Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Gun Advocates Are Wrong About A Ban On SemiAutomatic Weapons.

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 16, 2012, 12:06 a.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Argument # 1- there are too many guns in the country already and prohibition never works- oh really? did you forget about the machine gun and the problems we used to have with them? there was a time they were everywhere. what happened? sensible legislation that is what happened. Argument # 2- only the criminals will have guns.- seriously? you still have access to extremely powerful weapons. like a .45 revolver or a 12 gauge pump shotgun. you just can't fire 100 rounds in minutes. Argument #3- the government is tyrannical and i need my guns to protect me from them.- ha ha ha you are a fucking idiot. if the government ever goes tyrannical you will be drone striked from miles away. Argument #4- people will never turn in their guns- oh really? well i again just point to the machine gun ban. My point- semi automatic weapons are not needed to hunt or protect oneself. a high caliber revolver or a shotgun provides more than enough protection. there is no rational reason for someone to have these weapons and i have not seen one presented yet. please you can go ahead and try and then i will make a fool of your logic.

312 Comments

312 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by brael (5) 1 year ago

please sign this petition to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban!

http://wh.gov/RHpR

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

Signed

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

False flag criminal hoaxes designed to strip the inalienable 2nd Amendment rights from the 99% -- both the Newtown, CT and Aurora, CO shootings.

"In the case of Sandy Hook . . . we have one inconsistency after another: the mother was a teacher there and Adam was a student; the mother was not a teacher there an Adam was not a student. One shooter was involved, yet police radio reports show a second suspect was apprehended at the scene and a police helicopter video show yet a third suspect being tracked in the woods. The principal called the local paper about the shooting; the principal was dead on the scene. Excellent studies of the incoherence of the Sandy Hook narrative have been published by Niall Bradley, “Sandy Hook massacre story spins out of control” (Veterans Today, 20 December 2012) and by Professor James F. Tracy, “The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” (Global Research, 25 December 2012). Even NBC News has reported that there were four rather than two handguns inside the school and no long gun. There is no consistent story or coherent narrative." http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/28/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

Adam Lanza died with only the handguns, the long gun was in the trunk -- ergo, he wasn't the killer. He was simply the dead patsy.

To understand today's world, three concepts are necessary: false flag attacks, information warfare (both a type of psyop), control fraud.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Hog problem? Rent a helicopter or shoot from a pickup truck or something. You shouldn't mess with herds of animals like that ya know. Somehow, I don't think you really thought this through....How would you handle a bunch of angry elephants?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

and you have a truck that can drive thru creek beds?

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

you should use a grenade
louis gomert wants school teachers to be fully armed
grenades would do the trick

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Ban semi automatics? Are you kidding? With the economy literally being held together by nothing but banking corruption, an education system that sucks, and an entire nation gone consumer-istic mad....you want to ban semiautos?

Really?

Do you know what happens to countries in a currency crisis?

Do you know what our government is doing all over the globe to maintain power?

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

do you know how paranoid and delusional you sound. i'm just waiting for you to say "they are out ta get me!".

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its not delusional. Its just a quick glance at history and comparing it to our current selfish and overindulged population.

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

You think we need the semi automatics for the coming economic crash? Or are you saying the economic activity of semi auto sales is more important than gun victims?

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

So, if the government bans the sale of "semi automatic rifles - what about the millions that are out there already? Do we have a "gun byback" program?

There are 300 million guns in the US and 200 million are owned by private citizens - how does one go about taking those guns out of the hands of the private citizens?

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

there are not 300 million semi automatic weapons though the number of semiautomatic weapons is less than half that.. that is the 1st point. the second more important point is this nation was once flooded with machine guns and short barrel rifles and shotguns we solved that problem didn't we. and no there is not a gun by back program. you don't get paid to do the right thing.

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

First off I never made a comment about there being 300 million semi automatice weapons

Secondly, the problem with regard to automatic machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns wasn't solved for if it was people wouldn't be using these weapons to kill people or for that fact modify them in the use of a crime.

Third - I made a comment about a "gun byback" program if people think this would solve the problem -it won't.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20440) 1 year ago

How long did it take to load a musket back in 1791?

Was there a standing army in 1791? No. The 2nd amendment was put into place to provide for the formation of a militia and must be viewed in a historical way in order to interpret it. There was no such thing as semi-automatic weapons in 1791. Are we allowed to drive army tanks around?

[-] -1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

excellent question
everyone who wants to buy or keep a gun pays a license fee
say $100-$1000 depending on the gun
the fine for having an unlicensed gun would be $10,000 + a year in jail
this will finance a buyback program
100,000,000 guns licensed at $500 each =$50,000,000,000 plus 10,000 people fined at $10,000 each = $100,000,000 so you would have $50,100,000,000 to buy back 100,000,000 guns


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you have read any of my posts on this, you may find this shocking -
I am against a ban!
WHY?
1 the last ban DID NOT "ban" them - it banned their manufacture & sale - almost useless
2 A real ban would garner even more opposition
3 I am pragmatic and prefer a passable law that has a 25% chance of passing that would cut gun deaths by 50% rather than a law that has a 10% chance of cutting gun deaths by 90%
4 cplips over 10 bullets would be completely illegal
5 let the money do it!


NOTE - this is not about sales - it is about owners
my own numbers: licence for all gun owners $100/year
each licenced must prove liability insurance & gun locks registration of one hand gun $100/year
registration of one shot gun $100/year
registration of one rifle $100/year
registration of one semi-auto rifle $500/year
a second gun ( by type ) registration $200
a third gun ( by type ) registration $300 etc
with fees used to fund a buyback ***.
I see the best path to fewer gun deaths is to avoid a battle with the gun nuts
This proposal avoids ANY 2nd Amendment issues and the only thing they have left is - "they are gonna come and take your guns!"
Of course, if we had more pro-99% Ds in the House, it would help

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I know you and I have discussed guns on another thread. But I have to weigh in on your ideas. Nothing in your list has any chance of becoming law; not even one.

For example, the current gridlock on background checks is due to disagreement of keeping records on background checks. The anti-gun side want records maintained on background checks. The pro-gun side thinks keeping background check records is just a sneaky way for the government to know who own guns.

My point is if it’s this hard to a consensus on background checks, it will be impossible to get something like gun registration. Gun owners view registration as a precursor to confiscation. I suspect if registration were law there would be mass non-compliance. Such a law will immediately turn tens of millions of otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals. I think you underestimate the resolve of gun owners not to be toyed with.

As for a assault weapons ban. Forget about it. Ain’t gonna happen. At this point the feds are in gridlock over guns. The States have now taken the lead. Three States have already passed more restrictive gun laws. Other States are passing more lenient laws. My State is passing open carry this year. We’ll be like the old west, with people walking around with a gun on their hip.

As for a gun buy back. Let me tell you a funny story. A year or so ago, the Austin, TX police department did a gun buy back. Just bring in your gun and they’d pay you $100 (not sure about the price). It was publicized on TV for a few weeks.

On the day of the buy back. Two guys parked in front of the building where the buyback was happening. As people walked up to the building the guys were buying their guns at a few dollars more than what the cops were paying. I saw the news story and it showed a pick-up bed full of guns these guys bought. An almost identical situation happened in Oregon or Washington a few months ago. So much for getting guns off the street.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I dont disagree with your "difficulty" issue. But the "ban" - as it was - is almost useless & background checks on SALES - not OWNERS will have minimal effect.
I think my approach is VERY reasonable, and harder to argue against than any real ban.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

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

article is bullshit. i hate it when people try to draw a moral equivalency between the conservative/ libertarian perspective and the progressive/liberal perspective. there is not one because people who believe the ideals of conservativism/libertarianism do so with out any evidence that their beliefs are based on facts and are not suppositions. one half of the country lives in dumbasfuckistan.

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

I don't want to get into this discussion:

1) You are already mind made up (Positional)
2) NRA is already mind made up (Positional)
3) Politicains are lining up for Lobbyists (proabably previously Postional)
4) Many liberals already mind made up (positional)
5) Many Conservatives already Positional

But for all that lets conseed some points... we must know that in politics each player is just following his organization's mission, meaning he loses status, career, network influence, and future position if he deviates from the poles on this issue (extremes). I mean there is little reason or logic to suggest that people will actually think openly about this political issue.

1) Let's conceed that gun buyers during Obama's administration are perhaps mostly motivated by fear ... when that fear is not justified by the fact that people kept their semiautomatic firearms after the law signed in 1993.

2) Conceed that Gun Advocates don't want to give up any rights.

3) Conceed that Gun banners want to take away many more rights that just semiautomatics... after all there is a push for handgun bans ... bullet bans ... online sales of ammo bans ...and a principal of redcuing gun rights to either hunting rights or to target shooting rights.

4) Conceed that extreme positions don't want to give up their position. So the right of having arms to take down a government that is aggressive, and that is Prone to War, Covert Activity ... and to Torture is at risk. And there is no current plan or even discussion about stopping US Drone Strikes, Torture, or Global War.

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

i don't play politics.

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

Ironically, that may be what the many players in the Gun Debate feel as well. Like maybe they say no deals, stick to the Principal. You are sort of saying no deals.

This is real life. I don't really care for the deals that come out of congress. Maybe I just don't follow them close enough to understand. But like the Many Loopholes in the Tax Code, Great Example of Issue where their are many different sides. We hate that the Rich and Corporate Executives can deffer income taxes for the year earned and not even report them for 20 years while the money sits in a Trust Fund (David Cay Johnston). Congress made a bunch of deals for the rich tax breaks... they just hope to be gone before we realize who sign off on the deals.

Yes, sometimes Deals looks like corruption or bribery.

I'm guessing only a carismatic leader can take on the issues for us.

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

Well your war on drugs has been outstanding sucess.Your proabition against gambling worked out very well.So well that the goverment took that over.Prostitution has also been illegal for some time now.I can also remember when abortion was against the law.People wanted it and found out how to get one.The proverbial cat is out of the bag.You may drive the cost of owning such weapons up.But banning will not work.I also hate to bust your bubble but many have already been converted to full auto. Perhaps if you channel your energy in another direction you will get better results.Try feeding the hungry etc.Instead of trying to dazzel us with your superior logic.

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

why change strategy we are winning.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

WRITE CONGRESS:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While we may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasable approach. It will not solve

all gun problems, but it will reduce the number of guns and will reduce the number of dangerous

people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

1
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

if you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each
a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime

2
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
you must prove your car insurance
annual back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns
every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock

3
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

you are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours
the owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

4
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it

peripherally-

Gun fees should be high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time - especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns.

The nra fighting against this - will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that a gun owner
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

I am fundamentally NOT opposed to confiscation, but we WILL get higher compliance
and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback. Take a position of reducing guns,
like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

I look forward to voting for you again !


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

These post's/threads are a distraction. There is no meaningful change that can be made by changing gun laws - the guns are out in the public - stopping the manufacture and sale of high ammunition capacity clips and semi-auto weapons will keep the numbers down ( in legal hands anyway ). But gun laws/rights will not stop mass murderers. Healing societies ills will reduce the number of murders - but will not do a thing to cure a mass murderers intents/reasoning/atrocities.

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

that is a ridiculous assertion. they implemented sensible legislation in australia after similar events and now they don't have a problem with mass shootings. there is no rational argument for the possession of semi automatic weapons. also what makes you think these citizens should be allowed to retain these weapons? cause they paid for them? fuck that. you talk of healing societies ills, well i am not going to hold my breath on you reaching the same idiots who want to arm teachers with these very same weapons.

[Deleted]

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

here is my advice. do the human race a favor. go play in traffic.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

California gun sales over the last five years jump dramatically; gun injuries and deaths fall:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/dros_chart.pdf?

http://epicenter.cdph.ca.gov/

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Machine guns were never "everywhere".

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

they were freely available to those who could afford them. they were half the price of a model t.

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

the nra is a brilliant money machine
if they have a cent of sense, they will - in their news conference, endorse getting rid of the large clips and maybe "assault weapons" as a way to defuse the fury against them

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Your argument is valid and I agree. This is the US though. Law enforcement isn't going to be too happy if they are expected to enforce tough gun control laws. They have an easier time putting stoners away.

