
It doesn't cover the likelihood of self-inflicted injury, but it DOES state that people carrying guns are 4.5 times MORE likely to be shot than unarmed people.
If you had you'd realize it took that into account. The study made direct comparisons between people in the same neighborhoods and with the same socio-economic status.
And a false premise Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-relate d homicide in the industrialised world, ...an untrue statement!
A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings...mayb e they found a vacination?
The Brady organization must work together with the NRA to help bring about sensible gun control. They must publicly shame the NRA until the NRA agrees to sit down with them. then maybe they can make joint recommendations to congress.
With well over 90% of those crimes involving illegally owned guns it is the height of hypocrisy to argue that the problem is the NRA & legally owned guns.
If the liberal community has any real interest in addressing crimes committed using guns why is they blissfully ignore the illegal weapons?
One explanation is it is difficult to target the sources of illegal weapons but the NRA is easily found. They are an easy target. It's so much easier when there is an identifiable target for their righteous anger.
The liberals have shown no real interest in solving the problem. Solving the problem would be nice but the appearance of righteous activity is all that is needed.
Did you just make that statistic up?
What's your source? I'd like to see where you got the 90% statistic. Educate me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc
What do you think of my statistic of 550 gun related homocides in the U.K.? That's quite a bit less than the U.S., right?
Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)
Guns are the minor source for Killing in the UK however the murder rate is high without guns...Explain that if guns are the source?
Once again, by your own statistics, you're furthering my point. The murder rate is 3 times as bad in the U.S. as it is in the U.K.
Most of the U.K. murders are committed without a gun.
Can you add it up?
2+2=?
In other words, the reason the American murder rate is over 3 times as high is likely due (at least in part) to the fact that guns are so much more likely to be used to commit the crime. That is because we have more guns available. You made it perfectly clear that the U.K. is a very violent place as well.
ONCE AGAIN, THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT.
"China had more then 14,000 homocides by gun shot, not 77? Why do you guys have a need to fabricate statistics to try and make a point!"
The article you posted DID NOT SAY THAT. IT said the number of Homicides it did NOT say by "gun" shot. If you can't even do simple analysis why are you arguing with BillyBob how OBVIOUSLY is much more knowledgeable about this.
You want to go further with this one, slick, and I'll switch the conversation to Chinese.
So far your "statistics" have been made up or distorted.
I speak Chinese and my wife is a native. If you think there is 500 gun deaths in China you a Friggin clueless. You have no idea about this. You are a propagandist. AND A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html
I bought all of my guns legally back in the day .....no one is tracking those type of things, and if they were they would not check them to see if I had them illegally....sh eriffs have not the time for such nonsense.....di d I do the crime that is what they are checking....not my guns source...if the crime is stealing a gun certainly....
Certain crimes a murder perhaps that would be relevant but only in certain circumstances.. .mostly no.
www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../colorado-shooter-leftwing-anti-flag
Apparently the murder was a "possible Democrat". Seems like all the blame on the left for "exploiting the situation" is a bit hypocritical, don't cha think?
And finally, since when has ANY law prevented the people from getting something they really...War on Drugs, prostitution, financial trickery and manipulation (Wall Street)...This 24 year old kid who shot so many 2 days ago wil now pay with his life, or for the rest of his life, but to say this could have been prevented by stricter gun laws is absurd, and misses the issue completely...
CTRick
Want to speculate about how many people serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are also NRA members?
But Adam Gadahn was wrong. Every dealer I've purchased from at a gun show has run the fedral NICS background check and complied with state law. You have to pass the same background check buying from a gun show dealer as you do buying from a gun store.
Fully automatic assault weapons are NOT readily available without background checks. Full auto weapons have been illegal to manufacture or import to the US since 1986. The full auto weapons that were grandfathered in back in '86 are becoming scarcer every year, fetch five digit price tags from collectors, and can't be owned without passing the usual NICS check, state regulations, a federal tax stamp and the extensive NRA background investigation that goes with it, plus a recommendation from local law enforcement, that go along with a Class Three NFA weapon transfer.
