Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting

[old_man]

The sheriff down there is blabing all over TV that this was caused by talk radio and it's vitreal treatment of Democrats. Commentators are jumping on the bandwagon. Watch, Obama will use it for an excuse to try and drive through his Fairness Doctrine to put talk radio out of business and start censorship.

I was at that Safeway only about three weeks ago.

[ECKSJAY]

Cool story, bro.

[Crawler]

Some insight into the mind of this kid: his YouTube channel...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

(nice list of *past-tense* favorite books at the bottom of his profile)

[XJEEPER]

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf (My Struggle -Adolf Hitler) ..........while I've studied these, I'd never list them as favorites.

Bottom line is, he was mentally unstable and blaming Marx, Hitler, Van Jones, Obama, Piven, Palin, Rush or Beck for his actions is ludicrous.

If he had rammed them with a Prius, would the Socialists in Washington be calling for stricter driving regulations and classify hybrids as assault weapons?

The Democratic Socialists of America's response to this is predictable. Blame it on their enemy, the supporters of the 2nd Amendment and promoters of Freedom. Never hesitate in labeling an isolated incident a crisis, and never let a "crisis" go to waste......... http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/1911nopoliticalassassinations.html (http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/1911nopoliticalassassinations.html)





My prayers go out to the families of those lost in this senseless act of violence.

[XJEEPER]

The sheriff is a tool of the Socialist movement in the US. He's using his opinion to pass judgment and override any proof that the gunman murdered people because he listed to talk radio.

He's doing the very thing that he is accusing the Right of doing!!

Politicizing the death of these innocent people, including a 9 yr old girl is shameful.

[iwannadie]

I keep seeing news stories about it hyping up the "extended clip" or "high capacity clip".

I'm glad I carry my pistol grocery shopping and it has a high capacity magazine to deal with this kind of idiot if he points a gun at me.

[casm]

The sheriff is a tool of the Socialist movement in the US. He's using his opinion to pass judgment and override any proof that the gunman murdered people because he listed to talk radio.

He's doing the very thing that he is accusing the Right of doing!!

http://i.imgur.com/35oJQ.jpg

Politicizing the death of these innocent people, including a 9 yr old girl is shameful.

Completely agreed. At this point I can't tell whether I should be more appalled by the actions of the gunman or the subsequent media s***storm plying it to suit their respective editorial stances.

[kastein]

The guy seems like a complete lunatic.

Makes me wonder if people who think to themselves "I would not be surprised if this guy shoots up the school" (as many of his classmates apparently did) should report these nutballs... I didn't, though none of them have shot anyone so far. The sad thing is that both this guy and the Virginia Tech guy were well known on their campuses for being mentally disturbed troublemakers.

In any case, this will be used as fuel for second amendment breaching regulations. Sadly mental cases like this and criminals will find ways to hurt people in any free society.

[Milford Cubicle II]

Yeeeea... this video is just all kinds of deranged...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw

wtf???

[Jeepman401]

One thing could have prevented this from happening on the scale it did, and that was someone carrying. End of story.

Due to today's bullshit attitude of being nice to everyone, any investigation into the mental stability of the shooter would be seen as harassment

[urban yan]

First, my prayers are with those that died: that poor little girl, the judge, the pastor, etc... and
I hope that Gabrielle Gifford recovers (although, it's a miracle she even made it to the operating
room at all).

Second, if Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin are allowed to speak in a distasteful manor than
people like Sheriff Dupnik should be allowed to rebut their buthead comments.

Third, I really don't want to polarize this issue further, but is the image below normal for an adult
let alone someone eyeing the presidency? Where's the civic responsibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/palin-crosshairs.jpg

Forth, READ, I'm not saying Jared Loughner was directly inspired by right-wing rhetoric. He was
crazy, and crazy people will always find a way to do crazy things. Having said that, it's interesting
to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to
mental health programs.


.

[Milford Cubicle II]

First, my prayers are with those that died: that poor little girl, the judge, the pastor, etc... and
I hope that Gabrielle Gifford recovers (although, it's a miracle she even made it to the operating
room at all).

Second, if Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin are allowed to speak in a distasteful manor than
people like Sheriff Dupnik should be allowed to rebut their buthead comments.

Third, I really don't want to polarize this issue further, but is the image below normal for an adult
let alone someone eyeing the presidency? Where's the civic responsibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/palin-crosshairs.jpg

Forth, READ, I'm not saying Jared Loughner was directly inspired by right-wing rhetoric. He was
crazy, and crazy people will always find a way to do crazy things. Having said that, it's interesting
to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to
mental health programs.


.

:roflmao:

That was one of the dumbest thing's I've read in quite a while.

First of all I don't think anyone here is arguing that the sheriff shouldn't be allowed to give his dumbass opinion, I'm certainly not.

And how exactly is that political ad "irresponsible"? Because it has crosshairs?? Give me a break.

And you obviously don't understand the conservative ideology because if you did then you would realize that government size has NOTHING to do with "mental health programs" because conservatives understand that the private sector can provide health care, including mental health care, far better than the government can ever dream of doing.

But way to pass the back and get back with the blame game and try to attribute wholly irrational actions to whatever suits your political favor when 6 people are dead after JUST having said: I really don't want to polarize this issue further but... I'm not saying Jared Loughner was DIRECTLY inspired by right-wing rhetoric BUT... it's interesting to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to mental health programs

Congratulations on your nomination.

[Shorty]

Having said that, it's interesting to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to Government funded mental health programs.

FIFY^

That's an odd leap in logic to assume that anyone wishing for smaller Gov't will cut mental health programs, but it is a possibility. Life is filled with risk, and sometimes it's worth the risk to find a better/cheaper/fairer "way of doing things."

[rweaver138]

Congratulations on your nomination.
lol

[iwannadie]

I personally can't stand sarah pallin. If she wants to create an ad with target sights that's up to her. Having something like that doesn't make her responsible for a nut case taking it literal and shooting those people. Although it may not have been the smartest PR move now with what has taken place.

[Crawler]

...Second, if Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin are allowed to speak in a distasteful manor than
people like Sheriff Dupnik should be allowed to rebut their buthead comments.


In an effort to link what happened in Tucson to right-wing conservative rhetoric? NOT.



...Third, I really don't want to polarize this issue further, but is the image below normal for an adult
let alone someone eyeing the presidency? Where's the civic responsibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4


http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/palin-crosshairs.jpg




OK, then how about this pic from DLC targeting republicans in 2004?

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/01/dlc-targeting-map.gif
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171



And these pics from DCCC in Feb of last year, also targeting republicans...

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-target-map.jpg
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg
http://www.dccc.org/pages/about


"Where's the civic responsibility?"


Puhh-leeeeeaase, dude.... the double-standard hypocricy of the "left" is both EPIC and MONUMENTAL.


If someone tried releasing a film like this about Obama, they'd probably end up in GITMO...

(clip from the movie: "Death of a President")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAsysJ72NSU

.

[RCP Phx]

Its gotten even worse,now some so-called church wants tp protest at the little girls funeral,EVERYONE should step back and take a deep breath and focus on the affected families.Its sad that this has already become news "other than the actual tragedy",there will be plenty of time later to talk about the other issues.

[bjoehandley]

Its gotten even worse,now some so-called church wants tp protest at the little girls funeral,EVERYONE should step back and take a deep breath and focus on the affected families.Its sad that this has already become news "other than the actual tragedy",there will be plenty of time later to talk about the other issues.

It's Phelp's pack of co called christians:puke:

[bigalpha]

I still CANNOT believe that they are still in existence.

[Milford Cubicle II]

OK, then how about this pic from DLC targeting republicans in 2004?

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/01/dlc-targeting-map.gif
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171



And these pics from DCCC in Feb of last year, also targeting republicans...

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-target-map.jpg
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg
http://www.dccc.org/pages/about



Puhh-leeeeeaase, dude.... the double-standard hypocricy of the "left" is both EPIC and MONUMENTAL.

Yea but those targets are prettier so it's ok...

:sure:

[kastein]

I still CANNOT believe that they are still in existence.

At their last hate-in, someone slashed the tires on their minivan and they couldn't find anyone to tow it. So they had to drive it around town on flats trying to find someone who would sell them tires. They got turned down by everyone except walmart.

They pretty much are real-life trolls and attention whores though. If people refused to give them any attention and did not make their insipid hateful protesting into news they would have gone back to hating everyone from inside their "church" years ago.

[urban yan]

:roflmao:
That was one of the dumbest thing's I've read in quite a while.
I think you just superseded it.


.

[XJEEPER]

I think you just superseded it.


.

Speaking of Socialist Trolls.....Urban for the win! :patriot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[souske]

better not shop here anymore:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e63/irokohyea/target.jpg

[Boatwrench]

They got turned down by everyone except walmart.


Thanks for giving me another reason to avoid Wal-Mart.

[Boatwrench]

better not shop here anymore:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e63/irokohyea/target.jpg

and here also.

[XJEEPER]

"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."

One one former close friend of Loughner’s said he went from a stable high school student to a violent, self-medicated “monster” after his girlfriend dumped him during his junior year of high school.

Zachary Osler said that Loughner, who would walk around with his jaw and fist clenched, spent “excessive amounts of money” on drugs.
Osler said Loughner consumed marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms and the hallucigenic salvia.

“There was no political motive in this, [Jared] was just angry at the world,” he said.

The US Constitution is being used for toilet paper, specifically our Rights outlined in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The Socialist movement is no longer hiding their agendas, but seizing any and all opportunities to press forward, exploiting any event to promote support for their ideology.

Recognize their motives and how they completely ignore or twist the facts to promote thier agendas.

[CherBear]

Congratulations on your nomination.

:doh:

[old_man]

The sheriff that was spouting the political BS might be trying to deflect critisism of his department. They had multiple run ins with this guy from what I have read and they didn't ever bother to put him on a 24 hr psycho evaluation hold. From what I have also read, it is easy to do in AZ.

The college did the same thing, even though they had 5 run ins with him and internally determined him to be unstable. They could have done the hold just as easy. In this day and age, I would be surprised if the college didn't get sued and maybe the sheriffs department as well.

[urban yan]

Speaking of Socialist Trolls.....Urban for the win! :patriot:
It's a shame people chose to ignore my 4th point regarding the difficulties stopping crazy from doing crazy things in favor of more "socialist" rhetoric, and name-calling.

[kastein]

It's a shame people chose to ignore my 4th point regarding the difficulties stopping crazy from doing crazy things in favor of more "socialist" rhetoric, and name-calling.
hey now.

Get back under the bed with the rest of the reds, commies, socialists, and pinkos!

How would you suggest stopping crazy people from doing crazy things? I agree that it needs to be done, but I'm not sure how to do it without encroaching upon what I consider to be inviolable civil rights and liberties.

[urban yan]

How would you suggest stopping crazy people from doing crazy things? I agree that it needs to be done, but I'm not sure how to do it without encroaching upon what I consider to be inviolable civil rights and liberties .
Time machines.

[Sniggs]

.
Time machines.
http://coop.deadsquid.com/images/great_scott_400.png
A novel idea!

[ECKSJAY]

http://coop.deadsquid.com/images/great_scott_400.png
A novel idea!

Serious shit.

[XJEEPER]

It's a shame people chose to ignore my 4th point regarding the difficulties stopping crazy from doing crazy things in favor of more "socialist" rhetoric, and name-calling.

urban yan: Forth, READ, I'm not saying Jared Loughner was directly inspired by right-wing rhetoric. He was
crazy, and crazy people will always find a way to do crazy things. Having said that, it's interesting
to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to
mental health programs.



I guess I confused your point with the political undertones.....dude, passive/agressive much?

I know your position on socialized healthcare and support for Obamacare, unless it has change recently, if so, please clarify and I will stand corrected.

Please provide statistical data to support your implications that smaller government = more crazy people wandering around shooting people.

[bigalpha]

Please provide statistical data to support your implications that smaller government = more crazy people wandering around shooting people.

That's not what he said at all.

[bjoehandley]

How would you suggest stopping crazy people from doing crazy things? I agree that it needs to be done, but I'm not sure how to do it without encroaching upon what I consider to be inviolable civil rights and liberties.

I don't think you can to be honest. It does sound like his folks knew he was bonkers, but since he was an adult, I don't know if they legally could have had him involuntarily committed. This situation might convince people to rethink that as family of a person in that state as well as state and federal laws pertaining to such actions. I do think that there needs to be some sort of medical review of people in those situations so they don't get institutionalized for being "difficult", or some sort of BS excuse.

[bjoehandley]

I guess I confused your point with the political undertones.....dude, passive/agressive much?

I know your position on socialized healthcare and support for Obamacare, unless it has change recently, if so, please clarify and I will stand corrected.

Please provide statistical data to support your implications that smaller government = more crazy people wandering around shooting people.

Well he was probably refering to a situation like this;

If somebody like the shooter had been institutionalized prior to a comparable violent act, but then had the funding for the facility cut under the guise of "smaller government" or an insurer deciding that his care is cutting into their profits and dropping his coverage with no other way of paying for his continued care, allowing him to be turned loose on an unsuspecting public could theoretically allow a shooting or comparable violent act to happen.

