US has five percent of world's population, but had 31 percent of its public mass shooters from 1966-2012

August 23, 2015, American Sociological Association

Despite having only about 5 percent of the world's population, the United States was the attack site for a disproportionate 31 percent of public mass shooters globally from 1966-2012, according to new research that will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

"The United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia are ranked as the Top 5 countries in firearms owned per capita, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, and my study found that all five are ranked in the Top 15 countries in public mass shooters per capita," said study author Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama. "That is not a coincidence."

Lankford's study, which examines the period from 1966-2012, relies on data from the New York City Police Department's 2012 active shooter report, the FBI's 2014 active shooter report, and multiple international sources. It is the first quantitative analysis of all reported public around the world that resulted in the deaths of four or more people. By definition, these shootings do not include incidents that occurred solely in domestic settings or were primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage taking incidents, or robberies.

"My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nation's civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters," Lankford said. "Until now, everyone was simply speculating about the relationship between firearms and public mass shootings. My study provides empirical evidence of a positive association between the two."

As part of his study, Lankford explored how public mass shootings in the U.S. differed from those abroad. He found that public mass shooters in other countries were 3.6 times less likely to have used multiple weapons (typically multiple guns, but occasionally a gun plus another weapon or weapons) than those in the U.S., where more than half of shooters used at least two weapons.

"Given the fact that the United States has over 200 million more firearms in circulation than any other country, it's not surprising that our public mass shooters would be more likely to arm themselves with multiple weapons than foreign offenders," Lankford said. "I was surprised, however, that the average number of victims killed by each shooter was actually higher in other countries (8.81 victims) than it was in the United States (6.87 victims) because so many horrific attacks have occurred here."

The side-effect of America having experienced so many mass shootings may be that our police are better trained to respond to these incidents than law enforcement in other countries, which reduces the number of casualties, Lankford suggested.

In addition to killing fewer people and using more weapons, U.S. public mass shooters were also more likely to attack in schools, factories/warehouses, and office buildings than offenders in other countries. But compared to U.S. shooters, attackers abroad were significantly more likely to strike in military settings, such as bases, barracks, and checkpoints.

While Lankford's study revealed a strong link between the civilian firearm ownership rate and the large number of public mass shooters in the United States, he said there could be other factors that make the U.S. especially prone to public mass shooting incidents.

"In the United States, where many individuals are socialized to assume that they will reach great levels of success and achieve 'the American Dream,' there may be particularly high levels of strain among those who encounter blocked goals or have negative social interactions with their peers, coworkers, or bosses," Lankford explained. "When we add depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, or narcissism into the mix, this could explain why the U.S. has such a disproportionate number of public mass shooters. Other countries certainly have their share of people who struggle with these problems, but they may be less likely to indulge in the delusions of grandeur that are common among these offenders in the U.S., and, of course, less likely to get their hands on the guns necessary for such attacks."

In terms of the study's policy implications, Lankford said, "The most obvious implication is that the United States could likely reduce its number of , workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places if it reduced the number of guns in circulation."

There is evidence that such an approach could be successful, according to Lankford. "From 1987-1996, four public mass shootings occurred in Australia," Lankford said. "Just 12 days after a mass shooter killed 35 people in the last of these attacks, Australia agreed to pass comprehensive gun control laws. It also launched a major buyback program that reduced Australia's total number of firearms by 20 percent. My study shows that in the wake of these policies, Australia has yet to experience another public mass shooting."

Explore further: Researchers find mass killings, school shootings are contagious

More information: The paper, "Mass Shooters, Firearms, and Social Strains: A Global Analysis of an Exceptionally American Problem," will be presented on Sunday, Aug. 23, at 2:30 p.m. CDT in Chicago at the American Sociological Association's 110th Annual Meeting.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

217 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

xstos
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2015
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Amazing how many Murikans like bombing Arabs accused of possessing imaginary weapons of mass destruction with their own weapons of mass destruction while pretty much everybody and their grandma have weapons of localized destruction under their mattresses. Murikah land of the gun-toting freedom-dispensing psychopaths.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 23, 2015
these shootings do not include incidents that occurred solely in domestic settings or were primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage taking incidents, or robberies.


That is, they are predominately terrorist type attacks. It is not surprising that the U.S. experiences more than an average number of terrorists attacks. It is inevitable that the U.S. be a target of people who hate freedom.

This article, of course, is an attempt to justify the P.C. crowds efforts to disarm the American people.

Do people kill with guns when guns are available rather than, for example, machetes? Of course. Is it better to be hacked to death with a machete? I doubt it.

Guns are simply a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 23, 2015
"The most obvious implication is that the United States could likely reduce its number of school shootings, workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places if it reduced the number of guns in circulation."
"
Most 'mass shootings' occur in 'gun free' zones. Places where a shooter knows his victims are not armed and no will can shoot back.

The mass shooter on a French train thought he had it made as who in France would ever fight back? He didn't count on the US military personnel being on board and willing to defend themselves.
xstos
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 23, 2015
Guns are simply a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil.


They're not just simply tools. They're tools to dispense mass death. In the wrong hands you get mass shootings. How many mass stabbings have you heard of in the USA? If your argument was correct, everybody could own a nuclear warhead as they're "just tools" to destroy mountain-tops.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 23, 2015
It's simply a reflection of the fact that the USA respects the constitution and freedom. These are acceptable consequences of such freedom. Far more deaths occur due to obesity or car crashes, etc.

of all reported public mass shootings around the world that resulted in the deaths of four or more people.


And deliberately does not emphasize the unlikelihood of such events, and thus the pointlessness of such a study.

Despite having only about 5 percent of the world's population, the United States was the attack site for a disproportionate 31 percent of public mass shooters globally

Some countries prefer car bombs, or starvation, or machetes.

By definition, these shootings do not include incidents that occurred solely in domestic settings or were primarily gang-related, drive-by shootings, hostage taking incidents, or robberies.

Of course not, the point of the 'study' was to imply inflammatory statements concerning the 2nd amendment.
dogbert
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2015
xstos,
How many mass stabbings have you heard of in the USA?


I don't recall any. There was that mass stabbing of school children in China. When you don't have guns, you use other tools. I'd actually rather be shot than stabbed to death.

Again, if you want to kill people, you will kill people with whatever is available -- guns, knives, broken bottles, bombs, etc.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2015
They're tools to dispense mass death.


Matches are a tool of mass death.

Firearms are tools of self defense.

Socialist corruption is a tool of mass death in China.
bliskater
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2015
Removed
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 23, 2015
How many mass stabbings have you heard of in the USA?


How many were prevented by the intended victim owning a gun? How much violence generally was prevented by the fact that the intended victim's intrinsic nature to protect himself and his family was not suppressed? Counter-factuals can not be quantified.
docile
Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
denglish
3.4 / 5 (20) Aug 23, 2015
It comes down to this:

Liberals are more interested in stripping Constitutional rights than helping the mentally ill.

Hate America all you want. Citizens own guns; subjects don't.
rgw
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2015
Stalin and Mao killed more people than anyone else, but there is no proof Stalin personally killed a single person. Mao murdered even more (60+ million at best guess), and the same goes for his personal murder count. The obvious answer to these genocides is to outlaw the weapon of choice, the human brain. This solution would not apply to whatever an 'xstos' might be, as it obviously has no brain whatsoever.
rderkis
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2015
You have heard it said a thousand times but just don't understand the implications.
"Freedom Is NOT Free"
The cost of freedom is money, time, AND LIVES.
Those lives are our enemies lives ,our soldiers lives, our civilians lives, and their civilians lives.
It's true that innocent lives are lost as part of the cost of freedom.
But I would not give up my freedom to live in North Korea, Iraq or any of the other countries without freedom. Where I would be safer from privately owned guns.
ForFreeMinds
2.9 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2015
Mass shootings in unfree countries are covered up and the press reports the good news. Countries with free press lets you see all the flaws and don't really cover the benefits.

I seriously believe Lankford's "multiple international sources" data is skewed, and his conclusions are flawed.
jeffensley
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2015
Propaganda masked as science. It's a shame when the mental health of our society gets pushed aside for the politically correct band-aid of increased gun regulations. Anyone focusing on guns is not interested in addressing the real issue at hand.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2015
Free society makes choices with respect to the 'acceptable costs of freedom' all the time, and involving vastly greater numbers of deaths than the above study,.... it's just that bed-wetting liberals need a cartoonish example to notice.
ab3a
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2015
Guns are simply a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil.


They're not just simply tools. They're tools to dispense mass death. In the wrong hands you get mass shootings...


So whose hands are the "right" hands? Those you entrust with governance? We know where that goes. The fallacy of this argument is that they're not counting government misdeeds. When you have an unarmed populace and an empowered military, people tend to get killed.

So to get this right: Let's count Stalin's mass murder. Let's count Pol Pot. Let's count Mao... I think you see where this goes.

Arming the population does have costs, but those costs are not nearly as bad as those of totalitarian regimes.
Osiris1
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2015
Somebody at that American Sociology Ass'n. better start reading the newspaper about world news and stop getting his news from his crack pipe and his views from his meth pipe. Just look at Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, and Yemen and Libya and Tuinisia and France and Northern Ireland and England and Ingushetia and Georgia and Ukraine and India...and even Russia not to mention Israel and especially Lebanon and Uganda and Rwanda and Nigeria and Mali and ...and....I COULD GO ON!! Point is a quid pro quo gun grabber propaganda piece is here in our Phys Org masquerading as 'news'. This is so 1960's drug haze trash as to be sickening to the core. This world IS a more violent place than America EVER was. And the other players in the world use all kinds of weapons and OTHER things too. You know which nation had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world...Viet-Nam when it was at war with itself. Mexico too...has not even slowed the drug/gun gangs there. Only crooks have 'em.
Eikka
3.8 / 5 (27) Aug 23, 2015
So to get this right: Let's count Stalin's mass murder. Let's count Pol Pot. Let's count Mao... I think you see where this goes.


We all know you would like to add Obama on that list as well, but you don't because it would reveal how absolutely crazy the argument is in a republic.

Arguing that the government shouldn't be given the power to do things like regulate the number of guns is simply an admission that you as a people have failed to keep control of your own government, which means you've lost your self-control as a society. If that is truly the case, then a revolution is long overdue.

Btw: Arguing that the government should never be given such power is also an argument that you as a people are incapable of self-governance because you're arguing that you're fundamentally unable to form a competent and non-corrupt system of governance. That is the same as saying you are not a nation in the first place.
ab3a
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2015
We all know you would like to add Obama on that list as well, but you don't because it would reveal how absolutely crazy the argument is in a republic.


I didn't write that. You are projecting.

Arguing that the government shouldn't be given the power to do things like regulate the number of guns is simply an admission that you as a people have failed to keep control of your own government, which means you've lost your self-control as a society. If that is truly the case, then a revolution is long overdue.


Again, I didn't write that. You are projecting.

Btw: Arguing that the government should never be given such power is also an argument that you as a people are incapable of self-governance because you're arguing that you're fundamentally unable to form a competent and non-corrupt system of governance. That is the same as saying you are not a nation in the first place.


Again, I didn't write that. You are projecting.

Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2015
While the title indicates an appalling statistic in regards to the US, the article fails to reflect the percentage of shootings per capita per country - an important relational bit of info.
(shoot me, if I'm wrong)
Ergo, this article appears to be an appeal to perception - without additional relative, hence legitimate, information.
Scaremongering data manipulation to sway perceptions.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2015
So whose hands are the "right" hands? Those you entrust with governance? We know where that goes. The fallacy of this argument is that they're not counting government misdeeds. When you have an unarmed populace and an empowered military, people tend to get killed.

Did Langford count Kent State in '70 ?

Osiris1
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2015
Possession of guns are the basic right of a free people. Anyone who wants to grab YOUR gun for ANY reason is an agent, knowingly or just a useful fool, of totalitarian forces bent on enslaving us from within (so called 'gun controllers) or without (United Nations treaty creators from Muslim nations who seek to disarm us so as to create a free field of fire for their Islamic State terrorists) Problems arise when useful fools of the 'gun controller' persuasion in Congress and the Senate and other places try to force treaties influenced by state terrorist bad actors down our throats at the behest of misguided democratic party presidents.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (27) Aug 23, 2015
Let's look behind the stats/analyses excluding/including this/that 'type' of incident; and see the obvious:

- Guns can ambush many from a distance (makes 'gun carrying' and 'self defense' by victims a moot point if they're dead before they even know they've been shot).

- Stabbing weapons requires perpetrator to GET CLOSE (so more chance to prevent/defend against by victims/immediate observers).

- Humans can go crazy from mental illness, rage, drugs/drink, etc, and impulsive urges to kill may be FACILITATED by ready/close availability of weapons (in US, the most common/dangerous 'in-home' and 'carrying' weapon is guns; hence when someone, for whatever reason/craziness, gets urge to kill, the most likely weapon for 'mass casualties', especially from AMBUSH from distance, is guns).

- Gas/Bombs require care/knowledge/lengthy premeditation (so discovery/cooling off period more likely).

- Needing to carry guns is admitting that society/system is dysfunctional.

Good luck.
JessicaH
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2015
More people die in the U.S. Every year from hammers than "assault weapons". A gun is a tool and there are many tools to commit murder with so you would expect people to use the best tool for murdering if they are inclined to kill.

The U.S. is more diverse than most other first world countries. Blacks make up about 10% of the population yet account for over 50% of the murderers and murdered. I'm sure I'll be labeled a racist for pointing out those inconvenient facts but they are still the facts even if they are inconvenient. Every country that I know of that has a significant black population also has severe gun control except for the U.S..
Steve 200mph Cruiz
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2015
The pro gun crowd is a man who has dug himself into a hole, looks up, and decides the best way out is to try and dig to China.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 23, 2015
When I see a bumper sticker which says
"I'll give up my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands", I think: "Any way you want it".
krundoloss
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2015
So, if I were to find myself in a situation, however unlikely, that having a concealed weapon could save my life, that I dont have the Right to possess that weapon? That I just throw up my hands and get killed? Think about Mexico. They have tight gun restrictions, yet criminals and drug lords are armed to the teeth. Criminals are greatly empowered when they Know they are the only ones with guns. Why do you think mass shootings in the US usually occur where concealed guns are not allowed? There were shootings in a few movie theaters, now people are allowed to conceal carry in movie theaters in my state. Now I can go to the movies with my concealed weapon and know that if someone decides to shoot up the place, I could possibly save my life or other lives. Maybe there will be a reduced chance of someone trying a mass shooting in a movie theater, now that it is not a gun free zone. That is the core of the American Gun Argument, is taking away a persons right to defend themselves.
krundoloss
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2015
You can say "but this" and "these statistics show" blah blah blah I dont care. If I am on a lonely road and some criminals try to hijack my car, I might kill a few of them before they got me, if it came down to it. Criminals are aware that that could happen, hence a crime is deterred, as there is a great risk to the criminal. Now lets say that america decides to implement tight guns controls, and it is illegal for citizens to be armed. If you are a criminal, this is great news. Just get yourself a firearm and do what you want. Dont worry about the police because they will be very very busy, once citizens are not armed anymore. This is the nightmare that I would like to avoid by keeping gun laws just they way they are right now.
ichisan
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2015
Most countries lock up the clinically insane among them. The US lets them run free.
pavlov824
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2015
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, In 2013 firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) caused 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 33,636 deaths (10.6 per 100,000).

