Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We need to be "politically correct" about the term "gun violence"

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 23, 2012, 1:42 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I have been thinking about this and you know what this term is completely wrong with what is supposed to identify.

It's not the gun that is violent - its the person using it - the gun is only a means to that end.

So, we need to stop using the term "gun violence" and call it what it really is "Violent person firearm crime".

This puts things in perspective and it identifies exactly what it is - it's a violent person using a firearm in to commit a crime of violence

So if we want to be politically correct about this we need to call it what it is - a violent person using a firearm to commit a crime of violence.

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

We don't need to do anything. Here is the deal: bring back the ban on assault weapons and close the loopholes. Attempting to alter the actually wording to make yourself feel better isn't going to get the job done. You are not a good guy. You are a bad guy. I'm not going out of my way to make you feel like a good guy.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17820) 1 year ago

Here's an outsider's perspective on the matter GF & my very best wishes for Yule & New Year to you :

fiat lux ...

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Happy Holidays to you.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17820) 1 year ago

As it's Xmas, I'm gonna chance my arm with some 'correct politics' & see if I can get away with these five article links and one tune to you GF and thanx for making me think & laugh many times this year :-)

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well if we did that our troops would be without weapons. How safe do you think that would make them?

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

No, now you have slid into complete desperation.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey, you need to be "correct" about your facts - assault weapons are used by the military - I don't know of anyone that own firearms whom own an "assault weapon".

I do know a lot of people who own semi automatic rifles though.

Has nothing to do with "desperation" and all to do about being properly informed.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Grow up, Shayneh.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Look if you are going to comment about firearms at least have an undersanding on the subject - that's what the problem is with the news media

They claim every citizen who owns an AR-15 owns an "assault weapon" when in fact that isn't true.

There is no such word (assault weapon) used in the Federal Firearms Regulations put out by the ATF when it comes to defining firearms with regard to private citizens ownership. They do however, refer to the AR-15 as a semi automatic rifle.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Listen up, Squirrel, Starting in 1994 (and earlier) this was referred to as AWB. So, stand there and scream like a child as much as you want but, this is the text for the AWB.

Bill Text

103rd Congress (1993-1994)

H.R.3355.ENR

H.R.3355

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

TITLE XI--FIREARMS

Subtitle A--Assault Weapons

SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the `Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act'.

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(30) The termsemiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

(c) PENALTIES-

(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking or (q) of section 922' and inserting(r), or (v) of section 922'.

(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first sentence by inserting , or semiautomatic assault weapon,' aftershort-barreled shotgun,'.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.

SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) This subsection shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(31) The termlarge capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

(c) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(c)(1), is amended by striking or (v)' and inserting(v), or (w)'.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Calm down now - let me see if I can put this in perspective for you:

United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Main article: Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The term assault weapon was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.

So, as read above - the term "assault weapon" has been deleted and is no longer used in the Federal Firearms Regulations or any other federal regulation for that matter with regard to private ownership.

The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons (7th Edition, 2011) describes itself as being "all about true assault weapons...fully automatic or selective-fire equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications

These weapons were auto/semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (semi automatic operation) can be switched to fire only one round per pull of the trigger.

Unlike assault rifle, "assault weapon" has no consistent or specific definition and, so, is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes by people who want to "name tag"

Civilian ownership of firearms is generally restricted to semi-automatic rifles. Civilian ownership of assault "rifles" or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Notice the term "semi-automatic rifles" is the term used in the text - not "assault weapons".

Want more reference:

Gun Control Act 18 USC Chapter 44 27 CFR Part 478

National Firearms Act 26 USC Chapter 53 27 CFR Part 479

Arms Export Control Act 22 USC Chapter 2778 27 CFR Part 447

National Instant Criminal Background Check system Regulations 28 CFR Part 25

Nonmailable Firearms 18 USC Section 1715

This should bring you "up to date" on what's going on with firearm ownership today - not 1994.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

I don't need to be brought up to date. I don't need to calm down.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384

No one else has a problem with terminology.

http://www.slidefire.com/faqs

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

We are talking about "federal regulations" aren't we?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

We are talking about your changing definitions like violence and AWB and the reason that we call it AWB. The AWB listed specific criteria and you will see a new set of criteria to close the loopholes.

You will see that again.

So when you hear people say AWB...........know that there is no confusion. Bring back the AWB has a meaning. We are not confused in the terminology. We are not confused in the term violent.

[-] 3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey, I don't have a problem with the AWB "Automatic Weapons Ban". Banning automatic weapons won't have any affect on honest law abiding semi automatic firearm owners.

