OK all the gun advocates on this forum.. I am giving you some homework..

Step One THINK before you respond with all your NRA BS

How would YOU have prevented the shooters listed in the following link from getting guns which they used to kill innocent people that could have been YOUR kids or sibs


We need thoughtful answers not the same BS that I hear from the NRA about how guns do not kill people.

THINK before you respond.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

We have a problem that is quickly getting worse and need good minds to change this tide...


Chris

Wow Chris you're really reaching here...First thing - I would have Lanza not murder his mother ,then steal her guns and commit a heinous act, second the FBI should be accountable for messing up THE FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK we have to go through when we purchase firearms and allowed Roof to purchase a firearm , same with Freiberg the feds can't even get their own law done right so lets make more laws ! Hasan was military , and a Muslim and I'll say no more about that.
So that leaves how many out of that story ? Now figure how many legal firearms owners in this country and give me a percentage. I'll take those odds. Not one of my Glocks is to blame for any of these tragedies. If you want to validate your argument do this - the next time someone dies in a car accident lets petition the govt to get rid of cars. Or a plane disappears ,lets get rid of those too because people die then too.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How to stop bad people with guns..http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/?utm_source=LNL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

religious extremesum ....hatred for what this country was founded on....

which was freedom to choose your own religion and live accordingly....

shall not be changed....

OK all the gun advocates on this forum.. I am giving you some homework..

Step One THINK before you respond with all your NRA BS

How would YOU have prevented the shooters listed in the following link from getting guns which they used to kill innocent people that could have been YOUR kids or sibs


We need thoughtful answers not the same BS that I hear from the NRA about how guns do not kill people.

THINK before you respond.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

We have a problem that is quickly getting worse and need good minds to change this tide...


Chris

probably not the best way to start a meaningful conversation between "good minds"

but..

why don't you first explain how would YOU have prevented the shooters listed since you've given it some thought...and you've labeled them "shooters"...can we call them people with a propensity toward violence?...while they may have shot their victims, taking their guns away would not change the fact that they were angry and/or deranged and plotted to act out...can we assume they would have done so at some point everything else being equal .. whether or not they could get their hands on a gun?

Do you have to be a gun owner to answer this? Then I am out. ;)

Opinion: make all the laws you want, you will NEVER stop this type of rampage!! Ramping down the news media/hype might be a place to start, take away their post-mortem days of fame that stimulates others in their wacky minds :)

I don't own a gun...starting to rethink it though

I don't own a gun...starting to rethink it though

Wait till the twins are in high school.

I see you cleaning a shotgun on the kitchen table on prom night :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is an impossible task that you ask. There isn't one simple solution, if there even is one. Someone who is hell bent on doing something as outrageous as these people have done, will find a way to make their mark in history. More laws may make you feel better but will have no effect on the problems of these individuals or society as a whole.

There is a reason the 2nd amendment is only second to free speech. We keep whittling away at our constitutional rights seeking some utopia but there is none and never will be.

Fear mongers on both sides make their arguments for or against firearms, They can argue all they want, I will keep mine. They have harmed no one and are another tool in my chest that has multiple uses.

I have a pretty extensive tool chest. I have carpentry tools, electric tools, masonry tools, tile work tools, hunting tools, fishing tools, the list goes on. I have used them all to provide for my family. I haven't figured out how to get them to do anything on there own. They need to be put into action by someone.

The firearm is a tool, that can be enjoyable as well as useful but as with all tools used incorrectly can be very dangerous.

I guess my point is that the problems are much bigger than a piece of metal. The answer is most definitely not more laws.

Respectfully,

Vic

someone could have done as much damage with swords too

Realistically, as an individual, the only thing that I could do to have effect on said situations is to exercise my right to concealed carry of a firearm on a more regular basis. My job and dress does not make it comfortable for me to conceal. I would prefer open carry, so that we don't have "gun free zones" such as schools and college campuses. Why give the mental sickos free range to shoot without being challenged for any amount of time. I would also benefit from open carry in certain neighborhoods I have (infrequently) traveled. Lot of guns there in the hands of punks, gang members, and drug dealers. I would just assume let them see mine, and hope those criminals just intimidate and shoot one another, not innocents.




Not to be ignored is the amount of TV and movie scripts that are based on violence, killing, rape, etc.... It continues to be invested in to make more and more extreme films with these sick themes. Why? Because it sells. It makes money. Another clear sign of the dumbing of America.

Pipe bombs could always make a comeback.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't make laws to rule/control the 0.001% (and I removed 2 zeros)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has to be done is to stop blaming guns. What makes people go crazy in the first place?? Fix the root of the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has to be done is to stop blaming guns. What makes people go crazy in the first place?? Fix the root of the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Winner !!!! But it doesn't fit the agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In addition the initial background check for gun ownership there should be followup background checks for example other year and when there is an arrest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blondeterror....R U a gun owner?
What does the A R stand for on the riffle?
Can everybody pocess an automatic weapon?
Can cops protect U?
.................................................. .................................
First I do not belong to the NRA.....I have Mass. pistol permit, large capacity,fire power

they all had some sort of mental issues except maj. hassan(terriost)...well U can say he was mental too(brain washed)

The federal government messed up on checking the people out....per usual the government can not function properly ....every state has different gun rules on purchasing a weapon....maybe the Mass gun law should B adopted by every state even tho not perfect....

There is a federal law on the books that prohibit people that can not function needs others to do things for them.

1st take away gun permits for anyone on xanax or any other depression drug being treated for depression.

We do not need more gun laws....your president can not solve illegal gun crimes in his city of chicago where 12 people were killed by illegal guns including an 11 year old including 13 wounded last week....Y has your president not politicised that????

I forgot one group....should take away all guns from democratic liberals....they R the most dangeous.....LOL...:)

Lets talk about this ars backwards.
When a sicko is dead there is no need to glorify him with picture and name of fame. Why promote? Thanks news media
thanks Mr President for glorification and getting attention away from the Mideast.
I'm a gun owner and believe in background checks

Lets talk about this ars backwards.
When a sicko is dead there is no need to glorify him with picture and name of fame. Why promote? Thanks news media
thanks Mr President for glorification and getting attention away from the Mideast.
I'm a gun owner and believe in background checks

Failed middle East policy, Hillary commits treason ..on and on..but lets focus on firearms. Move along, nothing to see here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Failed middle East policy, Hillary commits treason ..on and on..but lets focus on firearms. Move along, nothing to see here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazziiiiiiiii !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Failed middle East policy, Hillary commits treason ..on and on..but lets focus on firearms. Move along, nothing to see here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yea, with 30,000+ gun deaths per year it certainly isn't deserving of a policy discussion. Perhaps the real reason to kill the debate is when you look at the statistics it doesn't look very good for the NRA.

30,000 +??? Wow , not even close. Let's just agree you can shelter in place and be afraid of whatever you choose to fabricate. I'll just stick to facts and what I like doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, with 30,000+ gun deaths per year it certainly isn't deserving of a policy discussion. Perhaps the real reason to kill the debate is when you look at the statistics it doesn't look very good for the NRA.

I assume you are counting those killed by guns engaged in conflict on the battlefields around the globe?

I assume you are counting those killed by guns engaged in conflict on the battlefields around the globe?
Nope, just the good old USA.

Nope, just the good old USA.

murika!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, with 30,000+ gun deaths per year it certainly isn't deserving of a policy discussion. Perhaps the real reason to kill the debate is when you look at the statistics it doesn't look very good for the NRA.

In 2013, the number you refer to included more than 21000 suicides by firearm. Do you really feel that 2/3 of your number should be included without footnote?

They don't work that way Ross. All totalled the 2013 suicides were 41,149. Of those 10,062 were suffocation related and 6,637 were poison related. I wonder why they don't include heroine overdoses as suicides..another 10,000+ deaths were DUI related. Where's the push to ban cars or booze? Those are just 2013 stats. Now why was the suicide rate so high ? People were obviously bothered and felt there was no way out. But they choose to blame the inanimate object again to suit their needs. They thrive on skewed stats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2013, the number you refer to included more than 21000 suicides by firearm. Do you really feel that 2/3 of your number should be included without footnote?
What does it matter? You have the exact same issues around firearm regulations, waiting periods, mental health etc... that you do with many other firearm related deaths.

But they choose to blame the inanimate object again to suit their needs. They thrive on skewed stats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Please tell me about these stats.

What does it matter? You have the exact same issues around firearm regulations, waiting periods, mental health etc... that you do with many other firearm related deaths.

Are you serious? Two thirds are accounted to people who choose to end their own life. If not a gun it would have been a knife, pills, whatever. And the issues, while some might overlap in regards to mental health, are not akin to the mass shootings recognized by the OP. Nor did the POTUS mention suicides in his discussion.To lump suicides in with violent crimes is stacking the deck unfairly without disclosing to what they include. That is skewed.

Please tell me about these stats.