[Milford Cubicle II]

That's not what he said at all.

...it's interesting to note the right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to mental health programs.

What he said: The "right wing" would like their to be smaller government which would mean that there would be lesser "mental health programs."

As if that would have stopped Laughner, get real :sure:

What he implied: The "right wing" having power would result in more crazies like Laughner doing crazy things like shooting people.

So yea, you're totally right he didn't say anything like that at all :rolleyes:

[WAM174]

There aren't solutions to every problem. There are millions of people in the US with some form of mental illness. Fewer than 1% will turn violent. No one is smart enough to identify each of those people until after they've acted.

We can't afford to lock up everybody we think exhibits problems. And it wouldn't be fair to the non-violent. Besides,we'd lose more than a few Jeepers that way.

If we had no access to guns, that would help the crazies situation. But it will never happen, so is not a potential solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is detached from reality. Lock him up...might be dangerous. :D

[bjoehandley]

There aren't solutions to every problem. There are millions of people in the US with some form of mental illness. Fewer than 1% will turn violent. No one is smart enough to identify each of those people until after they've acted.

We can't afford to lock up everybody we think exhibits problems. And it wouldn't be fair to the non-violent. Besides,we'd lose more than a few Jeepers that way.

That's why some kind of review panel made of of experts would be needed to determine how bad an individual is and how important it would be for families not to turn a blind eye towards some of these behaviors and let appropriate authorities know how this person behaves.

If we had no access to guns, that would help the crazies situation. But it will never happen, so is not a potential solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is detached from reality. Lock him up...might be dangerous. :D

Even then, a gun ban would only go so far, nothing would stop him from walking into the crowd with a knife,sword, metal bodied flashlight, or baseball bat and then have at it or stealing a vehicle and driving into that crowd or making a car bomb out of it. At least in all but the last situation, somebody competent with a gun should be able to stop the attack.

[bigalpha]

What he said: The "right wing" would like their to be smaller government which would mean that there would be lesser "mental health programs."

As if that would have stopped Laughner, get real :sure:

What he implied: The "right wing" having power would result in more crazies like Laughner doing crazy things like shooting people.

So yea, you're totally right he didn't say anything like that at all :rolleyes:

You are assuming that less funding causes more crazy people to kill. Correlation does not imply causation.

[WAM174]

That's why some kind of review panel made of of experts would be needed to determine how bad an individual is

The "experts" let crazies out all the time who go on to commit violent acts. I doubt it's because they're incompetetent...it's just an impossible job to predict human behavior.

Even then, a gun ban would only go so far, nothing would stop him from walking into the crowd with a knife,sword, metal bodied flashlight, or baseball bat and then have at it or stealing a vehicle and driving into that crowd or making a car bomb out of it.

Remember, I'm not arguing for gun control as a solution. But those people will argue that had he attacked with a knife/bat etc, there would have been far fewer victims. That's a valid arguement. What's not valid is thinking we could ever get all the guns out of the hands of the public -- for a variety of reasons. Never happen.

[Milford Cubicle II]

You are assuming that less funding causes more crazy people to kill. Correlation does not imply causation.

*I* am assuming?

I could have sworn that urban yan made that assumption :dunno:

Should I quote it again?

All I assumed was that the more crazies like Laughner are out there the more likely it is that insane acts of violence like these will occur. Seems like a logical assumption to me.

But if you actually read the thread you would see that I don't even believe that ANY amount of "mental health care" would stop things like this from happening.

If you're going to take the time to write a post, then take the time to read the thread as well :wave1:

[bigalpha]

Urban Yan said:

right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to mental health programs.

Please show me the part where he said that

smaller government = more crazy people wandering around shooting people.

How about re-reading this thread and telling me who said that.

[Milford Cubicle II]

Hmmmm... given the subject of the thread I thought it was safe to think that maybe he was trying to suggest that since the "right wing" is pro-smaller government they would impede funding for "mental health care" which would help prevent things like these from happening.

Call me crazy.

Or just face reality and admit that it was a stupid argument to try to make.

[Jeepman401]

If we had no access to guns, that would help the crazies situation. But it will never happen, so is not a potential solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is detached from reality. Lock him up...might be dangerous. :D
never say never, politicians are already scrambling to use this tragedy for gun control. But being from california you would already know all about that
Remember, I'm not arguing for gun control as a solution. But those people will argue that had he attacked with a knife/bat etc, there would have been far fewer victims. That's a valid arguement. What's not valid is thinking we could ever get all the guns out of the hands of the public -- for a variety of reasons. Never happen.
And how would the outcome have changed if one of the bystanders had a gun?

I know you aren't preaching for gun control, but it sure sounds like it

[Rod Knee]

Presenting an image of a Democrat as a brown shirted Nazi callously disrespects all the Democratic veterans who served during WW2. That includes my father, a lifelong democrat who served on a USN tanker carrying aviation fuel knowing he could be immolated in a fireball at any time. As he put it: “the Uboats wanted us pretty bad”.

Hang your head in shame, casm.

Hang your head in shame.

[casm]

Presenting an image of a Democrat as a brown shirted Nazi callously disrespects all the Democratic veterans who served during WW2. That includes my father, a lifelong democrat who served on a USN tanker carrying aviation fuel knowing he could be immolated in a fireball at any time. As he put it: “the Uboats wanted us pretty bad”.

Hang your head in shame, casm.

Hang your head in shame.

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Particularly in light of the following:

http://i.imgur.com/lkhwI.jpg

By your argument, that image disrespects my grandfather (15th Army Air Corps). and other relatives who were directly part of war efforts in the Second World War because it shows an image of a Repbulican in the same pose and with the same caption as the one depicting a Democrat.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech. This is why, again, I must respectfully disagree with you.

[Rod Knee]

Yes, by my own words, that image is disrespectful, but I didn't post it did I? Unlike you I wouldn't have considered posting either one of them. Freedom of speech demands some modicum of discretion which apparently elludes you.

[casm]

Yes, by my own words, that image is disrespectful, but I didn't post it did I?

What you may consider disrespectful I may consider satirical. Further to that:

Unlike you I wouldn't have considered posting either one of them. Freedom of speech demands some modicum of discretion which apparently elludes you.

It's not that discretion eludes me, but rather that our respective boundaries in that regard are evidently different.

[Fred]

Residential mental hospitals were closed in the 60's both to save money and because liberals thought that the wackos deserved freedom. Seriously, the thought was that the therapies of the time were good enough that outpatient treatment was sufficient. That was the start of the current homeless issue, and one of the many reasons why our prison population has increased, aside from stupid drug laws.

[Fred]

And then there is this that the lamestream media seems to ignore:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20479

[RichP]

Through the 60's we had a state run mental hospital called "Greystone" in Morristownship NJ. This housed a 150 or more patients, it was also a 100+ acre farm that grew veggies and had a 100+ cow milk farm, they basically provided their own milk, eggs, veggies and also provided to the county hospital across the street and the county jail, it supported itself. The patients were kept busy and productive, they had a pretty good healing rate. Liberal progressive NJ democrats get into office and all the acreage gets sold off for new homes, farm gets closed down, no more food to the county agencies and the now 'inmates' are kept fenced up and weave baskets all day, real progress. When it was up and running there were not even any fences, after it closed the plectron and police radio, I was an emt for our volunteer rescue squad, was always going off warning about an escaped inmate. They ran because they were bored.

[Jeepman401]

There was a similar facility in Preston CT, at one time the largest in the country. It diddnt close until 96, but the farms and other work therapy programs went away in the 60's because they were thought to be cruel. By the time it closed it was downsized to a small fraction it once was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_State_Hospital,_Connecticut

[tbburg]

Had a state mental institution in Athens, OH, too. Had the farm, botanical gardens, all that good stuff. Also mostly closed down in the late 60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Lunatic_Asylum
A few pictures here:
http://www.forgottenoh.com/Ridges/ridges.html

Would you like a little horror story?
I went mountain biking up in the woods behind the hospital grounds one day, and found a cemetery. It was pretty creepy: over a thousand graves. That's not an estimate. I know the number because almost all the grave-stones had no names on them, only numbers. Up in the far corner, the earliest graves had names. Apparently at some early point, they figured they'd save some money and just number the stones. Anyone who wanted to know where a specific patient was buried could just look up the number in a ledger or something.
The first 50 or so graves had names. Four male names. The rest were women. This dates to back when you didn't need a court order to have somebody locked up. As it was explained to me later, apparently, a lot of men got tired of their wives and had them shipped off to mental institutions for no other reason then: "The b**ch just won't STFU.. 'Pretty popular practice.

While it might be hard to get someone involuntarily locked up now, (having to get the evaluations, court orders, etc. what a pain!) I think it's good that there's more then one step to take before you get locked up for treatment(or for good).

And yeah, I realize most of the people who really need treatment won't voluntarily submit to it. If there was a simple answer, there wouldn't be an argument.

[XJEEPER]

That's not what he said at all.

How about you let Urban respond instead of trying to interpet what he was implying?

If I'm off the mark on how I interpeted his comment, then he should be willing to clarify and explain.

If Urban wasn't implying that smaller goverment would result in reduced mental healthcare, with a collateral effect of more mentally unstable people wandering around doing bad stuff, then what specifically, was the point of making this statement?

[urban yan]

Well we wouldn't want others to misinterpret my comments; it would put you out of a job.

[Milford Cubicle II]

Good clarification...

:huh:

[XJEEPER]

Well we wouldn't want others to misinterpret my comments; it would put you out of a job.

That's what I thought.......

[Darky]

What I find to be rather disturbing is that with AZ's lenient gun regs and open carry law. If someone had been taking advantage of this right, he may have been stopped sooner.

[karstic]

What I find to be rather disturbing is that with AZ's lenient gun regs and open carry law. If someone had been taking advantage of this right, he may have been stopped sooner.

or caused more injuries and casualties.

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_17109372?source=commented-news

An interesting perspective from an armed citizen at the shooting.

[Jeepman401]

Whats interesting is the spin put on it by the media. The guy did the right thing, he assessed the situation, and decided on the best course of action. He was not there when the shooting began, and came upon the scene after it began. If he had been in the crowd when the shooting began, he would have had a clear target, not the confusion that he ran into.

[urban yan]

That's what I thought.......

Wait. You think? I thought you just regurgitate.



or caused more injuries and casualties.

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_17109372?source=commented-news

An interesting perspective from an armed citizen at the shooting.

Joe Zamudio was on CNN last week. He struck me as an exceptionally well composed individual; most people would be lucky to share his temperament.... and Joe nearly shot the wrong guy.

I'm not saying Joe shouldn't have a gun. However, it worries me that people with less composure are encouraged -- by gun supporters -- to be put in Joe's situation. Training helps, but let's be honest with ourselves. Not everyone's trainable.

[kastein]

Training helps, but let's be honest with ourselves. Not everyone's trainable.
Couldn't agree more, heck we have a whole thread dedicated to them.

I still think everyone having guns is better than just the wackos and criminals having guns. It evens the odds a bit.

[Milford Cubicle II]

or caused more injuries and casualties.

Wow you mean you shouldn't just start popping off rounds when you see someone with a gun?? :gee:

I'm a firm believer that not everyone has any business being armed all the time. However, this guy clearly is - as demonstrated by the responsibility and good judgment that he showed.

[XJEEPER]

Joe Zamudio was on CNN last week. He struck me as an exceptionally well composed individual; most people would be lucky to share his temperament.... and Joe nearly shot the wrong guy.

I'm not saying Joe shouldn't have a gun. However, it worries me that people with less composure are encouraged -- by gun supporters -- to be put in Joe's situation. Training helps, but let's be honest with ourselves. Not everyone's trainable.

"Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to."

"As Zamudio ran toward the shooter, he recognized the Glock 19 in the older man's hand and noticed a key detail: It was in the process of being reloaded and not ready to use."

An observant, armed citizen with no formal training reacted to a situation and helped apprehend the shooter without having to fire his weapon…..spin it as a negative all you want with “what if’s”….. I see only positive outcomes here.

(P.S. Still waiting for you to produce any factual data to back up your comments regarding small government and mental health)

[XJEEPER]

Got Nuts?

Eric Fuller arrested on Saturday after death threat.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/15/20110115gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/15/20110115gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP)

[old_man]

All the anger and hot heads are Conservatives, right? :huh:

[Jeepman401]

One member of the audience who identified with the tea-party movement stood up and said debate over the shooting's political and gun-law implications should be delayed until emotions settle down
Its the truth

[ECKSJAY]

Got Nuts?

Eric Fuller arrested on Saturday after death threat.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/15/20110115gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/15/20110115gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-tucson-forum.html#ixzz1B9HJHXxP)

Fuller, who works as a signature collector for political initiatives, was about 10 to 15 feet away from Giffords, talking to her volunteers, when the shots erupted on Jan. 8. He said earlier this week he was hit by a bullet when he dove to the ground to play dead. He decided that because he didn't have any medical training to help others, he walked to his car and drove himself to the nearest hospital.

I lol'd. What a sackless turd.

[Jeepman401]

Shot in the knee, yet he walked to his car. Clearly he was too injured to do any good.
Think he stopped at home for a change of panties on the way?

