# Always a rush after big shootings ...



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Makes me sick.

Madts.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Just sad!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

It happens after every high profile statement by a president. Just think what would happen if guns gain the same status as class 1 drugs ;-(


----------



## BurlyBob (Mar 13, 2012)

Now you know why Obama is considered the best firearms sales man for the last few years. All he has to do is open his mouth and folks go shopping. Proves just how good his gun control efforts truly are. He needs to keep making more speeches on the topic, cuz that's surely going to solve the problem. Sort of makes you proud you voted for him, don't it ?


----------



## majuvla (Jul 20, 2010)

Nothing funny here! You people have a problem which is very easily solved, but unfortunately,only minority of Americans want it. Until than, there will be only dramatic news from you.

P.S. ...and those weapon supporters which say that Switzerland is also armed nation (which is a fact) are fools. 
Sorry guys nothing personal, I'm just sorry for your kids which die in schools.


----------



## a1Jim (Aug 9, 2008)

I teach woodworking off campus for UCC Roseburg Oregon. You never think this kind of thing will happen in your area and when it does, you come to realize there are sick folks that pull these kind of tragedies many places . At this time I think it's more important to focus on supporting the victims and their families rather than on the political end of these problems.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

It is definitely a sad day when this happens. Rights come with responsibilities. For the past 40 years, the trend has been to make excuses for the irresponsible rather than hold them accountable as well as letting mental illness go untreated and forcing them out onto the streets to fend for themselves as best they can.


----------



## littlecope (Oct 23, 2008)

Business is *Booming!*

(couldn't resist)


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

How many people died and injured due to GM faulty switches? Anyone went to jail?
So, the president is about to ban gun ownership though executive order. All the law abiding citizens surrender their guns and become sitting ducks both against the government and criminals.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> How many people died and injured due to GM faulty switches? Anyone went to jail?
> So, the president is about to ban gun ownership though executive order. All the law abiding citizens surrender their guns and become sitting ducks both against the government and criminals.
> 
> - mrjinx007


The tally is unde 200 people… What does that have to do with mass shooting and the fear gun nuts have of having their assault rifles taken away? Oh you're saying the gun companies are responsible for all the people killed with guns! Pretty bold approach, but I like it.

Do you really believe president Obama can ban gun ownership? He can't even force background checks that 90% of all US citizens want.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Now you know why Obama is considered the best firearms sales man for the last few years. All he has to do is open his mouth and folks go shopping. Proves just how good his gun control efforts truly are. He needs to keep making more speeches on the topic, cuz that s surely going to solve the problem. Sort of makes you proud you voted for him, don t it ?
> 
> - BurlyBob


I did vote for him and I'm proud of him. Not many could put up with the crap he gets.

The rush on guns is because even the gun nuts think it will end soon. I mean even they think it is gone too far. But republicans are too well bought for that to change. So the rush is really just hysteria on the nuts side.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> How many people died and injured due to GM faulty switches? Anyone went to jail?
> So, the president is about to ban gun ownership though executive order. All the law abiding citizens surrender their guns and become sitting ducks both against the government and criminals.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Every time I see something about his proposed executive order it says he will require back ground checks by the large retailers. That is federal law now. It should be being enforced without an executive order.

Nobody will ban ownership. About 85% of us, US, support it and know the criminals will run roughshod if they have no citizen deterrents. There are a few procrime factions who believe we should negotiate with home invaders or flee pour abodes and allow crime to continue with impunity, but they are a small minority. Police responding to the scene to take reports for insurance purposes and clear the area for the safety of first aid personnel has not worked and shows no sign the it will improve in the foreseeable future. I don't see much changing until the mental health services of pre-1980 are restored.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob, I totally agree. There is no way to prevent this stuff happening even if the guns weren't there. Boston marathon criminals used a pressure cooker bomb and did far more damage. What are we to do next? Run a background check when you go to refill your BBQ's propane tank? If you are not in a rural area, buying 19 19 19 fertilizer makes you a suspect since Timothy McVeigh used it to blow up the federal building. Certain household cleaning items can be used to hurt people. Should we register people who buy bleach and something else at the same time? 
The gun nuts are those who fear to have one and those who use it to harm innocent people.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Certainly should register house wives that buy bleach and ammonia together. Who know what they are up to?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.

Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don't.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.
> 
> Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don t.
> 
> - RobS888


No, they don't for that purpose. However, there are many uses for firearms. Same reason a golfer doesn't carry just one club.


----------



## mtenterprises (Jan 10, 2011)

> A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.
> 
> Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don t.
> 
> - RobS888


Hmmm, Why do some guys need more than one plane, or, or ,or? They are just tools of a different type.
I suppose you would go out with a knife wrestle the deer to the ground then slit it's throat? Now that would be brave but not efficient.
And remember we've been throwing things at each other for thousands of years and it all started with rocks. Hey, ban guns (ban guns for all including the police and military), we'll start throwing rocks again everything will be even. Oh no it won't my rock is bigger than your rock. Well here we go again the arms race escalation!


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Using an assault rifle to kill a deer is the best way to field dress it - all that remains is the part you can carry home.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

Beyond all the politics

.....Chicago had 390 fire arm deaths in 2014 with most gang related…..how do any laws or executive orders do anything to stop this?

.......60% of firearm related deaths are suicides

Before we start trying to make a bunch of new laws, we need to understand if these laws will make a difference.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

When the tool is for killing, perhaps different rules should apply than just, I want.

G7 Countries with gun laws generally have a small fraction of our murder rate. For good reason, if you are in many countries and want to kill someone you have to get close and very personal and (I think is a concern for gun nuts) you could lose without the gun.

I'm sorry, I see gun possession as a fear reaction based on the owner being unable to handle situations on their own. Zimmerman is an example of that, had to use a gun to get out of a situation his mouth got got him in that he couldn't handle on his own.

92% of the country want background checks, let's start there.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Beyond all the politics
> 
> .....Chicago had 390 fire arm deaths in 2014 with most gang related…..how do any laws or executive orders do anything to stop this?
> 
> ...


It would cut down on the suicide rate at some point.

Why not try some new approaches and gauge the affect instead of talking more and letting thousands more die. Trying is better than nothing.


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

I don't know how much any of you know, but in today's world, (at least in my state), home invasions comprised of 3 or 4 guys are becoming more and more popular. 
Home owners are being beaten/robbed and sometimes killed. 
So, how do I protect my family in the case of a home invasion if I can't own a gun? 
Or should I just take it like a man while my wife and or children are being beaten and raped?
I prefer to keep my guns, thank you.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I don t know how much any of you know, but in today s world, (at least in my state), home invasions comprised of 3 or 4 guys are becoming more and more popular.
> Home owners are being beaten/robbed and sometimes killed.
> So, how do I protect my family in the case of a home invasion if I can t own a gun?
> Or should I just take it like a man while my wife and or children are being beaten and raped?
> ...


How many guns can you use in that situation?


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

Pistol and a shotgun in my bedroom. Pistol in my kitchen, Pistol in my living room. Pistol in my office.

(5)


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Take away all the guns and then take away all the propane tanks and then take away all fertilizers and then take away all household cleaners, and then take away knives, and then take away any Sharpe object and then take away powder elements and then take away everything you can think of and the criminal mind will think about the next think the government will take away and come up with the next thing to take away. How did Ted Kerensky did his bedding? You fools!. Taking away is the agenda. 
The problem I have with "mental illness" is that all it takes for your PCP to say, "you are depressed" because your husband crooked. Or you are in pain and you don't feel "happy". All it takes for your PCP to say you are suffering from some sort of "mental illness" to prevent you from going hunting next year. Do we want to go that route to have people like Rob telling you should we own a gun or be denied one? 
This is my major concern about all candidates saying we need to target "mental illness". They will have no problem hacking away our rights one chip at a time for as long it takes because your PCP said you don't feel good today.


----------



## BurlyBob (Mar 13, 2012)

Rob why don't you tell everyone how many guns you think anyone should be allowed to own. Just so we can gauge you how rational you are and your view of the Constitution and it's history.


----------



## Stewbot (Jun 7, 2015)

I'm a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I'm not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Pistol and a shotgun in my bedroom. Pistol in my kitchen, Pistol in my living room. Pistol in my office.
> 
> (5)
> 
> - woodust


I guess if they wait for you to get them that will work.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Take away all the guns and then take away all the propane tanks and then take away all fertilizers and then take away all household cleaners, and then take away knives, and then take away any Sharpe object and then take away powder elements and then take away everything you can think of and the criminal mind will think about the next think the government will take away and come up with the next thing to take away. How did Ted Kerensky did his bedding? You fools!. Taking away is the agenda.
> The problem I have with "mental illness" is that all it takes for your PCP to say, "you are depressed" because your husband crooked. Or you are in pain and you don t feel "happy". All it takes for your PCP to say you are suffering from some sort of "mental illness" to prevent you from going hunting next year. Do we want to go that route to have people like Rob telling you should we own a gun or be denied one?
> This is my major concern about all candidates saying we need to target "mental illness". They will have no problem hacking away our rights one chip at a time for as long it takes because your PCP said you don t feel good today.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Topic is guns and abuse there of.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot


Yup, well said.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob why don t you tell everyone how many guns you think anyone should be allowed to own. Just so we can gauge you how rational you are and your view of the Constitution and it s history.
> 
> - BurlyBob


I was under the impression I could have an opinion. It seems if mine differs from yours, I'm lacking in knowledge and/or irrational. Not a good start for debate. I'll pass on you judging me.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

You are always being manipulated, some just like who is manipulating them and the way they are manipulated.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/20/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-school-shooting-deaths-down-not-up-across-america.html

So called assault rifles (can you define what one is?) are the big bad but hand guns are used in way more murders than assault rifles. Hammers are used in a surprising number of murders.

Per FBI crime statistics since 1993 gun deaths are down, way down.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> You are always being manipulated, some just like who is manipulating them and the way they are manipulated.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/
> 
> ...


So the Fox story about liberal media not telling us was 5 days after CNN told us? Does that make Fox stupid or liars?

Interesting note about the hammers, all blunt instruments are less than personal weapons (feet, hands, pushing). The 2 together are 1/5th the handgun homicide rate.

All crime is way, way down. There should be less to fear than in the 90s and 80s.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> When the tool is for killing, perhaps different rules should apply than just, I want.
> 
> G7 Countries with gun laws generally have a small fraction of our murder rate. For good reason, if you are in many countries and want to kill someone you have to get close and very personal and (I think is a concern for gun nuts) you could lose without the gun.
> 
> ...


G7 statement depends on how you cherry pick your data. There are many factors causing violent crime. Without America's criminal capitols; Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, et al, the US would be in the bottom few %. Here are a couple links.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=138&v=pELwCqz2JfE

I am thankful that there are places in this country where people feel they do not need to be prepared to handle situations themselves. I would hope that luxury will eventually be extended to us, US, nationwide in the near future. In the meantime, many people deter criminal activity without ever having to use their firearm. Professor Gary Kleck of the U of Florida puts the number of such uses at 760,000 Many refute this number and the data is not reported anywhere as not crime is committed. Nobody ever asked me how I discouraged numerous criminal activities during the 90s and the police very rarely responded. Nor did any of my family members or friends ever get asked. Personal anecdotal evidence would suggest the number should probably be higher if it is incorrect.

We only need enforcement of existing law to achieve background checks for firearms purchases. Individuals may sell an occasional firearm to another individual privately in most states, but doing more than 1 or 2 a year certainly requires a Federal Firearms License and background checks. The biggest issue regarding enforcement is those who support totally banning them need this issue to energize their base to get them to the polls. That was demonstrated by the Clinton Administration in the early 90s. In the Philadelphia Project, federal firearms laws were aggressively enforced out of that Eastern District US Atty's office. It had an impact on crime, but was deemed too expensive to continue or do nationwide.

The preponderance of the evidence shows relaxing prohibition and passing shall issue carry laws are responsible for the reduction in violent crime even though the deterred do not get an accurate statistical input into the data bases.


----------



## BurlyBob (Mar 13, 2012)

If you feel that way Rob that crime is down and firearm ownership is up and growing. Why do we need more gun control. Sounds like the American people are taking advantage of their constitutional rights and protecting them selves. You should be supporting them exercising their rights fully and freely with no government intrusion.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

We obviously still have the old movie western mentality; if you disagree, just shoot!!

I wouldn't be surprised if we, as country, don't have more gun deaths than any five other countries combined!

*This should not be happening in a civilized society.*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

No, it should not be. Looking at world history, there are only 3 conditions of mankind. War, recovery form war and preparation for war ;-(


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If you feel that way Rob that crime is down and firearm ownership is up and growing. Why do we need more gun control. Sounds like the American people are taking advantage of their constitutional rights and protecting them selves. You should be supporting them exercising their rights fully and freely with no government intrusion.
> 
> - BurlyBob


I don't feel that crime is down, the data shows it is, although the perception since 9/11 is that it is up.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-violent-crime-1970s-level-20141110-story.html.

Where did I say ownership is up? I don't know if it up, I do know it is too easy to buy a gun.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> G7 statement depends on how you cherry pick your data. There are many factors causing violent crime. Without America s criminal capitols; Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, et al, the US would be in the bottom few %. Here are a couple links.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see the cherry picking, even your first video states the US murder rate is 3 times the UK rate.

If you selectively remove the US crime capitals, you need to do the same for the UK.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> If you feel that way Rob that crime is down and firearm ownership is up and growing. Why do we need more gun control. Sounds like the American people are taking advantage of their constitutional rights and protecting them selves. You should be supporting them exercising their rights fully and freely with no government intrusion.
> 
> - BurlyBob
> 
> ...


The thing is though that "making it harder" only makes it harder for the people that are law abiding citizens.

Rifle and shotgun ownership may be down or flat, but I believe handgun ownership has gone up sharply because of people fearing that they will be banned. Maryland simply made it much more expensive to buy one in October 2013 so people rushed to the stores to buy whatever they could prior to the law taking effect.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Actually, the murder rate is way up and guns are used in most of them-In Washington DC. Washington gun controls are the tightest in the US and the murder rate is up more than 50% for the year (as of September). Drive by shootings are becoming commonplace.

The police have been placed on notice with policies and lawsuits that has left them as targets and labeled as the problem. They say they are trying to get a handle on it but all the police chief wants to do is ask people to turn in their weapons. I am thinking that the people that are doing the shooting are not going to turn their's in.

If you go into an area that is 90% one race, and start questioning people of that race (unless it is a white area), you are racist, and therefore discriminating against them. It kind of boggles the mind. So, you make the police take a position that they cannot do their job and them you get upset when the people that prey on others start doing just that. They are trying to use this as a reason for stronger gun control but they have already regulated and controlled the legal adults into a position where if they own a weapon, they cannot use it to protect themselves or family in the District and now the police can do nothing.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I don t feel that crime is down, the data shows it is, although the perception since 9/11 is that it is up.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but I assume all guns were purchased legally at some point prior to entering illegal sales.