Please tell me why 41,000 people deemed their lives hopeless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Andy, from Wikipedia...... (my disclaimer for source of defending hard numbers as opposed to throwing them out, as some here are prone to do)


Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

Are you serious? Two thirds are accounted to people who choose to end their own life. If not a gun it would have been a knife, pills, whatever. And the issues, while some might overlap in regards to mental health, are not akin to the mass shootings recognized by the OP. Nor did the POTUS mention suicides in his discussion.To lump suicides in with violent crimes is stacking the deck unfairly without disclosing to what they include. That is skewed.
Nice, so "some" suicides might overlap with mental health issues. Wow.

A lot of people trying to commit suicide don't succeed, but I'd wager most with guns do.

I never attributed the 30k number to person on person crime. It's simply the volume of people killed by guns...the context for the remark was tyd claiming insignificance...

I saw that Ross, I'd just like to know why 41K+ decided to end their own lives,not the devices they used to do so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's simply the volume of people killed by guns...the context for the remark was tyd claiming insignificance...
The correct sentence structure is " it's simply the volume of people who have died by use of a gun".

Guns don't kill people. People kill other people with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not playing nice here. Some would be the correct word.

Guns are most effective as a deterrent. I would wager that thousands of suicide attempts are aborted after taking a good look down the barrel of a loaded gun..... Deterrent, as a case for open carry laws.....

They don't work that way Ross. All totalled the 2013 suicides were 41,149. Of those 10,062 were suffocation related and 6,637 were poison related. I wonder why they don't include heroine overdoses as suicides..another 10,000+ deaths were DUI related. Where's the push to ban cars or booze? Those are just 2013 stats. Now why was the suicide rate so high ? People were obviously bothered and felt there was no way out. But they choose to blame the inanimate object again to suit their needs. They thrive on skewed stats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
How many DUI related deaths were intentional?

How often has a car been intentionally used as a weapon at all?

Do cars have other uses beyond killing people?

A gun at rest is an inanimate object, when a person is pulling the trigger...as you well know...is quite active.

How many DUI related deaths were intentional?

How often has a car been intentionally used as a weapon at all?

Do cars have other uses beyond killing people?

A gun at rest is an inanimate object, when a person is pulling the trigger...as you well know...is quite active.

The end result is the same. Other uses ? Ty and I went to the range today shot 700 rounds from killy Glocks, not one person was injured.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of the 32,719 motor vehicle deaths in 2013 10k were DUI related,the other 22k happened because a person got in the vehicle and operated it...clearly it isn't the cars fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The end result is the same. Other uses ? Ty and I went to the range today shot 700 rounds from killy Glocks, not one person was injured.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, at least with your non sequitur I can't accuse you of skewing statistics.

Spence, your debate tactic, again, dissolves into questions that add nothing to subject, yet turn the discussion toward impasse with little to be accomplished. You are as polished as our elected politicians that work so effectively for the common good.......

Of the 32,719 motor vehicle deaths in 2013 10k were DUI related,the other 22k happened because a person got in the vehicle and operated it...clearly it isn't the cars fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ok, by that logic how many of the 30k gun deaths are year were accidents? Hint, it's posted above.

The correct sentence structure is " it's simply the volume of people who have died by use of a gun".

Guns don't kill people. People kill other people with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're splitting hairs...it's not relevant to the point at hand.

...clearly it isn't the cars fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


To be fair.... there were some GMs and Toyotas that would fit that bill.....

Ok, by that logic how many of the 30k gun deaths are year were accidents? Hint, it's posted above.

And again. How many would happen if the person didn't initiate it? Your argument is deflated, if guns kill people so do cars,busses,airplanes ,hammers, bats etc..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To be fair.... there were some GMs and Toyotas that would fit that bill.....

Lol...ban them too!!! It's for the children !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're splitting hairs...it's not relevant to the point at hand.

It certainly is relevant. Just as a person could commit suicide by dropping a hair dryer in a bath tub, they could use a gun. The shooter in Oregon could have made a bunch of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails instead of using a gun.
Guns are not the problem. It is the American way of life that is the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice little discussion you have here

since the ball is in gun owners court I'll have to ask, when will non gun owners admit that a gun is a tool?

I don't have any NRA BS , so I won't respond with any

I would have prevented the shooters from getting guns first by voting and electing a government that passed laws with common sense and did not knee jerk react to tragedies, second - the more armed citizens, the better. I'd rather be able to protect myself and my family than have Hajji cut my head off, my brother prevented eminent harm to himself by being armed once and I am glad he had his license to carry because I certainly would not have liked to have been one of 6 carrying him a few days later.

The way the problem is getting worse is, because we have a president who chose to politicize the latest. I think the media should not even name the shooters in these instances, glorifying them makes matters worse and causes myself to consider carrying some protection. There are lots of weirdos out there and I for one do not intend to be a victim.

I hope that answers it.

and I hope anti gun people can admit that a gun is a tool.

Yea, with 30,000+ gun deaths per year it certainly isn't deserving of a policy discussion. Perhaps the real reason to kill the debate is when you look at the statistics it doesn't look very good for the NRA.



30,000 and 95+ % of those are gang bangers

the next time someone dies in a car accident lets petition the govt to get rid of cars.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Those 2 statements weren't together in your post.

comparing guns and cars is frequently brought up by gun rights advocates but actually undermines their argument. In my view, we need to treat guns more like cars and if that were done, I think there would be less talking about banning guns.

We require training, licensing and registering of cars (&drivers licenses), seatbelts, airbags, collision avoidance devices, insurance, etc. and as a result deaths by car has decreased tremendously and continues to go down. We have both public and private groups who study ways to make cars safer. Things that congress use to do such as name the gun stores who sold the most guns used in crimes are now prohibited from being done ( by congress. The stores actually changed their sales practices and their sales weren't linked to as much crime). Research dealing with guns has been blocked by the gun lobby.

The majority of gun owners are agreeable to back ground checks, tighter regulations of gun dealers, requirements that guns be stored safely in homes and a 10 year prohibition of owning guns if convicted of violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got a lot of that from an article by Nicholas Kristof that I just read prior to logging on.

Since 1970 there have been more deaths by guns than in all of our wars. 1.4 million deaths. 60% of those where by suicide. Studies have shown that if a gun was not available, many of those would have been avoided (other studies have shown if you prevent someone from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge those people don't try again).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I posted this to spur discussion because I thought the frequency of these incidents was disturbing most people in the US. We are the outliers in the world when it comes to these incidents and we have more guns in peoples hands than other countries.

Yes .. there is always room for improvement on applying the current Laws. Get the NRA to focus on its roots... gun safety and training... not a lobby arm for the Gun industry. You guys are all drinking the kool aid of the gun mfg lobbists not the real sportman that started the NRA.


If you cannot get on board to make it more difficult to procure guns than you have serious blinders on. Even the recent Oregon killer's Dad said he was very surprised that his son was able to get all those firearms legally.

More guns are directly proportional to more deaths no matter whose math you use. Even people who lock their guns in home safes occasionally forget to lock them or just the presence of guns in the house causes activity that leads to violence... this evidence is also well documented.

The current trajectory of violence in the US is the issue.... and more guns is NOT the answer.

I for one would propose that all personal handguns should be stored at Sportsman firing ranges where they are used. Automatic weapons are for military use only and have no business to be sold to civilians.

Stored at clubs ? Sure let's have every criminal keep theirs there too. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stored at clubs ? Sure let's have every criminal keep theirs there too. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

makes perfect sense.....I've always said...the best way to prevent violent gun crime is to lock up the hand guns of law abiding gun owners at shooting ranges...problem solved :heybaby:

also read this today...not sure how accurate but from a pretty reliable writer

"A fully automatic weapon legally owned by a civilian has not been used in a murder in modern history. Those .50-caliber rifles that California was so obsessed about a few years back have, so far as the statistics show, never been used in a murder in that state, though one — one — was among the weapons used in a 1995 murder in Colorado. Ordinary criminals use ordinary guns."

I for one would propose that all personal handguns should be stored at Sportsman firing ranges where they are used. Automatic weapons are for military use only and have no business to be sold to civilians.

criminals would love that Chris :hs: not happening but I see the point
better background checks would surely help
I am not opposed to making it harder for unfit persons to obtain a gun.

this country has a social problem
education can only go so far
where is the moral compass?
the media whores need to take some accountability here

Andy... you sure have all the answers. I do not believe anything claim...

here is more accurate info on suicides by guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I asked you guys to think and all you do is spout forth the same BS what are your original thoughts to stop the problem.. why not better gun control

At what point do we blame the people for their own actions? Not one response yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Andy... you sure have all the answers. I do not believe anything claim...

here is more accurate info on suicides by guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I asked you guys to think and all you do is spout forth the same BS what are your original thoughts to stop the problem.. why not better gun control

The problem is people Chris. Everyone wants to blame something , they should look in the mirror. Funny thing is from my side you're "spouting the the same BS".. I'll openly invite any member here to come along to the range. I'll supply the fun and training . I'd be happy to show anyone how much fun it can be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Andy... you sure have all the answers. I do not believe anything claim...

here is more accurate info on suicides by guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I asked you guys to think and all you do is spout forth the same BS what are your original thoughts to stop the problem.. why not better gun control

what are your original thoughts?

define better gun control...

your solution is to lock the guns of law abiding citizens in a shooting range....how will that reduce gun crime in Chicago?

