Does anyone remember if there were attempts to pass new gun laws after the shootings of John Lennon and Ronald Reagan? I wasn't old enough to remember. I remember a time magazine article from 1989 called Armed America that discussed violent crime and the ease that people could buy guns. I remember the Brady bill and assault weapons ban passed in 1994, but it didn't seem to help much. Even after the Columbine and other school shootings in the late 90s didn't seem to motivate politicians to change gun laws. Neither did the Gabrielle Giffords, or theatre shootings. I hope there will be some change this time, but it doesn't look very promising.

I don't doubt there have been many debates and even bans but the whole process is stillborn in the wake of the second amendment which has locked the nation into this right to bare arms thing which is made to transcend all other rights. The writers of the constitution were very vague, purposefully so, about about what it was really about. They had used a militia to start a war and so had a romantic idea about what a militia could achieve. What you now have is an armed camp

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sort of looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

I don't doubt there have been many debates and even bans but the whole process is stillborn in the wake of the second amendment which has locked the nation into this right to bare arms thing which is made to transcend all other rights. The writers of the constitution were very vague, purposefully so, about about what it was really about. they had used a militia to start a war and so had a romantic idea about what a militia could achieve. what you now have is an armed camp

That of course is misleading . American states and local governments have had gun regulations dating back as early as 1813 ;maybe even earlier . Many of the towns in the old West had laws about leaving your guns at the Sheriff's when entering town. The famous gunfight at the OK corral was instigated when Tom McLaury violated that ordinance.

Another misconception is that in the last 20 years ,the rate of gun ownership here has steadily declined. You talk about the militia . Before the Constitution states would store armaments for the militia in public arsenals. That became an issue during the Shays' Rebellion 1787 when Massachusetts resident named Daniel Shays led eleven hundred men in an attempt to capture an arsenal in Springfield. They came real close to capturing the arsenal. Later John Brown did in fact over run the arsenal at Harper's Ferry . It was locals armed with their private weapons that surrounded him . Late to the game was the Federals led by Robert E Lee.

The 2nd Amendment was not about militia. They were already covered in the Constitution .
“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,”...“to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress,”
(Article One Sec 8)
The 2nd Amendment is about the right to own guns..
Here is the original version of the amendment drafted by Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Gun law debates have also always followed tragic shootings. In 1963 the ownership of single shot bolt action rifles became a controversy after Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. In fact ,it used to be the liberals who advocated for the right to own guns. They sided with Malcolm X's statement that carrying a gun for self defense was an American's right.

To answer the question asked .Although gun control regarding "Saturday Night Special" handguns were discussed after Lennon's shooting ,nothing meaningful was passed until the 'Brady Bill. '

There was zero reason to close the previous discussion about this topic . I have to question the power of administrators to close topics on discussion forums without any real cause.

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sorta looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

Fr. Chuck, the problem with this example and many other similar examples is that commit the continuum fallacy.

It is implied that the two weapons have little distinction when it comes to carnage. In other words they are so similar in outcomes they don't need to be treated as distinct.

The same fallacy is perpetrated when we say that if we ban guns why not ban the ingredients that make up a Molotov cocktail.


Tut

There have been plenty of fallacies in this debate. For one , gun mass murders are no more lethal than any other type ,and less than many . Guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder. Explosives ? 20.82 per incident .

There have been plenty of fallacies in this debate. For one , gun mass murders are no more lethal than any other type ,and less than many . Guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder. Explosives ? 20.82 per incident .


Well, you would have to point the others out because I was mainly concentrating on your posts. Shouldn't do that I know, but this time you are responding to my comments.

All I can do is respond in a similar way as I did the last time you posted statistics. That is to say,statistics by themselves don't constitute a fallacy, although you can have statistical fallacies. These usually take the form of 'cherry picking' It all depends on the statistics you use and the conclusions you draw.

As far as your conclusion from the statistics you have posted are concerned - again - I don't know if your conclusion is correct. I would withhold judgement until I see the report.

Tut

Tom, please don't post a study on the topic because we will just being going over the same ground as last time.

I chip you for a fallacy and you respond with a study. The type of fallacies I keep referring to are those that exhibit mistakes in reasoning or inferences drawn. Most studies will contain correct inferences based on the statistics they choose to use. I am highlighting a more immediate problem.

Tut

Hello:

Couple things...

Anybody who DENIES that guns KILL, are designed to KILL, and KILL more than an angry guy with a brick could, are actually NUTS.

Anybody who thinks keeping assault rifles will serve to DEFEND themselves against a government armed with Apache Helicopters and Striker Brigades, is actually NUTS.

NUTS have no place at the table when discussing REAL issues.

excon

PS> Merry Christmas..

But it isn't nutty to conclude that what hasn't worked in the past will work this time.

Hello again, tom:


but it isn't nutty to conclude that what hasn't worked in the past will work this time.If you're saying that prohibition doesn't work, I tend to agree with you..

Excon

If the goal is to keep guns that the army uses off the street and out the hands of homicidal nuts and criminals then ban them and take away access to them. Many countries have done this already and it does seem to work. Then a loon cannot steal, borrow, or buy, a weapon of mass destruction.

Personal defense is one thing, mass murder made easy is another. It may not be the total solution, but a start.

Well I'd counter that with evidence . But Tal doesn't think evidence is relevant. But let's start with the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are caused by hand guns and not semi-automatic rifles.

Yes but massacres of such we have seen is the subject of debate. The evidence on that has been made starkly clear. The mayors across the nation have said they are victims of loopholes and under regulated laws in other states.

You mean like Mayor Bloomy who walks around with a contingent of security the size of an Army platoon ? The gun used in the latest was purchased legally in one of the most regulated states in the nation . Surely a state so regulated would've had really tough conditions for that purchase .So that argument doesn't really wash. Did such a ban in the 1990s prevent Columbine ? Nope ,and it won't prevent the next .

The last massacre was a loony who stole and murdered the legal owner.

Fact is Tom you don't believe the evidence because you only want to look at evidence from one source. What is obvious is that legal guns kill just as surely and as often than illegal guns. The people who have guns are the problem and the way to stop them is not to allow them to have guns. There are more gun dealers than supermarkets, what does that tell you? It tells me that someone is profiting from the gun trade and death. Go haead Tom keep putting profits before children, like the good capitalist you are. Stop worshipping money Tom

There are more gun dealers than supermarkets, what does that tell you?

Well that's just nonsense. Although, you can buy guns and groceries in Walmart. One stop shopping.


it tells me that someone is profiting from the gun trade and death. Go haead Tom keep putting profits before children, like the good capitalist you are. Stop worshipping money Tom

I certainly wouldn't be a gun dealer if I couldn't make a profit, but the only issue is rights. We have the right to own guns to protect our property AND our children.

Hello Steve:


We have the right to own guns to protect our property AND our children.If THAT'S what you're doing, I'll BET you don't have a 100 round drum magazine.

Excon

Hello Steve:

If THAT'S what you're doing, I'll BET you don't have a 100 round drum magazine.

excon

No, and I'm not letting them 'walk' to Mexico so the bad guys can murder Mexican citizens and US Border Patrol agents either.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, since you ducked THAT issue, I'll bet you'll DUCK this one too...

If the right wing WANTED fewer guns on the street, why are legally required background checks laws ignored in some states? Why aren't those who fail to do so prosecuted? (http://www.alternet.org/34ths-states-ignore-mental-illness-background-checks-gun-buyers?paging=off)

Could it have to do with the ATF being LEADERLESS??? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2012/12/17/ef280abc-4877-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html) The Republicans in congress managed to CHANGE the law to REQUIRE that the head of the ATF BE approved by the Senate. Then they proceeded to DENY every single person Obama sent for approval... Some in the agency say the gun INDUSTRY is running the show.

Given the above, it LOOKS like the right wing wants MORE guns in the hands of CRIMINALS and CRAZY people. I have NO idea why they would want that.. But, I have NO idea about ANYTHING they want.

I DO understand why the NRA wants that. They represent arms DEALERS.

excon

That would be the same ATF that ran Fast and Furious. According to the article Obama has only sent one anti-gun guy so I guess "every one" of his would be one. Why would Republicans allow an anti-guy guy to run the gun police? That certainly seems like a no-brainer to me because we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your other contention, that is only in regards to mental illness background checks and is limited to those contained in court records. Otherwise, people still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html)

Hello again, Steve:


still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.
Yeah, I heard FOX and Friends sniveling about how those poor defenseless gun owners are going to cope, now that criminals know where they live...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

By the way, it would seem to me that if a record is PUBLIC, that nobody's privacy is violated when the record is made PUBLIC. I don't know. Crazy liberal logic, huh?

