In wake of Newtown tragedy, is gun-control legislation likely?

Dec 19, 2012 by Megan Sexton

John Sides, associate professor of political science, comments on public opinion surrounding gun control and whether legislation might pass in Congress.

As the country continues to mourn the victims killed in a shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a debate over gun control is intensifying in the nation's capital.

President has reportedly asked his cabinet, led by Vice President , to "formulate a set of proposals that could include reinstating a ban on assault rifles," the Washington Post reports. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said, "we'll engage in a meaningful conversation and proper debate about how to change laws and culture that allow this violence to continue to grow … And every idea should be on the table."

But how likely is gun-control legislation, and could it pass? And what does public opinion have to say on the matter? George Washington Today talked with John Sides, a George Washington University associate professor of political science, to answer these and other questions.

Q: Historically, what has public opinion said when it comes to gun control?

A: On the whole, there is mixed support for stricter gun control in the abstract, and less support now than 10 or 15 years ago. However, many specific gun-control policies—like an assault weapons ban and background checks but not a handgun ban—are supported by majorities of people and have been for some time. Some relevant links are here.

Q: Do mass shootings like the one in Newtown have an immediate impact on public opinion? What about a long-term impact?

A: There was a spike in support for gun control after Columbine, but not after the Virginia Tech, Tucson or Aurora shootings. So these events do not necessarily make a big difference. However, two polls conducted after the Newtown shooting—here and here—suggest a small increase in the percent of people favoring new gun-control laws and a larger increase in the percent who believes that the Newtown shooting reflects a broader societal problem. But whether these shifts continue or have any long-term impact remains to be seen.

Q: The way a question is asked can change public opinion, you recently wrote in your blog. Discuss the effect, post-Newtown, of framing a question that says guns could be carried onto "school grounds."

A: In one study, people appear more opposed to a law allowing concealed weapons when it was framed in terms of security than in terms of individual rights. In particular, the study described security in this way: "laws allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns threaten public safety because they would allow almost anyone to carry a gun almost anywhere, even onto school grounds."

This suggests why an event like Newtown could sway opinion: It brings concerns about security, and particularly that of vulnerable populations like children, to the foreground.

Q: Can we expect to see gun control at the top of President Obama's agenda this term?

A: It is difficult to see how he could not act, even though he made no specific promises in his recent speech in Newtown. There are, for example, things he might do via executive orders or bureaucratic rule making. He could try to limit the capacity of gun magazines or institute more stringent background checks.

Q:The gun-control debate always intensifies after a mass shooting event but we haven't yet seen Congress act. Will this time be different?

A: The most important thing right now is how congressional Republicans respond. The White House certainly cannot force them to go along with anything. Even might not be a powerful enough force, particularly if concern fades as Newtown generates fewer headlines.

My early sense is that at least some prominent conservatives, rightly or wrongly, do not see the need for new gun-control measures. If their perspective is shared within the party, then there may not be sufficient incentive to bring Republicans to the table. Republicans might instead try to wait it out, in hopes that there will be less urgency when the new Congress convenes.

Q: If gun-control legislation were to be introduced, what might it look like?

A: I suspect it will be fairly narrowly tailored. Part of that is to conform to the Supreme Court's rulings. Part of that is to attract the support of the GOP, which would likely balk at a broader measure. Part of that will likely also reflect the circumstances of the Newtown shooting. So you might see focus on those things—assault weapons, large magazines—that helped make the Newtown shooting so deadly.

Q: What are its chances of passing? Is stricter control "unwinnable"?

A: Personally, I see the odds of it passing as less than 50-50. It's not unwinnable, but it's not necessarily likely either. The past isn't always prologue, but many —including of a sitting member of Congress in Tucson—have not led to legislation. The Newtown shooting is different than those shootings in some respects, especially because many of the victims were young children. But the magnitude of this tragedy may not be sufficient to produce stricter legislation at the federal level.

Explore further: New research shows sportswomen still second best to sportsmen... in the press

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Politicians have less influence through news media

Sep 08, 2011

News coverage of Washington politicians and their rhetoric appears to have less influence on the American public compared to other news coverage, according to a study by a Michigan State University political scientist.

Gun traffickers exploit differences in state laws

Oct 24, 2011

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

Report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws

Sep 03, 2009

Gun shows and the lack of uniform gun-control laws provide easy access to guns that can be used for criminal purposes, according to a new report released today from the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research ...

Recommended for you

Beyond human: Exploring transhumanism

Nov 25, 2014

What do pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, Iron Man and flu vaccines all have in common? They are examples of an old idea that's been gaining in significance in the last several decades: transhumanism. The word ...

User comments : 268

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
We don't need mere "legislation," although assault weapon bans and maybe (maybe,) allowing teachers and other school officials to carry a revolver at school, can help.

What we from a legal standpoint is an amendment to the constitution (since the courts won't allow a reasonable, common sense interpretation of the existing second amendment).

The second amendment needs to be abolished or at least changed to a common sense gun amendment which reflects modern weapons technology an common sense. Civilians have no good reason to own automatic weapons, and really not even semi-automatic weapons.

Amend the Second Amendment to make a specific, common sense distinction between military, police, and other public officials vs civilian weapons use, and yes, put specific limits on gun caliber, grain count, magazine size, and fire rates in the civilian section of the amendment. There should also be a limit to the number of magazines a person can legally own for a gun. ONE is enough.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012

Suggestions for civilian limits:

Sidearm:
6 round revolver or equivalent should be maximum for magazine and fire rate.

Hunting guns:
Shotgun:
3 round 12-gauge pump shotgun should be the limit.
Stronger gauges should be single shot.

Rifle:
5 round magazine with no more than semi-automatic, and preferably bolt action instead.

Uzzi:
banned.

Assault rifle:
banned.

All magazines above 6 rounds:
banned.

Requirement to register not only the guns, but every remove-and-replace magazine or other quick-loading device for every gun should also be registered.

While shootings would still be possible, they would be much harder for criminals to pull off, and the maximum number of casualties would be much less.

At least that's a common sense start.

"Slap on the wrist" legislation wouldn't do jack crap to stop or even reduce casualties from attacks like these, so they aren't really even worth passing.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
Interestingly, on the same day (Dec. 14th) a Chinese school was attacked by a mentally ill man with a knife, injuring 22 children and an 85 year old woman. China has been having a series of these kinds of incidents, and is taking action in the form of posting security guards in the schools, a program that has not yet been completed.

Rather than trying to change gun laws, increasing security in all our schools makes more sense. Training and arming all teachers, or posting armed security guards would abate the magnitude of these incidents. Gun control laws will have no effect unless there is total suppression of gun ownership, and even then would probably not work.
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (27) Dec 19, 2012
Suggestions for civilian limits:


Current U.S. law will not allow this. In any case, such measures would be completely, repeat completely ineffective.

It is also important to note that all these mass murder scenarios would have been greatly abated if citizens had had the right to carry firearms with them. It is a fact that increased gun ownership reduces crime, reduced ownership increases crime. To illustrate this point, consider what has been happening when criminals have attempted to hold up gun stores. If law-abiding citizens are armed, let's say in a movie theater, and some Joker decides to open up with his firearms on citizens, far fewer citizens would have been killed. The police cannot protect citizens, it is not their duty nor is it even possible. Citizens must be able to defend themselves from these attacks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (33) Dec 19, 2012
Aw geez QC I was all set to give you a 5 and then I read this:
The second amendment needs to be abolished or at least changed to a common sense gun amendment which reflects modern weapons technology an common sense. Civilians have no good reason to own automatic weapons, and really not even semi-automatic weapons.
-except when the existential threat might be multiple targets such as in roving gangs of looters, cars full of gang members pulling up in your driveway, illegal alien criminals walking out of the desert into your backyard... or even packs of wild dogs, a bear in your living room, or 5 guys in your garage. Or a flash mob intent on destroying your store and beating your employees senseless.

Do not judge what others feel they may need to protect themselves, their families, their businesses, or their employees.

If the person in that school didnt have an assault weapon he would still have had the same firepower as the virginia tech shooter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (35) Dec 19, 2012
We have armed guards in our banks, in our malls, in warehouses, along our borders, in museums, our airports. We have armed sky marshals on our planes. The 2nd amendment allows us to protect our businesses as well as our homes with guns.

We are willing to protect our money, our goods, our borders, our planes, and even our art with guns; but doing this with our children is somehow wrong? Arent they the most valuable and vulnerable of all these things??

There are many teachers who are willing to take training and get concealed weapons permits. Train them and ALLOW them to be able to protect their students the only way they can.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
It's not the 2nd amendment, or that we need more laws. It's our culture. There are instances in the 1800s of school shootings copying Jesse James. For some reason other cultures do a better job of making a proper point about these things. We simply don't in this country.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (31) Dec 19, 2012
Uzzi:
banned.
There is no such thing as an Uzzi. Your willingness to throw around anti-gun buzzwords without knowing what they are referring to indicates that you dont know enough to comment constructively.

You should stick to celestial mechanics where your ignorance is relatively harmless.
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
Interestingly, on the same day (Dec. 14th) a Chinese school was attacked by a mentally ill man with a knife, injuring 22 children and an 85 year old woman.


Keywords: knife, injured. Not gun, killed.
tadchem
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
When prevention fails (there is no such thing as "if"; prevention WILL eventually fail), you need to be prepared. Pedagogy will not stop the perp in his tracks.
The Israeli Army requires civilian reservists to carry their issued firearms at *all* times. Many of those reservists are schoolteachers.
I will bet on a Galil in the hands of a trained soldier over a nut case with an AK-47.
It is not the guns or the culture; China (a very different culture!) has about 5-6 events a year with madmen attacking schools - with knives, box cutters, hammers, axes, meat cleavers (the latest was December 14th of this year) - but not with guns because they don't have them.
tadchem
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
Uzzi:
banned.

Is that 'Progressive-speak' for "I don't know WTF I'm talking about?"
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Nearly all of the incidents (Columbine, VaTech, Norway etc..) the assailants were on or recently were on psycho drugs, this is the issue, not the guns.

http://www.health...?p=13679
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2012
Tad, so when do you plan on implementing manditory military service, like Israel?

And how many people die in those attacks involving knives, etc?
Keywords: knife, injured. Not gun, killed.

Nearly all of the incidents (Columbine, VaTech, Norway etc..) the assailants were on or recently were on psycho drugs, this is the issue, not the guns.
-cantdrive85

Keyword: nearly. However (keyword:) ALL of those tragedies involved guns.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
Interestingly, on the same day (Dec. 14th) a Chinese school was attacked by a mentally ill man with a knife, injuring 22 children and an 85 year old woman.


Keywords: knife, injured. Not gun, killed.


http://news.yahoo...288.html
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
The fact that these psychotropic drugs have "black box" warnings of suicide and homicide should be a red flag. Yet, the only "official" discussion is about gun control, if it were truly about safety discussions about these mind altering drugs should be just as important.
Merely holding a gun does not cause one to become violent and dangerous, the same can not be said about these poisons.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 19, 2012
Hmm, considering psychotropic drugs help more people than they hurt, I wonder how many mentally ill people would use easily accessible guns to carry out these tragedies without their medication?

It's one thing if you want to help how we deal with mental illness in this country, but putting the blame on psychotropic drugs is treading into conspiracy theory territory.

Merely holding a gun does not cause one to become violent and dangerous

Actually it can. A person is a lot more likely to back down without adequate force at their disposal. See: "molon labe".
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2012
Actually it can. A person is a lot more likely to back down without adequate force at their disposal.


Might want to restrict weight lifting and martial arts too then.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 19, 2012
@Modernmystic
Right, that could have easily been a knife, or the person's bare hands. The point is that someone with a bow and arrows would have a difficult time committing MASS murder, not murder.

Reference the Chinese school knifing. How many of them died compared to what happened in Newtown? There's your answer.

Might want to restrict weight lifting and martial arts too then.

Let's just ban oxygen because murderers breathe. When's the last time someone committed mass murder via martial arts? Has this ever happened? You might want to provide relevant examples if you want people to take you seriously.
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012


Keyword: nearly. However (keyword:) ALL of those tragedies involved guns.


In all of these incidents, the victims had been completely disarmed by legislation, and completely helpless because a lack of security. In all of these incidents, police arrived after the fact.

In other situations, such as robbing a gun store, the results have been very different. When are people going to realize that disarming citizens does not protect them? A mentally ill person is going to use whatever method he can to do harm. Making citizens helpless is not the answer.
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
@Modernmystic

Reference the Chinese school knifing. How many of them died compared to what happened in Newtown? There's your answer.



Right, and what are the Chinese going to do about it? Post ARMED guards in every school.
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Conspiracy theory? Why did the pharma friendly FDA require the "black box" warning?
Considering that there are hundreds of millions of guns and people in this country, putting the blame on guns is equally flawed. There have been less than 100 of this type of tragedy since the early '80's, nearly all involved psycho drugs. There are MILLIONS of gun owners and guns, the statistics are clear in where the danger lies. Poisoning people is not beneficial for anyone except those who profit from the sale of those poisons, and there are many other treatments available for mental health issues that have zero side effects.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Right because an untrained person firing wildly into a crowded building is going to save lives.

Just look at the military. How many friendly fire incidents are there? And they are highly trained.

Right, and what are the Chinese going to do about it? Post ARMED guards in every school.

BS, where's your source?

And as far as the US, it's like pulling teeth to get people to support public education in this country, yet you want to pump how much money into providing guards and/or arming teachers?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
Let's just ban oxygen because murderers breathe. When's the last time someone committed mass murder via martial arts? Has this ever happened? You might want to provide relevant examples if you want people to take you seriously.


I wasn't drawing a direct comparison, merely pointing out that using the fact that someone having more force at their disposal than others in society as a principle for the restriction of freedom is fundamentally flawed.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
When's the last time someone committed mass murder via martial arts or bow and arrows?
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
Right because an untrained person firing wildly into a crowded building is going to save lives.