Chris,
Would you consider going through the process of getting a license to carry and purchase of a handgun to see what we have already gone through here in Mass? It is not perfect, but they don't hand them out, and I would expect you would be surprised to see how much time it takes to do it all legally. Mass. Ct, NY, and NJ are among the most regulated states in this area.

I'll end with this tonight...in this bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy world we live in I seriously hope no one is ever in a situation where they wished someone with a firearm was there, some people choose to call and hope someone with a gun gets there in time. Others choose not to have to but either way its your choice. My choice is not yours to change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Andy... you sure have all the answers. I do not believe anything claim...

here is more accurate info on suicides by guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I asked you guys to think and all you do is spout forth the same BS what are your original thoughts to stop the problem.. why not better gun control


is this now a suicide issue? if you think reducing or restricting guns will solve suicides there is no evidence of this elsewhere...Japan has twice the suicide rate as the US and guns are scarce there and where they enjoy the lowest gun homicide rate in the world....South Korea has gun-control laws so strict almost all guns are illegal; the few available hunting rifles must be “stored at police stations” when not in use. Handguns are practically non-existent and “advertising guns or ammunition is banned.” But while shooting incidents “are rare,” South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the developed world according to the World Health Organization.

many European nations(Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, and Austria) with stricter gun control have higher rates and we're on a par with other countries with strict gun control...Australia has seen a drop in suicides that some like to attribute to gun legislation but the drop was occurring for 10 years prior to the 1996 and non-firearm suicides spiked immediately after the buy back..the UK has seen an increase and is on a par with the US despite strict gun laws...someone who is determined to injure themselves or others will find a way...taking away a mode does not curb the intent

I'll end with this tonight...in this bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy world we live in I seriously hope no one is ever in a situation where they wished someone with a firearm was there, some people choose to call and hope someone with a gun gets there in time. Others choose not to have to but either way its your choice. My choice is not yours to change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Son it might be. One call to a psychologist to give you some head shrinking and he could seem you unfit to own fire arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/lets-set-the-record-straight-5-common-misconceptions-about-guns-mass-shootings/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

first and foremost i am a gun owner, have been most of my life. the thoughts i have concerning guns are my own - not influenced by nra or nobama and co.
my idea of gun control may be in line with some others here.
- tighter gun shop regs, and none of those walk in/walk out with a gun shows.
- must tighter background checks, including mental health and violence issues
-mandatory long jail time for possession of illegal guns- say 5-10 years
-longer jail time for use of illegal guns in criminal activity - say 10-20 years
-if guns are stolen or missing incident must be reported asap
-gun buyback programs in at risk areas for real $ not 50 -100 per, more like 500+ per that will get some peoples attention. the way our govt slings cash that would be minuscule.
- don't eff with the rights of law abiding gun owners. you may need one someday.

Andy, from Wikipedia...... (my disclaimer for source of defending hard numbers as opposed to throwing them out, as some here are prone to do)


Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

out of those 11,208 homicides.....how many of those were actually by the legal owner of the gun....that might be a place to start looking.

Son it might be. One call to a psychologist to give you some head shrinking and he could seem you unfit to own fire arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I understand, if only those who need it would go see one...me? I'm just perfect!!!:laughs:

Some good points here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Good points to you, not to others. We can find contradicting evidence to both sides of our opinions. My opinion is the NY Times is liberal bias trash.

Most of the issues related to the now "gun violence" have some relationship to mental health. How much of it is a result of illegal drugs which are in many cases someone looking for a way out of their own private hell. Good article pasted below.


Chris Harper Mercer, the man who killed nine people in Oregon yesterday, was almost certainly profoundly mentally ill. According to neighbors, Mercer isolated himself from others, communicated largely through the Internet and lived in the basement of his mother’s house in Torrance, California before moving to Oregon.

He was frequently seen wearing camouflage pants and combat boots. And he reportedly left a note at the scene of his rampage yesterday stating he had no girlfriend and no life and would be welcomed in Hell and embraced by the devil.

I certainly never examined Mr. Mercer, but these details, if true, may point to conditions like schizoid personality disorder, Asperberger’s syndrome or even schizophrenia, any of which can dramatically limit the ability to socialize and empathize with others, contribute to feelings of emptiness and isolation and spawn anything from intense depression to paranoid delusions.

Given the fact that Mercer lived for a time with his mother during his adult years, was noticed to be peculiar by neighbors and had acquaintances online, I would venture that more than one person knew he was not well.


If the president had a son like Chris Mercer, believe me, he would not be content to have his ill son live in a country where he could not procure firearms quite as easily. He would want his son’s disorder definitively diagnosed and definitively treated.

I do not know whether he ever got anything like comprehensive help, but it is hard to believe he could have, given what happened Thursday.

Violence of the kind perpetrated by Chris Mercer is always preventable through a combination of psychotherapy, proper medications and hospitalizations when needed.

Period. There is no exception.

But people like Chris Mercer keep falling through the cracks of our shattered, sorry excuse for a mental health care system. This is tragic and unnecessary, because outreach and screening systems could be put in place that would be neither prohibitively expensive, nor an impingement on anyone’s liberty.

One of the hurdles in the way of building a system to prevent killings like those that occurred in Oregon is that politicians like President Obama turn such tragedies into reprehensible calls for gun control, rather than proper calls to rebuild the mental health care system.

Somehow, the uncontrolled psychiatric symptoms of one man should justify, in the president’s mind, curtailing the liberties of all men.

If the president had a son like Chris Mercer, believe me, he would not be content to have his ill son live in a country where he could not procure firearms quite as easily. He would want his son’s disorder definitively diagnosed and definitively treated. That would be, after all, the humane thing and the right thing to do.

Instead, the president, through his utterly absurd public comments after this tragedy, argues for an America where men like Chris Mercer (of which there are many, many thousands who will never hurt a soul) are free to live lives of terrible desperation and suffering in the shadowy basements of suburban homes, lost in delusions and wandering the streets.

Fixing things, for real, is always harder than burying them, whether for convenience or to achieve political gain.

The president’s proposed solution to the rash of mass shootings plaguing our nation, which have been due almost exclusively to mental illness, would be no solution at all.



Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.

there are some good points made...and some that aren't. The problem is everybody has that All or Nothing mentality....the answer is in the middle.

Most of the issues related to the now "gun violence" have some relationship to mental health. .

..in a society where we drug youth as a substitute to discipline, drug the population as a substitute to coping with life and then force feed graphic violence etc. through every media outlet devaluing human life making death seem routine and often entertaining...not a wonder some flip out....turn on the TV...it's a relentless how-to in how to be a maniac...you reap what you sow ....sadly sometimes

This would be a simple way to implement proper gun control. Create an endorsement on drivers liscense system for gun ownership. To obtain this endorsement, you would have to take a gun safety class. The system is already in place as this would be like getting a motorcycle liscense.
Eliminate gun shows and sales should only happen in gun stores. Simply showing your liscense with the endorsement on it allows you to purchase what you want.

The beauty of this system is that the criminal background check, and your police record can be accessed by the DMV and thus would provide some form of screening.

A gun endorsement would expire every 2 years and would be renewed online by paying a few bucks that would be used to fund the system, much like how the fishing liscense works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In MA we already have to take a safety course prior to turning in an application for and FID/LTC.

In MA we already have to take a safety course prior to turning in an application for and FID/LTC.
Again for the cheap seats mass has the most stringent gun laws/ permit issue guidelines in the country
Steps are
1. Attain application for license to carry from police department in which you legally reside
2. Pay to take certified safety course in which u have to safely demonstrate how to handle and fire handgun. Then pass written exam
3. Pay to get passport pictures
4. Submit in writing detailed request and reason for license to carry along with non-refundable fee to local police department
That information is then processed by the ATF and FBI for criminal back ground check( Thats right, the FEDS do the backround check). Upon completion it is returned to the local police department. Then it is ultimarely solely at the descretion of the presiding police chief of the town you leaglly reside in. It is also at the descretion of the police chief weather u are approved for a class A high cApacity/ all lawful purposes permit or a target only permit or denied all together as has happened in many cases. I know that for years carver had a female cheif that outright would not issue any concealed LTCs at all what so ever despite many lawsuits. It was her legal option which she executed. (She is gone and residents are now able to attainnLtCs)
Also in mass there is no difference between purchasing a firearm weather at an established gun shop or at a gun show. Here in mass anytime a legal firearm sale is made the dealer needs to call the atf with all buyer and seller info right there on the spot and wait for approval from the federal ATF before transaction can be completed
Only loop hole in mass that is slowly being closed is private sale from one person to another.

It is tragic that incidents such as this are on the rise in other parts of the country

No amount of legislation will stop or curb those illegally possesing firearms from using them illegally becuase they already dont care about the laws anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also the NRA has no political representation/ clout in mass. Here we have an organization called G.O.A.L. - gun owners action league that supposedly fights for our rightsbas gun owners here in mass tho not really sure about what they actually accomplish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also the NRA has no political representation/ clout in mass. Here we have an organization called G.O.A.L. - gun owners action league that supposedly fights for our rightsbas gun owners here in mass tho not really sure about what they actually accomplish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps the answer is here?

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

MY god!!!!!

How about ban "gun free" zones and arm the damn campus police!!!Instant fix!!!