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

well put.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Check this out;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-firearms-purchases_n_2318599.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business#comments

I know a lot people are embarrassed about this and those on the right aren't the only people who have guns. It's very American to want to blow off as many rounds as you can. If we expected the ATF or whoever to enforce tough new gun control laws then we need to increase their pay. Just wait and see, our two parties will find a way to screw this up. Nothing will change.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You think guns are the problem?

We are the problem.

We are so warped that we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace by fighting our way through traffic and crowds to buy each other gifts like these (sorted by most popular titles, with $ multi-billion in sales). And then we wring our hands, weep in school auditoriums, and wonder why. (The ad even features a nice Christmas tree ornament to inspire us about the true meaning of the Holiday) :

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0700000%23%230%23%2393t~~cabcat0701000%23%230%23%23rx~~nf428%7C%7C4d3d4d6174757265&list=y&nrp=15&sc=gameToySP&sp=-bestsellingsort+skuid&usc=abcat0700000

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

i never said society doesn't have ills. however, to continue to allow the free legal access to semiautomatic weapons is insanity in its purest definition. how much you want to bet someone else goes off the rails between now and new years and murders a bunch of people ill give you 10-1 odds. how much money do you want to put down.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It could be that presence of more guns actually reduces violence, and the chance that any individual becomes a victim of gun violence.

We have more guns in private hands right now in the US than at any other time in our history, yet the murder rate is at the lowest level in 50 years.

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

not as a percentage of the population no we don't gun ownership has gone for about 50% in 1950 to 30% in 2012 so once again a libertarian is just pulling things out of their ass with no basis in fact.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Fact:

"We have more guns in private hands right now in the US than at any other time in our history, yet the murder rate is at the lowest level in 50 years."

In 1965 there were 10,000 murders in the US, 122 million guns, and 193 million people.

In 2011 there were 14,000 murders, 325 million guns, and 311 million people.

The number of murders per person has gone down, and the number of guns per person has gone up, a lot.

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

while the murder rate has been in long term decline since 1980 the murder rate has still not dropped below previous murder rates. there is no evidence to support your claims.and while people own more guns(marketing by the gun companies is very good they can get you to buy 5,6,7 guns cause you are an idiot). the number of people owning firearms as a percentage of the population is at all time lows.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The point is not how many guns one household owns, it is about the total number of available guns; which is at an all time high in number and per capita.

The CT shooter stole the guns used at Sandy Hook, he did not purchase them legally.

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

yes that means that even legally purchased semi automatics owned by responsible adults can be stolen and used. which means we should have none.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree that this would not be a problem if there were no guns, but that is not the reality.

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

no one is saying to outlaw all guns at least i am not. but we don't need semiautomatic weapons for protection or sport.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If someone comes after my child I want a bazooka. He won't get within 100 yards.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I claim nothing. I am studying the data and puzzling about what it means.

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

Oh so I guess it's all good. We should just tell the parents of those 20 slaughtered innocent angels that everything is ok cause the numbers are good.

I nominate you for that task! LOL

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am just giving you the facts. I am perplexed about the what this all means.

It could be that there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders. Or that guns are so available that whether there are 300 million or 30 million the number of homicides would remain the same.

But whatever the reason we should understand the disease before we go prescribing drugs for a cure.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The disease is called an irrational, disturbed reading of the 2nd Amendment by gun manufacturers, through the NRA, which is the marketing arm of the gun makers, inflicted upon NRA members, and various irrational disturbed ignorants. For obvious purposes.

And no, correlation does not equal causation. There are many other reasons for overall lower crime rates that has nothing to do with an increase in amount of guns.

Increased incarceration rates, better more proactive policing and demographics, are a few.

The Federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. Because of Republicans and the NRA. And btw, I'm pretty sure the Federal assualt weapons ban, when it was in place, was never challenged constitutionally. By the NRA or anyone else. Because they know they can't win by any rational reading of the 2nd Amendment.

They just trot out their stupid twisted arguments, on behalf of gun makers, to block the reinstatement of the ban. Something they can make alot of noise about. But they can't win in court.

They can twist arms with guns and money. And that's been enough to keep the assault weapons manufacturers happily rolling in increased sales for the past 8 years.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

ASSault weapons? It is all in the name! + 'Guns In America: Musings On Our National Psychosis' - http://www.nationofchange.org/guns-america-musings-our-national-psychosis-1355674607 , which ends with - 'extremism is nothing new in this country. Just ask the victims of gun crimes.' & 'Building A Non-Violent Culture After Newtown' - http://www.nationofchange.org/building-nonviolent-culture-after-newtown-1355757331 and also - by Bill Moyers - 'NRA - Enabler Of Death' - http://www.nationofchange.org/nra-enabler-death-1355760591 . Never Give Up Exposing 'their stupid arguments'! Occupy The Issue! Solidarity & Happy Holidays :)

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

And now some Republicans, in media and Congress, think we should take a look at gun control legislation. Like it's some new freaking fangled idea that nobody ever thought of before.

Can't wait to hear what the NRA has to say. Arm kindergartners with handguns is my guess. Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be something crazy and include increasing gun sales somehow. If not, the Tea Party Knuckle Draggers will pick up any slack on crazy, as necessary.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

TPKDs should read - "Firing Back at Extreme Gun Nuts, NRA : No Rational Answer", by Brian Foley : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33358.htm - That link is both sad and funny and just as you predicted, here is one that is just sad - http://www.nationofchange.org/oklahoma-will-consider-law-allowing-teachers-bring-guns-school-1355847480 .

Finally, is it because - http://www.nationofchange.org/americans-kill-people-michael-moore-newtown-mass-shootings-and-us-culture-violence-1355929615 ?

Never Give Up Appealing To Reason! Occupy Love & Solidarity.

[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Oklahoma. Nuff said. One of the worst educated states in the country.

Side note regarding education. The 10 most highly educated states voted for Pres. Obama. 9 of 10 of the worst educated states voted for Romney. The only exception that Romney didn't make a clean sweep of the most uneducated states in the country was Nevada.

And there is correlation too between lax gun laws/pro gun states, low education levels and higher shooting deaths per capita. Which also correlates with traditional 'red' states.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm

So basically, dumb people like guns and vote Republican.

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

i think the people with real brains voted for jill stein. but hey i voted for her so i may be biased.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'The Violence Policy Centre' do great work and thank you for that excellent link. So low education, gun ownership and rightwingnuttery are correlated? Who'd have thunk it?! Also, with further reference to The NRA - http://www.nationofchange.org/after-sandy-hook-shootings-nra-campaign-clout-still-formidable-1355928985 . Never Give Up Exposing Gun Lunacy! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity.

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

care to talk about the daily murders by black gangs in chicago which has strict gun laws? who knew they voted for republicans.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The libe(R)tarians are suggesting suicide gang rush training.

http://www.alternet.org/libertarian-suggests-children-should-be-trained-tackle-shooters

Take heart, at least they've shut up about union THUG teachers. For now.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

That figures. A Texas gun store owner is offering a 10% discount to teachers. 3 letters. wtf.

Republicans are simply stupid. I don't think they had alot going on before the Tea Party. But then they embraced stupid. Just goes to show, if you embrace stupid, it just makes you more stupid.

http://www.happyplace.com/19076/election-infographic-shows-most-educated-states-voted-for-obama

At least the libtards are somewhat principled. Misguided as all hell. But principled.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

At this point the whole forum has been infected by the gun lobby!

It happens every time one of these tragedies happen.

Coincidence?

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

for now.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Maybe. Think about the problem.

How do you stop mass shootings?

What is the shooters goal? Kill as many people as possible and then, frequently, kill himself (mass shooters are mostly men). So the shooter is not trying to avoid death, just take as many people with him as possible.

What are the venues of choice?: Playgrounds, restaurants, schools, business offices, movie theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores, and churches (see below).

What venue is never selected by mass shooters? Police Stations. Why? The shooters maybe crazy, but not idiots. They can't accomplish their goal in a police station. Why? The people there all have guns and are well trained to use them.

We spend hundreds of $ billions paying the police to protect us and they seem to be the only people safe from the mass shooter.

One Solution: arm the people in the venues of choice. It is interesting that most mass shooters kill at close range (a few feet). It may not be necessary to arm teachers with lethal weapons. Would teachers armed with tasers, pepper blasters, or impact guns have prevented the CT massacre?

BTW people have already figured this one out and are taking matters into their own hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

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

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Predators prey on the weak. It's like a law of nature. It's not shocking. So of course a police station is safe! That does not mean we become a vigilante society. Police cannot stop every act of random violence in it's tracks, before it happens. According to your logic, since the police are not omniscient, cannot be everywhere all the time, are not perfect, and every location is not as safe as a police station, we should therefore be a vigilante society. So that every location can become as safe as a police station. The only little problem with that is, police are trained!!

Vigilatism carries it's own set of problem. Putting more guns out there in the hands of random people carries it's own set of problems.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

A vigilante is a person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

A person that defends a child against an attacker is not a vigilante. That person is a hero.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Anyone with a gun has the potential to take the law into his own hands. No innocent before being proven guilty. The person with the gun can make himself judge and jury. George Zimmerman. Yeah that worked out well. Taking the law into his own hands. Was he one of those 'good guys' the NRA tells us is the answer? You better just hope that you're not on the recieving end of more George Zimmerman's running around.

There's a reason we evolved from the days of the Wild West. Because the Wild West didn't work out very well. We have trained police forces. Rather than let people take the law into their own hands. Because it didn't work out very well.

This isn't the 1800's. What the hell is wrong with you? This isn't a cartoon with the 'good guys' v the 'bad guys'. The NRA leadership is trying to feed people some kind of sick depraved cartoon mentality as rationale to further their agenda. Sell more guns. It's the idiots that eat up this depraved cartoonish bullshit that I really worry about.

Children will be safer when there are less guns. Not more. Those children would likely be alive today if the assault weapons ban had been in place and more robust. It should have been strengthened over time. Rather than let it lapse.

Gun proliferation is positively uncivilized. These incidents would not have happened if those shooters hadn't gotten their hands on military style weapons that have zero purpose outside a military setting.

Armed guards didn't prevent Columbine. They were no match against the military style weapons they were up against. What then? Everyone carry military style 100 round weapons? To have a fighting chance against someone else with a 100 round weapon. Great plan.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

As long as the bad guys have weapons don't you think the good guys should have a fighting chance?

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Dont punish innocent kids, by letting evil and negligent people get guns, that shoot them.

Don't punish innocent firefighters by letting evil people get guns.

The gun sellers should be accountable and culpable in these deaths, and be held financially responsible.

Like bad medicine, or cars with faulty acceleration, or tires that blow out. Hold the maker and seller responsible financially.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (494) 2 days ago Presumption of innocence. Don't punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. BTW, it is up to a jury to decide whether Zimmerman is guilty.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Do you also want to hold the auto dealers culpable in the deaths caused by cars, or the crimes committed with stolen cars? Where does it end?

Consider the problem before deciding on solutions. What is the best use of our limited resources to prevent another Sandy Hook? Only a tiny fraction of crimes are committed with legal guns. There are 320 million guns in the US. 94% of them are legal. Go after the criminals ( less than 0.01 % of the population) that steal guns and the criminals that buy and use them to hurt people. Not only is this a more just and effective way to stop crime, but it is (and has been proven to be) a much more effective method.

Don't punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Please track and regulate guns. That is a responsibility.

Don't infringe, just track and regulate. Life's not free. Freedoms not free. Someone's got to pay for this.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (494) 0 minutes ago Tracking all of the 312 million US guns (instead of the criminals that commit crimes, 0.01% of the population ) is a wasteful use of limited resources. I agree with you that paying police to issue tickets for expired inspection stickers is wasteful and the money would be better spent tracking criminals, not the guns of innocent citizens.

The constitution says "regulated militia" that means rules.

Track guns and regulate. That's a fundamental duty of govnt to protect the free people.