In my state, in order to carry a firearm, you have to go through a vigorous training program. Can you give an example of a citizen who has a carry permit who has fired wildly into a crowd?

On the other hand, there are many examples of such citizens saving lives. Discussion of this situation and how to respond to it is part of the training.

FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2012
Yet, the only "official" discussion is about gun control

This is total BS. Mental illness is being discussed at least as much as gun control in any medium I've seen.

Merely holding a gun does not cause one to become violent and dangerous

Sure it does. A situation that would normally result in an ass-kicking ends up with dead people. Expain that.

Can you give an example of a citizen who has a carry permit who has fired wildly into a crowd?
-Claudius
For one, I gave an example of _highly trained_ people firing on their own. Since this isn't good enough, here is a video posted by _gun advocates_ yet the irony escapes them.

The robber had no ammo. The gun was for show. Yet the man with the gun fires wildly within the building then INTO THE STREET.

Also see the gentleman that was armed during the Rep. Giffords assassination attempt. He chose not to shoot (and rightly so) because he would have been firing aimlessly at innocent people.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
Yet, the only "official" discussion is about gun control

This is total BS. Mental illness is being discussed at least as much as gun control in any medium I've seen.

Merely holding a gun does not cause one to become violent and dangerous

Sure it does. A situation that would normally result in an ass-kicking ends up with dead people. Expain that.


Depends on what you mean by ass-kicking. You can kill someone by "kicking" their "ass." Does that mean that if someone comes at you with a baseball bat and murder in their eyes that you have no right to defend yourself?
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
For instance, a taxi driver in Afghanistan was killed in prison by guards hitting his legs and "ass" with baseball bats.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2012
For one, I gave an example of _highly trained_ people firing on their own. Since this isn't good enough, here is a video posted by _gun advocates_ yet the irony escapes them. The robber had no ammo. The gun was for show. Yet the man with the loaded gun fires wildly within the building then INTO THE STREET. Also see the gentleman that was armed during the Rep. Giffords assassination attempt. He chose not to shoot (and rightly so) because he would have been firing aimlessly at innocent people.

(forgot the video: http://www.youtub...VULU9TU)

Does that mean that if someone comes at you with a baseball bat and murder in their eyes that you have no right to defend yourself?

Could you please quantify for me what "murder in [one's] eyes" entails?
For instance, a taxi driver in Afghanistan was killed in prison by guards hitting his legs and "ass" with baseball bats.
You do realize "ass-kicking" is a figure of speech, right?
cantdrive85
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
Actually it can. A person is a lot more likely to back down without adequate force at their disposal. See: "molon labe".


Everyone has the fundamental right of self preservation, if you are threatened you should absolutely have the right to stand your ground. This is precisely why governments want to disarm the citizenry. Total deaths by democide (murder by goverment) during the 20th century >250,000,000, total death by individual mass murderers< 1,000.
http://www.hawaii...20TH.HTM

Most have been committed against an unarmed citizenry.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2012
And everyone has a fundamental right to life, correct? So if you make the mistake of trying to rough up someone with a concealed carry permit, this should result in your death? That's in all practicality what we are talking about here.

A situation that would normally end up with a couple bloody lips and maybe some black eyes now involves holes in the head. Sorry, but I don't think I have the right to murder someone, even if they are attempting to rob me, etc. There is a difference between threatened and being threatened with your life.

Besides, if you are seriously worried about "democide" then why don't you advocate for the right to bear ALL arms. Wouldn't mortars, land mines, bombs, NUCLEAR WEAPONS (individuals could conceivably achieve this) be a better defense against the government?

You really think you can go up against the US military with your surplus weapons? The military has steerable bullets and lasers for christsake.
cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
Robbery has never resulted in the death of the victim.
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
The robber had no ammo. The gun was for show.


So, what is someone going to do? Ask to see if the gun is loaded? Can you take the chance of assuming someone pointing a gun at you has no ammo?

(forgot the video: http://www.youtub...VULU9TU)

Saw the video. In my opinion, he did exactly as good a job as trained police would have. I congratulate him for responding to a deadly threat appropriately. If he appears to be firing into the street, we can't see who is out there. Police fire into the street all the time. The point is to make sure no innocent people are behind the target.
Claudius
3.8 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
So if you make the mistake of trying to rough up someone with a concealed carry permit, this should result in your death? That's in all practicality what we are talking about here.


You have never been the victim of a violent crime, have you?

Someone being "roughed up" does not know how it will end. It can and often does result in the death of the victim. Protecting yourself from deadly threat is a basic right. Even animals have it, instinctively.

Someone who threatens another's life should expect that the victim might respond in a way he might not like.
cantdrive85
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
So if you make the mistake of trying to rough up someone with a concealed carry permit, this should result in your death? That's in all practicality what we are talking about here.

So you're advocating violence? It's okay with fists and knives but beyond the limit with a gun. I don't typically walk around randomly "roughing" people up. But if I were to, it should be expected that maybe there could be a reaction.

FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
Someone who threatens another's life should expect that the victim might respond in a way he might not like.

Like I said, there is a difference between threatening and treatening life.
You have never been the victim of a violent crime, have you?
I sure have, but my martial arts training allowed me to deal with the situation without resorting to deadly force when it obviously wasn't warranted.
So you're advocating violence?

You're the one who's first instinct is to murder someone when posed with a stressful situation.
In my opinion

A trained police officer would not have shot at a fleeing suspect that had not fired a shot.

Look, we're at an impasse here. I'll just pop in now and then to point out scapegoating/conspiracy theories (psychotropic drugs) and obvious flaws in logic (using the chinese school stabbing as a PRO gun argument).

Have fun guys!
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
Robbery has never resulted in the death of the victim.


Do you actually believe that? Here are a few examples:

"A sheriff's news release says two suspects, Justin Valine, 23, and Daniel Valine, 44, were arrested Wednesday on suspicion of murdering and robbing McClurg."

"A Sacramento Superior Court jury today convicted three men of robbery and murder in the Dec. 29, 2008, shooting death of a man who prosecutors say was targeted for the $16,000 he won gambling at an Indian casino."

"Morgan, of 420 N. Kimbrel Ave., lot. 38, and Tanner Joseph Collins forced their way into Steven Gulck's Springfield home on Nov. 21, 2010. They knocked him unconscious, bound him to a chair then ransacked his house looking for valuables

Collins stayed in the house after Morgan left and shot Gulck. Gulck, 48, was able to free himself and call 911, but died on the operating table from his wounds."

Do a Google search for "robbery murder" and you will find thousands more.
cantdrive85
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
A trained police officer would not have shot at a fleeing suspect that had not fired a shot.

For one, I gave an example of _highly trained_ people firing on their own. Since this isn't good enough, here is a video posted by _gun advocates_ yet the irony escapes them. The robber had no ammo. The gun was for show. Yet the man with the loaded gun fires wildly within the building then INTO THE STREET.


Or not...

http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
A trained police officer would not have shot at a fleeing suspect that had not fired a shot.


Again, thousands of examples.

"Police shoot fleeing burglary suspects" http://www.pnj.co..._check=1

"Man shot as he flees Santa Ana police" http://www.ocregi...ice.html

"Police Fatally Shoot Fleeing Suspect In San Francisco Bayview" http://sanfrancis...bayview/
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
Robbery has never resulted in the death of the victim.


Do you actually believe that? Here are a few examples:

I was mocking herberts naivete.
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Besides, if you are seriously worried about "democide" then why don't you advocate for the right to bear ALL arms. Wouldn't mortars, land mines, bombs, NUCLEAR WEAPONS (individuals could conceivably achieve this) be a better defense against the government?


Actually, I do advocate just that. An honest reading of the 2nd Amendment requires no restrictions on citizens possessing "arms." Arms at the time referred to any weapon of war, not just firearms.

Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
Robbery has never resulted in the death of the victim.


Do you actually believe that? Here are a few examples:

I was mocking herberts naivete.


That's a relief. Don't scare me like that.
Claudius
3.9 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
I sure have, but my martial arts training allowed me to deal with the situation without resorting to deadly force when it obviously wasn't warranted.


I have also used less than deadly force when assaulted. I believe in restraint. However, how would your martial arts training have helped you if someone assaulted you with a gun? You would be completely defenseless. I would regret the necessity to protect myself, I do not relish the thought of hurting, much less killing someone. However, I do believe that it is appropriate to use deadly force if necessary.
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2012
Robbery has never resulted in the death of the victim.
Of course some robberies end in murder. Does this justify every robber be summarily executed? Just because I acknowledge the reasons for robbing someone can be complex and I'm capable of empathy doesn't mean I think robbery is OK.

Actually I'll tell my own story as it's relevant.

Outside of a bar, a person much larger than myself pinned me against a wall and began choking me. My vision actually started to fade some.

I'm assuming had I had a concealed weapon, particularly a gun or knife, my first instinct despite my best hopes to the contrary would have been to grievously wound this person. I simply grabbed his collar bone like I was trained. He let go (he had no choice), with a puzzled look on his face went to choke me again. I punched him in the solar plexus and walked away.

The fact is you guys aren't afraid of being murdered, you're afraid of losing your opportunity to legally murder someone else. Go play a video game.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
Actually, I do advocate just that. An honest reading of the 2nd Amendment requires no restrictions on citizens possessing "arms." Arms at the time referred to any weapon of war, not just firearms.

You are right in the sense that arms means ALL arms, but you're wrong in saying the meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be determined through "an honest reading."

The 2nd Amendment is among the most vague of an intentionaly vaguely worded document.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
Ghost:

YOu don't understand something called "offensive balance".

A mass shooter has a timing advantage vs security guards and such, because the guard is unaware of what is about to happen and when. By the time the guard realizes an attack is happening, he is already dead.

The defender does not know if and when an attack will happen, so when the attack happens, the defender is always surprised. Obviously, the guard is going to be the first target of any attack, which means be the time he/she realized an attack is happening they are already dead. After this point, it's back to no guard, and the same thing happens.

So due to the element of surprise, one guard is actually exactly as good as zero guards, since the first person shot dies first either way.
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
A punch to the nose, throat, or even solar plexus could result in death given the proper force. Being that I'm not trained in a lethal fighting style a punch may not provide me the ability to walk away.
And the last time I checked, not every gun shot wound resulted in death, even head shots (see Giffords). It's a ridiculous claim that I want to retain my right to kill someone legally, self preservation is the only motive. I myself have been shot at and pistol whipped for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (wrongly accused by pistoleer and fortunately a bad shot). Having a gun pointed at you quickly deflates one's confidence.
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Obviously, the guard is going to be the first target of any attack, which means be the time he/she realized an attack is happening they are already dead.


So, imagine a movie theater in which most of the people are armed and trained (analogous to Switzerland.)

1.) If you are a nut case and want a lot of victims, would you attack that crowd?

2.) If you did decide to attack that crowd (since you are a nut case you might do anything) how long do you think you will be able to keep firing while the crowd reacts to you?

Historically, an armed citizenry is at less risk than a disarmed one. All of these massacres were of unarmed citizens, who were not permitted to carry firearms.
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
The 2nd Amendment is among the most vague of an intentionaly vaguely worded document.


Only if you don't understand the English language. Better to ask those who were there:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
Try diagramming the 2nd Amendment. The clause is grammatically insufficient and vague. It is not clear whether it provides a right for all citizens to bear arms or it provides that right only to members of a militia.

The Supreme Court ruled during a time when most of the founders were still alive that the founders views are irrelevent. Only the words and subsequently the interpretation of the Constitution determine its scope.

You make it sound like the founders all universally supported every aspect of the Constitution. That's a fairy tale. If it were even close to being true we wouldn't have historical terms like "The Great Compromise" and "The 3/5's Compromise".
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
It meant both. It is very clear.

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

both by Thomas Jefferson. Even if you think his views were irrelevant, he understood what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was.

The Supreme Court? Ha!
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
I find the militia argument insufficient, and if it's taken at face value not providing the solution that those who are in favor of more gun control would like.

Historically a militia is every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 40 (that varies of course), and the militia traditionally has easy (ie in the home) access to military grade firearms. Is that what you really want?
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Incidents like the Newtown shooting are rare. They are going to happen from time to time. There is no solution, except an arm guard. Free citizens have a right to arm themselves for defense. If you ban guns, that will only remove guns from law abiding citizens.

The far left look for opportunities like this to limit freedom. They're dishonest and reactionary.

In Chicago a dozen youth are shot on a typical weekend, yet Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws. The media does not report THAT carnage because a) it displays a dismal failure of liberal mentality, b) they might have to report on the thuggish and dependent subculture in the black community, that liberalism helped create in perpetuating victimhood.

This country is waaaaaay to weak on criminals in general.
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
It must suck living in constant fear.

This country is waaaaaay to weak on criminals in general.
Examples? Suggestions? The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are DUIs and financial crimes.

_V_Switzerland is also socialist. How 'bout that?_V_
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Historically a militia is every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 40 (that varies of course), and the militia traditionally has easy (ie in the home) access to military grade firearms. Is that what you really want?


Consider Switzerland. Every male is a member of the militia, keeps military grade firearms in his home. They have been seen grocery shopping with machine guns slung over their shoulders. The crime rate? Almost non-existent.

Is that what you really want? No, who would want a crime rate so low as to be non-existent. ;)
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2012
It must suck living in constant fear.


Why would someone without fear want to curb the general public's access to firearms?
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
To spite you.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
Re: Switzerland (again)

"Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
In the home, writes John McPhee, "while a father cleans his rifle at the kitchen table his son is watching, and 'the boy gets close to the weapon' ". Marshall Clinard explains that because army weapons must be kept in the home much activity associated with the proper care of weapons, target practice, or conversations about military activities become common in the family. All of this, together with the other varied activities carried out in Switzerland across age lines, has served to inhibit the age separation, alienation, and growth of a separate youth culture that has increasingly become characteristic of the United States, Sweden, and many other highly developed countries. Although these factors represent only one aspect of a total Swiss way of life, they play no small part in the low crime rate and the crime trend."
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
This country is waaaaaay to weak on criminals in general.
Examples? Suggestions? The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are DUIs and financial crimes.