We can find billions of dollars to give illegals everything for free but we can't find a goddamn dime to have a cop or well trained security guard at a school to protect our children.

To the guy who started this thread:there's a reason why people like you get lost in a one stalk corn-maze.

MY god!!!!!

How about ban "gun free" zones and arm the damn campus police!!!Instant fix!!!

We can find billions of dollars to give illegals everything for free but we can't find a goddamn dime to have a cop or well trained security guard at a school to protect our children.

To the guy who started this thread:there's a reason why people like you get lost in a one stalk corn-maze.

Welcome back :hihi:

I certainly never examined Mr. Mercer, but these details, if true, may point to conditions like schizoid personality disorder, Asperberger’s syndrome or even schizophrenia, any of which can dramatically limit the ability to socialize and empathize with others, contribute to feelings of emptiness and isolation and spawn anything from intense depression to paranoid delusions.
It's Aspergers Syndrome. I really hope that was just a mistake by a tech writer or web admin...but this guy has a reputation as being a Fox News dope so who knows...

MY god!!!!!

How about ban "gun free" zones and arm the damn campus police!!!Instant fix!!!

We can find billions of dollars to give illegals everything for free but we can't find a goddamn dime to have a cop or well trained security guard at a school to protect our children.


Bravo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The type of discussion that I wanted to start in this thread is to get some quality input from gun owners like this guy... not the negative vitrole that I have seen in the posts above... get with the program guys.. take a look at this video... here is a gun owner who realized we have a problem and he makes sense.. things need to change and this guy makes perfect sense

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10206718620758282

Yes I realize MASS has some of the toughest gun laws in the land... we need national laws and this guys ideas make a lot more sense than what we have today...

Getting a gun for a young troubled man or woman should not be easy ... here is a tongue and cheek idea that questions the Right wing politicians who are in the NRA's pocket and who like they know best for Women's Reproductive rights...



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a post that making the rounds on social media:

After yet another horrific gun massacre in the United States, how to stop these incidences from occurring is still being vehemently debated. It seems our politicians can’t agree on ANY sort of solution, because one side of the debate is too worried about getting elected, or reelected, or being shunned by the NRA.

However, there is currently a Facebook post being circulated that offers a pretty great solution, and it also points out how horribly women are treated and how many hurdles they have to jump through to have control over their own body.

The post reads:


“Or, hey, how about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.



I makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

Not a gun owner (except for a bb rifle).
I believe in the 2nd amendment.

As for these shooters, rules and regulations regarding gun ownership only serve to restrict the ability of those that should be able to obtain them. It will not serve as a deterrent for any of these mental-defectives to prevent them from doing harm on a large scale. Background checks will not weed out those that haven't been diagnosed for or are hiding their sociopathic issues.

How could any background check find out if someone hasn't been diagnosed as manic-depressive or schizophrenic? Will they find out if he/she isn't taking their meds?

If things continue down the path they seem to be heading right now (no changes see to be on the horizon), it may be more prudent to let everyone that wants to have a gun have one. With this would be the added responsibility of the gun owners and added punishments that would result from abusing the right to own the gun.

Here's what doesn't add up: the main reason why these mass shootings are happening now more than ever is because guns are readily available.

Do you anti-gun guys believe this? So there is nothing else wrong with society that is causing this? Or is it those other wrongs just don't fit the anti agenda?

Tell me, are guns easier to get now than say, 30 years ago when these mass shootings never happened? And I'm not talking about reciprocity of licenses from state to state, background checks if anything, are required more now than ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's Aspergers Syndrome. I really hope that was just a mistake by a tech writer or web admin...but this guy has a reputation as being a Fox News dope so who knows...

this guy wrote the book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBsaqyKkjuU

[QUOTE=blondterror;1083493]Getting a gun for a young troubled man or woman should not be easy ... here is a tongue and cheek idea that questions the Right wing politicians who are in the NRA's pocket and who like they know best for Women's Reproductive rights...



-------------------------------------------------------------------------



moronic Facebook posts are not original ideas(sorry but that wasn't "tongue and cheek" it was dumb) ...here's a video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcWNFPSGVA

I like it because it reflects what we've seen here...when pressed for an original thought...the folks cackling..."do something, we need to do something" can't come up with much in terms of thoughts beyond insults and the oft repeated "BS" that they pretend not to like...Mark Halperin, a journalist, apparently can't put a coherent thought together when it's not on a script in front of him, and Mika?...well...not much there...there...the look on the faces of Dean and whoever is sitting behind him when they pan the camera is precious, pick your jaws up off the table boys...

.Cooke also has a nice article regarding Hillary's recent posturing on the issue

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/425112/print

Blame people, not guns. This is not negative vitrole. Shall not be infringed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this guy wrote the book
Not on Asperbergers.

Blame people, not guns. This is not negative vitrole. Shall not be infringed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just keep repeating that to yourself.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. You could say the exact same thing about cars. Yet the government has invested billions in making cars safer, making highways safer and creating more regulations to make drivers safer...and it's worked...dramatically.

Did you know that current law prohibits the Government (CDC) from scientific studies on firearms deaths? We used to do it, up until the NRA lobbied to kill the funding in 1996. There's an old saying in business "you can't fix what you don't measure."

The idea that we can't even study the root causes of gun related death is absurd. Hey, if more guns makes you safer the only way to know is through long-term research.

Ultimately you have to make guns harder to get as the gun proponent in the facebook video so clearly states. It has to be Federal so Jim can't keep reciting the same absurd talking point about Chicago. It has to be long term. There are things you can do to make guns safer and harder to steal. We have to take mental heath more seriously for sure and yes, this could mean having some people's rights infringed.

But none of this is going to happen until the NRA stops using it's deep pockets to bully politicians and whip gun advocates into a panicked frenzy of fear that the boogie man is going to destroy their freedoms.

My way of thinking is only a problem to people like you. The root cause of gun related death is people. Chicago is a prime example of what we have allowed society to become. Rahm should run for president, like we don't have enough of their trash already occupying the big office. But lets not look at the whole picture, keep on rationalizing to yourself that the low life drug dealing thugs out there are just poor victims being held back and if guns weren't illegally obtained they would all sit in a circle and share a coke and a smile together.

The idea that we can't even study the root causes of gun related death is absurd.

.

whose idea was this?...never hear of it

Hillary to the rescue....she is going to solve mass murders IF elected

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

Just keep repeating that to yourself.

There's a lot of repeating on both sides of this issue.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. You could say the exact same thing about cars. Yet the government has invested billions in making cars safer,

I would prefer that the auto companies spent the billions in making cars safer. If "the government" wants to point a gun at them and make them do stuff, just pass laws to make them do whatever it wants them to do. It's a free country--as in the government is free to do unto others.

making highways safer and creating more regulations to make drivers safer...and it's worked...dramatically.

Interstate highways are actually a constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. Didn't market competition always result in improved products over time even without government mandates, including better and safer cars? Oh, right . . . some things would never improve if the government didn't make it so. Hmmm . . . though highways and drivers and even cars have become safer, there are still more deaths and injuries because of them than because of guns. What is it, in the 30 thousands deaths per year now? Is that considered an acceptable number since the government has spent billions and made so many regulations? Maybe it'll have to spend more billions and make more regulations . . . for an even more dramatic results.

Did you know that current law prohibits the Government (CDC) from scientific studies on firearms deaths?

Right, only the government can make scientific studies.

We used to do it, up until the NRA lobbied to kill the funding in 1996. There's an old saying in business "you can't fix what you don't measure."

Wow . . . "business" actually has something (very little to nothing) to say in your discussion.

The idea that we can't even study the root causes of gun related death is absurd. Hey, if more guns makes you safer the only way to know is through long-term research.

Again . . . "we" the government must do the studying. Actually, studies re guns making you safer have been done by private sources and people showing that they do. Maybe the term was not long enough for you . . . or the government. I think the government prefers longer and longer terms since that costs more and more money. The government likes to spend money.

Ultimately you have to make guns harder to get as the gun proponent in the facebook video so clearly states.

Yes, and you ("the government?") have to make cars harder to get since they cause more deaths than guns. And make lots of other dangerous stuff like knives, hammers, various foods, and so on, harder to get. Maybe tax and regulate all that stuff more.

It has to be Federal so Jim can't keep reciting the same absurd talking point about Chicago.

Yes, it must be Federal! Local governments are obsolete. They just don't get it. They are too influenced by the people. Things, for better life and justice and freedom, should more properly be coerced by the superior wisdom of centralized bureaucrats.

It has to be long term. There are things you can do to make guns safer and harder to steal.

Yes, of course, long term . . . the longer and costlier the better. Forever, never ending, better regulations created, of course, by Federal regulatory agencies--the only true, correct and just arbiters and promulgators of actual "government."

We have to take mental heath more seriously for sure and yes, this could mean having some people's rights infringed.

Yes We (the Federal Government?) have to take it more seriously. After all, We The Government is best suited to eliminate those annoying differences among We The People which cause so many problems. Mental health should definitely be left in the hands of the Federal Government.

And, oh . . . by the way . . . yes "some" people's rights will be infringed. After all, that is the side effect of all the wonderful trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousand regulations made by the Federal Government . . . "some people's" in toto actually being "all" of the people's.