As passed by the Congress: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8 I suggest there ought to be a gun tax on new guns sold, and annual license fee of 5 dollars a gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/nyregion/woman-helped-firefighters-killer-get-ambush-guns-police-say.html?_r=0

Even if I want to go catch fish, I need a license and to know and follow rules, follow seasons, regulations.

Also alcohol is regulated.

Medicines.

Driving.

Commerce.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Do you really believe that we should permit the Gov to require licensees and registrations for things like:

Fishing

Polishing Nails

Braiding Hair

Boats (Every year, why not just once at time of purchase)

Cars (Every year, why not just once at time of purchase)

Mopeds

ATVs

Horses

Beer (Making, selling, buying)

The list is endless.

Do you favor unlimited Gov intrusion on our lives?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Americans have owned guns for 250 years. It is a right that they have retained since the founding, and before.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

How the hell are you going to decide who the 'good guy' is? Was George Zimmerman one of the 'good guys'?. The whole 'good guy/bad guy' thing is ludicrous anyway. Many instances aren't that black and white. I'm sure George Zimmerman thought he was a 'good guy'. Yet he was ill equipped to handle a situation he was confronted with, with a gun in his hand.

We should reduce guns period. Especially high magazine style weapons that have no purpose outside the military.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

A teacher with a taser protecting a child from a school-invading killer is a good guy.

You have no control over this. People are acting now to protect their children. They are not waiting for an inept Gov to enact some inane rule to protect them. Gov has for years demonstrated little ability to do anything to prevent events like Sandy Hook.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Presumption of innocence. Don't punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

BTW, it is up to a jury to decide whether Zimmerman is guilty.

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

I never said it is wasteful for police to issue tickets for expired registration. That is you lying again.

In fact that sounds like your ridiculousness. Clearly you support and excuse all level of bad guys, broken Tail lights, running stop signs, registration lapse, slaughtering children.

I am in support of law abiding citizens and am willing to spend any resource for the children. You support gun rights at all costs.

You and I are on opposite sides of the good guy/bad guy argument.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I support liberty and oppose punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

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

You support liberty for the bad guys. That makes you a bad guy. I support the liberty of the 20 innocent 6-7 year old victims of the monsters you are defending.

Get you priorities straight. Life is precious.

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

For the sake of our childrens precious lives we must refocus the police resource sitting on the side of the road to implement a tracking system for every gun.

No innocent people suffer, No wasted resource, no change to gun rights.

Why do you object? Do you want to continue allowing the bad guys to get guns? Do you NOT believe our childrens lives are precious?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Tracking all of the 312 million US guns (instead of the criminals that commit crimes, 0.01% of the population ) is a wasteful use of limited resources.

I agree with you that paying police to issue tickets for expired inspection stickers is wasteful and the money would be better spent tracking criminals, not the guns of innocent citizens.

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

So it's too difficult to track all guns.? It's wasteful? Some people think life is precous andworth the effort.

Someone recently suggested police are sittin around doin nothin so perhaps we can utilize that resource.

No innocent people suffer, No addl resources necessary, no removal of gun rights!!

Still you object? Why?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read what I wrote. It is a wasteful use of limited resources (like pulling over a guy with a lost tail light, I agree with you on that one, see detailed stats below).

Focus the limited resources on the criminals, not innocent citizens.

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

I read your comment and I disagree!!!

You are not above presenting inaccurate stats in support of your position. You are clearly extreme in your support of the 2nd amendment, and this is NOT about the 2nd amendment.

No one is talking about taking away the right to bear arms.

The vast majority of guns used by the bad guys are legally acquired. Mostly sold by unscrupulous dealers who don't mind selling large numbers of guns that they know will wind up in cities (where they ain't living).

Otherwise they are guns that have "gone missing" from mfg. (thousands).

In any event. We must get control of the free flow of guns around this country for the sake of our children.

Tracking chips on every single gun (300 million). Real penalities if you lose track, fail to report theft, etc.

For the children. Let's maintain our right to bear arms and keep track of every single gun.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am extreme in the support of liberty and against punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Tracking all of the 312 million US guns (instead of the criminals that commit crimes, 0.01% of the population ) is a wasteful use of limited resources. I am confounded by your inability to grasp this fact.

You are wrong about the source of guns used to commit crimes. Most are obtained illegally as cited in the BJS study below.

Sources for Firearms Used in Crimes

"Among prisoners in 1997 who reported carrying a firearm during their crimes, 14 percent said they bought or traded the gun from a legitimate retail outlet (store, pawn shop, flea market or gun show), a decline from the 21 percent of inmates in 1991 who reported purchasing a firearm from legitimate sources. Part of this decline may be attributed to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirement for criminal history checks for firearm purchases. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the law's enactment in 1994, some 689,000 of the nearly 30 million applicants for gun purchases were rejected by the FBI. Of the 7.8 million applicants for firearm permits or transfers in 2000, some 153,000 were rejected. State agencies rejected 2.5 percent of the 3.5 million criminal background checks conducted in 2000, while the FBI rejected 1.6 percent of 4.3 million checks they conducted. Friends, family, street buys, theft, and other illegal means of acquiring a gun accounted for 80 percent of firearms used in crimes."

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 - 2002

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

Street buys illegal? No they ain't!!! If I wanna sell my gun to a friend I can do that legally. On the street, no background check

I don't think you understand the law on this.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The private sale of a stolen or otherwise illegal gun is not legal. The reference below cites illegal street purchases. Please read the BJS reference carefully.

Only a tiny fraction of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns. You are going after cat and dogs and missing the big hitters while punishing the innocent in the process.

How about:

Mandatory first offence life sentences for committing a crime with a gun, including gun theft.

2/3 of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. 90% of crimes involving a gun are committed with stolen weapons, including Sandy Hook.

Reference:

Sources for Firearms Used in Crimes: "Among prisoners in 1997 who reported carrying a firearm during their crimes, 14 percent said they bought or traded the gun from a legitimate retail outlet (store, pawn shop, flea market or gun show), a decline from the 21 percent of inmates in 1991 who reported purchasing a firearm from legitimate sources. Part of this decline may be attributed to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirement for criminal history checks for firearm purchases. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the law's enactment in 1994, some 689,000 of the nearly 30 million applicants for gun purchases were rejected by the FBI. Of the 7.8 million applicants for firearm permits or transfers in 2000, some 153,000 were rejected. State agencies rejected 2.5 percent of the 3.5 million criminal background checks conducted in 2000, while the FBI rejected 1.6 percent of 4.3 million checks they conducted. Friends, family, street buys, theft, and other illegal means of acquiring a gun accounted for 80 percent of firearms used in crimes."

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 - 2002

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

The DOJ numbers didn't say 90% stolen. 80% from street buys, fam friends. So where did you get your 90%.

Did you make that up like you frequently do?

Why do you object to closing the sales loophole?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Street buys and obtaining guns from family and friends are illegal.

Sources for Firearms Used in Crimes:

"Among prisoners in 1997 who reported carrying a firearm during their crimes, 14 percent said they bought or traded the gun from a legitimate retail outlet (store, pawn shop, flea market or gun show), a decline from the 21 percent of inmates in 1991 who reported purchasing a firearm from legitimate sources. Part of this decline may be attributed to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirement for criminal history checks for firearm purchases. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the law's enactment in 1994, some 689,000 of the nearly 30 million applicants for gun purchases were rejected by the FBI. Of the 7.8 million applicants for firearm permits or transfers in 2000, some 153,000 were rejected. State agencies rejected 2.5 percent of the 3.5 million criminal background checks conducted in 2000, while the FBI rejected 1.6 percent of 4.3 million checks they conducted. Friends, family, street buys, theft, and other illegal means of acquiring a gun accounted for 80 percent of firearms used in crimes."

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 - 2002

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

And you haven't said who to keep guns out of bad guys hands!

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

80% Inmates who committed crimes w/ guns indicate they got them from legal private transfers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/gun-law-reform_b_2346911.html

Where did you get your 90% of gun crimes are with stolen guns number from?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Sources for Firearms Used in Crimes

"Among prisoners in 1997 who reported carrying a firearm during their crimes, 14 percent said they bought or traded the gun from a legitimate retail outlet (store, pawn shop, flea market or gun show), a decline from the 21 percent of inmates in 1991 who reported purchasing a firearm from legitimate sources. Part of this decline may be attributed to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirement for criminal history checks for firearm purchases. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the law's enactment in 1994, some 689,000 of the nearly 30 million applicants for gun purchases were rejected by the FBI. Of the 7.8 million applicants for firearm permits or transfers in 2000, some 153,000 were rejected. State agencies rejected 2.5 percent of the 3.5 million criminal background checks conducted in 2000, while the FBI rejected 1.6 percent of 4.3 million checks they conducted. Friends, family, street buys, theft, and other illegal means of acquiring a gun accounted for 80 percent of firearms used in crimes."

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 - 2002

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The DOJ report did not say legal private transfer. Read it again carefully.

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

What can we do to keep the bad guys from getting guns.?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Mandatory first offence life sentences for committing a crime with a gun, including gun theft.

2/3 of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. 90% of crimes involving a gun are committed with stolen weapons, including Sandy Hook.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

No police station shootings?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/police-station-shooting-southfield-michigan-shootout_n_2116162.html

Not a mass shooting. No one but the gunman was killed, by a victim with a gun. What a concept.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110128/NEWS01/110128009/Watch-video-released-by-Detroit-police-showing-police-station-gun-battle

Same story as the first one.

http://www.northwestohio.com/neighborhood/story.aspx?id=824108#.UNMUWXddATA

Still the same story.

Everything that I wrote above still holds. Look at the link I gave of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years. No police stations.

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

Except you suggested Police stationsain't attacked cause shooters know they are armed. NOT TRUE!

And you therefore suggested if teachers were armed schools would not be attacked. clearly NOT TRUE.

Sorry. Try again.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

None of the worst mass shootings in the last 30 years occurred at police stations. Why? Shooters selected venues that were the least threatening to them.

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

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

Maybe we should arm every 6 year old. LOL

Here's someone who agrees with you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read what I wrote. Airline attendants are taught medical triage along with procedures for handing out peanuts. Teachers can surely manage this extra training. And it is happening now in the absence of other sensible solutions. People will not stand by and let their children be slaughtered.

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

The solution is not to overburden the underpaid & disrespected teachers with add'l unpaid responsibilities.

They are there to teach. Not patrol.

Would they wear the gun?. If not what if a young child gets a hold of the gun and kills a friend.

All grades? What about the teenage student who overpowers the teacher & gets the gun? Can the teacher kill him? Doesn't the teacher have to kill him? I mean he might be goin for the gun.

Wouldn't criminals know that they have an easy target to steal a gun from an unsuspecting teacher who of course is preoccupied with teaching, not suspicious of everyone who enters the class.

How about the inevitable accident of aa gun goin off?

What about the teacher who is at risk of snapping and perpetrating a gun crime, what about a teacher who is coerced/blackmailed (by someone who "has something on them") to let them into the school, and then gets the gun?

That was me thinking about this for 10 minutes. I can come up with many more I'm sure. Can't you?.

Arming inexperienced, untrained teachers is the most ridiculous idea I've heard.

Schools must not be turned into another element of our culture of accepted violence, and we cannot surrender to the anti life forces that would introduced Dozens of murder devices into the learning environment.

70% of them will be stolen and used against our children.

If you wanna increase the risk of gun violence in schools, introduce dozens of firearms.

If you wanna increase the profits of gun makers then insist all teachers be armed.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1988) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Hey! Wait a minute! You're on to something! These "shooters" are very smart with their choice of "venues"! They don't choose Police Stations (that would be stupid), and... they don't ever choose Country Clubs or expensive Private Schools!! That's Genius!!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Actually, many of their venues are populated by very wealthy people:

Sandy Hook Elementary (located in one of the wealthiest counties in the US)

University of Iowa

VA Tech

Stockton, CA

San Fran Financial District

Atlanta Financial District

MA High Tech Corp

Santee CA

MA High Tech Aeronautics Corp

Northern Illinois University

Seal Beach CA

Oikos University

Sounds like the shooters are after the 1%.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1988) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Lawrence O’Donnell Rewrites NRA’s ‘blood-drenched’ boss

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/18/lawrence-odonnell-rewrites-nras-blood-drenched-boss/

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

More guns? That is the only solution you have offered.