Those, yes. You have people using the prison system as a means of retirement. Criminals have nothing to fear except being taken care of in prison. They should fear prison or the death penalty. Liberals have neutered the justice system.

All violent criminals should be forced to work, no TV. Murderers and child rapists should get the death penalty, soon after one appeal. Penalties should be pre defined and taken out of the hands of bleeding heart judges.

It should not be a political issue, nor a moral one,... but one of utilitarian necessity. We send our troops to fight and die in foreign lands to ultimately protect us from those wanting to do us harm, but cuddle the same threat from within. It's no different, because once they are convicted they deserve no rights.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
The solution is to make crime committed with a gun resoundingly devastating for the criminal.

This Newtown shooting of children is exceedingly rare occurrence,... while black youth are shot by the dozens every month in areas like chicago. The intrinsically racist and hypocrite far left expect this savagery as a norm (it shouldn't be), so its never mentioned in the media nor made an political "emergency" as this Newtown shooting apparently is now, despite the rarity of such an event. There is no possible law that could have prevented it.

I'll make a deal with the reactionary left,.. solve the high crime rate due to guns in Chicago first, THEN you will get my support for more gun restrictions.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
A mass shooter has a timing advantage vs security guards and such, because the guard is unaware of what is about to happen and when. By the time the guard realizes an attack is happening, he is already dead.
You are fabricating a scenario in that glorious mind of yours. The brave teachers at Newtown may at least have had a chance if they had been armed and trained. As it was they had NO chance.

Not one person at virginia tech was armed in a building full of responsible, educated people. As a result they had absolutely NO chance of defending themselves.

An island full of teenagers in norway had absolutely no way of protecting themselves from any threat, let alone one madman with an arsenal.

I bet that nearby there was a bank whose owners had the wherewithal to post an armed guard. We protect our money and our property WITH GUNS because we are pragmatic. We DO NOT protect our children WITH GUNS because we are blinded by ideology.

This has got to change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Dec 19, 2012
Tell you what - as this is an emergency, I suggest we immediately take measures to protect schools at the same level as we do banks, malls, museums, warehouses, and perhaps even airports as we did after 9/11.

And once the playing field is equal we reassess the need to protect ALL of these things with deadly force based upon their intrinsic value.

If we truly want to be a nation without guns, we should expose our assets in terms of relative value. Perhaps warehouses should be left unguarded first. If that works out we can try something else. Maybe our borders.

But it is INSANITY to leave our most valuable asset in the most vulnerable position of all. Dont you agree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
The solution is to make crime committed with a gun resoundingly devastating for the criminal.
Unfortunately the massacre guys usually save the last bullet for themselves.

We could try to revisit an old perspective. These gentlemen operate somewhere outside the human psyche and do not feel bound by normal laws and morality. So why should we?

Centuries ago Britain, then the most civilized country, used to employ the concept of public humiliation after death. They believed that ruination of the offenders corpse and display in public presented a suitable deterrent. They would place their heads on pikes in front of parliament. Mexican cartels seem to think this works well.

This is certainly preferable to plastering their faces all over the 6 o'clock news, which probably makes them giddy with anticipation.
Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership.
Compulsory military service. This is to protect their MONEY.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
Fluoride in water, brain implanted chips and cameras at every place will provide enough of safety for future Americans.. These things work, when they're applied consequentially.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
The solution is to make crime committed with a gun resoundingly devastating for the criminal.
Unfortunately the massacre guys usually save the last bullet for themselves.


THAT'S the point though. Those cases are rare, but if ALL violent (attempted murder) type crime had the same ultimate ending, with the criminal having effectively committed suicide by virtue of the death penalty being preordained for such acts, the crime rate would plummet. Even savage criminals exercise self preservation.

Criminals have nothing to fear from the existing system. They're savages and should be treated as such. The death penalty is the mark of a sophisticated society that values innocent life over criminal life.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 19, 2012
The death penalty is the mark of a sophisticated society that values innocent life over criminal life.

You're a psychopath.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) Dec 19, 2012
At least in the future only robots will have guns. And also the few psychopaths who are left.
ckid
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2012
Never can figure out the Democrats. They want to make illegal drugs legal, and they want to make legal guns illegal.

Or maybe the reasoning is that with more drugs we'll have more crazy people running around, and then to protect people from the crazy people we'll control guns more???

Or, is it tha after a century of legislation to control illegal drugs goverment control has been so successful that illicit drugs are no longer a problem?????
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
The democrats are mush heads.
Drugs probably wreck as many lives as guns, but they're for the former and against the latter. They're pro-choice but against choice in not joining unions. They support abortion, so it's ok to kill babies, but are against the death penalty, so they value the life of a murderer more than an inevitable innocent life.

They're experts in using societal statistics to justify social engineering, but don't what teachers to be evaluated based on performance, nor do they care about statistics demonstrating the failure of their big gov mentality.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
The death penalty is the mark of a sophisticated society that values innocent life over criminal life.

You're a psychopath.


How do you mean, sport?
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
Drugs probably wreck as many lives as guns,
Okay we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's equal.
but they're for the former and against the latter.
And you're for the latter and against the former. How is that any worse or better? They are both issues of freedom.
They're pro-choice but against choice in not joining unions.
That's a laughable comparison. Anyway, non-union members still benefit from the existence of the union. Right-to-work is doublespeak nonsense that exists only to bust unions for political reasons.
They support abortion, so it's ok to kill babies, but are against the death penalty,
A fetus is not a baby.
so they value the life of a murderer more than an inevitable innocent life.
I value an extant consciousness more than a potential consciousness.
but don't what teachers to be evaluated based on performance,
BS
nor do they care about statistics demonstrating the failure of their big gov mentality.
Examples?

Psycho.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2012
Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
Drugs probably wreck as many lives as guns,
Okay we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's equal.

Even if just within the order of magnitude, it exposes hypocrisy of the left.

but they're for the former and against the latter.
And you're for the latter and against the former. How is that any worse or better? They are both issues of freedom.

When did I ever say that? You just made that up. I'm lean toward libertarianism.

They're pro-choice but against choice in not joining unions.
That's a laughable comparison. Anyway, non-union members still benefit from the existence of the union. Right-to-work is doublespeak nonsense that exists only to bust unions for political reasons

The comparison is logical, free choice is free choice. A fundamental principal of unions is avoidance of competition and free choice. If it was in fact true that they would benefit from unions, then they wouldn't want the unions to go bust, would they
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
They support abortion, so it's ok to kill babies, but are against the death penalty, so they value the life of a murderer more than an inevitable innocent life.
A fetus is not a baby. I value an extant consciousness more than a potential consciousness..
A fetus is a developing human baby, and for example, not a mailbox. Statistically far more probable than merely "potential" consciousness. My standards are simple, without unambiguous understanding of when consciousness arrises, .. if its shaped like a baby and is biological then it is a baby.

but don't what teachers to be evaluated based on performance,nor do they care about statistics demonstrating the failure of their big gov mentality.
BS. examples?

Teachers unions actively fight against performance evaluation and merit pay, and competition, which leads to quality. The money spent on USA public schools in comparison with performance is dismal. Nearly every gov institution. The national debt.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012
Psycho


Perhaps it would be more clear who is the psycho if I posted your most recent PM's to me? Your "lite" troll alone proves you to be mental.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2012
A fundamental principal of unions is avoidance of competition and free choice.
That's also a fundamental principal of any corporation, Noumenon. If management can incorporate why can't workers? You're just cherry-picking
@Noumenon Drugs probably wreck as many lives as guns, but they're for the former and against the latter. They're pro-choice but against choice in not joining unions.
Conservatives are very pro-drug. They simply want to form a big-pharma corporation to exploit and milk profits from the drug, instead of allowing it to be unregulated and competitive. Lush Rimjob and Glenn Beck are drug-addled addicts who monopolize conservative chatter. The red states are full of alcoholics and meth addicts. Your claim is laughable. Blue state residents also have guns. But most have professional or supervised training so they are more capable and responsible.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 20, 2012
Conservatives are very pro-drug. They simply want to form a big-pharma corporation to exploit and milk profits from the drug, instead of allowing it to be unregulated and competitive. Lush Rimjob and Glenn Beck are drug-addled addicts who monopolize conservative chatter. The red states are full of alcoholics and meth addicts. Your claim is laughable. Blue state residents also have guns. But most have professional or supervised training so they are more capable and responsible


Valid point, but the difference is proscribed drugs versus illegal drugs. In any event, as I mentioned I lean toward libertarianism, so would legalize drugs myself, to simplify the justice system.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
A fundamental principal of unions is avoidance of competition and free choice.
That's also a fundamental principal of any corporation, If management can incorporate why can't workers?


In a free market system a corporation must compete because people have free choice. Sure if a corporation owns the market, it would benefit them not to have to compete, but as most don't own the market, they do want to compete.

Absolutely, workers should be allowed to organize,( as long as individuals are allowed to reject unions) ,... I agree, but , corporations should be allowed to terminate everyone of them, ....if such unions cause the corporation damage or threaten sabotage as in strikes etc.

Unions are a bunch of thuggish parasites that actively seek to avoid worker competition and pay based on performance evaluations. They have damaged companies and are bad for global competition because the pay rates they fraudulently force upon companies are not based on economic realities.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
,... For example GM was paying people $78 per hour to screw on a bolt , and the result was that their cars cost an average of $1,500 more than comparable Japanese cars built in the USA. No rational business minded person would have made that choice based on economic reasoning, but thuggish unions don't have to consider such things at all, nor do they even have the competence to. Now we recently learned that the gov bail out will be a 50% loss. Unions and government are terrible at business.
ab3a
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
How is this related to science or medicine in any way?

Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
The category is "social sciences". See above.
Trenchant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2012
Interestingly, on the same day (Dec. 14th) a Chinese school was attacked by a mentally ill man with a knife, injuring 22 children and an 85 year old woman.


Keywords: knife, injured. Not gun, killed.


Absolute fact that survival rates for stabbing are much lower than survival rates for gunshot wounds. 1 out of three people stabbed die. 1 out of 5 people shot die. Knives dont require training and dont need to be reloaded. Gun control is a political farce. There are already 5 guns for every person in the US. It is too late for gun control. Psychological classes in school and training to recognize issues within self and others will help tremendously and remove the stigma of getting psychological help. Punishing the criminals not the good citizens is needed. It is a felony to carry a concealed knife in California but only a misdemeanor to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, which is ridiculous. A felon cannot legally own a firearm yet punishment for this crime is
Trenchant
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
Minimal. Good sense is needed with greater punishment and not worthless politics.
danny_o
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
A gun can be operated by anyone - small or large. A knife, can as well, however in case of attacking/defending, if there is a gun and a knife standing next to each other, guess what will a scared person choose!? This shows without much doubt that guns bring bigger sense of power to even a frail person. It does not matter what the statistic say about a hand gun and a knife regarding survivability - people perceive the gun as more powerful, and they will opt for the gun. I cannot prove all this, but it seems natural to me.

Now, the gun has the potential to inflict multiple fatal wounds, at a distance (with knife you have to chase), which makes it way way WAY more fatal to the victims. In this context, I can now make my statement:

I think that it must not be the decision of a scared person, or a person that has a few seconds to decide, or a person who might be emotional for some reason, to decide who lives or dies.

danny_o
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
For the advocates of the "sacred" right of self defense I can say a few things - law of reciprocity and escalation.

In (differently)civilized countries, where a civilian is not allowed to have a gun, people still can have the issue of killing in self defence. Since it is difficult for untrained civilians to decide whether to apply lethal force when in tight spot, escalation to lethality is very strongly discouraged by the law of reciprocity. If you perceive that your life is in danger a judge will decide in your favor. Nevertheless, to decide who lives and dies must, as often as possible, be left for trained specialists. If at all (I am against capital punishment as I see it pointless, but that is a different subject).
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012

I think that it must not be the decision of a scared person, or a person that has a few seconds to decide, or a person who might be emotional for some reason, to decide who lives or dies.



It seems you are saying this: "It must not be the decision of a victim (scared person) to decide who lives or dies." Correct me if I am wrong.

If so, the corollary of this statement would be "It must be the decision of the perpetrator (of the crime) to decide who lives or dies.

Since police have no duty to protect individual citizens, and rarely have the opportunity to do so, the decision rests with the victim to decide if he will be a willing victim or an unwilling one. An unwilling victim should have the option to defend himself in an effective manner, since no other options exist.
danny_o
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012
I can think of many synthetic situations in which having a gun is counter productive and inhumane. Just a few:

- E1: You wake up from a noise in the kitchen. Thinking it is a burglar, you take the gun sneak in to check what goes on. You see a silhouette in the dark, and already pretty scared, take a shot. Guess what, it was the drunk neighbour who mistakenly walked in through the unlocked back door to have a milk drink from (his) fridge. In constrast, if you had no gun, you would opt for knife, or just calm down, shout "who is it", etc.

- E2: Setup same as E1, however this time, it is a group of 2 dudes who specialize in armed robberies. You point and shoot, they are prepared (better guns, better training, vests), and they shoot you down like a dog. In constrast, even If you had walked on them while doing their business, the most you'd get is a punch. But no, you had to escalate to a gun fight.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
Absolute fact that survival rates for stabbing are much lower than survival rates for gunshot wounds. 1 out of three people stabbed die. 1 out of 5 people shot die.
Well it DOES depend upon who is doing the stabbing. Then again, a mugger has probably polished his stabbing skills. Moreover, guns run out of bullets and jam but knives don't run out of stabbings. A lateral slash can cut across major arteries and bleed out the assailed. Throats are easily slashed. Carotid arteries are easily cut.