[urban yan]

hmmm. I wonder how events would-have turned out if fuller had a gun when the shooting took place.... or if he had a gun at the Town Hall meeting.

[Milford Cubicle II]

Same old argument gun control retards have been using for decades and it's no less dumb right now coming from you.

[Jeepman401]

hmmm. I wonder how events would-have turned out if fuller had a gun when the shooting took place.... or if he had a gun at the Town Hall meeting.
If he had a gun, that would probably mean that he was a different person altogether. But lets say that he did, he would still be the coward that hid form danger. People seem to think that the shooter emptied his magazine and that was it, but he was reloading. It took brave people to stand up to him and stop him. They are the reason it was not 15 dead and 30 injured.

As for if he had a gun at the town hall meeting? think about that, he made a death threat to someone who spoke out saying that the discussion on gun control should wait until the emotions had settled. Clearly his outburst shows that he is the type to come out with guns blazing. Not only did he make the speakers point, but he showed his gun grabbing hand. But your right, he clearly would have pulled a gun and shot someone for speaking out for guns :roflmao:

[urban yan]

I wouldn't let a drunk drive a car; by the same token, I don't want to see guns in the hands of emotionally unstable people. Does that mean I'm against cars and guns?

Since a few of you are slow on the uptake. My answer's no; no I'm not.

[Jeepman401]

Asking if the libtard would use a gun if he had it is like asking if George Washington would have nuked the british if he had nukes. It was never a possibility, so its pointless to wonder.

Emotionally unstable people shouldn't have guns, but how does that translate into nobody should have guns?

[Milford Cubicle II]

I wouldn't let a drunk drive a car; by the same token, I don't want to see guns in the hands of emotionally unstable people. Does that mean I'm against cars and guns?

Since a few of you are slow on the uptake. My answer's no; no I'm not.

So do you seriously think it's feasible to be able to determine who is mentally healthy enough to have guns and also determine when a once mentally stable individual is no longer fit to have guns?

I'd like to see how that could be done.

The only other option is to ban everyone from having guns (which of course won't stop many from having them anyways) or to allow everyone to have guns with a few "feasible" exceptions like violent criminals.

So which are you arguing for?

[urban yan]

Wow, look at the two of you... working as a tag team. The spirit of cooperation might be dead in the senate, but it's nice to see you two lovebirds keeping the fire burning nice and strong.
Anyways, not to worry, I have five carefully thought-out ideas that might help reduce gun crimes caused by mentally unstable individuals:

1) Time machines.

2) You have to meet certain criteria before you're allowed many of life's privileges. You need to pass a test to get your driver's license, you need to take an SAT to assess your readiness for college, heck you even need to be a certain age to buy smokes, booze, or porn mags. Our lives are intruded upon continually to validate our claim to such privileges. By the same reasoning, maybe a gun license should include a psych eval ...that's also renewable along with your gun license renewal. The process could be managed via some non-profit organization (like SATs), and I'm sure the evaluation could be drafted into a quick, minimally intrusive format. It wouldn't eliminate all mentally related gun crimes, but it might just put a dent in them.

3) If that idea doesn't appeal to you than you may like this one. From now on all guns will be sold permanently welded onto cars. It's hard to pull a gun into a crowd when it's welded to a car, and it's easy to spot a nutjob coming at you with their car/gun..... it's kinda similar to the movie near and dear to many of your tiny little hearts - Death Race 3000.

4) Those who found the afore mentioned movie, Death Race 3000, mentally stimulating can't have a gun.

5) If you didn't like any of my previous ideas than you can always use that time machine I mentioned earlier to go back, and remind yourselves not to read my comments. It will save you he drama of feeling humiliated by yours truly. And oh yeah, don't forget to kill John Conner while you're at it.

[kastein]

3) If that idea doesn't appeal to you than you may like this one. From now on all guns will be sold permanently welded onto cars. It's hard to pull a gun into a crowd when it's welded to a car, and it's easy to spot a nutjob coming at you with their car/gun..... it's kinda similar to the movie near and dear to many of your tiny little hearts - Death Race 3000.
we're going to have to make angle grinders and sawzalls illegal too now, look what you started

this will also make attacks by senile retirees plowing into street markets far more lethal.

[XJEEPER]

Wow, look at the two of you... working as a tag team. The spirit of cooperation might be dead in the senate, but it's nice to see you two lovebirds keeping the fire burning nice and strong.
Anyways, not to worry, I have five carefully thought-out ideas that might help reduce gun crimes caused by mentally unstable individuals:

1) Time machines.

2) You have to meet certain criteria before you're allowed many of life's privileges. You need to pass a test to get your driver's license, you need to take an SAT to assess your readiness for college, heck you even need to be a certain age to buy smokes, booze, or porn mags. Our lives are intruded upon continually to validate our claim to such privileges. By the same reasoning, maybe a gun license should include a psych eval ...that's also renewable along with your gun license renewal. The process could be managed via some non-profit organization (like SATs), and I'm sure the evaluation could be drafted into a quick, minimally intrusive format. It wouldn't eliminate all mentally related gun crimes, but it might just put a dent in them.

3) If that idea doesn't appeal to you than you may like this one. From now on all guns will be sold permanently welded onto cars. It's hard to pull a gun into a crowd when it's welded to a car, and it's easy to spot a nutjob coming at you with their car/gun..... it's kinda similar to the movie near and dear to many of your tiny little hearts - Death Race 3000.

4) Those who found the afore mentioned movie, Death Race 3000, mentally stimulating can't have a gun.

5) If you didn't like any of my previous ideas than you can always use that time machine I mentioned earlier to go back, and remind yourselves not to read my comments. It will save you he drama of feeling humiliated by yours truly. And oh yeah, don't forget to kill John Conner while you're at it.

:laugh2:

[iwannadie]

I think people forget that the criminals out using guns to commit crimes would still get their guns regardless of laws saying they can't.

If a mental evaluation were in place, that guy still could have bought an illegal gun and accomplished the same exact thing.

The huge number of firearms in existence would make it impossible to remove them all or account for them all. Firearms are also not overly complicated and could be made by criminals. "Raw" ar15 lowers are available and are treated as a non-firearms because they are not fully machined. Someone with the right know how could crank out firearms with readily available legal to own parts. I won't even mention the ways people are replacing firing pins with 9v batteries.

So, are we going to require an evaluation to be allowed to buy bits and pieces of metal? Or, we would have to change all the laws that define what a firearm actually is and includes.

[Jeepman401]

Wow, look at the two of you... working as a tag team. The spirit of cooperation might be dead in the senate, but it's nice to see you two lovebirds keeping the fire burning nice and strong.
Anyways, not to worry, I have five carefully thought-out ideas that might help reduce gun crimes caused by mentally unstable individuals:

I cant speak for Milford, but I happen to enjoy debating issues like this. They say laughter is good for you, and thanks to you, I should be able to live quite some time. :cheers:

2) You have to meet certain criteria before you're allowed many of life's privileges. You need to pass a test to get your driver's license, you need to take an SAT to assess your readiness for college, heck you even need to be a certain age to buy smokes, booze, or porn mags. Our lives are intruded upon continually to validate our claim to such privileges. By the same reasoning, maybe a gun license should include a psych eval ...that's also renewable along with your gun license renewal. The process could be managed via some non-profit organization (like SATs), and I'm sure the evaluation could be drafted into a quick, minimally intrusive format. It wouldn't eliminate all mentally related gun crimes, but it might just put a dent in them.

I cant speak for other people in other states, but in CT, in order to get your ccw permit, you need to pass the NRA basic pistol course.
The course has a test, but that doesn't solely determine pass/fail. As a NRA instructor, I grade them on knowledge, skills, and Attitude. More than once I have handed someone their money back and told them to leave because I did not find them fit to have their ccw permit. Maybe that's not enough for you, but its something.
I feel safer with that than some screening that a politician thinks up that you can be guaranteed almost nobody will be able to pass. It would probably go something like this.
Question 1- do you masturbate?
yes- subject is a sexual deviant and cant be trusted with a gun
No- subject is a liar and can not be trusted with a gun

As for having a nonprofit group do it like the SAT's, I'm sure the brady campaign would be happy to do it.

If you could come up with a reasonable way of doing it, a psych eval could be a good thing, but that's the hitch, there is no good way of doing it. Consider this- Mental illness can set in for any number of reasons at any time. Should we screen everyone with a gun every week? maybe you should make that daily just to be safe.

5) If you didn't like any of my previous ideas than you can always use that time machine I mentioned earlier to go back, and remind yourselves not to read my comments. It will save you he drama of feeling humiliated by yours truly. And oh yeah, don't forget to kill John Conner while you're at it.
Don't worry, I dont feel humiliated by your imaginary superior outlook.

[kastein]

I think people forget that the criminals out using guns to commit crimes would still get their guns regardless of laws saying they can't.

If a mental evaluation were in place, that guy still could have bought an illegal gun and accomplished the same exact thing.

The huge number of firearms in existence would make it impossible to remove them all or account for them all. Firearms are also not overly complicated and could be made by criminals. "Raw" ar15 lowers are available and are treated as a non-firearms because they are not fully machined. Someone with the right know how could crank out firearms with readily available legal to own parts. I won't even mention the ways people are replacing firing pins with 9v batteries.

So, are we going to require an evaluation to be allowed to buy bits and pieces of metal? Or, we would have to change all the laws that define what a firearm actually is and includes.
To say nothing of the fact that I can build a serviceable 12 gauge shotgun with $20 in 30min after hitting the home depot plumbing aisle... or a decent one with a $50 budget at the same store.

[Metal Head]

The fact is no amount of law is going to stop random acts of senseless violence. A gun can sit on a table for years and not kill anyone, it takes the wrong person to pick it up and kill. You can pass all the laws and bans you want, like someone said, you really think the criminals are going to abide by them? Look at Mexico, 30,000 deaths because no citizens down there are allowed to have guns. The drug cartels are slaughtering people in record amounts. The solution is to put the guns in the hands of good people, allow them at least the dignity of dying while fighting back instead of begging on their knees. Personal safety starts with YOU, I will NEVER give up my guns.

It's a fact of life there are good and bad people in the world. Kudos to the father of the 9 year old girl who said not to take his personal tragedy as a means to take away more of our freedoms. That is the true definition of patriotism.

[iwannadie]

To say nothing of the fact that I can build a serviceable 12 gauge shotgun with $20 in 30min after hitting the home depot plumbing aisle... or a decent one with a $50 budget at the same store.

We clearly need to pass a metal fitness test before being allowed to enter home depot.

[Jeepman401]

We clearly need to pass a metal fitness test before being allowed to enter home depot.
Just ban all home improvement stores.
Better add walmart to that list too
and don't forget the grocery stores
and ...

[mcantar18c]

I think people forget that the criminals out using guns to commit crimes would still get their guns regardless of laws saying they can't.

Not to mention legal Private Party deals. All of these laws the libtards like to spit out only apply to FFA purchases.


To say nothing of the fact that I can build a serviceable 12 gauge shotgun with $20 in 30min after hitting the home depot plumbing aisle... or a decent one with a $50 budget at the same store.

X10, I was about to post up the exact same thing. Hell, don't even need to run to home depot if you have normal stuff in your house like toaster ovens, water heaters, fridges/freezers, thermostats, cleaning supplies, etc. When the zombies take over, my firearms and explosives are coming from everyday household items while you all fight over the ones in the gun store.

[Boatwrench]

We clearly need to pass a metal fitness test before being allowed to enter home depot.

or before joining NAXJA.

Reality check to all members. Guns are not going away.

So those that are anti-gun save your breath, the government may get the inclination to confiscate guns but the reality is they do not have the means to successfully accomplish this task without reliving the early 1860s.

Those that are frothing over Sen Feinstein place your passion somewhere else. Just like most of the doom and gloom prophicies from your cult leader Rush, they rarely come true.

The sun came up this morning and it will tomorrow also just as it has since the beginning of time.

[87manche]

To say nothing of the fact that I can build a serviceable 12 gauge shotgun with $20 in 30min after hitting the home depot plumbing aisle... or a decent one with a $50 budget at the same store.



Phil Luty FTW.


google it.

[Jeepman401]

or before joining NAXJA.

Reality check to all members. Guns are not going away.

Believe me, I know they will never go away.
But gun control laws limit us by restricting what we can own, and driving up prices, making the sport get more and more expensive by the year.
I would think that being from California, you would understand the restrictions that have already gotten through.

Look at it another way. These laws are driving manufacturers to shut down, or to move. At one point, the state of Connecticut produced a good portion of the guns made in the US. While there are still some companies here, most have shut down. Now we have empty factories, fewer employers, and a smaller tax base, mainly due to anti-gun laws.

[87manche]

Believe me, I know they will never go away.
But gun control laws limit us by restricting what we can own, and driving up prices, making the sport get more and more expensive by the year.
I would think that being from California, you would understand the restrictions that have already gotten through.

Look at it another way. These laws are driving manufacturers to shut down, or to move. At one point, the state of Connecticut produced a good portion of the guns made in the US. While there are still some companies here, most have shut down. Now we have empty factories, fewer employers, and a smaller tax base, mainly due to anti-gun laws.