Excon

PS> (edited) Still watching FOX... They just complained that the paper didn't publish a list of the ILLEGAL gun owners...

??

Like you say, you CAN'T make this stuff up.

There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.

Hello again, Steve:


There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I don't know WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I dunno WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

excon

It MIGHT also hint at who is NOT protecting their homes with a gun or give some wacko anti-gun zealots a map of who to harass. But I'm not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.

not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know?? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

Excon

Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know??? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off?? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

excon

I never said it wasn't legal, it is irresponsible. Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

Hello again, Steve:


Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for the rest of his LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO vicious that he needed to be punished for LIFE, then we shouldn't let him out. But, IF we do, I don't know WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, and then prevent him from EVER living a normal life... It's shooting ourselves in the foot.

Let me ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

Excon

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

The NRA doesn't publish addresses of innocent people minding their own business.

Hello again, Steve:

In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO visiouse that he needed to be punished for LIFE, I believe he shouldn't be let out. I dunno WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, but preventing him from EVER living a normal life...

Lemme ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

excon

I never said I was in favor of sex offender registries, in fact I objected to a proposed law in my own city this year which would have virtually prohibited a sex offender from living within the city limits. But nice dodge, I guess those evil gun owners had it coming, eh?

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

Pretty much.

Amazing how the public is lining up behind that call for gun control. One would think that if there was a threat of a ban ,that the sale of guns would decline. After all ;who wants to own a new gun if they are to be banned and confiscated... right ? Something is telling me that the public is being a bit resistant to the idea.

Perhaps the people are distrustful of their government?

Hello again, tom:


So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

excon

The insult aside, what exactly are those gun owners suspected of?

While waiting for ex to tell us what law abiding gun owners should be suspected of, here are a few nuggets on the solution.

One college professor in Rhode Island thinks anyone who wants to arm teachers should be "beaten to death (http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/university-of-rhode-island-professors-retweet-murder-anyone-who-thinks-teachers-should-be-armed/)." He also wants Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick."

Author Joyce Carol Oates wonders (http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/actress-marg-helgenberger-one-can-only-hope-nra-members-get-shot/), "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" CSI actress Actress Marg Helgenberger says, "One can only hope."

Yeah, let's shoot and/or beat gun owners to death, that'll stop gun violence.

Hello wingers:

I don't know that ANYBODY said they were suspected of anything. They're gun owners. They had to APPLY for a permit.. The permit is PUBLIC information.

That's it. Ain't nothing more complicated than that.

excon

But on a positive side ;the petitions to deport Piers Morgan is gaining momentum.to date ;75,000 have signed it.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD
One problem however . There is a similar petition in the UK saying they don't want him back .

I have never heard of a more stupid attitude than arming teachers so people can own guns. That is selling out the children, needing armed security guards in schools also speaks to the same stupidity, still I expect the stupid people have to live somewhere

Hello wingers:

I dunno that ANYBODY said they were suspected of anything. They're gun owners. They had to APPLY for a permit.. The permit is PUBLIC information.

That's it. Ain't nothing more complicated than that.

excon

It was unethical, ain't nothing more complicated than that.

Hello again, Steve:

For a guy who LIKES the First Amendment, you DON'T like it very much.

excon

I have never heard of a more stupid attitude than arming teachers so people can own guns. That is selling out the children, needing armed security guards in schools also speaks to the same stupidity, still I expect the stupid people have to live somewhere

So protecting the children is selling them out. Now that's stupidity.

Wealthy libs already send their kids to secure schools. They just don't want to pay for poor kids to get the same protection. Forget arming the teachers ;they don't even want to fence in the perimeter of the school and have 1 armed guard . No one is saying EVERY teacher should be armed . It should work like the Air Marshall service . No one knows which person in the school is authorized to carry.

Hello again, Steve:

For a guy who LIKES the First Amendment, you DON'T like it very much.

excon

You're chasing your tail, I've already defended their right to do so. There is however nothing ethical about painting a target on law abiding citizens for no damn good reason.

Hello again, tom:


they don't even want to fence in the perimeter of the school and have 1 armed guard . What about the movie goers? Aren't THEY entitled to protection? How about shoppers at the mall? In fact, if you REALLY want to protect people, we'd need an armed guard on EVERY street corner..

In fact, here's what a Texas Republican congressman says about that:
School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America,” the Republican congressman said in a statement Monday. Paul is the first GOP member in Congress to publicly oppose the NRA's plan. “Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?" -Ron Paul

excon

We already have mall security and a lot of schools have had metal detectors and cops for years. That's a bad thing now?

What about the movie goers? Aren't THEY entitled to protection? How about shoppers at the mall? In fact, if you REALLY want to protect people, we'd need an armedguard on EVERY street corner

You know what that publishing of the gun owners address does ? It tells the thugs the homes to avoid.

Yes it may come down to that . You think your gun ban is going to prevent it ? I see a possibility that we may end up like Tel Aviv where such security is considered and accepted as SOP.

Hello again, tom:


we may end up like Tel Aviv where such security is considered and accepted as SOP.Speaking of the Israeli's, (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israelis-shoot-nra-claim-article-1.1226401#ixzz2FzEqyRDT)we SHOULD be more like them..
When it comes to Israel and school shootings, Wayne LaPierre doesn't know what he's talking about, Israeli security experts said Sunday.

“We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” said Palmor.

“What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,” he said. “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,” he added.

“There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.

In recent years, restrictions on gun ownership in Israel have been tightened, not relaxed.

excon

There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.

I beg to differ and so does Adam Lankford ,assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, and author of “The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers.”

There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die. The specific psychiatric diagnoses vary widely, and include everything from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and others forms of psychosis. The suicide rate was 12.4 per 100,000 people in the United States in 2010 (the highest in 15 years). Suicide is relatively rare, but it is rarer still in most Muslim countries. This is a very limited pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters come.

The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him. Not surprisingly, the presence of mental illness can inflame these beliefs, leading perpetrators to have irrational and exaggerated perceptions of their own victimization. It makes little difference whether the perceived victimizer is an enemy government (in the case of suicide terrorists) or their boss, co-workers, fellow students or family members (in the case of rampage shooters).

The key is that the aggrieved individual feels that he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. In many cases, the target for revenge becomes broader and more symbolic than a single person, so that an entire type or category of people is deemed responsible for the attacker's pain and suffering. Then, the urge to commit suicide becomes a desire for murder-suicide, which is even rarer; a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies suggests that only two to three of every one million Americans commit murder-suicide each year.

The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. More than 70 percent of murder-suicides are between spouses or romantic or sexual partners, and these crimes usually take place at home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as “martyrs” after their deaths and, sure enough, terrorist organizations produce martyrdom videos and memorabilia so that other desperate souls will volunteer to blow themselves up.

Similarly, rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?” the Columbine shooter Eric Harris remarked. He had fantasized with his fellow attacker, Dylan Klebold, that the filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino would fight over the rights to their life story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?_r=0
Reuven Berko can deny it all he wants . Ma'alot school had a massacre in 1974 in which 21 Israeli children were murdered ,that was a prelude for many subsequent attacks on Israeli schools. As a result , Israel has lived for thirty years with armed security in every school, armed guards on every field trip,at sporting event,and armored busses and armed security on those busses.

So protecting the children is selling them out. Now that's stupidity.

It seems to me that many of the solutions being proposed in a number of posts - somehow resemble solutions that are required for countries that have a demilitarized zone.

Sorry I don't get that one Tut

So protecting the children is selling them out. Now that's stupidity.

Well speech there is stupidity and there is stupidity, they say that if you keep doing the same thing and expect change that is stupidity, so go figure, you get more guns, you get more security and more children die, I would say something ain't working, but stupid me, I should get a gun and shot someone

sorry i don't get that one Tut

Hi Clete,

I am saying basically the same thing as yourself. I think it is an extraordinary bad idea to train kids to create a distraction. This is not protecting anyone let alone the kids.

I think it is a very bad idea to train armed teachers to confront gunmen.

I think it is a bad idea to publish names of people who hold a gun permit.

What about the idea that if more people had more guns then someone would have able to stop a mass shooting. In the last three or four decades how many armed citizens have successfully managed to prevent such a terrible crime? I would think only a tiny percentage. That's not counting the ones killed or injured in the attempt.