Although an untrained person can shoot a gun I don't think it's pertinent. People with a carry permit will have the training.

@danny_o Sounds like you want to break into Hollywood. HINT: Keep your day job
danny_o
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012

It seems you are saying this: "It must not be the decision of a victim (scared person) to decide who lives or dies." Correct me if I am wrong.


Yes. I apologize - non-native English speaker.


If so, the corollary of this statement would be "It must be the decision of the perpetrator (of the crime) to decide who lives or dies.


Not necessarily. In very few cases the perpetrator wants to kill. The intention matters. And then you have the case, when the so called victim thinks of someone as a perpetrator, but they are not - just some scary dude owning a motorcycle on the wrong place.

Claudius
3.8 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2012
Nevertheless, to decide who lives and dies must, as often as possible, be left for trained specialists.


Again, how many victims of violent crime are trained specialists? Tell that to the multitudes of murder victims and their families.

Regarding E1 & E2. Because of the increased security of convenience stores, gangs of burglars are specializing in home invasion. These people typically leave no witnesses. Do you suggest that homeowners take no precautions to protect themselves? Should they instead dial 911 and hope for police to arrive? Should they remain passive and hope for the best? Statistically neither hope is realistic. Police never arrive in time in these situations. And statistically you are more likely to survive if you resist.
Claudius
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012
"In a logistic regression analysis, Kleck and Miriam Delone found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist. This was true even when controlling for other characteristics of the robbery situation that could influence the effectiveness of defensive actions, such as the number of robbers, the number of victims, whether the robbery occurred in a private place, whether it occurred when it was dark, whether the robbers were armed, the age and gender of victims, and so on. Thus, there is no support for the speculation that gun defenders do well merely because of other advantageous crime circumstances associated with defensive gun use." (pp. 293-94) "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control"
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (28) Dec 20, 2012
I find the militia argument insufficient, and if it's taken at face value not providing the solution that those who are in favor of more gun control would like.
It doesnt matter what you find sufficient. The supreme court has decided that the 2nd amendment guarantees gun ownership for defense of home and business. So you should accept it as such.
Historically a militia is every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 40 (that varies of course), and the militia traditionally has easy (ie in the home) access to military grade firearms. Is that what you really want?
'Military grade' firearms today are fully automatic. Most people can't have them. And for those that do, none have ever been used in a significant crime.

Anti-gunners want a series of tragedies. As each class of gun is eliminated, psychos will select from the next available class... until they will start to choose from the black market.

Organized crime loves gun control. Easy victims, ready markets.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
Nevertheless, to decide who lives and dies must, as often as possible, be left for trained specialists.


Are you completely clueless? Most people want guns to protect themselves from home invasion, where a) a "trained specialists" is not likely to be available, and b) it MUST be assumed that the criminal entering your home means to do you harm.

There is no special qualifications required to defend oneself... other than personal judgement given the situation.

No offense, but your posts are devoid of rationality. The escalation already existed once one breaks into your home. Your arbitrary speculation is pointless. It is up to the person being threatened to decide, no one else could possibly know any better at that moment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
Thinking about events these last few weeks after seeing this:
http://anoncentra...2-pm2012
http://anonnews.o...em/1367/

-and wondering if our attention hasn't been diverted by extreme events? Can our monetary systems be crashed? Would martial law ensue and a convenient excuse for disarming the people already be in Play? What would we all be speculating on if not for the cliff and the massacre?

Then preservation of Order is paramount and NO ACTION is beyond Those who would Preserve it. NO ACT would be left Undone in order to ensure that the world goes the Way They want it to. The People who Plan and Execute wars would not blink over the deaths of innocents. They never have.

Might be a good idea to stock up on staples and cash.
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2012
If only it could be arranged for violent criminals to preferentially attack gun-control politicians and their ilk. I wonder how long that would go on before a change in attitude would occur.

Of course, gun-control politicians seem to either carry guns themselves or have armed bodyguards.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2012
You will not make a perfect world or a perfect law. You will never have control of anyone or anything apart from yourself.

Own those two statements to your bones and your life will be significantly less complicated.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2012
We have nothing of the sort in the Socialist state that I live in.

Banks don't even have security guards. They aren't needed.

"We have armed guards in our banks, in our malls, in warehouses, along our borders, in museums, our airports." - Otto

What makes money grubbing Americans so uncivilized and childishly violent?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2012
$1,500 on a $40,000 car...

Oh my God.... The world is coming to an end.

"For example GM was paying people $78 per hour to screw on a bolt , and the result was that their cars cost an average of $1,500 more than comparable Japanese cars built in the USA." - NumenTard

GM failed because it produced crap.
Japanese manufacturers succeed NOT because the cars cost $1,500 less to produce, but because they are better engineered, designed, and built.

Never purchase a car built in the U.S.

The U.S. workforce is incompetent and incapable of producing a quality product even if it is of superior design.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
The U.S. workforce is incompetent and incapable of producing a quality product even if it is of superior design.


There is nothing intrinsic about the specifically, US work force, that is incompetent,... so it must be the conditions,... like the lack of worker accountability and competition due to unions. But it wasn't the quality difference. That difference of $1,500 per vehicle IS what tanked GM. That is not debated.

You still have not told me what country YOU live in or were from originally. I guess this leaves you free to be critical of Americans.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
You still have not told me what country YOU live in or were from originally. I guess this leaves you free to be critical of Americans.

Lmao this psycho tried this crap on me. He thinks if you aren't American you aren't allowed to be critical of the US. He also assumes if you are critical of the US you can't be American. What a mush head.

Psychopath.
Claudius
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2012
We have nothing of the sort in the Socialist state that I live in.


The U.S. is and has been a socialist state for a long time. So what?

Banks don't even have security guards. They aren't needed.


The banks I use don't have security guards. This is in Minnesota.

What makes money grubbing Americans so uncivilized and childishly violent?


TV. The Movies. Ignorance. The fragmentation of families. The educational system. Disconnection of citizens from the selection of political candidates, corruption of the voting process.

It isn't guns, however. The more citizen gun ownership per capita, the less violent crime.

Americans are very capable of criticizing the U.S. government and its society, thank you very much. If only we had the freedom to change it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Dec 20, 2012
You still have not told me what country YOU live in or were from originally. I guess this leaves you free to be critical of Americans.
VD is from Canada and was living in NYC. right VD?
Banks don't even have security guards. They aren't needed.
They do. Depends on size, location, function. Some malls and supermarkets have cop annexes as well.
What makes money grubbing Americans so uncivilized and childishly violent?
In Switzerland, home of passive smiley chocolate lovers, mil service is compulsory and after their tour they get to take their weapons home with them. This is to protect the worlds money which is kept there. This is why that country was CREATED, as an impregnable repository. Napoleon occupied it to protect it during the wars.

Walk around Rome and note all the security guards with subguns. They are also very pragmatic. Also wary of Connors and anarchists and mobsters. Guns are all over because they HAVE to be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Dec 20, 2012
What makes money grubbing Americans so uncivilized and childishly violent?
What makes Italians so violent? Or Greeks? Or British soccer players? Or egyptian soccar players? Or ms-13? Or mexican cartels ?Or French Moslems? Or paki Moslems? Or hindu communists? Or Konys Xian devils? Or IRA xian devils? These are just off the top of my head.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
You still have not told me what country YOU live in or were from originally. I guess this leaves you free to be critical of Americans.

Lmao this psycho tried this crap on me. He thinks if you aren't American you aren't allowed to be critical of the US. He also assumes if you are critical of the US you can't be American. What a mush head.

Psychopath.


I don't recall having ever asked you that. I think you like to invent what others think. VD is clearly an anti-American. I asked it a valid and simple question.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
You still have not told me what country YOU live in or were from originally. I guess this leaves you free to be critical of Americans.
VD is from Canada and was living in NYC. right VD?


If that is true, why is he in America? Canada is not socialist. In fact Canada is very similar in culture and economics to the USA, and the vast majority of Canadians are snuggled up close to the USA border. I know this because I'M Canadian.

What makes money grubbing Americans so uncivilized and childishly violent?


America is one of the most civilized countries on the planet, especially considering industry and economic power. What you call "money grubbing" is a desire to improve ones quality of life which causes wealth to be generated. The USA has created so much wealth that the rest of the planet benefited from it. As to violence, LOL, a cursory glance at the rest of the world, shows you to be clueless.

The crime rate is higher than it should be though, obama voters.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
Nouman - "The death penalty is the mark of a sophisticated society that values innocent life over criminal life."

Surely the hallmark of a sophisticated, advanced society would be the lack of need for a death penalty - as the society has advanced to the point where violence is eliminated from that society. Of course that will not make money for the whores who exploit violence to enrich their own wealth at the expense of the society at large.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2012
GM failed because it produced crap. Japanese manufacturers succeed NOT because the cars cost $1,500 less to produce, but because they are better engineered, designed, and built. Never purchase a car built in the U.S. The U.S. workforce is incompetent and incapable of producing a quality product even if it is of superior design.


In that comparison both the GM cars and the Japanese cars were built by American workers, therefore your point is null.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2012
Surely the hallmark of a sophisticated, advanced society would be the lack of need for a death penalty - as the society has advanced to the point where violence is eliminated from that society. Of course that will not make money for the whores who exploit violence to enrich their own wealth at the expense of the society at large.
The death penalty offers much work for lawyers who get to file endless appeals. The lack of a death penalty provides much work for the penal system which is after all very big business indeed.

The civilized solution would be to accept that some criminals are incorrigeable and that it makes no sense to warehouse them at the taxpayers expense. Limited appeals and a swift execution serves both society and victims.

If you walk out in front of a train you will die. If you shoot a police officer you wil die. Accepting inevitability and the immutable laws of nature is civilization at it's best.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012
a sophisticated, advanced society
-would make the hard decisions to eliminate the damage done to unborn fetal brains which lead to the compulsion, depression, confusion, and subliminal pain which are the root causes of crime. Protection of the brains and bodies of the young can eliminate crime and insure
the lack of need for a death penalty - as the society has advanced to the point where violence is eliminated from that society.
Reproduction should NOT be an inherent right. It is not in the constitution of any country. The creation and nurture of a human being should the most thoroughly scrutinized of all human activity. NO ONE has the right to ruin someones life while they are still in the womb.

When society accepts this obvious truth and begins to enforce it, we can expect both victims and victimizers to disappear. Crime is caused by damage and we can prevent it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012
Luckily technology will very soon enable us to establish guilt AND monitor fetal health. We will KNOW when a criminal is lying. And we will KNOW when an expectant mother is committing a criminal act by ingesting something that will harm her fetus.

Guilt in each case can be determined before the criminal enters the courtroom. Each can immediately incarcerated to prevent further damage to the vulnerable. Can society resist the influence of the weighty legal and medical and social service juggernauts which will fight these advances and render them mostly obsolete?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
otto - "If you walk out in front of a train you will die. If you shoot a police officer you wil die. Accepting inevitability and the immutable laws of nature is civilization at it's best."

If you shoot a police officer you will die is an immutable law of nature? Wow - it is hard living in such different worlds - and trying to talk to each other. Can you conceive of a world in which there are no police, and no guns, and no one is shooting at any one else? Would that not be the advanced society we are trying to talk about?
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
I know several managers who have done stints in the U.S.

They had to train their workforce with comic books because the workers generally couldn't read.

"There is nothing intrinsic about the specifically, US work force, that is incompetent" - NumenTard
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012
Excellent. A nice blue state filled with mostly reasonable people, and one Giant Bunyan.

People from Minnesota are almost as rational and well socialized as Canadians.

"The banks I use don't have security guards. This is in Minnesota." - Claudius
VendicarD
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
That is one theory.

"VD is from Canada and was living in NYC. right VD?" - Otto

"Guns are all over because they HAVE to be." - Otto.

The only guns I have ever seen are either in a museum, or in front of the U.S. and Israeli embassies.

Quit telling.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
Perhaps I need to repeat myself...

Japanese manufacturers succeed NOT because the cars cost $1,500 less to produce, but because they are better engineered, designed, and built. Never purchase a car built in the U.S. The U.S. workforce is incompetent and incapable of producing a quality product even if it is of superior design.

"In that comparison both the GM cars and the Japanese cars were built by American workers, therefore your point is null." - NumenTard
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2012
Once again, the government will not let a good tragedy go to waste, and gun control is the focus. We should be focusing on the real tragedy, the poisoning of our children.

http://savemylife...-doctor/
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2012
cantdrive - Once again, the government will not let a good tragedy go to waste, and gun control is the focus. We should be focusing on the real tragedy, the poisoning of our children."

I read your article - thanks - very interesting. Are you suggesting that global corporations would put profit before the well being of their fellow humans? No - please tell me it is not true - corporations are kind and benevolent - my teacher told me.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 21, 2012
cantdrive - Once again, the government will not let a good tragedy go to waste, and gun control is the focus. We should be focusing on the real tragedy, the poisoning of our children."

I read your article - thanks - very interesting. Are you suggesting that global corporations would put profit before the well being of their fellow humans? No - please tell me it is not true - corporations are kind and benevolent - my teacher told me.

Eugenics are alive and well, and quite the profitable business at that.
danny_o
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2012
Regarding E1 & E2. Because of the increased security of convenience stores, gangs of burglars are specializing in home invasion. These people typically leave no witnesses. Do you suggest that homeowners take no precautions to protect themselves?...


...

"In a logistic regression analysis, Kleck and Miriam Delone found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their...


Claudius, I understand your point. Let me tell you what I agree with first.

If the picture you draw of the situation in US (all burglars leaving no witnesses, gun slinging criminals everywhere,...), I completely agree that people must have the means to reciprocate.