Well that is great for gun makers profits, but will not resolve these tragedies.

Mental health, culture of violence, bullying & not caring for each other, are not addressed in your 'gun maker profit plan'.

We can't expect our teachers to have swat training. Even if a teacher had a gun, wouldn't they be teaching not patroling?

On sunday 2 police were killed in a shootout. Yesterday another. What makes you think arming inexperienced, untrained teachers would make difference.?

Let's stop putting gun maker profits over gun victims lives.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

One Solution. Not the only one.

It is a solution (maybe temporary) that can take effect immediately.

Also, it does not have to be lethal force. Tasers, pepper blasters, impact guns, or even a starters pistol may be enough to deter the shooter.

BTW it is happening all over the country as we speak. People are not going to sit around and let their children die waiting for the Gov to figure this out.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The government has figured it out. Most other civilized countries have figured it out. Ban assault weapons. But the marketing machine for the gun manufacturers won't allow it here.

'We kill five times the number of people every year with cars than are murdered with guns' - cars have a useful purpose. Their purpose is to transport people. Not kill people! We accept some risk associated with that for the benefit of transportation. Because the benefit outweighs the risks.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So if you could reduce the risk of injury and and death by auto you would do it?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Sure. Within reason. We already do that. Speed limits. Drivers exams. Seat belts.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Want to save 20,000 lives per year (3 times the number of firearms murders)? Also stop 125,000 injuries?

Add $1400 collision avoidance to every new car.

Why is there no focus on this already available innovation but tomes will be written about gun control? Simple, the goal is not to save lives and prevent injury. The goal is to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

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

Your solution is great for gun makers profit margin.

But adding guns to the bloated total only creates MORE danger. Your DOJ report clearly shows that 90k people are hurt by their own guns. And 70% of stolen guns are still out there creating more crime.

We gotta stop putting gun makers profits over gun victims lives.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Also, it does not have to be lethal force. Tasers, pepper blasters, impact guns, or even a starters pistol may be enough to deter the shooter.

BTW, if it saves one child's life I don't care how much the gun makers profit.

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

car accidents are unrelated to this epidemic of gun death. You are desperate to confuse the issue in your dishonorable attempt to protect and increase gun makers profits.

In the end ma'am have you no honor?

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

70% of the weapons you would have distributed would be used against the owners & stolen. Your own DOJ linked report indicated that.

They won't save ANY kids. They will hurt kids in the crime scene they are distributed to, then stolen and used to hurt others.

Do you read your own linked data?

Your proposal will only fatten the weapons makers profits. Can't you get beyond violent solutions? Can't you put aside the proposals based on death?

Maybe if you valued life more! That is also at theroot ofthis problem. too many people do not value life!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We kill five times the number of people every year with cars than are murdered with guns. A child, 14 years and younger, is 11 times more likely to be hurt by a car than by a gun. Who is doing less to prevent harm and death, gun owners or automobile drivers?

[-] -1 points by RJHobbs (-58) 1 year ago

Well, it all started in the 60s when liberals threatened to take away our right to hunt; back in those days there were no "assault weapons" - the 16 hadn't been invented yet and either had the semi-auto handgun.

On the one hand you could say arms manufacturers grew a monster but on the other we have created the best weapons in the world. The AR is nice; in military form the 16 was nice - it's like firing a pop-gun - but we have many, many other semi-autos on the market that are equally impressive.

The point is, we like our guns; we enjoy shooting them. And we like to hunt. But no where in here should anyone misinterpret to assume that we support the violent decadence in this country.

Chaos begets chaos begets chaos... we have to start addressing the decadence in this society, on all levels. Or these events will be come so common place they will barely register a blink on the nightly news.

And this is what we offer you for gun "control"; we offer to address the criminal element that is flooding our cities with illegal guns. But as for us, we're keeping ours. Because we don't shoot people and we never make mistakes; it's only the irresponsible who do these things.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Do you need more than a 10 round clip?

Chaos begets chaos begets chaos- I agree. Violence begets more violence. That's why more guns is not the answer. As is sometimes the argument against gun control. Any more than more nuclear weapons is the answer to nuclear weapons. Many scientists on the Manhattan Project came to regret their work. The monster they created. Regrettably, the monsters that the arms manufacturers created are in the hands of random people. Rather than just the military. I think it's safe to presume that 'the best weapons in the world' would still have been created for the military, even with the strictest of gun bans. It's not as if military purposes only isn't plenty profitable.

But you bring up another good point. 'in the 60s ... back in those days there were no "assault weapons" - the 16 hadn't been invented yet and either had the semi-auto handgun. ' Which just goes to show that for 185 some odd years, our freedom and liberty survived against any potential government tyranny - without, emphasis on without, military style assualt weapons in the hands of the random person on the street. Imagine that.

I'm not suggesting that banning high ammunition firearms is going to eliminate violence altogether. People kill other people. This is consistent throughout history. We can't eliminate that. We can only try to minimize it. We don't have to help killers inflict outrageous levels of violence on society with high magazine weapons. Because there is simply no reason for military style weapons, outside of the military. The damage that high magazine weapons causes can be minimized by banning high magazine weapons.

'violent decadence in this country' - shooting rampages are contributing to that. It's not like it's just a reflection of society. Or 'life imitating art'. Shooting rampages are a part of what makes society violent. If anything, violence in movies, tv, video games, serves to desensitize. I don't think it causes violence. Except in the mind of a crazy person to begin with. And that a disturbed person gets some crazy ideas from movies or video games, they can only bring those most insane ideas to reality by getting his hands on an assault weapon for maximum deadly results. From what I've read, the Newtown shooter chose to use an assault weapon with 45 rounds per minute capability. I do not know. What is the firing capability with the other weapons he had? He clearly had a choice. He chose the AR for a reason. I can only presume he chose this because it could do the maximum amount of violence.

Addressing 'decadence' at all levels of society is certainly a worthy goal. And maybe banning high magazine assault weapons is one part of that. Maybe it's a good first step. Maybe it would serve to stigmatize the use and proliferation of guns. Instead of helping to glorify it by allowing and perpetuating it, which further serves to perpetuate it. Perhaps by reducing the use and availability, then 'art will imitate life'. And violent types of 'entertainment' will become less popular. Passe even.

'Because we don't shoot people and we never make mistakes; it's only the irresponsible who do these things'. That is way way too broad a statement to be taken seriously. I'm sure Adam Lanza's mother thought the same thing.

[-] -1 points by RJHobbs (-58) 1 year ago

I don't know... I can recall four generations of gun owners in my family, perhaps 30 - 40 males; there has never been a single mistake. I don't believe that mistakes are acceptable and the only way to ensure that they don't happen is to remove all possibility. Very obviously, Adam Lanza's mother did not take the necessary precautions.

When it comes to guns bear in mind that form fits function; what has changed in our society to cause some to see guns as possessed of another function? It's certainly not a view that is entertained by older generations; it is peculiar to generation Xers and beyond. They see assault and defense as reasonable, commonplace; so common place that they are sacrificing the traditional long rifle for a militaristic form.

Decadence in our society... shootings and form are but a symptom. Look around, to me dystopia is visible everywhere. In short, all is shit. And it should not be.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Do you need more than a 10 round clip? Is there any reasonable purpose for more than this?

The mass shootings are part of what is creating the sense of dystopia. You see it as a symptom. I see it as part of the cause.

You suggest it's generational. Like you said, these types of weapons didn't even exist pre 1960. That's the reason it's generational. The weapons didn't even exist in earlier generations. The gen XYers have grown up in a time that these weapons exist, and the violence and destruction they cause are not exactly a big surprise. Although each episode is horrific, it's not exacly surprising to hear about these incidents on a farily regularly basis. So of course the gen XYers are different than the older generation! These crazy weapons didn't even exist for the older generation! The gen XYers had to grow up with, have their childhood colored with this crap!!

[-] -2 points by RJHobbs (-58) 1 year ago

I don't believe anyone other than the military and law enforcement needs more than three rounds; I'm willing to go five for target and skeet shooters. And I'm willing to go five for self defense semi-autos.

But you're wrong about the genXers; their view of guns is not the same as mine because we have allowed too much decadence to invade our society; we have become too tolerant, too easy, too undiscerning.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

We'll go with 5 then. Fine with me. Any reason why gun control such as this shouldn't be passed?

You blame the GenXers? For society's ills? Seriously? Who's been pulling the strings for the past 40 years or so? Who's been running the joint? The GenXers? Did our decline start in 1970 when a GenXer was just born? Just the act of a GenXer being born - caused society to flip out ever since? Or was it in 1980 when the GenXer was 10? Yes that makes sense! 10 year olds in 1980 started causing all the trouble. That must be it. Those damn 10 year olds in 1980 fucked up everything.

If this is true, who are the one's that raised those GenXers so horribly? That's some pretty damn bad parenting by the Baby Boomers if GenXers are to blame for all of society's ills. Yeah. Wow. You might be right about some shitty parenting. But if you're sticking with this story, let's put the blame where the blame lies shall we.

And remember who's been running the joint the past 40 years. Not the GenXer.

[-] -1 points by RJHobbs (-58) 1 year ago

I don't blame genXers; I am saying their view on guns is different due to the decadence of our society. And the boomers are the one's who fcked it up. And they are still Fcking it up.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'the boomers are the one's who fcked it up. And they are still Fcking it up' - on that we agree.

Far less young people (only 20%) own guns than old people and are far more likely to support gun control over gun rights. 30% of the over 50 crowd owns guns. The majority of gun owners are old, white Republican males. And are naturally the strongest proponents of gun rights. So I would say young peoples views on guns is decidedly negative.

Seems to me it's the older male Republican crowd whose view of guns is 'different'. Different than that of the broader population. Given that 70% of the broader population doesn't even own a gun.

And far too many have unrealistic fears. It is far more likely that a family member or friend will be injured or killed with a gun than it is that a gun owner will have occaision to use it for self defense. Crime rates are at the lowest levels in decades. And it's not because a bunch of old Republican white guys are keeping the streets safe with their gun ownership.

It's a bunch of old Republican white guys whose views about guns are 'different'.

Any reason why anything beyond a 5 or 10 round clip should not be banned? Isn't anything beyond 10 rounds just 'decadent'?

[-] 0 points by RJHobbs (-58) 1 year ago

This is why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E

100,000 SUBSCRIBERS AND THESE THINGS SELL LIKE HOT CAKES!

Every time some even whispers "ban" they sell more guns. There is a fortune to be made in mags alone.

[-] -1 points by firghtyer (-66) 1 year ago

Cut and paste often????????????????? Loser

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Oh alva. Move along. You're such a bore.

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

You got a problem with cut & paste? Why is that being a loser?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

What about it? This is about handguns. Has nothing to do with assault weapons. Illinois prohibits automatic and assault style weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

Do you understand what the Assault Weapons Ban is? It is about high magazine, high velocity, 100 rounds per minute firing capacities. Not handguns or hunting rifles.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

ABC News (12/19/12):

"If the the assault weapon law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list."

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I don't believe that the previous assault weapons ban went far enough. Courtesy of the NRA.

My understanding is that the weapon Lanza used had a firing capacity of 45 rounds per minute. I think that anything beyond a 10 round clip should be banned. I don't think any serious hunter uses anything near a 45 round per minute type of weapon. And a simple handgun with 10 rounds should be sufficient for anyone that thinks they need gun protection on their person or in their home.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The 10 round clip in a Glock G21 can be changed out in 2.09 seconds.

That would yield a firing rate of more than 50 rounds per minute.

The rate of firing is not the issue. The issue is and should be punishing the guilty, not the innocent. Increase the penalties for committing a crime with a gun (including gun theft).

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

How about closing the private sales loophole and punishing the seller if the sell without a background check?

10 years for selling a gun to a criminal or mentally ill person.

The fire fighter killing, mentally ill, criminal in upstate ny used a women to buy his guns. She's been picked up and should be held as an accomplice to murder.

10 years at least.

That'll learn 'em.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How many murders last year were committed by people with a diagnosed mental illness using a weapon they purchased at a gun show private sale without a background check?