WRT keeping records clean: Until a person commits a crime he or she is not a criminal. It is inappropriate to restrict the liberty of a person with no demonstrable history of violence or criminal activity. It is inappropriate to treat everyone as a potential Holmes, when people like Holmes are aberrations.
The two most devastating terrorist attacks on US soil were committed with fertilizer and box cutters, not firearms.
I guess this would be nice if it were real too bad it is not.
"Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. " 1000s of unregistered weapons are sold and resold at gun shows throughout the US every year.
This means that many, many weapons change hands at gun shows, from people who are part time gun dealers, without records or background checks. The Virginia tech shooter bought all of his gun legally and he had a history of mental illness which should have disqualified him. While One can not buy fully automatic weapons without background checks easily, "modified" Ak-47s can be bought and easily re-modified.
Pronouncements do not change reality. Gadahn may not have been 100% right, but he was mostly right.
It is not the simple matter you make it out to be to convert a semiautomatic rifle to full auto. It could be done by a skilled machinist. It is also a major federal crime that can send you away for many many years.
Cho had a hostory of psychiatric illness. He had not been adjudicated mentally unfit or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, thus wasn't in the NICS system.
Yes, gun shows often serve as swap meets for private sellers. In my state, a private seller who sells a handgun without obtaining a valid purchase permit from the buyer (or a valid concealed carry permit) is a felon, though it's hard to prosecute such sellers. Gun shows in NC have a number of undercover officers working to catch private sellers.
There's nothing a private seller can do in a gun show that he can't currently do more safely in another location. The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than the fact that private sellers don't have access to the NICS system. The solution would be to open up NICS access to private sellers (a good idea) or ban private sales outright (a bad idea.)
But some people will still go nuts in such a way that their very first act is a violent one. If you've never done anything wrong prior to your crime, there's no basis for restricting you.
So it's still impossible to preemptively stop every violent criminal, except by criminalizing everyone, which is unfair and unfree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U
The person who engages in vehicular is not engaged in the same sort of activity as the man commuting to work, even if they have exactly the same kind of car.
i do not understand why the "purpose" of an item is more important than the actual death toll racked up by that item. If my mom gets mowed down by a road raging driver, am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that at least he didn't kill her?
If more children drown in swimming pools than get shot with guns, is it somehow no big deal that they drowned, because a backyard swimming pool isn't built for the "purpose" of drowning kids?
I'd like to see the death toll go down, from firearms and for other reasons as well - a death is a death. But I don't advocate a ban on cars or swimming pools, nor do I advocate treating every driver as a criminal unless, and until, he demonstrates criminal intent. Same with gun owners.
We regulate cars, but not nearly to the extent that we already regulate guns.
You likened a target shooter making holes in paper to Holmes killing people deliberately in a theater. THAT equvalency was vile and slanderous. It is the equivalent of saying everyone who drives to the corner store is the same as a drunk driver or road rager who murders people. THAT is the poor analogy. It is possible to drive responsibly. It is possible to shoot responsibly.
1) guns aren't ONLY for killing. I own guns, I do not use them for killing (unless you count occasional game/vermin animals.)Most make holes in paper or knock over bowling pins at a gun range, for fun. So the argument is not legitimate. In highly unlikely circumstances, I might use a gun to save my life.
2)I have hunted. I've shot prairie dogs at range on a friend's farm, killed coyotes and other vermin, hunted squirrel, deer and feral hogs. All but one of the weapons I used would have fallen under the 1994 "assault weapon ban." They were well suited to the purpose for which I used them, which was to kill animals in a legal and humane fashion. Is hunting the same as "killing?"