I also can agree (without too much reading on the resource) with the quantitative study. If a robbery happens, probably a gun helps in some marginal way in preference to the gun, than another behavior strategy.

My comments are (second comment follows...)
danny_o
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2012
... about a) that we can have a functioning safe society without guns in the US ... somewhere in the future. I do agree, that if the current situation is as grim (probably varying from state to state) as you paint it, the immediate step towards this future might be to actually promote guns (probably not the assault/high capacity ones though).

Secondly, the question then is why the situation with gun-related crime/accidents is at this level in the US? Some people say that it is b) the large gap of inequality and the amount of people close to poverty line in the population, that drives crime. I then to agree.

My issue with guns is ( and I think you might agree with that ) access vs no-access, directly reduces the amount of gun related crimes of the magnitude of killing 20 children with a few clips and a hand gun. Since (assuming the grim situation) statistically it may not help the general crime rate and the security of people, the immediate best thing may not be total abolishment.
danny_o
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
It seems to me that access to guns
- gives fake sense of security. If you had none, you would use your creative brain in a different way to resolve the crime. Lets say like people in European countries do it.
- undermines the right to life in the perception of the 'victim'. The perpetrator with an intention to rob, deserves to live and get a different punishment (although punishment is not the best strategy, it does work). The perpetrator with an intention to kill, perhaps deserves to die (on the spot), be incapacitated (to be removed from society later), etc.
- allows for all kinds of human conditions to escalate to deadly level. Someone with bad sight shooting the wrong person. Someone with bad judgment shooting on the street after a real crook, hitting a child.
- and then, there is the "monkey-see-monkey-do" - seeing other people using guns for petty theft, threatening, showing off, creates a permissive culture that gives ideas for using guns more often than necessary.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2012
undermines the right to life in the perception of the 'victim'. The perpetrator with an intention to rob, deserves to live and get a different punishment (although punishment is not the best strategy, it does work). The perpetrator with an intention to kill, perhaps deserves to die (on the spot), be incapacitated (to be removed from society later), etc.


The above is why your posts make as much sense as potato salad. First of all why do you have 'victim' in quotes? Secondly, the perpetrator does NOT deserve to live, he deserves to die, because if he breaks into your house, a intention to kill is implied by virtue of that action. The Victim has no obligation, morally or legally, to "save the criminal",... only to save his own life.

A free citizen has a right to own the same fire power as a criminal. Since by definition, criminals don't follow the law, one must assume he'll obtain a gun anyway. Therefore banning guns is mindless liberal mush-headedness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Dec 21, 2012
If you shoot a police officer you will die is an immutable law of nature?
It SHOULD be. That's the point.
Wow - it is hard living in such different worlds - and trying to talk to each other. Can you conceive of a world in which there are no police, and no guns, and no one is shooting at any one else?
Well we can play 'if only' games all you want. 'If only there were no criminals... If only there was no hunger... If only there was no pain...If only everybody thought exactly the same way I do... If only iPads were free...'

These wishdreams are against nature. So are yours. 'If only we would disarm ourselves then maybe bad guys would do the same.' Some people actually think this makes sense. 'Send a message.' Turn the other cheek. Be a martyr just like jesus. 'If only we could live for ever...' You see where your mindset comes from?
danny_o
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
A free citizen has a right to own the same fire power as a criminal. Since by definition, criminals don't follow the law, one must assume he'll obtain a gun anyway. Therefore banning guns is mindless liberal mush-headedness.


If guns are illegal, the criminal obtained it illegally. Period.

I do understand that having guns in US has cultural and historical background, so total ban right now, is probably not good, and won't happen anyway.

My point, no matter how awkwardly I may have put it, is that you do not need access to guns to have a functioning society, IN GENERAL. It is possible, a FACT, take Germany or France or Netherlands.

First of all why do you have 'victim' in quotes?


Because I do not like the word 'victim' - if someone mistakenly enters a house (indulge me), and gets shot, who is the victim victim? Reversal of roles?

if he breaks into your house, a intention to kill is implied by the virtue of that action.


No, you see the world in 2 colors
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 21, 2012
If guns are illegal, the criminal obtained it illegally. Period.


Yes, that's the point. That the criminal STILL obtains the gun, while the law abiding is prevented from doing so. Gun law bans only disarm law abiding citizens. period.

My point, [..] is that you do not need access to guns to have a functioning society, IN GENERAL. It is possible, a FACT.


Four times as many people who die by gun shot, die in car accidents each year in the USA. Is a functioning society one that tightens age restrictions on driving <65 & >20, or that limits speeds to 30 mph? If only the standard of a 'functioning society' was necessary then there are an inordinate number of things the gov can restrict and regulate to save lives,.. however freedom must be preserved.
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 21, 2012
It seems to me that access to guns
- gives fake sense of security.


The statistics show that it is the best form of security.

- undermines the right to life in the perception of the 'victim'.


When police perceive someone is about to attack them with a deadly weapon, they usually unload their guns into them. A citizen in the absence of police, in a similar situation, is entitled to use deadly force in self-defense. In both cases, such an attacker has willingly given up his right to life. Sorry, there just isn't any other sensible way to deal with that situation.

- allows for all kinds of human conditions to escalate to deadly level.


The situation described is already at a deadly level.

Claudius
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 21, 2012
@danny_o

You seem to be an idealist. I respect that. I am an idealist as well, but idealism must be tempered by reality.

The reality is that ideal societies cannot be imposed by force. History has already shown that such well-intentioned attempts have resulted in horrific crimes. And in such attempts to impose an idealistic vision, guns are always removed from citizens as a first step. Once the general populace is completely disarmed, the idealists have a free hand in trying to reshape their society. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the deaths of unbelievable tens of millions of people in the former Soviet Union and in the People's Republic of China.

What is frightening about all this gun control propaganda, is that the political leaders who are making it an issue are all idealists, of the same persuasion as those who slaughtered all those tens of millions of people.

No, any utopian society must evolve, it cannot be imposed.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2012
My point, no matter how awkwardly I may have put it, is that you do not need access to guns to have a functioning society


The Eloi in "The Time Machine" did not need guns. Their society was ideal. The fly in the ointment was the Morlocks, who preyed upon the Eloi. Our world is filled up with Morlocks, and the fatal flaw in the Eloi was their inability and unwillingness to defend themselves from the predators. In a perfect world there would be no Morlocks, but we do not live in that world.

kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Gunmen target schools because that is the one place in the US where people are guaranteed to be unarmed. That fact alone demonstrates that banning firearms is maximum stupidity.

Why do you Americans tolerate this English cunt Piers Morgan walking on your soil and blathering on your tele? http://www.youtub...V6_42xe4
danny_o
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2012
No, any utopian society must evolve, it cannot be imposed.


Agree!

For the other points, I sense too much cultural difference, but I at least I acknowledge it.

Regarding the idealism - well, if the situation does not improve long time, better change something. I still cannot see how more guns and more gun training would improve the immediate situation.

Any ideas?
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2012
Any ideas?


Well, let's begin mandatory military service for every citizen, require them to undergo training once a year after their initial service, keep their military equipment at home. It works for the Swiss, after all. Disarming the entire society isn't going to happen, no matter what.

Also, perhaps some effort should be made to restore strict norms of behavior. Somehow, modern societies have had this stripped away, and the results; fragmentation of families, loss of values, etc., have more to do with violent behavior than possession of guns. The corrupt idea of "everything goes" has gone a long way toward destabilizing our society.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2012
Gunmen target schools because that is the one place in the US where people are guaranteed to be unarmed. That fact alone demonstrates that banning firearms is maximum stupidity.

Why do you Americans tolerate this English cunt Piers Morgan walking on your soil and blathering on your tele? http://www.youtub...V6_42xe4
kochevnik

Adam Lanza was jealous of the children. His mom knew that he was insane, which is possibly the reason why she kept guns in the house...to protect herself. But I think she was torn between defending herself and possibly killing her younger child. Obviously, she did not use good, common sense, and instead, exacerbated Adam's jealousy of the children by paying less attention to him.

Evidently frightened of him, she threw herself into her work and he knew that she feared him and that she preferred the children over him.

Connecticut is one of the states that has the MOST stringent gun laws in the nation. How was it that she owned guns?
Claudius
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 21, 2012
Why not look at this video on what the British think of gun control:

http://www.youtub...bedded#!
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2012
She wanted him to "have a life", but he only wanted to stay at home and play "Call of Duty" and other violent computer games.

Guns are only a tool...but Adam Lanza understood that tool well. His mom failed him by providing the tools. She obviously didn't hide them as he knew where they were. But even if there were no guns in the house, Adam would have killed her anyway with his bare hands or a knife. The only good things would've been that the children and adults would be still alive.

The point is that Connecticut doesn't allow gun ownership except by law enforcers. It is the STATE OF CONNECTICUT that failed those children...it is NOT the fault of the NRA or the fault of law-abiding and responsible citizens in other states that DO allow gun ownership.

Liberal/Socialists and other ignoramuses wish to remove the ONLY tool that prevents the citizens from becoming victims to criminals/psychopaths. They will push hard to repeal the Second Amendment to enable the criminals/psychos.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2012
Why not look at this video on what the British think of gun control:

http://www.youtub...bedded#!
-Claudius

Great YouTube video...tells it like it is over there. The British keep voting for the wrong people, just as in the U.S. where the "mob mentality" keeps voting for those whose agenda is to destroy our freedoms. The poor Brits are now victims of the "barbarians" and the criminals/psychopaths, but they have no way to get around it as we do here in the U.S. Here, we have states that ALLOW registered gun ownership and Concealed Carry Permits. Without these, most of us would be like "sitting ducks" to the person(s) with criminal intent.

Our country's history is filled with attacks by hostile Indians and hostile Whites and other races. In more recent times, we are no longer faced with hostile Indians, but we are murdered by "other hostiles", and the Liberals wish to take away our abilities to protect ourselves, our families, and others
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2012
@obama_socks

Regarding Indians. It might be good to remember the massacre at Wounded Knee, in which the Indians were disarmed and then between 150 and 300 Indians were massacred. 20 of the soldiers involved received the Medal of Honor.

Forcibly disarming people is usually not a good sign.
Claudius
3.6 / 5 (18) Dec 21, 2012
Hugh McGinnis; First Battalion, Co. K, Seventh Cavalry: "General Nelson A. Miles who visited the scene of carnage, following a three day blizzard, estimated that around 300 snow shrouded forms were strewn over the countryside. He also discovered to his horror that helpless children and women with babes in their arms had been chased as far as two miles from the original scene of encounter and cut down without mercy by the troopers. ...
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2012
Also inre to the Native Americans, they were defending their homeland from the invasion of the Europeans, unfortunately they weren't as well armed as the invaders.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2012
Adam Lanza was jealous of the children. His mom knew that he was insane, which is possibly the reason why she kept guns in the house...to protect herself.


She taught him how to shoot you blithering idiot. She was a survivalist nutcase and look what happened. How do you manage to always be wrong?

The Postman really is going to come true. The survivalists themselves will implode society.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2012
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.

http://www.mother...hootings

More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers.
http://www.mother...tigation
Claudius
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 21, 2012
...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way.


Could it be that in most of these shootings that none of the victims had firearms?

Regarding law enforcement views on the subject:

"So Why Do so many Americans Believe Cops Want More Gun Control - In part because that is what gun control advocates want you to believe...Next time you see cops willingly participate in pro-gun control debate, notice how few of them are front-line street level offices..."

"The majority of peace officers I've talked to agree that gun laws only result in armed criminals preying on defenseless citizens. Instead of useless anti-gun owner legislation, what we need and need right now are tough anti-crime measures. Anti-gun bills only cloud the real issue. And those of us who actually battle crime pay the price." - Lt. Harry Thomas: Cincinnati Police Division

http://www.leaa.o...con.html
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Could it be that in most of these shootings the none of the victims had firearms?

Try reading.
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (23) Dec 21, 2012
Try reading.


– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

etc.

Read more of these cases in which citizens stopped mass shooters:
http://www.weekly...808.html

Gun control advocates routinely invent the truth
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
As I posted earlier, armed citizens are four times more effective in eliminating perpetrators than police. Ten minutes is a long time when a thug is unloading his chambers.
She wanted him to "have a life", but he only wanted to stay at home and play "Call of Duty" and other violent computer games.
Oh yes must ban the games and prune the dictionaries of words like gun and shoot.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
Adam Lanza was jealous of the children. His mom knew that he was insane, which is possibly the reason why she kept guns in the house...to protect herself.


She taught him how to shoot you blithering idiot. She was a survivalist nutcase and look what happened. How do you manage to always be wrong?

The Postman really is going to come true. The survivalists themselves will implode society.
-FrankHerbert

You fucking dimwit...did you bother to read what was said before you disseminate your idiocy to me and others?

Adam Lanza's mom had those weapons to protect herself. Nowhere does it say that she taught Adam to shoot guns IN CONNECTICUT. Adam Lanza was already known to have psychological issues. You don't allow guns to be used by a psycho on psycho drugs. That makes YOU a LIAR.