If you think guns are the root of this issue you are mistaken. They've lost tat fight.


Ammo however.....

Lets see,
proposed micro serial numbers- Tremendous cost
Unobtanium bullets that are better for the EPA- Tremendous cost
California style Ammo buying restrictions- How do I shoot when I can only buy 50 rds a month?

heller closed the book on traditional gun control, California has taken the lead on the new gun control, make it so expensive or inconvenient that people just don't bother. Turning our apathetic ways against us.

Thank goodness I reload.

[Jeepman401]

Its all part of the same issue. Ammo control is part of gun control. So are mag restrictions, feature restrictions, caliber restrictions.

As for California's buying restriction, that's how they will get us.I rarely go to the range and shoot less than 50 rounds, and I average around 100 rounds every sunday. When I teach a course, I usually go through a minimum of 500 rounds. With a 50 round a month limit, that would kill most of my shooting. Even if I saved it all for teaching, that would give me 5 rounds a student, or one course every 10 months, and no shooting for myself.

[87manche]

Its all part of the same issue. Ammo control is part of gun control. So are mag restrictions, feature restrictions, caliber restrictions.

As for California's buying restriction, that's how they will get us.I rarely go to the range and shoot less than 50 rounds, and I average around 100 rounds every sunday. When I teach a course, I usually go through a minimum of 500 rounds. With a 50 round a month limit, that would kill most of my shooting. Even if I saved it all for teaching, that would give me 5 rounds a student, or one course every 10 months, and no shooting for myself.

You couldn't save yours, transfer between citizens was made illegal. Only between a licensed retailer, and their state back round checked clerk and the person buying it.

The liberals don't see it as the same issue. To the anti-firearm agenda ammo is fair game, as the supreme court didn't specifically rule on it. SO until someone challenges these absurd ammo restrictions they will keep passing them.

Again, it doesn't do anything to the criminals. Do you think the gangs of California are going to have a problem sending a member across the stateline to buy a trunkfull of ammo and bring it back? probably not, and if he gets busted they'll send another. They're in business to be criminals, and all that legislation did was inconvenience them.

[Jeepman401]

Making things illegal for everyone is always the answer. Oh wait, how did prohibition go again?
Hell, I am no criminal, and I wouldn't think twice about crossing the state line to buy ammo.

On the bright side, I could shoot 50bmg for the same ammo budget as I have now. might as well make those 50 rounds count.

[XJEEPER]

Ain't it true.....the government can't outlaw the combustion engine powered auto, but they can force the cost of ownership and operation to skyrocket by screwing with our fuel sources and taxing our exhaust output, with their goal to make us all Prius-driving eco-worshipping zombies.

It's how they roll.....when unpopular legislation doesn't pass, make a lateral move to regulate though committee of appointment. EPA, FAA, FCC, BLM, DOHS.....the list goes on and on.

This tolerance of our leaderships bypassing of the Constitution needs to be stopped.

[Boatwrench]

Check your reference about California ammo restriction again. I asked a friend who is gun hobbyist and he said the whole law got tossed.

[casm]

Check your reference about California ammo restriction again. I asked a friend who is gun hobbyist and he said the whole law got tossed.

Not exactly (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/apnewsbreak-calif-handgun-ammo-rules-thrown-out.html). Only parts of it were struck down, parts of it can stand, and the decision is going to be (predictably) appealed.

[87manche]

Not exactly (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/apnewsbreak-calif-handgun-ammo-rules-thrown-out.html). Only parts of it were struck down, parts of it can stand, and the decision is going to be (predictably) appealed.

and it still doesn't affect the cities individual laws regarding ammo restriction.

those have to be challeneged separately.

[RichP]

I like basic simple and up front reasons for gun control, I look for such articles and try to save them, Came across this one on a search.
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/gun-control-who-benefits

[87manche]

Making things illegal for everyone is always the answer. Oh wait, how did prohibition go again?
Hell, I am no criminal, and I wouldn't think twice about crossing the state line to buy ammo.

On the bright side, I could shoot 50bmg for the same ammo budget as I have now. might as well make those 50 rounds count.

Of course you might think twice if getting pulled over with ammo in the trunk was a felony.

For all your AB 962 info needs:

http://www.ab962.org/Home.aspx

FWIW the court tossed key parts of it, but for different reasons.

The thumbprint bit got tossed because it was unconstitutional.

The caliber/pistol restrictions got tossed simply because they were too vague, which leaves the door open for the legislature to try again.

[Jeepman401]

Your right, I would drive out to another state to get ammo, then keep on driving to find another place to live

[Shorty]

Your right, I would drive out to another state to get ammo, then keep on driving to find another place to live

but if every one that could afford to leave did that the state would go bankrupt....... er, never mind.

[Jeepman401]

And the problem is?

[Shorty]

from this coast? not a damn thing:peace:

[87manche]

And the problem is?

that all of the liberals would invade another state and fawk that one up too.

see:
Oregon
Washington
Colorado

It's not the state's problem, it's the voters living in the state that elect idiots.

[Jeepman401]

Put up a fence

[mcantar18c]

Put up a fence

They'd hire some illegals to hop it, and then pay em more to tear it down, and then invite the illegals along with em.

[RichP]

that all of the liberals would invade another state and fawk that one up too.

see:
Oregon
Washington
Colorado

It's not the state's problem, it's the voters living in the state that elect idiots.

That's the problem, we get city people out here that bitch about no sidewalks or streetlights and bring in huge numbers of kds, many not their own but relatives kids that they want to get out of the city and it's gang drug problem. Result, we got a gang drug problem imported courtesy of the city trash that they brought with them and 3 new schools that drove taxes up over 900%.
Same with liberals, they move into a good area, totally socialize it, get disgusted and move out and do it all over somewhere else. They are like a plague of locusts who for some reason don't have the ability, attention span or desire to fix what they screw up. Let me qualify that, liberals are incapable of admitting they screwed up and put blame on whoever is handy.

[Jeepman401]

Same with liberals, they move into a good area, totally socialize it, get disgusted and move out and do it all over somewhere else. They are like a plague of locusts who for some reason don't have the ability, attention span or desire to fix what they screw up. Let me qualify that, liberals are incapable of admitting they screwed up and put blame on whoever is handy.
Some species of locusts have gone extinct, there may be hope

[urban yan]

62,000+ guns disappeared from gunshops in the past 3 years, and that number could be much higher since the ATF inspects less than 20% of gun stores. Oh, and the NRA has no comment on the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html

[RichP]

62,000+ guns disappeared from gunshops in the past 3 years, and that number could be much higher since the ATF inspects less than 20% of gun stores. Oh, and the NRA has no comment on the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html

Those gunshops need stop storing them on boats which are prone to sinking.

[casm]

62,000+ guns disappeared from gunshops in the past 3 years, and that number could be much higher since the ATF inspects less than 20% of gun stores. Oh, and the NRA has no comment on the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html

From the article:

"More than 62,000 firearms have disappeared from the inventories of licensed U.S. gun dealers in the past three years, according to a study to be released Tuesday by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "

Now there's an unbiased and trustworthy source. :rolleyes:

[urban yan]

Now there's an unbiased and trustworthy source. :rolleyes:

I feel the same about this section.

[RichP]

I feel the same about this section.

Gee, wonder how a non government agency gets access to private firearms store records which the ATF only reviews every so many years and reaches this conclusion.

[Jeepman401]

62,000+ guns disappeared from gunshops in the past 3 years, and that number could be much higher since the ATF inspects less than 20% of gun stores. Oh, and the NRA has no comment on the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html
Next time get your information from a reliable source like wikipedia. This article is coming from the same lobbyists that completely made up statistics last year about guns going to mexico illegally, I believe the actual stat was multiplied by 100
Lets run some numbers
An estimated 10,500 compliance inspections were done last year. The agency revokes about 110 licenses a year
that's just slightly over 1% of gun shops with issues, assuming your information is credible.
Now take into account that at least half of those compliance infractions probably have nothing to do with missing firearms.
Now lets assume that every one of that 1% is guilty. That's a hell of a lot better than most crime rates.
Not saying its a good thing, but if these people are already breaking the law, whats a new law going to do?
The Brady Center thinks
Now the author of the article is outright Lying
Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, did not return calls seeking comment.
The NRA typically does not return calls to groups that do nothing but twist their words around and use them against the 2nd amendment.
"Part of the problem is that ATF has been treated as the illegitimate stepchild. They don't have the funding, they don't have the staffing."
Outright lie

Good bye urban, see you in a week when you find some other ridiculous point to bring up.

[urban yan]

Next time get your information from a reliable source like wikipedia.
LOL, OMG!!!

[Jeepman401]

its more likely to have actual facts than the brady campaign

[urban yan]

It seems you want me to substitute one form of skewed data for another.

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?

[XJEEPER]

I feel the same about this section.

I feel the same about a certain Polish/Canadian with an affinity for Socialism, compounded by an acute case of Freedom envy. :patriot:

[XJEEPER]

It seems you want me to substitute one form of skewed data for another.

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?

Are the numbers accurate, are the guns really missing, or the record keeping and accounting process flawed?

Accountability is great, let's first apply it to your statements........GOT PROOF?

Assumptions are not the best basis of opinion........your intentions are to stir up the hornets, no matter how many times you continue to get stung.

[87manche]

It seems you want me to substitute one form of skewed data for another.

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?

Firstly, you got and trusted information from the Brady campaign, an organization that has been caught in many a lie regarding their statistics.
If you want to hold someone accountable why don't you write them, and tell them to be accountable for all of the misleading "facts" they have put out over the last 10 years?

Funny how they always come up with these numbers, and it causes a big media sensation, then a year later it comes out that the numbers were radically skewed, they issue a short PR apology that no one picks up or mentions on the news and then they do it again.

You seem to not grasp the basic problem with gun control. Criminals will always get weapons, that's the nature of a criminal, they break the law.

Dis-arming the populace simply makes it easier for the stronger, more predatory people of a society to abuse the weaker, more civil members.
If you can't understand that simple fact, then stay in Canada, I don't need any more left wing morons trying to take away my means of defending myself.

[kastein]

If you don't like guns, don't buy em. Please put up GUN FREE ZONE signs so burglars target your house over mine.

[Jeepman401]

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?
62000 firearms in the hands of criminals is a big issue, too bad its a made up number. Just because a gun gets listed as "unaccounted for" doesn't mean its in the hands of a criminal. most of those are simple paperwork mistakes
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml
You would think these anti gun groups would at least agree on numbers. Show me data from the ATF and I might take you seriously.

A bit of a side note, I found this humorous
http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2008/09/17/atf-cant-account-for-418-laptops-76-guns/
Looks like the ATF isn't too great at keeping track of guns either.

[kastein]

Even if all of them are in the hands of criminals, I would rather every sane law abiding adult in this country was armed along with the criminals and insane people than have every sane law abiding adult be disarmed and illegal guns still sold to every criminal and crackpot that actually feels like getting one.

[urban yan]

If you don't like guns, don't buy em. Please put up GUN FREE ZONE signs so burglars target your house over mine.

I lost track the amount of times I left the doors to my home open, or my jeep running, unlocked in my driveway. Just last week Purolator left a 42 TV on my front stairs, and it was still there when I got home several hours later.I don't live in a terrible neighborhood, but it's not a great one either. I'm not against guns, and I understand people feel the need to protect themselves. Personally, I like guns, but I don't feel afraid without them.

Everything I've been saying throughout this whole damn thread is that accountability's important. I'm sorry, if my comment was somehow misinterpreted as an attack on your way of life.

[casm]

Everything I've been saying throughout this whole damn thread is that accountability's important.

Yes, accountability is important. However, it only works correctly if the figures being used are accurate to begin with. Given that the Brady Campaign has a long history of fabricating facts and figures to suit their point of view, the numbers quoted in the article cannot be taken as being in any way representative of the scope of the issue as the primary source for them is historically-unreliable.

I'm sorry, if my comment was somehow misinterpreted as an attack on your way of life.

I don't take your comments as an attack on my way of life; your inability to vote in the elections that would make such an attack a possibility means that I have little to worry about in that regard. But, and I say this in all seriousness: the way you're presenting your arguments comes across as somewhere mid-way between poorly-researched opinion and low-end trolling. If the intended result is actually to play Devil's Advocate, you're really not doing a terribly effective job of it because it's simply not possible to take what you're saying seriously.

[urban yan]

I don't take your comments as an attack on my way of life; your inability to vote in the elections that would make such an attack a possibility means that I have little to worry about in that regard. But, and I say this in all seriousness: the way you're presenting your arguments comes across as somewhere mid-way between poorly-researched opinion and low-end trolling. If the intended result is actually to play Devil's Advocate, you're really not doing a terribly effective job of it because it's simply not possible to take what you're saying seriously.

I simply quoted what I saw on CNN followed by a googled cross-reference that led me to the Washington Post piece. I also accepted the fact that the Brady Campaign is biased, and that its numbers are bloated. What more would you like? Should I source my info from FOX or MSBC instead?

Look, as much as I appreciate your subtle attempts to mock my opinions as being "poorly-researched", I'd like to remind you my data came from American media, so please.... don't kill the messenger.