Tut

In the last three or four decades how many armed citizens have successfully managed to prevent such a terrible crime? one possible common denominator is that these attacks occure in recognized 'gun free zones' . The theater ,the schools around the country have adopted not only gun free zones on their property ,but also in a radius surrounding them. Va Tech was a gun free campus.

one possible common denominator is that these attacks occure in recognized 'gun free zones' . The theater ,the schools around the country have adopted not only gun free zones on their property ,but also in a radius surrounding them. Va Tech was a gun free campus.

No, its not a common denominator. Show me that it is.You are going to have to do better than this.


Tut

Yes it is . Colorado and Virginia are conceal and carry states ;EXCEPT at the Century 16 theater complex in Aurora ; and the Va Tech campus,where Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death . Nobody there were able to exercise their right to self defense .

Compare that to the 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs incident where a gunman opened fire and killed 2 church members . That tragedy could've been much worse if not for an armed guard who shot the gunman LONG before the local police arrived . Just this year at New Destiny Christian Church in Aurora , a gunman opened fire killing the mother of Pastor Delano Strahan . Before he could do any more damage ,a congregent carrying a concealed weapon shot the gunman down.
October 1997 at a Pearl, Miss. High school there was a shooting that left two students dead.Assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings. Technically he was in violation of Federal law for even having the gun in his car .January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student. 3 Virginia law students overpowered the gunman preventing further deaths.Two were armed . February 2007, at a Salt Lake City mall, armed off-duty police officer Ken Hammond killed Sulejman Talovic after he had killed five people, preventing an even larger massacre.

So as the mass murders of recent times can be documented ,so too can the ones where prevented larger killings . I'll take my chances with the friendly carrying a gun.

yes it is . Colorado and Virginia are conceal and carry states ;EXCEPT at the Century 16 theater complex in Aurora ; and the Va Tech campus,where Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death . Nobody there were able to exercise their right to self defense .



Tom, this doesn't constitute a common denominator by any stretch of the imagination. You did say common denominator didn't you?;




Compare that to the 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs incident where a gunman opened fire and killed 2 church members . That tragedy could've been much worse if not for an armed guard who shot the gunman LONG before the local police arrived . Just this year at New Destiny Christian Church in Aurora , a gunman opened fire killing the mother of Pastor Delano Strahan . Before he could do any more damage ,a congregent carrying a concealed weapon shot the gunman down.
October 1997 at a Pearl, Miss. high school there was a shooting that left two students dead.Assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings. Technically he was in violation of Federal law for even having the gun in his car .January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student. 3 Virginia law students overpowered the gunman preventing further deaths.Two were armed . February 2007, at a Salt Lake City mall, armed off-duty police officer Ken Hammond killed Sulejman Talovic after he had killed five people, preventing an even larger massacre.

So as the mass murders of recent times can be documented ,so too can the ones where prevented larger killings . I'll take my chances with the friendly carrying a gun.

Compare what? I think I already covered this. The information at I have googled says that in the last four decades( the time I was referring to) a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.

I have no doubt that this information was cherry-picked. However, no amount of creative cherry picking can make that tiny percentage look anything like significant.

Tut

a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.
Yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones . What ? You don't think citizen intervention would've been a higher percentage if possible ? But I get it ;nothing will convince you. Cherry picked ? Yes if you mean I looked for incidents where citizens acted on their own to prevent larger killing . Maybe you can demonstrate the cases where citizens were armed and did not act to prevent a larger incident.

Tom, Lets look at this a bit further just for the moment. You asked me to compare one example of a 'no gun gun free zone' with that of a number of incidents whereby a citizen or an off duty has made a intervention.

What sort of erroneous conclusion would you like me to draw? One exception proves a rule?


Tut

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church, where are you, Pakistan? If my God doesn't choose to protect me in a place of worship then I resign myself to his will, have you never heard those who would save their lives will loose it.

This gun debate is ludricous, boardering on the farcicle. You want to be able to carry a conceiled weapon anywhere, why should I be subject to your tyranny and need to carry a weapon to protect myself, what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets or is your whole society comprised of criminals? Why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane? The reason is to protect the passengers from a potential criminal act, the same reasoning should exist in the general population, you were never given the right to bear arms for personal protection but to defend the country.

yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are ... in gun free zones . What ? You don't think citizen intervention would've been a higher percentage if possible ? But I get it ;nothing will convince you. Cherry picked ? Yes if you mean I looked for incidents where citizens acted on their own to prevent larger killing . Maybe you can demonstrate the cases where citizens were armed and did not act to prevent a larger incident.


Tom, I have already put my percentages on the table. After all I was the one making the claim that only a small percentage of citizens intervened ( you already accept that). You made the claim that one possible common denominator was that they ALL occurred in a gun free zone. You made the claim so it's now up to you to prove the validity of the statement? Isn't that how it works?


Tut

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church Maybe you live in utopia . Here Churches and Synagogues come under threat from time to time. The NYC police force routinely patrols at Synagogues every time the ME flares .

what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets from my perspective ,the police do a great job after an incident happens . It is unreasonable to expect them to be there to PREVENT an incident.. But according to your logic that's not necessary as you don't think even armed guards are necessary.

why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane?
Lol ,the ONLY reason that the Air Marshall program is effective is because we don't know who on the plane who has the friendly gun. Yeah we go through anything short of a body probe to make sure we are safe on plane. Do you want that going into schools and movie theaters and shopping malls ? The planes are the perfect example. 9-11 there was NO police near to prevent what happened . But Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 had a solution .

Tom, I have already put my percentages on the table. After all I was the one making the claim that only a small percentage of citizens intervened ( you already accept that). You made the claim that one possible common denominator was that they ALL occurred in a gun free zone. You made the claim so it's now up to you to prove the validity of the statement? Isn't that how it works?


Tut

I'm not going to waste my time. I gave you significant enough sample.

I'm not going to waste my time. I gave you significant enough sample.

In other words you can't.You know what you know and no amount of logic will ever change your mind.


Tut

No I don't have the time... you didn't even bother providing a link for this statement :

The information at I have googled says that in the last four decades( the time I was referring to) a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.


So what am I to do ? Research 68 cases ? Maybe with the link I can at least see which specific cases you are talking about .

Running for cover again Tom look you can find a list of various cases easily enough

Show me . Tut is the one who made the claim without verification that only 1.6 percent of mass murder cases had any citizen intervention. To me that is a largely irrelevant point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church, where are you, Pakistan? If my God doesn't choose to protect me in a place of worship then I resign myself to his will, have you never heard those who would save their lives will loose it.

I find it inconceivable that you think God doesn't want you to protect the flock from violence being visited on them. We have a number of people loaded for bear at our church, we're not so stupid as to present our children as lambs for the slaughter.

Hello again, tom:


yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones .Couple things...

I DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".

I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...

I DON'T believe that crap. I just DON'T!

Excon

DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".


And yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .

show me . Tut is the one who made the claim without verification that only 1.6 percent of mass murder cases had any citizen intervention. To me that is a largely irrelevent point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .

Tom, have already addressed the first issue. The study was commissioned by 'Mother Jones' I can post the web address if you like. I have already said the study cherry picked the data.

Would you like to turn 1.6 percent into a higher figure to allow for the bias. 0%? 20%? 40%? You have already stated the obvious in your earlier post. The percentages are small.


If it was the case that citizens are prevented by law from intervening - and it still is the case - then it is equally irrelevant to propose a solution by putting more guns into the hands of civilians into order to make an intervention.

Tom, this is called having a bet both ways


Tut

Hello again, tom:


and yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .Of course, there are SOME who aren't REAL gun owners..

From the gun owners BIBLE... Nahhh, it AIN'T wrote down. The TIME to accumulate guns is WHEN the government says you CAN'T. The place to CARRY guns is the place the government say's you CAN'T.

I'm NOT the only one who believes that.

Excon

To me that is a largely irrelevent point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .


I actually don't think it is irrelevant when it comes to intervention, but what I find odd ( in relation to you claim about intervention) is a statement like this coming from a person who usually says something along the lines of, "The law failed to stop this person............"


Tut

Hello again, tom:

Couple things...

I DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".

It's a felony to carry inside a school building, federal building, municipal building, courts, any place that makes at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, racetracks and polling places in Texas. Most law abiding citizens are not going to risk a felony charge.


I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...