Is using a firearm against someone threatening you with great violence always illegitimate? After all, if you do so, you might kill them. Arguments that guns are only needed against other gun owners fail to take into account different physical abilities. A relatively frail older person living alone may be outclassed by a larger/younger/ stronger assailant armed only with hands or a makeshift weapon. A firearm in the older person's hand removes some of that disadvantage.
If the U.S. degenerates to the point that many have predicted, guns will gain importance in self-defense as well as hunting. Where I live, if the economy crashes or gas prices increase to the point grocery supplies almost end, there will be a lot of folks in the woods with guns, attempting to feed their families.
Guns owners are not psychotic. The guy in Aurora recently purchased guns and ammo because his psychosis drove him to do it. If he were an average gun owner he would have already had those guns.
"If my mom gets mowed down by a road raging driver, am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that at least he didn't shoot her?"
In 1850 when the immigrants arrived and went west, no laws, no sheriff, indians,
nothing but Billy the Kid.
That´s the reason for the constitutionall y right to bear arms.
But now we live in 2012 and the police arrive in 5 seconds.
America need to grow up, big!
The difference between democratic Europe and America is
No guns,
No death penalty,
No money in politics,
Universal health care
Please !
What a joke? I'm not laughing.
How well do you speak the language? OR any language other than English ? How much time did you spend in China?
What you wrote above is PATENTLY UNTRUE and the mark of someone who has never left the US.
Why do people comment on things of which they have NO KNOWLEDGE?
I'll concede that China is becoming more open (yay capitalism) and the US citizenry is pretty heavily propagandized and subverted. But it makes me laugh to hear China criticize police response to occupy protesters. Not that the criticisms weren't valid, but coming from the country that brought us the Tiananmen Square massacre?
According to FBI statistics, in 2010, there were 12,996 murders in the United States, of which 8,775 were caused by firearms.
Whereas in China, only 77 of the 500 gun crimes last year were homicides, ministry figures show.
Don't ya love the RW idea that an armed populous will keep them safe from tyranny? I always wonder how they will approach organizing their rebellion. Will they construct a "well regulated militia" as per the Constitution or will they just randomly start shooting people who don't look friendly to them?
They are basically this....
.The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud
the shooter did not have a fully automatic weapon but a assault type rifle with a extended clip both of which were regulated by the clinton era law.
S...no offense but we all do not live like that......and the western expansion as I read it was a genocidal land grab of colonial inspiration.... ..which had not much to do with gun ownership...in that...
settlers were allowed or encouraged into areas....as incidents did occur with natives...the army was summoned and established bases to protect the settlers just allowed in by the government..thu sly allowing pretense for military control and claim of ownership.
I and many others in rural areas have not local immediate sheriff response. Peoples don't bother me....animals.. .they may.
They are available to anyone basically who wants to hunt or is a sport shooter. A training course is required for both and membership for the second and thusly the police sign off on it.....
Weaponry in china has been strictly regulated but certain groups are given exception due to locality and necessity of profession or lifestyle.
What can be done to bridge the gap between invading privacy and protecting the innocent public?
One thing is for sure, they are anti the 2nd amendment. All the creatures die in protest daily
1. Needing Hitler to further your argument is always shakey at best. It's sort of a last resort when all else fails - esp. for the right.
2. Hitler wasn't capable of stopping an armed resistence within his own country if one had occurred immediately. Our country is. There is virtually NOTHING you could do to overthrow our country violently. The good news is that you don't need to resort to violence. All you have to do is vote. Hitler didn't allow elections either.
3. Comparing our country to nazi Germany simply because someone SUGGESTS there are too many assault weapons is laughable.
HITLER!
Wrong, that "quote" has been discredited. Please provide the speech and venue where this was said. More than this the Nazi's did NOT institute gun control.
Koennen Sie auch Deusch sprechen? Wir machen weiter aufs Deutsch. Dann koennen SIe auch ein Bischen lernen. Zeig mir wo ich auch dieses lesen kann.