But none of this is going to happen until the NRA stops using it's deep pockets to bully politicians and whip gun advocates into a panicked frenzy of fear that the boogie man is going to destroy their freedoms.

Not the boogie man. The "government" with its even vastly deeper (seemingly unlimited) pockets and regulations used to bully us all into a panicked frenzy of fear over every "crisis" it invents or takes advantage of into living life the "government's" correct and safe way.

Just saw this somewhere else and the solution is brilliant!- "There has been a lot of talk lately about gun control and regulation (as often follows a tragedy involving firearms). The discussion is vague: "something needs to be done" or "guns need to be restricted", etc, but no one has real answers about how this happens. Then there is always the "guns don't kill, people do" argument on the other side. However, many are missing the point and the true underlying issue. The problem isn't as complex as "how many bullets can a magazine hold" (7, 10, 30?) or "what type of gun can people own" (handgun, bolt-action, shotgun, semi-auto?). The problem is that people are killing each other. We all need recognize that murder is the issue. We need to stand up and fight for common sense and force our government to make murder illegal once and for all."

I consider the rampage shooters as suicides. Perhaps the answer is have places where people can go and be treated and if they still want out give them a hot shot. Of course this would involve including family and friends having the chance to help and be held responsible for anyone they do not allow to leave this world.
Some people just want out so let them have a way that doesn't harm others.....unlike suicide by cops which impacts the officers and others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is from last year...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

If China had outlwed knives then this would not have happened right? Come on.....the problem is people, always has and always will be.
What happens when a nut job does something like this with a bow and bunch of arrows? Do we outlaw those too? Lots of irrational thinking going on. There is a problem with society that needs to be addressed. Someone said Root Cause and that is what it's all about. Why is there a need by an increasing number of whack jobs to do these types of things and what is the best way to address the ever increasing amount of sick people who want to do things like this?
There is soooo much more to this issue and a near cited argument is to to make something illegal.

Heroin is illegal...glad making it illeagl has helped fix that issue..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The saying is so cliche but so true. "When you make guns illegal, only the criminals will have them".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not to mention a crime perpetrated against a specific religious group

you have to ask yourself

where did this hatred originate from... ? as that is the root cause
the weapon used is obviously a concern when one victim was shot 34 times

We all need recognize that murder is the issue. We need to stand up and fight for common sense and force our government to make murder illegal once and for all."


we are very much closer to understanding the human brain as a whole
and in the not so far off future a psych exam will reveal homicidal
tendencies of certain individuals showing that they should not possess
weapons and any access to a relatives weapons as happened at sandy hook...

has to be especially restricted.

not to mention a crime perpetrated against a specific religious group

you have to ask yourself

where did this hatred originate from... ? as that is the root cause
the weapon used is obviously a concern when one victim was shot 34 times
If the online writing being attributed to his mother is real then I'd suggest that's a good place to start looking...

By the very definition, criminals do not follow laws. Just make killing people illegal... oh wait.

Want to help?, stop picking on law abiding citizens and petition for more money for mental health. (screenings, wellness, aid etc etc etc)

Mental health issues are the cause, plain and simple.

People die drinking, ban all booze... People die in cars ban all cars...

These rampaging incidents go back forever and some have happened with knives... CRIMINALS DONT GIVE AF ANY LAWS.... thats what makes them criminals.

These rampaging incidents go back forever and some have happened with knives... CRIMINALS DONT GIVE AF ANY LAWS.... thats what makes them criminals.
This is the most illogical thing I think I've read on this site…and that counts all Jim's posts...

What's illogical is putting this blood on the hands of all responsible gun owners, which is everyone here that owns a gun I'm sure! It's not "in our court" it should be in the court of mental health care, parents and families, and our useless liberal government that does virtually nothing about the tragic murders that happen in low-income communities ever single damn day, mostly by recidivist punks!

What's illogical is putting this blood on the hands of all responsible gun owners, which is everyone here that owns a gun I'm sure! It's not "in our court" it should be in the court of mental health care, parents and families, and our useless liberal government that does virtually nothing about the tragic murders that happen in low-income communities ever single damn day, mostly by recidivist punks!
I'd love to hear how all the responsible gun owners on the site have suffered so dearly under this repressive anti-gun government.

Anyone had their guns taken away?

I have had this discussion a million times now. If you made the gun laws the same nationally as what we have in mass( pretty strict) it still won't stop people from commiting mass murders. Taking away fire arms from law abiding gun owners will not solve anything.
For those that say

We need to have back ground checks- we do in nearly every state wether it be to get I firearm permit or go into a store and they call a local/ state agency that runs a check. Either way they are checked

Education. In most states in order to get a permit you need to take a class to get that permit.

Insurance-- what will having insurance solve with illegally obtain firearms? My cars insured, but mostly so it can be replaced or if I were to be in an accident to cover in jury's or damage to others. Is a deer gonna sue me for putting it in my freezer? Or the paper target for putting holes in it. I'm not sure what insuring my firearms will do for guns being brought in from outside the country and being sold illegally.

Banning gun free zones would be a huge start. And just as night fighter said how about open carry everywhere, better yet make gun laws and open carry as well as licenses being obtained federally instead of state to to state.

Hell make stricter laws for illegally obtained/ possession firearms, If being in possession illegally carried a life sentence that may get rid of a few illegally obtained firearms.

You will never stop crazy people from doing crazy #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'd like to be able to protect myself if I ever need to.

Let's also pass laws that all these crimes can not in any way make it to the media, every time these mass murders happen the story changes every minute, lots of stories being made up within a small story, then glorified to the crazies in the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the online writing being attributed to his mother is real then I'd suggest that's a good place to start looking...

yep exactly my point... his ideology was not of his own design

it was taught to him

same as the church assassin... both people drank the evil coolaide

I'd love to hear how all the responsible gun owners on the site have suffered so dearly under this repressive anti-gun government.

Anyone had their guns taken away?

Left to people with your views it would happen swiftly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the most illogical thing I think I've read on this site…and that counts all Jim's posts...

Spence, what gun law is being proposed by liberals, which would have prevented this killing? If gun laws are an effective tool in reducing violence, please explain all the gun violence where there are strict gun laws (like DC and Chicago, or New Haven and Hartford), and why there is almost zero gun crime in the city of Fargo, ND, where a huge percentage of the population own guns?

Have fun with that, and take your time, you will need it.

Just keep repeating that to yourself.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. You could say the exact same thing about cars. .

Again, if it's the gun and not the person, please explain the lack of gun violence in the Dakotas, despite astronomical rates of gun ownership.

Is it population density? Do you think that if you took all the people of the Dakotas, and squished them into a smaller space, they'd eventually start killing each other in huge numbers?

It's culture and values. The type people who live in the Dakotas embrace a culture that does not often lend itself to barbaric violence. That doesn't jive well with liberalism, but try making it wrong.

Let's react to what the facts actually are, not what one side desperately wants the facts to be.

Again, if it's the gun and not the person, please explain the lack of gun violence in the Dakotas, despite astronomical rates of gun ownership.

Is it population density? Do you think that if you took all the people of the Dakotas, and squished them into a smaller space, they'd eventually start killing each other in huge numbers?

It's culture and values. The type people who live in the Dakotas embrace a culture that does not often lend itself to barbaric violence. That doesn't jive well with liberalism, but try making it wrong.

Let's react to what the facts actually are, not what one side desperately wants the facts to be.
They don't use guns but they sure love their hate crimes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They don't use guns but they sure love their hate crimes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They" do? All of them?

Chicago now averages 50 shootings per weekend. Those aren't hate crimes but rather, are expressions of empathy for one another?

Again, instead of commending the people in the Dakotas for being able to live with on another despite guns being everywhere, our President insults them (bitter clingers), and so did you just now. You are both more concerned with attacking your political adversaries, than you are with solving this problem.

The solution is there, in the culture they embrace, which leads directly to the way they treat one another, and the way they behave. But we can't say that out loud, because most of them happen to be white and church-going. So we can't point to them and say, "this is how you are supposed to behave".

Whites who behave this way are bitter clingers and racists. Blacks who choose to behave this way are Uncle Toms who aren't really black, but a bunch of Fox News sellouts. A professor at UPenn said this week that Dr Ben Carson deserves the "coon of the year" award. All that liberal tolerance. Because if you genuinely care about others but happen to be conservative, you must still be portrayed as part of the problem.

Because religion promotes peace and love ! :rotfl:

Because religion promotes peace and love ! :rotfl:

The fact that you would deny that (in the case of most religions, certainly in the case of Christianity and Judaism), displays your ignorance and/or hatred.

Any huge group of people will have a few evil apples, I don't think there are any exceptions to that. But those evil people aren't inspired by anything that is taught as a cornerstone of their faith.

For example, there was obviously a huge problem with Catholics and pedophiles (more accurately, with Catholics and homosexual predators, but we aren't supposed to say that, either). But those crimes were not inspired by anything that's in the Catholic Catechism.

You don't have to be spiritual to be a good person. But it helps tip the scales in a good way. That's true. You can deny that and ridicule it, or ask if there is anything we can extrapolate from that. Go to a Catholic charity some time, and ask those people why they are volunteering there, instead of sitting home watching TV.