[casm]

I simply quoted what I saw on CNN followed by a googled cross-reference that led me to the Washington Post piece. I also accepted the fact that the Brady Campaign is biased, and that its numbers are bloated. What more would you like? Should I source my info from FOX or MSBC instead?

What I'm not understanding is why you would initially present figures from a source that you subsequently acknowledge as biased and known for inflating its numbers. To me, that seems like a poor approach to the debate as all it does is invite immediate scrutiny of those numbers - which is pretty much exactly what happened, and, given the subject involved, utterly predictable.

Look, as much as I appreciate your subtle attempts to mock my opinions as being "poorly-researched", I'd like to remind you my data came from American media, so please.... don't kill the messenger.

Dude, this was in no way an attempt to mock you or your opinions - nor were any of my other replies. Clearly I've extended courtesy in error.

[urban yan]

What I'm not understanding is why you would initially present figures from a source that you subsequently acknowledge as biased and known for inflating its numbers. To me, that seems like a poor approach to the debate as all it does is invite immediate scrutiny of those numbers - which is pretty much exactly what happened, and, given the subject involved, utterly predictable.

I'm willing to amend my comments in light of new info presented in this thread. I knew the NRA had lobbyists; I didn't know the Brady Campaign was similar. I realize , now, that the truth must be somewhere in-between. Lesson learned.

[Crawler]

I guess we all knew it was coming...


White House to Push Gun Control
Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president’s highest-profile speech of the year. “President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence—which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings. Asked about a specialized White House effort on guns, a spokesman for the powerful gun lobby declined to comment.

Newsweek 1/27/11
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

[XJEEPER]

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice

Urban, I'm curious.....what's your position on Bill C68?


“I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”

Rebecca Peters
President
IANSA
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)


How is IANSA funded?

IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of UK, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute, Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid - UK.


George Soros' Open Society is a huge supporter on IANSA......no surprise that the guy who is focused on collapsing capitalism is also funding the effort to restrict US citizens ability to defend themselves.

Socialism and Freedom cannot co-exist.

[XJEEPER]

1/28/11 SALT LAKE CITY -- After a heated debate, the Browning M1911 handgun is one step closer to becoming Utah's official firearm.

The handgun was designed for the military by Ogden native John Moses Browning for World War I and served as the military's standard-issue sidearm into the 1980s.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, sponsored House Bill 219, which was passed by the House today on a vote of 51-19. It now goes to the Senate for consideration. If passed and signed into law, Utah would be the first state with a designated official firearm.

[Jeepman401]

I'm willing to amend my comments in light of new info presented in this thread. I knew the NRA had lobbyists; I didn't know the Brady Campaign was similar. I realize , now, that the truth must be somewhere in-between. Lesson learned.
The NRA has lobbyists, the brady campaign are lobbyists. Please dont call them similar, thats the closest they come.

[urban yan]

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice

Urban, I'm curious.....what's your position on Bill C68? .
What do you mean xjeeper. How do I feel about your 17 year old quote, or how do I feel about Canada's lower firearm murder rates per capita? Sheesh, and you wonder why I don't trust anything you say.


George Soros' Open Society is a huge supporter on IANSA......no surprise that the guy who is focused on collapsing capitalism is also funding the effort to restrict US citizens ability to defend themselves.
Yeah, I saw Glenn Beck's puppet show too.


Socialism and Freedom cannot co-exist
Communism and Freedom cannot co-exist. 'Socialism' is a blanket term people like you use to scare the shit out of folks that don't know the difference.

[kastein]

What do you mean xjeeper. How do I feel about your 17 year old quote, or how do I feel about Canada's lower firearm murder rates per capita?

I blame the fact that they hit the ground before they go far enough to get from one canadian to another

[casm]

I guess we all knew it was coming...

No surprise there. However, my suspicion is that this basically the administration trying to be seen doing something about 'the problem', and it will ultimately go nowhere.

They know that there really isn't much of a climate in favour of gun control right now, and are further hampered by having lost control of the House. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect a representative or two to try to sneak something in on the back of something else - but it's a dead-end issue.

Note that this is not to dismiss their efforts in this regard - underestimating your adversary is always a mistake - but rather that all it will ultimately serve to do is divert attention away from the other issues they've failed to effectively address during their term of office.

[Ralph]

What bearing do reports of home owners organizing to combat looters in their neighborhoods in Cairo arming themselves with kitchen knives and sticks have on this conversation?

[Ralph]

I'm surprised that Urban Yan hasn't said anything. I guess he recognizes that if he was in those people's position and had to protect his home and family with no police protection that he would rather be armed with something more than sticks and kitchen knives.

[iwannadie]

I guess we need to have background checks for firearm replicas (http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_17237987) next.

[Ralph]

I guess we need to have background checks for firearm replicas (http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_17237987) next.

He should get a Darwin award for that stunt.

[87manche]

Everyone in this thread should google Peter Luty, and see his story. You'll never stop firearms production, the basic principles are out there and easily understood. The Chinese let the cat out of the bag a few thousand years ago when they made hand cannons from bamboo.

That's why all of this money and effort expended on gun control is pointless. If you ban guns, and even forcefully take them, we can still make them with basic things like pipe, sheetmetal, and hand tools.

[XJEEPER]

What do you mean xjeeper. How do I feel about your 17 year old quote, or how do I feel about Canada's lower firearm murder rates per capita? Sheesh, and you wonder why I don't trust anything you say.

Sorry that you fail to see the relevance of the "17yr old quote" from Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice. Since you brought it up, lets also compare US vs Canadian crime rate data that should help you connect the dots:

Total Crime Rate/100,000 people

US: 3465 per 100,000
Canada: 6406 per 100,000

Violent Crime rate:

US: 429 per 100,000
Canada: 1314 per 100,000

2009 crime stats (change from 2008)

USA
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Murders -7.3%
Robberies - 8%
Aggravated Assault - 4.2%

vs

Canada
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...0720a1-eng.htm
Murders -1%
Robberies -2%
Aggravated Assault -1%

The crime rate has been dropping in both countries since 1991, but it has dropped 30% more in the USA. Since 1991, Canada has increased restrictions, while the US has decreased them.

More on Canadian Gun Control history 1995 to date:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html

Socialist Gun Control agendas are all about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens and restricting their ability to exercise their God-given Rights to "successfully" defend themselves.


Yeah, I saw Glenn Beck's puppet show too. You think I rely on GB as my sole source of reference material on George Soros........bwaahahaha! I've clearly over-estimated your IQ!!


Communism and Freedom cannot co-exist.

Agreed

'Socialism' is a blanket term people like you use to scare the shit out of folks that don't know the difference.

People like me.....you mean, US Citizens who recognize how the Progressive Socialist movement within their county continues to undermine their Constitutional Freedoms and Values?

You mean, people like me who understand Marxist theory, that
Socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to Communism?

I don't posses firearms and the skills to use them to defend myself and my family because I'm afraid. Fear is a by-product of ignorance.

Knowledge is power.

[iwannadie]

Everyone in this thread should google Peter Luty, and see his story. You'll never stop firearms production, the basic principles are out there and easily understood. The Chinese let the cat out of the bag a few thousand years ago when they made hand cannons from bamboo.

That's why all of this money and effort expended on gun control is pointless. If you ban guns, and even forcefully take them, we can still make them with basic things like pipe, sheetmetal, and hand tools.

Well clearly once all the firearms are removed anyone who did an internet search on the topic would be arrested(internet policing and gun control all rolled into one). Anyone caught reading a book on firearms would be obviously a terrorist and arrested or the books destroyed to prevent that in the first place. Don't get caught talking about firearms to your friends cause they can turn you in for a reward. Hopefully anyone thinking about a firearm would be arrested to. Then, all gun crimes would go away and only the government would have weapons, win-win.

[Ralph]

Well clearly once all the firearms are removed anyone who did an internet search on the topic would be arrested(internet policing and gun control all rolled into one). Anyone caught reading a book on firearms would be obviously a terrorist and arrested or the books destroyed to prevent that in the first place. Don't get caught talking about firearms to your friends cause they can turn you in for a reward. Hopefully anyone thinking about a firearm would be arrested to. Then, all gun crimes would go away and only the government would have weapons, win-win.

I think he's on to something here.

[87manche]

Well clearly once all the firearms are removed anyone who did an internet search on the topic would be arrested(internet policing and gun control all rolled into one). Anyone caught reading a book on firearms would be obviously a terrorist and arrested or the books destroyed to prevent that in the first place. Don't get caught talking about firearms to your friends cause they can turn you in for a reward. Hopefully anyone thinking about a firearm would be arrested to. Then, all gun crimes would go away and only the government would have weapons, win-win.

I think he's on to something here.

that's what got Luty arrested the second time. Apparently his book was helping terrorists. Because they need to build home made weapons, not just use the piles of AK's they have.

[Darky]

I blame the fact that they hit the ground before they go far enough to get from one canadian to another
:roflmao:

Don't know why people continue trying to debate with urban yan...he's not interested in an actual discussion.

[Crawler]

Yeah, I saw Glenn Beck's puppet show too.


You think I rely on GB as my sole source of reference material on George Soros........bwaahahaha! I've clearly over-estimated your IQ!!



And anyone who has really investigated Beck would know how he insists that his audience not take his word for anything and do their own research.

[Jeepman401]

:roflmao:

Don't know why people continue trying to debate with urban yan...he's not interested in an actual discussion.
I find it entertaining. in 3 or 4 more days he will post something ridiculous, support it without reason, call everyone else ignorant, and disappear for a week to find another article. I figure by debating him, I do my part to keep him inside his house, because I wouldn't want him to go out with all of us evil gun owners :roflmao:

[urban yan]

Sorry that you fail to see the relevance of the "17yr old quote" from Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice. Since you brought it up, lets also compare US vs Canadian crime rate data that should help you connect the dots:

Total Crime Rate/100,000 people

US: 3465 per 100,000
Canada: 6406 per 100,000

Violent Crime rate:

US: 429 per 100,000
Canada: 1314 per 100,000

2009 crime stats (change from 2008)

USA
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Murders -7.3%
Robberies - 8%
Aggravated Assault - 4.2%

vs

Canada
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...0720a1-eng.htm
Murders -1%
Robberies -2%
Aggravated Assault -1%

The crime rate has been dropping in both countries since 1991, but it has dropped 30% more in the USA. Since 1991, Canada has increased restrictions, while the US has decreased them.

I'm curious where you got the first set of stats, but considering you have the same dead link as the Den of Zeus blog, I'm guessing it's a direct cut-and-paste. I can see why you used that source; they use a cat as their avatar. Catz r kool.

Here's something you missed: Canada and the United States have their own Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey. There are only eight “index” offences in the American UCR survey compared to over 100 in the Canadian UCR survey. For example, in Canada, violent crimes range from harassing phone calls to homicide. The American category also includes justifiable homicide, which is the killing of a felon by a peace officer or private citizen. Although it is a reported offence, it is not counted as an actual homicide and therefore, it does not appear in the homicide statistics. Even still, Canada's 2009 homicide rate is 1.81 per 100,000 people while in the US it 's 5 per 100,000. Also, overall, Statistics Canada said that the severity of crimes fell by 4 per cent last year and was 22 per cent lower than in 1999.

How do those stats correlate to our gun control specifically - I don't know. Am I using those stats to further an agenda that confiscates guns from law abiding citizens? - no!! Will I have to repeat myself - Most likely.




More on Canadian Gun Control history 1995 to date:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html
Socialist Gun Control agendas are all about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens and restricting their ability to exercise their God-given Rights to "successfully" defend themselves.
Bill C68's a work in progress; its bloated budget's being streamlined, and certain aspects are being amended to aid the process. I fail to see your point (as per usual). I never, once, said America should or could adopt Canada's Gun Registery. I do know our police considers the Gun Registery a valuable tool, and that's good enough for me.

Oh, and please stop using guns and god in the same sentence; that's twisted... even for you. I don't recall Jesus unloading a tommy-gun on the Romans when they came for him after the last supper... although I guess it wouldn't be his last supper if he did.




You think I rely on GB as my sole source of reference material on George Soros........bwaahahaha! I've clearly over-estimated your IQ!!
Hmmmm.... now that you mention it, my intelligence quotient does seem to drop everytime we engage in conversation... it's almost like something's dragging me down to their level and beating me with experience.




People like me.....you mean, US Citizens who recognize how the Progressive Socialist movement within their county continues to undermine their Constitutional Freedoms and Values?
You mean, people like me who understand Marxist theory, that Socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to Communism?
I consider people like you fanatics. You skew data in your favor with an implied, dire imminence that scares people until logic eludes them. If I were to revisit your posts 5 or 10 years from now, I doubt thar I would see more people wearing black overalls and ushankas, driving hovercrafts, or eating borscht off McComrades lunch menu, yet you make it sound like it's happening tomorrow. You're less a crusader for freedom, and more like Henny Penny.




I don't posses firearms and the skills to use them to defend myself and my family because I'm afraid. Fear is a by-product of ignorance.
So why did U.S. gun sales spike nationally after Arizona mass shooting? 60% sale jump in Arizona, 66% in Ohio, 38% in Illinois, 33% in New York. Were those purchases based on pure logic or motivated by fear?