I don't see anything wrong with rifles or shotguns, but hand guns and semi-automatic rifles with big magazines are made for people killin'.

I recall the rush in late 2008 or early 2009, my coworker couldn't get bullets for his new handgun, so sad.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Actually, the murder rate is way up and guns are used in most of them-In Washington DC. Washington gun controls are the tightest in the US and the murder rate is up more than 50% for the year (as of September). Drive by shootings are becoming commonplace.
> 
> The police have been placed on notice with policies and lawsuits that has left them as targets and labeled as the problem. They say they are trying to get a handle on it but all the police chief wants to do is ask people to turn in their weapons. I am thinking that the people that are doing the shooting are not going to turn their s in.
> 
> ...


Are you saying the murder rate is way up in the country or just DC?

There can be no doubt that guns are used in most murders and handguns by a factor of 10 to 1.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I could be wrong, but I assume all guns were purchased legally at some point prior to entering illegal sales.
> 
> I don t see anything wrong with rifles or shotguns, but hand guns and semi-automatic rifles with big magazines are made for people killin .
> 
> ...


That is an interesting point you make there. I am wondering if a war on handguns would have the same result as the war on drugs because we all know that was a rousing success.

There is a bait, tackle, gun store here called the Tacklebox that gets robbed in the middle of the night all of the time. One time someone even got on top of it and cut a hole in the roof for access. Very few of those guns have been accounted for.

Here is one of the instances that they have been accounted for http://smnewsnet.com/archives/368409/lexington-park-man-sentenced-for-gun-charges-and-trafficking-contraband-cigarettes/, this guy was involved in the trafficking of 45 stolen firearms and the Maryland judiciary only sentenced him to 6.5 years. Seriously what is the deterrent if you can traffic 45 stolen weapons and only get 6.5 years? Hell the way Maryland is with the enforcement of taxed cigarettes I wouldnt doubt if half his sentence is for the untaxed smokes.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I don t see the cherry picking, even your first video states the US murder rate is 3 times the UK rate.
> 
> If you selectively remove the US crime capitals, you need to do the same for the UK.
> 
> - RobS888


Does the UK have a similar War on Drugs that we do? A lot of our violent crime is directly related to the drug war. Make the product hard to get and expensive people selling it will do anything to keep it and their money. I'm not for drug legalization I am just willing to admit that the war on drugs has been a mistake and caused more problems that it has solved and we have gotten nowhere with it other than some catchy commercials.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Rob - that is in the District of Columbia (Washington DC)

Pat - knowing Maryland and the aggressiveness that they go after taxes, 1 year for the weapons, 5.5 years for the cigarette taxes, 5.5 years no parole and 1 year probation (for the weapons) - oh, wait, they didn't get get taxes from the weapons sales - different proceedings - 10 years tax evasion and another 10 years for not paying the license fees for selling weapons - or just pay $10,000 and all is forgiven - it costs more to keep you in jail. - and move to DC


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.
> 
> Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don t.
> 
> - RobS888


In our state the .223 caliber weapon is not legal for taking a deer. Law requires 0.25 or larger for deer hunting.

Love the arguments on 'Need" 
why does anyone NEED a second car?
Do you NEED more than one hand plane?
Why should anyone be ALLOWED to own a table saw - - they can all go to Ikea… that way the only tools needed are a screwdriver and hammer.

The idea that people should only be ALLOWED by the benevolent government to own what the truly NEED is a serious mental deficiency.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I think the headline is wrong.

It is Not that there is a rush after a shooting.

There is a rush every time the president and congress ANNOUNCE that they want new gun control, and revive the assault weapons ban.

When they announce that people rush out to buy to "beat the new law"


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I think the headline is wrong.
> 
> It is Not that there is a rush after a shooting.
> 
> ...


What new laws would those be?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.
> 
> Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don t.
> 
> ...


In most cases I would agree, but not guns. Guns are just for killing or practising killing.

Equating hand guns to tools is intellectually dishonest. All things can't be equated, doing so shows a pathological need to be right.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I could be wrong, but I assume all guns were purchased legally at some point prior to entering illegal sales.
> 
> I don t see anything wrong with rifles or shotguns, but hand guns and semi-automatic rifles with big magazines are made for people killin .
> 
> ...


Doesn't that seem strange that they get robbed all the time (I'm assuming of guns) why not make it harder to steal the guns?

6.5 years seems like a long sentence to me. I'm not sure what it should be. I think I saw something once about 1 with gun gets you 10 years. That seems ok, I have to think about the trafficking of the guns themselves.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Guns are just for killing or practising killing.
> 
> Equating hand guns to tools is intellectually dishonest. All things can t be equated, doing so shows a pathological need to be right.
> 
> - RobS888


Tell that to a 95 lb woman that used hers to fend off a 200 lb rapist. Is a woman that has been strangled with her own pantyhose and raped in an alley morally superior to one that owns a handgun and put a hole in the rapists head?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Doesn t that seem strange that they get robbed all the time (I m assuming of guns) why not make it harder to steal the guns?
> 
> 6.5 years seems like a long sentence to me. I m not sure what it should be. I think I saw something once about 1 with gun gets you 10 years. That seems ok, I have to think about the trafficking of the guns themselves.
> 
> - RobS888


It is, I thought the same thing myself. The store is right on the main road, very close to a police station.

Then I thought about it, it is this little po-dunk country store that hasn't really adjusted to the times that well but why should they have to go through extra expenses because other people are breaking the law by robbing them, its isn't like they just had to get into the building and there the guns were sitting on a table. I would have thought by now that their insurance company would have cancelled their policy.

But back to the trafficking, if people want to hold stores etc accountable for people committing crimes with firearms why not hold a trafficker accountable for every crime committed with a gun that they have trafficked? From my understand of the Maryland felony murder law it should apply for murders.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - that is in the District of Columbia (Washington DC)
> 
> Pat - knowing Maryland and the aggressiveness that they go after taxes, 1 year for the weapons, 5.5 years for the cigarette taxes, 5.5 years no parole and 1 year probation (for the weapons) - oh, wait, they didn t get get taxes from the weapons sales - different proceedings - 10 years tax evasion and another 10 years for not paying the license fees for selling weapons - or just pay $10,000 and all is forgiven - it costs more to keep you in jail. - and move to DC
> 
> - dbray45


I just checked and the DC murder rate is up…from a 50 year low in 2012, but it is still 1/4 of the 1991 high point of 479! So yes it is up, but from a very low point.

83 last year, 120 so far his year.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance

B'more is twice that, but we did have a riot.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is, I thought the same thing myself. The store is right on the main road, very close to a police station.
> 
> Then I thought about it, it is this little po-dunk country store that hasn t really adjusted to the times that well but why should they have to go through extra expenses because other people are breaking the law by robbing them, its isn t like they just had to get into the building and there the guns were sitting on a table. I would have thought by now that their insurance company would have cancelled their policy.
> 
> ...


I haven't thought about it, but it seems ok to bust everyone along the chain of possession including the legal purchaser if they sold the gun illegally.

The thing is there may be a talking war on guns, but not a real war on guns. We have less gun laws than in the 90's.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Guns are just for killing or practising killing.
> 
> Equating hand guns to tools is intellectually dishonest. All things can t be equated, doing so shows a pathological need to be right.
> 
> ...


I think if only women carried guns the murder and rape rates would go way down.

Could you give me a link to the woman that shot and killed her attacker?

EDIT:

I just checked and we have one of the highest rape rates in the world!

What is wrong with us? We should be the US of Violence.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, let's castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.


----------



## groyuti (Oct 12, 2015)

[No message]


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

While we are at it, let's make Labor Day illegal:

Guns are not responsible for the 10 deaths at Umpqua College yesterday any more than cars are responsible for the 395 deaths over Labor Day weekend. That's right, 395 men, women and children were killed over Labor Day in car accidents.

Why didn't Obama hold a press conference the day after Labor Day, expressing, his grief and anger over the senseless killing of nearly 400 people on our highways during Labor Day Weekend?

Why didn't Obama ask the American people to do something by pressuring their elected representatives to change our laws?

Why didn't Obama take a swipe at the car manufacturers and car dealers for building and selling cars to the American people knowing full well that EVERY YEAR, over 32,000 people are killed in car accidents? Yes, 32,000 EVERY YEAR.

Why didn't Obama plead with the American people to make a change and pressure Congress to pass laws that forbid the sale and consumption of alcohol, recreational drugs, and pharmaceutical drugs, all of which dramatically contribute to 87 highway deaths PER DAY?

Why didn't Obama sign an Executive Order forever banning Labor Day. After all it would save nearly 400 people EVERY YEAR.

WHY? Because banning the manufacture and sale of automobiles, or alcohol, or recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, or getting rid of all the national holidays, does not fit in his Socialist agenda to disarm the American public so he doesn't give a ******************** about the 32,000 innocent lives that are lost EVERY YEAR on our highways.

No, he wants to disarm the American people as does his political party. So he never fails to immediately call for a press conference in the Jim Brady Room and put on the show. That is exactly what is…just a show.

Those of us who can see through all his disingenuous theatrics know he does not give a damn about those ten lives lost or he would be holding press conferences to pressure the American people to stop the carnage on our highways which in just one weekend, Labor Day Weekend, just last month, killed 40 times more innocent people than yesterday's shooting.

Make no mistake, Obama and his party WANT YOUR GUNS and will stoop to any means possible to get them, even it if means being the first to hold a press conference to capitalize on the deaths of ten innocent people by blaming guns and gun owners for their deaths, while turning a blind eye to the 87 people that will die TODAY and EVERY DAY on our highways.

GUNS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR THE 10 DEATHS YESTERDAY ANY MORE THAN CARS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE 32,000 PEOPLE WHO WILL DIE THIS YEAR ON OUR HIGHWAYS.

So who or what is to blame and what kind of Executive Order should Obama sign if he REALLY wants to end these mass shootings?

An Executive Order that targets the CAUSE of these mass shootings and it is NOT guns…

Here is why…

15 years ago, I asked a very pointed question in a press release sent to the National Wire Service immediately following the killings at Columbine High School.

A few days after the Virginia Tech Massacre, I again asked the same very direct question.

After the Newton Connecticut massacre, I once again asked the very same pointed question…

After all the latest mass shootings, I don't have to ask the question anymore because the mainstream media has finally listened to me and are asking the same question, "How many more mass shootings must we experience before we wake up, study the research and adopt policies which actually reduce crime and begin saving American lives instead of leaving them helpless victims when the next psych drug user snaps?"

See this main stream news video, that gets it right, although 15 years after I did…

After Columbine, while most journalists and lawmakers focused on whether or not my answer to protecting children by arming teachers was the right solution, it seems everyone missed my understanding of the root cause that drove these kids to commit such atrocities!

The root cause was and continues to be the psych drugs that are being pushed on our children!

In some cases children as young as kindergarten age!

After Columbine, nobody wanted to believe the founder and director of the nation's largest firearms training institute when he pointed his finger at psych drugs as the cause of the problem. During numerous radio, TV and newspaper interviews I would bring it up and it would fall on deaf ears with no reaction at all.

So I spent $300,000 to create a Hollywood produced, award winning DVD entitled Front Sight Story, Chapter One: Your Legacy.

In "Your Legacy," I interviewed people of age who actually experienced an America when guns were so freely available to children and youth, that you could order them through the mail with no ID required, no waiting period, and literally carry them to school to place in the back of the classroom with no problems at all.

During this time, when guns were the most accessible in our country's entire history, there were no school shootings, drive by shootings, or murderous teenage rampages.

What changed? Here is what changed: Powerful psych drugs were developed and became the profitable, prescription answer to a wide variety of extremely questionable if not outright fabricated mental disorder diagnosis of youth.

Little Johnny doesn't want to go to school? Take this pill… Little Johnny isn't learning? Take this pill…

Little Johnny feels anxious? Take this pill… Little Johnny is sad? Take this pill… Little Johnny is restless?

Take this pill… Little Johnny is rebellious? Take this pill…

And once Little Johnny started taking the brightly colored pills to handle the normal challenges of youth that every prior generation had overcome naturally through the process of social maturity, Little Johnny began the downward spiral of adverse prescription drug side effects leading to multiple prescription, psycho drug cocktails… stronger drugs… physical and psychological dependency… and the now infamous and reoccurring homicidal and suicidal reactions caused by these very powerful, mind bending drugs.

There is a truism I keep posted on the wall above my computer. It reads, "People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, they let time prove them right."

Well, unfortunately and tragically in this case, time has proven me right, time and time again! Numerous school shootings over the last several years ALL linked to children and teens under the influence of powerful, prescribed psych drugs!

Psych Drugs, NOT GUNS, Are the Common Deadly Thread in School Shootings!

And now, instead of Dr. Ignatius Piazza, the Founder and Director of Front Sight saying, "Its Psych Drugs, Not Guns, Doing the Killing" I am getting assistance in spreading my message from some of the most unlikely, sources you could ever imagine…

Watch this video from Citizens Committee on Human Rights. They have done the hard research and now say the same thing I said over 15 years ago…
Then see what Michael Moore, the Darling of the Liberal Left, Anti-Gun Media now has to say about the cause of Columbine. Medical Doctors and Psychiatrists Now Admit Connections Between Psych Drugs and Homicidal and Suicidal Actions of Children and Teens:
Michael and I may never agree about the importance of an armed society to the freedom and protection of law abiding citizens or the fallacy of gun control, but we could be best friends in our efforts to expose the truth about the profit driven history of psych drug prescriptions systematically creating homicidal and suicidal monsters out of our youth in America. In fact, I stand ready and willing to assist Michael Moore in any way possible on such an endeavor.
Now that people on both sides of the gun control debate agree that psych drugs are creating suicidal and homicidal maniacs out of our youth, the time has come to expose the truth to all of America.

You can help save today's youth from further psych drug abuse and protect America's next generation from the horrors of psych drug prescriptions. It only takes 10% of the population to unite, stand up and say, "No more!" for social movements to succeed. You CAN do something about this!

Simply spread this e-mail far and wide to all on your lists and ask your friends and family to do the same.

Instead of circulating the latest joke or cartoon of the week, make the entirety of this earth-shattering truth the next e-mail that goes 'round the world'! Don't rely on anyone else to do what you should do. Don't be apathetic.

Take one minute to do the right thing and you will feel great about it for the rest of your life because the future children you save from psych drug addiction or being shot by a psych drugged maniac may be your own children or grandchildren…

See the links below for more irrefutable proof of the connection between psych drugs and school shootings…

Psych Drugs, Not Guns, are Doing the Killing!

Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy exposes the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings:

Videos on the site.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

We are 111th when it comes to murder capital of the world!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Household gun ownership is down. You have more people buying 'multiple' weapons, but the fraction of households with guns is lower.