True Christians don't, by and large, shoot people for no good reason. Many of them will tell you that their faith is a big reason why they feel obligated to care about others, but you can't admit that, because it doesn't serve your political agenda.

If I had to constantly deny irrefutable empirical evidence in order to justify my beliefs, that would cause me to take a long, hard look at what I believe, and why. And where I get my information from.

Why does the Dakotas have one of the highest levels of hate crimes in the country ? What is the number 1 reason for murder in the world? What tool is used to control people for Political domination for thousands of years ??

Think hard now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yes. There are some good eggs out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Furthermore our friends in ISIS have the same thought process. "Everyone should just follow our ideas of religion... It will be so peaceful when that happens"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does the Dakotas have one of the highest levels of hate crimes in the country ? What is the number 1 reason for murder in the world? What tool is used to control people for Political domination for thousands of years ??

Think hard now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I googled that, and didn't see anything. Can you post a link to support your claim, so that I can read it?

Because it's pretty white, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that it's a popular place for racists. That's not he fault of the majority of good people who live there.

Now, I asked why the gun crime rate is so low there, even in places like Fargo, which is a city, not a rural area. Think hard now...

Furthermore our friends in ISIS have the same thought process. "Everyone should just follow our ideas of religion... It will be so peaceful when that happens"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's Islam. If you read my posts, I specifically mentioned Christianity and Judaism.

There was a time in this country, when most people went to Church. Now, far less people go to Church. Guess what also happened? Now, we have more divorce, infidelity, abortions, mass shootings, etc.

Nebe, why has there been a cultural decline in the US, and also a decline in religion?

Think hard now...

http://www.usa.com/south-dakota-state-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's been a decline because many people have probably realized that religion isn't really a free ticket to heaven. Children today learn far more early in life that there is no Easter bunny Santa Claus either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a #^&#^&#^&#^& but what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fact that you would deny that (in the case of most religions, certainly in the case of Christianity and Judaism), displays your ignorance and/or hatred.

Any huge group of people will have a few evil apples, I don't think there are any exceptions to that. But those evil people aren't inspired by anything that is taught as a cornerstone of their faith.

For example, there was obviously a huge problem with Catholics and pedophiles (more accurately, with Catholics and homosexual predators, but we aren't supposed to say that, either). But those crimes were not inspired by anything that's in the Catholic Catechism.

You don't have to be spiritual to be a good person. But it helps tip the scales in a good way. That's true. You can deny that and ridicule it, or ask if there is anything we can extrapolate from that. Go to a Catholic charity some time, and ask those people why they are volunteering there, instead of sitting home watching TV.

True Christians don't, by and large, shoot people for no good reason. Many of them will tell you that their faith is a big reason why they feel obligated to care about others, but you can't admit that, because it doesn't serve your political agenda.

If I had to constantly deny irrefutable empirical evidence in order to justify my beliefs, that would cause me to take a long, hard look at what I believe, and why. And where I get my information from.
Bingo.....Remember when John McCain, a former Democrat who switched parties and became Republican ran for president they said he was too old. Well Both Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are older than McCain was when he ran. I wonder when they are going to say they are too old to be president? Even Hillary if elected will become older than John McCain was while she is in office. What are the chances her age will become an issue if she becomes president and runs for a second term.
It seems to me they insulted John McCain but nobody cared.
It is obvious the party affiliation and it's agendas is all that matters to the Democraps.
That's one of the reasons I want Obamacare renamed properly to what it is Democare since it's the Democrats that made everyone purchase a product or face penalties. Renaming it Democare would remind everyone who caused their cost of living to increase...the Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a #^&#^&#^&#^& but what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Spot on, and if you don't happen to agree with their view your either racist or insensitive.

This is the most illogical thing I think I've read on this site…and that counts all Jim's posts...

If you really believe what you just said, then you are a lost cause for sure.

How is it illogical?

Do you think the existence of guns make some people into mass murderers?

http://www.usa.com/south-dakota-state-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know if you noticed on the link you posted, but Hate crimes have been going down in South Dakota and as of 2013 was actually below the national average.


....and FYI.....Fargo is in North Dakota

Don't know if you noticed on the link you posted, but Hate crimes have been going down in South Dakota and as of 2013 was actually below the national average.


....and FYI.....Fargo is in North Dakota

I did not notice that and good eye.

Here's North Dakota.
The hate crime index there is going up!
http://www.usa.com/north-dakota-state-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a #^&#^&#^&#^& but what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think that if you look at Progressives you will find this is exactly the case!! It is implemented through the Soft Tyranny of making people believe Merry Christmas and Illegal Alien are hate speech.

Don't know if you noticed on the link you posted, but Hate crimes have been going down in South Dakota and as of 2013 was actually below the national average.


....and FYI.....Fargo is in North Dakota

Yeah, he noticed it in 5 posts above this. And he tried to wash it away with a lame reason that has little, if anything to do with observable reality. He said:
"There's been a decline because many people have probably realized that religion isn't really a free ticket to heaven. Children today learn far more early in life that there is no Easter bunny Santa Claus either."

I don't know of any religion which provides a free ticket. Rather, you have to work, at least in most religions, for the ticket. Religion in name only doesn't cut it. And neither the Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus are Christian doctrines. They are cultural and commercial fictions used to promote little bits of happiness and lots of profitable transactions. Whatever relation they have to Christianity is a distant in name only. Even less than that.

On the other hand, if there were a religion that provides a free ticket to "heaven," Socialism would fit that bill. As well, to a great degree, would its little cousin Progressivism.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a #^&#^&#^&#^& but what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live, because you are doing great and certainly would never bother anyone.

But the gang bangers in Chicago? It's not appropriate to tell them to stop living like feral animals? It's not better to suggest a more productive culture to embrace?

But you nailed it, liberals are very reluctant to say those things. I don't want to offend anyone or be preachy, but I'm not wrong when I say those people need to change their values. And until they do, we will never be able to address the violence that ensues. Never.

Why does the Dakotas have one of the highest levels of hate crimes in the country ? What is the number 1 reason for murder in the world? What tool is used to control people for Political domination for thousands of years ??

Think hard now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do Michigan and D.C. have higher rates of hate crimes than North Dakota? And why is Connecticut included in the top ten states in highest rate of hate crimes? Is religion the reason? And those three states have some of the strictest gun control laws.

If the precursor to a hate crime is a bias against a group or belief, then your bias against religion could, if you were prone to criminal behavior, make you a potential hate criminal. Religion is one of the targets of hate criminals.

And when religion is used as a tool by tyrants for control of people rather than a way of life by those people, then it is the tyrant, not the religion that is to blame. Just as it is the killer, not the gun, who is to blame.

What is the number 1 reason for murder in the world? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In this country, religiously motivated murders amount to nothing, excluding Islamic jihadists. Two weekends in a row, there were 50+ shootings in Chicago. Religion had very little to do with it. The majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by people who have absolutely nothing in common with the Judeo-Christian principles upon which the country was founded. You think genuine Christians are committing a meaningful amount of street crime in this country, and that their religion is the motivation for doing so? I'd love to see evidence to support that.

How is it illogical?
If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?

If 50+% of gun deaths are non-assisted suicides, and there's no specific law prohibiting it, how are these people criminals?

And finally, what's a more effective weapon to inflict mass casualties, a knife or a gun?

It's moot now anyway, Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place :lama:

Do you think the existence of guns make some people into mass murderers?
On their own no, but look at this most recent shooting and it's looking quite likely that the family attitude toward guns was a factor.

If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?

If 50+% of gun deaths are non-assisted suicides, and there's no specific law prohibiting it, how are these people criminals?

And finally, what's a more effective weapon to inflict mass casualties, a knife or a gun?

It's moot now anyway, Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place :lama:


On their own no, but look at this most recent shooting and it's looking quite likely that the family attitude toward guns was a factor.

"Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place "

Can you be specific? Some folks here seem to think that tighter gun restrictipons will reduce gun violence. I said that the statistics of gun crime and gun ownership seem to contradict that, especially when you compare places like DC/Chicago to the Dakotas. My claim is that people who live in the Dakotas are proof that you can have lots of guns and very little gun crime. Why is that not a valid thing for me to say? Population density?

As always pal, it's very easy to lob an insult and run away.

Jim ,you should know by know that if you disagree with a #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& you are wrong.

Also to address the argument of "no one is taking away your guns"
While its true no one is taking them away, try to get one in Massachusetts, as many of already said, it's aint that easy! And if you happen to live in say, Boston, you could be waiting a very long time before the police department gets around to approving your LTC. If you believe in the 2nd amendment (which I know anti-gun folks don't so why am I even mentioning it) this is a problem, especially if you are a law-abiding citizen that has every right to defend yourself. What if a person fears for their or their families life because they live in a chit hole neighborhood and can't get a gun due to all this red tape? I'd say that's undue hardship and "suffering"

If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?



the death penalty is not a law...it's a severe punishment for breaking the law...do i need to explain the difference to you?

If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?.

Its not a deterrent, it akin to taking out the trash.


And finally, what's a more effective weapon to inflict mass casualties, a knife or a gun?.