Don't know why people continue trying to debate with urban yan...he's not interested in an actual discussion.
I'm not interested in being a yes-man.



What bearing do reports of home owners organizing to combat looters in their neighborhoods in Cairo arming themselves with kitchen knives and sticks have on this conversation?
Damn if I know. Maybe it mean's people can and rather get-by without corrupt cops.



I find it entertaining. in 3 or 4 more days he will post something ridiculous, support it without reason, call everyone else ignorant, and disappear for a week to find another article. I figure by debating him, I do my part to keep him inside his house, because I wouldn't want him to go out with all of us evil gun owners :roflmao:
I don't post here everyday because I don't obsess about this section, and I'm busy with work. Also, this place is a real sausage fest, and I'm not interested reading about your latest exploit of reach-around with xjeeper and friends. There, I hope that last insult was inline with your expectations. Admittedly, I could do better, but I hate watching small children cry.

[kastein]

Phil Luty FTW.


google it.yep. I'd be building something far cruder if I needed it right then, but still functional.

Hell, you'll have to outlaw PVC sewer pipe as well if you want to keep me unarmed. I've built some potato cannons so powerful I'd much rather face a small pistol than them.

Even still, Canada's 2009 homicide rate is 1.81 per 100,000 people while in the US it 's 5 per 100,000.Have you seen some of the people we have in this country? I doubt you'll disagree that we have more people that need killing here than you do in Canada.

it's almost like something's dragging me down to their level and beating me with experience.I have snarky comment to make concerning you being beaten with experience but I can't quite come up with the right wording.

So why did U.S. gun sales spike nationally after Arizona mass shooting? 60% sale jump in Arizona, 66% in Ohio, 38% in Illinois, 33% in New York. Were those purchases based on pure logic or motivated by fear?
my bet is a combination of the two... if I was properly licensed at the moment and had the money to (I am short on both money and time right now), I'd be buying. This kind of event can only result in more regulation and the most logical choice is to buy before the legislation makes it harder to do so.

[XJEEPER]

I'm curious where you got the first set of stats, but considering you have the same dead link as the Den of Zeus blog, I'm guessing it's a direct cut-and-paste. I can see why you used that source; they use a cat as their avatar. Catz r kool.

Here's something you missed: Canada and the United States have their own Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey. There are only eight “index” offences in the American UCR survey compared to over 100 in the Canadian UCR survey. For example, in Canada, violent crimes range from harassing phone calls to homicide. The American category also includes justifiable homicide, which is the killing of a felon by a peace officer or private citizen. Although it is a reported offence, it is not counted as an actual homicide and therefore, it does not appear in the homicide statistics. Even still, Canada's 2009 homicide rate is 1.81 per 100,000 people while in the US it 's 5 per 100,000. Also, overall, Statistics Canada said that the severity of crimes fell by 4 per cent last year and was 22 per cent lower than in 1999.

How do those stats correlate to our gun control specifically - I don't know. Am I using those stats to further an agenda that confiscates guns from law abiding citizens? - no!! Will I have to repeat myself - Most likely.




Bill C68's a work in progress; its bloated budget's being streamlined, and certain aspects are being amended to aid the process. I fail to see your point (as per usual). I never, once, said America should or could adopt Canada's Gun Registery. I do know our police considers the Gun Registery a valuable tool, and that's good enough for me.

Oh, and please stop using guns and god in the same sentence; that's twisted... even for you. I don't recall Jesus unloading a tommy-gun on the Romans when they came for him after the last supper... although I guess it wouldn't be his last supper if he did.




Hmmmm.... now that you mention it, my intelligence quotient does seem to drop everytime we engage in conversation... it's almost like something's dragging me down to their level and beating me with experience.




I consider people like you fanatics. You skew data in your favor with an implied, dire imminence that scares people until logic eludes them. If I were to revisit your posts 5 or 10 years from now, I doubt thar I would see more people wearing black overalls and ushankas, driving hovercrafts, or eating borscht off McComrades lunch menu, yet you make it sound like it's happening tomorrow. You're less a crusader for freedom, and more like Henny Penny.




So why did U.S. gun sales spike nationally after Arizona mass shooting? 60% sale jump in Arizona, 66% in Ohio, 38% in Illinois, 33% in New York. Were those purchases based on pure logic or motivated by fear?




I'm not interested in being a yes-man.




Damn if I know. Maybe it mean's people can and rather get-by without corrupt cops.




I don't post here everyday because I don't obsess about this section, and I'm busy with work. Also, this place is a real sausage fest, and I'm not interested reading about your latest exploit of reach-around with xjeeper and friends. There, I hope that last insult was inline with your expectations. Admittedly, I could do better, but I hate watching small children cry.

Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues.

[XJEEPER]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html

“When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff,” Wolff said.
Arizona gun dealers say that among the biggest sellers in the past few days is the Glock 19 made by privately held Glock GmbH, based in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria (http://topics.bloomberg.com/austria/), the model used in the shootings.
Sales Jump
One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.bloomberg.com/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) data.
Handgun sales rose 65 percent to 395 in Ohio (http://topics.bloomberg.com/ohio/); 16 percent to 672 in California (http://topics.bloomberg.com/california/); 38 percent to 348 in Illinois (http://topics.bloomberg.com/illinois/); and 33 percent to 206 in New York (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/), the FBI data show. Sales increased nationally about 5 percent, to 7,906 guns.

[XJEEPER]

I'm curious where you got the first set of stats, but considering you have the same dead link as the Den of Zeus blog.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html

The comparison was back to 1991, not 1999, relevant to gun control legislation in both countries in that timeframe. It's not that hard to follow.

[Jeepman401]

How do those stats correlate to our gun control specifically - I don't know. Am I using those stats to further an agenda that confiscates guns from law abiding citizens? - no!! Will I have to repeat myself - Most likely.
So what exactly is your ideal situation?


Bill C68's a work in progress; its bloated budget's being streamlined, and certain aspects are being amended to aid the process. I fail to see your point (as per usual). I never, once, said America should or could adopt Canada's Gun Registery. I do know our police considers the Gun Registery a valuable tool, and that's good enough for me.
Got any examples of how the police use the gun registry? its sole purpose is to have a list of guns out there, and the only reason to have that is so you can go out and collect them



Hmmmm.... now that you mention it, my intelligence quotient does seem to drop everytime we engage in conversation... it's almost like something's dragging me down to their level and beating me with experience.
Don't worry, your intelligence level has stayed at the same level the whole time



I consider people like you fanatics. You skew data in your favor with an implied, dire imminence that scares people until logic eludes them.
Write that while looking in a mirror? Your the one who has been posting bad numbers



So why did U.S. gun sales spike nationally after Arizona mass shooting? 60% sale jump in Arizona, 66% in Ohio, 38% in Illinois, 33% in New York. Were those purchases based on pure logic or motivated by fear?
Some can be attributed to fear, but more so to the fear that the gun control fanatics will use the shooting to push for gun control.
Let me put it in a form you can understand, if the canadian government were to talk about banning something you enjoy, wouldn't you try and get as much as you could before it was no longer available?

Nationwide sales rose 5% over last year. do the math its about 400 guns. Ever stop to think there could be other reasons for the raise? The economy is better than it was a year ago, people have more money to spend, so its logical that sales are going to go up because of that.
To break it down by state
Arizona- 65%= about 150 more guns. I will admit many may have been driven from fear. However there are a little over 125 gun shops in AZ, so each shop sold 3 guns instead of 2. Clearly everyone is rushing out to buy a gun to hide behind.

I don't post here everyday because I don't obsess about this section, and I'm busy with work. Also, this place is a real sausage fest, and I'm not interested reading about your latest exploit of reach-around with xjeeper and friends. There, I hope that last insult was inline with your expectations. Admittedly, I could do better, but I hate watching small children cry.
Most of my posts are in response to garbage you drag in here. I welcome you to bring in credible information for us to debate, but when you bring in crap, then insult us when we disagree with you, expect the same in return.
Try answering some questions asked of you for a change, leave out the insults. and see where it gets you.

[urban yan]

Have you seen some of the people we have in this country? I doubt you'll disagree that we have more people that need killing here than you do in Canada.
Hah, you should see some of the kids in my neighborhood. I'm not saying they should be shot, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to stuffing them in a burlap sack, and leaving them on the doorstep of a dog-food rendering plant.



Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues.
You dodge the core of all social issues simply by stating they'll lead to communism. Next time I suggest you take the plank out of your eye before you try to remove the splinter from mine.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html
“When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff,” Wolff said.
Arizona gun dealers say that among the biggest sellers in the past few days is the Glock 19 made by privately held Glock GmbH, based in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria (http://topics.bloomberg.com/austria/), the model used in the shootings.
Sales Jump
One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.bloomberg.com/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) data.
Handgun sales rose 65 percent to 395 in Ohio (http://topics.bloomberg.com/ohio/); 16 percent to 672 in California (http://topics.bloomberg.com/california/); 38 percent to 348 in Illinois (http://topics.bloomberg.com/illinois/); and 33 percent to 206 in New York (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/), the FBI data show. Sales increased nationally about 5 percent, to 7,906 guns.

Those sound like fear-based purchases to me.
It's irrational to think the American government will ban guns, and the odds of running into another gun-totting psycho in a public place seems statistically disproportionate.

Anyways, I do recall mentioning something about accountability. Maybe someone could start here.
http://theweek.com/article/index/211649/michael-bloombergs-undercover-gun-show-sting



So what exactly is your ideal situation?
Ignoring the rest of your post seems like a good start.

[Crawler]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9051/trollsbrainandmemoryfd0.gif

[urban yan]

I hope that brain's not to scale.
If so, might I suggest you incorporate some fish into your diet.

[Crawler]

I hope that brain's not to scale...


Actually, it's a little larger than your gov healthcare records showed... I was trying to be nice.

[Jeepman401]

Ignoring the rest of your post seems like a good start.
Proving my point are you?


Those sound like fear-based purchases to me.
It's irrational to think the American government will ban guns, and the odds of running into another gun-totting psycho in a public place seems statistically disproportionate.
Clearly you didn't read my last post at all.

and the odds of running into another gun-totting psycho in a public place seems statistically disproportionate.
Do you drive around without a spare tire? you don't get a flat every day, so why bother

Anyways, I do recall mentioning something about accountability. Maybe someone could start here.
http://theweek.com/article/index/211649/michael-bloombergs-undercover-gun-show-sting
There are criminals everywhere, its a problem, but you dont have the solution.
But bloomberg has a history of pulling stunts to further his anti gun agenda. I wouldn't put it past him to have staged the video. Notice there is a gap shortly after the cop says he probably couldn't pass a background check. there could well be more to the video. Not saying 100% this was a fake, but until I see some followup, I wont take it as truth either

[urban yan]

Actually, it's a little larger than your gov healthcare records showed... I was trying to be nice.
I wasn't.

[Crawler]

I wasn't.

You can't...

[XJEEPER]

It's irrational to think the American government will ban guns, and the odds of running into another gun-totting psycho in a public place seems statistically disproportionate.


Urban, you nailed it......those irrational American government officials are at it again. What you call "fear-based'' activity seems to have a lot of logic and facts associated with them.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47565.html
The fiercest gun-control advocate in Congress released the text of a bill she plans to introduce next week that would outlaw high-capacity magazines.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) bill also goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/02/robert-farago/mccarthy-and-reid-slip-high-cap-mag-ban-into-faa-funding-bill/

Looks like all my 15rd mags that I've owned for 20yrs are at risk of becoming illegal.

[urban yan]

Just to play devil's advocate -- if you need an assault rifle to protect your home than might I suggest you're living in the wrong neighborhood. Alternatively, if you need a high capacity magazine to take down a deer than maybe there's something seriously wrong with your aim.

[Milford Cubicle II]

NO neighborhood is immune from danger genius. Having an assault rifle or other means of protecting your property and family is called cheap insurance, considering the price of you or your family's life.

If you don't want to take steps to be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones then don't. But I don't condone getting in the way of those who do.

I would hate to have to depend on you if I was your child or spouse.

[Ralph]

The entire point to the right to bear arms has to do with the right to self protection. Every creature, from rabbits to elephants, will defend themselves if threatened. Humans are no different. This is what is called a natural law. In this age the threats to one's safety are such that one must have the means to defend themselves or the law is meaningless. We cannot depend on the state to take care of us. We can only depend on ourselves. We have to depend on ourselves to defend ourselves from criminals and for when there is a breakdown in society. We see this fact on the news today with the breakdown in Egypt. We've seen it in our own country after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It's happened before, it's happening now and it will happen in the future. It can happen anywhere. When it does and you have people coming through your door and you are the one standing between them and your loved ones you will want something in your hands a little more powerful than a baseball bat. And why shouldn't you have it? Is your life or the lives of your loved ones so unimportant that you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourselves?

[urban yan]

NO neighborhood is immune from danger genius. Having an assault rifle or other means of protecting your property and family is called cheap insurance, considering the price of you or your family's life.

If you don't want to take steps to be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones then don't. But I don't condone getting in the way of those who do.