It used to be that schools had rifle teams.
it wasn't uncommon even in New York City - that high schoolers would take rifles to school on the subway.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/338167/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke
Yet in those days when ownership and youth posession were higher, and there were no Zero tolerance or gun free zones.

A school shooting was quite unheard of.

I think Mr. Jinx points more to the heart of the issue. And actually may address WHY people are going on shooting sprees.
It is NOT because there are too few gun laws.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/10/america-gun-ownership-hunting-rates-record-lows

Too bad nobody in DC is actually looking at the CAUSE of mass shootings -vs- the opportunity to pass restrictive laws on the general public


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, let s castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.
> 
> - mrjinx007


And you wonder why I make fun of your posts. Look up logical fallacies please.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We are 111th when it comes to murder capital of the world!
> 
> - mrjinx007


Not amongst our peers. Compare us to similarly developed nations and we are pretty bad. You should look up what lying with statistics means.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> While we are at it, let s make Labor Day illegal:
> 
> Guns are not responsible for the 10 deaths at Umpqua College yesterday any more than cars are responsible for the 395 deaths over Labor Day weekend. That's right, 395 men, women and children were killed over Labor Day in car accidents.
> 
> ...


Too long; didn't read, too crazy to follow. Fox "news" as a reference, how silly.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Household gun ownership is down. You have more people buying multiple weapons, but the fraction of households with guns is lower.
> 
> It used to be that schools had rifle teams.
> it wasn t uncommon even in New York City - that high schoolers would take rifles to school on the subway.
> ...


Are you sure it was unheard of?

Does unheard of mean you hadn't heard of it?

I'm giving you a chance to walk it back.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Household gun ownership is down. You have more people buying multiple weapons, but the fraction of households with guns is lower.
> 
> It used to be that schools had rifle teams.
> it wasn t uncommon even in New York City - that high schoolers would take rifles to school on the subway.
> ...


just look up the word Quite… as opposed to *quiet*... which is what you should be and just let the adults talk.

You use Michael Moore as a credible source - - and attack Fox News…. pfffft!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Household gun ownership is down. You have more people buying multiple weapons, but the fraction of households with guns is lower.
> 
> It used to be that schools had rifle teams.
> it wasn t uncommon even in New York City - that high schoolers would take rifles to school on the subway.
> ...


I wonder if this has anything to do with the flagging interest in riffle clubs.

December 30, 1974: Olean, New York, During a 2 1/2-hour siege, honor student Anthony Barbaro, 17, the best shot on his rifle team, shot and killed three adults in and around his high school and wounded 11 other persons. He shot from the windows out at the street and neighborhood. The school was closed for the Christmas holiday.[146][147]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

- RobS888


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Household gun ownership is down. You have more people buying multiple weapons, but the fraction of households with guns is lower.
> 
> It used to be that schools had rifle teams.
> it wasn t uncommon even in New York City - that high schoolers would take rifles to school on the subway.
> ...


Fox has zero credibility. Even in this thread that is proven to be the case.

So do you still maintain school shootings were quite unheard of?

Id love to post them, but the list is really long. Hundreds of entries.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Well, let s castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


Isn't that your solution? Take the guns away and gun crimes magically go away = Castrate every man and magically no one gets raped.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

If you guys haven't noticed neither side of the politicos care about you and I. Rooting for your "team" is the problem in this country. Neither side wants to lose (their government jobs) so they'll keep the rest of us arguing long enough, with the wool pulled over our eyes, to keep doing what they do. Until this country can come together as one they'll all line their wallets with our hard earned money.

Just another flame post to get everyone up in arms and arguing with one another about who can pull internet tidbits, false truths and skewed statistics. Its like a lil mini Washington up in here.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

chrisstef, you are right. My sentiment as well.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, let s castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


Not at all, that is your twisted reading of it. I never proposed taking them away, just restricting new sale of hand guns. The murders today are from the free access of the past. We can only hope to reduce the handgun murders in the future.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> chrisstef, you are right. My sentiment as well.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Wow, look up what hypocrite means. You are one of the worst offenders with questionable material.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Rob, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but you won't be successful in trying to get a rise out of me.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but you won t be successful in trying to get a rise out of me.
> 
> - mrjinx007


This isn't personal at all. It's just that you post the most insane stuff. I hope you don't believe all of it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Fox has zero credibility. Even in this thread that is proven to be the case.
> 
> *So do you still maintain school shootings were quite unheard of? *
> 
> ...


But I have a working vocabulary - - and know that to say something is "unheard of" isn't a synonym for "NEVER Happened".

We are apparently on shooting 47
http://www.newsweek.com/45th-mass-shooting-america-2015-378803

UCC in Oregon was #45 according to Newsweek. 
But there was one in Texas and at Norther Arizona University in the past few days… perhaps another couple out there.

When I was in Middle school in the 70's we had a rifle team, and I brought my rifle to school as a 6th grader. (middle school was 6, 7, 8th grades) We shot 22's on the range across from the gym.

gun laws were more lax. We bought my .22 at JC Penney. We went shooting at the old gravel pit regularly.

You can always google some obscure incident… but people didn't just start en masse killing their fellow students one day.

What is different Today where we are only 3/4 through the year (and summer is pretty quiet at the schools) and we are pushing 50 shootings.
That isn't a "gun Control Law" issue.

But this is your nature… you have no solutions, no particular opinions, you simply nitpick definitions of the words used - - and offer nothing to the discussion of why the sudden prevalance of these senseless mass shootings - -and the attempt to tie gun control to them.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Well, let s castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


Why restrict new sales? Why not just take them away and be done with it? Isn't that the idea?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, let s castrate every man and take away their ability to rape people.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


No, that is your pre-interpretation of my argument.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Guns are just for killing or practising killing.
> 
> Equating hand guns to tools is intellectually dishonest. All things can t be equated, doing so shows a pathological need to be right.
> 
> ...


The rape rate is sad, but you have to temper that with the fact that in many societies rape is not talked about and it is often considered the woman's fault. I found this pretty interesting article on rape in Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

I think this is a pretty good example how a gun prevented a rape. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19850111&id=gN4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RmkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6467,136160&hl=en

We also have this, I say good for her. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/woman-kills-attacker-serial-killer/
She used his gun, but still.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> We are 111th when it comes to murder capital of the world!
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


The problem of comparing "similar" developed nations is that none of them have a 2nd amendment in their constitution. Aside from us, only two other country have a similar constitution: Guatemala and Mexico.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Fox has zero credibility. Even in this thread that is proven to be the case.
> 
> *So do you still maintain school shootings were quite unheard of? *
> 
> ...


I think you need to look up what quite means, weird you were just trying to use it in an insult, but I guess the meanings weren't actually available to you.

Quite means to the "utmost extent", so "quite unheard of" means not heard of.

That thing you feel right now is your own petard.

Wanting to restrict hand guns and assault weapons sales isn't a solution? Whether you like it or not it is an opinion and a possible solution.

Looks like you got two petards in there now.

Do you need a definition of petard?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We are 111th when it comes to murder capital of the world!
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


So the second amendment is the problem. I never thought you would admit that. 
I agree we need to change it. Sooner the better.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Guns are just for killing or practising killing.
> 
> Equating hand guns to tools is intellectually dishonest. All things can t be equated, doing so shows a pathological need to be right.
> 
> ...


Both of those stories are great, good for them. I've always felt compliance is the worst thing to do when someone has a gun on you especially "get in the car…"

I'm avoiding comparing crime rates because of those differing factors about reporting, however murder is hard to mitigate (except here).

In the UK many more events are counted as rape, but in US just one thing is rape. In the UK burglaries are counted as violent crime even if the house is empty.

So I try to stay with just the murder rate, not the violent crime rate. I would walk anywhere in the UK at night… I'm still scared of the Cass corridor.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I would walk anywhere in the UK at night… I m still scared of the Cass corridor.
> - RobS888


I would definitely avoid some of the migrant areas. They have gotten way worse in just the last 10 years.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I would walk anywhere in the UK at night… I m still scared of the Cass corridor.
> - RobS888
> 
> I would definitely avoid some of the migrant areas. They have gotten way worse in just the last 10 years.
> ...


Other than as a kid around Detroit I haven't been scared in an area except South of Beirut airport, it was an area controlled by Palestinian militias. I was quite (extreme extent) happy to pass by on the way to Tyre.


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot


What is your second line of defense after they kill your dog ?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> I think if only women carried guns the murder and rape rates would go way down.
> 
> Could you give me a link to the woman that shot and killed her attacker?
> 
> ...


No link or news story, thanks be unto God, but I am very close to a woman who didn't have to shoot. The mere presence of her bright shiny Lady Smith cause him to change his course of action and leave.

Just picking the first one the popped up on Goggle, Woman who shot alleged attacker may have slain a serial killer, police say

here are more links

This woman couldn't find her gun so she used a sword


----------



## Stew81 (Aug 29, 2014)

> Fox has zero credibility. Even in this thread that is proven to be the case.
> 
> *So do you still maintain school shootings were quite unheard of? *
> 
> ...


A petard is a small bomb… So your response isn't as smug as you intended it to be

"Quite unheard of" makes a lot more sense than, "That thing you feel right now is your own small bomb"


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot
> 
> ...


You talking about the cops right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/cop-shoots-girl-dog_n_7637456.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I think you need to look up what quite means, weird you were just trying to use it in an insult, but I guess the meanings weren t actually available to you.
> 
> Quite means to the "utmost extent", so "quite unheard of" means not heard of.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know what it was and what it was used for, a couple of ponds of gunpowder isn't that small, but whatever. His two attacks were lame and misinformed at best, so his own bombs blew up on him. He didn't even understand the phrase he was using.

Your comparison makes little to no sense.

EDIT:

To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".
He has no one to blame but himself; he was hoisted by his own petard.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I think if only women carried guns the murder and rape rates would go way down.
> 
> Could you give me a link to the woman that shot and killed her attacker?
> 
> ...


All of those stories are great, l love it when victims get to turn the table.

The first page of google results all seem to be about the first link you provided. She got his gun and used it on him! That is awesome. I trust women with guns more than I trust men.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> The first page of google results all seem to be about the first link you provided. She got his gun and used it on him! That is awesome. I trust women with guns more than I trust men.
> 
> - RobS888


Actually, I do too!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

BTW, you have to get beyond the first few pages to get more cases, but there are many ;-(


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Ahhh Rob… yawn….
Basic comprehension….. As in the meaning of "quite unheard of" is QUITE obvious….

quite - - will tell you that it will be obvious to 'Nearly everyone' .... but doesn't preclude any particularly dim bulb in the little state that could being unable to comprehend it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Ahhh Rob… yawn….
> Basic comprehension….. As in the meaning of "quite unheard of" is QUITE obvious….
> 
> quite - - will tell you that it will be obvious to Nearly everyone .... but doesn t preclude any particularly dim bulb in the little state that could being unable to comprehend it.
> ...


Really? We have to do this again? Don't you ever learn?

What is the learners dictionary? Is that for kids?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quite

1
: wholly, completely <not>

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/quite

quite adverb [not gradable] (COMPLETELY)
› completely:
Quite frankly, the thought of performing terrifies me.
I'm not quite done yet.
I'm not quite sure I understand.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/quite
Adverb
quite ‎(not comparable)
(heading) To the greatest extent or degree; completely, entirely.
With verbs, especially past participles. [from 14thc.]

Are you sure you understand what it means or are you twisting hard to find a way to be partially right.

EDIT:

Your child's dictionary says "unheard of" means not known to have existed or happened before.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/Unheard%20of

I expect you will quibble with this definition now as well.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/quibble
To argue or complain about, small unimportant things. That is so you dude!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Ahhh Rob… yawn….
> Basic comprehension….. As in the meaning of "quite unheard of" is QUITE obvious….
> 
> quite - - will tell you that it will be obvious to Nearly everyone .... but doesn t preclude any particularly dim bulb in the little state that could being unable to comprehend it.
> ...


TLDR

Sad, but appreciate your enlightened insights as to the increase in school shootings by whackos, and how more gun laws are the answer.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Regardless of whether we have guns or not, we a systemic violence problem in this country that should not exist in any civilized society and the sooner we determine how to solve that problem the better off we be!

If you look at the statistics, the violence rate nearly follows the unemployment rate in our most dangerous cities. The unemployment rate correlates to a lack of education as those that can't read/write/count can't get jobs and turn to the "dark side"!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Your child s dictionary says "unheard of" means not known to have existed or happened before.
> 
> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/Unheard%20of
> I expect you will quibble with this definition now as well.
> ...


Not surprising when it shows how, as per usual, utterly wrong you are.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Regardless of whether we have guns or not, we a systemic violence problem in this country that should not exist in any civilized society and the sooner we determine how to solve that problem the better off we be!
> 
> If you look at the statistics, the violence rate nearly follows the unemployment rate in our most dangerous cities. The unemployment rate correlates to a lack of education as those that can t read/write/count can t get jobs and turn to the "dark side"!
> 
> - oldnovice


I quite agree!

That is why we need free college. Why should a student that knows there are no prospects in life even try? They will just sit in the seat until they can get away without showing up. I think if the parents know the kids can go to college, they will push them to do well.

Did you see the lady that caught her son rioting in Baltimore? I bet he goes to school when told.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Regardless of whether we have guns or not, we a systemic violence problem in this country that should not exist in any civilized society and the sooner we determine how to solve that problem the better off we be!
> 
> If you look at the statistics, the violence rate nearly follows the unemployment rate in our most dangerous cities. The unemployment rate correlates to a lack of education as those that can t read/write/count can t get jobs and turn to the "dark side"!
> 
> ...


Free high school doesn't work with a great many, they just see it as a bother. Why would free college do any better?


----------



## MarcusM (Mar 29, 2010)

Oldnovice, I don't think it has much to do with the level of education a person has; it's just as frustrating and perhaps more so that a well educated person can't find their "place" in life that they expected. Putting in a lot of effort to advance one's self, only to find that it got them nowhere, because of the economic environment, especially in the mind of a younger individual, can have a pretty significant impact on their mindset.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Hans - agree - - what i struggle with is that the late 60s-80s were the "high crime times" while the period of WW2 and the following decade or so was relatively peaceful. starting around 1992 we have been dropping off









We seem to be 'Generally' on this downward slope in murders and other violent crimes for the past 25 years or so …. but it seems like the 'senseless' violence is now a bigger deal. Part of it is likely about keeping all the 24 hour cable news networks busy round the clock…

But it alwasys seemed that there was a more 'direct motivation' of the shooter to the victims…e.g. the 'Going Postal' where you have the disgruntled employee.
Even the columbine shooting, you had someone going after thier perceived/real tormentors

Whereas you look at the shooting at Sandy Hook…. what did the little kids ever do or say to Adam Lanza.
The Oregon Community College…these students are all strangers to the shooter.

Similar with the "knock-out" game…. you just go after random victims…. not really a group you have some kind of grievance with.