That said.... there is a long long history of relegation of weaponry to nobility. Laws were present mostly informally during such days preventing commoners from possessing such. It was the purview of knights and nobility to possess and use such things, possessing such by a commoner was tantamount to rebellion against the lord.
One was considered part and parcel by birth of a lord and attached as property to a parcel of land.
Such is the european environment of weaponry restriction.
In one certain buddhhist sutra,(basket sutra) considered to be originated in china not india back in the day, the usage of weaponry was put in a religious context...basic ally lay peoples and monks were prohibited from owning them. AS these societies approximated a asian form of feudal society back then I personally ascribe that to the same basic intent...speaki ng to a role in societal structure as much as anything else. A religious aspect but in china back then weaponry by a commoner was disallowed...
this is why the monks of china initiated martial arts and the usage of farm implements for self defense..
Suchly we hsve sholin and karate.
So there is a history to weaponry restriction, it is not hitlers though he may have stolen a bit of it.
Governments historically have often restricted this. The american mention may be a bit...in response to that european history..
This state of the basic free population being expected to be ready to defend the country continued in England up to the early 20th Century, thou enforcement pretty well ended by the early part of the 19th C.
By the late 19th C, a number of political and radical movements had become worrisome to the government, and the first gun control act appears to have been an attempt to thwart potential revolution. The act is strengthened probably in response to the enormous mass of soon to be surplus weapons from WWI and the recent revolution in Russia, which the more paranoid were sure would exported westward. These days you have to be careful walking around Britain with a pocket knife.
"We should fear guns the same as we fear cyanide, the plague, or the atomic bomb; yet, some people keep them as pets".....Vonnegut
ONLY COWARDS HAVE GUNS
Which is to make a "coward" of all governments and politicians, as well as all armed criminals. While the rest of us bravely take the course of ... well what course DO you take with a violent home invader?
2) What good would "insurance" do? Do you think Holmes would have bought it? For what purpose? For the victims to claim families after a loved-one has been murdered?
What we need is a ban on assault weapons. The only people that use them are mass murders. This ban would not harm your 2nd ammendment right, unless you are or plan on becoming a mass murderer. If we would have done something about these assault weapons after the Columbine tragedy, since latest event couldn't have happened.
This rifle would have been illegal under the 1994 ban, but functionally it is no different than a .308 Remington 7600 or Browning, which are more traditional wood stocked "deer rifles." I am not a mass murderer, nor will I ever commit murder. I use my rifle the same way countless other hunters use theirs.
How do you define "assault weapon?"
There is a technical definition of "assault rifle" - a rifle in an intermediate caliber, that uses detachable magazines, and is capable of selective fire - ie, there is a switch that let's you use it as semi automatic (one pull of the trigger = one round fires) or fully automatic (bullets fly out for as long as the trigger is depressed.) FULLY automatic weapons have been banned from importation or manufacture since 1986 - well before the 1994 ban - and they are still banned, by the Hughes amendment to FOPA. The definiton of an "assault weapon" is a vague and arbitrary political distinction, and the 1994 ban foebade the sale of many weapons that had entirely legitimate functions.
But the fact is, the Brady campaign has tried to redefine almost every class of "firearm" as evil. They concentrated on semiauto weapons for awhile, calling them "assault weapons." But then they decided that bolt action rifles were evil too, and you can occasionally hear them denounced as "sniper rifles." Big game cartridges are denounced as "armor piercing" (Ted Kennedy stood up in congress and held up a .30-.30 round - a lever action rifle round used to hunt deer for over a hundred years) and stated that it should be banned because it could penetrate soft body armor. Small caliber/low powered weapons became "saturday night specials" whose only purpose was murder. And on and on. There is no class of weapon that they would not falsely claim had "no legitimate" use, in order to see them banned.
The Columbine tragedy happened in 1999. Right in the middle of the assault weapon ban. The assault weapon ban was in full effect when that mass murder was committed.