I don't believe most mass murderers or other criminals pick targets that might be armed.

I actually don't think it is irrelevant when it comes to intervention, but what I find odd ( in relation to you claim about intervention) is a statement like this coming from a person who usually says something along the lines of, "The law failed to stop this person............"


Tut

Yeah bad guys carrying bad guns usually break laws and good guys legally carrying guns usually follow the law . Is that really so hard to figure out ?

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo. Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn't the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#)

John Lott has done many studies on gun policy in this country and is author of 2 books on the subject .

LOL, you guys hate teachers but now you want them to lock and load. Will you pay them more? Who pays since you don't believe in higher taxes or government spending? Will a CCP be required to have a teaching licence?

Who pays to get rid of these gun free zones? Oh that's right we citizens will do it for free, or the local armed neighborhood watch guy can make those life and death decisions. Never mind keeping guns out of the bad guys hands through strict tight laws and technology. Just give the good guys a gun, since everybody is a good guy until they do bad.

Even NRA member are not for that.

LOL, you guys hate teachers but now you want them to lock and load. Will you pay them more? Don't hate teachers at all . Hate their union. Most teachers do too.
Who will pay them ? I think a combination of donations from the teacher's unions extensive coffers ;and a donation from the NRA ought to do the trick. It's easy.. there are plenty of retired police and returning vets who could use jobs. Don't arm the teachers ; just have a single friendly gun standing guard.


Never mind keeping guns out of the bad guys hands through strict tight laws and technology. You say you're interested in that and your only solution is to take the guns away from the law abiding citizen .

I never said I hated teachers. Don't you libs ever feel bad about making ridiculous sh*t up about conservatives?

By the way, how has England fared after banning handguns for all intents and purposes? I heard that in the ten years since gun crime has doubled (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?m od=rss_opinion_main).

Maybe you don't but governors and mayors across the nation have been balancing their budgets off the backs of teachers, firefighters, and police and now you want teachers to police your school??

Who pays for that? A simple question.

As for a combination of DONATIONS from the NRA or the UNION you already said the unions have no right to dues from their members, okay you don't say it, but laws have been made by YOU guys already and more to come. So its okay for unions to spend money where YOU want them too, but not to be able to collect dues.

That's par for he course for capitalistic dictators. Control everyone else's money and charge them double. You hate unions, I hate controlled capitalism, and the lie of free markets regulating themselves.

That's working out just great for THEM.

I think spending union dues on school security is a far greater use than lining lining union bosses' pockets and violent protests..

Maybe you don't but governors and mayors across the nation have been balancing their budgets off the backs of teachers, firefighters, and police and now you want teachers to police your school??
I'd say it is the opposite . The unions have been breaking the backs of the local budgets .But that's a different discussion.

I see you don't see that it's unfair to ask the NRA to kick in a share.
Who pays for it ?
Schools are funded at the local level . Most school districts could EASILY reshuffle budgets to add a guard and a secure perimeter fence. That would be the ONLY increase in district payroll . One guard per school .

No I would not pay teachers any more . It would be completely optional for them to get conceal and carry ;and the proper training, I'm not opposed to trained teachers having guns ;but I am in no way calling for it to be mandatory . So that line of BS don't wash. Do certified teachers get extra pay if they know CPR ? Would they not use their training to save someone even if they aren't paid for it ? Teachers do a lot of things in school that aren't considered "teaching their subject " . My wife without a gun stood guard in the hallways of the school on 9-11 . She is a math and science teacher . She was not trained to be an unarmed guard ;and she did not get an extra dime for the effort . It's called doing your job .

That would be the same ATF that ran Fast and Furious. According to the article Obama has only sent one anti-gun guy so I guess "every one" of his would be one. Why would Republicans allow an anti-guy guy to run the gun police? That certainly seems like a no-brainer to me because we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your other contention, that is only in regards to mental illness background checks and is limited to those contained in court records. Otherwise, people still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to...one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html)

Turn around is fair play . Turns out the stunt was so unpopular that a blogger took it upon himself to dig up and organize the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Journal-News staff, starting with editor Cyndee Royle. The post is called "Keep up the heat" and encourages readers to pester the paper and prevent them from reporting gun-owner addresses.
Cynthia Lambert Journal-News Editor | For What It's Worth (http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/tag/cynthia-lambert-journal-news-editor/)

Turn around is fair play . Turns out the stunt was so unpopular that a blogger took it upon himself to dig up and organize the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Journal-News staff, starting with editor Cyndee Royle. The post is called "Keep up the heat" and encourages readers to pester the paper and prevent them from reporting gun-owner addresses.
Cynthia Lambert Journal-News Editor | For What It’s Worth (http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/tag/cynthia-lambert-journal-news-editor/)

Yep, meet the new Alinsky right (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/learning-to-love-alinskys-asymmetrical-political-warfare/#more).

And while you holler and play games, those of us of reason and good will press on with solutions for the whole nation and not just the ones who want the price of milk to go up, and the size of your wages to go down.

You guys are running out of hostages, and cover for the gun manufacturers as even conservatives favor common sense solutions and banning the army weapons by the general public is the START of finding a solution that works.

Naw I don't agree with publishing names and addresses of gun owners at all. Its crazy and irresponsible, and unnecessary. But we cannot ignore any longer the leading cause of death in our youth is being shot. That includes the loons who claim self defense and have legal CCP's.

Maybe you live in utopia .

Just maybe I do, just maybe we have forged a reasonable society without guns and the only people who seem to use them here with any frequency are recent immigrants traumatised by war and lawless societies where the gun rules


l
ol ,the ONLY reason that the Air Marshall program is effective is because we don't know who on the plane who has the friendly gun. .

The air marshall program is an example of effective preventative policing where there is a law officer present whether you know who it is or not and passengers have been checked so it is difficult for them to bring weapons on the plane, it is the absence of weapons which provides safety and the air marshall is another layer of security

OK then, eliminate accidents and you'll have mitigated the leading cause of death among youth (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm).

Yes undoubtedly we would like to do that and better education would go some of the way but finding them something useful to do would help too but eliminating auto accidents would do the most and it has the side effect of reducing adult deaths also or you could just ban the automobile and save 30,000 people a year

HOMICIDE

Homicide is one of the most disturbing causes of death among children and adolescents. Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide, teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family structure. Homicide is a complex issue which does not have a simple answer. Prevention will require understanding of the root cause and a willingness on the part of the public to change those causes.

Just wanted to add the social safety net as part of the solution.

Disturbing yes, leading cause, no.

Important enough to be dealt with... YES.

Just as important/disturbing as the deaths of border patrol agents, or foreign ambassadors.

Well, like most of the nattering nabobs out there, Rahm Emmanuel wants it both ways (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/someone-tell-rahm-emanuel-his-children-are-protected-by-armed-guard-at-school/#more). He thinks armed security in schools is outrageous... even though the school he sends his kids to has armed security - protecting them after their armed security detail escorts them to school.

If it works for him...

Rhambo presides over a city where the typical weekend death rate is at least equal to the Newtown elementary school murders .
In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere. So shame on Rhambo .He either doesn't give a damn about inner city school safety ,or he's too stupid to see that his school district is begging for armed protection.

rhambo presides over a city where the typical weekend death rate is at least equal to the Newtown elementary school murders .
In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere. So shame on Rhambo .He either doesn't give a damn about inner city school safety ,or he's too stupid to see that his school district is begging for armed protection.

I find it amazing you could find such a situation acceptable and that all you want to do is arm teachers, obviously allowing guns in society is the problem as well as a number of other problems in a disfunctional society. This is also what comes of multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and just plain old corruption. Face it, the model doesn't work, the grand experiment has failed, and the attitudes of society are to blame. Having democracy for democracy's sake does nothing to address social ills and imbalance. How many of these people with problems are truly disenfranchised because their interests are not represented

I never said I hated teachers. Don't you libs ever feel bad about making ridiculous sh*t up about conservatives?

By the way, how has England fared after banning handguns for all intents and purposes? I heard that in the ten years since gun crime has doubled (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?m od=rss_opinion_main).


It's a pity this person doesn't know anything about Australia, but when in doubt trot out the old one exception proves a rule fallacy.

The Port Arthur incident was an exception and a big shock to everyone, but it is not an exception that creates a different rule.

The only rule that came out of that incident was a tightening of our already strict gun laws. No doubt our laws are some of the toughest in the world.