There are 319 million people in the U.S., which means about 1 out of every 2,705 people in the U.S. was shot by a firearm in 2013; about 1 out of every 9,484 people in the U.S. was killed by a firearm in 2013.

Extrapolating over a typical lifetime of 74 years and assuming the above trends continue, 1 out of 37 people currently alive in the U.S. will be shot by a firearm during their lifetime; 1 out of every 128 people in the U.S. will be killed by a firearm during their lifetime, most well before they reach 74 years of age (about 1 out 192 will commit suicide with a gun, while 1 out of 384 will be shot to death by somebody else with a gun).
Shootist
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2015
Not counting Islamic terrorists, Burmese totalitarians or Iranian executions.
ab3a
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2015
Most countries lock up the clinically insane among them. The US lets them run free.

I think we're in agreement here. That fact has more to do with the murder rate than anything we legislate about ownership of firearms.
rgw
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2015
g'kam, Greetings!. I am trying to diligently study the throat and tongue clicks that you pygmy/bushmen utilize for inter human vocal communication. I do not think that I will ever get a grasp on your interesting language. I have read that your culture has another language that is used to communicate with animals. This is amazing partly because the Aboriginal natives of Australia have this same ability. I will attempt this as a goodbye, Miyaka gyele mbuti, and good luck!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2015
They're not just simply tools. They're tools to dispense mass death. In the wrong hands you get mass shootings
@xstos
no, they are tools

a tool is inert metal, or parts unless used or acted upon by an outside force, usually a person, for a purpose - a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task - something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation OR necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession
http://www.merria...ary/tool

the gun (firearm) is simply machined parts designed to perform a task...

the moral attachment of it's use comes from humans, but you touch upon the ACTUAL problem in your post: "in the wrong hands"

the problem is NOT the tool, but the user.
the core problem is violence, NOT guns
badgergizmo
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
Truly, a stupid article - typical "gun grabber" pap.

According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.

From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.

In 2010, alcohol was involved in 2,020 pedestrian and 11,087 of vehicle occupant fatalities.

in 2010 69,071 death certificates listed diabetes as the underlying cause.

Let's ban scalpels, cars, alcohol, and twinkies!

IDIOTS!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Let's ban scalpels, cars, alcohol, and twinkies!

IDIOTS!
VERY true!

there is a very relevant meme that should be pointed out:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, spoons make people fat and cars make people drive drunk
http://www.boldom...ality=90

here is another:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NZGKvGFNUtE/US4FlfU9EmI/AAAAAAAAa24/zINgfJRgWn4/s1600/GUN+RIGHTS+POSTER.png

More importantly... as noted above by badgergizmo
why aren't people trying to license and ban screwdrivers? all knives? box cutters? lawn mowers? electrical cords? (do you know the statistics for fires/deaths due to electrical cords, bad or misused or even other?)

perspective is everything
hyperbole etc intended
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
why aren't people trying to license and ban screwdrivers? all knives? box cutters? lawn mowers? electrical cords?

Because all of these actually have a legitimate use?

If guns/gun ownership had any benefit whatsoever in a society then there would be more of an argument here. But as it stands the only real argument for having them is "because I wanna!" - and that's not enough to justify the cost of the mass killings going on.

As for the article:
"When we add depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, or narcissism into the mix, this could explain why the U.S. has such a disproportionate number of public mass shooters.

While banning guns might be a good, first step; the issue isn't going to be resolved until population wide paranoia and narcissism is addressed.

zaxxon451
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2015

no, they are tools

a tool is inert metal, or parts unless used or acted upon by an outside force, usually a person, for a purpose - a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task - something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation OR necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession
http://www.merria...ary/tool


Have to disagree with your classification of a gun as simply a tool. A gun often has a tremendous psychological impact on the individual carrying it. Armed individuals are much more likely to put themselves in situations that may call for the use of the weapon. Instead of avoiding conflict, an armed individual would be more likely to escalate disagreements because of the machismo provided by the weapon. And after using his weapon, he can just say that he felt threatened (even though he was responsible for escalating the situation into something that never would have occurred had he not had a weapon).
marcush
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
This confusion between so called "freedom" and gun laws is quite incomprehensible. Since when does the right to own any kind of gun you want equate with freedom? People in countries with restricted gun ownership do not consider themselves unfree. Why not equate laws on mandatory seat belts with an attack on freedom? Or any other law? Sounds more like a renection of civil society. And the consequences are spelt out by this article.
zaxxon451
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015

How many were prevented by the intended victim owning a gun?


Misdirection. The question is about whether or not we are better off as a society. Clearly swimming in guns isn't working out so well for us, despite the NRA propaganda.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
This confusion between so called "freedom" and gun laws is quite incomprehensible. Since when does the right to own any kind of gun you want equate with freedom?

And if it is a legitimate argument: should that mean that it should be lagel to own neutron bombs just because not being allowed to would mean you're suddenly 'un-free'.

This 'freedom' argument is a thinly veiled false dichotomy. Just because you may not do X doesn't mean you go from totally free to totally un-free.

A gun often has a tremendous psychological impact

Good point. Often overlooked. It can be seen also in the way countries with lots of military spending thend to act on the world stage. If all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
ThomasQuinn
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
If the 'arguments' that the gun-loving mass of 'people' on here put forward were true, there can be only one conclusion:

Since guns don't make people more violent, according to these 'people', Americans must inherently be more violent and less civilized than the inhabitants of most other countries. Perhaps the rest of the world needs to impose travel restrictions on Americans, then, to protect themselves from this demonstrable tendency towards violence? Immigration restrictions? Maybe it's their religion that's the problem, it makes them violent, so we might as well discriminate against it? I'm guessing you gun-lovers probably think this is outrageous. Yet you're fine with it when these arguments are applied against immigrants from Islamic countries.

Anyone with the faintest semblance of reason can see that the significant difference between the US and less violent, more civilized countries is the obsession with weapons in the US. Not just the ownership - the worship of guns.
ThomasQuinn
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
I live in the Netherlands. We have a population that is 5% that of the US. We are highly urbanized and have a fairly heterogeneous population. For most kinds of crime, we have about average rates compared to other countries in the Western world. We have strict laws governing gun-ownership, and a majority of the population supports restricting ownership of guns further. Very few people if any regard gun-ownership as a factor in defining freedom. Our civil liberties used to be comparable to those enjoyed in the U.S. Since the War on Terror, ours have declined much less than Americans'.

Our homicide rate (calculated per 100 000 inhabitants) is just under 25% that of the U.S. Firearms related deaths come to 0.46 per 100 000 inhabitants per year, as opposed to 10.64 for the U.S. That means you're 23x as likely to die by means of a gun in the US as you are in The Netherlands.

The same basic picture applies to most of Western Europe. But keep telling yourself that guns keep you safe.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2015
The USA is NOT a homogeneous population and is much less tolerant of socialism.
The Dutch govt doesn't trust its subjects to be armed.
The Dutch govt refused to protect one MPs from Muslims who stabbed a film producer in the streets.
ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
1) If you can't tell the difference between the words "heterogeneous" and "homogeneous" you don't belong on this site. Read the third sentence of my post again.

2) The Dutch government wants more lenient firearms laws than a majority of the population, so your claim makes no sense.

3) That MP you're talking about is Geert Wilders. The government didn't refuse to protect him - he has a permanent team of a dozen or so bodyguards and a protected residence that we, the tax payers, have to pay for. That 'film producer' wasn't stabbed by 'Muslims', but by ONE violent fanatic. Incidentally, did you know that this 'film producer' also frequently made rabid anti-semitic and anti-Christian remarks, in a deliberate effort to offend? You probably didn't, but most of the people in The Netherlands do.

You really can't handle facts very well, can you now? Three claims, all three false.
ThomasQuinn
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2015
I see Ryggy has brought a fan who doesn't like facts either...
Osiris1
1 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
Mr Quinn, tell us why your beloved 'gun grabbing laws' worked to make all of the Netherlands a population of nazi collaborators and rraitors to their own nation during WWII.

You will not. Because you KNOW the reason why!
Your gun laws facilitated the Nazis' taking all your legally owned weapons out of the hands law abiding citizens. More than that, they nicely ratted out all their good people so the nazis could kill them all in one neat bag right after the initial invasion. All they had to do is go to the police dept and retrieve the 'list' Rounding up the few Dutch patriots was 'duck soup'. Seeing how restrictive the laws are now, the Dutch learned nothing about fighting for their freedom. No wonder the moslems have targeted you! One day your government will be taken over by ISIS. When the heads of your royalty and high officials decorate your bridge rails in a macabre display like in Raqqa, Syria, you will know again. But you will forget again once free to be fools.
ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 24, 2015
How could I ever disprove so much bullshit in 1000 characters? Fortunately, I won't need to, as it will be perfectly obvious to all but the most deranged extremists that your claims are built on a solid foundation of lies.

"all of the Netherlands a population of nazi collaborators and rraitors [sic] to their own nation"

A claim this stupid deserves to be singled out. Less than 5% of the population actively collaborated with the occupying Germans. Do you know who they were? Conservatives, especially conservative Christians. Do you know who formed the resistance? Communists, a handful of religious humanitarians, more communists and another handful of university students. Gee, that doesn't fit your prejudice, does it now?

" they nicely ratted out all their good people so the nazis could kill them all in one neat bag"

Fact-free BS, just like the claim about Muslims targeting us - one murder by an Islamic extremist, dozens of terrorist arson-cases by ultra-nationalists.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
Do you know who they were? Conservatives, especially conservative Christians.

...Heck, it was christian conservatives that put Hitler as 'man on of the year' on the cover of times magazine. The industrial elite in the US (conservative and predominantly christian) were really in love with Hitler and Nazi germany at the time (and let's not forget: they also loved the entire anti-semitic schtick).

So before you go finger pointing, Osiris, you might want to take a good, hard look at history. All the guns in the US would not have stopped the takeover by fascist ideology becuse it would have been welcomed with open arms at the time.

ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 24, 2015
It was even a Catholic party (the conservative Centre Party) that made Hitler chancellor, provided several of the leaders of nazi-Germany (Schacht, Von Papen and Hugenberg) and brought misery on its own following.

The easy availability of guns in post-WWI Germany and Italy (and a number of other countries) allowed fascists to form armed gangs that took over regions of the country and mounted several attempted coups. In Germany, starting in 1919 and lasting until the formal takeover of power by the nazis, the number of assassinations, practically unheard of before WWI, rose to a point where it became a nearly daily occurrance.

Belgium had very unrestrictive firearms laws compared to most other countries. It did not help them one bit during World War II.

Yeah, guns really helped the world back then...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2015
"On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old. "
http://www.salon....ngogh_2/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2015
"In the two weeks since I wrote about the increasing isolation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian, her isolation has markedly increased. Dutch courts have already required her to vacate her home as a result of her neighbors' petition to have her evicted, and she was on the verge of resigning her seat in the Dutch parliament and of requesting the right of residence in the United States. "
" In Holland, every day, extremist imams preach intolerance and cruelty, and, when they are criticized, invoke the help of foreign embassies to bring pressure on the Dutch authorities. They face no risk of expulsion. ... and neither does this mean and petty harassment of a woman who has also redefined that old expression "Dutch courage."
http://www.slate....age.html
ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 24, 2015
"On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old. "
http://www.salon....ngogh_2/


Good for you! You dug up an 11-year-old news story about the *ONLY* act of Islamic terrorism in The Netherlands. You must be so proud!
ThomasQuinn
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
[...] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, [more bla bla]


A few facts:

* Hirsi Ali left the country after having to resign her seat in parliament, and forcing a minister to resign, because of deliberate identity fraud on her part: she made up her entire back story including her name, which said minister was aware of.
* She expected the Dutch state to pay for her protection while living in the United States, despite not even having the Dutch nationality.
* Her idea of criticizing Islamic extremism, just like Geert Wilders does, is to tell Muslims that only the Islam as promoted by Al Qaeda and the likes is real Islam - telling moderates that they're not real Muslims. In effect, she shares the theological views of Islamic extremists and undermines moderates wherever she can.
* She harms her own position by regularly making factually incorrect statements in print and interviews, then refusing to admit she's wrong when confronted with the facts. Serious scholars on Islam shun her for this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2015
It looks like Holland is becoming homogenized into Islam.

Islam is not very tolerant towards sex and drugs so enjoy Amsterdam while you can.

"Ms. Kuhlman has lived in the Slotervaart neighborhood for 36 years but says, "I no longer feel at home." Built in the 1950s, Slotervaart is now about 60 percent immigrants or their children, most from Morocco or Turkey. Crime rates are high, especially among the second generation.

She remembered sunbathing topless on her balcony in the 1980s. "It's inconceivable now," she said. "Now my next-door neighbor doesn't even greet me in the hallway, he can't look at me, and it's been 28 years," Ms. Kuhlman said."
http://www.nytime...tch.html

If you want homogenous Dutch culture, move to NW Iowa.
Gimp
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Wikipedia seems to be a nice source of some information, do a search on "list of rampage killers" and see what comes up, seems the art and thrill of killing is worldwide and not just focused on controlling guns in the USA.
krundoloss
not rated yet Aug 24, 2015
One thing that seems to be overlooked in the gun control in USA argument is: stability of the nation. Any politician will tell you that when they take office, they have to work with what they have. If you change too many things too quickly, it can destabilize a society. In the US, we have about the same number of guns as we do people. If you think for one second that you can try to disarm a public with that many firearms around, its just not going to work. Our leaders know this, and it is rooted in each decision they make. They know that if they really want to reduce firearms in the US, it will take a long time and must be done very gradually. Distrust of the government is a Big Part of American culture, and when you have a situation like that, keeping the nation stable is a big priority. In the USA, high gun ownership serves to keep the nation more stable, deter invasion, benefits paid for by the lives of the victims of mass shootings. FPS games dont help either.....
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
It's simply a reflection of the fact that the USA respects the constitution and freedom. These are acceptable consequences of such freedom. Far more deaths occur due to obesity or car crashes, etc.


Yes, apart from the gun laws, we also think US weak car safety regulations and love for fatty foods are bordering the ridiculous.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
"Even though the gunman, Moroccan 25-year old Ayoub el-Khazzani, was known to Spanish, German and French authorities for ties to "radical Islamist movements" and was armed with an AK-47, 300 rounds of ammo, a pistol and box cutter, the French government's reaction was typical: "It is too early to speak of a terrorist link.""
""Political correctness" ought to mean survival of free societies, not providing cover stories for tens of thousands of "violent extremists" killing in the name of Allah. This charade must end."
http://dailycalle...l-islam/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
"For every legal firearm in France, for example, there are nearly two illegal ones, experts say. While the exact number is not known, estimates run to 10 to 20 million illegal weapons in circulation in France's population of 65 million."
"Finding and buying a weapon online requires simply logging on to one of several websites, and adopting a pseudonym. A click of the mouse enables one to buy a black-market Kalashnikov for between $2,000 and $4,000 dollars. A handgun goes for just over $1,000 dollars. "
http://www.csmoni...ry-video
SciTechdude
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2015
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, In 2013 firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) caused 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 33,636 deaths (10.6 per 100,000).