Know this statistic before you attack the problem.

Don't go after cats and dogs. Go after elephants.

What is the elephant in the room?

2/3 of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, including William Spengler.

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

Here is some facts you can consider when you search for solutions!

http://www.care2.com/causes/white-masculinitys-ties-to-rape-and-gun-culture.html

Have there been many women mass murderers, serial killers, gunwomen?

What's the stats on that? Does it matter?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is undeniable that males between the ages of 16 and 30 are responsible for 80% of violent crime. Serial and mass killers are almost always white males. Young males are the predominant consumers of violent video games (Men are 2x more likely to play GTA than women)..

Sure it matters. Men are more violent by nature than women. It is in their genetic makeup. Why is that surprising?

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

So some murders (mentally ill) we can ignore if others are larger numbers.

Vast majority of murders are by guns sold in private transfers w/ no background check.

Why are you against closing that loophole to keep guns from bad guys?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am in favor of effective solutions (not ones that politicians just use to brag about).

I find no data that the "Vast majority of murders are by guns sold in private transfers w/ no background check."

90% of violent crimes are committed using stolen guns. 2/3 of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Go after these problems with the limited resources that we have. If you have a splinter and gaping neck wound which do you treat first?

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

We must stop selling guns to criminals and mentally ill.

To stop our biggest problem we must get control of every gun, track every single gun, & imprison anyone who let's one get to the badguys.

Do you object? Why.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Because you wish to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

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

"Elimination of all guns"? I never said that. That's you blatantly lying. So I guess your resorting to obvious lies means I win the discussion and you lose?

And I'm saying the people close to this fam who knew the shooter was unstable, and the mother was an irresponsible gun owner are NOT innocent.

They are guilty of negligence at least. If it ain't illegal it should be!

We encourage people to report animal abuse, suspicious packages, why not expect them to report a gun threat. And since a gun threat is a little more important than animal cruelty, we should include jailtime.

That'll get people to be responsible.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You have no evidence that the mother was guilty of any criminal offence. Again you desire to punish the innocent victim.

Encouraging people is not the same as mandating by law.

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

It should have been illegal for the irresponsible gun owner mother to have her guns accessible. There should be prison time for the close fam who knew the son was mentally disturbed and had access to guns.

Sometimes police stop people and find guns. So maybe we should not let you 35 year old housewives break the law,

More guns is not the answer, It is no guarantee that we would prevent these slaughters. We just had another shooting in a police station, 3 dead, what about fort hood.

We must keep guns from the bad guys.

Why would you object to that simple, logical, reasonable approach?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So now you want to punish more innocent people for the offences committed by gun stealing criminals.

What's next, imprison people that leave the door unlocked on their car that is stolen and later used to hold up a liquor store? Where does it end?

Punish the guilty! Don't steal liberty from the innocent.

I agree with you that the complete elimination of guns would solve the problem. But aside from being unjust this idea is not realistic; and having never owned a gun I have no dog in this fight. This idea is not realistic because there are more guns in the US than there are people.

BTW, in the short run reducing gun sales may actually be counterproductive:

California gun sales over the last five years jump dramatically; gun injuries and deaths fall:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/dros_chart.pdf?

http://epicenter.cdph.ca.gov/

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

I do not. I wish to punish the irresponsible gun owners/dealers/mfg who allow guns to "go missing" or sell them with no regard (no background check) for where the guns are going.

I wanna punish the people who put profits before people and make a living off of providing guns to the bad guys!

How is that "punishing the innocent". How can you defend these unscrupulous people responsible for so many childrens deaths!!??

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The children killed at Sandy Hook were killed with stolen weapons. There is already a law against stealing weapons. If we had two laws against stealing weapons how would that have helped those kids?

I have a question for you: we pay police to protect us. The police give out 365 million traffic citations per year. That is 41,700 every hour. If the average stop takes 20 minutes that means we pay for 121,700,000 police hours to give out tickets at a cost of roughly $12 billion (not including the time cops lay in wait for speeders and stops that do not result in a citation). There are about 100,000 schools in the US that are in session for about 900 hours per year for a total of 90,000,000 hours.

So if we really want to protect kids in schools why not stop stop pulling over 35 year old moms that fail to completely stop when making a right turn on red and you could have 100% police protection in every school and save money on cops as well.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1389

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Organizing-a-school/Time-in-school-How-does-the-US-compare

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

I believe she was guilty of irresponsible gun ownership! She trained her mentally ill son to use guns. That is guilt!!!!

In addition the ex husband, mothers sister, and her other son should have known and be held accountable as accessories!!!

For the children!!! Put people in jail!! and we will see reports start comin in.

And that will prevent other slaughters.

How can you be against that?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The mother of the criminal that committed the Sandy Hook murders was convicted of no crime. Everything you wrote is third and fourth hand conjecture. It is unhealthy for we as a society to try, convict, and sentence people, in this case a murder victim, without a proper trial. Again, this lethargic propensity is not only unjust but un-useful.

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

Surprising? Did I say I'm surprised? Nope. Because I ain't.

So should we give them more guns? Or should we address the reasons for these realities we aren't surprised by.?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Men are violent by nature; how do you propose to alter their nature?

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

Do you think we should give them more guns? Or do you think we should address the reasons for the violent nature?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I would not give them anything.

How to change their nature is the question. Are you thinking of some kind of injection that all men must receive?

Violent crimes are committed by about 0.001 % of the population. Must every man take the medicine because of the crimes of the few?

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

People are buying more guns because republicans have dishonestly used fear of a black president coming for your guns to garner votes, & because the NRA has spewed the same fear mongering to increase the gun makers profits.

You gonna pretend that ain't happened?

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I would agree with your comment- at least in part. Gun sales always increase after mass shootings though..even before Pres. Obama took office.
Just heard this story on the news: The Virginian-Pilot © December 19, 2012

"A 12-year-old student was found with a gun this morning at Dozier Middle School.

No one was injured and no threats were made, according to police spokesman Lou Thurston.

About 8:30 a.m. a student at the middle school notified a security officer that another student had showed the gun to other students in the restroom, a police news release said. The security officer notified the school resource officer and they went to the classroom and called the student out of class.

The officers learned the gun was in a notebook that was still in the classroom. They recovered the gun from the pocket of the notebook, the news release said.

Police took the sixth-grader into custody and charged him with one count of possession of a firearm on school property and possession of a weapon under the age of 18. He has been placed on electronic monitoring and was released to his parents by juvenile intake.

There were no threats made and nobody was injured, police said in the news release. The student told police that he brought the gun from his home to show other students.

Police are not releasing the student's name because they are prohibited from identifying juveniles charged with criminal offenses."

This type of incident is very frequent in my area. We've had more children killed by guns this year than previous years. It seems almost weekly, I hear about some school-gun incident, murder, shooting. I don't know if it's because we are so military and with that comes a more militant family mindset or if this is common in most areas.

Not too long ago a kid carried his father's gun to school and it accidentally went off in his backpack and shot the kid's foot.

Notice that they don't name a minor in these cases. I think they should. Maybe if they started naming these kids, parents would be more responsible about securing their weapons.

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

Maybe we should address the unfounded fear of minority crime that repubs spew (for votes) and NRA spews to boost gun maker profits.

Do you think that plays into the massive number of guns we have.?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why are Americans suddenly buying more guns?

"As gun sales surged in early 2009 the going joke among employees of gun manufacturers was that President Barack Obama was the “greatest gun salesman of all time.” The trouble with this backhanded complement, however, is Left-leaning news outlets have since used it to avoid something that really scares them.

As ABC put it, Americans are buying more Glocks and Berettas simply because they fear “a second Obama administration might restrict gun ownership.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/

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

That seems a bit extreme. I think we should focus on those men most at risk.

can we identify the 0.001% (Is that another make believe number like your 200k gun thefts number?) you claim is committing these atrocities.?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There were about 1 kk violent crimes in the US in 2011. Repeat offenders account for about 2/3 of the crime (only one chance in 3 that a given crime is committed by a non-repeat offender). That would put the number of individual violent crime offenders at about 0.013 % of the population in any given year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/meet_us_att/district/us_report_sept_2010.html

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

It is critical to analyze these tragedies in order to prevent them in the future. Until the info changes I can only judge from the info avail. Based on that info she was guilty, and in my opinion those close enough to know are also responsible.

Once I am proven wrong I will adjust my view. Until then I will not give them a break, I'll leave that to you.

I guess you support them because they are gun owners, and you blindly support gun owners.?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So she is guilty until someone demonstrates that she is innocent? The presumption of innocence is a pretty well accepted concept in democratic nations around the world.

I support liberty and the presumption of innocence.

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

You can show sympathy and provide a defense for the piece of shit monsters responsible for the slaughter of 20 innocent 6-7 year olds.

I stand with and have sympathy for the victims of her irresponsible behavior.

What are you dense? Get your priorities straight. Life is precious, those responsible for taking it must be punished.

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

You can show sympathy and provide a defense for the piece of shit monsters responsible for the slaughter of 20 innocent 6-7 year olds.

I stand with and have sympathy for the victims of her irresponsible behavior.

What are you dense? Get your priorities straight. Life is precious, those responsible for taking it must be punished.

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

I am perfectly comfortable "filching her good name" I will take the risk that I might be wrong.

Just as I am sure you are perfectly comfortable defending the disgusting pieces of shit, irresponsible gun owner and her mentally disturbed murdering son who slaughtered 20 innocent 6- 7 year old children.

Personally I think you have your priorities ass backwards and have no honor.

I don't how you sleep defending those monsters. What is wrong with you?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

She was a human being and a murder victim. We should show some sympathy to her and her family.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

She was a human being and a murder victim. We should show some sympathy to her and her family.

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

Me to. I can have an opinion without adjudicating her guilty. The concept you refer to is in a court of law.

I can believe she and her negligent family is guilty without infringing on their liberty. Do you understand that distinction? You criminal lover!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Until the info changes I can only judge from the info avail. Based on that info she was guilty"

Your words.

Leave the judgement of guilt or innocence to the courts. That is what justice is all about.

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed. " - WS

You have no first hand info on the women that you so glibly defame.

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

It is meaningless, & ridiculous to consider these un correlated facts.

Fewer guns, real owner safety, real owner accountability, effective mental health care, complete background checks, more good paying jobs, thorough effort to stop bullying.

Find stats that support these effective solutions instead of spewing stats that encourage MORE guns!

Insanity! Bizarro world.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is ironic that the CT incident has spawned a surge in new gun sales.

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

You don't think it is related to scared people afraid that the assault weapons will be banned?

Why would that be ironic.?

It is sad. That people have been manipulated for the sake of gun makers profit is disgusting, not ironic.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You don't think that some of the purchases are being made by people trying to protect themselves?

BTW, who manipulated the people? The greedy 1 % media corps that make their living off the misery of others? You must admit that this story is being way over covered.

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

Covered just fine. We should have more coverage of gun violence, what we neglect is to connect it to irresponsible gun makers/dealers/owners.

The gun makers PR firm (NRA) is the #1 fear monger here. The right wing pols who've been exaggerating the fear of minority crimes to get votes are responsible for our gun crazed white men!!

No?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

BTW, 90% of gun homicides were committed with stolen guns. That is why guns per household is not a useful statistic. (Unless we can convince gun thieves to restrict the sale of stolen guns to household-lot consignments.)

http://extranosalley.com/?p=29887

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

please present me with a credible source for your claim otherwise it is just a baseless claim. in other words linking to a blog that provides no reference as to where they got their numbers is about as useful as a university student referencing wikipedia on a term paper.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Sources for Firearms Used in Crimes

"Among prisoners in 1997 who reported carrying a firearm during their crimes, 14 percent said they bought or traded the gun from a legitimate retail outlet (store, pawn shop, flea market or gun show), a decline from the 21 percent of inmates in 1991 who reported purchasing a firearm from legitimate sources. Part of this decline may be attributed to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirement for criminal history checks for firearm purchases. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the law's enactment in 1994, some 689,000 of the nearly 30 million applicants for gun purchases were rejected by the FBI. Of the 7.8 million applicants for firearm permits or transfers in 2000, some 153,000 were rejected. State agencies rejected 2.5 percent of the 3.5 million criminal background checks conducted in 2000, while the FBI rejected 1.6 percent of 4.3 million checks they conducted. Friends, family, street buys, theft, and other illegal means of acquiring a gun accounted for 80 percent of firearms used in crimes."