Since 1996 there have been no mass shootings in Australia for 16 years. The only exception to that was when 15 people were killed in a hotel in Queensland when a backpacker set fire to the premises while everyone slept. No guns, just matches and an accelerant.

Tut

yeah bad guys carrying bad guns ususally break laws and good guys legally carrying guns usually follow the law . Is that really so hard to figure out ?


No I think I can work that bit out. What I am referring to is the problem of claiming that if intervention is an irrelevant issue then citing numerous example of intervention to try and prove a point. This is why I think you comment is odd.

Tut

Let's put it this way ; if the means of intervention by a lawful citizen has been rendered illegal ,then the cases of intervention by a lawful citizen will of course be rare events. That Vice Principal who went to his car to stop a killer was technically breaking the law by doing so .

James Holmes drove 20 miles out of his way to choose a theater complex that advertised itself as a 'gun free zone' . There were theaters closer to his apartment that were showing the Batman movie . Was that a factor when he made his plan of attack ? What does logic tell you ? A theater advertising itself as a 'gun free zone ' ;or a theater in a state that has conceal and carry permits ?

let's put it this way ; if the means of intervention by a lawful citizen has been rendered illegal ,then the cases of intervention by a lawful citizen will of course be rare events. That Vice Principal who went to his car to stop a killer was technically breaking the law by doing so .



Well, no let's not put it that way. Lets put it the way you said.

The question I asked was why did you use numerous example of intervention to demonstrate citizen intervention can reduce the amount of killing. Then in a post after this you said that intervention is irrelevant. Is it relevant to your position or not?

It can't be both.

Tut

Again you are playing high school debate . Take my answer above as my reply.

again you are playing high school debate . take my answer above as my reply.

I have had a lot of practice at getting people to follow my line of questioning so as they paint themselves into a corner. It's not actually a high school technique. It is a very old dialectical method used throughout the centuries.


Tut

Have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .

have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .


Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

Good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=tomder55;3355245 Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .[/QUOTE]


Nit picking? I would have thought that concealed carry was a central part of the discussion Isn't that why you post those think tank studies to show that it is?


Tut

good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.


Well, that's never going to happen, so you are stuck with the paranoia this type of issue generates.



Tut

OK then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .


The facts (to quote the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia) are as follows:
Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.


Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.


In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting shooters.


The AIC's 'Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report' stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.


America, don't repeat Australia's gun control mistake | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/#ixzz2FtcdgEKd)

Yeah yeah I know... right wing... no validity .

Tom you may not like our attitude to guns but the facts remain we have a low incidence of death by gun, in fact we have a low incidence of crime generally
In 2010, the Australian victimisation rates recorded by police for selected person offence categories were:
Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons
Attempted murder, 0.9 victims per 100,000 persons
Manslaughter, 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons
Sexual assault, 79.5 victims per 100,000 persons
Kidnapping/abduction, 2.7 victims per 100,000 persons
Robbery, 56.0 victims per 100,000 persons
The american statistics are more difficult to compare for 2010
violent crime rate 403.6
Murder 4.8
Rape 27.5
Robbery 119.1
Aggrevated assault 252.3

But you can see there is a significantly lower rate in our society

Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads tofalse conclusions.

Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.


You can thank Obama for that!

You can thank Obama for that!That's a joke, right?

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.


Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.


These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue


Tut

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads to false conclusions.

Yes Tal, lack of money is a significant factor in the incidence of crime, so is drug addiction, and yet there is a strong move in your country to reduce welfare and make the situation worse. What is difficult to understand is $300 billion dollars is given to charity each year, that is a significant sum of money which should do much to offset the lack of money, but apparently it doesn't, what it does do is fund employment in non profit organisations

Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.


These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue


Tut

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.


Sorry, my mistake.

Tut

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Seriously a matter of opinion, fear breeds fear

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

YesTut undoubtedly you did, it was just citizens exercising their constittional right to own more weapons, like 270,000,000 isn't enough, but I question what do they have to fear but fear itself. Being afraid doesn't fit very well with the Superman image, I expect soon Superman will need an AR15 to get his man card marked

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

We shouldn't respond to our rights and safety being threatened?

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

Yeah, OK. You run with that.

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

Would you kill an ant with a cannon? How many times? How many bullets do you need to protect your family in your home?

Protecting your home against the zombie apocalypse is understandable if you admit it. But don't say you need a machine gun for a burglar or thug. That's loony right?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Capiche ?

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

Should read it's NOT paranoid...

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

capiche ?

No they don't.

Then go defend our country the way real soldiers do if you have a right to act, dress, and arm yourselves like them.

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

No Tal they like playing toy soldiers

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

And you do ? One of the grievances documented in the Declaration of Independence was "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us".

In fact ;one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment was to prevent the deployment of REAL soldier on every corner.

ok then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .



America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/#ixzz2FtcdgEKd)

yeah yeah I know ....right wing ...no validity .


Tom, I think this will just be wasting my time and yours.


Tut

I'll say it again these are different days, time to move on. The government has a standing army, that it quarters in barracks, they are well supplied with arms and food, no need to quarter them in private homes or to augment their services with militia, the reason for some of the provisions in the constitution were the grievences of the people who were mistreated at that time, this is a different time with different problems, taxation is still an issue but you cannot say you are without representation, however weak it might be. You don't have an army maintaining order, you have a police force, a luxury no one had thought of in the eighteenth century. There hasn't been an Indian raid in, what, a least a century, there hasn't been a border incursion since the early nineteenth century.

I know you all long for the simple days of the eigthteenth century when there was still a nation to pioneer and conquer, but those days are long gone, if you can conquer the que in the rush hour you are doing well and you can't use a gun for that

Yeah I get it... We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.
Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

If it evolves into a tyranny will you be like Syria and tear yourselves apart and how long will it take before you oppose it with small arms? You get the government you ask for and the surest way for it to become a tyranny is to allow the present corruption to persist and grow.

Look at your revolution, a small armed group was successful because it opposed a similarly armed small army which was not reinforced. Look at your civil war, professional armies fought themselves to a standstill, what citizens who could fight did and yet victory took years, and yet the south was unable to overcome the tyranny of the north. It is a romantic notion that an armed population will be successful against a well trained military

Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

Look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.

look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.
Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

Alexis de Tocqueville was a 19th century thinker. We don't live in the 19th century. Political society has evolved into something vastly different to that which captured deTocqueville imagination.

I also recommend John Saul's 'Voltaire's Bastards' and 'The Unconscious Civilization' This represents a contemporary and updated explanation of modern politics.

P.S.

Obama is actually contributing to the unconsciousness of society.

Tut

Alexis de Tocqueville was a 19th century thinker. We don't live in the 19th century.
I was putting tongue into cheek.

I was putting tongue into cheek.

I knew you knew that. I put that in there for Tom's benefit.


Tut

Political society has evolved into something vastly different to that which captured deTocqueville imagination.

yeah much better

Gun manufacturers like all corporations sell products for profit, and don't care what the outcomes of that profit is as long as they don't have pay for it.Its no coincidence they spent a bunch of loot to get laws that make them NOT responsible for what their guns do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0

Allowing the previous ban to expire and stopping lawsuits has the earmarks of a business decision to increase and protect profits.

What do you expect it is a capitalist society where everything is subserviant to profit

Wonder if Tom would consider it a soft tyranny. Doubt it.

Then go defend our country the way real soldiers do if you have a right to act, dress, and arm yourselves like them.

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

You want a military state?

You want a military state?
Wouldn't you be paying their salaries and benefits through your taxes?

Wonder if Tom would consider it a soft tyranny. Doubt it.

No its more like a hard tyranny

You want a military state?

Its already a military state if everybody has a military weapon. Maybe that's what you want.

Its already a military state if everybody has a military weapon. Maybe thats what you want.

I'm not the one asking for a soldier on every corner. It's still as simple as the constitution says, my right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Get over it.

I want trained people on those corners as in MORE cops, and you want civilian volunteers to have the same thing as my cops. I think my way is safer. You want to carry an army gun, join the army.

But in your world its okay to be an armed vigilante accountable to no one. I say you have no right to the same weapons as my army does. And guys like Zimmerman have no right to be armed policemen and act without authority. Gang banger and drug dealers have no rights to be armed either.

There are plenty of weapons you can have that don't infringe on your rights to bear arms, or mine to be safe and secure. And you and your AR, or CCP have no authority to question anyone you think may be up to no good, or looks out of place to YOU!

So what's your motive to being an UN regulated militia? Or a vigilante? Both are against the law, and your beloved constitutional rights.

Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You have the same problem understanding that the subordinate clause has no bearing on the meaning of the second that the courts have shot down - the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditional on being part of an active militia. You must have some warped view of history to imagine our founding fathers would have that as its intent just a few years out from taking up arms against "absolute" government tyranny.

How long would do you think it would have taken them to get a permit from King George so they could revolt against him?

Hello again, Steve:


How long would do you think it would have taken them to get a permit from King George so they could revolt against him?I UNDERSTAND having a gun to protect your family. I UNDERSTAND collecting guns, and I even UNDERSTAND hunting.

But, you're not, are you, one of those dingbats who think your assault rifle is going to DEFEND you against an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns?

Excon

But, you're not, are you, one of those dingbats who think your assault rifle is gonna DEFEND you against an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns??

I'm not any kind of a dingbat, are you?

Hello again, Steve:

So, you DO think your guns will defend you against the government.

Okee doakee.

excon

That's why they think its okay to take your gun into a bar in case the bartender tells them they have had enough and wants to infringe on their right to drink. Or to work in case the boss wants to infringe on their right to work, or to church in case their right to sin is infringed upon by the preacher.

Or shoot black guys walking through THEIR neighbor hood.

Hello again, Steve:

So, you DO think your guns will defend you against the government.

Okee doakee.

excon

And your attempt to ridicule changes the facts about my rights how?

Thats why they think its okay to take your gun into a bar in case the bartender tells them they have had enough and wants to infringe on their right to drink. Or to work in case the boss wants to infringe on their right to work, or to church in case their right to sin is infringed upon by the preacher.

Or shoot black guys walking thru THEIR neighbor hood.

Are you two just trying to see how ridiculous you can be today?

Are you saying none of these things have happened?

Preacher Shot Before Church Knife Attack (http://news.sky.com/story/675981/preacher-shot-before-church-knife-attack)

Tennessee man charged in Vegas bartender killing - FOX5 Vegas - KVVU (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/16040483/friends-family-hold-candlelight-vigil-for-slain-bartender)

I could go on, but why keep being ridiculous?

Are you saying none of these things have happened?

Preacher Shot Before Church Knife Attack (http://news.sky.com/story/675981/preacher-shot-before-church-knife-attack)

Tennessee man charged in Vegas bartender killing - FOX5 Vegas - KVVU (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/16040483/friends-family-hold-candlelight-vigil-for-slain-bartender)

I could go on, but why keep being ridiculous?

What's ridiculous is attempting to assign positions to me based on someone else's behavior.

Demand A Plan - Demand Celebrities Go Themselves! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU)

That plan isn't necessary Tom it is already in play. Celebrities along with the rest of you have said yes to the plan that you should @#$%yourselves every day. You endorse gun violence, you say they will never take my gun away, what part of cause and effect do you not understand?

Don't be ridiculous .I support gun ownership ;not gun violence. Nor do I glorify it while getting on my platform demanding everyone (except my personal body guard ) surrender their guns.

So you have a personal bodyguard, how is that working out for you? A great waste of money no doubt. I don't need a personal bodyguard because certain weapons are prescribed, and as a result gun violence is confined to the criminal classes who take great delight in slaughtering each other

We have not had a political assassination attempt in this country in many decades

so you have a personal bodyguard, how is that working out for you?
Try to keep up .I was talking about the hypocrite Hollywierd crowd.

You really need to let me know when you're in sarcasm mode. Celebrities have bodyguards for reasons other than violent attack by members of the gun toting public

The ban is for army guns and the clips over 10 shots to the general public. You will still have more than enough guns for fun, and personal protection.

Indeed but let's hope no more massacres

That may or may not be the ban. Biden hasn't convened yet .FrankenFeinstein and Andrew Cuomo are talking confiscation.

Confiscation it is then

Good luck with that

It is your people who are proposing it, I guess the fiscal cliff must have brought reason in other areas

Who is "your people " ? Feinstein and Cuomo are Dems .

No Tom americans, you remember them, the other 47%

Thought I would drop this here.

Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0&feature=youtu.be)

Thought I would drop this here.

Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0&feature=youtu.be)

Thank's dad that video proves why semi-automatic weapons should be banned, not just high load magazines but the weapon itsself. There is no reason why you need to fire multiple shots in that manner. It was demonstrated that you could fire 80 shots a minute.

If you have a sporting rifle with a small load magazine you don't need more fire power.
The video also demonstrated a case for recall of all large load magazines in the community

Big difference between urban and rural. I see no function for either rifles in a city.

Well you do have sporting shooters in a city, but your case is well made, they are undoubtedly a minority, depending upon what your regard as sport, no doubt the gang gbangers think it is sport to do a drive by. The most recent shooting just shows the whole thing is out of hand and sporting shooters should see that the responsible action is to get on side with the community and do what it takes to make everyone safe. So what if they are a little inconvienced, having to reload their magazine more often. No one should have high load magazines or be allowed more than one magazine on their person. It isn't just automatic fire that makes a weapon the equivalent of a military weapon, it is calibre, rapid fire, and the ability to put a lot of shots on a target.

Big difference between urban and rural. I see no function for either rifles in a city.

You can't see why someone like a judge that's put hundreds of people behind bars that just got outed on a map for being a registered gun owner by an irresponsible newspaper with an agenda might need an AR-15 or better, a shotgun for protection? Or how about that battered woman that finally got away whose name and address just went public? Naw, you can never see a need for anything like that eh?

Don't blame me for the actions of others since I have never condoned those public outings. That's what you say when you get blamed for the right wing actions you haven't condoned.

Hello again, Steve:


whose name and address just went public? Nahhh... It already WAS public.

I don't know what your problem is with the 1st Amendment. The newspaper had an absolute right to print what it did.

Oh, that's right you LOVE the 1st Amendment... Or you don't, I can't tell.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... It already WAS public.

I dunno what your problem is with the 1st Amendment. The newspaper had an absolute right to print what it did.

Oh, that's right you LOVE the 1st Amendment... Or you don't, I can't tell.

excon

Used to be you were for exercising your rights responsibly. That's OK, I expected you to keep defending this absolutely irresponsible thing to do. And that abused woman that thought she was safe, I'll tell her it's YOU waging the war on her.

Now the Journal News has to hire armed guards... aint that poetic justice ? Any gangbanger in my neighborhood now knows who has guns in their house .

Any gangbanger in my neighborhood now knows who has guns in their house .So is that the environment you live in, if you don't have a gun you live in fear of being robbed or killed?

LMAO, whileI can't go along with publishing some things in newspapers, newspapers have a right to publish stuff, be it true or NOT true, just as you have a right to bear arms so what's the problem?

Maybe you think your rights are better than anyone else's?

So is that the environment you live in, if you don't have a gun you live in fear of being robbed or killed?

The police will show up to take the body count.

LMAO, whileI can't go along with publishing some things in newspapers, newspapers have a right to publish stuff, be it true or NOT true, just as you have a right to bear arms so whats the problem?

Maybe you think your rights are better than anyone elses?

I'm not questioning their right to publish .So long as they don't complain that their names and addresses are also published.

Of course the women who has a gun to protect against a former abusive spouse now has that information public . But why should you care about that ? Why does the same left complain when the name of a rapist is published when the rapists move into a neighborhood ?

A gang banger with computer skills doesn't need to read a newspaper. Nor do abusive exes. Evildoers are opportunity's just like capitalists and hunters.

Watched another zombie movie last night, and a shotgun ain't enough. Works good on burglars. But I would hate to have a principle show up at a campus fight with an assault weapon locked and loaded.

More cops and social workers, doctors, nurses, and less people going to gun shows in Texas, Florida, and Connecticut and buying more than on hunting rifle.

Sad when drugs and guns are the easiest things in America to get. Supply and demand though, true capitalism. MO' MONEY.

Should guns be easier than Sudafeds to get?

Putnam County disagrees .
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130103/NEWS01/130103009/Putnam-officials-hold-press-conference-gun-permit-database

I want the names and addresses of the guards the Journal News hired to protect their offices.

the police will show up to take the body count.Jesus, what a violent sh!thole you live in - no offense.

And I live in a safe neighborhood... The police showed up 27 bodies later in Connecticut .

Good luck with your fight to have more guns everywhere. I'd rather just avoid all that. That's why many of us are foregoing vacationing in the US.

Here is the comparative crime rates in 2003... Unless this trend reversed ,it looks like Canada is at least as violent a place to be as the US on a per-capita basis.