Here the focus is on solving the societal change with controlling access to 'new' gun sales as a solution. Yet the ignore that 8 of the past 14 mass shooters PASSED the background check. and No background check is preventing stolen guns from being used.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

Access to guns has only gotten stricter…. so why the uptick in mass shootings? e.g. Why the uptick in crazies looking to shoot random random innocent bystanders.

You can chock up shootings in the black church to racism (by a crazy) but you can recognize/identify why he chose those targets.
They guy that shoots up his co-workers/ex boss… misguided/crazy but you can see why he chose them as a target.

But the Aurora Theater patrons sitting in the dark? the Second graders in their classrooms… Really WTF is going on?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Regardless of whether we have guns or not, we a systemic violence problem in this country that should not exist in any civilized society and the sooner we determine how to solve that problem the better off we be!
> 
> If you look at the statistics, the violence rate nearly follows the unemployment rate in our most dangerous cities. The unemployment rate correlates to a lack of education as those that can t read/write/count can t get jobs and turn to the "dark side"!
> 
> - oldnovice


Yes, It seems ********************-sapiens sapiens has a fathomless capacity for unnecessary violence. Archaeological evidence seems to indicate it was a factor in our dominance over other early species. This type of activity was prevalent in European cultures and much less in the Native American cultures. There is evidence of the abundance of food and the competition for it as a significant factor in these developments. Certainly economic stress likely triggers more violence (pun intended). Certainly doctors and big pharma passing out SSRI drugs at earlier and earlier ages plus lower standards personal responsibility in early childhood are a likely impact. I have been wondering why most of us, US, do not act out physical violence even though many of us, US, are definitely psychopathic conducting financial our lives? Maybe if we find out why most of us, US, do not do it, it will lead to an easier comprehension and prevention for those who do?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Regardless of whether we have guns or not, we a systemic violence problem in this country that should not exist in any civilized society and the sooner we determine how to solve that problem the better off we be!
> 
> If you look at the statistics, the violence rate nearly follows the unemployment rate in our most dangerous cities. The unemployment rate correlates to a lack of education as those that can t read/write/count can t get jobs and turn to the "dark side"!
> 
> ...


I feel that some urban areas are like concentration camps, there is almost no place to go. Ok, so I go to high school, then what? Nothing, there still isn't a future. Now if college is there for all kids, then the (some) parents will see it as a way of getting the kids out.

I've read several times that cultural groups success in newer countries like US, Canada, Aus, & NZ is the importance of education to the parents. The parents drive the kids to do better.

It won't be many at first, but should pick up later, so the costs will be lower initially.
Seriously, what would it hurt?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Oldnovice, I don t think it has much to do with the level of education a person has; it s just as frustrating and perhaps more so that a well educated person can t find their "place" in life that they expected. Putting in a lot of effort to advance one s self, only to find that it got them nowhere, because of the economic environment, especially in the mind of a younger individual, can have a pretty significant impact on their mindset.
> 
> - MarcusM


I have a lot of sympathy for the kids with degrees living in their parents basement, but I don't think it is a reason not to get everyone to pursue secondary education. College or vocational schools. In fact colleges should teach all courses. Blue collar and white collar.


----------



## lew (Feb 13, 2008)

> It is definitely a sad day when this happens. Rights come with responsibilities. For the past 40 years, the trend has been to make excuses for the irresponsible rather than hold them accountable as well as letting mental illness go untreated and forcing them out onto the streets to fend for themselves as best they can.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Well said, Topa


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I feel that some urban areas are like concentration camps, there is almost no place to go. Ok, so I go to high school, then what? Nothing, there still isn t a future. Now if college is there for all kids, then the (some) parents will see it as a way of getting the kids out.
> 
> I ve read several times that cultural groups success in newer countries like US, Canada, Aus, & NZ is the importance of education to the parents. The parents drive the kids to do better.
> 
> ...


Well the world does need ditch diggers too. I think that is part of the problem, public schools, guidance counselors are all "College College College!" because that is all they know. Simply put it isn't for everyone and it is not realistic for it to be.

I have seen a rather large group of kids at college simply because they thought that is what they were supposed to be doing go through the motions, never attend class, fail their classes then do the exact same thing the following semester. These kids were not the ones that paid any part of it themselves. Most of them I have no idea what they are doing now. They would have done themselves a favor by going to a trade school, found some sort of apprenticeship or joined the military.

Colleges really aren't the right tool for all sorts of post high school education, sort of like the wife using a high heel to hammer in a nail.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

In many cases we know the causes of some shootings, gang related, drive by, drug deals, and, curiously family member/self inflicted. I believe that we have become nearly immune to many of these. The gang related, drive by shootings, and drug deal ones can decreased but self inflicted I have no idea.

In the case of San Jose, which was at one time the safest large city (998,537) in the country experienced an uptick in shootings. This been decreased, due to a special police gang task force, down to 0.04 per 1000. Can this type of task force work in other cities?

The case of these "mass" killings have been done by marginalized, at least in their own mind, individuals and we need someone to create a, dare I say "profile", of this type of individual so they can be identified before they act.

That is, just my opinion!


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

> I feel that some urban areas are like concentration camps, there is almost no place to go. Ok, so I go to high school, then what? Nothing, there still isn t a future. Now if college is there for all kids, then the (some) parents will see it as a way of getting the kids out.
> 
> I ve read several times that cultural groups success in newer countries like US, Canada, Aus, & NZ is the importance of education to the parents. The parents drive the kids to do better.
> 
> ...


OK, I worked my way through the whole thread, and here is one of the clearer answers to how to avoid the violence. It used to be that a kid could take classes in HS that would prepare for a career- Home Economics (I even knew of guys who took that in the '60s), wood shop (and girls were getting here, as well), metal shop, etc. Now, it's all about "common core", and one has to go to a vocational tech school for an education in a manual art. Not everyone is cut out for a college degree. That's just the way it is.

For me, single parenthood, that parent working 2 jobs to make ends meet is a formula for the kids going wild, since they don't get the discipline they need.

To address the OP, if the news media quit publishing these atrocities on page one in 72 point red type, and put them back on page 16 with the men's underwear ads, the number of shootings would drop. Case in point, we had a rash of freeway shootings in Los Angeles, back in the '80s. Once the papers did just that, the copycats stopped.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I feel that some urban areas are like concentration camps, there is almost no place to go. Ok, so I go to high school, then what? Nothing, there still isn t a future. Now if college is there for all kids, then the (some) parents will see it as a way of getting the kids out.
> 
> I ve read several times that cultural groups success in newer countries like US, Canada, Aus, & NZ is the importance of education to the parents. The parents drive the kids to do better.
> 
> ...


What I guess, I'm reaching for is a system that doesn't have technical as a lower class than professional. Perhaps 2 and 4 year degrees in all career paths.

I think we should take a closer look at Finland and what they have done in the past 35 years.

http://www.nea.org/home/40991.htm


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

oldnovice, good ideas. I think a better solution for the loners who feel they don't belong is community involvement. I think just about everyone in the community that these folks lived in knew something was wrong. The recent shooter was well known for certain things that should have (did) raised a red flag. Instead, the neighbors further isolated him and the ones that spoke to him were criticizing his fatigue and attitude. I think a lot of this happens post war for some reason as well.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> OK, I worked my way through the whole thread, and here is one of the clearer answers to how to avoid the violence. It used to be that a kid could take classes in HS that would prepare for a career- Home Economics (I even knew of guys who took that in the 60s), wood shop (and girls were getting here, as well), metal shop, etc. Now, it s all about "common core", and one has to go to a vocational tech school for an education in a manual art. Not everyone is cut out for a college degree. That s just the way it is.
> 
> For me, single parenthood, that parent working 2 jobs to make ends meet is a formula for the kids going wild, since they don t get the discipline they need.
> 
> ...


Those are my thoughts exactly. Stop showing the killers pictures and putting their names out there, if you want to highlight something make it about the victims and the good that they have done, but nobody can name any victims it is always the killers.

Vocational training has gotten a very bad rap, back when I was in high school in 1990-1992 it was the "retards" that went to the vocational school.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So let's put 1/2 effort into education and counselling and 1/2 into ending sales of handguns via changing the 2nd amendment.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

We're # 111 ? Does that mean we are listed after the 1 thru 110 "free fire zones" in the world?


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

> So let s put 1/2 effort into education and counselling and 1/2 into ending sales of handguns via changing the 2nd amendment.
> 
> - RobS888


No, Let's NOT…


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We re # 111 ? Does that mean we are listed after the 1 thru 110 "free fire zones" in the world?
> 
> - Jimbo4


Pretty much


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So let s put 1/2 effort into education and counselling and 1/2 into ending sales of handguns via changing the 2nd amendment.
> 
> - RobS888
> No, Let s NOT…
> ...


Ok, 100% effort into changing the 2nd amendment to exclude hand guns, it is.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Those are my thoughts exactly. Stop showing the killers pictures and putting their names out there, if you want to highlight something make it about the victims and the good that they have done, but nobody can name any victims it is always the killers.
> 
> Vocational training has gotten a very bad rap, back when I was in high school in 1990-1992 it was the "retards" that went to the vocational school.
> - patcollins


As I understand it, there will be a real problem with that in the coming decades since the average age of people in skilled trades is 45.

We need to change the perception of the trades, that's why people should be able to get degrees in the trades as well, just based more on doing than class room stuff. An apprenticeship if you will with a degree instead of a ticket.


----------



## Stewbot (Jun 7, 2015)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot
> 
> ...


not nothing, which is where I'm gonna leave that. All I'm saying is that I know folks who are serious gun enthusiast, you name it they've got it, I also know lots of people who want nothing to do with guns and plenty more in the middle. My point is that owning a dog/dogs is something all parties can do to feel safer at night and serve both the home with an arsenal or lil ol lady down the street who lives by herself IMO. Whether it be your first line of defense or last, A vigilant dog/dogs can make a possible intruders presence known and hopefully make them think twice about entering. What anyone does to protect their home and family is their own business, I just think a dog dessrves mention when it comes to home security.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> As I understand it, there will be a real problem with that in the coming decades since the average age of people in skilled trades is 45.
> 
> We need to change the perception of the trades, that s why people should be able to get degrees in the trades as well, just based more on doing than class room stuff. An apprenticeship if you will with a degree instead of a ticket.
> 
> - RobS888


I doubt that will make much difference. One of the colleges here offered a degree with credit for my apprenticeship. I believe it was a 2 year associate degree of some kind. I thought about going back and getting an EE after I finished the apprenticeship, but life was full and there was certainly no financial advantage over my journeyman's card in those days. Most of my career the guys whose drawing I was correcting were still looking down their noses at the guy in the blue collar. I seriously doubt human nature will change.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Ok, 100% effort into changing the 2nd amendment to exclude hand guns, it is.
> 
> - RobS888


That would be a regulatory issue and would not require changing the 2nd Amendment anymore than eliminating machine guns in the 30s did.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot
> 
> ...


Dogs have always been my first line of persuasion to help the lowlife community decide on the risks involved. My last dog, Lady Bird, aka, Lady Bug, gets credit for a save on the house, a save on my son's Mustang, and a few semi-saves on my tools in conjunction with my alarm system compete with 4500 watts of instant daylight. An electric fencer on my van was a little bit of an aid too. I really have acquired way too much experience in personal crime prevention.


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot
> 
> ...


I agree a dog is a good deterrent, and could provide valuable time, 
but it is not the solution that might/will keep my family safe. 
Need a plan B for sure, can't just hope they go away.

I know myself if I was going to rob you, I would have staked out your house and knew you had dogs and if I really wanted to do harm to you or your family the dog/dogs would be the first to kill. Thieves have no conscious.


----------



## Chocdog (Aug 31, 2014)

Would someone please define "assault rifle"! 
That is not a classification and they don't exist! Any weapon gun or not can be called and assault whatever.
The problem is not guns. You take away guns, they'll kill you with something else!

It is about morals and what is right and what is wrong. Punish the criminal not the lawful armed citizen.
There are millions of gun owners in this country and they have not killed anyone.
It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun!

Why doesn't anyone talk bout the fact that since the 40's any mass killing, over 3 people, all but 2 have occurred in "gun free" zones. Fish in a damn barrel!

Who are you to tell me I can not protect myself or my family by using a firearm. 
Who are you to tell a young woman that she should not have a gun to defend against the rapist

Gun laws are only obeyed by lawful citizens, criminals do not give a sh#t. I hope all of you are never in a situation that your life is on the line and you find yourself powerless to defend yourself because you have been striped of your rights to defend yourself. Remember this, when seconds count the police are minutes away!

Look at Chicago, they have the most strict gun laws around, boy are they working.

Rob your comments is completely absurd, uneducated and unfounded. Why does one need more than one screwdriver, one sander etc.

It amazes me how many of the political powers at be, preach to the sheep about guns and how bad they are, but they are surrounded by people with guns that protect them from them bad guys. Hmm.

I think you all need to really look at the data and history about banning guns, registration and maybe the truth will come to light.

I will not be a victim nor will the ones that I love because of some a##hole wants me to be an unarmed, uneducated sheep.

In a year alcohol kills more people and obesity kills more people, why don't we outlaw booze and forks!

Reports show that the Oregon shooter was on the damn watch list as a radical and it was ignored. Why?

Tyrants, politicians and criminals love an unarmed citizenry.

The constitution is just as, if not more relevant today then it ever was.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

> Would someone please define "assault rifle"!
> That is not a classification and they don t exist! Any weapon gun or not can be called and assault whatever.
> The problem is not guns. You take away guns, they ll kill you with something else!
> 
> ...


You will have to pry my spork from my dead cold fingers, you anti-eatist! 

I agree with your assessment. We, as a *human *population, need to take care of those who are sick. We aren't doing it. We used to be better at it. Politics got in the way in the US in the '80s, and it has just gotten worse.

As far as disarmament of the US populace is concerned, Babara Boxer has an armed escort. I'm glad my irony meter has a logarithmic scale, or it would be busted, with the needle wrapped around the stop peg. And the pope, who is the alleged representative of god on earth, has a Lexan shield on his popemobile. He oughta be as bullet-proof as anyone can be!

The rush on firearms, IMO, is because of the perceived threat to the ability for possession thereof, not a real threat to people. We really don't trust the politicians in this country, and for good reason.

I won't publish my thinking on why this situation continues, on this forum, as I am pretty sure that the views I will express are way out of favor with most, and I generally come here to view awesome woodworking, not to engage in controversial topics. I had some time today, and thought I'd give my opinion on it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

*Would someone please define "assault rifle"*

Term used by the media to degrade and demean firearms.


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

> *Would someone please define "assault rifle"*
> 
> Term used by the media to degrade and demean firearms.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Agreed. A deer rifle with a scope can be a so-called "assault rifle", and I'd like to see how many of them have been used for mass killing of people, out of the number sold. You want to go into a theater with a scope on your rifle, you are more confused/stupid than the general population would believe. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Topa already posted the right answer
It is just media BS about evil LOOKING guns.