The bulk of gun deaths are suicide. 7/10 cases. Your numbers are basically skewed by literally the mentally ill. http://www.pewres...-deaths/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
...have a legitimate use?
@AA_P
you mean a "non violent" use, right? :-)
If guns/gun ownership had any benefit whatsoever in a society
this is your cultural perception on the subject, as you include
the only real argument for having them is "because I wanna!"
this is not logic, but culture speaking
i don't just "wanna", i NEED a firearm. i use it. i require it. you have it wrong about banning them, but correct about "the issue isn't going to be resolved until population wide paranoia and narcissism is addressed"
the core problem is violence, NOT the tool. the tool is inert unless acted upon. this is basic physics... just like the act itself is not morally qualified similarly by everyone (criminals think that cops that shoot them are bad people, you know)
banning guns only empowers the criminal who gets their guns illegally anyway (because, by definition, a criminal doesn't obey a law)

the CORE problem should be addressed, not the TOOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Have to disagree
@zaxxon451
by all means, disagree, like AA_P!
i enjoy the logical thought out responses
A gun often has a tremendous psychological impact on the individual carrying it
so does a badge, knife or body armor... think about the implications there
Armed individuals are much more likely to put themselves in situations that may call for the use of the weapon
sorry. i disagree... especially those who have experience with weapons. the psychological impact of a fatal shot is something that sticks with a person as well. forever. it doesn't go away...

you are specifically speaking about "armed individuals who are aggressive already" which actually supports my argument to address the CORE problem, which is the violence inherent in the species
GLAD you brought that up, though...

like i said, the core problem is NOT the tool/weapon (old argument- historical soldiers, etc), but the inherent violence and psychological underpinnings
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Since when does the right to own any kind of gun you want equate with freedom? People in countries with restricted gun ownership
@marcush
this is what is called a cultural argument. in our country, freedom is not being considered a subject, and the first reason for the 2nd amendment was to insure an armed public to draw upon for militia, and it continues today because the founding fathers understood that a tyrannical (etc) leader could not overwhelm an armed populace without destroying what he is attempting to control

I will state it again, the issue is NOT the tool, but the underlying violence and problems in society
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
How many were prevented by the intended victim owning a gun?
Misdirection. The question is about whether or not we are better off as a society
@zaxxon
i am going to have to disagree... if you want to quantify the weapon issue, you must include the positive with the negative. it is difficult, true (maybe even impossible) but the fact remains: if you want to use the statistics of death, including the killing of a criminal in the act of a felony, then you must ALSO include the acts that were thwarted (violently or not) using a firearm as well, otherwise you will always get a bad result. firearms can be used to disarm situations while not firing a shot (even though it could have been justified to use deadly force) so it should be relevant when talking about responsible firearm ownership
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Anyone with the faintest semblance of reason can see that the significant difference between the US and less violent, more civilized countries is the obsession with weapons in the US. Not just the ownership - the worship of guns
@ThomasQuinn
so, what you are saying is that all cultures should reflect your personal set of values?
why yours? why not, say... Japanese values? or Chinese? or MINE?

why not simply say that anyone who even thinks about violence should be jailed and sequestered... so now we continue with that ... WHERE?

Australia was once a Penal colony (not the Aboriginals) but it is now a nation... do we simply tell them to pack up and let the violent ones move there? or move them to the Netherlands? the US?

what constitutes violence, and where do you draw the line of demarcation between defense and simple violence?

your argument is CULTURAL, and not relevant to the issue as it is too subjective and malleable
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2015
you mean a "non violent" use, right?

No, I mean a legitimate use. One that is beneficial/useful.

Guns can actually have that, too (if in the hand of someone like the police who are trained NOT to use them.... always provided a democratic state exists in which the powers that are set up are there to serve the people.)

Yes, I know someone can be hurt by a knife (no point having a Rambo knife or similar. But a kitchen knife is essential for preparing food, and a knife can be a handy tool when camping)

And that's where the psychology differs. When you take a knife out camping or cooking you don't carry it for killing. There's no 'psychological machismo' involved here (if you carry a Rambo knife in a holster with you I'd agree. Then you've got issues).

However, when you carry a gun you want to kill with it. Period. It's not for anything else. (No - it's not for having or causing fear in others. That argument doesn't work because mutual deterrents never do for long)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
That 'film producer' wasn't stabbed by 'Muslims', but by ONE violent fanatic
which pretty much brings it back to the actual problem of VIOLENCE... right?

that person would have used a gun if they had it, but also might have used a whole slew of other weapons. mental illness is another issue but you can also say it is also tied to VIOLENCE.

if we can solve the core problem of unnecessary violence, then we can move forward, own our "neutron bombs" (lol AA_P) and still be peaceable, right?
Yeah, guns really helped the world back then...
strawman
there were a LOT of factors (including violence) that were in play. not just "guns"

don't denigrate ryggy and then use the same or similar tactics, right?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
legitimate use
@AA_P
your description following does NOT match your beneficial use
if in the hand of someone like the police who are trained NOT to use them
you got this wrong. like the military, there is a set or requirements for the escalation of force. the police are (for the most part) taught that, should they HAVE to draw their weapon, you should use it with deadly force, because you've already exhausted your options
thus they are taught to use deadly force with the firearm if it is deployed

now, about the knife... again, it is all about the person, not the weapon/tool
I can guarantee that people are far more deadly with a knife than most people are with a gun, because it doesn't need to be reloaded and can be used even when dirty!

a knife wielding suspect is FAR more dangerous within a 50' radius than one carrying a gun! it is easier to deploy and use, and can be brought into use faster than a gun

still goes to VIOLENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
When you take a knife ... you don't carry it for killing
@AA_P
sorry, this is also not true...maybe for some, but there are people who specifically carry a knife because: it is the ONE thing that is required for survival in the wilderness

that means killing, making weapons and more!
THAT is why i always have one on me, btw. that and because i use it regularly
if you carry a Rambo knife in a holster with you I'd agree. Then you've got issues
define "Rambo" knife? longer than...? size?
you would probably consider my knife "Rambo", and yet it is multi-functional, designed with survival in mind, used to skin, open, light fires, trim, adapt, and so much more... so by "Rambo" do you mean something with a blade in excess of 8inches? or one that looks "butch"?
However, when you carry a gun you want to kill with it. Period. It's not for anything else
No, i don't. yes, i carry
i always try to avoid the need to use it
back to the CORE problem again!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
Yes, I know someone can be hurt by a knife (no point having a Rambo knife or similar. But a kitchen knife is essential for preparing food, and a knife can be a handy tool when camping)
@AA_P cont'd
another situation that is actually more false than true
it is NOT the tool, but the USER who decides what instrument is more dangerous than the other... this can be demonstrated as well

a knife wielded in the hands of an experienced combat operative (legally meaning military OR even criminal) is FAR more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone inexperienced, especially within a 50' range

Also, a lot of the danger of a weapon is also the reason it is necessary. you can't expect an 80 year old grandmother to wrestle, knife or box a criminal to the ground... thus, the only true defense she could use would be a gun

whether defending yourself (or others) from criminals or being a criminal... all this STILL goes back to the core problems of VIOLENCE, doesn't it?
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
Some 'pro-guns' rationalizations [and my comments]...

1) In movie theatre a gunman would not do it if everyone armed. [Can you imagine the carnage when everyone panics, starts blazing away in a darkened theatre not knowing whom NOT to shoot?]

2) If everyone could 'carry concealed' then criminals less likely to attack. [If NO 'concealed carrying' allowed, authorities could more easily/routinely identify, arrest, convict and imprison criminals because they would be the ones 'carrying'; also, criminals ambush from distance if target is likely 'carrying', so 'carrying concealed' is useless.

3) People die all the time from cars, knives, drugs etc, and people kill people, not guns etc. [Yes, but it's 'quality of life' before dying that is the point of 'good society'....why choose life/society of 'fear and panic' instilled by NRA/GOP 'selling pitch'?

4) Prevent tyrant taking over. [US has separation of powers etc.; if that fails, your guns no use against drones/missiles etc].
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
1- so its either the extreme of getting killed by a criminal or getting killed in a melee of panic?
always?
2- see above: extremes. also re: NO- you are assuming that the cops would be plentiful, for starters (we can't get funding now, what makes you think we'll get MORE cops if you ban guns?) then you assume that all criminals can spot CC users, much like all cops can spot armed criminals
3- extremes again. why?
why assume that a culture raised around guns and using them responsibly is "life/society of 'fear and panic' instilled by NRA/GOP 'selling pitch'"????
4- extreme's again
this is because your culture

regardless of the tool, the underlying problem is still there

is there absolutely NO violence in your Australia?
Cops arrest & spot everyone having guns?
never any fights?
arguments?
stabbings?
vehicular homicide?
no murder?
rape?
no crime?

the point is simple
it is not the tool you need to address, it is the core problem
(see above for details)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
most important:No 4
lets examine that one with reality goggles on, not your extreme fanaticism
US has separation of powers etc.; if that fails, your guns no use against drones/missiles etc
start with the separation of powers... so, you are saying that the president can't actually violate the constitution?
LMFAO
but seriously... you claim
your guns no use against drones/missiles etc
yup. just like all those ISIS and other Muslim factions we bombed, droned, shot and took care of in Afghanistan, we will simply cease to exist if the gov't tries to take over the common people with only "guns"
yeah, it worked wonderfully in Iraq, Viet Nam, France (WWI, WWII), the Colonies (US) during our Revolutionary war with England... and so many other places, we should remember that gun ownership is useless against military might!
right!
got it!

what world do you live in?

and even considering you believe all your own stuff....
it still doesn't address the core problem
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2015
it is NOT the tool, but the USER who decides what instrument is more dangerous than the other...

I don't believe that's true. The tools you have shapes the way you think about a problem. This can be seen throughout history from how wars are conducted to how societies are run to how people view(ed) the universe. If you have a tool that can 'solve' a problem (imagined or real solution) then thought on the problem stops there*

E.g. a knife is a multi purpose tool. It doesn't impose a solution on a problem. A gun, on the other hand, does so: "Kill it".

*That's why science is often so different from most anything...except maybe art. Doing science you mostly do not have the tools to get at your answers. There's no clear path to follow. So you have to think of all kinds of ways of getting at a solution.
Humans are energy optimizers. When a seemingly 'easy' solution is at hand we don't look for more elegant (difficult?) ones.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
The tools you have shapes the way you think about a problem


No, it's how one thinks of a problem.
Socialists use coercion to 'solve' their problems, but their solutions only create more problems that require more coercion.
The world is seeing this play out know in Greece and China as govts think they must use coercion to resolve the economic problems they created in the first place.
Tools of state coercion ARE guns so why shouldn't citizens have the same tools to defend themselves?
Individuals use guns multipurpose tools for self defense from both human and non-human animals and to hunt for food. A .22 or .177 rifle can be quite a useful tool for food and defense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
[If NO 'concealed carrying' allowed, authorities could more easily/routinely identify, arrest, convict and imprison criminals because they would be the ones 'carrying';


So you prefer everyone walk around naked, or the equivalent with scanning devices all over or 100% stop and frisk searches? In other words, a police state.

Not surprising from a 'liberal'.

your guns no use against drones/missiles etc].


Yes, they are. People launch missiles and drones and those sites may be captured or destroyed with firearms.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2015
The tools ... shapes the way you think
@AA_P
i agree partially, but it is skewed. this assumes that there is a finite access to tools, period. in this way, you are correct: if the only/best tool available is the gun, then it will be selected (regularity makes this an issue as well- Cops, Military, etc)
It doesn't impose a solution on a problem
actually, it does. there is a finite amount of uses for a knife, just like a gun. it is NOT a hammer (but can be used thus), and so on... like a gun.

ALL of that brings it back to the USER... mindset, restraints, emotional state... IOW- it comes back to the core problem yet again

now, there is truth in your post, but it still goes back to the USER. just like science, if the user is used to not having the right tool, and is used to finding solutions as such, adapting to the situation... then the USER will find the best solution
2Bcont'd
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
your guns no use against drones/missiles


ISIS is proving you wrong.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2015
@AA_P cont'd
the user you talk about above is limited in their thought process and doesn't have the education (or the experience, or exposure to new ideas, etc) to view the situation in any way except as one that must be settled with ONE tool...

THIS AGAIN goes back to the USER and the core problem: Violence

when all you have is a hammer (etc) and that meme might have some actual validity, but only about a person who refuses to accept change and the reality around them.

this is no different that a conspiracy theorist or a religious acolyte... everything they see is in the light of their "training", thus it is explained so, and even the FACTS of science can't get through to them (See jvk, deng, cd, hannes, etc for validation of this fact)
BUT
if you are always learning and open, a can opener can be a skinning tool, knife or weapon, just like a magazine can (Jason Bourne)

it all comes back to USERS and the core problem: violence
address that for change!
not the tool
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2015
one last point @AA_P
Doing science ...There's no clear path ...So you have to think ... a solution.
Humans are energy optimizers. When a seemingly 'easy' solution is at hand we don't look for more elegant (difficult?) ones
THIS right here validates my posts more than anything else! (and time constraints also affect outcomes too)

we optimize based upon not only the TOOL, though... most of that will depend upon our training (past), mindset, and willingness to engage in violence! then there is the TIME available for the task (defense, etc)

a tool (even a machined one, be it a car, gun or hammer) is an inert block of substances... it takes ACTION and interaction to make it useful (the beginnings of the core problem) and the use is defined by the perceived INTENT (the Core problem), which is subjective based upon cultural motivations as well as historical experiences and training

don't treat a symptom when you can address the CAUSE and solve the problem itself!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 25, 2015
E.g. a knife is a multi purpose tool. It doesn't impose a solution on a problem. A gun, on the other hand, does so: "Kill it".
Perhaps. Except that guns are used far more often to successfully threaten and deter aggressors than they are actually used to shoot aggressors.

Personal opinions are also shaped by available 'tools'. Most people, especially you euros, never get to see all the news reports of people using guns to thwart crime. These stories rarely make it past the local media. For instance
http://www.breitb...an-baby/

-There can be dozens of such stories every day which are not included in your decision-making. Why havent you considered this?

Do a search or 2. Try 'home invaders shot'.

If you read enough of them perhaps your opinions would be different.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2015
"don't treat a symptom when you can address the CAUSE and solve the problem itself!"
---------------------------------

Cheap citizens do not want to pay for that. We had it in California, but Reagan put the mentally ill all out on the street, starting the homeless problem in our cities. So we have to reduce their access to mechanisms. What do you want with a handgun?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2015
Cheap citizens do not want to pay for that
true. that is a very real problem with Cops, firefighters, medical and other personnel as well... it is all good when they're needed, but any other time the cry is: WHY PAY for someone to sit and [insert random donut or coffee joke here]
but Reagan put
do not blame the act of the GOVERNMENT on a single person... this is ALSO a logical failing of the argument

don't blame a faction: address the actual problem
So we have to reduce their access to mechanisms
we ALREADY do that... perhaps it would be better to actually start enforcing the laws that are ALREADY there?

banning guns only affects the honest
i have personally seen guns being sold in GB- all illegal, and illegally done. but that is anecdotal evidence, so we go to research:

IF gun bans worked, there would be exactly ZERO gun crimes in places that banned guns (or heavily restricted areas)
Chicago, NYC, LA, AUS, and GB & other places

it didn't work
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2015
one other point that Otto made that is also VERY relevant:
guns are used far more often to successfully threaten and deter aggressors than they are actually used to shoot aggressors
from watching Cops to real life, the truth is that Guns are more frequently used to deter crimes than they are used to commit crimes, or even to kill... why is this not addressed at all?
where are the stats which show the crimes that were stopped and deterred becuase of an armed citizen, off duty cop or other reason?