There are "no buy" lists. That a person is on one of those lists doesn't always show up on the NICS check. Mostly persons convicted of domestic violence or who are under domestic violence restraining orders.
It really depends on whether the state where they were convicted/restr ained keeps track & reports them to the federal government.
Case in point - George Zimmerman had a 2005 domestic violence restraining order against him in Orlando, FL. He was also arrested in 2005 for felony assault on a police officer (technically: RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE & BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) when he was questioned at a bar regarding under-age drinking. He was 20 at the time.
The felony charges were reduced to a misdemeanor resisting charge to which he pleaded guilty. That guilty plea was later scrubbed when he entered an alcohol education program.
Both the domestic restraining order and the misdemeanor resisting conviction bar him from gun ownership under the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)] a.k.a. the Lautenberg Amendment, yet he was easily able to obtain a concealed carry permit from Florida and buy a 9mm handgun.
If you are not convicted of a crime, if you are pardoned or have the record expunged - then you aren't guilty, and it's wrong to have your rights infringed. If you go on to commit another crime, as Zimmerman did, then you face the consequences of that crime - as Zimmerman now does.
Liability insurance is a good idea for gun owners.
As with a "no-fly" list, so with a "no-buy" list.
It's interesting to observe how liberals and conservatives switched opinions about the no-fly and terror watch lists, right after the '08 elections. Liberals railed against the unconstitutiona l limits imposed by such lists, conservatives defended them as necessary for security. Then a different party gained the white house. Suddenly conservatives are all about due process, and how those lists violate it, and now Liberals insist the lists are necessary for security.
and when a elderly lady in New mexico was killed and eaten by bear in her rural home several years ago.....she bravely did not have a gun....
and on and on...
point being.... one should not apply their personal experience of or with guns to those one know not what is their personal environment....
such leads to extremism on both sides..
Guns in a urban inner city....I'd say you who live there should say...I don't live or know that area as you do. Probably none should have guns there..but really it is you not me that should say.
To say we should not be able to say yes or no......questio nable that statement....ru ral is not urban.
Now I do not know the why for anyone who kills. It does not matter what the weapon or how many. Neither does it matter the age, color etc. Bullets do not care. Bullets are not the problem...
One thing you are all discussing is good. Everyone has the right to their opinion, how to safe guard themselves. I do not care if you live in NYC or Utah...Neighbor s have a great habit of looking the other way, or saving their butts.
Problem we are overlooking is the immunity children are growing up with...they have no clue about the consequences of killing. It is a game, it is a movie with great killing scenes.
We are being killed by Terrorists, the Terrorists are our own Children. This was somebody's Child, a nice kid, a smart kid who needed an arsenal, then had to go out during Batman vs a Stallone Movie and Kill the Audience.
No matter how many kids or adults died from Gunshots, the fact is the number is not coming down. The fact is Gun Lobby, Gun Makers do not care. NRA doesnot care and have defended themselves for decades. I do not care what Party they are all to blame. I am amazed none of you blamed the KKK Party. No one President is any better than the other on this matter.
We have let this Mess happen. Stop passing the Buck. It will continue to happen because You Let It.
That is most likely because (1) they didn't have a "death wish", and (2) because they knew instinctively that a Republican minority would filibuster any attempt. We need to "get real" about this issue, and recognize that a HUGE majority of "the people" have to want meaningful gun control, before a bare majority of political office holders can force the issue down the throats of a large and well organized minority. We "sure as hell" don't want to touch this issue in a presidential election year anytime soon. I have no desire to see the Democrats "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory", and that is precisely the potential that the gun control issue would have in 2012. If you want to see gun possession effectively regulated, set your sights on 2052, not 2012. We are a LONG WAY away from a political consensus among the citizenry that "this needs to happen". Talk to neighbors and friends... calmly...dispas sionately... rationally... and just maybe you will change one or two minds. Maybe. This is a "long march" issue, not subject to a "quick fix"...no matter how badly we may want to "wish this truth away".