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 - 2002

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What data have you found so far showing % of homicides committed with stolen guns?

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

quite frankly i don't care if they are legal or illegal if they were never manufactured we would never have had this problem in the first place.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree. If there were no guns at all this would not be a problem. But if the bad guys have them shouldn't the good guys be given a fighting chance?

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

a .45 revolver or pump action 12 gauge don't give you a chance?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If someone comes after my child I want to get him with an RPG from 100 yards.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am not seeking satisfaction. I am seeking protection for my child. And if the killer gets nowhere close to my child and nothing remains of him except a greasy spot that would be fine with me.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am not seeking satisfaction. I am seeking protection for my child.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What if it were a bullet proof Bigfoot?

I hear they are well know for their child snatching prowess.

It takes a rocket launcher to take out the smallest of them.

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

Stolen from legal owners homes? Or from the gun manufacturers?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Near as I can tell of the 200,000 guns stolen last year about 1000 thefts were made directly from gun manufacturers.

Security is pretty high at the factories. I guess it's the same reason that you hear a lot about people robbing banks, but mint robberies are rare.

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

This shows about 25K in 2011. (a little less for the 2 prior years)

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/ffl-theft-loss-reports/FFL-theft-loss-statistics-01122012-update-ii.pdf

This reports 16000 guns stolen from manufacturers

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/02/16000-guns-lost-from-manufacturing-plants-in-last-2-5-years-report/

Where did you get your numbers from?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

18 guns per day is only 6500 per year (per your link). My estimate of 1000 guns per year is closer than your estimate of 16,000.

According to the DOJ 232,000 guns are stolen per year in the US. Gun factory thefts only account for 3 % of the total. It is a drop in the bucket.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

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

And look at the 90k cases of these victims harmed by their own gun.

Maybe fewer people should have guns.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If there were no guns at all that would be great. But if the bad guys have them does it not make sense that the good guys should have an even chance of survival?

I agree with you about suicide. Guns make it easier. It is interesting that more women attempt suicide, while more men succeed. They mostly use guns.

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

Suicide? Did I mention suicide?. No I mentioned "these victims (of theft) harmed by their own gun." (by the thieves using the stolen weapon against the owner)

Many criminals have guns because of irresponsible gun owners, unscrupulous gun dealers, careless manufacturers.

Surely you aren't against measures to minimize these realities.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am against punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty; and so should be you.

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

As of course I am.

Less concern for gun owners/gun makers profits, & more concern for gun victims.

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

What estimate did I give. NONE!

My 16k number came from the link I provided. That number is over 2.5 years. so that is almost 6k per year 'lost or stolen' from mfg.

Isn't that irresponsible of the gun makers. Shouldn't that be more secure. Why is there no outrage?

My other number of 25k is from govt ATF but does not include mfg.

Is there no irresponsible gun owners involved with those thefts.?

In any event 200k MUST include some irresponsible gun owners no?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You miss the original point.

The conundrum is that while the number of guns has increased dramatically both in real numbers and per capita, the number of murders per capita has dropped. How is this possible and why is gun control the sensible solution to prevent mass shootings (and other gun homicides)?

BTW if you leave your keys in your car (or maybe just fail to lock the doors) and someone steals it and the kills a pedestrian, do you want to be prosecuted for that crime?

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

I don't drive. But that is a false comparison. And guns are must handled very differently.

They should be registered, licensed, insured, but also kept from anyone elses use.

I can't pretend your suggestion deserves serious consideration.

New Gun safety laws are an important part of resolving our continuing gun death problem.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Serious consideration? You don't get the chance to consider it at all. Private citizens are acting now. They are not waiting for anyone's permission.

BTW we kill about 40,000 people every year with cars, another 150,000 are maimed.

There were 14,000 homicides last year. Cars are a much greater threat than guns.

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

We are discussing gun violence. not car accidents. If you don't know thedifference that is your misfortune.

Of course you are well aware of the difference. Bringing up car accidents is just another weak attempt at distraction, & obfuscation of the obvious gun safety problem we face.

Once again your efforts are only about protecting & increasing gun makers profits.

Please try to think of the 20 slaughtered children gun victims, not gun makers.

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

More guns? You think the answer/way to reduce violence is MORE guns?

Wow. I disagree.

Less guns, More good paying jobs. That'll do it.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am just looking at the data. More guns, less murder. Correlated, but maybe no causation.

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

Yeah I'm afraid not.

Less guns, more good paying jobs, better mental heath care.

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Um............actually people who have imaginary friends and the like are the problem.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Were you disturbed last night when the president addressed the nation and started speaking to his imaginary friend. Are you further unnerved when the most powerful man on the planet, with control over the US nuclear arsenal, declares that he seeks advice from his imaginary friend every day?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I am disturbed by all people (specifically adults) who have imaginary friends. Especially adults like you that spawn idiotic shit all over forums and faux weep for an imaginary prince of peace.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Would you vote to elect a president with imaginary friends?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I have. But, the ones that I do vote for don't try to shove it down my throat.................like you.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Are you kidding? They all brag about belief in imaginary friends on a daily basis. They brag about consulting with them prior to major decisions regarding public policy. They end every speech with God Bless America. They get elected because people believe that they talk to imaginary friends.

Can you find anything in my writings declaring that I speak to God? Can you find anything in my writings declaring my belief in God?

I give you facts, you imagine the rest yourself.

I may not be a believer, but I understand why others do. I also find that in the 21 st century Christianity, on the whole, is a philosophy that promotes compassion, justice, charity, and human rights. Why is that a bad thing?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

What you do is bullshit and now that you are aware that I am not interested in sitting on the sidelines and buying into your fundamentalist crap, you want to deflect and back track.

We are so warped that we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace by fighting our way through traffic and crowds to buy each other gifts like these (sorted by most popular titles, with $ multi-billion in sales). And then we wring our hands, weep in school auditoriums, and wonder why. (The ad even features a nice Christmas tree ornament to inspire us about the true meaning of the Holiday)

You're a believer. Keep it out of public education and law and we have no problem. Insist on bringing it in and we have a problem. Imaginary friends and an imaginary world and afterlife are a problem.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read it again carefully. The word belief is nowhere to be found.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That is that backtrack thing that we were just discussing. It doesn't work.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read it again. The script just gives you the facts. No preaching. No invocation of imaginary friends. Meanwhile the president, that you voted for, as recently as today for called on imaginary friends to help resolve our problems.

The real puzzle is why do you describe (delineated above) the president's religious beliefs as "the problem" that precipitated recent gun violence? Is the president making the problem worse?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

There is no puzzle, hon. You have crossed the line into desperation.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

New rule: the first one to resort to onomatopoeia loses the argument.

Hon? I knew that our relationship was blossoming, but I don't know if I am ready to take it to the next level.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Same rule as before: Deflect and attempt to spin and you get what you get.

Hon? Yep. Because it was much nicer than you fucking lying, conniving douchebag.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Finally, we agree. Much nicer.

[Deleted]

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

what the hell did i just read. that is the most incoherent prattling i have seen in a long time from a retarded libertarian.

[Deleted]

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

Do you think a police officer might be easily identifiable and targeted from afar, taken out, and the shooter then continue on to massacre?

We gotta stop these killers before they decide to slaughter our children, We must effectively keep guns from them, We must treat the mentally ill, prevent the horrible bullying, provide good paying jobs.

Throwing more guns into the mix is ridiculous. Counterproductive, & too easy.

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

so that is your answer. police. wow. you must be super smart. i bet you were a nerd in school. lets put more quasi military police officers everywhere!!! can i have one in my living room watching my every move? i want to make sure i am safe.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Silly.

They're busy loading up the prison system, for fun and profit.

They like to torture people.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Giving a ticket to the old man for a right turn on red is MUCH more profitable. $165 or so pop.

Plus points for the insurance corporation to charge more for.

Doing actual police work costs money and you know nobody wants to pay for anything at all anymore.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You wanted to know what the po po were up to.

You should pay attention to what you ask for.

Besides, what you are suggesting is absurd, even if localities could pay for the extra police, they will never know when and where the next nut is going to crack.

Curing economic inequality would go a long way to alleviating at least some of the problems, making it easier to deal with the potential nut bags.

Banning semi autos would be ineffective as there is too large an established base of them out there.

Start with assault guns of all sorts, including pistols that could be easily converted to full auto. This would allow only target style semi auto pistols.

Like the man said, 'sometimes you have to hunt wild hogs'.

I think saner solutions can be found.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh, so you also get drunk and shoot your dogs?

OK forget about it.

Ban everything and jail the stupid farmers that let their hogs get free.

You can get the national guard to go get them.

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

So, confiscate all the AR15's and then the minute someone gets shot buy a pistol, confiscate all those too?

No thanks.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

put all the gun nuts in a cage
with all of their guns
the one who comes out alive
gets to keep all the guns

[Removed]

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

confiscate both the semi auto pistol and rifle.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

“MY” gun control law - fundamental, SIMPLE based on drawing a parallel between cars & guns

If you want to argue that we don’t have a constitutional right to own a car – and we have a right to bear arms, frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. You do not have a legal right to bear a tank or bazooka or automatic machine gun.

consider these two cases

1 you leave your locked car parked on the street – someone steals it, hot wires it and uses it to murder someone – are YOU legally responsible ?
2 you leave your unlocked car parked on the street – with keys in the ignition – someone steals it, and uses it to murder someone – are YOU legally responsible for your negligence?


Here is my proposal for a NATIONAL gun law:
All procedure fees will be priced to be very profitable
All present guns and owners will be covered by these laws

.........................and - no - this will not SOLVE all gun problems


1 all gun owners must be licensed and tested with all guns that they own and
a written test to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws

if you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car – you are tested in each being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime

2 every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance & be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used .

insurance should be at least as high as car insurance
you must prove your car insurance
annual back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns
every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock

3 as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

the owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

4 every gun must be registered and tested - and sample fired bullet stored

knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it


peripherally-

if we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers
and free up police "time" for real crime investigation

penalties and fees must be very high in money & jail time – especially after the first offense

no citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

fees should be higher for more guns.

Gun fees should be high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

The nra fighting against this will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it


........................................................what do you think ? ........................................................what can we do - that CAN be done ?

▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►,,,,,,,,WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN & SENATORS !!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont think giving the world leader government in terrorism, war and weapons exports more power over us is a good idea. Go ahead and ban semis and assualt rifles. Its not going to change anything. Murder rate has been steady since ban ended in 2004.

They will throw so much other stuff in there is will make your head spin. Just like they did with No Child, ACA, Ownership Society, etc. They arent there to protect you. Its up to us to protect and nurture each other.

They are there for power. Look at their actions across the globe. You really want them involved? Look at their response to protests last year. You really want them involved?

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

Excellent ideas.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agree with much of what you say. Not a fan of licenses, for cars, for guns, for fishing, for anything. They are mostly just used as Gov fund raising tools.

The technology exists to fit out guns with finger print IDs that prevent use by anyone other than he owner.

http://www.google.com/patents/US5603179

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I hate licenses too since they serve no other purpose than to generate revenue. The fingerprint technology sounds like a more promising idea but I'm not so sure that any regulation is going to solve the shooting problem. The problem seems to be with our affinity to use guns as a means to problem-solve.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It could be that guns actually reduce violence.

We have more guns in private hands right now in the US than at any other time in our history, yet the murder rate is at the lowest level in 50 years.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

That could be true but we would never know unless we conducted our own study. You can't take those stats seriously. Not all murders end up being processed as murders and stats can be skewed toward any desirable result.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and you propose retrofitting 250,000,000 guns with this technology?