THIS is why the current stats are skewed!
everyone agrees premeditated murder is bad... but mixed in with those numbers are also criminals killed in the act of a felony! or other criminals shot be self defense!

all of it boils down to the simple fact that people are targeting the gun because it will make them feel like they're doing something... not that it is effective

the core problem is STILL not being addressed or dealt with
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2015
I think for every crime stopped by a gun, there are seven family and neighbors killed by home guns. Have to look it up.

My point is do not bring your gun to my house.

And otto's silly statement is ridiculous.

RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 25, 2015
Hi Cap S. :)

Mate, regardless of what 'side' of the gun debate you are on, for whatever reasons/interests, the reality is there for all to see. I already alluded to the breakdown of society being a cause of the 'need' for gun carrying. That is what I pointed out is effectively being admitted by those who recommend everyone carry guns; ie, that the society is too driven by fear, panic, greed, violence, insanity, profit/exploitation interests etc which create poverty and wealth disparity on massive and unconscionable scale; all of which are not conducive to a society where quality of life is achievable. Sure, everyone dies eventually, and can die of many causes/weapons; but adding 'gun ubiquity' to the mix only serves the NRA/GOP agendas, not calmer/better quality of life before dying of one cause or the other. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the 'need' for 'more' guns is 'manufactured' by the same interests who create both the poverty and the paranoia. Peace.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (17) Aug 25, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
[If NO 'concealed carrying' allowed, authorities could more easily/routinely identify, arrest, convict and imprison criminals because they would be the ones 'carrying'
So you prefer everyone walk around naked, or the equivalent with scanning devices all over or 100% stop and frisk searches? In other words, a police state.
Random stop/search (like for drink/drug drivers) is effective. As for 'police state', think what 'wild west' was like: everyone had guns but no proper modern police force.
your guns no use against drones/missiles etc].
Yes, they are. People launch missiles and drones and those sites may be captured or destroyed with firearms. The US military has many sites (also mobile air/surface/submarine etc); you'd be dead before you 'located' or 'captured/attacked' them .
ISIS is proving you wrong.
US etc want to avoid civi casualties as much as possible against ISIS; a 'tyrannica'l US military would kill armed civies like you.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2015
As for guns stopping/precluding crime, it follows that if a crim/gang thinks a victim has a gun available, then they shoot first and carry on as intended. People have been shot answering their front door before any criminal intention was suspected by the target. Also, again, any nutter can shoot in ambush from a distance, and 'carrying victims' are already dead before any chance of 'drawing their weapon' like in 'wild west' and 'macho' fantasies by anarchists and juvenile types.

Folks, legitimate/reasonable availability/access to weapons/guns not objected to by reasonable observers; it is the fear/panic 'manufactured' by NRA/GOP political/mercenary types who seek to 'exploit' and exacerbate poverty/violence/racial etc problems in order to 'sell more guns' for profit, that is the main issue to be addressed first. Then do what is necessary to calm eveyone down, properly support/assist the poor and ill so they aren't' forced into 'law of the jungle' mode for life/survival.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 25, 2015
Reformatting post:

Hi rygge2...:)
If NO 'concealed carrying' allowed, authorities could more easily/routinely identify, arrest, convict and imprison criminals because they would be the ones 'carrying'
So you prefer everyone walk around naked, or the equivalent with scanning devices all over or 100% stop and frisk searches? In other words, a police state
Random stop/search (like for drink/drug drivers) is effective. As for 'police state', think what 'wild west' was like: everyone had guns but no proper modern police force
your guns no use against drones/missiles etc
Yes, they are. People launch missiles and drones and those sites may be captured or destroyed with firearms
The US military has many sites (also mobile air/surface/submarine); you'd be dead before you 'located/captured/attacked' them
ISIS is proving you wrong
US etc avoid civi casualties as much as possible against ISIS; a 'tyrannica'l US military would kill armed civies like you. :)
moebius70
not rated yet Aug 25, 2015
they need more guns to protect themselves better ;p
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2015
'tyrannica'l US military


An oxymoron.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
I think for every crime stopped by a gun, there are seven family and neighbors killed by home guns. Have to look it up
@gkam
I want to see that in the statistics! hard data
you know you can go to NIH, DOJ and find links to data

until you can produce anything that validates that claim, it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part and personal conjecture without evidence
also note that the above is a large problem with the situation we have as people like to "make shit up" based upon their BELIEF, and not actual facts

as for bringing guns into your house: that is called your right, and irrelevant to the topic

believing you don't need guns because we employ cops is like believing we don't need firefighters because you own a fire extinguisher

and that makes YOUR statement even MORE ridiculous than anyone else here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
@rc
WTF are you on about?
I already alluded to the breakdown of society being a cause of the 'need' for gun carrying
No, this is ONLY applicable in your mind, not in ACTUAL reality... case in point: spend some time in the depressed Chicago, LA, Wash DC, NYC, Miami or ANY other major city which has extreme restrictions/bans on firearms and then tell me who the armed people are (PROTIP: criminals or cops- and the criminals outnumber the cops by far)
Now, your point MAY be valid, however, you are making the ASSumption that a weapon is not needed because you live in a developed area with regular law enforcement - you know nothing about rural areas OR areas deficient in law enforcement, or completely wild areas, so you cannot comment about it with ANY logic (as noted in your post)

also - just because YOU think there is no need for a firearm doesn't mean there isn't.
unless you can give statistical and MATHEMATICAL evidence, your conjecture is worthless, like your ToE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
@rc cont'd
blah blah blah bullshit adding 'gun ubiquity' to the mix only serves the NRA/GOP agendas blah blah
i will say it once again: the gun is a TOOL forged from metals and other material and is INERT unless acted upon my a force, usually a human, as demonstrated in a simple experiment: http://media-cach...bfb3.jpg

there is NO morality attached to an inert object. that comes from HUMAN interaction

it is the ACTIONS of the user that make a situation what it is, and that is based upon cultural norms [see: live executions/hand removal in the middle east]

banning a gun will only affect the innocent law abiding citizen, NOT the CRIMINAL, as they do NOT abide by laws by definition

if you want to affect the situation, you must treat the PROBLEM, not the SYMPTOM, and the core problem is NOT the gun

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
@rc cont'd
As for guns stopping/precluding crime, it follows that if a crim/gang thinks a victim has a gun available, then they shoot first and carry on as intended
no, this is YOUR logic
criminals are opportunistic, and if the odds are that they will get killed, they will either mitigate said threat OR go to easier pickings. MOST will simply go find easier prey. your post also assumes that criminals are somehow imbued with x-ray vision or talents that COPS need to learn... there ARE ways to tell if someone is armed (concealed) but it also requires methods that require close encounters
People have been shot answering their front door before any criminal intention was suspected by the target
and Oreo makes a good cookie
WHAT IS YOUR POINT? that this is somehow justification to not defend yourself? it failed miserably

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
@rc cont'd
any nutter can shoot in ambush from a distance, and 'carrying victims' are already dead before any chance of 'drawing their weapon' like in 'wild west' and 'macho' fantasies by anarchists and juvenile types
i see where you are failing now! you ASSume that all criminal encounters are just like on TV... and that anyone carrying a weapon will simply employ wild west "high-noon" style shootouts for chivalry defense!
in the REAL world, we can see that:
Criminals like to minimize exposure and chances to get caught
the LONGER they are in a situation, the MORE chance of getting caught

Criminals don't "shoot in ambush from a distance"... ASSASSINS might, and if they are willing to give their life to take another, they are typically successful. you are thinking that a typical robbery will ambush from a distance and then... WHAT????

those attitudes are called delusional as well as Dunning-Kruger
to assume all situations are typical of TV is worse
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
@rc cont'd
it is the fear/panic 'manufactured' by NRA/GOP political/mercenary types who seek to 'exploit' and exacerbate poverty/violence/racial etc problems in order to 'sell more guns' for profit, that is the main issue to be addressed first
that is what is called a delusional belief system
if you think that the problem stems from the "need to sell more guns", then you are even MORE delusional than you've previously portrayed yourself to be, even worse than assuming that you can write a ToE that is without maths and still quantifiable enough to make predictions that are accurate about the physical world!!!

again, the problem is NOT about the tool, it is about the violence
PERIOD
The US military has many sites ...you'd be dead before you 'located/captured/attacked' them
Again, you're wrong
see: ISIS, Iraq, Baghdad, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Viet Nam, the US Revolutionary war, Geronimo the Apache, and most other guerrilla wars or terrorism
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
lastly @rc
US etc want to avoid civi casualties as much as possible against ISIS; a 'tyrannica'l US military would kill armed civies like you
not necessarily... this is entirely dependent upon the situation, location and the rules of engagement of the military involved.

the US military MUST have justification for firing a round, and all of that depends upon the above. This stupidity was demonstrated in Viet Nam as well as Bosnia, Afghanistan and many other places STILL TODAY

the assumption that the military will simply shoot any armed citizen is based upon TV ... OR your location in a known hostile combat zone of engagement. if you enter into said zone and are armed, you are a viable target per the Geneva convention, however, given that cultures still exercise rights and gun ownership, you CAN be armed around the military and not get shot because of said Geneva convention

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
don't treat a symptom when you can address the CAUSE and solve the problem itself!

That's why I said the paranoia and narcissism needs to be addressed also.
However, the availability of guns in a society directly feeds into producing that paranoia and narcissism:
1) Paranoia. If you think/know: "Everyone out there has an easy-to-hand lethal implement - but I have no idea what they think - so I better arm myself just in case someone goes crazy with it" Then you have created a self reinforcing cycle (because now others think that of you - with equal validity )
2) Narcissism: Guns are a vast force multiplier (even compared to any other freely available implement that can be used to cause death). People who aren't special suddenly think they are something special (or powerful) when handling a gun.

So I think it needs to be a combined solution. Ban guns and help people start thinking (read: education). Without a ban the thoughts will not start.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
. Ban guns and help people start thinking (read: education).

Why do you trust the narcissists running the govt and doing the banning?

And, HOW can you ban WITHOUT a rigorous police state?

Maybe Germans don't mind such a police state as they supported them in the past?
nilbud
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
Your dumb bewildered confusion is your problem you dozy american idiot. Guns kill people, pretty much every society in the world is freer than the US. You clowns with your advertising jingles instead of knowledge are a worldwide joke.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
Guns kill people

That's ok in the rest of the world (row) when the guns are in the hands of the govt.

Las Vegas attracts people from all over the world and one very popular attraction is firing a machine gun.

http://shoot.mach...odbOoJWA
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
the availability of guns in a society directly feeds into producing that paranoia and narcissism
@AA_P
this can only be true if the paranoia and narcisissm are already rampant. your 1) and 2) are the main reasons that education must be the primary key to comprehending this problem.
i know that the most dangerous person is NOT the one that is armed, but the one that is WILLING to become violent/deadly
Without a ban the thoughts will not start
i completely disagree. case in point: AUS or GB
neither place is free of violence OR guns, and both have worsening violence problems- and GB has a lot of cops and a very small area as well as camera's galore to be more "effective"

This is the crux of the argument: why sacrifice the innocent for the sake of a test that we KNOW will fail. we have examples of said failure all around the world

and throwing Japan into the mix proves the cultural aspect of the issue (as well as proves my point re: violence - see: Yakuza)
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
lastly @rc
US etc want to avoid civi casualties as much as possible against ISIS; a 'tyrannica'l US military would kill armed civies like you
not necessarily... this is entirely dependent upon the situation, location and the rules of engagement of the military involved....the US military MUST have justification for firing a round, and all of that depends upon the above. ...

...
You've let ryggesogn2's quote-chopping of my response to him mislead you. It was ryggesogn2 that accuses the US govt/military of being 'tyrannical' in order to justify 'an armed citizenry' to fight "tyranny in US govt/military".

I pointed out his guns would be useless against missiles/drones etc; he'd be dead already if he was right about US govt/military.

See? I was the one who recognized (and applaud/commend) US military's restraint/close targeting of enemy combatants in order to avoid/minimize civilian casualties! It's ryggesogn2 you should have aimed that at. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2015
PS: Had our Oz ABC TV-24 morning news on in the background while posting that above. The shooting tragedy over there in the US (state of Virginia was it?) was being reported.

http://www.abc.ne.../6727868

Very sorry to hear it. My condolences to anyone affected directly or indirectly by the tragedy.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2015
Ira, it beggars reason and humanity that you would downvote '1' to any post expressing sorrow and condolence for those involved in the US state of Virginia shooting tragedy. Why would you do such a thing, Ira? Please explain yourself so all the forum folk and readers can understand what you were thinking when you did that. Will check back later to see what you have to say for yourself.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2015
Ira, it beggars reason and humanity that you would downvote '1' to any post expressing sorrow and condolence for those involved in the US state of Virginia shooting tragedy.


I don't give to panhandlers so try to go begging from me. Really-Skippy you have never wrote one sincere postem since you been here.

Why would you do such a thing, Ira?


Well Cher since you are one of the more stupid peoples on here, I will try to help you. Only a smarthy oily couyon would try to be sneaky and try to dress up a political issue with the insincere condolences.

Please explain yourself so all the forum folk and readers can understand what you were thinking when you did that.


You got to be the dumbest brick in the wall. I just did that.

Will check back later to see what you have to say for yourself.


I don't care if you do or you don't. I get to vote any way I want to vote for any reason I want. That's the way we do things over here.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2015
US govt/military.


Don't conflate the two.