A Bomb, Poison, or maybe driving an out of control car into a crowd

"Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place "

Can you be specific? Some folks here seem to think that tighter gun restrictipons will reduce gun violence. I said that the statistics of gun crime and gun ownership seem to contradict that, especially when you compare places like DC/Chicago to the Dakotas. My claim is that people who live in the Dakotas are proof that you can have lots of guns and very little gun crime. Why is that not a valid thing for me to say? Population density?

As always pal, it's very easy to lob an insult and run away.
Actually, we don't really know what the statistics say because the NRA doesn't want any statistics to be gathered.

When the CDC was studying this in the 1990's they found that firearms in the household made it 300 times more likely to be shot and 5 times more likely a gun death by suicide.

Comparing gun law in Chicago to North Dakota makes no sense at all. It's not like we have borders, or equal demographics.

Actually, we don't really know what the statistics say because the NRA doesn't want any statistics to be gathered.

When the CDC was studying this in the 1990's they found that firearms in the household made it 300 times more likely to be shot and 5 times more likely a gun death by suicide.

Comparing gun law in Chicago to North Dakota makes no sense at all. It's not like we have borders, or equal demographics.

:deadhorse: please make it stop...I heard a car in the driveway makes it 437 times more likely you'll get in a car accident

In this country, religiously motivated murders amount to nothing, excluding Islamic jihadists. Two weekends in a row, there were 50+ shootings in Chicago. Religion had very little to do with it. The majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by people who have absolutely nothing in common with the Judeo-Christian principles upon which the country was founded. You think genuine Christians are committing a meaningful amount of street crime in this country, and that their religion is the motivation for doing so? I'd love to see evidence to support that.
See the Army of God for a fine example of Christian values. In central Africa the good Christians destroy mosques, in the name of God of course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:deadhorse: please make it stop...I heard a car in the driveway makes it 437 times more likely you'll get in a car accident

That car will never kill anyone if a person doesn't use it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its not a deterrent, it akin to taking out the trash.




A Bomb, Poison, or maybe driving an out of control car into a crowd
Add arson to the list and even though it's a stretch drunk driving. Imagine a bus driver being under the influence or for that matter a fuel tanker being driven while under the influence. Being a dart player I would suggest irresponsible bartenders over serving also.
And if we want to really reach how about people who knowingly expose others to deadly diseases, and heck some folks might even suggest second hand smoke. I know some of these are a stretch but they do cause a multitude of deaths everyday and we are not just talking about the occasional rampage shooter when it comes to taking guns away from law abiding citizens.
How many undocumented immigrants cause deaths each year? Technically they are illegal already aren't they.
I might even include drug dealers and even food or prescriptions that are handled or manufactured improperly and served or sold to the public in quantity since folks want to suggest it's not the person it's the tool or object they use.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They aren't illegal to the left Ed,they are votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They aren't illegal to the left Ed,they are votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's true so perhaps we should put the left on the list also :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some interesting facts about suicide
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/england-wales-methods-suicide

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods

Actually, we don't really know what the statistics say because the NRA doesn't want any statistics to be gathered.

When the CDC was studying this in the 1990's they found that firearms in the household made it 300 times more likely to be shot and 5 times more likely a gun death by suicide.

Comparing gun law in Chicago to North Dakota makes no sense at all. It's not like we have borders, or equal demographics.

"Actually, we don't really know what the statistics say because the NRA doesn't want any statistics to be gathered."

Actually, we do know what the statistics say, because they are released by the FBI. According to those statistics, gun ownership is much higher in the Dakotas than it is in Chicago and DC, yet gun crimes are much lower there. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. I posted the FBI states in an earlier post, and they are not ambiguous.

"Comparing gun law in Chicago to North Dakota makes no sense at all. It's not like we have borders"

Not gun law. Gun ownership. Gun ownership is low in Chicago, and they have 50 shootings a weekend now. The fact that we have open borders suggests what?

"or equal demographics"

You almost stumbled onto the truth there. It's not gun ownership that determines gun violence rates. It's the character of the people who own the guns.

See the Army of God for a fine example of Christian values. In central Africa the good Christians destroy mosques, in the name of God of course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's nothing in Christian teaching that commands this. Zip. I'm not talking about bloodthirsty lunatics. I'm talking about your neighbors who go to Church and volunteer their time at local charities.

Yawn.

I may be alone in my perception but this is like the Muslims that don't take ownership of all the trouble that has resulted due to radicals or extremism. They didn't endorse the 9/11 tragedy but they cheered the act from the shadows. There are some "normal" Catholics doing the same when planned parenthood gets targeted and I suspect Jim is one of them. Some day he will be working intersections in the city with a bullhorn and leaflets.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does this Oregon mass shooting put the ball in the gun owners court? The same arguments that were put forth in previous discussions of gun control are repeated here. The latest incidence doesn't put the ball in any court. It just keeps the ball bouncing.

And then the ball eventually starts to be knocked into other courts such as poking at religion. And we get the usual contradictory swipes such as "what tool is used to control people for political domination" which disregards the opposing question "which tool (same one) is used to resist or escape from political domination. Or "what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else" from someone who has said that if everyone followed his two commandments--be cool and don't be a jerk--the world would be a better place. Or implying that some Catholics, similar to Muslims who cheered 9/11 in the shadows, are cheering attacks on planned parenthood in the shadows--as if there is something peculiar to religious believers that is not shared by the rest of humanity. For example, some atheists cheering, in the shadows, various attacks on Christianity. It is probably a trait shared by most people to cheer for the home team, and be glad to see the enemies get poked. It is not a tenet of Christianity or atheism to wish harm to others, but there are so-called Christians and atheists who secretly cheer that harm.

None of that stuff is putting the ball in any court re gun control.

There is, however, a shadowy agreement that the problem goes beyond guns. Nebe says "it is the American way of life that is the problem." Jim in Ct says "It's culture and values." Spence wants to get at the "root cause."

It seems to me, however, that the court that gun control is being played on is not the gun owners court, nor any real agreement on true responsibility, but the court of politics. Who can milk the issue for votes, for power.

Tomahawks should be outlawed...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/son-said-felt-good-murdering-220209906.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Checkout the related stories at the bottom of the article.

If criminals don't care about laws why do people argue the death penalty is a deterrent?

If 50+% of gun deaths are non-assisted suicides, and there's no specific law prohibiting it, how are these people criminals?

And finally, what's a more effective weapon to inflict mass casualties, a knife or a gun?

It's moot now anyway, Jim's comment about North Dakota just put him back in first place :lama:


On their own no, but look at this most recent shooting and it's looking quite likely that the family attitude toward guns was a factor.

it's pretty simple spence, the death penalty is a punishment, murder is still a criminal act, as well as owning an illegal weapon. LOGICAL

I thought suicide was against the law, in any case if they use an illegal gun it is criminal. again logical

knife or gun? serious? common sense

Take the money away from all that free stuff given to illegal aliens and pay for armed guards in our schools to protect our innocent children , how is that for common sense?

Why does this Oregon mass shooting put the ball in the gun owners court?



It seems to me, however, that the court that gun control is being played on is not the gun owners court, nor any real agreement on true responsibility, but the court of politics. Who can milk the issue for votes, for power.


Yep

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!
It better than works..Purdue University broke this down quite a bit and the results were overwhelmingly in favor. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q3/research-reveals-ways-to-stem-growing-active-shooter-tide.html

Probably why our president has a bunch of armed men around him at all times as well! :D

And another shooting today :(
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Our high school has an armed cop on duty every day since the mass killings in Connecticut...it is precautionary....I do not understand Y there would b one un armed guard at a college of more then 3000 students....is he/she going to throw books or pencils at intruders?

Also politics R jumping on Ben Carson for his statement about fighting back, dems R trying to destroy him....I believe the same as he does to fight back....in most schools students R taught to cower to a corner, this is okay if kids R real young, but college kids R adults they should have a plan to attack while trying to run out....yes one or two may B shot while running but Y wait to B systematically shot.

If they take all guns away what method will the lunatic rampage killers use? Check out the pain index in the "lost all hope link" I provided above.
Imagine if they used gasoline and a match the amount of suffering that would be caused. If it was to happen to me I would prefer bullets or explosives.
I have always said I would rather be at ground zero if a nuke was to go off anywhere near me. I personally prefer not to suffer and go quick. How about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/06/hillary_s_plan_sue_gun_manufacturers

So what will the rampage killers use once the guns are gone? Imagine all the gun violence victims including gang bangers having the ability to sue the gun manufacturers for their illegal actions. The gun manufacturers will go out of business in this country. The only people who will be protected by GUNS will be tje ones who make the gun laws...the Democrats want everyone to be at risk, except for them and the people who can afford armed protection or have the TAXPAYERS pay for their armed gaurds.

I imagine they could use a fire starter that doesn't have much of an odor to start a fire causing much more pain for the victims and put the first responders at more risk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's pretty simple spence, the death penalty is a punishment, murder is still a criminal act, as well as owning an illegal weapon. LOGICAL

I thought suicide was against the law, in any case if they use an illegal gun it is criminal. again logical

knife or gun? serious? common sense

Take the money away from all that free stuff given to illegal aliens and pay for armed guards in our schools to protect our innocent children , how is that for common sense?
The initial remark was criminals don't care about laws, but if that's the case they must not care about punishments either.