SHOW US WHERE IT SAYS THAT ADAM'S MOM TAUGHT HIM TO SHOOT A GUN IN CONNECTICUT.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
In addition, a young child is not allowed to handle firearms and shoot them IN CONNECTICUT. The person who told the Huffington Post that Adam was taught by his mother to shoot...is a liar.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
You want to know what is wrong with American children these days that make them go psycho? HERE is a good example of the Liberal/Socialist attempt to remove the masculinity from young boys and turn them all into SISSIES.

http://phys.org/n...oys.html

American boys are no longer allowed TO BE BOYS and do what normal boys do. Instead, American boys are expected to imitate girls and suppress their natural testosterone levels. IOW, boys are encouraged to be homosexual. Parents are to blame in many cases, and psychologists and educators are to blame in ALL cases. These people all conspire to CONFUSE American children, specifically boys, as to their natural proclivity of being WHO THEY ARE. If the boys don't want to play with dolls, they get drugged with mind-altering medications and get diagnosed with ADD and ADHD, et al...just because boys are basically balking at attempts to gender-bend them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Dec 21, 2012
Connecticut is one of the states that has the MOST stringent gun laws in the nation. How was it that she owned guns?
How is it you're allowed access to the Internet? Something else which needs to be fixed.
SHOW US WHERE IT SAYS THAT ADAM'S MOM TAUGHT HIM TO SHOOT A GUN IN CONNECTICUT.
"Dan Holmes, who owns a local landscaping business, said she showed off a rifle she recently purchased.
"She told me she'd go target shooting with her boys pretty often," Holmes said."
In addition, a young child is not allowed to handle firearms and shoot them IN CONNECTICUT
Adam Lanza was 22 you ignorant fucking toad. Are you drunk again ??
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (26) Dec 21, 2012
So pussytard I see you have a club. With secret passwords. Do you have a clubhouse? Is it in a tree? I bet it is.

Your sockpuppet list is at least 90% inaccurate. I think you even included yourself in there.

You keep posting astoundingly ignorant bullshit here, and I and others will continue to call you on it. Which is only to be expected.

Is this understood?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
I read that too...and Dan Holmes is a big, fat LIAR..you ignorant fucking toad. Read again what I said, dimwit.
"Connecticut is one of the states that has the MOST stringent gun laws in the nation." Adam Lanza was NOT taught how to shoot guns in THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. His mom would've been ARRESTED FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR. Minors are also NOT ALLOWED target shooting IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you asshole.

The Huff Post article said that he was a minor when his mom taught him how to shoot.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
So pussytard I see you have a club. With secret passwords. Do you have a clubhouse? Is it in a tree? I bet it is.

Your sockpuppet list is at least 90% inaccurate. I think you even included yourself in there.

You keep posting astoundingly ignorant bullshit here, and I and others will continue to call you on it. Which is only to be expected.

Is this understood?
-Blotto/FrankHerbert

And YOU and your sock puppets can be expected to be called on YOUR stupidity also...just as I and others having been doing. This is only one of many before and many to come...asshole.

ALL those names ARE your sock puppets that you have made through the years. We have known all about you and your little tricks for a very long time... :P
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Dec 21, 2012
The Huff Post article said that he was a minor when his mom taught him how to shoot.
No it didnt.
ALL those names ARE your sock puppets that you have made through the years. We have known all about you and your little tricks for a very long time... :P
Where have I heard this before? Ah I remember... 'We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are coming. Expect us.'

So let's see, you are going to attack frank, and myself, and antialias, and kochevnik, and cardacian, and anyone else who has waded through your floods of crap under the pirouette/ritchiegut/russkiye/pussywhip/obamatard bloodline, and were rightly offended by it, and chose to tell you so, and most importantly, WHY they were offended by your consistently ignorant, lazy, lying bullshit. Because they are all me. Is this correct?
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Nope...all those people are STILL not me. YOUR obsession with them is a clear indication that you are psychotic and NEED to make sock puppets so that you can KEEP ON lobbing your lying bullshit in every thread you enter. THEY are ALL YOU

BTW, nowhere in the news does it say that Adam Lanze was 24 years old. He was 20
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
Kochevnik and antialias names are NOT in my profile you lying numbskull.
And YES...all those names in my profile ARE YOU...all your sock puppets. It has been known for years what you do...and you think you are necessary to Physorg....you're not.

So, you're saying that Adam Lanza's mom started teaching him how to shoot at the age of 20? 22? And before that, she took both her sons to the firing range but never let them shoot UNTIL they were 20 or 22? YOU ARE FUCKING NUTS.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
Oh, BTW Blotto/FrankHerbert, et al...It's by INVITATION ONLY. We requested it after we realized that trolls like you were going to ruin Physorg for everyone. SOME admin are also members, and they are NOT going to talk about it to you or anyone else. We have industrialists, astronauts - both retired and active, politicians, economists, scientists and engineers in our groups, as well as a very few Conservative Hollywood actors. Liberals/Socialists are never invited to become members. People like YOU and your sock puppets aren't welcome there due to your psychoses.

Too bad, loser.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (25) Dec 21, 2012
Oh, BTW Blotto/FrankHerbert, et al...It's by INVITATION ONLY. We requested it after we realized that trolls like you were going to ruin Physorg for everyone.
'WE have a CLUB and you're not INVITED.'

I see.

It seems all along we have been dealing with a 5th grader here. So sorry kiddo I had no idea. A little advice - do not pretend to be what you are not. You wont have any friends and adults wont trust you.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
I never said that we have a "club", idiot. Again, you inject words and attribute them to me.
Blotto, a little advice...don't pretend to have any kind of intelligence because it is plain to see that you don't. The only "friends" you have on this website are your sock puppets and VendicarD...who is just as stupid as you are, even though he is not aware of it.

You can shovel your shit in this website all you want, and nobody will say anything directly TO you, b/c they prefer to AVOiD you at all costs. They know who you are and what you are, and they know that you will not be banned because your provide entertainment to the moderators...they regard you as the website clown...and your sock puppet, Frank too.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
We requested it after we realized that trolls like you were going to ruin Physorg for everyone. SOME admin are also members


LMAO, can you ever stop lying you loser?

He's actually implying that the people who run physorg made a private copy of physorg just for them, not you know obama_socks making a free BBS somewhere where 7/10s of the members are him.

SOME admin are also members

Hahahaha
Telekinetic
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 22, 2012
I just contacted the FBI about receiving unsolicited sexual PM's.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Dec 22, 2012
You can shovel your shit in this website all you want, and nobody will say anything directly TO you, b/c they prefer to AVOiD you at all costs.
-And you have graciously provided them and yourself a physorg site where you can all spend your time talking about crop circles and paranormal activity and making up science as you all see fit, along with asstronauts and talk show hosts and spanky and the rest of the gang.

Great.

And there's no reason for you to hang around here anymore then. Win-win.

Because if you do you will continue to be made incessant fun of for the outrageous shit you post. That goes without saying.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
When's the last time someone committed mass murder via martial arts ..


I could, but choose not to.

When's the last time someone committed mass murder [...] bow and arrows?


Mass murders are exceedingly rare and most deaths by guns are due to hand guns. No one is going to ban hand-guns.

There are other things which cause more deaths in society which would equally need liberalism "fixing" as well, to maintain consistent logic. When does it end? A free society will reject such endless encroachment.

The best we can do is to be resoundingly tough on criminals, so that THEIR survival instincts enter the equation, and not just the victims.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
under the pirouette/ritchiegut/russkiye/pussywhip/obamatard bloodline - TheGhostofOtto1923


It's curious or 'coincidental' that what they all have in common is a willingness to engage in pointless debate about sock-puppets, despite the fact that we are all effectively anonymous. Are you being lead on by socks on a string?

Nope...all those people are STILL not me. YOUR obsession with them is a clear indication that you are psychotic and NEED to make sock puppets so that you can KEEP ON lobbing your lying bullshit in every thread you enter. - obama_socks


I think you're both holding a carrot on a stick in front of each others nose.

Please continue, as it is genuine comedy.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
It was not a 'tragedy'. It was an atrocity.
Words matter.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
despite the fact that we are all effectively anonymous.


Yes, most of us know you take great advantage of this.

I could, but choose not to.

Ooooo, you're a tough guy. That wasn't an answer to the question though.

Why are all 'conservatives' so dishonest? How psycho do you have to be do use the deaths of 20 children as an excuse to weaken gun laws?

Anyway, feel free to take apart the Mother Jones article I linked. Funny that you won't even try.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
It was not a 'tragedy'. It was an atrocity.
Words matter.

'Conservative' political correctness is going to ruin the US.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
When's the last time someone committed mass murder via martial arts ..
I could, but choose not to.

Ooooo, you're a tough guy. That wasn't an answer to the question though.


I did answer your question. You asked "When's the last time...", implying a question of frequency. I responded by pointing out the fact that shooting rampages are themselves of such low frequency.

Why are all 'conservatives' so dishonest? How psycho do you have to be do use the deaths of 20 children as an excuse to weaken gun laws?


Where have I said anything about weakening gun-laws? You just made that up.

The left are Using this atrocity for political purposes, knowing full well there that is NO passable law that could have prevented that shooting. Emotional and reactionary meaninglessness. If you have a claim for gun control why not make it on the basis of the weekly shooting in Chicago?
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
Anyway, feel free to take apart the Mother Jones article I linked. Funny that you won't even try.


OK, shouldn't be hard....

"attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely" - From 'Mother Jones article' linked by FH

-Did they analyze the shooting rampages that did NOT occur because they were prevented, by use of like fire power. Answer, no. They only analyzed "shooting rampages", which by definition were not stopped, and so were already 'successful'. Their point is invalid by it not being possible to include failed shooting rampages.

-They use the argument of rarity as a crutch, while shooting rampages themselves are exceedingly rare, compared to all homicides due to guns.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
Where have I said anything about weakening gun-laws? You just made that up.

Quit lying. Your psychotic prescriptions are all over this website.

I responded by pointing out the fact that shooting rampages are themselves of such low frequency.

No they aren't and you lie. Guns are sine qua non for mass murder.

Did they analyze the shooting rampages that did NOT occur because they were prevented, by use of like fire power.

You could try reading the article. I believe of the 60 mass murders studied, one was actually prevented by guns on the premises. These people happened to ALL be current and former law enforcement officers. This is not the same as average Joe Teabagger with a concealed carry permit.

They use the argument of rarity as a crutch
You did in just your last post.
I responded by pointing out the fact that shooting rampages are themselves of such low frequency.


Stop using this tragedy to bolster your 'conservative' politically correct treason
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
Atrocity:
"1. behaviour or an action that is wicked or ruthless"

tragedy: "a play in which the protagonist, usually a man of importance and outstanding personal qualities, falls to disaster through the combination of a personal failing and circumstances with which he cannot deal"
" a shocking or sad event; disaster "
http://www.thefre.../tragedy

The atrocious actions of an individual was a tragic (sad) event.

The socialists need minimize the acts of the individual and the act that an armed individual could have take to stop the atrocity. The real tagedy is that laws prevent responsible adults in a school from defending themselves and their students.

Another atrocious act occurred in 1927 when a disgruntled politician blew up a MI school with dynamite killing over 30 people.

Too bad the 'liberal' media don't have the same enthusiasm for investigating the atrocious actions of the State Dept in Libya or the DoJ in selling guns to drug dealers.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
It was not a 'tragedy'. It was an atrocity.
Words matter.

'Conservative' political correctness is going to ruin the US.


Actually, it is entirely "political correct" to be anti-gun in light of the above atrocity. The reactionary and emotionally driven liberal left are shitting vitriol for anyone in support of the 2nd amendment, and who regard the atrocity as impossible to prevent in a free society.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
I responded by pointing out the fact that shooting rampages are themselves of such low frequency.
No they aren't and you lie. Guns are sine qua non for mass murder.


Typical mush-headed liberal. You just conflated two things into one. I never said that it's rare for shooting rampages to be committed with guns,.. I said such mass murder ITSELF is rare.
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
atrocity

There you go again.

'Conservatives' only care so much about political correctness because they are the worst perpetrators of it.

The fact is you are using a tragedy to further your political agenda by trying to limit the conversation through politically correct nonsense.

Stop being such a baby and stand up for what is right. Oh you're a psychopath, that's right.

Have fun voting me down on all your racist titled sockpuppets.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
Did they analyze the shooting rampages that did NOT occur because they were prevented, by use of like fire power.
You could try reading the article. I believe of the 60 mass murders studied, one was actually prevented by guns on the premises. These people happened to ALL be current and former law enforcement officers. This is not the same as average Joe Teabagger with a concealed carry permit.


You missed my point. I'm saying they CAN'T include mass murders that were prevented from occurring. If they were prevented, they're not going to be catalogued as mass murders. You can't analyze what did not happen, so their conclusion is invalid.

Have fun voting me down on all your racist titled sockpuppets.


You have been clueless about that for some time, but I let it go. I do not rate you down except in response to your like actions and only with Noumenon or AntiFrankhert. That's it. Those others are NOT from me.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
They did just that, reference the one I mentioned. Try reading the article. Go to a psychologist. Get medicated. Stop posting. Quit being a racist.

Not necessarily in that order. I see your racist doppelgangers have shown up on my activity page.

How do you manage to be so unabashedly hypocritical?

You still haven't explained your use of this tragedy to further your political agenda.

I do not rate you down except in response to your like actions and only with Noumenon or AntiFrankhert.

AntiAntiFrankHerbert? AntiAntiAntiFrankherbert? AntiLite? Etil (lite spelled backwards)? Estevan57? Telekenetic? Various racist named ones that contain variations of the N-word.

You're pathetic.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2012
The fact is you are using a tragedy to further your political agenda by trying to limit the conversation through politically correct nonsense.


This is false. Conservatives are not driving this hysteria wrt gun control, reactionary liberals are. I did offer solutions over and over,.. increased consequences for crime with use of a gun.

In Chicago a dozen youth are shot on a typical weekend, yet Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws. The media does not report THAT carnage because a) it displays a dismal failure of liberal mentality, b) they might have to report on the thuggish and dependent subculture in the black community, that liberalism helped create in perpetuating victim hood. - Noumenon


It's the liberal media that tries to limit conversation by politically correctness, in not reporting or even considering the above, a crisis.

I'm not against rational measures, I have already suggested aggressive stance toward criminals who use guns.
FagNiggbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Quit being such a dumb nigg, Frank.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2012
Anyone who suggests armed (meaning someone in the school has a GUN) guards patrol schools is now being attacked by the 'liberals'.
While a very practical solution, it does not fit the narrative that GUNS are bad. If a responsible individual, a good guy with a gun, can stop a bad guy with a gun, then how can the GUN be blamed and banned?
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
AntiAntiFrankHerbert? AntiAntiAntiFrankherbert? AntiLite? Etil (lite spelled backwards)? Estevan57? Telekenetic? Various racist named ones that contain variations of the N-word. You're pathetic.