The US military, while staunchly supportive of civilian control, all swear the same oath to support and defend the US Constitution.
And they have the obligation to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
On the civilian side, rank and file police at all levels, support and encourage the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
An armed citizenry, I am sure, makes Obama and other tyrants give pause to pushing their tyranny as far as they want.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
'Liberals' should support allowing the mentally ill to obtain firearms. Especially if they choose to commit suicide.
'Liberals' believe in nature and evolution don't they? Survival of the fittest?
That's why Planned Parenthood started, to eliminate the unfit humans.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2015
RC, Ira has gotten strange since he has been bunking with otto. I think he caught the Nasties.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2015
Hi rygge2. :)
Don't conflate the two.
I never conflated the two;hence why I put the 'forward slash' between the two (ie: "govt/military"). The laws are made by Congress. The president is 'commander-in-chief'. The courts adjudicate on legality of actions etc. Your 'tyranny fantasy' in a modern US nation is NRA 'gun sales pitch' crap. :)
'Liberals' should support allowing the mentally ill to obtain firearms. Especially if they choose to commit suicide. 'Liberals' believe in nature and evolution don't they? Survival of the fittest?That's why Planned Parenthood started, to eliminate the unfit humans.
Reasonable folk want to institute better checks to prevent guns being so readily available/sold to crazies. Ambush gunmen who have suicide wish are even more dangerous; Virginia tragedy demonstrated yet again they aren't deterred by possibility of being shot back at even if targets are 'carrying'. What does it take to stop you from taking NRA/GOP lobbyist Blood Money, mate?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
Hi gkam. :)

"It" was always a 'strange' bot-voting creep; since day one. Don't be fooled by his claims to any decency; nor believe any idiotically fabricated 'excuses' for 'personal' trolling', bot-voting and harassing on a science site. Poor twit just proved he is still bot-voting on a science site without reading what he downvotes. Just bot-votes from his idiotically arrived at malicious 'personal hates list' and claims he is 'serving the smart skippy-scientist' here Yes, he actually claimed that more than once! The poor twerp. Now he has again been caught out 'bot-voting' my sincere post of sorrow and condolences to all affected by that Virginia shooting tragedy! And what does he come back with when asked why he did that? Does he admit honestly that he was just mindlessly bot-voting again? No. He comes back with an attack on the sincerity of my expressions of condolences! And all this after Ira just assured Mike_Massen he would stop and behave better! Sad case, Ira troll.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
Ambush gunmen who have suicide wish are even more dangerous;

He would have accomplished the same thing, murder, had he used a machete, a spear, a cross bow, a club, a hammer, .....
If he had used a hammer, would you be demanding 'hammer control'?
No.
So your real intent is NOT to stop crazy murderers, it's to control the lives of others with state violence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2015
"Black, Gay Reporter Murders Straight, White Journalists — Media Blame the Gun"

"Had a white straight man killed a black gay man, released first-person tape of the shooting, and then unleashed a manifesto about being victimized by affirmative action and anti-religious bigotry from homosexuals, the media would never stop covering the story. They'd be eager to report that shooter's motives with all the attendant politically correct hullaballoo about the racism and homophobia of the United States more broadly. We would hear about white supremacy (reprehensible Black Lives Matter leader Deray McKesson actually jumped the gun, thinking the shooter was white, and tweeted, "Whiteness will explain away nearly anything")."
http://www.breitb...the-gun/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
I pointed out his guns would be useless against missiles/drones etc; he'd be dead already if he was right about US govt/military
@rc
1- i understand your comment about military restraint (and i agree)
BUT
2- guns are effective against the military. this is actually proven by our historical engagements in above mentioned multiple wars, which is MY point

if you want to battle terrorism or guerrilla tactics, you need to employ similar small team tactics along with your military
The president is 'commander-in-chief
just FYI- the military has no authority in the US states or territories unless under martial law or on special bases/posts under military gov't authority, and that is even limited. we can assist gov't or law enforcement in crisis, but we're very, very limited
He comes back with an attack on the sincerity of my expressions
considering your history, especially on PO with him, IMHO- i feel he is justified

get over it
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2015
@rygge2.
Ambush gunmen who have suicide wish are even more dangerous;

He would have accomplished the same thing, murder, had he used a machete, a spear, a cross bow, a club, a hammer, .....
If he had used a hammer, would you be demanding 'hammer control'?
There were three targets. A gun was able to hit three targets in a second, without warning. Targets running away would have had a chance against a machete; or even a chance to fend off the weapon with the cameraman's equipment long enough for others to escape and to prevent mortal wound to cameraman.

And your attempts to excuse the centuries of white discrimination/killings of non-whites by pointing to the occasional non-white murdering of whites is like longstanding child sexual abusers blaming the few among their victims who are driven over the edge and hit back. Stop the excuses and rationalizations, rygge2; and stop your NRA/GOP propaganda madness-for-profit which brings about more gun violence not less.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
2- guns are effective against the military. this is actually proven by our historical engagements in above mentioned multiple wars, which is MY point
rygge2's NRA/GOP/Anarchist fantasies are that US govt/military is "tyrannical", and that his guns 'are for protection from them' etc. I pointed out that IF he was right about 'tyrannical' US govt/military, they would NOT HAVE 'rules of engagement' etc, and would just kill him/everyone around him; and his guns would be useless because he'd be dead before he knew it (Remember Chile/Pinochet?).
if you want to battle terrorism or guerrilla..
But rygge2's FANTASY is that HE is 'freedom fighter' against 'tyrannical' US govt/military etc. See? IF US govt/military was what rygge2 fantasizes, his guns would be useless against a ruthless regime with missiles/drones etc, and NO 'rules of engagement' compunctions.

Re Uncle Ira's 'history': mindless bot-voting etc. He just proved it again. No more denials. Ta.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
Re Uncle Ira's 'history': mindless bot-voting etc. He just proved it again. No more denials. Ta.


@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am good as usual, thanks for asking.

I never denied why I vote for you. And you tell the lie by not mentioning the fact that I explain my votes every time you say something even though here in America we are allowed to vote any way we want and not tell anybody why if we don't want to.

So why don't all you peoples from not in America pipe down about how we do things here. Ain't nobody begging you to come visiting so just stay down there with your crocodiles and we'll stay up here with our alligators and just try to ignore each other.

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
Ira, stop the silly. Think. If you wants tourists spending money there, then safety/political/social stability is important. So stop pretending like everyone else in the world is not affected by global issues which spill across national boundaries. If you strictly applied your advice for 'outsiders' to stop meddling in other nation's affairs, then you advocate also for US 'isolationism' as well....which would make all those foreign wars/police-actions a mite 'tricky' under your 'standard' of logic/advice, to say the least.

Mate, just disconnect your bot-voting and start actually thinking and considering before you pretend to have anything worth a damn to offer science/humanity discourse on here. Stop your personal prejudices/hatreds and bot-voting 'couyon-skippy' crap. Join constructive conversation on many matters of import. If you drop your silly bot-voting, 'personality cult' trolling/harassing etc then you may be useful to humanity/science discourse. Your choice. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
NRA/GOP/Anarchist fantasies... US govt/military is "tyrannical"
@rc
wasn't my point. don't care. already addressed that part
that his guns 'are for protection from them' etc
actually, that IS a reason the US 2nd amendment was written: to protect against a gov't that became tyrannical every bit as much as self defense and to draw a militia from the general public - you should read history before commenting on something you are not learned in
they would NOT HAVE 'rules of engagement
re-read my above post, this time only read the single line past "1-"
his guns would be useless against a ruthless regime with...
sigh... Viet Nam, our Revolutionary war, ISIS, Afghanistan, Iraq, China
get it yet?
Re Uncle Ira's 'history'
1- not relevant
2- i one starred as well because you are not reading for COMPREHENSION
try again, and save the sob story for the nooB's
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
If you wants tourists spending money there, then safety/political/social stability is important
WTF?
how does this address the issue?
If you strictly applied your advice for 'outsiders' to stop meddling in other nation's affairs, then you advocate also for US 'isolationism' as well
not necessarily. i think other nations trying to re-mold us in their own image is stupid
which would make all those foreign wars/police-actions a mite 'tricky'
ever hear of NATO? did you know the US has a sh*t ton of troops dedicated to NATO missions? i've worn the blue helmet a few times myself
don't let your delusions overload your logic, man
to offer science/humanity discourse
you are NOT one to preach this topic, bubba
especially with your invisible math-free ToE and your refusal to link corroborating evidence for claims
so, in your own words
Stop your personal prejudices/hatreds
get it?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

I never argued with your assessment of what fighting terrorism/guerillas needs.

I probably read more about US history than most americans have. I already know all about origins of US constitution and its CONTEXT. I also know all about why armed citizens/citizen militia was necessary THEN. Just as in UK citizens at one time were required to practice archery by law; and landowners had to provide armed men for Kings wars etc.

That's all in the past CONTEXT.

The world has moved on. Guns are killing machines not needed for citizens not requiring them for work purposes. Context/need for armed citizens/citizens militia over long ago. Modern US govt has huge military complex with machines of war for remote delivery which no 'gun armed citizenry' can counter unless they too have similar networking/co-ordination system for remote targeting/delivery.

Ryggesogn2's fantasy that he is 'freedom fighter with a gun in the woods' is silly/dangerous in modern context/reality.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
If you wants tourists spending money there, then safety/political/social stability is important


Who said I wanted them to come here and do anything?

If you strictly applied your advice for 'outsiders' to stop meddling in other nation's affairs, then you advocate also for US 'isolationism' as well


I do just that thing all the time. Most of the troubles America has in other parts of the world is because some couyons up in Washington thinks it a good thing to meddle in other peoples business.

which would make all those foreign wars/police-actions a mite 'tricky' under your 'standard' of logic/advice


Yeppers, that's what I just said in my own way Skippy.

Stop your personal prejudices/hatreds and bot-voting 'couyon-skippy' crap


Only when you stop your personal opinion that you should be the one who tells everybody else how to talk about anything.

Your choice. :)


And I choose to vote you the down karma points until you do better.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2015
@CapS. :)
If you wants tourists spending money there, then safety/political/social stability is important
WTF?
how does this address the issue?
I was addressing Ira's silly argument that people outside US have no cause to observe/comment on what's happening in US. As for the real issue of gun violence, well, you already have my response to ryggesogn2's fantasies to justify gun ubiquity advocated by NRA/GOP crazies who put their politics/religion/profits above social sanity.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2015
Hi Ira. :)
Who said I wanted them to come here and...?
No tourist? No business/trade? No political alliances?
I do just that thing all the time. Most of the troubles America has in other parts of the world is because some couyons up in Washington thinks it a good thing to meddle in other peoples business.
Sometimes it's necessary to do what's necessary before it becomes worse. Isolationism didn't work out too well before WWII brought that lesson home the hard way.
Yeppers, that's what I just said in my own way Skippy.
Yes, it's tricky deciding when to start a war and when not to. Some GOP/NRA gung-ho/profiteering couyons didn't realize that until it blew up in all our faces.
Only when you stop your personal opinion that you should be the one who tells everybody else how to talk about anything.
You're fantasizing. As long as you've been bot-voting/trolling etc on science site, you've been irrelevant.
I choose to vote you the down karma points
D'oh!
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2015
Who said I wanted them to come here and
No tourist? No business/trade? No political alliances?


If they want to come, it's fine with me. But they got go by our rules and if they want to belly ache about the rules here they can stay home.

Sometimes it's necessary to do what's necessary before it becomes worse. Isolationism didn't work out too well before WWII brought that lesson home the hard way


Each war is different. I was thinking more about Vietnam and Iraq II. It was meddling where we don't belong.

it's tricky deciding when to start a war and when not to. Some GOP/NRA gung-ho/profiteering couyons didn't realize that until it blew up in all our faces.


Exactly so. Trying to make peoples who are not Americans be Americans is the fool's errand. Unfortunately Americans have a bad track record of that.

bot-voting/trolling etc on science site, you've been irrelevant


It's Ira-Skippy-voting I do. And I never wanted your approvement.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2015
Hi Ira. :)
It's Ira-Skippy-voting I do. And I never wanted your approvement.
Be reasonable, mate. How could anyone, on a science site and genuine in pursuing objective, free and open constructive discourse on issues of science/humanity, ever be expected to be in "approvement" of your proven, self-admitted mindless bot-voting from 'personal hates/karma list' without even reading/understanding the content/subtlelties being discussed? Ira, it's not MY "approvement" (or not) that is at issue; it's your trashing of all good standards/ethics of the Scientific Method and Rules of proper objective prejudices-free discourse (on the contents rather than personalities) that you have to answer to. I merely observed/exposed your bot-voting etc behavior against all these standards in your mindless/malicious trolling/harassing campaign to skew the metrics on a science site by downvoting me/others even when they were correct on the science/issues.

Get relevant, Ira...stop bot-voting. :)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2015
ever be expected to be in "approvement" of your proven


Don't read too good, eh Cher? Nobody expects you to be in approvement of anything. Especially not me. I do not care if you do or you do not. I ever give you the impression I care?

it's your trashing of all good standards/ethics of the Scientific Method and Rules


I am not a scientist like you are not either. And Cher, I been trying to tell you, but you just can seem to understand it. YOU do not make rules here, non, especially for ol Ira-Skippy. And you do not get to enforce the rules you want either (especially since you break your own rules all the time).

your bot-voting etc behavior against


It ain't bot-voting, it's Ira-voting. And I don't have to check with you to ask if it is alright.

downvoting me/others even when they were correct


What good is voting if Really-Skippy gets to decide what is the correct vote? For a genus you sure are pretty dense on how voting works.

kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2015
Random stop/search (like for drink/drug drivers) is effective.
Effective in your kleptocratic nanny debt-slave police state, perhaps
As for 'police state', think what 'wild west' was like: everyone had guns but no proper modern police force
Indeed America was once a free land before bowing down to the Crown Corporation aka Inner City of London
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2015
Almost ALL mass shootings involve psychotropic medication. Study instead claims a bold pronunciation tantamount to "All mass consumption of orange juice is directly linked to orange production"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2015
Ira.
Don't read too good, eh Cher? Nobody expects you to be in approvement of anything..
Read it again, mate. I said:
Ira, it's not MY "approvement" (or not) that is at issue; it's your trashing of all good standards/ethics of the Scientific Method and Rules of proper objective prejudices-free discourse (on the contents rather than personalities) that you have to answer to. I merely observed/exposed your bot-voting etc behavior against all these standards in your mindless/malicious trolling/harassing campaign to skew the metrics on a science site by downvoting me/others even when they were correct on the science/issues.
See? You don't/can't read properly before you 'bot-respond/vote'.
What good is voting if Really-Skippy gets to decide what is the correct vote?
I don't. Science/facts presented speak for themselves. Your bot-voting without reading/understanding is your problem; especially if you downvote even after others proven correct in science/facts.