I think we should ban AWB's.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

AWB is a general term. That is understood. But, make no mistake, what you are so desperately trying to prevent is coming.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I don't think so - when people finally settle down and look at the "big picture" you can be sure they will be talking about "more control over individual rights" then gun control.

Besides do you really think that 200 million people with around 20 million semi automatic firearms are going to give those to the government - Not - you can be sure of that.

And if the government imposes restrictions those who already own semi automatic firearms with the extended magazines will be granfathered in - so it will only apply to "new firearms ownership".

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

It's coming.

And the bitch of this is that you wasted entirely too much time on bullshit for anyone to take you seriously at this point.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

SEC. 110104. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle-- (1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date. SEC. 110106. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following appendix: `APPENDIX A

Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide

Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action

Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot

Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles

Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action

Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire

Shotguns--Autoloaders

Shotguns--Slide Actions

Shotguns--Over/Unders

Shotguns--Side by Sides

Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I was never effected by this previous gun ban... what did those people do with the guns if they had them in possession? I guess they just had to turn them in to authorities. And I guess that is why some of these guys are nervous about everyone knowing they lost money on a fire arm that they just had to turn in.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

They kept them.

The NRA starts and maintains fear to get away with murder.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

It is really weird. And they were so scared of Clinton and hated him. And again now ... they have triggered 4 years of guns sales. Amazing sales. And the NRA has scooped up tons of money, and given it to congressmen. What a system. Really it is like a racket. Should be RICO charges.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

It doesn't take much for these numnuts to run out and buy guns. Consider that after an election they did the same thing.

Please see the following link.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/news/wal-mart-dicks-guns-connecticut/

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

The only thing a ban does is raise prices on existing items until they are sold out.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

No, you don't see.........but you mother fucking will.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Let me remind you of what you don't have. You don't have a case against the term Assault Weapons. You don't have a case against the military not having assault weapons. You don't have a case against the term "Violent", specifically because this was under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and will be in the future. You don't have case trying to use Sandy Nook as an isolated incident independent of the whole problem. You don't have a case against parenthood/parenting or morality. Now, since there was no dash to confiscate guns when this was last enacted then you don't have a case now for it to happen.

You don't have a case.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You don't have a case. You're done.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You mean from the Magnificent Seven movie? That was one of the best westerns ever.

Think of it this way, you no longer have to lie about the Second Amendment or it's history. You no longer have to lie about someone coming to take your guns. You no longer have to lie about politically correct language. It is no longer necessary to pretend that you are ignorant of proper punctuation.

You should be thanking me. All of your lying and conniving must have been quite draining.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"assault weapon" is part of the p.r. attack against gun ownership.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Wrong answer. I understand that under your contract you have no choice but to make those statements.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

I had the correct response. You are a failure.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You are the failure. Now, go back and tell your team leader to send someone in with a sense of humor and some smarts.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you're the only one that thinks you have a sense of humor so that disqualifies the perception.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Nah, I think it's pretty funny though that you wait until you get banned before you start sending shitty pms.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

there goes your tourettes again.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

[-] -1 points by town (-125) 16 minutes ago you cant be blamed for having a neurological disease, but you should seek medical help,. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


You don't have a case. I don't have a neurological disease and all of your pettiness doesn't change it.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

[-] -2 points by town (-125) 39 minutes ago you cant be blamed for having a neurological disease, but you should seek medical help,. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Run along now. Shoo fly.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

your posts betray your condition.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Keep dreaming, fucktwit.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you cant be blamed for having a neurological disease, but you should seek medical help,.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think it means - that - She - don't like you or your kind!!! Sellouts if you are confused.


[-] 0 points by town (-138) 3 minutes ago

she/he has a neurological problem as evidence by her/his outbursts of cursing. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

sellout of what? to who?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What condition? Intolerance for trolls/shills/sellouts ?


[-] -1 points by town (-138) 1 minute ago

your posts betray your condition. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

she/he has a neurological problem as evidence by her/his outbursts of cursing.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"assault weapon" is a term made up by anti 2nd amendment policiticans and the press.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

[-] -3 points by town (-172) 16 hours ago she/he has a neurological problem as evidence by her/his outbursts of cursing. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Your tic is your attempt to take a dead subject matter and keep pushing it to the top even though you have zip to add to the conversation.

Shut the fuck up and sit down you imbecile.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

there are no loopholes in the 2nd amendment.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Ah Grasshopper.......the nonfiction section of the library is beckoning you.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Yeah, and let's change the name of Jack the Ripper to "Jack the guy who probably wasn't really very nice even when he didn't have a knife."