Think for a moment FH, ...I would only use an odd number of "Anti"'s in AntiFrankherbert to counter your even number, dingbat. Yes, I use AntiLite to counter endless 1's,.. are you now admitting to being "lite"?

Etil, Estevan57, Telekenetic, and none of the racist screen names are mine. Given your mental state, I wouldn't be surprised if they were in fact yours, just so you could spring these accusations on others.

If your arguments were effective you would never require using rating-troll tactics.

I see "FagNiggbert" just rated me a 5 and posted the above. Gee, you think people will draw the connection? Must be Noumenon thenm there's the proof.//sarcasm. You should write for a cartoon show, FH.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
Swenson, explain how well having an armed sheriff's deputy at Columbine worked out in that situation.

Think for a moment FH, ...I would only use an odd number of "Anti"'s in AntiFrankherbert to counter your even number, dingbat.
Right, because you're only capable of perfect sockpuppeting and any percieved flaws are someone framing you, right? Do you have any idea how sick you sound?

I wouldn't be surprised if they were in fact yours, just so you could spring these accusations on others.

So you can conviently post the following then deny it?
Quit being such a dumb nigg, Frank.
Well it seems like I've struck a nerve here. I'll bow out and let Noumenon pat himself on the back for the rest of the day.

Swenson, Gardner encountered Harris and fired shots, accomplishing nothing and saving no lives. He was there before the tragedy ended.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
"Sheriff's deputy Neil Gardner was stationed at Littleton, Colo., school, but wasn't there when gunmen attacked. He rushed back to school when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attacked, killing 13 and wounding 24

Read more: http://www.nydail...FoViQi5c
"
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
Quit being such a dumb nigg, Frank.
Well it seems like I've struck a nerve here. I'll bow out and let Noumenon pat himself on the back for the rest of the day.


Oh, brother. The one post you can't edit or fake, is your PM's to me. If the moderators wish to read them they have my permission.

FH, why must debates with you always degenerate into ad hominem puppet wars? Is it that you have no arguments?
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting?

http://www.weekly...808.html
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
"I understand the impulse to do something in the wake of the horror that we witnessed in Connecticut last week. But Mother Jones's "study" is little more than a series of ideological fallacies propped up with cherry-picked data. If Mother Jones is serious about having a debate on guns, they had better hold themselves to much higher standards than this."

http://www.weekly...l?page=1
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
After Rep. Gifford was shot the media immediately blamed Palin, Rush and conservatives with no basis in fact.
After the CO Batman theater shooting the media immediately blamed a tea party with no basis in fact.
After the CT school shooting the media blames the NRA and conservatives with no basis in fact.
One could begin to see a pattern that the media and politicians is agenda driven and not fact driven.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
Riddle me this... How was one young person with little or no real training with weapons, clad in body armor and wearing a mask able to quickly move from a locked entrance (opened by a buzzer) through the principals office to two different classrooms and fire over a hundred rounds causing multiple gunshot wounds for each and every of the 27 victims in five minutes or less? His proficiency on murdering people is far beyond that which is required for special ops soldiers, either that or there is more to this story than the "official" version, just as in Aurora.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
After Rep. Gifford was shot the media immediately blamed Palin, Rush and conservatives with no basis in fact.
That's an complete lie. Palin published ads with cross-hairs in Arizona.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2012
The rest of your post must be missing because you forgot to explain how Palin would then be responsible.
Claudius
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2012
Riddle me this... How was one young person with little or no real training with weapons, clad in body armor and wearing a mask able to quickly move from a locked entrance (opened by a buzzer) through the principals office to two different classrooms and fire over a hundred rounds causing multiple gunshot wounds for each and every of the 27 victims in five minutes or less? His proficiency on murdering people is far beyond that which is required for special ops soldiers, either that or there is more to this story than the "official" version, just as in Aurora.


This is a demonstration of how easily someone, trained with video games (remember R.Reagan's comment on this) armed with guns can overwhelm the defenseless. No additional training required. Much more difficult to go up against the armed.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2012
After Rep. Gifford was shot the media immediately blamed Palin, Rush and conservatives with no basis in fact.
That's an complete lie. Palin published ads with cross-hairs in Arizona.

So?
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2012
This is a demonstration of how easily someone, trained with video games (remember R.Reagan's comment on this) armed with guns can overwhelm the defenseless. No additional training required. Much more difficult to go up against the armed.


Video games? I have played my share of video games, and I can't shoot any more straight now than any time in the past. Special Ops forces continuously train in real world live fire situations and they have difficulty achieving this level of proficiency. Seal Team Six would have difficulty reproducing these results in an Al-CIAda compound. Nothing short of a Mossad death squad turned loose in a Palestinian orphanage could produce these results.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2012
Claudius
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2012
Video games? I have played my share of video games, and I can't shoot any more straight now than any time in the past.


I am mainly referring to what Ronald Reagan said on the subject:

"I recently learned something quite interesting about video games. Many young people have developed incredible hand, eye, and brain coordination in playing these games. The air force believes these kids will be our outstanding pilots should they fly our jets."

RONALD REAGAN, speech, Aug. 8, 1983

These games do give some training on battlefield tactics. Learning to shoot straight is learned on the range.

I still think the best defense for school shootings would be to train and arm the teachers.

ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2012
These games do give some training on battlefield tactics. Learning to shoot straight is learned on the range.


And learning how to shoot accurately when being shot at is difficult to learn on a video game.
Paintball is an adrenaline rush, but paint-balls only hurt a little and don't kill.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (21) Dec 23, 2012
Anyone who suggests armed (meaning someone in the school has a GUN) guards patrol schools is now being attacked by the 'liberals'.
While a very practical solution, it does not fit the narrative that GUNS are bad. If a responsible individual, a good guy with a gun, can stop a bad guy with a gun, then how can the GUN be blamed and banned?
I heard on the news where a newtown parent didn't think our schools should be 'militarized'. Does she regard our courthouses as 'militarized'? Is the capitol bldg where all the politicians sit safe and secure, 'militarized'? Do armored cars with armed guards in them remind her of tanks?

We should protect our children to the same extent that we protect our money, our judges, our politicians, and our art. AT LEAST.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2012
First, end the 'gun free zone'.
Second, allow teachers and staff who choose to legally carry concealed, but don't advertise who is carrying.
Third, have a secured weapon available for staff who do not carry.

Turn off the 'gun free zone' beacons that attract crazies.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
Here's a solution that will direct America's peculiar obsession with firearms (which I liken to Britain's macabre obsession with murder mysteries) toward a strengthening of her armed forces through attracting volunteer membership by imposing a temporary martial law order on the population while the national guard seizes all private weaponry and destroys it. Kill two birds with one stone.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2012
Before anyone else posts anymore inane 'solutions',.. understand that there is no debate going on right now over whether or not to allow hand-guns. The vast majority of congress, and even Obama, nor the majority of the supreme court would think of trying to ban all guns, nor would they even want to.

The debate is over automatic high powered weapons, and making it harder for criminals and the insane to gain access. That's it,.. it's NOT over whether free citizens have a right to have guns to protect themselves.
Estevan57
2.5 / 5 (27) Dec 23, 2012
FRANK - ly, my dear, Estevan57 is not a variation of the n-word.
It is a variation of "Steve" with a number that is part of a Steve Martin joke.

You sure are picky for a person that PMs me a text picture of your penis...
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
You sure are picky for a person that PMs me a text picture of your penis...

Lmao, what is that even supposed to mean you moron?

Anyone is free to check out my activity page and Estevan's (obama_socks) and draw their own conclusions. Somebody has a problem with being called out as a racist.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
VendicarD
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
How do you know that it wasn't a text based depiction of his penis? Estevan57?

Have you been peeping through his bathroom windows again?
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia has had strict gun control for years. And virtually NO massacres or mass shootings have occurred since. Unlicensed gun ownership can land a person in prison. Only in America is the "solution" to gun violence to give absolutely everybody a gun. You're not really solving the problem - you're just escalating the problem. As FrankHerbert said you can still kill people with knives, but how many massacres occur with knives?

It's also interesting to note that America has the highest "Number of guns per capita by country" according to this Wikipedia article on gun ownership:
http://en.wikiped..._country
Estevan57
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2012
Frank - "Lmao, what is that even supposed to mean you moron?"
It would mean this, dumbass.

FrankHerbert 11.16.2012 16:34
8===========D~~~~~~~

FrankHerbert 11.16.2012 16:34
That's me!

Estevan57 11.16.2012 15:56
It is not pleasant to talk to a 12 year old jerk such as yourself.

Vendi - If he says it's him I just take his word for it.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2012
8===========D~~~~~~~

Looks like one of the twin towers.

The Republican one looked like this...

8=\\
....\\=D

Sad isn't it?
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2012
Estevan sure is an expert on penises.

Keep it freaky Steve.
dtxx
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2012
His proficiency on murdering people is far beyond that which is required for special ops soldiers, either that or there is more to this story than the "official" version, just as in Aurora.


You are so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. So a SEAL or Army Ranger with an AR-15 and two handguns couldn't kill 20 kids and a few unarmed adults in two adjacent rooms in under 10 minutes?

Most of the kids were huddled up together on the floor. Have you ever fired a gun in your life? 100 rounds in five minutes impresses you?

Go look at an IPSC competition. Normal civilians just with a single handgun can take down a string of 20 or 30 targets in well under a minute. Steel Challenge competitors routinely hit five small steel plates in under five seconds, with that time including having to draw the gun from a holster.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones"

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
tscati
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012
The second amendment gives the right to bear arms - it doesn't mention bearing ammunition or using arms. So, why not just ban the carrying of ammunition in a public place and have a very serious penalty for firing a gun in a public place? Simple. A solution that makes everyone happy, even the NRA (after all, they're the National RIFLE association, not the National Ammunition Association)
Claudius
3 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/us-mass-shootings-2012/

1 or 2 killed as a "mass shooting"?!

Is the WaPo on drugs again???
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
The second amendment gives the right to bear arms - it doesn't mention bearing ammunition or using arms.
Guns don't make very good clubs. The best protection for the money by the way is a crowbar. Eight dollars at ace hardware.

You're really totally ignorant of the whole subject aren't you? So many people are.

Our kids are already protected while they are at school by good guys with guns. But for some reason these good guys are kept 10 or 15 minutes away, where there pretty much useless when there's trouble.

PBS ran excerpts from Wayne la pierres speech yesterday but of course they left out his most important point, one against which they have no argument: politicians are protected by armed guards, Wayne pointed out on national tv, but for some reason doing this in schools is regarded as 'repugnant' in the commentators words.

Even our celebrities work in studios with armed guards. I bet PBS has them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
Another sound bite, from ABC news re: armed guards; 'Even back in the wild west you had to check your guns at the door...'

-Yeah but there was a guy with a GUN there to make sure that you did. Bloody hell. You spend a minute listening or reading and you encounter a lie. This is not a good time for America.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
"Retiring Republican Rep. Ron Paul pushed back Monday against the National Rifle Association's call for installing armed officers in every school, warning that the move could create a TSA-style maze of checkpoints and surveillance cameras -- with limited effect."

-I used to go to a shoprite which had a little cop stand right inside the door. Another one had one behind a half-mirrored window. Cops, not security guards, protecting supermarket money. A mall nearby had a satellite police station right inside.

Many schools have metal detectors. In courthouses these are manned by cops. Why not schools? A few offices with bulletproof mirrored glass windows dispersed around the building. That's IT. just like in jewelry stores and buy-your-gold shops.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Otto, the UK disproves the ideas you and others in this topic are trying to perpetuate.

Gun control is virtually total in the UK, even police don't carry guns, and British statistics easily contradict three major gun control talking points:

1) Gun control won't affect gun violence because criminals will still use guns, only law-abiding citizens won't have them--actually gun crime has vastly decreased since widespread gun control was implemented, for example the firearm homicide rate in the UK is now one one hundredth of the US rate. http://en.wikiped...ath_rate
2) Gun control doesn't matter because criminals will still use other weapons to commit crimes--actually, overall crime rates including violent crime and homicide have been declining steadily for at least a decade. http://www.guardi...nd-wales
3) (continued)
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
3) Gun control is just a stepping stone to full-on government tyranny, Hitler, Stalin, etc.--regardless of what you think of the UK or their politics, it's hard to argue they're not a high-functioning democracy.

Also,

4) Gun control doesn't affect mass shootings--In 1996, there was a shooting at a primary school in Scotland. 16 children ages 5-6 were killed, along with one teacher. The following year, the UK banned the private ownership of ALL cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of caliber. There haven't been any school shootings since 1996, which even if not a complete end to them, at least means their rate of mass shootings is far below the US rate of multiple mass shootings per year.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2012
His proficiency on murdering people is far beyond that which is required for special ops soldiers, either that or there is more to this story than the "official" version, just as in Aurora.


You are so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. So a SEAL or Army Ranger with an AR-15 and two handguns couldn't kill 20 kids and a few unarmed adults in two adjacent rooms in under 10 minutes?

Most of the kids were huddled up together on the floor. Have you ever fired a gun in your life? 100 rounds in five minutes impresses you?

Go look at an IPSC competition. Normal civilians just with a single handgun can take down a string of 20 or 30 targets in well under a minute. Steel Challenge competitors routinely hit five small steel plates in under five seconds, with that time including having to draw the gun from a holster.


That's the point, this guy had little or no training, yet his proficiency matched that of professionals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
for example the firearm homicide rate in the UK is now one one hundredth of the US rate.
Yes and the gang-banger drug-war rate is also 1/100th the US rate. You're comparing apples and oranges and proposing something that simply can't be applied here. 300M guns.