Bye.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2015
Hi kochevnik. :)

Please read this excerpt from one victim's father.
"I know that the NRA, their position is going to be, I can hear it now, they're going to say 'oh gee, well if they were carrying, this never would have happened'," he said. "I got news for you, if Alison or Adam had been carrying an AK-47 strapped around their waist, it wouldn't have made any difference." "They couldn't have seen this thing coming so I don't want to hear that argument from the NR
See? Even her father agrees. Reasonable precautions to control guns better are much better than more funerals from NRA/GOP 'gun sales pitch' madness-for-profit/political motives. All 'sides' see the madness of 'more guns'. Only NRA/GOP crazies and greedies keep pumping money into propaganda fantasies about 'freedom' and 'govt tyranny' etc in the US. Stop the madness.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2015
PS: The above excerpt was from this linked news story on our Oz ABC news site:

http://www.abc.ne.../6731420

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
I already know all about origins of US constitution and its CONTEXT
@rc
if you did, you would NOT have included the following in your post
I also know all about why armed citizens/citizen militia was necessary THEN...That's all in the past CONTEXT
the same reasons for the 2nd exist today just as they did then... only then our gov't was British and we fought for independence
it is NOT past context if the reasons still exist
The world has moved on
this is called ASSumption, and there is NO evidence supporting it. if the world moved on from the necessity, WHY is there still violence and crime?
Guns are killing machines not needed for citizens not requiring them for work purposes
not only is this your PERSONAL opinion, it is also culturally derived thru training, etc
like i said, if it weren't necessary, we wouldn't have violence OR crime in the world

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
Context/need for armed citizens/citizens militia over long ago
then why is there still crime, violence, war, governments, police?
Modern US govt has huge military ...which no 'gun armed citizenry' can counter unless they too have similar networking/co-ordination system for remote targeting/delivery
and again, this is called a blatant fallacy, otherwise we wouldn't still have ISIS, Iraq terrorists, fundamental religious terrorists, etc... see also: China, N. Korea, Viet Nam, etc etc etc... just because YOU can't think of a way to combat the might of the military machine doesn't mean no one can... ISIS/Terrorists do it regularly with very little education or training in many cases... see Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc etc etc
quit trying to superimpose your delusional beliefs onto the world in some self righteous pontificate about why YOU think everyone should be submissive
YOU are NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the world

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
Ryggesogn2's fantasy that he is 'freedom fighter with a gun in the woods
technically speaking, every US citizen IS ... Gen Yamamoto was said to have quoted
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
likely this is not true as there is no record: https://en.wikiqu...Yamamoto
It does, however, reflect a KNOWN to any enemy commander that to invadfe the US is to fight not only the Military, but also possibly every citizen they see
is silly/dangerous in modern context/reality
just because YOU proclaim it to be so?
WHY is it silly? we still have gov't today in the world that is tyrannical... and there is NO guarantee that our own gov't will not one day turn against it's own masses

stop projecting your personal fears, culture, beliefs and insecurities onto the world, especially as they are not firmly in the real world
Until Violence, crime etc is cured, there IS a need for guns
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
I was addressing... people outside US have no cause to observe/comment on what's happening in US
i know that. and i was answering that there is a difference between free speech and the need to control others
comments are fine, but you are trying to IMPOSE your philosophy and beliefs upon those who can see a reality that is DIFFERENT than what you perceive
the real issue of gun violence, well, you already have my response...crazies who put their politics/religion/profits above social sanity
and as i said before, that is NOT the real problem either.
you are using a cultural paradigm and BELIEF to assign morality to something when it is NOT relevant to the issue
You can ban guns all you want, but until VIOLENCE and CRIME are "cured", then there will always be a need for them... unless you want to start issuing cops to every citizen

but that brings another problem, doesn't it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
you see, rc... when you post something like
to justify gun ubiquity advocated by NRA/GOP crazies who put their politics/religion/profits above social sanity
that is called political rhetoric, and it is also subjective
you cannot say that all people everywhere will agree that the NRA put "politics/religion/profits above social sanity", and that is evident in our local NRA chapter. we are concerned with protecting our children and society, but you claim otherwise
THIS is my argument against your continued pontification -and i use that word specifically, because your moral soap-box is heavy with religious overtones!
you are thinking extreme's
no tourist [etc]
I understand the nuances of reality without creating a FALSE paradigm strawman argument where things are only black and white

and that is not bot voting, that is downvoting because you are refusing to accept that cultures are different
I UPRATED AA_P, even though i disagree
because i RESPECT him/his posts
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
See? You don't/can't read properly before you 'bot-respond/vote'
in conclusion, it is NOT bot vote-respond... he has seen how you will pretend and play... argue from emotion and produce things like this
Please read this excerpt from one victim's father
you do NOT live in the same world
why do i respect AA_P even though i disagree on this topic? because he has taken the time to think a logical, honest answer based upon what he perceives, AND - most importantly- he is willing to listen and discuss it. not dismiss it out of hand. he might not agree, i sure don't agree with everything he said... but he respects differences of opinion
YOU DO NOT. you think everyone should believe like you do, which is evidence in your posts above, from your invisible math-free ToE to your review of studies and commentary without evidence
that is narcissistic Dunning-Kruger and transference
you don't CARE about facts, only about sharing YOUR opinion
that's why you get no respect
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
sorry
one last point @rc
Random stop/search (like for drink/drug drivers) is effective
no, it is SEMI-effective. it hasn't stopped DUI's, only taught drivers to learn alternate routes, police schedules and ways to try to beat the system
As for 'police state', think what 'wild west' was like: everyone had guns but no proper modern police force
this is like saying modern Sydney is the same as Historical Rondesvous during the Mountain Man era because there was trade, ships, art, equipment and booze
the "wild west" was different. not better, not worse- just different

you can't compare the flavour of apples to rocks and assume rocks are bad because they taste like dirt
would you then ban all rocks because some people would eat them? because the violent would kill with them? because they're dangerous in so many ways?

that is the exact same argument you are giving for guns
Guns are a TOOL - INERT without action & interaction
address the PROBLEM - VIOLENCE!
zaxxon451
5 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2015

Guns are a TOOL - INERT without action & interaction
address the PROBLEM - VIOLENCE!


I disagree with your assertion that guns are merely a tool, as I've described above. But I think that your point about addressing violence is important, and goes far beyond locking up "bad" guys. People are violent for a reason. Whether it's mental illness, hopelessness, self-hate, stress, personality dispositions, drugs, or a host of reasons.

But the point is we all do the best we can based on our life experience and biology. It's easy to blame others for making "violent" choices from our positions of privilege. We would be just as violent if we had their life experiences and biological makeup. So I would suggest networks of support for these individuals through mental health centers in every community (along with an understanding that comes from the recognition that our choices in life are limited and based on our individual levels of various forms of privilege)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
People are violent for a reason.

Because it works to get you what you want.
That's why govts use violence to control the population.

How do you plant to stop the violence of the state?
Or must the state be the only perpetrator of violence and the individuals who are the victims of that violence must acquiesce?
individual levels of various forms of privilege

What privilege? The privilege of having the bigger stick of violence?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
I disagree with your assertion that guns are merely a tool, as I've described above
@zaxxon
Absolutely, and i agreed with some of your point, however, there are other things that give the same, if not more, psychological power to the bearer: like a badge
my biggest problem with your POV is that this is not a new argument. this has been going on since we started forging tools for use, from the hand axe to swords- now it is guns
But the point is we all do the best we can based on our life experience and biology. It's easy to blame others for making "violent" choices from our positions of privilege. We would be just as violent if we had their life experiences and biological makeup
YES! thank you!
So I would suggest networks of support
great idea. we could also likely take this a step further and require it for children as well... catch them before it gets too out of control, so to speak?

its a thought...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
What privilege? The privilege of having the bigger stick of violence?
@Rygg
actually, what i think he is saying (not putting words in his mouth) is that there is a huge difference between the mindset of say: a South Miami Gangbanger and a rich, upper class citizen living in a patrolled guarded community
the benefit of privilege in this case is the massive differences of background. in the case above, it is money, education, exposure, opportunity and more... you can't say that a poor minority child-gangmember from LA has the same privileges as [insert celebrity here]'s kids living in Hollywood, even though they are only separated by a few miles
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
Violence is winning:

"The ISIS atrocities have descended like distant nightmares upon the numbed conscious of the world. The first beheadings of Americans had the power to shock, but since then there has been a steady barrage of inhumanity: mass executions of Christians and others, throwing gay men from rooftops, the destruction of ancient archaeological treasures, the routine use of poison gas."
http://www.nytime...win.html

Maybe if the UN banned guns the atrocities will stop?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
the mindset of say: a South Miami Gangbanger and a rich, upper class citizen living in a patrolled guarded community


Guarded with guns, violence.

The 'privilege' is that the violence can be hired: security guards, Secret Service, ....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
1)The few can plunder the many.
2)The many can plunder the few.
3)Or no one plunders anyone.

There is no way to ensure #3 happens 100% of the time, but when the law, the monopoly on force is limited to protecting private property, AND each individual has the capability of self-defense, with firearms, #3 has a much better chance of success AND is most desired as individuals can put there efforts to more productive endeavors.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2015
The 'privilege' is that the violence can be hired: security guards, Secret Service
there is FAR more to it than just that...
it is also a skewed perspective of the reality of the world

a rich, upper class educated person does NOT know what it is like to starve, have to find food, live on a budget that means either going without food OR going without shelter, etc... they are limited by their exposure to life and not experienced or educated in the needs of the lower class (some are educated, but until you can experience it, it is simply an abstract idea)

ranting about socialism (actually, what you usually rant about is Communism as you can't seem to remember the difference) is not a means to educate anyone about the subject of guns

put the political rhetoric aside and focus on the problem

Also note: a gated community is not always guarded by armed guards
that cost is FAR higher than most gated communities can afford regularly
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
put the political rhetoric aside and focus on the problem


I am focusing on the problem.

Socialism, communism, fascism... are all the same, state power controlling the lives others.

Those who want to disarm the individual are doing so to promote more socialism/communism/fascism, more state control over the lives of others.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
I already know all about origins of US constitution and its CONTEXT
@rc
if you did, you would NOT have included the following in your post
I also know all about why armed citizens/citizen militia was necessary THEN...That's all in the past CONTEXT
the same reasons for the 2nd exist today just as they did then... only then our gov't was British and we fought for independence
it is NOT past context if the reasons still exist
The modern US nation is not the British Colonial govt. You are in control, not the British Colonial govt. You can vote your govt in or out, you don't need to fight them in the streets (unless you also have the same fantasy as rygge2 of needing his guns to fight an alleged US govt/military 'tyranny' who now has military resources no British Colonial govt/military could have imagined, and which makes his guns useless if his fantasy was true).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
The world has moved on
this is called ASSumption, and there is NO evidence supporting it. if the world moved on from the necessity, WHY is there still violence and crime?


Guns are killing machines not needed for citizens not requiring them for work purposes
not only is this your PERSONAL opinion, it is also culturally derived thru training, etc. like i said, if it weren't necessary, we wouldn't have violence OR crime in the world...
Violence/crime is always with us. That wasn't the point. It's the political/national govt/military system of US/other secular small-s socialistic democracies that have moved on since the era of British Colonial etc 'tyrannies' which gave context/need for US constitution. Times have changed. You have a democratic govt and a legally restrained military now...which makes the context/need for 'guns-for-everyone' no longer sane argument/policy (except in NRA/GOP propaganda to spread paranoia and sell more guns).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
you see, rc... when you post something like
to justify gun ubiquity advocated by NRA/GOP crazies who put their politics/religion/profits above social sanity
that is called political rhetoric,...
FYI, your US NRA/GOP/TeaParty political/mercenary interests have been active in Australia, trying to sell the same insane propaganda here as there that more guns makes a society 'safer'. We sane Oz citizens don't buy it. Apparently you/others in US have. Your problem, not mine. Good luck.

I understand the nuances of reality without creating a FALSE paradigm strawman argument where things are only black and white
It was Ira, not me, that introduced 'black and white' argument/excuse for not considering the impact on foreigners in US [Ira said he didn't ask anyone to come/do anything there). I was being nuanced; Ira was being simplistic/dismissive; but maybe he isn't as against foreign visitors (scientists/tourist/traders/workers etc) as he sounded in response.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
was being simplistic/dismissive (but surely he isn't as against foreign visitors as he sounded in his response).


I never once said I was against foreign visitors. You made that up in your own mind. I said I don't care if the come here and I don't care if they stay away. Don't matter one way or the other which THEY decide do. But IF they decide to come for whatever reason, they got to bear in mind that this is America and not Back Home.

If they want to tell what we got to do or even should do before they will come, they are not going to get much of a welcome from me, and I won't miss them not coming one little bit.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Skippy you don't know anything about the Constitution. Read the words of the Framers, read the words of the courts who have heard EVERY argument that can possibly be made and ruled on them. Only then you will understand the context and reasoning behind Constitution and Amendments, especially one as complicated as the 2nd.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
Random stop/search (like for drink/drug drivers) is effective
no, it is SEMI-effective. it hasn't stopped DUI's, only taught drivers to learn alternate routes, police schedules ...
If it reduces potential/actual numbers of incidences/deaths by even ONE, then it's worthwhile. And many deaths/injuries have been prevented by Random Breath Testing in Oz. Claiming it doesn't stop ALL incidences is being simplistically 'black and white' now, isn't it?
As for 'police state', think what 'wild west' was like: everyone had guns but no proper modern police force
this is like saying modern Sydney is the same as Historical Rondesvous during the Mountain Man era because there was trade, ships, art, equipment and booze the "wild west" was different. not better, not worse- just different
You just effectively used MY "different context re US constitution" argument for NOT arming populace in MODERN US secular democracy! Thanks for understanding my point, mate! :)

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2015
Hi Ira. :) Here's the relevant exchange:
If you wants tourists spending money there, then safety/political/social stability is important
Who said I wanted them to come here and do anything?
No tourist? No business/trade? No political alliances?
If they want to come, it's fine with me. But they got go by our rules and if they want to belly ache about the rules here they can stay home.
The point was that IF you/US Economy/Society want to do business, tourism, science etc with foreigners/visitors, then you/US must want them to BE in US sometimes. And whether or not they come there to do what you/US want/need, then their perceptions of safety in a gun-toting populace will affect adversely a foreigners' decision making re visiting/working in US. Whether you care or not whether they come or do anything there or not is effectively 'sitting on the fence' and avoiding the point made. Apathy is not the answer to this problem.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
No tourist? No business/trade? No political alliances?
If they want to come, it's fine with me. But they got go by our rules and if they want to belly ache about the rules here they can stay home.


Whether you care or not whether they come or do anything there or not is effectively 'sitting on the fence' and avoiding the point made.


I ain't avoiding the point made, you haven't made a point to avoid. If peoples want to come and visit, that is okay. If they don't, that is too okay. Skippy you got this really Really-Skippy odd aspect to your self where you think everybody must parrot your wants and opinions on every single subject and feel the way you about everything.

Apathy is not the answer to this problem.


I am not having apathy. I just do not define the problem here the way you (an outsider not from here) do. You are there, and happy not to be here. I am here and happy to be here. Why that is not good enough for you?
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2015
Ira. :)
I am not having apathy. I just do not define the problem here the way you (an outsider not from here) do. You are there, and happy not to be here. I am here and happy to be here. Why that is not good enough for you?
Yes, I am 'here' (Oz) and you are 'there'(US). That was the point. It's what people 'here' consider when contemplating going 'there' (for trade, tourism, science collaboration, working in your industries, bringing innovations from other countries, etc). What you 'there' think about guns-for-everyone 'there', is your business. What me/others 'here' consider important to my decision to come 'there' (for something you/US needs/wants from any foreigner which benefits US society/economy etc) is MY/others business; so makes sense to consider/discuss what measures may improve safety situation 'there'. That is also something everyone 'here' would have consideration for in purely humanity/friendly-relations context/reason. FYI, I'm real friend of USA. :)
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 28, 2015
@ Really-Skippy.

Hooyeei, I will tell you one true thing Cher. I bet you never lost a single argument in your whole life. You just want to keep going even when there is nothing more to say.

Cher, trust me just this one time. You do not understand our Constitution and the history behind it. Trust me Cher, you don't understand the context that the Framers had in mind when they framed him, the Constitution I mean.

You are arguing from the outsider's view point. What you THINK sounds easy and reasonable. For just once try to accept for just a moment, ol Ira-Skippy has read on this very subject every thing he can find on this. Not the opinion pieces from the newspapers. I have read the Founders and the Framers own words on their thinking and reasoning. I have read every court decision I can find that talks about the 2nd Amendment.

I'll P.S. for you for the rest.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (23) Aug 28, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

If you think we can just "restrict guns" by changing a law or two, it is you have the simplistic view. Our law does not work like that. Our Constitution does not work like that.

Ol Ira-Skippy is not the fool you think I am. I do think about these things, and I got my ideas about the problems. In my opinion, and I am the one who lives here, is not guns. That is just easy first thing that comes to mind. The problem is a breaking down of the culture. The problem has to do with parents raising heathens and uncivilized children. The problem has to do with a "me first" outlook that too many peoples here have.