Suicide by illegal weapon? Don't know if there's a stat on that but I'd be surprised if it's that common.

What we do know is that firearm deaths with legally procured guns in either non-criminal or non-planned cases are the vast majority. Contrary to detbuch's point made above (didn't have time to respond) firearm deaths now exceed car fatalities.

The Government studies automotive fatalities because it's considered a significant public health issue. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same?

I know the antis think the armed guard is nuts, but the thing is it works!

I don't think many people are against the armed guard, the question is how to pay for it. What is widely opposed though is the arming of teachers and otherwise non-professionals.

I don't think many people are against the armed guard, the question is how to pay for it. What is widely opposed though is the arming of teachers and otherwise non-professionals.

Pay for it from unrestricted endowments Spence.....if my city can afford a full time cop during school hrs. so can a college....ask Billy Bulger...he gets over a million bucks a year for retirement....lol...:)

Pay for it from unrestricted endowments Spence.....if my city can afford a full time cop during school hrs. so can a college....ask Billy Bulger...he gets over a million bucks a year for retirement....lol...:)
Much easier to do with an elementary school that has limited ingress. A university with dozens upon dozens of buildings would cost a fortune to properly secure with armed guards.

Then do away totally with gun free zones.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then do away totally with gun free zones.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
How many mass shootings happen in a gun free zone? I mean they are like crazy magnets.

Yes they are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes they are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

15%

[QUOTE=spence;1083819 (didn't have time to respond) [/QUOTE]

Oh, that must be why you didn't answer posts #3and #8 on the
80s policy thread? :hihi:

15%

And so many occur at places where people are allowed to exercise their constitutional right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And another shooting today :(
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yup....and over in Turkey there were 2 suicide bombers who must not have been able to procure a gun....hmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Contrary to detbuch's point made above (didn't have time to respond) firearm deaths now exceed car fatalities.

Latest figures I could find comparing the two show that car fatalities still outnumber gun fatalities but the gap is closing and it is predicted that gun caused deaths would become larger this year. Maybe they have. In any case the numbers are close. But the raw numbers are misleading depending on your views on suicide and accidents.

The number of suicides using guns accounts for over 60% of gun related deaths. I don't know if there is even a recorded statistic on suicide by cars. I suspect it would account for a miniscule percent of auto deaths. Since most Americans now favor the right to die by assisted suicide, why would we be horrified if the doctor used a gun rather than chemicals? And why should we interfere with those adults who choose to use a gun to kill themselves? The greatest number of suicide with gun is by white males over the age of fifty something (54?). If we removed just those from the equation, death by car would be much higher than by gun. Excluding minors, do you believe that government should be able to outlaw or regulate suicide? Do you think the Federal Government, specifically, should even have a say in suicide? And, hey, if guns were not available for suicide, I imagine that suicide by car rates would go up.

Accidental death by car is obviously vastly higher than by gun. The same is true of non-lethal injuries which occur in far greater numbers by car than by gun. I assume that gun manufacturers and auto makers try to make their products safe. But the government seems to be suing various auto companies and forcing recalls for faulty or unsafe parts of cars. Not to mention automotive exhaust pollution causing various types of death or disease not added to death and injury statistics. So far, there doesn't seem to have been a significant amount of damage to the environment caused by the use of firearms. Cars are far more prone to be used in accidents than guns are.

Using an automobile to defend yourself relies on your ability to get to and start your car fast enough to evade an attacker. Guns may be more reliable as a method of self defense than cars. The number of cases of guns used for defense varies according to different studies. Here is an entry from Wikipedia:

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year


The Government studies automotive fatalities because it's considered a significant public health issue. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same?

Wouldn't automobiles create a public safety issue rather than a public health issue. Placing guns under the rubric of public health is, to me, one of those stretches the Federal Government uses to involve itself in as many aspects of our lives that it can. Just about anything can effect health if the meaning of that word is expanded far enough. It is hard for me to get my brain around death, itself, being a health issue. If you're dead, you are not sick or unhealthy. You just aren't. Cancer, heart disease, illness of all sorts will impact your health. And cancer can kill you, but it is not used by humans to kill you. Guns and autos are not pathogens or malfunctions of the body. But they can be used by humans to kill or maim you. Diseases are, to me, a health issue. Guns and automobiles are involved in safety or crime issues.

In either case, public health or public safety, those should, constitutionally be State and local concerns.

I can see a path for the Federal Government to regulate automobiles since they cross state lines every day. That doesn't mean that the Federal Government should necessarily overburden itself by taking all the paths open to it. Even if the central government can squeeze itself into various regulations of the people, it would be best for it to leave most up to the federated states. But the Federal Government, on the other hand, is constitutionally restricted in its regulation of guns. And if the Second Amendment is to be protected. The government's encroachment upon it must be restricted.

I understand that the Constitution is an ancient piece of crap in the progressive perspective. But for others, it is not. I understand that from the progressive point of view the Federal Government should be the authority in all things. That the States, at best, are localized tools for the administration of Federal fiat. That, left to the States, nothing, including public health or public safety, would be looked after in a beneficial way for the people. That only the Federal government should have the final, if not the sole, responsibility and say in all matters of governance.

But for others, that is not so.

And that is the real political battle that is occurring in our time. It is not about public health or public safety. But who is in charge of those various issues.

If our government was so concerned about our health, then it would eliminate the corruption of the FDA with all those corporations getting their way like Monsanto to begin with.
Get rid of lobbyists

To put it simply, from a constitutional perspective, since the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizens a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially from the central government, then giving that government authority to restrict and regulate private gun ownership is a version of letting the fox in the henhouse.

Were there any Stabbings today? How about anybody beaten to death?

But it's a shooting and everybody loses their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless the shootings reflect black-on-black violence in Chicago or Baltimore, in which case the democrats won't say a word, because there's no political upside.

To put it simply, from a constitutional perspective, since the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizens a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially from the central government, then giving that government authority to restrict and regulate private gun ownership is a version of letting the fox in the henhouse.
This X2 , and most shocking is the people who openly invite and encourage more govt control into all of our lives.

They will be after the big sodas soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If our government was so concerned about our health, then it would eliminate the corruption of the FDA with all those corporations getting their way like Monsanto to begin with.
Get rid of lobbyists

You've hit upon one of the many problems with Federal regulatory agencies. When regulation rests in one central agency, any corruption of that agency affects the entire country. Thus it makes it easier for lobbyists, for instance, to impose their will on the entire country by corrupting the central agency's regulatory officials.

Regulation by the various States for their own territory would be more tailored to the needs and wants of those States and their citizens. And would be more responsive and beholden to the desires of their citizens. If the citizens of various States were informed about Monsanto practices, and were against them, their individual regulatory agencies could require changes at Monsanto if the corporation desired to have products connected to it sold there. Monsanto lobbyists would have to corrupt 50 agencies not just one.

Not to mention that delegation of Congress's legislative power to unelected agencies is, if the Constitution were to mean what it says, is unconstitutional.

But, then, the Commerce and Welfare clauses have been so corrupted that none of that any longer applies. Progressive interpretation has nullified the original meaning of constitutional text, including separation of powers, so that the central government can do whatever it wants, and if that is questioned, whatever five progressively oriented SCOTUS judges agree to.

Even the path I mentioned above for the Federal government to regulate automobiles because they cross State lines every day would not give it that power in the Constitution as written. The original text in "Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power . . .

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

does not give regulatory power over specific businesses or their prices, but actually gives it the power to prevent States from putting tariffs or restrictions on products simply because they originate from other States. The power is not to regulate ITS commerce WITH the States, but to make commerce free and "regular" AMONG the several States. This was one of the major reasons for a new Constitution. The restriction and tariffs existing between the States at the time was destroying the cohesiveness of the fledgling nation and making it weaker and subject to foreign intervention against its existence. But it does not give the central government power over regulation of specific businesses.

That was made more clear in the debates as recorded in Federalist Papers. Even the construction of that clause states that Federal regulation was WITH itself and foreign nations and WITH itself and the Indian tribes, but AMONG (not with) the various States. Under no reasonable interpretation can it be conceived that by that regulation the U.S. government could regulate the businesses of foreign nations or the Indian tribes. It could tax imports or exports from or to other nations and make agreements on trade with sovereign nations, but could not impose its will on the commerce inside of those nations or with commerce between them and other nations.

The construction of the Commerce clause makes it clear that the Federal Government can regulate (including tariffs and restrictions) commerce between itself and other sovereign nations. But it is not given the power to unilaterally regulate commerce within those nations (ergo, by implication, within the individual sovereign States of the Union), nor between those sovereignties with the exception that it can regulate commercial restrictions that the individual States impose against each other.

But, by disregard for their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, our Progressive politicians have trashed it and given themselves unintended power to impose all manner of regulations on us at will. And it has created the unconstitutional regulatory agencies (New Offices) to impose that will on us contrary to one of the many reasons for casting off the tyranny of the King as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

:(

that is SOOOOO depressing

it is going to take many YEARS to fix the mess we are in from the last 7 years