I would hate to have to depend on you if I was your child or spouse.

If you like collecting assault rifles, great. If you need an assault rifle to feel safe than you're probably living in a real shithole.... in which case, it might be time to give remax a call.

[Jeepman401]

Why do you assume everyone who owns a gun does it to protect themselves? Competitive shooting is a sport.
I could kill someone very easily with an ice skate. Should hockey be banned?

[urban yan]

Why do you assume everyone who owns a gun does it to protect themselves?
I believe the previous posters implied self-defense; therefore, yes - if you need an assault rifle to feel safe in your neighborhood than you're living in a real shithole. It's time to move somewhere a regular handgun or rifle will suffice.


Competitive shooting is a sport.
What percentage of competitive shooting involves assault rifles opposed to pistols, and where does the NRA draw the line? I guess anything that boosts stagnant gun sales must be welcome. Considering firearms are very durable products, you guys need to find new ways to sell weapons to the public. Why not assault rifles right?


I could kill someone very easily with an ice skate. Should hockey be banned
I'll give you my ice skates when you take them from my cold, dead feet.

[kastein]

I believe the previous posters implied self-defense; therefore, yes - if you need an assault rifle to feel safe in your neighborhood than you're living in a real shithole. It's time to move somewhere a regular handgun or rifle will suffice. most people living in shitholes like that are living there because they can't afford to live anywhere else. The rest are the reason why the place is a shithole, and probably dealing drugs / involved in violent crime.

I'll give you my ice skates when you take them from my cold, dead feet.
You live in Canada and it's winter, they aren't like that already? Hand em over!












































the skates, not the feet. I have no use for your feet.





























... though perhaps then you would admit de-feet

[urban yan]

most people living in shitholes like that are living there because they can't afford to live anywhere else. The rest are the reason why the place is a shithole, and probably dealing drugs / involved in violent crime.
They can always sell their assault rifle for extra loot.



... though perhaps then you would admit de-feet
booooo

[Ralph]

It is already illegal to own an assault rifle without a special license. An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An M16 is. They look similar but they are not the same.

If you agree that a person should be able to have the means to defend themselves why shouldn't they have the most technologically advanced weapon they can afford? Is their life less valuable than a soldier or policeman's life?

[87manche]

It is already illegal to own an assault rifle without a special license. An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An M16 is. They look similar but they are not the same.

If you agree that a person should be able to have the means to defend themselves why shouldn't they have the most technologically advanced weapon they can afford? Is their life less valuable than a soldier or policeman's life?


FIrstly we should get the assault rifle term straightened out.

Assault is an action, not a weapon. It's a rifle.
If I pick up a hammer and assault someone with it, do I now own an assault hammer?

Secondly, why are we even still having a conversation with the canuck?
He lives in Canada, I don't really care what he has to say about our politics or my right to bear arms.

[msrorysddad]

Bravo 87. The main issue with certian individuals, is, they want to use key words for their weak kneed arguements.
Assault rifle, they should ban assault sticks, bricks, and bats.
The main issue is some people truly believe you and I cannot make decisions without some benevolent government making the choices for me. If I gave up the evil looking rifles, then as soon as the government decided I don't need to hunt. Certian individuals would jump on the bandwagon. They are hopeless, and helpless.
It's useless for people to debate the facts with individuals like that. You, to them do not have the right, no not even the mental ability to control something as "evil" as an "assault rifle". It boils down to the simple issue of, do you want the government making all your decisions for you.
3% is all it takes

[old_man]

I guess I have a hard time believing the stupidity of some people. They think that just because there is a law or a ban that the problem will magically go away simply because it is against the law.

It is against the law to murder someone, but they still did it. If it was against the law to own a gun, would they magically abide by that law? The government with all its resources has failed to keep murder from happening, how are they going to keep you from secretly keeping a gun?

[urban yan]

FIrstly we should get the assault rifle term straightened out.

Assault is an action, not a weapon. It's a rifle.
If I pick up a hammer and assault someone with it, do I now own an assault hammer?

Secondly, why are we even still having a conversation with the canuck?
He lives in Canada, I don't really care what he has to say about our politics or my right to bear arms.

Awww! now you hurt my feelings... err....assaulted my feelings.

[Jeepman401]

What percentage of competitive shooting involves assault rifles opposed to pistols, and where does the NRA draw the line? I guess anything that boosts stagnant gun sales must be welcome. Considering firearms are very durable products, you guys need to find new ways to sell weapons to the public. Why not assault rifles right?
For one, assault rifle is a term invented by the anti gun lobbyists to make them sound evil.
Quite a bit of competitive shooting is done with military style rifles. There are entire events for them. Don't forget, your basic bolt action rifle once was the forefront of military technology.
As for people moving to a better neighborhood, You can buy a decent AR-15 for $1200, lets see you move for that. If it makes someone sleep better at night, so be it.
Now as far as using an AR-15 for home defense, it wouldn't be my first choice, but I am 5'11" 275lbs. Take for instance my 5'1" Girlfriend. She wont shoot my .357, its too much for her, same goes for most of my other handguns, and my shotguns. But give her my AR, and she has no problem hitting most anything. Different guns for different scenarios.

[urban yan]

For one, assault rifle is a term invented by the anti gun lobbyists to make them sound evil.
We wouldn't want semantics to offend one of the most powerful lobbyists in US by now would we? God forbid the NRA got butthurt.


Quite a bit of competitive shooting is done with military style rifles. There are entire events for them. Don't forget, your basic bolt action rifle once was the forefront of military technology.
As for people moving to a better neighborhood, You can buy a decent AR-15 for $1200, lets see you move for that. If it makes someone sleep better at night, so be it.
Now as far as using an AR-15 for home defense, it wouldn't be my first choice, but I am 5'11" 275lbs. Take for instance my 5'1" Girlfriend. She wont shoot my .357, its too much for her, same goes for most of my other handguns, and my shotguns. But give her my AR, and she has no problem hitting most anything. Different guns for different scenarios.

Does she have one these fancy Hello Kitty AR-15s?
http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg

[87manche]

We wouldn't want semantics to offend one of the most powerful lobbyists in US by now would we? God forbid the NRA got butthurt.




Does she have one these fancy Hello Kitty AR-15s?
http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg

You just made my point. You consider that an "assault weapon" but according to the DOJ and the state of California it isn't, because it does not have a pistol grip.

So tell me, what functionally about that AR-15 is different than one with a pistol grip?
Same ammo
Same magazine
Same action

But one get's labeled "assault rifle" because it has an "evil" feature.

So there you go, that AR you posted isn't an assault rifle, and you just proved that assault weapons bans/gun control are pointless, because the people writing the legislation don't have a clue about firearms, and a firearm can very easily be changed to comply with the law without compromising it's ultimate function, putting lead downrange.

Edit: And yes, I just got another stock set for my homebuilt AK so I could paint it pink and put strawberry shortcAKe (get it? Capitol AK) on the stock for my wife.

[Ralph]

The "assault rifle" distinction is important because the argument of why civilians need weapons carried by the military is being made. The point is that some of these weapons may resemble military weapons in appearance, but they do not in function. Military weapons, "assault rifles", are not legal for civilian use without a special license.

Websters on-line Dictionary definitions:

Assault rifle

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

* A carbine sized individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
* Capable of selective fire.
* Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
* Ammunition is supplied from a large capacity detachable box magazine.



Assault weapon

The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". In its technical sense, the term Assault weapon refers to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.


Now that the definitions have been cleared up, the argument is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the natural law of self defense. If you agree that a person has the right to defend himself with a firearm, there is no reason why a limit should be put on what kind of firearm he should use.

[87manche]

T
Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]



A side note

I got to finger an original German MP44 the other day. Presented to a friends grandfather by Eisenhower at the end of the war.

Sadly it had been made non-op before presentation, but it was still a way cool piece of history that I never figured I'd ever see in person. It was heavy. Still had all of it's nazi crests intact.

[iwannadie]

Just to play devil's advocate -- if you need an assault rifle to protect your home than might I suggest you're living in the wrong neighborhood. Alternatively, if you need a high capacity magazine to take down a deer than maybe there's something seriously wrong with your aim.

There has been a problem here with native american gangs. The gangs are targeting higher class/retirement communities. They are doing gang initiations making each member rob a house, steal a car and shoot someone in the daylight and then at night. They supposedly show up in large numbers not a single person.

Crime is not isolated to poor areas, criminals tend to want to steal nice things so they go to nice neighborhoods. If 2 or 3 people break into my home with the intent to kill me as part of their initiation I would rather have more ammo than not enough. In a stress situation I am not hoping to get 1 shot kills after all no matter how good of a shot I am with paper. Having 18 rounds in my pistol is not an act of terrorism or anything that should be illegal in my opinion, it is me protecting my family. Having my ar15 with 30 round magazines also boost my confidence. Why should the govt. tell me that I am only allowed 10 rounds to protect my life? Based on what information is less ammo in my gun good for me when my life is in danger? Don't tell me I can have multiple magazines because reloading in a stress situation takes time and could cost my life.

I'm glad in canada you can leave your doors open or have no thought of stuff being stolen if left outside. Canada is nice I've been there but it's not the same here. I've lived in some of the worst crime areas in the country and now live in a rather nice area. I still feel safer having the best means available to defend myself and family. I should not have a limited govt. approved version while criminals have me out armed.

[87manche]

well stated Iwanna

I live in a rural community, it's a nice place, violent crime is almost non existent.

there's still a 12Ga pump shotgun that lives behind my nightstand.

Being prepared /= being paranoid or living in fear.

[XJEEPER]

LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which
I quote:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same
period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and
killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the U.S., than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

[old_man]

LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which
I quote:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same
period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and
killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the U.S., than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.
That is priceless.

[kastein]

much as I would like to agree with you on that one, that has already been proven false... http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gun-deaths-joke.htm

[Jeepman401]

True, but that article isn't 100% correct either. They use the number of troops in Iraq, however the number is larger, as troops rotate through. I don't think it would work out to be less than DC, but the number would be lower.

[Ralph]

The point is that even with restrictive gun control laws, criminals still murder people.

[urban yan]

There has been a problem here with native american gangs. The gangs are targeting higher class/retirement communities. They are doing gang initiations making each member rob a house, steal a car and shoot someone in the daylight and then at night. They supposedly show up in large numbers not a single person.

Crime is not isolated to poor areas, criminals tend to want to steal nice things so they go to nice neighborhoods. If 2 or 3 people break into my home with the intent to kill me as part of their initiation I would rather have more ammo than not enough. In a stress situation I am not hoping to get 1 shot kills after all no matter how good of a shot I am with paper. Having 18 rounds in my pistol is not an act of terrorism or anything that should be illegal in my opinion, it is me protecting my family. Having my ar15 with 30 round magazines also boost my confidence. Why should the govt. tell me that I am only allowed 10 rounds to protect my life? Based on what information is less ammo in my gun good for me when my life is in danger? Don't tell me I can have multiple magazines because reloading in a stress situation takes time and could cost my life.

I'm glad in canada you can leave your doors open or have no thought of stuff being stolen if left outside. Canada is nice I've been there but it's not the same here. I've lived in some of the worst crime areas in the country and now live in a rather nice area. I still feel safer having the best means available to defend myself and family. I should not have a limited govt. approved version while criminals have me out armed.

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

[Ralph]

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

Disarming the honest folks is not the solution. We would be better served by trying to eliminate the cause of so much crime. I'm talking about the drug trade. By decriminalizing or legalizing drugs you cut a huge source of crime off at the knees. It is also obvious from the drug trade that prohibitions do not work. A prohibition on firearms would be no different.

[XJEEPER]

Disarming the honest folks is not the solution. We would be better served by trying to eliminate the cause of so much crime. I'm talking about the drug trade. By decriminalizing or legalizing drugs you cut a huge source of crime off at the knees. It is also obvious from the drug trade that prohibitions do not work. A prohibition on firearms would be no different.

Got any historical proof that legalizing drugs will lead to a "huge" reduction in gun related violent crimes? :dunno:

[kastein]

Got any historical proof that legalizing drugs will lead to a "huge" reduction in gun related violent crimes? :dunno:
Take a good look at Prohibition for a solid example.

All banning alcohol got us was the Kennedys, the birth of organized crime in America, and an awful lot of gang shootouts.

All the drug war is getting us is the Mexican mafia, strengthened street gangs and Italian mafia, and a lot more gun crime, as well as destroying patches of national forestland where the criminals (many of them illegals as well) grow the drugs on our own soil.

Legalize drugs, legalize guns... and hold those who abuse them responsible for their actions.

I should note that I have no interest in drugs, even legally prescribed ones (I hate painkillers, didn't even take them when I was given a massive prescription for oxycodone/oxycontin after my wisdom tooth removal), and will continue to not do drugs even if they are legalized. That doesn't change my belief that making drugs illegal is a terrible decision and doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.

[XJEEPER]

And the USA would be much better off if folks could buy pot, coke, crack, heroin and meth at the local 7-11......legally?

NO SALE.

[kastein]

I'm still on the fence about the hard drugs, to be honest, so I won't argue your point there.