Banning guns won't change any of those things. Only every parent or potential parent can change that and it will not be the over night fix, it will take maybe a generation or even two.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
How many mass stabbings have you heard of in the USA?
Mass stabbings happen but the press does not consider them interesting. Indeed the majority of mayhem in prisons is due to stabbings and mass stabbings. I know of a lunatic who stabbed four people to death in downtown Los Angeles during my visit. Such a scenario cam be MORE lethal as people do not hear an attacker randomly stabbing people, and so do not react by fleeing
See? Even her father agrees. Reasonable precautions to control guns better are much better than more funerals from NRA/GOP 'gun sales pitch' madness-for-profit/political motives. All 'sides' see the madness of 'more guns'. Only NRA/GOP crazies and greedies keep pumping money into propaganda fantasies about 'freedom' and 'govt tyranny' etc in the US. Stop the madness.
I must disagree an AK47 often proves an excellent deterrent and means to stop assailants
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
Ira. :)
Cher, trust me just this one time. You do not understand our Constitution and the history behind it. Trust me Cher, you don't understand the context that the Framers had in mind when they framed him, the Constitution I mean.
You wish! :) Mate, any of the old regulars from the OLD Phy.Org (before it split off into THIS phy.org, leaving behind all the old posts in the NOW https://www.physforum.com/ ) will tell you my knowledge/history of discussions on US Constitution aspects in opposition to misrepresentations of same by Religionists and 9/11 WTC 'conspiracy theorists' alike. I recall my old friend "Grumpy", myself and others, had to 'educate' (and 'explain' to some pretty dishonest/dumb political/religious-driven propagandists) the founders purposes/reasons, contextual meanings, intents, limitations, and possible modern re-interpretations of, various original passages/amendments in US Constitution. You keep underestimating me/my wide research/knowledge base.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2015
PS: Ira,
Banning guns won't change any of those things. Only every parent or potential parent can change that and it will not be the over night fix, it will take maybe a generation or even two.
No-one wants to ban guns, merely introduce reasonable control measures to minimize the likelyhood and ease for crazies and crims to get and carry guns while hiding amongst the huge number of citizens currently carrying legally. That is my point. If gun ownership/sales/purchases/carryng had to be justified by work etc reasons, then anyone found in possession/carrying one not so justified/legal then is automatially self-incriminating themselves as a criminal, and can be more speedily and effectively isolated from society.

Those opposing random stops by police, for people suspected of carrying illegally, say that it's 'police state and ineffective'; but these same people agreed with Arizona's 'suspected illegals stop/check for papers'.

Yes, it will take time. So start asap. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2015
Kochevnik. :)
Even her father agrees. Reasonable precautions to control guns better are much better than more funerals from NRA/GOP 'gun sales pitch' madness-for-profit/political motives. All 'sides' see the madness of 'more guns'. Only NRA/GOP crazies and greedies keep pumping money into propaganda fantasies about 'freedom' and 'govt tyranny' etc in the US. Stop the madness.
I must disagree an AK47 often proves an excellent deterrent and means to stop assailants
Not if you're already dead before you knew you were shot (like in this tragedy).

Stabbings require close contact, so more readily identified/apprehended as to perpetrator. A gun fired from a distance takes time for identifying perpetrator, so can kill many more and get away if they don't have a 'suicide-by-cop' deathwish. The point is to reasonably minimize mass availability/access to guns by 'spur-of-the-moment' people in sudden depressive/violent frame of mind, whether for suicide/murder. Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
I am focusing on the problem
Socialism, communism, fascism
@ryg
those are three very different problems that are symptoms of violence and the need to control, so you are focusing on SYMPTOMS, not the problem... and socialism is not the same thing as communism any more than our republic is
The modern US nation is not the British Colonial govt. You are in control, not the British Colonial govt
@rc
didn't say it was... i said the REASONS still exist. in this case, a gov't that has the potential to be tyrannical. if you are going to get involved in this discussion, perhaps you should either refresh your history or re-take the courses
you don't need to fight them in the streets
so now you are Nostradamus? how do you know we will always remain democratic? this is more about defense than your "predictions" that no one will ever have to fight the gov't
toBcont's
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
unless you also have the same fantasy
no one has the same fantasy
who now has military resources no British Colonial govt/military could have imagined, and which makes his guns useless
right, because no one could possibly face off with a world power like the US or GB and win, right? sound familiar? it's straight out of our own history... also note: we still haven't conquored ISIS... should i also remind you of China, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Isreal, Geronimo, etc? what you keep failing to realise is that your pipe dream about a gun empowered republic being defenseless against typical modern military power is a false assumption proven regulary still today. if the military might was as powerful as you claim, we would not STILL be fighting terrorism or the guerrilla wars around the world

this is called a DELUSION based upon a false premise and ignorance- and it is debunked simply by watching the freakin world news!

got THAT point yet?
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
Violence/crime is always with us. That wasn't the point
@rc
actually, it IS the point! it is the CORE problem here
democracies that have moved on since the era of British Colonial etc 'tyrannies'
i am sure they said the same thing in Rome
my point is: just because YOU believe this to be true, doesn't mean everyone does, AND, simply by watching the world news you can see that civil unrest and lack of faith in gov't is not uncommon on our globe
Times have changed
yes and no... technology has changed, however the world has remained essentially the same throughout history. case in point: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Africa (most of it) etc... plus all the repeated above
you THINK the world is a shiny happy place, but you have not experienced terrorism first hand, nor lived in enough places to justify stating your beliefs with any authority
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
You have a democratic govt
so? it has already caused one civil war because of it's desire to be a strong union vs states rights
a legally restrained military now
technically, the military has NO authority on US soil (except specified reserves/posts/bases) unless we are under martial law, which, by definition is NOT a democracy
the context/need for 'guns-for-everyone' no longer sane argument/policy
so... you are saying that defense is NOT a sane argument? just because you are willing to become a SUBJECT doesn't mean everyone is also willing- that is a CULTURAL argument and subjective, not "sane" or scientific. also note, there are people who are against it even in your own country & community, & would prefer to have their arms back. has your ban disarmed the criminals? NO! has it stopped the violence? NO
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
except in NRA/GOP propaganda to spread paranoia and sell more guns
this is not only your personal conjecture, but it is also political rhetoric and it is delusional to assume that everyone thinks the same, especially when all you do is repeat this without evidence- just because YOU are paranoid of the NRA, doesn't mean the NRA is in ANY way a bad org- it has done wonders around here
We sane Oz citizens don't buy it
no, you culturally programmed Oz citizens... it has NOTHING to do with sanity, it has to do with your ignorance and willingness to accept death over defense, or your delusional perspective of the situation: you can't carry a cop wherever you go, and your country is MOSTLY unexplored still, or at least, not very well known
get off your sanctimonious high horse. just because people believe differently doesn't make them "insane"

you keep arguing in circles and assigning blame to others... just like always

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
It was Ira, not me
but it was YOU baiting using OT "bot" crap as well as trying to assume subjective cultural & personal arguments were somehow justified as legitimate all-encompassing "sane" arguments... plus, you are just plain WRONG about the effectiveness of a simplistic gun-toting terrorist campaign against a standing modern military, and that is STILL being proven today! even i know that and i refuse to watch the news anymore
If it reduces potential/actual numbers of incidences/deaths by even ONE, then it's worthwhile
spoken like a true extremist willing to give up liberty and freedom for POTENTIAL safety while refusing to accept that said "safety measures" are not very effective
And many deaths/injuries have been prevented by Random Breath Testing
many deaths have been PREVENTED by armed citizens too, why is it OK for DUI but not guns? You never see how crime or death is PREVENTED by a gun...
THIS IS A VALID POINT
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
If it reduces potential/actual numbers of incidences/deaths by even ONE, then it's worthwhile
and this is the whole problem with you, BTW... you are OK with this mentality if it is state produced, as in DUI checks, but somehow refuse to accept the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT if it is guns?
WHY?... does that sound like a "sane" argument? especially when the anti-crime aspect of the pro-gun argument is that a weapon CAN defuse violence & save lives even if it is NOT discharged (i've personally used a firearm to defuse violent confrontations numerous times w/o firing a shot- debunks your whole argument right there)
so why is it PROPAGANDA if it is an NRA argument when it is a LEGITIMATE argument that you even made WRT DUI? does that mean you are trying to produce "GOP propaganda to spread paranoia and sell more" alcohol????

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
their perceptions of safety i... will affect ...foreigners' decision making
that is a personal decision
Not if you're already dead
so, you are promoting extremes again, but it is OK because your delusional belief is that all criminals shoot from ambush? ever read Forrest Carter?
A gun fired from a distance ... can kill many more
i thought you weren't being extreme? this is the same fallacious argument you used about DUI

a gun can ALSO STOP A CRIME from a distance... why are you ignoring THAT part? it HAS stopped crimes, but we never see those statistics, only the CRIME stat's

you are being circular and not introducing any decent arguments that support your position... only rhetoric that is blatantly skewed by politics, culture and your willingness to be controlled

until you can produce a better argument, you should stop posting
no point in repeating MY argument because you refuse to read it, right?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
If it reduces potential/actual numbers of incidences/deaths by even ONE, then it's worthwhile
@everyone else
this is the MAIN reason to be pro-gun right here, but it somehow only seems to apply (for most folk) to "other things"

one thing that is always missing from the stat's is the number of crimes STOPPED by an armed public (i can name at least 20 in the last year in my neighborhood) but this is somehow overlooked by anti-gun arguments, like rc, because guns are "lethal"

again, unless it is USED by someone, it is an INERT piece of machined parts

now, Zaxxon has a legitimate point about empowerment, but that should also include things like badges, and no one is claiming the need to ban badges, are they?

the empowerment argument is also used in defense: 80y/o female defending against 20y/o thug is EMPOWERED to stop a crime

we have excellent laws, they're just NOT enforced

the argument should be about VIOLENCE and enforcement, not banning
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
It is scary to debate gun control. It is too emotional, for some on both sides.

Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
PS: Ira,
Those opposing random stops by police, for people suspected of carrying illegally, say that it's 'police state and ineffective';


Well Cher, I realize you have always been the great mind in the crowd of fools. But for someone who was called on to explain and school the Americans about their Constitution because you know it better than we ever could, you sure do slip up from time to time and say something really stupid.

Those opposing random stops by police, for people suspected of carrying illegally, say that it's 'police state and ineffective';


Our Constitution does not allow that. And even though Really-Skippy says it can be done on his advice, the Constitution still won't allow it. It's been tried, in lots of places, lots of different times in history. And it's ALWAYS been found to be Constitutionally not allowed.

Matey do better diligence while you are spreading your lessons on the American Constitution stuffs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
PS @ rc
I recall ...myself and others, had to 'educate'...[to] the founders purposes/reasons, contextual meanings, intents, limitations, and possible modern re-interpretations of, various original passages/amendments in US Constitution
I call BULLSH*T
first off, you are arguing that there is no modern need to keep guns due to modern gov't- but you refuse to acknowledge the original reason- see founding father arguments
ALSO
note 18...the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

you sent this to Ira
You keep underestimating me
no, you keep proving that you are NOT as knowledgeable as you want others to believe

you make ASSumptions based upon CULTURAL and personal interpretations, ... esp re: historical US constitution, culture, crime, etc

that is NOT underestimating you, it is judging you based upon evidence presented

i think Ira is justified
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
There will always be the two types, . . those who think we are all in this together, and the others who think it is me against them.

Many are scared people, and never learned to share or trust.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
You Constitutionalists had better get with the modern era. Remember all those black-and-white movies about the authoritarian states, where the Gestapo or the KGB demanded to see "Your papers! Where are your papers!?"

We have that here. Scalia made two interesting rulings. One is if you are condemned to die and you can suddenly PROVE your innocence, the government can still KILL YOU!

The other was the government can demand to see your "papers" at any time, and if you do not have the ones they want, they can put you in jail immediately!

How do you like your conservative justices now?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2015
@quam There will always be the two types, . . those who think we are all in this together, and the others who think it is me against them.
Definitely me against you warmongering motherfuckers

@RealityStabbings require close contact, so more readily identified/apprehended as to perpetrator. A gun fired from a distance takes time for identifying perpetrator, so can kill many more and get away if they don't have a 'suicide-by-cop' deathwish. The point is to reasonably minimize mass availability/access to guns by 'spur-of-the-moment' people in sudden depressive/violent frame of mind, whether for suicide/murder. Good luck. :)
Spur of the moment people take decades to reach their flashpoint, while you bankster lovers look away. Shooting requires a stable target, which disappears upon the first gunshot. If you look at the shootings, even the obviously faked like Sandy Hook, you have a meticulous, methodical shooter hunting down victims hiding with no means of self defense
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
It is interesting to hear Southerners talk about the Constitution. When I was there in 1965, the crooked cops with their rebel flag license plates and their huge guts ran the crooked counties with gambling and payoffs. I trusted them like I trusted Krushshev.

There was no Constitution in the South.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
There will always be the two types, . . those who think we are all in this together, and the others who think it is me against them
@gkam
sorry, i disagree
i feel the two types are this:
those willing to act upon the situation
&
those willing to acquiesce and submit to the authority of another

i am not willing to allow any person to harm me or my family, whereas the anti-gun movement are willing to accept the criminals authority over them b/c they've already allowed the state to control them

there is a real world, and i live in it. i don't put my head in the sand and cry foul when criminals try to harm me, just like i know that cops, even in the best circumstances, take TIME to respond

given that i cannot keep a cop in my pocket for protection, the next best thing is...?
you do the math

also note: as i said above, having a gun doesn't mean killing
too many people IGNORE the fact that guns stop crimes- where are the Stat's on that? it is NOT in the database
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
It is interesting to hear Southerners talk about the Constitution
i only live in the south, i was born in the west and raised overseas
crooked cops
wanna talk about LA? Chicago? NYC? Jersey?
get a grip
rebel flag license plates
no, that is the Battle Flag of Virginia: Lee's flag, not the Rebel flag
https://en.wikipe..._America

this is the rebel flag
https://en.wikipe..._America#/media/File:Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281865%29.svg
huge guts ran the crooked counties with gambling and payoffs
nice to see you are not emotional and prejudiced spouting off blatant all-encompassing known fallacious arguments
[sarcastic hyperbole]
There was no Constitution in the South
and this is your justification to disarm the public?
it seems that this is the very REASON you should be PRO-GUN

you should stop
denglish
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2015
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the state constitutions of forty-four States.

Case closed.

Unless, there is a narrative to be supported. Perhaps...dependent classes are even more dependent when they aren't armed?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
I am not referring to you, but to the Southern Constitution expert Ira. Do not get so defensive, I do not want your f***ing guns! Some of you may have real needs for them.

But HANDGUNS? Thank you folk for proving my point that even talking about these psychological crutches is inviting violence.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2015
It is interesting to hear Southerners talk about the Constitution. When I was there in 1965, the crooked cops with their rebel flag license plates and their huge guts ran the crooked counties with gambling and payoffs. I trusted them like I trusted Krushshev.

There was no Constitution in the South.


Well, that was about as stupid and empty as anything you wrote yet. And silly too.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2015
Well, it is true.