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

all well and good but in addition lets just ban semi automatic weapons and force people to turn them in.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Automatic weapons are easily defined - pull the trigger once and a stream of bullets are fired - (all illegal)

semi-automatic- I believe it means that firing one shot automatically loads another round so that repeatedly pulling the trigger can be almost instantaneous

most pistols are called "automatic" but are really semi-automatic

assault-weapons - not well defined in law but are generally semi-automatic rifles - require very clear definitions in a law

with a "clip" - a sleeve that can contain 6-30 or more bullets that fits into the handle of a pistol or under a rifle, a shooter can fire 30 bullets in less than 30 seconds from a semi-automatic

since most new pistols are semi-automatic, confiscating them is impractical at best. There are almost as many guns in America as there are people.

I'd rather see this comprehensively -
do we want 100,000,000 gun nuts against our proposition,
or do we want to solve the problem?
register every gun - sold or owned [ charge $1000 ]
license & background check every owner [ charge $1000 ]
penalty for law breaking $10,000 + a year in jail
require gun trigger locks

we may dislike the gun nuts but we have to deal with them
by not " taking" guns, we defang their biggest argument
price the violence out of the market

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

1st of all most guns are not semi automatic. i would venture to say that most guns are traditional hunting rifles, shotguns, or revolvers. while most new gun hand gun purchases are certainly semi auto that does not mean they should remain legal. we have dealt with guns before. there were machine guns in the hands of gangsters. it was not a problem to solve that issue. the notion that it would me more difficult now is the a complete fallacy based on absolutely no evidence what so ever.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

I am not worried about the government turning tyrannical. They are already halfway there. I am helpless to stop it. Banning machine guns was a very good move. So is banning the tank for private operation. Does an individual need a 300+ hp automobile that can go 160mph when the highest speed limit on the road is 80? Probably not. Same applies for the semiautomatic. Yet you see these automobiles on the road, and semiautomatics are in the hands of private citizens. And I would not change a thing? Why? There are 2 main reasons. The first reason is the same reason I oppose the notion of taxing the rich. Where will it end? Semiautomatics can be banned, and people will still die from shotguns and single shot rifles. So lets ban those, then people will die from stab wounds and such. I hope you see my point. The second reason is more fundamental. A government ban on anything is a tacit presumption that people are so stupid that they are incapable of adapting to changing situations and not killing themselves and thus purifying the gene pool. I am rather certain that you are intelligent and sensible. You would not take a semiautomatic shoot up a theatre. These shootings are tragic, but random.
The 300hp cars are out there and yet you do not see Death Race 2000 out there. Semiautomatic weapons are out there and yet you do not see a recreation of Aleppo in Memphis. You are merely taking away the means, not solving the fundamental issues.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

There is no rational reason for pot smoking or alcohol. There were 11000 people killed by drunk drivers, 1200 children. There were 10000 murders, most by gun.

I agree, there is no real need for large magazine auto weapons but neither is there any reason to have more than one drink.

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

there is a rationale to have more than one drink. to relax, to catch a buzz, to wash down your food. there is however no rationale for the possession of semi automatic weapons. this is the weakest argument i have ever heard.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Yes, there is a rationale for wanting a semi auto weapon: it allows one to fire many more rounds very quickly thus allowing one to hit more targets quickly and provides a stronger defense against the enemy. My point being that it's the mentality of the shooter. If his or her goal is to take down a lot of victims, they will resort to using any weapon that will do that very quickly. If we think that banning semi auto weapons will reduce our mass shootings, I think we are wrong. Bombs are easy as heck to make and carry into a building. Imagine if this latest shooter had bombed the school.
And there really isn't any need for alcohol in our society. People don't need to get high anymore than anyone needs to murder.

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

i never said people needed to get high. they don't need to kill either. your defense of rationale for semiautomatic weapons is flawed. here is why. we don't have a problem with people making homemade bombs and killing people. we have a problem with semiautomatic guns. oh and one more thing they monitor the pruchase of bulk items used to make bombs. despite what you may think.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

You said that there was a rationale as to why people need to take more than one drink...relaxation ( high), buzz (high). It's very southern of you to play devil's advocate and pretend to be so naive but is not very becoming of you.

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

I would tend to think that most pre-ban automatic weapons are still in private hands despite laws which prohibit.

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

really? cause you see tommy guns in peoples closets? so in other words you really have no argument or defense.

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

The average depression era individual couldn't afford a tommy gun. Their guns were utilitarian - rifles and shotguns for specific types of hunting. Home and personal defense were not concerns. Well, they are today.

I think we need to stop blaming others. This is our fault, we are guilty. Because the message is very clear: this is what happens when you do not value children. They grow into adults who do not value you.

All of our nationwide dystopia, heavily promoted by the Left and its media circus, is the result of a gradual lessening of moral ideals - all of it.

Vision serves one purpose and that is to inform. And what do we see everyday? Dystopia...

[-] 6 points by trashyharry (1230) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

There is no"Left" in the US.We have the Democratic Party,which is a Center Right pro-business party,and the Republican Party,which is a Far Right pro-corporate,pro wealthy,and Crypto Fascist party.Both parties are funded and controlled by the same small group of wealthy Crypto Fascists,some of whom are not American citizens,or whose primary allegiance is to another country whose citizens are allowed dual citizenship,most often Israel.These same Crypto Fascist Billionaires own and control the media circus you refer to in your post.While there are at least several million people in our country who are communists,socialists or libertarian socialists like me,we have little actual influence on political discourse or policy in Washington.You must have very little insight with regard to current events and popular culture if you cannot figure out that giant corporations and billionaires like Rupert Murdoch shape and control the media in the US,and they shape and influence media mainly for the purpose of creating profits for themselves.That is the cause of the repulsive character of our media and popular culture.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

"this is what happens when you do not value children. They grow into adults who do not value you."

THIS sleepy-eyed folks is exactly what is wrong with our country. Thanks for summing it up so well Theeighthpieceuv8. We don't value children, we don't value much of anything actually. It seems that everyone and everything is expendable and then when we lose these things we whine and erect memorials and hold candlelight vigils and when that drama subsides, we look to sue someone for not stopping us from destroying ourselves.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Of course we don't value children. We kill 100,000 of them in the US every month (3300 per day) in a systematic, $ billion + industry. We kill them for profit.

Does the president shed any tears for them?

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Could you be more specific?

I have my opinions about how we harm children but I'd like to know what you are referring to specifically.

I don't really understand why the president is expected to get involved in these mass shootings anyway. I mean, it's one thing for Americans to demand change through activism but to expect the president to show up at these horrific events seems so pretentious and counter-productive. Is the death of 20 students at one school any more or less heinous than the death of one child who was murdered here last week? Shouldn't he be spending his time improving our circumstances and not acting like a minister of ceremonies? I know many will take issue with what I say but he's a political figure- not a spiritual leader, not a therapist, not a doctor, not the local mayor. The tragedy is enormous but children die every day from poor health, starvation, suicide, abuse and bullets every single day in America and no one ever addresses the reasons why. They just come up with some quick fix like putting policemen in every school on Monday morning as if somehow that will improve the quality of our lives. Why not address why people are so unhappy that they become suicidal and want to harm others?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exactly.

The President should be about addressing the causes of the ills in our society. One Huge Cause ( an illness itself ) GREED!!!! Devastating peoples lives - millions of peoples lives in this country and around the world - to satisfy the very few - satisfy them with power/money/resources/property beyond any sane need or any sane purpose.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Greed surely is the root of most all of our evils isn't it. The collateral damages caused by greed infect everything. It's just so unbearably frustrating at times to think of all the ways greed affects us. I doubt we'll ever go over any fiscal cliff but we have surely gone over the human value cliff.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People are beginning to wake-up. It will take some time before all who are waking up make the connection to Greed being the main all pervasive source.

Attackers complain that OWS is too diluted with all of it's protests.

Homelessness/poverty

War

Pollution

economic meltdown

Foreclosure

fracking

living wage

etc etc etc etc

What the attackers of OWS are really afraid to say is that - people are gonna start making that concrete connection between all of the various ills of society/environment/world and realize it is all fueled by = GREED

This is what the attackers of OWS fear - the final realization - the acceptance of fact - that we need to unite to confront and put down Greed in all of it's varied and wide spread operations.

This will provide the antidote/cure to the causes of the ills of society/world and allow us to move forward in healing the damage that has resulted from it.

Otherwise we will for ever be running from one disaster to another and getting nowhere.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

OWS has been such an instrumental force in showing people that they do have the ability to unite and become powerful units of change. I've noticed that more and more people are beginning to have conversations the turn into protests. The more protests that occur, the more people begin listening and having more conversations. OWS has shown us that we are not alone in the world and that we have support. Still, there are so many people DK that are not even aware of what OWS is. My CPA asked me one day, ' So who are these people, didn't they get thrown out of a park". People have been made to be so afraid of associating with anyone who bucks the system. At least my CPA now knows who OWS is and he'll tell others. OWS is part of a change and perhaps a much bigger change than we can even imagine. I often wonder if America will one day be a true democracy run by a forum of citizens like OWS and not like the 'elected' officials we have today. .. and I say to myself, ' Oh what a wonderful World"..;D

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

GR8 comment. We continue educating those who have not come across good information as of yet - and show them where to look for it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

It is our society we are all guilty.

I saw president shed some tears

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9746910/US-school-shooting-President-Obama-cries-as-he-expresses-condolences-to-victims.html

. NRA should bear responsibility, collect fees for weapons made after 1850 and insurance.

I have to license my cat and dog.

I have to license my car, have insurance. Make sure my kids don't drive negligent. If they do I have to pay for their f up.

Just like we don't want terrorists getting "weapon of mass destruction", same thing with modern guns.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Disagree.

Why should the Gov have any say in your decision to have a pet? That is where we go wrong. We are free people. We should not let the Gov regulate our lives.

If the constitution were written today the founders would include a right to operate an automobile. A driver's license would be considered an infringement on a basic right; the right to freedom to move about freely and earn a living (a car in many places is essential for employment).

Gay marriage is the same issue. Why do we let the Gov have any say in our personal decisions? They have no right to impose the requirement for a marriage license at all.

We have to reject the continued intrusion by Gov in our lives?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Then why didn't the founders include a right to operate a horse & carriage?

And how do YOU know what those old, white, male, elitist, racist, misogynists would think or do?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The right to operate a horse and carriage was included by the founders in the bill of rights. Can you find it?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Aaaaaaaaah ha ha ha. Yeah I found it. Right after voting rights for all. Thx.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Read the 9th amendment.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No problem I understand the 'catch all' amendment. You're the best.

So that covers cars right? and therefore licenses are a violation of our rights.?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The constitution is not an enumeration of our rights, it is a document that limits the powers of Gov to intrude on our lives.

Early autos were not licensed and licensing of autos and even bicycles was originally found (correctly) to be un-constitutional. Gov intrusion today is out of control regulating and licensing almost everything including dogs, cats, boating, fishing, raising worms, or braiding your neighbors hair and painting her finger nails.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great. thanks a lot. I really appreciate the lesson in constitutional law.

I support licensing, registering, and background checks for every single gun. Further I hold that none of these common sense, reasonable gun safety measures violate the 2nd amendment or the constitution generally.

Finally I submit that legal, innocent gun owners agree, and do not object. Wack job conspiracy theory apocalypse nuts, and criminals DO object.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You advocate punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty, and worse, expending $ billions on regulations that have no impact on preventing crimes like Newtown.

You suppose to prevent drownings by passing laws dropping pool water levels nation wide by a millimeter.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The reasonable common sense gun safety measures I listed do none of what you suggest.

Sorry. Try again.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Finally we agree. The reasonable common sense gun safety measures you listed will do none of what you suggest.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nope. You don't speak for me. I reject your nonsensical analogy, and description of what I support.

I'm ok with my own words.

Thanks

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your words? Examine your words.

Will your words punish the innocent?

What crime did the gun owners commit for which they must pay the fine you advocate (the cost of registration, licensing, and background checks)?

Will your words prevent another Newtown?

The gun used to kill children in Newtown was stolen. Registration, licensing, and background checks do nothing to prevent a criminal from stealing gun and committing further crimes.

Will your words cost $ billions?

There are more than 300 million guns in the US. It will surely cost more than $ 3.30 to register, license and perform background checks on everyone.