Same gun, same manufacturer….neither is Automatic as that has been off limits to the vast majority of the public for many decades.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Topa already posted the right answer
> It is just media BS about evil LOOKING guns.
> 
> 
> ...


BS, one is shorter and has a huge magazine.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Would someone please define "assault rifle"!
> That is not a classification and they don t exist! Any weapon gun or not can be called and assault whatever.
> The problem is not guns. You take away guns, they ll kill you with something else!
> 
> ...


Cliche much?

Hand guns sales need to be ended. Keep 'em if you got 'em, but no more. And if your gun is ever used in a crime you're responsible.

We have data from other countries and without guns our murder total would be far less, around 1/3 of the current astronomical number.

Gun nuts claim guns don't kill people, however without access to a gun killing is a lot harder.

This Chinese man stabbed 27 kids, none died. So intent is hard to carry out without the killing tool. This was the third such attack in a month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

So I call BS on this and all other NRA talking points. Guns kill people. And the freer the access the more people are killed by guns.

Let's modify the 2nd amendment to exclude handguns!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Would someone please define "assault rifle"*
> 
> Term used by the media to degrade and demean firearms.
> 
> ...


You just kind of excluded a deer rifle as useful as an assault rifle. If it isn't easy to conceal and use to end a large amount of people, I don't have a problem with it.

I'm not anti-gun, just anti killing.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> You will have to pry my spork from my dead cold fingers, you anti-eatist!
> 
> I agree with your assessment. We, as a *human *population, need to take care of those who are sick. We aren t doing it. We used to be better at it. Politics got in the way in the US in the 80s, and it has just gotten worse.
> 
> ...


Take care of the sick or remove the weapons. Seems easy either way, but we do nothing.

Weird thing is disarming hasn't been proposed in this thread, just ending the sales of handguns and assault rifles.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I m a believer in dogs as a possible safeguard and deterrent against home invasions. I m not against responsible adults owning guns, I just think that a dog/dogs should be the first line of defense.
> 
> - Stewbot
> 
> ...


There is a canine network on our block that passes alerts up and down the block. My dogs will get up and face the front of the house when they hear the "alerts". They provide almost supernatural vigilance.

A house may have a gun, but you know when it has a big dog!


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

> You will have to pry my spork from my dead cold fingers, you anti-eatist!
> 
> I agree with your assessment. We, as a *human *population, need to take care of those who are sick. We aren t doing it. We used to be better at it. Politics got in the way in the US in the 80s, and it has just gotten worse.
> 
> ...


I contend that taking care of the sick would be cheaper, in terms of lives taken, and for their own good, off the streets. The number of mentally ill who take lives is small, in the scheme of things- the courts aren't generally finding many killers mentally ill (or even temporarily insane).

I have never used a firearm to commit a crime. I don't think I deserve to be disarmed when I am a law-abiding citizen.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Not that I have more than 1 vote, but I can't see realistically disarming this country, but we can make it harder for people to get arms, we can make it hard to buy more than 1 handgun, we can make it hard to buy 10,000 rounds.

If you got 'em keep 'em, but for anyone in the future let's turn a suspicious eye to multiple short term purchases. We have 3 times as many people as killed on 9/11, killed each year just with handguns. 7 times as many as 9/11 killed each year by other Americans.

We are by far, the most deadly enemy we have.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

As Pogo said, *"We have met the enemy and he is us!"*


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

If you remove the civil war, the total number of US military deaths in all wars, all wars is about 500,000.

The number of murders/year in the US since 1960 has been on average more than 10,000/year ( 8k to 23k), that equates to at least 550,000 people.

So Americans in 55 years have killed more Americans than in all external wars in 219 years!

We are about the most warring nation on earth and still we kill more of each other than in all wars combined. Why doesn't this bother anyone?


----------



## BurlyBob (Mar 13, 2012)

Rob you piss me off so much I refuse to waste any more time reading your socialist/communist garbage. I'll continue to keep my opinions to myself why don't you do the same and let everyone live their lives as they choose? It's called freedom, man!!! Don't bother to comment to this because I quit listening to you. You and all those other left wing Communist/Socialist will not be happy till everyone who doesn't believe like you are in Gulag's!!
Have a happy life and leave the rest of us who believe in the whole constitution alone. I won't try to force my beliefs on you. Please do the same for the rest of us!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> If you remove the civil war, the total number of US military deaths in all wars, all wars is about 500,000.
> 
> The number of murders/year in the US since 1960 has been on average more than 10,000/year ( 8k to 23k), that equates to at least 550,000 people.
> 
> ...


I'm sure it bothers a lot of us, US. Eliminating the War on Drugs to put the gangs out of business will take care of the majority if it. Getting a reasonable mental health program will take care of another big part of it. What are the chances of that happening?


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*BurlyBob*, in this forum, and any other forum for that matter, are opinions and each has his own so there is no reason for name calling or pigeonholing anyone!

When you stoop to that you are being obnoxious to every one this, and perhaps, other forums too!

Everyone has a right to their opinion, until you start demeaning their character!
Let's keep it civil!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

In a previous article, we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent "gun-free" massacre of 135 Australians.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa, based in New Zealand, calls itself a "national networking organization…interested in peace and social justice." A fact sheet on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It's very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002-five years after enacting its gun ban-the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: "The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969."

Even the head of Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence …

There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.

Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of "the arrest of those responsible."

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault-Australia's equivalent term for rape-increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns): More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it's apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

References

Violent crime rates compiled from Australian Bureau of Statistics and U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation sources. Email request for Excel workbook.


For in-depth analysis of the dangerous side-effects of Britain's and Australia's gun bans, read Chapter 2 of Howard's book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn't It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense
Source


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

you make a good point Mr. Jinx.

The argument is always Nuanced that way… the anti gun activists, will only talk about how our rate of GUN DEATH is higher.
Not about rates of violent crime.

As has been discussed - - it will be cheaper to deal with mental illness than to confiscate guns…and confiscation of 100% is totally impossible. Just ask how the train shooter got a fully automatic AK47 in The Netherlands… and got on that Paris bound train.

Similarly - 60% of gun deaths are suicides.
I don't think we should look at the idea that someone that jumped from a bridge or slit their wrists, or took a handful of pills as a success because "it wasn't a bullet… so Yeah USA"

USA is tied for 50th in Suicide rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

belgium, finland, poland, russia, japan, South Korea

South Korea has a suicide rate of 28.9 per 100K… the USA is at 12.1 per 100K
If we have 550K people killed by guns (cumulative) 330K were suicide.

South Korea has more than twice our rate.

So is Gun Control the answer for those 330K suicides - - or would they simply choose another method.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob you piss me off so much I refuse to waste any more time reading your socialist/communist garbage. I ll continue to keep my opinions to myself why don t you do the same and let everyone live their lives as they choose? It s called freedom, man!!! Don t bother to comment to this because I quit listening to you. You and all those other left wing Communist/Socialist will not be happy till everyone who doesn t believe like you are in Gulag s!!
> Have a happy life and leave the rest of us who believe in the whole constitution alone. I won t try to force my beliefs on you. Please do the same for the rest of us!!
> 
> - BurlyBob


Why do you hate the truth?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If you remove the civil war, the total number of US military deaths in all wars, all wars is about 500,000.
> 
> The number of murders/year in the US since 1960 has been on average more than 10,000/year ( 8k to 23k), that equates to at least 550,000 people.
> 
> ...


With Republicans in power? Zero.


----------



## Nubsnstubs (Aug 30, 2013)

This must be robs's thread as he has posted 57 replies, and he's not the op. Every one one of his replies pretty much slams anyone opposing his thoughts on the matter.

Unfortunately, I did the unthinkable and actually read every one of the current 145 replies. I should have stopped reading them after post #11 because that was the defining moment that showed me no one was going to win any argument he starts. I just had to keep going to find out if what is said about liberal thinking is correct, and guess what, Yep, it's correct. Liberals are a strange breed. It is their way or no way. Pretty sad…..

Oldnovice, I didn't see where BurlyBob did any name calling. His description looked pretty legitimate to me. Couldn't be any clearer to me. If you go back to post #10, that's where the name calling began. ........... jerry (in Tucson)

Robs gave us his opinion us his opinion in post#2, then #10 .


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> In a previous article, we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent "gun-free" massacre of 135 Australians.
> 
> It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa, based in New Zealand, calls itself a "national networking organization…interested in peace and social justice." A fact sheet on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It's very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.
> 
> ...


LoL, it is a really bad idea to compare subjective statistics about crimes other than murder. For example in the US Rape is very narrowly defined, Australian sexual assault crime includes US definition of Rape plus child sexual abuse and indecent assault.

Australia's murder rate is 1.1/100,000 ours is 4.7/100,000. We are 4 times more likely to kill than an Australian.

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> you make a good point Mr. Jinx.
> 
> The argument is always Nuanced that way… the anti gun activists, will only talk about how our rate of GUN DEATH is higher.
> Not about rates of violent crime.
> ...


That was a murder total estimate, it does not include suicides. Suicides are around 30,000/year with 20,000 using a gun. so the number of people that killed themselves since 1960 is at least equal to, but possibly double the 550,000 not a subset of it.

Spin that.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This must be robs s thread as he has posted 57 replies, and he s not the op. Every one one of his replies pretty much slams anyone opposing his thoughts on the matter.
> 
> Unfortunately, I did the unthinkable and actually read every one of the current 145 replies. I should have stopped reading them after post #11 because that was the defining moment that showed me no one was going to win any argument he starts. I just had to keep going to find out if what is said about liberal thinking is correct, and guess what, Yep, it s correct. Liberals are a strange breed. It is their way or no way. Pretty sad…..
> 
> ...


Making sales of guns harder is communistic? Besides the intent counts and Burly bob meant communist as an insult. as any open mind could see.

#11 was a great post! Props to the president and disses for the Republicans.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Agree DrDirt,
I agree. And like BurlyBob, I am ignoring Rob. It is like dealing with a person with an oppositional defiant disorder. It is not about the subject of the argument; it is about the object of argument.

The utopia perception that gun ban has instill in some people's mind is actually a nightmare in reality if not for us, or for our children and their children. I lived in an environment like that. At first, the paranoid government took all the weapons away from the people and installed spies in every neighborhood (like NSA). Then they started the control process. On a given day, the word would go out as to what you can watch, what you can read and what you can talk about without repercussions (sort of like political correctness). I recall five men breaking the door-in, grabbing my brother, and taking him away. It took my dad and my uncle, both of whom were high up in government five days to find him. He had been tortured and walked with a limp for the rest of his short life. You see, he had two books considered illegal by the government. In the mid sixties, the government paranoid of the police, banned them from carrying guns. These folks walked the neighborhoods and responded to crisis. They were considered too close to the people who were angry at their government. Soon after that, the police became overly corrupt, started taking bribes, and became part of the criminal element. I guess their government lack of trust had a psychological effect on them. 
When you feel hopeless, without any means to defend yourself, you have three choices: 1- prostitute your entire being by becoming part of the system so you and your family have some level of safety (very much like joining the mafia). 2- Passively resist by organizing underground groups to talk about what is going on (information system) to counteract the propaganda being fed to people (alternative news). 3- Become actively involved in opposing and fighting the system. 
I think about 90% (married couples with children) chose #1. 70% of the Youth chose #2 and maybe 5% of mostly 40ish years old chose #3.
You will be amazed what you will put up with when the consequences of your actions not only affect you, but it extends to your wife, mother, father and other family members. I call it the walking dead syndrome. Yes, you are alive on the outside but dead on the inside. Think about it; what are you willing to do or not do to prevent your wife or mother being raped in front of you.
I am giving you this extreme example in another country that surrendered to its government's will and suffered the consequences. You may say, "This will never happen in the United Starts". And I say, you are damn right because we have the 2nd amendment. We have a constitution that has a set of checks and balances to prevent government tyranny against its people. Where was the outrage when the idiot called our constitution "just a piece of paper"? Our complacency will be our downfall.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Agree DrDirt,
> I agree. And like BurlyBob, I am ignoring Rob. It is like dealing with a person with an oppositional defiant disorder. It is not about the subject of the argument; it is about the object of argument.
> 
> The utopia perception that gun ban has instill in some people's mind is actually a nightmare in reality if not for us, or for our children and their children. I lived in an environment like that. At first, the paranoid government took all the weapons away from the people and installed spies in every neighborhood (like NSA). Then they started the control process. On a given day, the word would go out as to what you can watch, what you can read and what you can talk about without repercussions (sort of like political correctness). I recall five men breaking the door-in, grabbing my brother, and taking him away. It took my dad and my uncle, both of whom were high up in government five days to find him. He had been tortured and walked with a limp for the rest of his short life. You see, he had two books considered illegal by the government. In the mid sixties, the government paranoid of the police, banned them from carrying guns. These folks walked the neighborhoods and responded to crisis. They were considered too close to the people who were angry at their government. Soon after that, the police became overly corrupt, started taking bribes, and became part of the criminal element. I guess their government lack of trust had a psychological effect on them.
> ...


If you fear the US following in Iran's footsteps, shouldn't the specter of a Republican theocracy scare you more than liberals wanting to end handgun sales? They sure scare me!

P.S. Congrats on writing your own response instead of copying and pasting others ideas.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Certainly should register house wives that buy bleach and ammonia together. Who know what they are up to?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Ha, ha.. Never piss off your wife.


----------



## mudflap4869 (May 28, 2014)

Well I waded through the first hundred posts. Then I came to the conclusion that.
1. all data is manipulated.
2. If you are convinced that you are right the truth will never change your mind.
3. The constitution is in jeopardy of being overthrown by the liberals.
4. The conservatives will defend the constitution to the death.
5. Both sides of the aisle are full of ********************.


----------



## bigblockyeti (Sep 9, 2013)




----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I m sure it bothers a lot of us, US. Eliminating the War on Drugs to put the gangs out of business will take care of the majority if it. Getting a reasonable mental health program will take care of another big part of it. What are the chances of that happening?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


What will the gangs do? I don't see where MS13 .. or the crips are going to disappear. Anymore than the mafia disappeared after prohibition.

WHat I see is just that the "criminal network" is no longer breaking the law…not that the gangs are going to start wearing suits and ties, and not shoot or burn down the competition.

http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-reacting-to-marijuana-legalization-in-the-u-s/
"Cartels have a competitive advantage. They specialize in violence, and they will not hesitate to use it in order to enforce their product above better quality and other factors."
- Javier Osorio

Suppose we will see what happens in violent crime - - especially as legal pot moves into oregon and the major markets like California. Though there has long been a 'look the other way' approach in the emerald triangle in northern california.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> When you feel hopeless, without any means to defend yourself, you have three choices: 1- prostitute your entire being by becoming part of the system so you and your family have some level of safety (very much like joining the mafia). 2- Passively resist by organizing underground groups to talk about what is going on (information system) to counteract the propaganda being fed to people (alternative news). 3- Become actively involved in opposing and fighting the system.
> I think about 90% (married couples with children) chose #1. 70% of the Youth chose #2 and maybe 5% of mostly 40ish years old chose #3.
> You will be amazed what you will put up with when the consequences of your actions not only affect you, but it extends to your wife, mother, father and other family members.
> >
> ...


yep - I would say you were prescient… but this has been the way things have worked for a long time - - everyone does what they have to get by…. see thier kids through school and keep their heads down.