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

He might have been as nice as Obama or Bush etc,since they belong to the same club.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

When you make comments like that it just shows that you are in denial when it comes to where the real issue lies and how it is defined.

What does the term "gun violence" mean? Does it mean that the gun is violent?

What does the term "violent person firearm crime" mean? Does it mean a violent person with a firearm comitted crime?

And which term makes more sense?

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The overwhelming majority of legally possessed firearms fall into one of but two categories: the defense weapon or the sporting gun. To qualify as an assault weapon, the gun must be used to facilitate "assault," and only the criminally minded facilitate assault. Right?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

No, this does not qualify the weapon as an "assault weapon" when the gun is used to facilitate "assault". What it does qualify the person with a criminal mind when a weapon is used in a violent crime as a "violent person firearm crime".

Assault weapon is defined by the NATO military standars and the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

a gun is only a tool of violence. all guns are violent. gun owners seek violence, and enable violence.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

And so are axes, cars, alchol, drugs, - need I say more? Anything can be called a "tool of violence" when it kills - regardless of how it's used to kill.

So lets ban evrything.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Yes you do; axes can chop wood, cars can move people from place to place, alcohol is a pleasant relaxing drink, drugs can save lives,. GUNS ONLY KILL!

Say some more.., tools have many uses, most CAN be used for harm, guns have only one use and it is killing.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well drunk drivers kill, drug overdoses kill, people have been chopped to bits with axes, so to say that "guns only kill" just goes to show you still have some "research" to do on the above subjects.

BTW - the above list is a 4 to 1 ratio with regard to deaths - meaing for every one person killed by a firearm 4 people died by other violent means.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

guns ONLY kill.

I suggest; don't own a gun, and ridicule those that do as fearful and weak. Culture surrounding guns and gun ownership must shift.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Geez - I have a firearm that was made back in 1951, has been in the family since then and it hasn't killed anyone yet.

Could you please explain the reason for this - I mean you say "guns only kill" - something must be wrong with this firearm - maybe the reason it hasn't killed is because it's a "firearm" instead of a "gun".. What do you think?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well if you are going to Reframe the debate ... let me add fuel to the fire. understand I'm just the mesenger and I'm trying to stir the pot at the same time. Perhaps the Powers That Be want to get rid of guns, so that they can impliment some new Treaties and Laws:

1) TPP transpacific Partnership, see democracy now video

2) CODEX regulations on suppliments, herbs, vitamins, organic produce.

3) And Big Pharma want to get all the profit they can from alternative medicine and shut out organic produce, because normal farm produce has like only 3 minerals in it and doesn't taste like anything.

4) Big Agriculture, Monsanto, wants to increase the market share of GMOs and doesn't want home gardening, herbs, and organic local farms taking profits. Animal feed has like 21-31 different minerals, but human food has like 3-6 minerals. Corporate control always wants to increase market share by killing competion (there can be only one), Executives are paid to increase sales and market share.

http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-14-2012/1965
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_trans-pacific_partnership_a_plan_for_corporate_global_governance_201206/

http://anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

I do not know why we need to be "politically correct".But since you are at it.Why not call gun control what it is People control.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

what is this nonsense semantics? seriously you think we are as dumb as the people you associate with in daily life or something?

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Believe it or not people are dumb - just look at the posts on here with regard to semi automatic rifles.

They call them assault rifles, automatic weapons, high powered rifles when in fact the .223 is just a little larger then a .22.

In addition to that they are not built to the NATO military standard of semi/automatic assault weapons.

The only similarity with regard to the "Nato military standard" is the bullet balistics.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

i suppose we could use more accurate terms.

How about 'gun violence by people'? Shorter than yours but accurate in specifying that the people are responsible.

Wouldn't want anyone to think the gun was violent on it's own. Right?

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

No, because it's not the "gun that is violent" it's the person -

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aahhhh! So people might misunderstand and think the gun is violent. How about human violence w/ gun, or w/ knife, or w/fertilizer bomb.

is that better?. Still shorter than your suggestion but accurate.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well, the gun is not violent - it is a mechanical device - it consists of components that interact with each one to produce a result

A violent person on the other hand is an individual with a chemical or psychological imbalance that has no grasp of rational thinking and as a result may act in a violent manner towards others.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

A violent person doesn't have to have an imbalance right? Sometimes your just a criminal. Or you might be violent in an effort to protect you family.

i do of course agree that guns are inanimate objects that cannot hurt anyone unless a person initiates the action.

do you think a lot of people are confused about this reality? Do you suppose many are confysed by the term 'gun violence'?