As for pot, some of the smartest most balanced individuals I know smoke it. Some of the dumbest, most exasperating idiots I know also smoke it. They were all smart (or dumb) before they started, too.

Either way, no number of laws is going to keep someone from doing drugs if they intend to. The only difference is who gets the money and how well it's controlled, hell, legalize it and tax the crap out of it for all I care.

[iwannadie]

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

I don't see it as an arms race. I think criminals will always have guns there's no changing that so it's not a race. There will never be a time when honest people have better guns or more capable guns. Any gun I can get there will be someone who wants to break the law and have it too. It's not a situation of gun crimes just means more guns to solve it.

It's a case of allowing people to defend themselves against violent crimes be it guns, knives, bats or whatever else. Allow the normal law abiding citizen the means to best defend themselves plain and simple.

If there is a better option we certainly don't have it as much as people want to believe it exists. We should not make law abiding normal citizens incapable of defending themselves now with the hope that a better solution will come later on. Removing the guns from normal citizens now is doing nothing to help them that much should be clear.

Save the hope of everyone holding hands for the future, I'm worried about my safety today.

/opinions

[iwannadie]

I'm still on the fence about the hard drugs, to be honest, so I won't argue your point there.

As for pot, some of the smartest most balanced individuals I know smoke it. Some of the dumbest, most exasperating idiots I know also smoke it. They were all smart (or dumb) before they started, too.

Either way, no number of laws is going to keep someone from doing drugs if they intend to. The only difference is who gets the money and how well it's controlled, hell, legalize it and tax the crap out of it for all I care.

I'll start off with, I don't smoke marijuana because it is illegal(although I did when I was younger). I do think it should be legal though. It's illegal because it's a cash cow for the govt. Marijuana and alcohol are no different no matter what people want to argue, they are both mind altering drugs. People want to believe that one is some how worse than the other. They each have people who can function just fine using them and people that abuse them. It is also something that no matter how illegal will always exist and have a user base.

If marijuana were made legal a huge number of petty criminals who's only crime is marijuana possession would not be in jail. Police would not be spending resources on stopping it's use. The smuggling from mexico and funding foreign criminals would stop. Violent drug smugglers and dealers would be cut down.

Treat it like alcohol with age limits, even require a license for it, make money off the license, punish the abusers and everyone would be happy.

[87manche]

I don't see it as an arms race. I think criminals will always have guns there's no changing that so it's not a race. There will never be a time when honest people have better guns or more capable guns. Any gun I can get there will be someone who wants to break the law and have it too. It's not a situation of gun crimes just means more guns to solve it.

It's a case of allowing people to defend themselves against violent crimes be it guns, knives, bats or whatever else. Allow the normal law abiding citizen the means to best defend themselves plain and simple.

If there is a better option we certainly don't have it as much as people want to believe it exists. We should not make law abiding normal citizens incapable of defending themselves now with the hope that a better solution will come later on. Removing the guns from normal citizens now is doing nothing to help them that much should be clear.

Save the hope of everyone holding hands for the future, I'm worried about my safety today.

/opinions

"like"

[old_man]

I have to believe there must be another option.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy also?

Nobody has yet come up with a reasonable and workable answer.

[XJEEPER]

Let me get this straight.....legalizing all harmful, addictive, mind-altering, behavior-modifying, brain-damaging substances will reduce crime?

Perfect solution, however our DUI rates would then skyrocket, but we could simply hold the auto manufacturers liable because they built the assault weapons.

While we're at it, let's legalize rape and murder too, this will dramatically reduce our violent crime statistics.

[kastein]

I never said legalize driving under the influence of them.

Want to compare DUI rates with and without prohibition? I'd bet they will be statistically equivalent.

I can't quite figure out how you are logical enough to agree that guns should be legal and those who abuse them are the problem and should be held responsible for their actions, and will continue to own guns whether they are legal or not, but somehow can't understand that making drugs legal and driving while under the influence of them illegal somehow is the same thing. We know prohibition simply does not work, it's been tried and failed on alcohol and they're currently trying it and failing with guns, why are drugs any different?

Also, as long as people on drugs don't harm others, it's simply not your business if they want to do them. The second they cause harm to someone else, they lose those rights. Live and let live, stop trying to legislate the behavior of others unless it causes harm to another. This is my viewpoint on guns, alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, health insurance, and marriage... if people left each other the hell alone and stopped getting in their business we'd get along an awful lot better.

Sadly the Democrats are all about messing with my guns and health insurance, the Republicans are all about getting in my business concerning alcohol, drugs, and marriage... and they both love to get their grubby mitts in my wallet.

[Ralph]

I never said legalize driving under the influence of them.

Want to compare DUI rates with and without prohibition? I'd bet they will be statistically equivalent.

I can't quite figure out how you are logical enough to agree that guns should be legal and those who abuse them are the problem and should be held responsible for their actions, and will continue to own guns whether they are legal or not, but somehow can't understand that making drugs legal and driving while under the influence of them illegal somehow is the same thing. We know prohibition simply does not work, it's been tried and failed on alcohol and they're currently trying it and failing with guns, why are drugs any different?

Also, as long as people on drugs don't harm others, it's simply not your business if they want to do them. The second they cause harm to someone else, they lose those rights. Live and let live, stop trying to legislate the behavior of others unless it causes harm to another. This is my viewpoint on guns, alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, health insurance, and marriage... if people left each other the hell alone and stopped getting in their business we'd get along an awful lot better.

Sadly the Democrats are all about messing with my guns and health insurance, the Republicans are all about getting in my business concerning alcohol, drugs, and marriage... and they both love to get their grubby mitts in my wallet.

Hear, hear.

[XJEEPER]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Our Founders knew that the Constitutional Republic they gave us could not survive corruption and an immoral society. It takes a moral society to live under the tree of liberty and freedom that our Founders protected in our form of government. If our politicians are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. If our Corporations are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. When enough of us make a concerted effort to live our lives with responsibility and in adherence to fundamental moral precepts, we will have the society we crave and our representatives in government will reflect who we are.

[Ralph]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Our Founders knew that the Constitutional Republic they gave us could not survive corruption and an immoral society. It takes a moral society to live under the tree of liberty and freedom that our Founders protected in our form of government. If our politicians are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. If our Corporations are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. When enough of us make a concerted effort to live our lives with responsibility and in adherence to fundamental moral precepts, we will have the society we crave and our representatives in government will reflect who we are.

What's your point?

[kastein]

his point is *thumps bible*.

So where in the constitution does it mention alcohol and drugs as something the government has any right to control? Where does it state the government has any right to control healthcare? Where does it state that marriage is something the government has any right to control? I'm fairly certain most people here already know about the second amendment, so I'm not bothering to ask about that one.

Just curious how you can justify to yourself increased government intrusion into personal affairs when it comes to stuff that's against your belief system, while you get all up in arms about it when the government tries to control guns or healthcare. Once upon a time this was the land of the free, not the land of the people who try to legislate everyone else's behavior to be like theirs.

[XJEEPER]

his point is *thumps bible*

So where in the constitution does it mention alcohol and drugs as something the government has any right to control? Where does it state the government has any right to control healthcare? Where does it state that marriage is something the government has any right to control? I'm fairly certain most people here already know about the second amendment, so I'm not bothering to ask about that one.

Just curious how you can justify to yourself increased government intrusion into personal affairs when it comes to stuff that's against your belief system, while you get all up in arms about it when the government tries to control guns or healthcare. Once upon a time this was the land of the free, not the land of the people who try to legislate everyone else's behavior to be like theirs.

You are proving the point, which is very simple. The US Constitution was created to protect our God-given rights and freedoms, it was created for men to rule themselves in a moral society.

America is an experiment that has never been tried before in the history of the Earth. There is no other county like us.

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.

[kastein]

How do you explain the separation of church and state then?

:rolleyes:

How does what people do in their bedrooms have any bearing on our government?

When does the big black and red text and socialism start?

[Ralph]

You are proving the point, which is very simple. The US Constitution was created to protect our God-given rights and freedoms, it was created for men to rule themselves in a moral society.

America is an experiment that has never been tried before in the history of the Earth. There is no other county like us.

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.

Given that you have to have some kind of moral compass in order to be a good citizen. There will always be people who are weak. Whether drugs or alcohol is legal or not makes no difference. They will use regardless. The difference is in how we as a society deal with those people. Do you try to help them become good citizens or lock them up an ensure that they will never be good citizens. Do you accept that there will always be people that use and work with that issue or do you compound the problem by creating a black market of criminal enterprise that cost billions to fight. A fight that we cannot win as a free society. This fight is costing us our civil liberties. Over the course of time, our liberties are being slowly eroded away in the interest of protecting us from ourselves.

[XJEEPER]

How do you explain the separation of church and state then?

:rolleyes:

How does what people do in their bedrooms have any bearing on our government?

When does the big black and red text and socialism start?

You want to play strawman or go back and and address your previous comments?

This all started from your statements that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. I clearly understand the theory, if there is some historical facts to back this up, I'd love to see it.

DUI is relative to any substance that alters your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. My point was and is, there are those within the US Government who look for any and every opportunity to regulate the activity of ALL US Citizens, based on the choices and actions of a few.

Instead of holding people accountable for their actions, new laws are created which further regulate and restrict individual freedoms (remember the thread topic?) and the government always seems to use these regulations as a way to shave another % from our paychecks.

Tolerance of immoral behavior creates acceptance........individual accountability is key to improve society as a whole. The rising tide lifts all boats.

Oppressive governments and leaders thrive on societal moral decay, promoting it to justify their personal actions for more power and control.

[Jeepman401]

This all started from your statements that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. I clearly understand the theory, if there is some historical facts to back this up, I'd love to see it.
Simple, you stop prosecuting the guy who has a pot plant, and more people will grow their own. That lowers the business of the drug cartels, reducing crime. The violent crime is largely related to the distribution network. Create a legal distribution network, and that crime goes down. You need an example? look at when prohibition was repealed.
DUI is relative to any substance that alters your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. My point was and is, there are those within the US Government who look for any and every opportunity to regulate the activity of ALL US Citizens, based on the choices and actions of a few. ok, what is your position exactly? because now you are arguing for legalization.

Instead of holding people accountable for their actions, new laws are created which further regulate and restrict individual freedoms (remember the thread topic?) and the government always seems to use these regulations as a way to shave another % from our paychecks. because the governments failing war on drugs costs us nothing.

Tolerance of immoral behavior creates acceptance........individual accountability is key to improve society as a whole. The rising tide lifts all boats. I agree, but let it be a moral decision, not a government decision.

Oppressive governments and leaders thrive on societal moral decay, promoting it to justify their personal actions for more power and control. Great point. Tougher laws on drugs creates the need for larger criminal organizations to supply the demand. Larger organizations run into the law more often, usually creating violence. In order to stay on the winning side, criminals arm themselves better, creating even more violence. The growing shooting war gains media attention, and as a result of it all, we end up with the same exact drug use, people dead and injured, and the government gets great excuses to back their anti gun laws. Who wins?



A good article
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031399-503544.html

[urban yan]

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.
That's a rather arrogant comment. Are you implying other countries or faiths have no moral compass? I didn't realize morality was mutually exclusive to American Christians. Based on your comments, it sounds like everyone in Amsterdam's going to hell.


Simple, you stop prosecuting the guy who has a pot plant, and more people will grow their own. That lowers the business of the drug cartels, reducing crime. The violent crime is largely related to the distribution network. Create a legal distribution network, and that crime goes down. You need an example? look at when prohibition was repealed.

I agree.... in fact, it sounds like a step towards a reduction in gun crimes.
Personally, I think soft drugs should be legalized, taxed, and controlled much like lotto tickets, smokes or booze.

[Jeepman401]

From http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/14/high-capacity-ammo-clips-for-guns-save-lives
A good article overall, but this comment was a great one
Force vs. Persuasion, edited for length

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason or force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason because I have a way to negate your employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker.
If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.
It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

[87manche]

T
I agree.... in fact, it sounds like a step towards a reduction in gun crimes.
Personally, I think soft drugs should be legalized, taxed, and controlled much like lotto tickets, smokes or booze.

F me I agree with the liberal Canadian.

I think that alcohol is far more damaging to society that pot would ever be. It's not like you ever see an angry pot head beating his wife and children up, all that guy wants to do is sit on the couch and eat some ho ho's.

I feel that the "war on drugs" is a terrible fleecing of the taxpayers, and is used to funnel our money to third world shithole governments so that we may control them.

[kastein]

I also agree, but apparently legalization would result in rampant immoral behavior and would fly in the face of our country's christian values :rolleyes:

The war on drugs and the war on poverty have one thing in common... we have gotten a lot of drugs and poverty for our money.

[87manche]

I also agree, but apparently legalization would result in rampant immoral behavior and would fly in the face of our country's christian values :rolleyes:

The war on drugs and the war on poverty have one thing in common... we have gotten a lot of drugs and poverty for our money.

Don't forget the bureaucracy, we've gotten a lot of that for our money as well.

[RichP]

Don't forget the bureaucracy, we've gotten a lot of that for our money as well.

Yup, the US Government has been the number one biggest single employer for about 8 months now. They surpassed the india rail company last summer.