We live in a community of nations. Some of these nations are very similar to ours. England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Etc. These are generally referred to as industrialized nations.
When one compares any statistic and see some anomalous difference one should look are at the stat.
Life expectancies are similar. (ca 77 years) But if only one country in the group of 1st world countries had a life expectancy of 52 years, we would know that country has a problem
Here is a good example, medical bankruptcies are all but unknown in Europe, or Singapore, or Japan. Bankruptcies due to medical care are above 60% of American bankruptcies. so we know some thing is askew.
The US gun homicide rate is an anomaly. We are a magnitude above the rest of the industrialized world. A MAGNITUDE!! This is a huge anomaly.
Many in the industrialized world would gladly accept the idea that most American were simply evil or stupid. But I reject that. We have very easy access to handguns, like no other industrialized country (If you come back with a place like Switzerland. I switch the conversation into German and post the Swiss laws in their original and YOU'LL get an education. I lived there.)
Anyone of the gun fetishists here @john Locke @spanky want to postulate an explanation for this anomaly?
Killing has always been endemic in the U.S., beginning with the first explorers arriving. Hatred and bigotry exists and has even been encouraged within certain communities and within homes. It is not a mystery why the killing continues. Guns are just a part of the problem.
Once again it is up to individuals and communities to get local crime and all else under control, if possible. The U.S. government has opted out of national crime.
Sorry I don't buy it. I have lived in 8 countries and my wife is a native Chinese. I get by in 7 languages. You are simply mistaken if you think "we are different" you will need a good bit more evidence than your opinion.
I encounter less bigotry in the US than in any other country I have ever been in. China is far more polluted and they have the same type of movies and entertainment. Gun deaths in the country of China was 77 in 2011. 120 times less than the US.
The NRA has distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. NRA says we have the right to bear arms to protect against our own government. But if you consider when it was written, 1789, it was meant to allow our government to rally the Colonists in order to protect against outside invasion, e.g., the War of 1812. It was also prior to the time that every state had a National Guard.
The NRA has been extremely disingenuous in their efforts to proliferate the use of guns of any type, by anyone at any time or place. Most opponents to the proliferation of guns in our society are not against the use of handguns or guns for hunting and sport. But where are all of these attack weapons coming from? At a time when we know where every car is, and who it belongs to, we refuse to track guns, weapons meant to kill. It's a shameful statement about our society.
To reiterate your observation... the "bigger" picture is TRULY HORRIFYING!
"shoot to kill" is bad advice as well, you shoot to end the threat posed to you. If threatener surrenders or flees, good - you have defended yourself, there is no need to continue shooting. Killing is not the ultimate goal.
Most self defense instructors recommend shooting center mass, because if you aim for the center of the target, there's less chance of a complete miss if you are a few degrees off. Accidentally shoot high, you still hit chest/head. Accidentally shoot low, still hit pelvic girdle or legs, etc. This is safer for you and for anyone behind the assailant.
If the attack doesn't warrant the use of lethal force, it doesn't warrant the use of a firearm period.
If you fell that you would not want to risk killing an assailant in ANY circumstances, even to save your own life, I respect that. If that's the case, there are less lethal options that you can look into. A nice big can of Bear grade OC spray, or a TASER. They don't work as well as guns, but have the advantage of not being likely to kill the assailant.
Good locks, difficult to break windows, a good alarm system and ready access to a cell phone are your first, and best lines of defense. I keep a good lock on my doors so I'm less likely to need to use the gun.
Take a concealed carry course in your state to get a better idea of what the current "use of force" laws are, and how they apply to home defense.
a gun out....means you are intending to kill....taser nightstick flashlight other means are when killing is not necessarily.
Police wise gun....killing is intended always.
So the training of others is based upon police. .