Once they become empty nesters…. they move toward option 3

---------------


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

The odds of a US citizen being killed by a terrorist?

1 in 20 million, yet we have spent a Trillion dollars on increased security and stupid wars.

By that ratio we need to spend 10 Trillion dollars protecting schools.

https://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-irrationality-of-giving-up-this-much-liberty-to-fight-terror/276695/


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

mudflap4869, Very true.

bigblockyeti, There is a natural order to everything.

DrDirt, When people are in the middle of that type of situation their responses are based on where they stand psychologically and that depends on how much injustice they have suffered and what is their threshold to endure. These types of scenarios also bring the families closer (both physically and emotionally) together. So, it maybe common for the first, second and third generation to live within close proximity or under one roof. That is how we revert back to tribalism; in this case a good thing.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Ha, ha.. Never piss off your wife.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Always good advice regardless of the issue.

Libland is a place where if hand guns were illegal, nobody would carjack you… rob a convenience store or a bank.

It is where the Hollyweird actually believe that 13 year olds can buy guns….

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/opinions/opinion-roundup-dem-debate/
Proposed Question for the CNN democrat debate….
A few months ago, I sent my 13-year-old son out to pick me up some Mucinex and Nyquil. The pharmacist wouldn't give them to him because he's under 16. Why is it easier for him to get a gun than to pick up medicine for his sick mom?

*It would be disconcerting if your 13 year old could go to Cabelas and buy a Glock and 500 rounds of ammo… but alas… that is just not true*

Also ALL gun dealers… regardless of the venue of the sale, be it a store, parking lot, trunk of the car or gun show has to conduct a background check. Been the law for many years.
What is not regulated is a completey private transaction…. if you want to sell your gun to another person on Craigs list… individuals can do that.

But as mentioned… if the individual is a licensed dealer - - he has to perform the check. A dealer cannot sell even their personal weapon to anyone without a background check.

regardless the Va governor is off saying this crap:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/why-do-democrats-get-away-with-lying-about-guns/
Yet folks like Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe regularly assert, as he did at a DC rally a couple of weeks ago, that it's easier to buy a gun than beer in Virginia, because you have to provide ID to purchase alcoholic beverages. McAuliffe also claimed that gun shows have booths with signs that say "no background checks."

All this Loophole stuff is kabuki theater.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

And yet it happens:

A 13 year old buys a riffle…

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/248544-13-year-old-buys-gun-at-gun-show/

Does the truth matter, it seems not to.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

In Vermont a 16 year old can buy a gun and carry/conceal it legally.

That is crazy!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So did the kid buy from a licensed dealer of a private individual?

I am not an FFL holder… I may sell my rifle to ANYBODY legally.

I can even buy drugs illegally in a back alley.

At many shows you do NOT need to be an FFL holder. at Most shows you do (just to avoid such hidden cameral black eyes) however if you are at the show, there are plenty of private individuals, who will sell you a gun from the trunk of their car.

A LIcensed Dealer cannot do that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> I m sure it bothers a lot of us, US. Eliminating the War on Drugs to put the gangs out of business will take care of the majority if it. Getting a reasonable mental health program will take care of another big part of it. What are the chances of that happening?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


The Mafia had enough sense to stay out of drugs. They are nothing but another street gang today. The RICO statues finally put them out of business along with tax revenue violations. Without the lucrative drug trade, much of the gang activities would subside, but not all.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> In Vermont a 16 year old can buy a gun and carry/conceal it legally.
> 
> That is crazy!
> 
> - RobS888


I bought my first gun when I was 14. Nobody thought anything about. I hunted jack rabbits with a handgun while riding horse back to exercise them. Just a normal kid thing to do in VT and ID.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

OooPS.

Ava Ellis, a 4-year-old girl, started school in a wheelchair after a bizarre and mind-boggling police screw-up in June, when her mom, Andrea, cut herself on some glass, only to have a police officer show up at the house and shoot the little girl in the leg. The unbelievable incident was featured on a recent Inside Edition TV report.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> What will the gangs do? I don t see where MS13 .. or the crips are going to disappear. Anymore than the mafia disappeared after prohibition.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


That can happen - - just saying that legalization of booze didn't end mafia Other things have largely sidelined them.

Expect same with Pot… the can be brought under control, but that is more on policing, and dealing with violence than the pot now being legal


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> In Vermont a 16 year old can buy a gun and carry/conceal it legally.
> 
> That is crazy!
> 
> - RobS888


 Don't hear about any 16 year olds going to their school to kill their classmates…. interesting.

Just as there are fewer alcohol issues in a lot of europe (Germany) where buying beer and wine is OK at 16 but we mandate 21.

Drugs legal in Netherlands and Portugal….

Seems that many examples out there where LESS restrictive laws yield a more civil society, and the most restrictive are more trouble than they are worth.

Could be same with guns.

I got a 22 when I was 11 (6th grade) never shot anyone - - plinking and shooting rabbits and squirrels was quite common.

Growing up and thinking back - I know of NOBODY I ever knew in through my early 20's that didn't own a gun, not even a rumour like "the jonese don't let their kids shoot'...owning a gun was as unusual as kids having a bicycle.. but that was Alaska. 
More exposure to libs in Pennsylvania in the 90's when I lived there..


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)




----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

A 17 year old on the riffle team killed 3 people and wounded 11, so no it isn't like alcohol or drugs. They weren't designed to kill.

December 30, 1974: Olean, New York, During a 2 1/2-hour siege, honor student Anthony Barbaro, 17, the best shot on his rifle team, shot and killed three adults in and around his high school and wounded 11 other persons. He shot from the windows out at the street and neighborhood. The school was closed for the Christmas holiday.[146][147]


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

No, a civil society doesn't come from less laws. Laws and compliance make a civil society.

Anarchy, is what comes from less laws.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> A 17 year old on the riffle team killed 3 people and wounded 11, so no it isn t like alcohol or drugs. They weren t designed to kill.
> 
> December 30, 1974: Olean, New York, During a 2 1/2-hour siege, honor student Anthony Barbaro, 17, the best shot on his rifle team, shot and killed three adults in and around his high school and wounded 11 other persons. He shot from the windows out at the street and neighborhood. The school was closed for the Christmas holiday.[146][147]
> 
> - RobS888


I actually meant in Vermont… as a direct response to the 16 year age limit for purchase and concealed carry. That's why i quoted your specific post..

But more directly - - - where 16 is LEGAL for buying and carrying…. e.g. as opposed to Adam Lanza who took his moms gun, killed her with it, then went to an elementary school to go after little kids he never knew.

Seems the reallyl bad ******************** happens where the law is most restrictive… and in a 'gun free zone' - - but that is IMPRESSION… no research of all shootings.

Certainly there are drunk drivers in europe as well, probably drug overdoses and alcohol poisoning incidents. But the question is which counry has a worse problem with Alcohol.. europe with a 16-18 year old drinking age… or the USA with an uber strict 21?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

It is ridiculous to compare booze to guns.

Barbaro proves that the familiarity can in fact be an inducement to using it for its intended purpose.

Obfuscation can't help you with this issue.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

For those of us that feel something is true, but have no proof.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

A truly amazing study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy debunks just about every argument of the gun-grabbers. No wonder the media have managed to ignore it ever since it was published in 2007.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Any study that compares the violent crime categories without defining what is counted in those categories is lying to you.

That article starts out comparing the murder rate in the US to the USSR then switches to violent crime without defining what that means.

Politifact debunked this kind of comparison before.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

It ends with comparing the violent crime in the US and UK again without defining them.

The bottom line is the UK murder rate is 1/100,000 and the US rate is 4.7/100,000.

In the UK burglarizing an empty house is considered a violent crime.


----------



## bigblockyeti (Sep 9, 2013)

It is ridiculous to compare an incident that happened in 1974 as relevant to the issues being dealt with over forty years later.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Sure discount data that disproves the argument.


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)

Thought this would be a good thread to give my buddies new business a plug!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> It ends with comparing the violent crime in the US and UK again without defining them.
> 
> The bottom line is the UK murder rate is 1/100,000 and the US rate is 4.7/100,000.
> 
> ...


So if we had tougher gun laws…. the people that previously decied it was necessary to kill somebody - - - would have just shaken hands and walked away?

That position is not supported by the data.

Do you have any evidence that the UK having a lower murder rate is BECAUSE of strict gun control?










Or australia … why is there no "step function" in 1996/7 data










Other studies in Australia do show a reduction in suicide after the gun ban… I would expect that is because there are more "failed suicides" (lack of better term) where you find someone unconcious after taking a handful of pills… but if you put the gun in your mouth… their failure rate to off yourself is really really low.

---------

So are the "gun free societies" really less violent *because *of the controls they put in place?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

When this is the 20 year trend….for the USA…
Guns going up








Murder going down









But the argument is that we could prevent violent crime with gun control… We would impact 'Gun Violence'.... but history shows not the murder rate… The murder rate has been cut in half while guns have nearly doubled.

What is the compelling argument that if we "turned over" the top graph… the bottom one would drop?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

DrDirt, makes perfect sense. If I am a criminal, I am more likely to prey on an unarmed individual/home or business. The reason very few attempt to clime the gates of white house is because armed people are defending it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The incidents that tend NOT to be covered by the media here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp
Snopes says TRUE!


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Police in school has been the norm in Israel for quite a long time but not quite for the same reasons.
In Germany neighborhood watches patrol near schools and are armed with pepper spray.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Police in school has been the norm in Israel for quite a long time but not quite for the same reasons.
> In Germany neighborhood watches patrol near schools and are armed with pepper spray.
> 
> - oldnovice


Indeed - - there are photos of israeli teachers with an automatic rifle slung over their shoulder leading kids from the playground.
I think arming teachers like that - - where they have a shouldered rifle is an awful testament to the paranoia

The more we make school like a maximum security prison…. we shouldn't be surprised that kids act like inmates.

I am ok with the resource officers (basically here in Salina, a local city cop) assigned to the schools. Perhaps even trained teachers with a digital thumbprint safe.
Just now marching the school with open carry.

But I also lament that when I went to school - sometimes we went to A&W for lunch which was a block south of the school.

At my kids high school - there is Little Ceasers Pizza accross the street. ANd while many kids would like to get the 5 dollar ready to go pizza and share with friends…HOWEVER… if a student enters their business the police are immediately called and kids arrested for truancy.

Seems we would be better to TEACH responsibility, but giving kids the opportunity to be responsible… not just google it.

Instead we treat kids like animals/inmates… then wonder why they later meet that expectation when dumped into the real world.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

My wife works for the school system here in Arkansas. There is at least one cop car parked there as the students arrive and one when they leave. Just the presence of the police is a good deterrent.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

People should really be more careful.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Pat*, even though it was on a satire site it is probably more true than we think it should be.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

How Do You Prepare a Child for Life in the American Police State?

139 9 36

By John W. Whitehead
October 12, 2015

"Fear isn't so difficult to understand. After all, weren't we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It's just a different wolf." ― Alfred Hitchcock

In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

Every parent lives with a fear of the dangers that prey on young children: the predators who lurk at bus stops and playgrounds, the traffickers who make a living by selling young bodies, the peddlers who push drugs that ensnare and addict, the gangs that deal in violence and bullets, the drunk drivers, the school bullies, the madmen with guns, the diseases that can end a life before it's truly begun, the cynicism of a modern age that can tarnish innocence, and the greed of a corporate age that makes its living by trading on young consumers.

It's difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix-with its battlefield mindset, weaponry, rigidity, surveillance, fascism, indoctrination, violence, etc.-it becomes near impossible to guard against the toxic stress of police shootings, SWAT team raids, students being tasered and shackled, lockdown drills, and a growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?

Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn't intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people-of children and old people and disabled people-can't just be shrugged off as accidents, however.

Tamir Rice was no accident. Cleveland police shot and killed the 12-year-old, who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed "reasonable" and "justified" by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force "did not violate Tamir's constitutional rights."

Aiyana Jones was also no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family's apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren't even in the right apartment. Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana's home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.

Obama insists that $263 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.

While that $263 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it's doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.

No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old's crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead.

When police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, it actually was an accident, but it was an accident that could have been prevented. Police reported to Ava's house after being told that Ava's mother, who had cut her arm, was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and hit the little girl.

Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one "accidental" shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents' home. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy's toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe's hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.

These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government's endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.

Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.

Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family's house, shot the family's dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to "sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour." They later claimed it was the wrong house.

More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening-and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.

What are we to tell our nation's children about the role of police in their lives? Do you parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?

No matter what you say, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary "arrow" at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).

For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: "I don't recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s."

These drills have, indeed, become routine.

As the New York Times reports: "Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked."

Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.

What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they're working.

Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such "exercises" can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment-a microcosm of the police state-on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.

As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker reports:

Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn't even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, "I'm going to lock you up! I'm going to lock you up, and you ain't never coming home!" I once saw a six-year-old pull another child's pants down to do a "cavity search."

Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it's not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and "we the people" are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.

It's getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.
Link


----------



## Dark_Lightning (Nov 20, 2009)

TL;DR Thread getting closed in 3…2…1 for inflammatory posts. Get a grip, jinx.

Parents need to monitor and control their TV viewing. Kids are like little sponges. They didn't make it up on their own. Your posting this does not help the situation in America, one iota.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

+1 Dark_Lightning, this has gone on too long to no end except fear mongering.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> - DrDirt


So the gun laws control the murder rate? How interesting, do you have any data behind that chart?

Canada has very restrictive gun laws, getting a conceal permit is almost impossible as I understand it. The laws have only become more restrictive over time, not less. Only 12% of Canadian households own a firearm compared to 22%in the US.

The murder rate in Canada reached a peak of 3/100,000 in 1975 and has fallen since to 1.6/100,000. *Why*?

Why would it have a similar descent as the US murder rate (peaked at 10.2 in 1980)

The murder rate in both countries has fallen approximately 50% over 35-40 years. *Why*? It can't be guns? It must be something else.

Violent crime is much higher here, but both countries have had similar decreases over the same period. *Why*? Can't be guns.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> So the gun laws control the murder rate? How interesting, do you have any data behind that chart?
> 
> Canada has very restrictive gun laws, getting a conceal permit is almost impossible as I understand it. The laws have only become more restrictive over time, not less. Only 12% of Canadian households own a firearm compared to 22%in the US.
> 
> ...