While you're spending 100B dollars to get SOME of them away from the honest people who bought them legally, schools will be left defenseless out of principle. PRINCIPLE. why doesn't the same principle apply to state houses and school board meetings? It should.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
Ever see this?
http://www.youtub...a_player

-They protect SCHOOL BOARDS with armed guards but not SCHOOLS. Outrageous.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
Uhh you know you can restrict guns AND post guards in schools if you really feel the latter is necessary.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2012
"[In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner."
http://www.captai...d-brits/
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Gun homicides per 100,000 people.

United States 3.7 as of 2009
Australia 0.09 as of 2008
http://en.wikiped...ath_rate
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2012
" If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns."
http://theacru.or...ductive/
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2012
"The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)"
"But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive."
http://theacru.or...ductive/
Then the motive for gun control is NOT crime control but govt control of people.
Frankie is goosestepping with is fellow travelers.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
Frankie is goosestepping with is fellow travelers.
He who smelt it dealt it.

ACRU, lol conservative fascists are so juvenile. Only a fascist would be opposed to the ACLU.

Funny that article cites no sources.

I have quoted sources that prove since a near universal firearm ban in the UK, violent crime IN GENERAL has decreased. But please quote 'sources' that exist solely to bolster your ever-fragile worldview.

It must suck not being able to go outside or to any non-party sponsered website without having your worldview shattered.

In case anyone cares, I don't believe in a universal firearm ban. I think semiautomatic and automatic weapons of all types should be banned.

I also own a rifle, which though I don't think it should be banned, I'd gladly give it up if it were.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
I don't believe in a universal firearm ban. I think semiautomatic and automatic weapons of all types should be banned.

That's pretty much a universal firearms ban.
But that's not a surprise.
Frankie wants the state to have automatic weapons while the people are essentially unarmed.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
That's pretty much a universal firearms ban.

No it's not pretty much a universal ban, and besides pretty much is not universal. Like black is not white. Up is not down.

And despite the popular meme, the 2nd amendment doesn't exist to keep the government in check. Insurrection is expressly forbidden by the Constitution (Preamble; Article I, Section 8; Article III, Section 3).

The government has tanks, bombers, grenades, MOABs, thermonuclear weapons, etc. You think a (semi)automatic weapon will make a difference? You're dead either way.

Your fantasy of overthrowing the government will never happen. It failed in the 1860's and any attempts today would fail before they even got off the ground. Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

You should be deported to G-bay.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
the 2nd amendment doesn't exist to keep the government in check.

Yes it is:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])"
""And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)"
""The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)"
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
"he possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])"
""The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])"
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
Elbridge Gerry of gerrymandering fame? Jefferson also thought the Constitution should have been scrapped after 19 years.

The opinions of the founders don't matter, only the language of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... insure domestic Tranquility
I.e. prevent rebellion

The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Article I, Section 8

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Article III, Section 3
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
Perpetual Union:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."
-Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address

Rebellion is EXPRESSLY forbidden. If you don't like the government, vote, lobby, lie, whatever. You don't get to take up arms against the government.

It's funny/sad how you ignore large swaths of the Constitution when they don't fit your worldview.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2012
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."
And armed citizenry is a check against a tyrannical govt. as it must either first confiscate the weapons or risk open, armed resistance. Don't forget, most rank and file police and soldiers will be on the side of the citizen, not the state.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the USA, sounds like the current regime and his 'progressive'/socialist fellow travelers and all the other communist agents in the US govt.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
Murder rate in England doubled after the gun ban there
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Source?

Violent crime has been falling steadily for the last decade in the UK. Guns were near universally banned in 1997.
http://www.guardi...nd-wales

Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the USA, sounds like the current regime and his 'progressive'/socialist fellow travelers and all the other communist agents in the US govt

You're the one calling for armed rebellion. Spin it however you want, but your view is fundamentally unconstitutional and treasonous. It isn't a crime to be a socialist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2012
Violent crime has been falling steadily for the last decade in the UK. Guns were near universally banned in 1997.
Your link is data for 2011-2012. A year not a decade.

"While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06."

"In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries."

-The guardian is obviously biased.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2012
Seems as if the school (Sidwell) OBAMA! sends his kids to thinks it's a great idea to have armed guards on hand, 11 of them actually.

http://www.ammola...FzxwNe3W

3) Gun control is just a stepping stone to full-on government tyranny, Hitler, Stalin, etc.... it's hard to argue they're not a high-functioning democracy.


Germany had a "high-functioning democracy" in the 1930's as well, funny how quickly things can change. There is a reason for the Patriot Act, NDAA, and any number of other laws and presidential directives that have been put into place in the last number of years, and it has nothing to do with the state sponsored terrorism that has recently plagued the world. There is a very REAL possibility of economic collapse in the near future and an armed populace would be more of a challenge for the "powers that be".

http://www.pakale...america/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2012
Heres one thing we could look forward to if legal guns are banned:

"According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions."

"As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times.

"British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory."

-Britain doesnt have our porous borders, rampant gang activity, or proximity to foreign suppliers such as the mexican cartels. Millions of fully automatic AKMs sit in ME, african, and eastern euro warehouses waiting for lucrative markets.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ― Elmer T Peterson
There is absolutely a reason western "democracies" are being disarmed systematically.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." -John Adams
The end game nears, the guilty still want control.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2012
There is a very REAL possibility of economic collapse in the near future
-not to mention the specter of natural disasters such as sandy and katrina and west coast earthquakes, as well as terrorist and cyber attacks, which could leave regions in a lawless state for days or weeks at a time.

In this case large cap semi-auto weapons are the only things capable of defending ones home and business and family from large groups of armed assailants. Which is after all why they were invented.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Your link is data for 2011-2012. A year not a decade.

Did you even look at it? Every graph provided has data starting in 2002 or 2003.

"According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions."
That data is 12 years old and only 3 years after the ban. It's not an instant process.

UK gun homicides per 100,000 people: 0.04 in 2011
US gun homicides per 100,000 people: 3.7 in 2009
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Dec 25, 2012
Sorry I saw a lot of this:

"Reported crimes in England and Wales, Jul '11 - Jun '12"

-And as to the impartiality of your source;

"The BBC's news coverage of religion, immigration and Europe is to be scrutinised in an independent review following accusations of liberal bias. Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, said the review was an acknowledgment of "real and interesting" concerns from some quarters about the impartiality of the BBC's news coverage. The corporation has long faced accusations of liberal and leftwing bias from politicians and other sections of the media."

-As well as;

""In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries."

-Which is easy to understand. Perfidious Albion.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Do you have an alternative source?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 25, 2012
That data is 12 years old and only 3 years after the ban. It's not an instant process.
Well the jist of that article was that gun bans increase the availability of illegal and more dangerous guns supplied by organized crime. The increase seemed to be immediate.

Full-auto guns are simpler and thus easier and cheaper to manufacture. For example the Sten, the garden tool of firearms. The potential for them to show up in US criminal hands is great.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2012
"...official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[12][13] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."

[13] refers to
http://webarchive...0207.pdf

Page 36. Fourfold.

You will also note on page 7, chart 1B, the 'currently recorded' dashed line that rose sharply after 1997. This might be interpreted as violence against newly-disarmed victims who were unable to defend themselves from perps newly-emboldened by this defenseless state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 25, 2012
You will also note figure 2.5 'Crimes in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence type', page 37. This chart looks a LOT different from the ones in your reference yes?

Pretty scary.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2012
Source?
Violent crime has been falling steadily for the last decade in the UK. Guns were near universally banned in 1997.

Top links in google show it:
http://winterykni...gun-ban/
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2012
"So in a gun-control-utopia such as this, you'd expect school-age children to be safe from all harm, if you buy into the theories of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Yet the truth is more than 440 school-age children have been shot in Chicago in 2012. This is not to say that 440 school-age children died, simply that more than 440 school-age children were at least wounded. The number of school-age children killed is reported at approximately 60. "
http://www.breitb...-in-2012
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
I'm not convinced, but my point with the UK seems to be wrong. I'd have to see the data normalized against other countries over the same time to make sure it wasn't a larger trend.

Swenson, it's not treason to be a socialist. It is treason to engage in rebellion.

Besides, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law and refers solely to Great Britain, not the yet to be formed US government. This is made clear in the Constitution.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2012
it's not treason to be a socialist.

Yes, it is.
Socialists require and end to private property rights, a clear violation of the 5th, 9th and 10th amendments.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2012
It's not treason to wish to change the laws. It is treason to engage on rebellion.

The Constitution (which you obviously don't give two shits about) specifically defines treason as waging war against the United States or helping those that are waging war against the united states. Not your wishy washy definition of war, but ACTUAL war. You know, the kind you fantasize about committing all hours of the day.

Socialism is not treason no matter how you try to spin it.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2012
"Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Socialists are the enemy of the USA and those who give them aid and comfort are committing treason.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
It's legal to be a socialist. You can even register as one!

However, rebellion is treason. You wish for rebellion all the time here. I won't go as far as to say you are a traitor, but you would be should your wish come true.

Socialism is not illegal. You don't care about the Constitution.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2012
Socialism is govt control of private property.
The fifth amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.""
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Socialism is actually government control of the means of production, not all private property.

And socialists are free to lobby for the current laws to change. That's not illegal.

Rebellion is.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2012
Socialism is actually government control of the means of production, not all private property.

Socialists would like to think so, but when the state can tell you want to eat, what kind of toilet you can crap in, what kind of light bulbs you can have, what kind of car you can drive, how much you can pay your employees,....
This IS the state controlling private property.
Socialists like to call this 'progressive' to make it sound nice, but what they really mean is they are making progress to total state control.
Mises describes all the various types of socialism in his book, Socialism.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
Socialism is actually government control of the means of production, not all private property. - FrankHubris


"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organization." - Elie Halévy
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 27, 2012
It light of the failure of government to accomplish something as simple as balancing a budget, or educating children competitively, ....it is astonishing that anyone would consider the idea of a government planned society, either via socialism or liberal progressivism.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2012
It light of the failure of government to accomplish something as simple as balancing a budget, or educating children competitively, ....it is astonishing that anyone would consider the idea of a government planned society, either via socialism or liberal progressivism.


Or any kind of society planned. Society can't be planned, no more than the weather. It's an interesting hook though that the government presents itself as stability, as security, or as a solid rug under your feet. The truth is that all societies hang by a slender thread, and government is at the end of a long chain of frail abstractions. It does seem to comfort some people, much like religion in fact.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 27, 2012
It light of the failure of government to accomplish something as simple as balancing a budget, or educating children competitively, ....it is astonishing that anyone would consider the idea of a government planned society, either via socialism or liberal progressivism.


Or any kind of society planned. Society can't be planned, no more than the weather. It's an interesting hook though that the government presents itself as stability, as security, or as a solid rug under your feet. The truth is that all societies hang by a slender thread, and government is at the end of a long chain of frail abstractions. It does seem to comfort some people, much like religion in fact.


And it is as unscientifically minded as religion, in that free market capitalism is about natural forces at play in accord with human nature, while socialism is artificial, ad-hoc, and counter to human instincts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2012
Or any kind of society planned. Society can't be planned, no more than the weather.
Oh sure it can. No human-conceived system, if left to run of it's own volition, can escape decay and collapse caused by overgrowth caused by prosperity and ensuing corruption. Socialism and capitalism are equally vulnerable to corruption. Obviously.

But our systems endure despite their instability. How can this be? Why is it that new laws are passed shortly after an economic collapse which directly enable the next collapse to happen in just a specific way?

It's like the F-16. Inherently unstable but it is Controlled from Within, in undetectable Ways. By DESIGN. it is what humans do. Would you not expect to find it at the very highest levels of human endeavor?

The west will not be allowed to succumb despite it's propensity to do so. If corruption is Inevitable it will be Planned for, Directed, and used to generate Benefit and not harm. It thus becomes a dependable Tool.

See?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2012
free market capitalism is about natural forces at play in accord with human nature, while socialism is artificial, ad-hoc, and counter to human instincts.
Socialism is a form of tribalism, of communal sacrifice for the good of the tribe.

Neither has a chance of operating naturally because humanity has been locked in perpetual cycles of overgrowth and collapse. It is a distinctly unnatural, pathological state and has resulted in the repeated collapse of infant civilizations and all the progress they had managed to create. Babel fell. Atlantis sank.

In 'Republic', Plato (or someone with the same name) described just how to create an enduring civilization, with an invisible government of an Elite which was committed to the betterment of humanity as a whole, and which was necessarily NOT beholden to public scrutiny.

'Republic' was describing a System which had already been Operational for some time, which is the only Reason platos works have survived to the present.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2012
Well I guess not all mirmonsxare batshit crazy...

"(Reuters) - Kasey Hansen, a special education teacher from Salt Lake City, Utah, says she would take a bullet for any of her students, but if faced with a gunman threatening her class, she would rather be able to shoot back.

"On Thursday, she was one of 200 Utah teachers who flocked to an indoor sports arena for free instruction in the handling of firearms by gun activists who say armed educators might have a chance at thwarting deadly shooting rampages in their schools.

"In Arizona, Attorney General Tom Horne on Wednesday jumped into the debate over school security with a proposal to allow any school to train and arm its principal or another staff member."
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
As guns sales increase, injuries and deaths due to guns decrease, demonstrating inverse correlation to that claimed by gun control reactionary twits.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
As guns sales https://docs.goog...srfoyzw, demonstrating inverse correlation to that claimed by gun control reactionary twits.


The quest for power is irrational. Rational data must be suppressed, ridiculed and ignored if it conflicts with the quest for power.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
"This shooting occurred ten days after another shooting spree that left two men dead. The Netherlands has restrictive gun laws and the automatic weapons used in the December 29, 2012 incident were outlawed and unavailable to law-abiding citizens. "
http://www.breitb...-Control

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.