But the South has for the most part made a huge change. There are some holdouts, but the maturation of the South is a wonder of our era. The liberals who started the process did not do it, the People of the South did it. Far from scorn, I celebrate the achievements they made.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2015
I am not referring to you, but to the Southern Constitution expert Ira..


Skippy there is no such thing as a "Southern Constitution" there is the Constitution of the United States which is the one I give my allegiance to. For someone who wants to be so rational and unemotional you sure shriek and get carried away with your way of communicating.

That's why you are the Sarah Palin of the left, you talk loud but don't say anything. I sure do wish you would switch sides because you seem a lot like a stalking horse for the right wingers and are hurting causes that I hold dear.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
I said plenty and proved it. You were unable to admit what I sent, choosing to misrepresent it. If you had just admitted what it was, we could have discussed or dismissed the issue, but you could not admit it. Character problems I did not expect.

If I send any more stuff, you will ignore the issue and find some other silly thing to distort. It is a goober game. You are not in favor of liberal causes, you don't have the character for it.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
"i don't put my head in the sand and cry foul"
-------------------------------

I strongly suggest you do not go there.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2015
I said plenty and proved it. You were unable to admit what I sent, choosing to misrepresent it. If you had just admitted what it was, we could have discussed or dismissed the issue, but you could not admit it.Character problems I did not expect.


It was a newsletter with the article about you. I even type out the whole article so everybody would see it says just what I said it says. You just keep drawing attention to your GREAT BIG LIE about me not admitting what was in it.

f I send any more stuff, you will ignore the issue and find some other silly thing to distort. It is a goober game.


Yes I suppose it is, and you are the goober who can not even name the schools that give him his master degrees or junior diplomas or a single piece of paper that says "senior engineer" of any thing, Just a bunch junk that is smoke and mirrors.

You are not in favor of liberal causes, you don't have the character for it


Another stupid lie that doesn't mean anything.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2015
Sorry, Ira, you proved your character when you repeatedly lied about what I sent. Don't try your semantic games, you essentially lied, until you were forced to put it all up buried in a word salad.

This thread regards guns. I think we have to stop appeasing handgun and military weapons owners. If they want a rifle to slaughter some animal for food or kicks, okay. No man-killers.

Time to leave this thread. Good luck to the rest of you getting this straightened out for our society. We will have to do something.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2015
This thread regards guns.


Yeah, it is.

I think we have to stop appeasing handgun and military weapons owners.


If you want to change the gun laws Skippy, the way to do that is not with meaningless slogans. You have to get enough support to amend the Constitution. Our Framers were wise enough to make two ways of doing that. One of them is NOT ignoring the Constitution as it is written or changing what the words there mean.

If they want a rifle to slaughter some animal for food or kicks, okay.


Work to change the law, but silly sloganeering does not help your cause.

No man-killers.


Work to change the Constitution. As it stands now, it protects "man-killers". It was written and implemented with "man-killers" in mind. The purpose was to protect the right to possess "man-killers". The courts have spoken on this issue dozens and dozens of times over the last 200 years. Your emotional outbursts are not good legal precedent (or reasoning)..
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
I have said plenty and proved it
You have said plenty and proved that you are a pathological liar and most likely a psychopath.
This thread regards guns. I think we have to stop appeasing handgun and military weapons owners. If they want a rifle to slaughter some animal for food or kicks, okay. No man-killers
"Most mass murderers have psychopathic--not psychotic--tendencies. They're callous, manipulative, and often unfeeling."

-And they have clever ways of rationalizing it...

"When asked if he had ever committed a violent offense, a man serving time for theft answered, "No, but I once had to kill someone.""

"But there is something else about the speech of psychopaths that is equally puzzling: their frequent use of contradictory and logically inconsistent statements that usually escape detection."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
Well hi rc X))))

"I know that the NRA... 'oh gee, well if they were carrying, this never would have happened'," he said. "I got news for you, if Alison or Adam had been carrying an AK-47 strapped around their waist, it wouldn't have made any difference." "They couldn't have seen this thing coming so I don't want to hear that argument from the NRA..."

Well their position would be that there should be 1 or 2 more sets of eyes at location shoots such as that. And one or more of them should be armed.

Its a little reckless to send celebrities out on assignments like that, who are going to be distracted and less than fully aware of their surroundings, without the means to protect themselves.

And of course the only realistic way to do this is with concealed handguns. Because they may have to effectively deter attackers, and a handgun in that situation is the only way to do it.

This is why cops carry them.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
Ira, if you need a handgun to be equal to me, I don't want you in my neighborhood, and promise to not go into yours.
Estevan57
4.8 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2015
gkam - Ira didn't say or infer any such thing. You're just a troll.
Another thread hijacked by gkam, about gkam, for the glorification of gkam.

Do need attention so much that you're to willing take such abuse?

I can see why you hate guns so much, the Vietnam war scared you so bad you didn't re-up and you fled the service like a coward.

Your job history says you've been running ever since.
Have a good day.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2015
Ira, if you need a handgun to be equal to me, I don't want you in my neighborhood, and promise to not go into yours.
Uh who would want to be equal to you? You have no compunctions about lying through your teeth on a public forum and then expecting people to believe you because you use your real name.

Most people would be ashamed to behave this way.

"What makes psychopaths different from all others is the remarkable ease with which they lie, the pervasiveness of their deception, and the callousness with which they carry it out."

"Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken."

-You are proud of your abilities arent you? You think this means youre 'smart'.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2015
Ira, if you need a handgun to be equal to me, I don't want you in my neighborhood, and promise to not go into yours.


What is all this "need" and "equal" foolishment? Skippy you don't know anything about me. Need and equal are not even words I have used in this discussions. I done told you I can go anywhere in the whole state of Louisiana not because I have a gun or three or even none, but because I know how to conduct my self.

I don't care if go in my neighborhood or not. You might learn something about us if you do. Well, probably not, you are one of those peoples who learns by just "thinking it", but you will at least see why everything you ever said about us is really lame and stupid.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. And the racial thing about the Tribes being cock-roaches you should keep to your self if do come down to visit. Boy I tell you true, they will make you wish YOU had something to make you equal to the meanest man you never did see.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
"I can see why you hate guns so much, the Vietnam war scared you so bad you didn't re-up and you fled the service like a coward."
---------------------------------

You are the coward. Where did you serve?

Guns are attractive and fun. But they attract people like you and otto who cannot control your emotions. It is not a good idea to allow your kind to have guns.

I out grew them long ago. I suggest you do the same.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
"And the racial thing about the Tribes being cock-roaches"
----------------------------

No, Ira, I was talking abut the REAL roaches you folk have under your feet, houses, cars, overhangs, on your screens, doors, porches, and everywhere else.

YOU chose to misrepresent it (again), and play semantic games. I suggest you grow up. Does your wife know you are this duplicitous? Would she admit it to her pupils?
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2015
I was talking abut the REAL roaches you folk have


Roaches are swarms, and colonies and live in nest. Not tribes.

YOU chose to misrepresent it (again), and play semantic games. I suggest you grow up.


We are talking about people, humans was the word getting used, and how they are all members of tribes. But you meant cock roaches (which are not living tribes, they are swarms, colonies and nests). And I am the one playing word games? Cher you are the most poor double talker I never did see.

Does your wife know you are this duplicitous?


Mrs-Ira-Skippette it the smart one in our house. She has the real degree from a college she knows the name of. She knows a lot about a lot of things. We met while we both when to community college and she when on to UNO for the 4 year degree for teaching and I went back to the towboats for the good job I already had. I am the Cajun, but she is the Creole, so we both know a little something about slurs.

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2015
Good morning (here) all. :) Can't stay long today, so briefly...

@Ira: I never said they stopped/checked for gun-carrying. I pointed out those who argue that would be 'a police state', curiously do not argue it's 'a police state' if Arizona stops/checks for papers. Their objection/rationalizations in one but not the other stop/check measure seemed 'conveniently' contradictory. That's all.

@CapS: If you need so many guns to prevent so many more deaths because of ubiquity/immediacy of gun availability, then you need to stop and think why you need so many guns in the first place which then creates the further 'need' for more for defense/prevention of more crimes because of more guns in the first place. Consider the gun related accidents (including involving children), suicides/murder-suicides and mass-shootings which would not have occurred if guns were not so readily, ubiquitously available/accessible by anyone/anywhere there.

Good luck tackling underlying causes guys. :)
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2015
I pointed out those who argue that would be 'a police state', curiously do not argue it's 'a police state' if Arizona stops/checks for papers


Well that is where your broad-brushing gets you in tussles with peoples. I am one who argues it is wrong in both cases. And guess what Skippy, all the courts agree. Did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arizona's law about carrying identity papers? A conservative court? It is true, so your goose gander outlook falls right on it's face.

Not everybody is the way you IMAGINE they are, which is why so little of your postems gets much traction with smart peoples.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2015
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right ...Case closed TOO RIGHT! i agree totally!
I am not referring to you, but to the Southern Constitution expert Ira
@Gkam
1- there is only the Constitution
2- I live in the south, my Grandmother was a southern Belle, of the Crum's. slamming the south is slamming my family- it is no different than someone else saying all veterans are lunatics who desire to kill etc
Some of you may have real needs for them
as noted above in my link: if you are an able bodied US citizen, it is your duty to own them and protect the republic, IMHO, ESPECIALLY as a veteran sworn to protect and defend the constitution
I strongly suggest you do not go there
Why? because you are a veteran? or because you don't think i deserve to make a point?
YOU are the one that has brought the point to the table... i am just offering my perspective
YOU made it personal ... WHY NOT go there?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2015
I think we have to stop appeasing handgun and military weapons owners
@gkam
WHY? there is NO LAW against it, and having auto or "military grade" weapons requires a license... what you are referring to is owning military STYLE weapons, like the AR style rifle... which is nothing more than a cool looking hunting rifle... you don't argue against the .308, or 3006... both of which were/are used as sniper rifles, and are also popular high velocity rounds that body armor is useless against (most body armor is useless against a high powered round)... so your argument is to ban high powered anything? and anything small and hand held? what?
i will say it again: this argument stems from PARANOIA and has it's basis in personal fears, not in legitimate statistics. you're not banning cars, screwdrivers and hammers, ALL of which kill more people directly and indirectly than handguns...
so why the paranoid fear of hand guns? really?
Answer me that
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2015
HI Ira. Can't stay, so briefly...
Well that is where your broad-brushing gets you in tussles with peoples. I am one who argues it is wrong in both cases. And guess what Skippy, all the courts agree. Did you know that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arizona's law about carrying identity papers? A conservative court? It is true, so your goose gander outlook falls right on it's face. Not everybody is the way you IMAGINE they are, which is why so little of your postems gets much traction with smart peoples.
Yes, I knew it. It's been on wiki (search term: "Arizona_SB_1070") for al all to see and know about for years now. And if you have been consistent in your opposition to all stop/check policies, then you are not one of the conveniently hypocritical types I alluded to. My respect for not being hypocritical on that, Ira. :)

Would also be interested to hear your opinions on Random Breath Testing policy for drink/drug drivers? Back in couple days to see. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2015
Time to leave this thread....We will have to do something
i agree we DO have to do something... but why must we target inanimate objects when the problem lies with PEOPLE and VIOLENCE, not the machined inert metallic tool which you fear through paranoia? this is proven in your posts above, including
if you need a handgun to be equal to me...
this is a BS response, and smacks of paranoia, fear, etc... the argument is NOT about Ira "Needing" anything... the point is that he isn't going to be subjucated by CRIME...
the point is that it IS NEEDED by geriatric folk who are NOT capable of fighting youthful offenders!
the point is that IT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS TO STOP CRIME! which is why COPS carry them!

the point is that there is STILL A NEED to protect yourself as there is still violence and crime!

AND STOP ASKING WHERE PEOPLE SERVED
people can serve their nation without having to be in the military!
Some serve better by NOT being in the military
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
1- there is only the Constitution
Constitution exists to limit STATE power, not rights of sovereign persons. USA government existed to be stewards of the people, but now serves zionists/Crown Corporation due to corporatist power grab
AND STOP ASKING WHERE PEOPLE SERVED
Serving the banksters and Crown Corporation is not tantamount to serving one's country. Indeed, quite the opposite as elite need to launder $1.1trillion narcodollars through military budget yearly
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
you need to stop and think why you need so many guns in the first place
@rc
no i don't- read those links. it is my DUTY and responsibility to maintain firearms for the defense and protection of my Constitution as a citizen of the US
i am not a gun hating, paranoid, fearful, anti-defense, pro-crime delusional political rhetoric spewing poster and i think it is illogical to assume that a cop will always be there to protect me when i've seen, through experience, that they tend to not be around when crimes happen
Consider...
I HAVE... the problem is, you are NOT considering the Crimes stopped or the bulk of the SAFE responsible shooters out there
which would not have occurred if guns were not so readily
so, you are saying that there is NO VIOLENCE or SUICIDES in oz now?
again, you are refusing to accept all the crimes that have been stopped by guns, via non-lethal OR lethal force
you are arguing in circles and not making sense again
i'm going to dinner
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
My respect for not being hypocritical on that, Ira. :)


If you are sincere about that, I thank you.

Would also be interested to hear your opinions on Random Breath Testing policy for drink/drug drivers?


I do not have a problem with that because the courts have ruled they are only legal if ALL (meaning not random) vehicles passing a certain point at a certain time, are stopped for the purpose of inspecting the registration of the vehicle and the driver's license. Then they may test for alcohol if the officer has some reason to suspect the driver has been drinking.

A person driving erratically or unsafe is not a random stop, it is a stop with cause as provided for in the Constitution. Randomly checking people for firearms is unconstitutional, there has to be cause. We don't "randomly" check people to see if they are doing something that is protected by the Constitution. That is just plain silly.

I agree we got big problems, I do not agree that it is guns.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2015
See what I mean about this topic? It gets too emotional.

And isn't it amazing how Ira can drop that silly Cajun act.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2015
See what I mean about this topic? It gets too emotional.

And isn't it amazing how Ira can drop that silly Cajun act.


Cher, don't you have the Klucker's meeting to get to? You don't want to miss the speechifying about the N.O. cock roaches.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2015
"On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased "170 million new guns" since 1991, and violent crime has fallen "51 percent."

The NRA tweeted, "Since '91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%.""
http://www.breitb...fell-51/
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2015
"On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased "170 million new guns" since 1991, and violent crime has fallen "51 percent."

The NRA tweeted, "Since '91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%.""
http://www.breitb...fell-51/

There are lies, damn lies...and then there are statistics. Have you heard that longstanding/longproven truism yet?

For example, have they included other factors like better social support systems, law enforcement communications/co-ordination/intelligence and crime prevention techniques; not to mention the burgeoning prison population bursting at the seams due to increased jailings of offenders?

The sun will probably go Nova long before you go honest/objective/impartial, rygge2. How is the Blood Money nowadays for you coal/nuclear/GOP Troll Factory shills? Shame.
NiteSkyGerl
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2015

The sun will probably go Nova long before you go honest/objective/impartial, rygge2. How is the Blood Money nowadays for you coal/nuclear/GOP Troll Factory shills? Shame.


No. The sun will expire one day but rygthepoint will die a damnable liar, alone and cursing all the things we prevented him from doing in life.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.