Need help with google?

fine questions…. look forward to your analysis of why without draconian laws - - our rate has fallen like canada's.

Please show that Draconian Gun Law = Lower crime
Many examples of "before and after" for gun laws in Europe, Canada, UK that show there is no such correlation.

Taking two countries crime rate and say one is more violent 'Because of guns' is just conjecture.

-------EDIT

So from earlier -Post 178 - why did UK Murder rate climb by 50% for the 5 years following their handgun ban?

while for the US murder rate from 96-2003 was falling?

Australia at least stayed flat before and after their 1996 law and buyback…. so the gun law had no impact as to how well people liked each other and the resulting murder rates.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> TL;DR Thread getting closed in 3…2…1 for inflammatory posts. *Get a grip, jinx.*
> - Dark_Lightning


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You totally miss the point, if Canada and US have the same reductions then how can it be from the prevalence of guns in US. That was your point right "that as more guns are allowed the rate goes down", well it goes down in a country that is similar to the US that hasn't allowed more gun freedom, but has tightened very restrictive laws during the same period.

Your post makes no sense:

Australia didn't ban guns because of the murder rate, it was low to start with, they banned them to prevent further mass shootings. They have been successful.

If the UK's murder rate is lower now than before the ban, then it is successful. Hard to say why the rate jumped 5 years after the ban to 1.8 for a short time then fell back to 1.1/100,000.

Correlation (of which there is very little) does not imply causation.

*Why has Canada's murder rate decreased the same as the US during the same time period? *


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> *Why has Canada s murder rate decreased the same as the US during the same time period? *
> 
> - RobS888


Based on the differences in culture and population…. the decline has NOTHING to do with gun control…
The population is less dense… the total canadian population is less than live in California.
They have more green spaces
Maybe it is because it is colder for a longer part of the year?

I don't know. Visit Ottawa….Visit Baltimore…. VERY VERY different experience with the people on the street.

So defend your argument that removing guns will make everyone live in peace and harmony.

or is the argument that being beat to death with a cricket bat… more 'civilized' than being shot?

Gun control and crime are not cause and effect relationships - -the gun is just one of many possible Tools.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Canada has the closest culture to the US.

The rate is based on 100,000 so density isn't an issue.

This completely disproves guns as somehow preventing crime, so your assumption is wrong. Murder and crime rates are dropping irrespective of guns.

The difference between Canada's and the US's murder rate is the presence of guns, hand guns in particular. There is no other explanation.

I don't have to defend a statement I never made, removing guns can't make everyone live in peace and harmony, that is a really silly argument against gun laws. It will help reduce the murder and suicide rates.

You have completely failed in your argument, again.

Wether you are beat to death or shot and die, you are dead and a murder statistic. Are you confused on how statistics work? It seems so.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Canada has the closest culture to the US.
> 
> - RobS888


They are much nicer folks. Totally different mindset.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Canada has the closest culture to the US.
> 
> The rate is based on 100,000 so density isn t an issue.
> 
> ...


Interesting - so if people will still want to kill eachother - won't they choose another tool and continue? That is what happened in Australia and the UK



> You have completely failed in your argument, again.
> 
> Wether you are beat to death or shot and die, you are dead and a murder statistic. Are you confused on how statistics work? It seems so.
> 
> - RobS888


Good you admit that murder rates are dropping IRRESPECTIVE of guns.

Crime rate per 100K is a good way to look at RATES…. but DENSITY of the population is an issue.

Why are murder RATES higher in the inner city? 
Perhaps about being crammed into tenements, and a mass of concrete and noise…. is a different environment, than a small town with parks and a lack of Drive by shootings.

PROVE that fewer guns =less crim


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Mr Jinx,

I agree, they are nicer, I would content they are nicer because there are no guns. There is no need for machismo.

I read about a study comparing Vancouver, BC and Seattle. They have similar numbers in terms of population, standard of living, ethnicity, and even similar crime rates in most areas except murder. Seattle had a 5 times higher murder rate. The take away is that in Canada you need to get up close and personal to kill someone, in Seattle you can get a gun when you are angry. A gun makes it too easy to kill someone.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Interesting - so if people will still want to kill eachother - won t they choose another tool and continue? That is what happened in Australia and the UK
> 
> - DrDirt


Correct, there seem to be a small amount of determined killing where doing it by hand isn't an impediment. It is obvious that guns, especially hand guns make it to easy to kill.

This is the part you don't want to admit to, but the difference between the other countries murder rate and ours is the access to guns.

You made the contention that gun laws caused the rate to rise and loosening the laws has dropped the murder rate, I have disproved that.

I have said less guns = less murder. I have proved that several times. 
I have shown that crime is declining in other countries at the same rate as the US, so more guns isn't causing that decline here. I've asked you to show why it is following the same decline without any guns in other countries and you refused.

You have nothing left except emotional appeals and insults at this point.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

This chart shows that Toronto is the second densest city in NA,

http://www.demographia.com/db-hyperdense.htm

From highest to lowest of hyper dense cities:

NYC
Toronto
La
Chicago
San Francisco 
Montreal
Vancouver
Boston
DC
Baltimore

So again, your assumptions are wrong.

Before you begin…did you know Toronto will be the first non-white majority city in NA? Currently 49% were born outside of Canada, so don't try any "they aren't diverse like we are" crap.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> This chart shows that Toronto is the second densest city in NA,
> 
> http://www.demographia.com/db-hyperdense.htm
> 
> ...


Nice pivot - you have nothing to prove that gun restrictions drive the crime rate.

Just your supposition.

All you have is that there is a difference in murder rate.
Zero proof that it is due to gun control.

It is nice to see you stating your opinion though.

Canada has 4 people per square Kilometer
USA has 35 people

so since we are talking about national murder rates…basically the USA is 9 times the population density of Canada.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST

why would the SanFrancisco murder rate be 5.3 while across the bridge San Jose is only 3.2
Same state, similar population, 
The difference isn't different gun laws.

Or I contend that you can have different murder rates independant of gun laws. While you claim the ONLY difference between the US and Canada is guns.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I never said gun laws control the murder rate. Your chart did. I asked for background on it, but lacking any references from you I have to go by what it was trying to show.

That wasn't a pivot, it was a destruction of another of your distractions.

If density is a problem that contributes to murder then Toronto should show a higher murder rate than La, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, or Baltimore.

Why doesn't it?

Could it be no handguns?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I never said gun laws control the murder rate. Your chart did. I asked for background on it, but lacking any references from you I have to go by what it was trying to show.
> 
> That wasn t a pivot, it was a destruction of another of your distractions.
> 
> ...


Density does contribute - you will find that Chicago has a higher murder RATE than Peoria
as shown SanFrancisco has higher murder rate than San Jose…
ONLY due to guns right?

Your link says there are only 126K people in Toronto - - -when I look I get this

Toronto, with a population of 2.79 million people (5.5 million in the GTA - Greater Toronto Area) 
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=57a12cc817453410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
I doubt that they grew by more than a factor of 20 since your 'data'

Murder rates are generally higher in the cities.
Gangs (like Bloods, crips and MS13) are more prevalent in LA than Toronto

A rational look at guns vs murder rate from Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/the-correlation-of-gun-la_b_4528290.html


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I never said gun laws control the murder rate. Your chart did. I asked for background on it, but lacking any references from you I have to go by what it was trying to show.
> 
> That wasn t a pivot, it was a destruction of another of your distractions.
> 
> ...


The homogeneity of the population also has a big part to do with crime rates. Not very many people want to talk about it but the more similar the population is to each other the less likely they are to commit crimes on each other.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Density does contribute - you will find that Chicago has a higher murder RATE than Peoria
> as shown SanFrancisco has higher murder rate than San Jose…
> ONLY due to guns right?
> 
> ...


Good catch on the population on that chart, definitely not the one to show what I wanted to convey.

This chart shows that La is the only US or Canadian city denser than Toronto.

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

This chart shows that of the top 20 densest cities amongst the US or Canada 7 are in Canada.

http://www.demographia.com/db-uauscan.htm

So density isn't a factor. The major difference is guns.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I never said gun laws control the murder rate. Your chart did. I asked for background on it, but lacking any references from you I have to go by what it was trying to show.
> 
> That wasn t a pivot, it was a destruction of another of your distractions.
> 
> ...


Pat that is a good point, but I wanted to show in this case it isn't a factor for Toronto as 1/2 the population are immigrants and most of them are not from Europe.
Toronto is the least homogenous city I have seen. And will be the first major city in Canada or US to not have a white majority. It is literally a poster child for multiculturalism. With a murder rate of 2.0/100,000.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Is that crime rate less or more than where you live? 4,900/100,000 isn't that high, just relatively high for Canada.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Density does contribute - you will find that Chicago has a higher murder RATE than Peoria
> as shown SanFrancisco has higher murder rate than San Jose…
> ONLY due to guns right?
> 
> ...


You show that Toronto has high density… you have not disproven that "density is a factor" I commented that cities have higher crime than their rural counterparts….
Also cities in the same state with same population… but 50 miles apart have very different crime factors.

So your notion that THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between the US and Canada is guns to explain the lower murder rate is false.
You just showed how much more violent LA (most dense) is than Toronto…. which goes against your argument. But ignore demographics.

Your comment about Toronto moging to no longer being majority white is not correct. Majority "born outside canada" yes… but a LOT of the immigrants that moved to toronto are still caucasian. You must have never been there…. other than visiting a tourist stop like CN tower.

*You claim causation… but are only showing correlation*

Gee ISIS declared all guns illegal in Iraq…. must be working on being the cover of Conde Nast Traveller….


----------



## dday (Jun 27, 2014)

Why should anyone need more that 1 car to drive? or own more than 1 fork to eat with? Please.. 
We had rifles in gun racks in the back of our trucks in high school, we even had a JROTC rifle range in the basement of the school. We didn't shoot anyone , ever. We carried pocket knives everywhere we went , even in class and never stabbed anyone. Maybe it's the people in today's society and NOT the guns. I need as many guns as I want to own and it's my constitutional right to be able to protect me and my family. Do you think the government's going to protect us? Uh, no. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Guns are tools. Should you only have 1 hammer, screwdriver or chisel? You only need 1 right?



> A gun nut is someone that gets his manhood from a gun, they use an assault rifle to kill a deer. How brave.
> 
> Why should any reasonable person need more than 1 rifle to defend themselves or their property? Answer; they don t.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Pat that is a good point, but I wanted to show in this case it isn t a factor for Toronto as 1/2 the population are immigrants and most of them are not from Europe.
> Toronto is the least homogenous city I have seen. And will be the first major city in Canada or US to not have a white majority. It is literally a poster child for multiculturalism. With a murder rate of 2.0/100,000.
> 
> - RobS888


There are also a lot of weird things that are linked to crime rate that may or may not actually have an effect. I remember about 15 years ago when Adam Sandler was at his peak of popularity it was found that one Friday nights that a new Adam Sandler movie premiered that the crime rate was significantly lower. The hypothesis was that young males that liked his juvenile humor were also a very large part of the criminal element but they were willing to forgo that for at least one night to see a movie with fart jokes in it.


----------



## darinS (Jul 20, 2010)

> Why should anyone need more that 1 car to drive? or own more than 1 fork to eat with? Please..
> We had rifles in gun racks in the back of our trucks in high school, we even had a JROTC rifle range in the basement of the school. We didn t shoot anyone , ever. We carried pocket knives everywhere we went , even in class and never stabbed anyone. *Maybe it s the people in today s society and NOT the guns*. I need as many guns as I want to own and it s my constitutional right to be able to protect me and my family. Do you think the government s going to protect us? Uh, no. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
> 
> Guns are tools. Should you only have 1 hammer, screwdriver or chisel? You only need 1 right?
> ...


I personally think you just won right there dday. I grew up with the same things and have yet to kill anyone with either a gun or knife.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

When I was in school, the Future Farmers of America Chapter sold shotgun shells and rifle ammo in the fall as a fund raiser. Most of the kids had a shotgun in their car during hunting season.

Some of the kids decided to have a skit before a football game where they shot someone in the rear end like a cartoon. I loaded up some readily identifiable 12 gauge blanks to make noise. (Didn't want any mistakes!) The principal got wind of the plan and put an end to shooting the blanks inside the gym. Too noisy I guess ;-) They still used the shotgun in the skit but had to yell boom or something like that.

The whole world went to hell November 22, 1963 in Dallas! ;-(


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Why should anyone need more that 1 car to drive? or own more than 1 fork to eat with? Please..
> We had rifles in gun racks in the back of our trucks in high school, we even had a JROTC rifle range in the basement of the school. We didn t shoot anyone , ever. We carried pocket knives everywhere we went , even in class and never stabbed anyone. *Maybe it s the people in today s society and NOT the guns*. I need as many guns as I want to own and it s my constitutional right to be able to protect me and my family. Do you think the government s going to protect us? Uh, no. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
> 
> Guns are tools. Should you only have 1 hammer, screwdriver or chisel? You only need 1 right?
> ...


Exactly, keeping guns out of their hands is the important thing.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert. 


> I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


Well, I have lived here for 30+ years or so and had a lot of problem with the local old timers until most of them died out. Still, The last time I spoke to my nearest neighbor who is 20+ younger than me was 15 years or so ago. Nevertheless, the last time any crime was committed in my neighborhood was when a bunch of Nazi skin-head folks moved here and decided to kill me. They tried to run me off the road, they tried to shoot me, they set my property on fire and then they went back to Chicago.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr dirt,

You have blamed the recent drop in murder on gun laws being loosened.
Canada hasn't had any loosening of gun laws, but has had a similar drop.

You claim Canada is far less dense, 10 to 1, so they have a lower murder rate.
I showed several cities in Canada are just as dense as in the US, so density isn't a factor. Why did Canada's murder rate drop the same as the US?

The city of Toronto says that 47% of its citizens are of a visible minority.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=57a12cc817453410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Again you are so wrong it is funny. I've worked all over Canada, so I ask in all sincerity, have you ever been to Toronto? It sounds like you only know cliches.

If most factors are the same look at the difference that is left! The presence of guns, specifically hand guns.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

However, I must say, the locals are AOK with me now. I have been a good neighbor, I have been responsible, I have been first responder, I have been working, I have been caring, and I have been honest. Even though my honesty rubs against their thinking, they respect it; I think.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert.
> 
> I was planning to retire in Prince Rupert until I read this. Hard to believe a paradise like that would have a nasty crime rate. I can see it being bad in Prince George but not Prince Rupert.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry to hear about that.

I'm confused though if you think gun laws are the beginning of the end why even consider living in Canada? Less prejudice?

I was just in Goderich, ON for a wedding in Sept, beautiful little town.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Hey dbray,

Have you been to Toronto?

If so, do you think it is diverse?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr dirt,
> 
> You have blamed the recent drop in murder on gun laws being loosened.
> Canada hasn t had any loosening of gun laws, but has had a similar drop.
> ...


Don't know what you are trying to say.