The only exception I know of in law enforcement is particular to certain situations such as sniper hostage taking and perhaps in secret service application when the assailant iis wanted to be kept alive for information purposes perhaps. Very rare those.
However, the media LOVES this stuff. Sure it is important, obviously, but it also feeds law makers, as you say. Nevertheless, there is also an article on how Obama and Romney are not commenting on gun control at all. It never ends, this squabbling. I have heard gun arguments for a few decades and total gun control has NEVER been brought up. After a time, the public gets bored and moves on.
Take a look at afghanistan...t his military, US, is well now equipped and suited to fighting a insurgency which is what any revolutionary group armed would be.....and go figure..with few casualties...th ey are to withdraw front that place but not due to loosing militarily..... it is just to expensive for return...
Sound cannons energy streams to disrupt thinking various drugs and concoctions.... ..they have them all.
Me with my pitiful gins..laughed at....told to go home and stop playing with the big boys would I be...
Conspiracy requires a great great overstatement and understatement of consideration.. ..peoples simply know not what the military hos nor their capability.
We spend more annually for the military than all the other nations of the world combined ...think about that..then think of my pityful guns in comparison to their might....no need gun control for that aim if that be their aim...
Sorry no personal slight intended but thought about that is quite comical....this army of conquest by one order could be directed not out but in...and now it is well suited to just not conquer but also maintain....the y have grown capeable.
They can now hold what they conquer......US as consequence..si mply very simply held, if wanted to.
I disagree that restricting or disarming the population any further is the best way to do that.
Americans deserve better access to affordable healthcare, better chances of economic mobility, better education - and access to better higher education. They also deserve to own effective modern tools for self defense.
It's not like there's a zero sum choice between guns and clean air, or guns and a woman's right to choose. Well, given the platforms of the two major parties, maybe there is such a zero sum choice, but there shouldn't be.
You can say "Americans should be protected from falling off the edge of the Earth, that does not make the Earth flat no matter what your opinion is.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homici des. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. FOR EVERY TIME A GUN IN THE HOME WAS USED IN A SELF-DEFENSE OR LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE SHOOTING, THERE WERE FOUR UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS, SEVEN CRIMINAL ASSAULTS OR HOMICIDES, AND 11 ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED SUICIDES.
The entire argument here of the gun fetishists are "The whole world is the US" or "we are vastly different than anyone else" otherwise they would not ignore the real experiences of places all over the world.
Those thirteen people had a right to defend themselves, even if - especially if - they were outnumbered by criminal actors. Ask any of those thirteen if they'd have felt safer without their weapons.
Not every act of self defense is a "justifiable homicide" - or even results in an injury. Such incidents do not represent 100% of the total usage of firearms in self defense.
And some others, fetched by random google search. Kellerman's methodology was as questionable as John Lott's.
http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suter-fa.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suter-fa.html
I understand what you are trying to say...but reality is Lebron is 6'9" 255....and Durant is 6'9" 235...
Japan thought it was freeing Asia from the West, but Asian countries it occupied didn't feel free. The two US Aircraft Carriers were supposed to be at Pearl Harbor.
Since all the US ships at Pearl Harbor were destroyed Japan decided not to land and finish invading (or in their mind liberating Hawaii from the West).
Japan would have no more reason to invade the US mainland then it would England who they were also at war with.
By the way Al Qaeda is at war with most of the world. The US is lucky it likes Football not Soccer, so we don’t have to fear al Qaeda terrorists attacking our sporting events. However if one football player manages to to get the game stopped so he could pray, angry al Qaeda would want to attack Football as well as Soccer. By the way bin Laden wanted to derail trains because it would harm the US economically without encouraging a draft a cheaper way to fight. If suicidal maniacs had to fear percussion grenades that would prevent their death we would face less suicidal maniacs. If we would look at it from the terrorist’s point of view we would figure out how to stop them.
RSS feed for comments to this post