2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.

Sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was more than twice that of the United States: 746 to America's 295.

http://www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=174

I want the names and addresses of the guards the Journal News hired to protect their offices.

RGA Investigations & Security (http://rgainvestigations.com/)

Just call and ask.

Good luck with your fight to have more guns everywhere. I'd rather just avoid all that. That's why many of us are foregoing vacationing in the US.

I'd just as soon you stayed home.

I want the names and addresses of the guards the Journal News hired to protect their offices.

RGA Investigations & Security (http://rgainvestigations.com/)

Just call and ask.

No ,I want them published . I could've looked up the gun registry for an individual without the Journal News help. In this case they published everyone and an interactive map where they lived.

I got a better idea. Since the Journal News thinks that gun free zones makes us safe .They should lead by example and declare their office areas gun free zones and get rid of the armed security .

Or they can go staff the prisons where guards are being told by inmates they know where they live (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/).

I'd just as soon you stayed home.Thanks for your standard nastiness but I was referring to people choosing vacation destinations. There will be repercussions to this gun culture. Pair that with the horrible Steubenville, Ohio rape case and people are wondering what the hell is going on over there.

Thanks for your standard nastiness but I was referring to people choosing vacation destinations. There will be repercussions to this gun culture. Pair that with the horrible Steubenville, Ohio rape case and people are wondering what the hell is going on over there.

You're welcome. As long as you speak nonsense about my country as you typically do you should get used to getting a snarky reply. We'll have plenty of tourists without you and they'll enjoy their visit.

Well another high school shooting and nothing has been done to stop the violence, except of course, talk, and more talk. I wonder where is that right to be shot in the Constitution?

well another high school shooting and nothing has been done to stop the violence, except of course, talk, and more talk. I wonder where is that right to be shot in the Constitution?

The ninth amendment.

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sorta looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

Yes that happened the same day the children were shot here. The difference is, there were survivors in China.

The ninth amendment.

So you are saying the people retain the right to be shot, I cannot see that they had that right in the first place

so you are saying the people retain the right to be shot, I cannot see that they had that right in the first place

There is no legal right to shoot anyone except in cases of self defense. So being shot is a violation of your rights by someone committing an illegal act. Your question makes no sense.

There is no legal right to shoot anyone except in cases of self defense. So being shot is a violation of your rights by someone committing an illegal act. Your question makes no sense.

But it does; the answer to my original question was getting shot is a residual right under the ninth amendment, now that answer was illogical, just a illogical as saying that the right to own guns implies a right to use them in "self" defense. That right was not given to you, the right given to you was to defend your nation

Rights aren't given by government . The 2nd amendment is clearly a right to defend against any oppression and tyranny... foreign and domestic... be it predators, or the government of the nation. Self defense is just a modern phraseology for what was taken for granted as common sense . The founders would not have felt the need to make a special amendment for hunting or target practice. Those were rights one could say are 9th amendment rights.They were so self evident that they didn't need to add it to the bill of rights.

Rights aren't given by government . The 2nd amendment is clearly a right to defend against any oppression and tyranny ...foreign and domestic ...be it predators, or the government of the nation. Self defense is just a modern phraseology for what was taken for granted as common sense . The founders would not have felt the need to make a special amendment for hunting or target practice. Those were rights one could say are 9th amendment rights.They were so self evident that they didn't need to add it to the bill of rights.


Well, they seem to be given by government most of the time. SCOTUS' modus operandi seem to be just that.

Tut

Hello:


The 2nd amendment is clearly a right to defend against any oppression and tyranny I've known the right wing is bonkers for a long time... Now I see they think they can defeat the US Army with their puny assault rifles...

And, they think I'm smoking stuff..

Excon

Yeah well we know what happens when people are disarmed. What ? You forgot Wounded Knee ?


In the morning a bugle call awakened the camp and the men were told to come to the center of the camp for a talk. After the talk they would move to Pine Ridge. Big Foot was brought out and seated before his tent. The older men of the band gathered around him. Hardtack was issued for breakfast. Then the Indians were informed that they would be disarmed. They stacked their guns in the center, but the soldiers were not satisfied. The soldiers went through the tents, bringing out bundles and tearing them open, throwing knives, axes, and tent stakes into the pile. Then they ordered searches of the individual warriors. The Indians became very angry but only one spoke out, the medicine man, Yellow Bird. He danced a few steps of the Ghost Dance and chanted in Sioux, telling the Indians that the bullets would not hurt them, they would go right by.

The search found only two rifles, one brand new, belonging to a young man named Black Coyote. He raised it over his head and cried out that he had spent much money for the rifle and that it belonged to him. Black Coyote was deaf and therefore did not respond promptly to the demands of the soldiers. He would have been convinced to put it down by the Sioux, but that option was not possible. He was grabbed by the soldiers and spun around. Then a shot was heard; its source is not clear but it began the killing. The only arms the Indians had were what they could grab from the pile. When the Hotchkiss guns opened up, shrapnel shredded the lodges, killing men, women and children, indiscriminately. They tried to run but were shot down "like buffalo," women and children alike.

When the mass insanity of the soldiers ended, 153 dead were counted, including Big Foot; but many of the wounded had crawled off to die alone. One estimate place the final death toll at 350 Indian men, women and children. Twenty-five soldiers died and 39 were wounded, most by their own shrapnel and bullets

http://www.hanksville.org/daniel/lakota/Wounded_Knee.html

Another school shooting: California sheriff: Youth who shot classmate felt he'd been bullied - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/california-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1)

yeah well we know what happens when people are disarmed. What ? You forgot Wounded Knee ?

Why were they disarmed Tom? Because they used the gun for its intended purpose? You weren't prepared to allow the native peoples the right to defend themselves against your aggression. But you can be trusted with a gun? Double standard!

yeah well we know what happens when people are disarmed. What ? You forgot Wounded Knee ?


The Massacre at Wounded Knee (http://www.hanksville.org/daniel/lakota/Wounded_Knee.html)

Tom, this is the 21 st century.There is no government or army to fight. All you will do is end up fighting a significant number of the population.

No matter how tyrannical a government becomes in this day and age there will always be a significant proportion of the population that will support the government. It is usually referred to as a civil war.

Fine... if they want to change the constitution ,then I'm for that debate. But Emperor Zero's flunky Biden is talking about executive orders .

fine ... if they want to change the constitution ,then I'm for that debate. But Emperor Zero's flunky Biden is talking about executive orders .

What do you mean by changing the Constitution?

I mean that there is a procedure written into the Constitution for amending it. If the 2nd amendment is obsolete then the Constitution should be changed .(Article 5 )

But you know and I know that won't happen because the people do not want to be disarmed .

Hello again, TUT:


It is usually referred to as a civil war.And, it's one the right wing bonkers apparently thinks it can win.? When confronted with the military REALITY that an assault rifle is no match for an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns, they want to talk about Indians...

The GOOD news is the country is seeing, maybe for the first time, how BONKERS their opposition really is..

Excon

I mean that there is a procedure written into the Constitution for amending it. If the 2nd amendment is obsolete then the Constitution should be changed .(Article 5 )

But you know and I know that won't happen because the people do not want to be disarmed .

Of course they don't. The struggle with arms is a dominant part of your ethos.

Lol if it came to a Civil War ,do you really think the military will march in goose step to Emperor Zero's edicts ?

Emperor ZeroWho is that?

Hello again, TUT:

And, it's one the right wing bonkers apparently thinks it can win. ??? When confronted with the military REALITY that an assault rifle is no match for an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns, they wanna talk about Indians...

The GOOD news is the country is seeing, maybe for the first time, how BONKERS their opposition really is..

excon


There are no winners in a civil war.


Tut

When confronted with the military REALITY that an assault rifle is no match for an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns, they want to talk about Indians...

Yeah you're right.. and you have no problem with the government gunning down the Weaver family or storming and killing men women and children in Waco .

lol if it came to a Civil War ,do you really think the military will march in goose step to Emperor Zero's edicts ?

Some would, some wouldn't. This is what history has shown us happens in modern times. You think you can buck the trend?

It's all a hypothetical exercise . The point of gun ownership is self defense ,and it is frankly irrelevant if the government is better armed. That didn't stop the colonists from defeating the best army of their era . Clete likes to point out how the best military of our day is getting whooped by tribesmen in AfPakia.

storming and killing men women and children in WacoYou try shooting at cops investigating allegations of sexual abuse and illegal weapons, see where that rightfully gets you.