I said cities have more crime than rural areas.

Comparing a single east coast Canadian city to a west coast US city …. is supposed to show what.

THe COUNTRIES have a 10 fold difference… not that this is the SOLE reason for behaviours but it is a factor.

I show but you ignore that I can show you two USA cities 50 miles apart with dramatically different murder rates, and the reason has NOTHING to do with guns.

You claim but cannot back up that teh ONLY difference between the US and Canada is availability of guns.

Gun control measures are repeatedly shown not to fix people violent nature.. but will affect 'Gun Crime'. but whoop de do.

Poverty and crime have a link… Canada doesn;t have open borders, they are SELECTIVE about whom they let in… not just 'anybody that walks across the border'


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

There are too many factors that will never show in raw statistics. Canada is not reprimanding millions of their middle class to the ranks of the working poor every year.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

> People should really be more careful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Don t know what you are trying to say.
> 
> I said cities have more crime than rural areas.
> 
> ...


In post 195 you suggested that Canada being less dense was a reason for the lower murder rate not me.

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you, you just don't want to see that access to handguns at the wrong time is the problem.

Canada has more immigrants as a % of population than we do, so they have as open a policy as we do.

You can circle the drain "logically" all you want until you run out of reasons, but the delta between the 2 countries is because of access to guns, specifically handguns.

What's your next quibble? Hmmm? Gaseous anomalies causes Canadians to be less murderous?

Anyway, as soon as you can explain why Canada defies all the BS reasons for less gun control let me know.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> There are too many factors that will never show in raw statistics. Canada is not reprimanding millions of their middle class to the ranks of the working poor every year.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The thing is Topo, there is a difference in murder rates, but over the last few decades they track down together. While the gun laws go in different directions, so restrictive gun laws as some have said and disingenuously portray as having a bad affect, don't make it worse.

Perhaps, there is something to the social conditions, perhaps having a safety net keeps some people off the ledge, but if so why do they track down together?


----------



## Chocdog (Aug 31, 2014)

> Rob you piss me off so much I refuse to waste any more time reading your socialist/communist garbage. I ll continue to keep my opinions to myself why don t you do the same and let everyone live their lives as they choose? It s called freedom, man!!! Don t bother to comment to this because I quit listening to you. You and all those other left wing Communist/Socialist will not be happy till everyone who doesn t believe like you are in Gulag s!!
> Have a happy life and leave the rest of us who believe in the whole constitution alone. I won t try to force my beliefs on you. Please do the same for the rest of us!!
> 
> - BurlyBob


Well said BulryBob. I need not to say anymore nor waste my time on this.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> There are too many factors that will never show in raw statistics. Canada is not reprimanding millions of their middle class to the ranks of the working poor every year.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Like I said, I believe the social issues are too complex to boil down to mathematical formulas or statics. Take rape, another violent crime. (murder rates) ~ rape In 2010, the rates were Sweden (0.7) ~ 63.5, Australia (1.1) ~ 28.6, US (4.7) ~ 27.3, Norway (2.2) ~ 19.2, Mexico (21.5) ~ 13.2, Germany (0.8) ~ 9.4, & Canada (1.6) ~ 1.7. Honduras (90.4) ~


> Columbia


 ~ 8.6

The violence factors have no rhyme or reason. Sweden murder rate is 0.7 but rape is 63.5, yet right next door in Norway murder is higher at 2.2 and rape is only 19.2. Norway's murder is nearly 1/2 what the US is , yet they have very few firearms. The US has a high rape rate and relatively high murder rate overall, but as pointed out before it would be virtually 0 without a few high crime metro areas. All I see is inconsistency and more questions than answers in the numbers. Honduras has a very high murder rate, but it is a major player in the war on drugs as are the violent metro areas of the US. As Prof Gary Kleck pointed out many years ago, firearms are used millions of times daily to deter and prevent criminal activities in this country without a shot ever being fired.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Maybe this needs a little injection!*










*Haven't we run around this post enough times yet?*


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)




----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Maybe it is the drugs:
From Ferguson, Missouri to the deserts of Afghanistan the specter of US aggression is fueling the flames of civil strife and military conflict around an increasingly volatile planet. Much of the problem may be connected to the breakdown of the American psyche.
Before attempting to shed some light on America's mental condition, let's open with a pop quiz question: What is the top-selling prescription drug in the US? Nope, it's not Viagra, not Prozac, forget the Percocet. If you don't know, take a peek in the medicine cabinet because there's a high chance it's lurking in there, right behind that purple people eater. Yes, you got it. The top-selling drug in the Land of the Free and Disturbed is an antipsychotic, happily named Abilify.

Once again: The top-selling drug in America is an antipsychotic. Now some might say that's mental.
Source


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> There are too many factors that will never show in raw statistics. Canada is not reprimanding millions of their middle class to the ranks of the working poor every year.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Unless you dig into the total to see what is included in rape you can't just compare the total numbers.

Please remove the top five urban high crime areas and see how little that affects the total. I doubt they add up to 1,000 out of 14,000/year.

The CDC says there are 2 estimates on guns being used to stop crime: 2.5 million from your prof and 115,000 from another group.

I suggest that if 2.5 million crimes were stopped by guns (civilian, not police that is about 6,500/day) it would be a comedy aspect in the news. Yet there are very few such stories, the call girl that stopped the serial killer was big news (props to her, but it was his gun) but there should be far more than what we hear about.

I doubt you can find 6,500 such incidents/day or even year.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob you piss me off so much I refuse to waste any more time reading your socialist/communist garbage. I ll continue to keep my opinions to myself why don t you do the same and let everyone live their lives as they choose? It s called freedom, man!!! Don t bother to comment to this because I quit listening to you. You and all those other left wing Communist/Socialist will not be happy till everyone who doesn t believe like you are in Gulag s!!
> Have a happy life and leave the rest of us who believe in the whole constitution alone. I won t try to force my beliefs on you. Please do the same for the rest of us!!
> 
> - BurlyBob
> ...


And yet you did.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Maybe this needs a little injection!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel like a batter facing really bad pitchers, boom stupid argument gone, boom, boom, boom,...

Thing is, I don't need to convince any of the pitchers, I'm talking to people that haven't decided yet. Dismissive insults like burly bob don't help their argument at all, quibblers like dirt look desperate to win at any cost, even as they crash and burn.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Please remove the top five urban high crime areas and see how little that affects the total. I doubt they add up to 1,000 out of 14,000/year.
> 
> The CDC says there are 2 estimates on guns being used to stop crime: 2.5 million from your prof and 115,000 from another group.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'm not going to spend the time to dig through the data. I not a statistician and no desire to be one trying to prove a point no one will acknowledge anyway ;-)

I doubt if I can find 6,500 reports too. Those events are very seldom reported anywhere. Even when they are, the general attitude of the media is to never expose the positive use of a firearm. I'm not going to say it is a conspiracy, it is just the way liberal arts majors in journalism think. This phenomena was quite obvious in recent police shooting reporting of violent offenders. When the local media occasionally reports a violent crime involving a knife or club, they post a picture of a firearm in the background.

6500 does not seem to be an unreasonable number to me. In 2014, there were 25,960 crimes reported per day nationally. Given the number of women that do not report being raped and intercriminal activities in gangland activities, 50,000 total criminal occurrences per day in a population of 318,000,000 would be very plausible.

During the 90s tool theft was totally out of control here. The salesman at Acme Tools in Seattle told me at least 50% for their sales were contractor's replacing stolen property. King County Police were a total waste of taxpayer dollars. All they did was make paperwork for insurance companies. That insurance was so expensive in those years, one could replace their tools of the trade every other year for less that the cost. One high rise that was just being tooled up had millions in unused, brand new tools in locked job boxes loaded up over a weekend. There was little anyone could do but post armed guards.

In the mid 90s, I was running off up to 3 lowlifes a month. Who knows the unknown number deterred by armed patrols of the area. 6500 a day does not seem unreasonable given my personal experience. At the worst of it, there were 3 lowlifes in my driveway in 9 days! That is when I discovered King County Police were either not recording 9-1-1 calls or purging the records. They had no record of over 30 calls I had made in 2 years. Without that record, the US Attorney's office in Seattle had no basis to bring suit against King County for ignoring the criminal activities in South King County.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

To be honest, there is no way I would hurt a person using a weapon like a gun unless they threaten my family. I am a gun collector. I buy them if they have a meaning as it relates to history. Like Colt Trooper or my recent purchase of a Tommy Gun. They will sit in a safe for the next 10 to 30 years without ever being shot even once. And they will get passed to the next generation for what they stood for. Nevertheless, all my three girls know how to use a firearm since the age of 9.


----------



## KTMM (Aug 28, 2009)




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> To be honest, there is no way I would hurt a person using a weapon like a gun unless they threaten my family. I am a gun collector. I buy them if they have a meaning as it relates to history. Like Colt Trooper or my recent purchase of a Tommy Gun. They will sit in a safe for the next 10 to 30 years without ever being shot even once. And they will get passed to the next generation for what they stood for. Nevertheless, all my three girls know how to use a firearm since the age of 9.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I would not either, but when the local authorities having jurisdiction totally ignore the saturation for years would you go out an attempt to reason with these lowlifes unarmed?


----------



## Daruc (Apr 20, 2015)




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Maybe there should be some discussions about knives or maybe quick release of dangerous criminals and the mentally ill could be addressed?


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

It is not directly related to this topic but in Israel the number of knife attacks has dramatically increased over the past few weeks.

Not to sound too callous, perhaps gun control is working, or maybe they ran out of bullets, or possilbly they ran out of suicide bomber volunteers.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob, aside from that incident I had, there has been zero situation I have had to deal with. The reason is probably because the location. There are maybe 10 families living within the 8 mile stretch of the road we live in and maybe 15 families within an 8 miles radius. 
oldnovice, when I was in Israel, there were armed solders everywhere. The problem over there is unique.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I just read that some are saying an assault rifle is so deadly because they have high muzzle velocity, over 3000 ft/sec compared to a 22 long which has a pretty low velocity of around 1000 ft/sec. That sounds like a big difference, and it is meant to scare people that do not know anything about fire arms.

One of the most popular hunting cartridges since WW II is the 0.270 Winchester which has a muzzle velocity of over 3000 ft/sec There are millions of these rifles in gun cabinets, on gun racks etc across the US.

Usually when someone says something like "lets have an honest conversation about guns" they start right off with lies.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

*Hans,* I really doubt the situation in the middle eastern countries is germane to any discussion of the American condition.

*mrjinx,* There is little doubt the situation in the metro is quite different from rural settings. We seem to have higher concentrations of lowlife that easily blend into the communities with anonymity without the social stigma they have to bear in smaller populations. There have been times when causal acquaintances have mentioned they do not have any such issues in their neighborhoods. I ask if they live in a secure, gated community? If they answer no, I comment that they do not talk to their neighbors. They usually respond asking how I know that? Because it is everywhere to some degree. I'm surprised by the number of people who mention having seen or experienced activities common to the lowlife community's normal criminal pursuits without any idea about what is in process.

My problems most likely were caused by 2 factors, a local thief who was known to the neighborhood who had "paid his debt to society" and was released to continue running up higher debts and after a $10k hit, I'm sure the word on the street was this is a good address. Now that I have retired, there is no longer a truck full of tools and copper in the driveway.

*Pat,* Any high power rifle would is infinitely more deadly than a handgun wound. Mortality rates for handgun wounds is relatively low with shotguns probably being the highest excluding bird shot beyond a few yards and rifles in the middle.

On the question of deterrent affect of resistance by a potentially armed victim, History 2 channel mentioned law enforcement in Lancaster, PA reports the Amish are 5 times more likely to be robbed in their homes than the general population.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> *Pat,* Any high power rifle would is infinitely more deadly than a handgun wound. Mortality rates for handgun wounds is relatively low with shotguns probably being the highest excluding bird shot beyond a few yards and rifles in the middle.
> 
> On the question of deterrent affect of resistance by a potentially armed victim, History 2 channel mentioned law enforcement in Lancaster, PA reports the Amish are 5 times more likely to be robbed in their homes than the general population.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The Amish will not fight back, atleast the adults won't. That said some of the strongest people I have known were Amish, I guess it is from all that hard work.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

My ancestral roots lie within the Peace Churches but somewhere along the line we had had enough.

That daily work definitely has benefits in that department. When I was in high school we played another much larger city school that was way out of our league. The coach claimed the reason we whooped 'em was the physical conditioning provided us by the farm boy the daily work routine.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> In post 195 you suggested that Canada being less dense was a reason for the lower murder rate not me.
> 
> I don t know how to make it any simpler for you, you just don t want to see that access to handguns at the wrong time is the problem.
> 
> ...


Yeah I said CANADA… ya know that big COUNTRY to the north… not solely Toronto.
USA is 10 times more densely populated than Canada.

A little secret everyone intrinsically knows…. A doctor immigrating from India… is less likely to rob a convenience store than an MS13 gang member from El Salvador.

All immigrants are not equal. So the % natural born is not a measure of anything but if you can prove that our open border has no impact on crime you are welcome to circle the bowl with your proof.

To immigrate to Canada you need to show that you have USEFUL attributes/skills for the population. Just as Australia does.

Australia uses a points test.
http://www.visabureau.com/australia/immigration-points-test.aspx

Open Borders is only a US concept. Even the 'liberals' in Europe don't to what the US does with people just arriving with no 'status'


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Looks like Maine government trust its citizens to do the right thing:

Concealed Carry In Maine No Longer Requires A Permit


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

But NY doesn't


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Como makes me sick. So does Chris Christie. You still can't pump your own gas in NJ. This issue in NY is going to go to the supreme court soon enough.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

It will probably not go until after the next president appoints a new justice. That will most likely be Hillary or Bernie given the circus on the other side.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I am not sure. People wanted hope and change and this is what they've gotten from status quo. It has left a bad taste in just about everyone's mouth as it relates to any insiders from both side of the isle. Nevertheless, you always have to be wary of the unknown as well.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I am just accessing the political realities. Biden bowed out. He would never energize the base because he has no core values, just another middle of the road, along for the ride insider politician. He probably could not win. The other two will energize a base.

On the other side of the aisle, the leader is energizing a base, but not big enough to win and there are too many constituency being highly offended to win.

I am sure the analysts advising the strategists for the NY law are thinking along similar lines. They will loose by probably one vote at the Supreme Court as it sits today.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Hope so. I think Biden was serving as a backup in case Hilary got in hot water over the e-mails/Benghazi. Maybe the hearing tomorrow? is not going to be as damaging as they think. On another subject, I am beginning to wonder if this Syria situation was choreographed. Give false assurance to the murderers without borders (Isis) and other extremists by us to go to Syria to gather them in one place. Then behind the curtain, have both Russia and US eliminate them while one is pointing to another publicly. That would be sweet deal if it wasn't a conspiracy theory. I guess we will find out one of these days on PBS special report.


----------