I guess if anyone thinks guns kill people without human interaction they are good candidates to have their gun rights taken away.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

We need to get rid of guns!!

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

We need to get rid of people who want to use guns to kill.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Obviously there is much confusion and disagreement, yet thousands of people are shot every year. We already have 50% of the worlds firearms and we are only 5% of the world's population, so we have PLENTY of guns.

Let's call a time out, a moratorium, until we figure this stupid mess out.

There is ZERO urgency to maintain our archaic status quo gun availability. There is TREMENDOUS and OVERWHELMING urgency to END the shootings!!

[-] 0 points by JohnFKennedyIV (11) 1 year ago

I like this idea. A gun and a potato are both equal in that neither can voluntarily do anything. "Gun Violence" is just as silly a phrase as "Potato Violence".

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

pobre bebé

You're a fraud. You don't have a case. Now, go locate your team leader.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I was always kind of fond of - Green Eggs and Ham. Harold and his magic purple crayon.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Yeah, but just about every line in Magnificent Seven can be applied to everyday life AND right winger shit.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I have always liked stories of the strong defending the weak.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I wonder if the mag 7 was a Hollywood response to the attacks made by McCarthy.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

I don't know if it was or not. I was under the impression that this movie came from having a lot of (then) hawt men. Exactly what Young Guns set out to do. It was supposed to be a remake, I don't think it is even comparable .Akira Kurosawa is in a class all of his own. That's just me.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Been a while since I saw the magnificent seven - Yul Brynner right?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Original japanese version even better.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The seven samurai? Was that with Toshiro Mifuni ?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ooooh very good. I would say so. but I would have to google it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I have seen both it has been a long time since seeing them though. Both had their strong points. Strong defending the weak.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Classic story. Even robin hood shares elements of the same strong defending the weak.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - and I think it was the reason ( the telling of such stories ) that got McCarthyism such strong support ( very weak defense from good people on sick character assassinations ).

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

not surprising

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Very sad really {;-[.....................

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Ok, go and tell your team leader to quit fucking around and send someone in with some smarts and a sense of humor. You don't have a case and your done. Now, since I keep shredding you..........your comments actually make you look pretty damn stupid.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You just cry and cry and cry when you lose.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You are doing it now.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

You lack the capacity to become productive.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Really? Your actions are much louder than your words. So, if you wanna meet me halfway then you are going to have to show me.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

[-] -1 points by iamsoandso (89) 2 hours ago ok then i agree again after reading thru post of this sort and others for a year and a half now "i dont want some of these people turned loose with a book of matches",,,so then we need to get the pressure off the police and give them the right tools to work with. "i think" every police should be issued an ar15/folding stock. might spook some folks but their chuncking rocks at armed gunman. they need to be able to defend themselves and our children.they need more firepower and training than the "booger man",,,,,and "us on their side",,,, ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


You want to give your local police departments the training that they already have?

How does that solve straw purchases? Or corrupt FFL's? Or gun show loopholes? Or any of this ?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

I didn't say they all had to go. You are lying.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Psychologist suggested when you are in an expensive suburb it is easy to keep your 'troubled' kid under the radar. Your family, close friends may see 'something' but all know to stay quiet and uninvolved to protect you status.

So Society needs to take some responsibility of course, but those closest, fam/friends must take action 1st.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So his father. brother, and aunt are absolved & the outsiders should be expected to rectify the situation?

I've already said society needs to take some responsibility, but fam/friends ARE part odsociety. And they should have known.

So if you want 'society' to 'rectify the problem' put the father, brother, aunt in jail for inaction and we will see many reports of potential massacres.

Merry Christmas

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

From what I heard on the news, the mother was going to have him commmited to an asylum - apparently he didn't want to go after he found out about it.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

No, it doesn't. It isn't going to save your ass from an assault weapon ban.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Exactly. It isn't about morality. However, you are transparent.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 1 year ago

Then don't act surprised when you get nailed.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Who decides what those techniques are?

Who said they MUST be set in stone?

You?

You can't even properly solve the union busting issue.

Nor do you understand that gun nutters are gun nutters, propagating gun nuttery..

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

We've already ascertained that thinking is not your strong point. Just bullet points and they don't count for much.

The bullet point itself was useless, as usual.

Now answer the questions.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Where is this thinking you mention you are good at?

I've not noticed anything like from you yet.

Try the union question you failed miserably at again.

Miserable is what most of your "solutions" have been so far.

This one in particular, even though you mention that you are clueless on the subject.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well from what I understand the kid had problems and the mother was dealing with them as much as she could. Maybe she didn't do the best job but she didn't deserve to be murdered.