Think man! More Gov will not solve this problem.

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

How are we killing 3300 children per day?

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

Why,...abortion of course. Hope this helps you to a fuller understanding.

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

Aaaaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha!

Yeah. & Like Mike Huckleberry said this would not have happened if the Newtown school was praying in school, right?

Religious fundamental case?

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

Millions are just fine.

You don't agree with Pastor Mike Huckleberry?

What about these guys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/westboro-baptist-church-picket-connecticut-school-shooting_n_2312186.html

You support them.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Is there no room in your heart to muster some compassion for her?:

http://blog.goldenviewultrasound.com/2012/04/21/what-are-babies-doing-in-the-womb/

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

Adorable.

Why don't you state your position on the religious fundamental cases from Westboro Baptist Church. Do you support them because they are against abortion?

Is there room in you head to understand right and wrong.?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Compassion for the weakest among us; a virtue we should all aspire to.

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

Let's focus on the weak "living" among us. Then we will see abortions disappear.

You know that right?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Human beings are living from the moment of conception. Ask any scientist, geneticist, pediatrician, obstetrician, or mom.

If they were not living and growing it would be unnecessary to abort them.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is not a religious issue. The issue is disrespect for human life.

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

We disagree. Life begins at birth.

Show compassion for poor women, Save a pregnancy today.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is not a religious issue. The issue is disrespect for human life.

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

I do not advertize my charity but I assure you my efforts are mostly to help the living. Women struggling with poverty. There are much more women in poverty than there are abortions.

We WILL minimize abortions when we finally resolve the poverty women live under.

You never discuss that, I don't think you really care. I only here right wing dogma from you.

End poverty, & you can end abortion.

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

Let's see a movement of compassion for poor women. I KNOW that will go farthest to minimize abortion.

Until that happens I will take take all the anti abortion rhetoric and put it into the anti women pro christian fundamental cases box.

And when that truly happens I will join in the chorus of "Abortion must be ended".

Help the Poor. Save a pregnancy today!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So you will wait, let children die, until the Scroogiest among us opens their wallet?

The VQkag2 I have grown to know and love would not wait for that.

I wager that you already do quite a lot for children of all ages; you just don't advertise the fact.

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

Compassion for the weakest living among us will prevent 90% of abortions.

Will you help them?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Of course. That is job 1. After preventing unplanned pregnancy support for pregnant women would probably do more to reduce the abortion rate than any other means, except a societal attitude that honors human life, particularly the helpless.

Abortion should be so abhorrent to society that it becomes unthinkable.

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

You are repeating your self.

Does that mean you support the westboro baptist wackos?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Compassion for the weakest among us; a virtue we should all aspire to.

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

I think many, if not all, are guilty to some extent of sacrificing the emotional well being of children to our own selfish pursuits. I don't know either if we can classify a vibrant community as sleepy-eyed.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I believe that in general we are sleepy-eyed and not willing to look more closely at the real issues in America that foster violence. People are still wondering why the kid chose an elementary school and if he had some connection with the school. It seems rather 'elementary' to me my dear Watson. Parenting is extremely challenging in our demanding high-paced competitive world and no parent is without fault but a good parent will make every effort to rectify their mistakes immediately and make the necessary sacrifices to ensure that their child lives in a family environment that supports their well-being and prepares them for adulthood. I know people that put their children in day-care on their days off from work so that they can do what they want to do or get their chores done. The other day in the grocery, a 7 year old girl was sitting in the cart screaming to the top of her lungs, ' Let me out, let me out' hundreds of times and the mother didn't say a word and just ignored her as if none of us could hear her daughter and she pretended that her daughter didn't exist! The girl had been screaming for a good twenty or so minutes and the girl kept getting louder and louder. The mother even pushed me out of the way to get her bag of frozen veggies as if I didn't exist. The screaming was so upsetting and everyone was watching this and the mother was completely oblivious to her surroundings. The mother made absolutely no effort to do anything. She didn't speak to the child, didn't take the child outside to talk to her and calm her before bringing her back in, nothing. She didn't even apologize to anyone for the disturbance. How frustrated that child must have been. I'm not suggesting that the child was innocent but I found her mother's lack of guidance to be absolutely incompetent and perhaps abusive. I wasn't sure how I could help so I just pretended to need some assistance in reading a label and asked the child if she could help me decide which vegetable would be best to eat with macaroni and cheese. The child stopped screaming and actually helped me pick out a bag of vegetables. The mother never acknowledged me at all, not a single thanks. However, two other people did come over and pat me on the back.

I grew up with a single/divorced mother who was very young but she didn't date and even when she finally did, later on in my mid teens, she didn't bring men into our home. I grew up with a mother who never left us at day-care and always made certain that only her closest friends watched us after school. But, I never felt like my mother was too busy to be there for me if I needed her. I could call her anytime and she would be there no questions asked. The difference between then and now is that she had a village to help her raise us- a peer group that aligned with her values and morals that were like an extended family, not sub-contractors. Her employer recognized her need to be a parent and did not pressure her to make his company or her job the priority. People were focused more on human relationships and not cyber and social activities. We knew the value of family and friends. With that said, my childhood was not an easy one and I had a lot of responsibility at a very early age that I know contributed to a lot of my current fear of losing control. Even so, my circumstances were probably better than most kids have today in a two parent home.

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

Interesting... thanks.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The murder rate was much higher during the depression than it is today.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

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

actually crime rates were much higher during the depression than today. home and personal defense were not concerns? are you retarded? i guess the mass gang land slayings don't count. typical libertard completely out of touch with reality. blame everything but the access to the weapons. you and your kind are destroying this country.

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

It's not "me and my kind" that are shooting people. It's not me and my kind that steal weapons or purchase them illegally, and for the most part we do not shoot innocent people.

These are sick individuals and this is a sick society. Your choice of words would suggest that you yourself are an example of our disease.

Mass gangland slayings? No, they don't count. Because these gangsters for the most part were not threatening people in the streets or in their homes.

Crime rates were higher? I'm not talking about crime rates, I'm talking about shootings; there were far fewer senseless shootings during the Depression.

DC, our Federal capital, has a crime rate twice that of any state in the nation. The White House is a virtual fortress. If this government, as the very seat of power, cannot contain illegal weapons in their own neighborhood, how can you expect them to contain them anywhere else?

People don't need fewer guns; they need more guns. All people like you do is hyperinflate the home defense market.

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

no it's your and your kind that get murdered then has their guns used in a mass slaughter. so now it's our society that is sick. really we are just like every other western society except for the free access to semi automatic weapons. so gangland slayings don't count? really so we pick and choose which murders by guns count. by the way there was no difference between the average joe and a gangster/bootleger in the 20's often they were one and the same. and yes gansters threatened people in there homes even blew up homes. have you ever heard of a gangland war? define senseless shooting. i find every shooting senseless unless you are about to be killed yourself. and yes the murder rate was much higher because of what??? machine guns mother fucker. what does the crime rate in dc have to do with semiautomatic weapons except for the fact there would be less murder if they were against the law. so people don't need fewer guns they need more? so lets just go ahead and train 5 year olds how to use tactical assault rifles. thats the america i want to live in.
for the good of humanity GO RUN IN TRAFFIC WITH SCISSORS!

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

Get a grip... guns in DC are against the law and murders are being committed with semi-autos. Crime in rural areas, even if they were helping run alcohol, was virtually zero during the Depression. People just didn't go around shooting each other like they do today.

So you want to know what the difference was? Well, for one thing there was this fear of going to hell, this fear of going to prison, this fear of losing their families, this fear of being lynched.

We have become a far too tolerant society. And it's really sick, it's a disease.

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

you are the one who needs to get a grip. have you considered that the lax gun laws of virginia may have something to do with the availability of guns in places like d.c. or nyc? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902573.html nyc law enforcement seems to think so http://dcist.com/2010/09/virginia_maryland_top_list_of_gun_e.php so does dc hmmm could it be that having states with lax laws is affecting states with tight restrictions???? naahhhhhh it couldn't be that. that seems logical.

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

No... when it comes to criminality I do not consider laws 'period.' Because criminals do not consider laws; if they considered law they would not be criminals.

No, you want to know what's effecting DC? It's criminals that are effecting DC. And on the social level, they are really sick individuals, a product of our far too tolerant society.

Your argument does not seem logical, it seems juvenile. As long as there is a market for guns, people will have guns. And since those purchased illegally by criminals are intended for harm, harm will continue to proliferate.

We have to rein in this sick f*cking society. And taking self-defense weapons makes it that much more difficult.

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

if you don't think criminals consider the law you are an idiot.

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

We literally have ten times the criminals roaming the streets at this very moment than any healthy society should have. And we have millions of cells nationwide. I offer this as evidence of their disregard, lack of concern, for law.

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

you do realize of course jail more people than any other country already. and that most of your so called criminals are non violent drug offenders. i think you literally have 10x fewer braincells than everyone else.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The concentration is much, much higher on Wallstreet and Kstreet.

Not to mention ANY street the Kochs walk down.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The murder rate was much higher during the depression than it is today.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

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

Let's get everyone of them re registered! Annually! Attach a tracking device. Make sure every gun is being responsibly managed.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (1988) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

While gun sales are ONCE AGAIN Spiking out of PARANOIA, NRA and some RepubliCon bastards are capitulating to overwhelming reality!!!

OMG!!!!!!!! do you see?

Public attention WORKS!!!!!

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

yes they are on the run because their position is indefensible with the vast majority of americans. the only idea they have is arming the teachers and principals. it is ridiculous. libertarians and conservatives are proving why they will never win another national election. while the democrats are a bunch of new order globalist scum the conservatives are proving to be bat shit crazy. BAT SHIT CRAZY.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1988) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

As we noted recently, the availability of guns isn't the only factor in America's gun violence problem. It is the component that's been the most lied about though, often through the vast propaganda tools of the lobbying group that is the NRA.

So as a public service, we've collected and corrected some of the most common lies about guns, and provided the correct information, below.

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media. Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been 62 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Lie: The assault weapons ban in the U.S. did nothing. Truth: The assault weapons ban did, in fact, limit unexpected mass killings.

Using the more accurate standard used for "mass killings" used by Mark Follman at Mother Jones, and Princeton researcher Sam Wang - where crimes that involve armed robbery or gang violence are not counted - statistics show the assault weapons ban did make a significant difference. As Wang's research noted, "Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years [since 1980] occurred since the expiration [of the ban]."

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!" Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters. As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

Lie: More guns will actually make us all safer! Truth: More guns actually mean more murders.

As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found, where there are more guns - in America and in other, similar rich nations - both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Lie: Gun-loving Americans don't support gun control or gun safety laws. Truth: In general, responsible gun owners support effective, smart gun safety laws.

According to a poll taken by noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, and published in Think Progress by Zach Beauchamp, "...gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as 'gun control.'"

That includes 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners who support requiring criminal background checks on gun owners. 80 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 79 percent of NRA gun owners also support requiring criminal background checks on gun shop employees.

Lie: Obama is the worst President for gun-loving Americans, ever. Truth: 2012 has been a record setting year for gun sales.

As of August 1, 2012, there are nearly 130,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States - which means there are more stores selling guns than groceries in the U.S.

If you're looking for even more facts on guns, check the links below.

Mother Jones' Guide to Mass Shootings in America

NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense

Charts: 247,131 Fatal Shootings in 8 Years

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions

Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?

What Exactly Is a Mass Shooting, Anyway?

Worst Mass Shootings of the Past 50 Years

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

Guns in America: A Statistical Look

Explaining the power of the National Rifle Association, in one graph

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10652140#ixzz2FayiVN5Y

[-] -3 points by Objectivity (-2) 1 year ago

► They Want America Disarmed ! BE AWARE.

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the "legitimate" government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacremento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us, stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns--legally or illegally--for the very same reason the colonists did.

By the way ...

The reason people shooting at each other is not because they have access to guns. IN FACT in Canada people have more guns ! but not much shooting. Do some research WHY .

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

To fight the govt?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Go back to your high school history teacher so that they may beat the living shit out of you with a textbook. Unless, of course, you are a fine example of homeschooling.