Hello again,


But you know and I know that won't happen because the people do not want to be disarmed .
lol if it came to a Civil War ,do you really think the military will march in goose step to Emperor Zero's edicts ?Couple things...

I don't know WHY, but the bonkers right wing thinks somebody is talking about DISARMING the American people... I don't know ANYBODY who's doing that... Not ONE person... So, they want to fight fights, that aren't even fights... If that's not bonkers, what is??

Ok, HERE'S what's MORE bonkers.. They believe... They ACTUALLY believe that the US Army will defect to THEIR side, in the war they want to start.

Bonkers, bonkers, and even MORE bonkers...

Excon

You try shooting at cops investigating allegations of sexual abuse and illegal weapons, see where that rightfully gets you.

Yeah it was Janet Reno's finest hour. They wasted 25 children to save them from allegations of sexual abuse. Good job!

Hello again, tom:


and you have no problem with the government gunning down the Weaver family or storming and killing men women and children in WacoGetting desperate over there??

In order to deflect from your BONKERISM, you accuse ME of being a lover of government, which is the MOST bonkers thing you've said this morning...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Excon

They wasted 25 children It was a cult led by a crazy person, it almost doesn't surprise me that they snuffed out the children's lives. Sad all 'round.
Best to take the cults to place like Guyana where no one will bug you if you want to snuff out 909 lives.

Hello again, tom:


The point of gun ownership is self defense ,and it is frankly irrelevant if the government is better armed.Like I said, you actually think you can win...

BONKERS, BONKERS, BONKERS...

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Like I said, you actually think you can win...

BONKERS, BONKERS, BONKERS...

excon


I think he is actually saying that the militia part is hypothetical. Not sure where he wants to put the comma now.

It was a cult led by a crazy person, it almost doesn't surprise me that they snuffed out the children's lives. Sad all 'round.
Best to take the cults to place like Guyana where no one will bug you if you want to snuff out 909 lives.

It was Clintoon being a strong arm tyrant. They had absolutely no proof of any child abuse. You call them a cult .I call them a religious community . Either way 76 people were massacred by the Clintonistas. But the sheeple should give up their arms.

Hello again, tom:


But the sheeple should give up their arms.So, I'm out of here. I won't indulge your fantasy any more. Contact me when you land back on earth...

Excon

C you

You call them a cult .I call them a religious community .

I realize you view their actions as very religious-like but many of us do not see it that way.



In 1959, Florence Houteff (widow of founder Victor Houteff) announced that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was about to take place, and members were told to gather at the center to await this event. Many built houses, others stayed in tents, trucks or buses, and most sold their possessions.

Following the failure of this prophecy, control of Mount Carmel Center fell to Benjamin Roden, and, on his death, to his wife, Lois. Lois Roden considered their son, George, unfit to assume the position of prophet. Instead, she groomed Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh) as her chosen successor. In 1984, a meeting led to a division of the group with Howell leading one faction, calling themselves the Davidian Branch Davidians, with George Roden leading the competing faction. After this split, George Roden ran Howell and his followers off Mount Carmel. Howell and his group relocated to Palestine, Texas.

After the death of Lois and probate of Lois' estate in January 1987, Howell attempted to gain control of the Mount Carmel Center by force. George Roden had dug up the casket of one Anna Hughes from the Davidian cemetery and had challenged Howell to a resurrection contest to prove who was the rightful heir to the leadership. Howell instead went to the police and claimed Roden was guilty of corpse abuse.By October 31, 1987 the county prosecutors had refused to file charges without proof and so on November 3, 1987, Howell and seven armed companions attempted to access the Mount Carmel chapel with the goal of photographing the body in the casket. George Roden was advised of the interlopers and grabbed an Uzi in response. The Sheriff's Department responded about 20 minutes into the gunfight.
While waiting for the trial, George Roden was put in jail under contempt of court charges on March 21, 1988 because of his use of foul language in some court pleadings threatening the Texas court with AIDS and herpes if the court ruled in favor of Howell.

In mid-1989, a Davidian named Wayman Dale Adair visited George Roden to discuss Adair's vision of being God's chosen messiah. Roden then killed Adair with an axe.

On August 5, 1989, Howell released the "new light" audiotape in which he stated he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only he could have sexual relations with the wives.

Regardless of their beliefs ,they did not deserve to have our military assault them . Where were they going ? Clintoon wanted to show how tough he was and that is the real reason for the assault that killed as many children as the recent Connecticut shooting .

regardless of their beliefs It wasn't their beliefs, it was their actions. I believe your country has certain laws that must be followed. Or is that dependent of the group we are discussing?

Again there was not a shred of evidence to justify their massacre. Almost 80 people killed to be served a warrant ? Give me a break. They patiently wait out hostage situations to save a single life . But over 20 children they rush in with tanks like a bull in a china shop. Nahh ,no tyranny there!

Like I said earlier, the next time the cops come over to serve you a warrant shoot back at them with all you got and see what happens.

Another school shooting: California sheriff: Youth who shot classmate felt he'd been bullied - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/california-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1)

Deal with the bullying.

Hello again,

Couple things...

I dunno WHY, but the bonkers right wing thinks somebody is talking about DISARMING the American people... I don't know ANYBODY who's doing that... Not ONE person... So, they wanna fight fights, that aren't even fights... If that's not bonkers, what is???

Ok, HERE'S what's MORE bonkers.. They believe... They ACTUALLY believe that the US Army will defect to THEIR side, in the war they wanna start.

Bonkers, bonkers, and even MORE bonkers...

excon

So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for? This ain't Syria.

I really find it hard to believe you blame Clintons ego on a massacre that could have been avoided by submitting to lawful due process by the religious community I call a whacked out cult.

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest in his case and the fool dragged his people down with him.


So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for? This ain't Syria.

Do you really see armed rebellion against the government as a possibility to justify having machime guns in America?

Do you really see armed rebellion against the government as a possibility to justify having machime guns in America?
The military is made up of our sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers. Would they choose to obey a dictator and thereby deny their families?

The colonists were fighting strangers.

It's all a hypothetical exercise . The point of gun ownership is self defense ,and it is frankly irrelevent if the government is better armed. That didn't stop the colonists from defeating the best army of their era . Clete likes to point out how the best military of our day is getting whooped by tribesmen in AfPakia.

You want to use your inability to deal with a native population as an excuse as to why your population should be armed. The lesson in Afghanistan is an armed population is a lawless population and the same is obviously true in your own nation. In any case Afghanistan is a problem of your own making and so is the problem you face at home. In Afghanistan you are dealing with a people who once conquered Iran, they might do it again for you if you made friends with them

You keep saying gun ownership is for self defense but you wouldn't need the guns if there weren't so many of them. Populations all over the world live peacefully without an armed populous

I really find it hard to believe you blame Clintons ego on a massacre that could have been avoided by submitting to lawful due process by the religious community I call a whacked out cult.

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest in his case and the fool dragged his people down with him.

He may have been a wacko but he offered to talk let the ATF inspector in to inspect his weapons and the inspector wouldn't even talk to him. Even the sheriff told them to go talk to them. The vast majority of "evidence" was based on hearsay. The siege was totally unnecessary and we got to watch the federal government massacre those people live on CNN.


Do you really see armed rebellion against the government as a possibility to justify having machime guns in America?

Do you really not understand our rights?

Good for them.I

Good for them. I assure you there is room for reasonable regulation that doesn't go as far as the extreme position that guns should be banned. How about universal registration without exception? Or deal with the real issue... the over prescribing of psychotropic drugs?

Good for them.I

Or deal with the real issue.......the over prescribing of psychotropic drugs?

Yes well we have all thought you were all on drugs for a long time, so a new thought, any person who is prescribed a certain class of drugs is a not allowed to own or possess weapons. This would mean doctors prescribing these drugs would need to report to the police and the police would need to search and seize. Don't know how that fits with your constitution which is short on such detail since your founding fathers didn't need anything more that the odd pipe.

As to doctors prescribing drugs you could ban that

Do you really not understand how the laws work? When the government, state, local, or federal tells you they have a warrant, you obey it and negotiate in court. Not hole up in your domicile and negotiate.

There is no need to defend your rights with a gun or subtrefuge, or active ARMED resistance. He had no right to have a stand off with the LAW, or endanger his flock with his defense of his so called rights.

That's absolute paranoid INSANITY.