When parents raise childeren to the best of their ability and after the child becomes an adult goes out and kills people - I do believe the parents should be completely absolved.

I know of parents who went through this very same thing - although their children didn't kill anyone they turned out bad and ended up in jail.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

You know, you never know how your children will turn out - I have a son who was a alcholic - very normal when young - ended up in jail (hit bottom) and decided he needed to change.

Parents can raise their children to be the best in the world, nurture them and give them guidance (thats about all any parent can do). Like anything else people change over time - no one knows for sure.

You know as well as I - how many families suffered because their child was on drugs and they did everything they could to help them - lots of families lost everything becaue of it -

But in the end it's up to the individual to make the change and reach out for help - otherwise things aren't going to change for them anytime soon.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Whoa!!!!

A bullet point.

telling.

A gun nutter is still a gun nutter and I have a feeling you have NO idea about women, nor children. .

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

NOTHING can prepare a woman, or a man for the onslaught of right wing BS.

The driving FORCE of multi-pronged marketing/PR that is the American illusion.

Most refuse to admit it even exists, let alone how very powerful it is.

Gun nutters make it even worse.

More bullet points?

LOL What a joke your lies really are.

I'm thinkin' you might need a license just post here.

Or think for that matter, as you seem to be having severe issues with that.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Re-read my first 2 and last 2 sentences.

Important points (without bullets), that you have completely missed.

Too much FLAKESnews perhaps?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

You saw it, but you had no idea what I am talking about, so you repeat yourself without the info needed for an informed response....

Let's put it another way. Gun nuttery has informed society.

Without removing the gun nuttery, you will be unable to create "proper training", as gun nuttery will be inclusive to the training, perpetuating the behavior you are attempting to eradicate.

I don't even want to get into all the issues FLAKESnews and it's ilk creates and is still creating.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

The single most politically correct term for a gun nutter, IS the term "gun nutter".

It's descriptive and accurate.

It's suits them and their FEAR to a T.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Mostly YOU need to do that.

Gun nuttery went on.

It's a plain simple fact.

Where are you at in the scale?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/24/its-the-guns-stupid-10-fake-issues-the-nra-trots-out-after-every-shooting-videos/

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Driven insane by the NRA and all bullshit lies from the right wing media.

How do you solve the problem of the predominance of right wing media?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

I'm also correct.

You on the other hand, haven't solved a problem yet.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

ho ho ho ho.

Union YES!!

It's the better way forward.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

does it have to be a suburb? how about an expensive part of town?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think a wealthy person in an expensive part of a city can provide the anonymity the Dr suggests. I think a middle class person in the city cannot, certainly not a poor urbanite.

But even a middleclass person in the suburb can "hide" this situation enough to maintain status, but as a result the appropriate treatment is denied, and the child eventually snaps.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

It was not a "shooting". It was a massacre!

[-] -1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Yes, an NRA sponsored massacre.

Brought to you by right wing media.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Gun free zones are the spawn of Leftist's and Democrats. Progressive's have the blood of the innocent on them for promoting and helping to foster the insanity of the "Gun Free Zone".

You should go wash up killer.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

Nope, the NRA is the killer.

Such "zones" are only half measures at best because of their intensive lobbying.

Gun nuttery. Nothing more, just gun nuttery.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You really can't offer a believable defense of your arguments.

You're resorting to the "gun nutter" dialogue which means you've come up empty and have nothing more to offer and you've lost your argument.

[-] -1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

No I didn't, gun nuttery killed lots of people in 2012.

It's YOUR argument that has no rational defense.

It's you who lost.

The NO such thing as a gun free zone. It was an ignorant example in the first place.

Tell me?

Do you HATE Wyatt Earp too?

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

"The NO such thing as a gun free zone"

So you don't live in the real world apparently,perhaps a nursing home? That would explain most of your unconnected and empty rhetoric.

Gun free zones do exist. It's something that most lucid and connected people who live and work in the real world have to deal with on a daily basis.

I did really like "Tombstone" 1993 with Kurt Russel and that beautiful Dana Delany,great movie. But now that you bring it up,it seems the only way that mess was resolved was through justice by the gun.

Another great example of how the gun can service as both a regulation device and a defensive device. Lord praise the gun. It brings true equality to man's world. Even the poorest man can be strong,defend his home and live without fear with a gun.

You do believe in equality don't you?

[-] -1 points by shooz (26720) 1 year ago

That was truly twisted on ALL levels. You even brought God into YOUR mess.

I guess you need a metaphor, a mind picture.

A gun free zone in any city, is the equivalent of declaring a moisture free zone in a sinking boat.