The nation is tentatively moving toward a new debate over increased restrictions on guns in the aftermath of the second-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history on Friday.
And while legislating guns has gotten less and less popular in recent years, some are suggesting that the killings of 20 young children in Newtown, Conn., have so shifted the gun control paradigm that Congress can and should act now.
Here’s another question in the debate.
Click poll title for results.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5058 access attempts in the last 7 days.
With Gun control in China, the crazies over there use knives on school children instead. Now, figure out what question you want to ask to stop this type of behavior, and try again.
No one in China was killed.
Stupid Human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
THIS TIME
Extra stupid HOOMAN…
You like those laws, you should move there.
In a democracy, the real Heroes stay and change the laws that are ill conceived.
The majority of Americans support strong gun control. Its only the SUPER RICH trolling for idiots who are single issue voters like you that brings us the USA the gun violence we see today.
The justification for guns–that it will keep you safe from our own government is nonsense. That it will keep you safe from your fellow citizens is proven to also be not true. Individual exceptions exists, maybe even a lot of them, but add them all up and “we” are all safer with less guns floating around.
Reality over fantasy.
And they call libertarians conspiratorial. Scratch a liberal these days and they blame “The Rich” as if it were some multi-headed hydra trying to control everybody.
Good point there Ken. I am half joking, but only half.
Vested Interests? Does vested interests have a better more credible ring to you??
Gays, Guns, and God===big distractions leading people to vote Republican, vote against their own self interests.
In fact, I don’t know===but what should we think if the Crotch Brothers contribute to the NRA and not to Childrens Charities for Gun Shot Victims? Or should we see that as just a coincidence?
So if the killings are not in the U.S. and done with guns, it must not be true. One can not ne killed with a blade, right?
Do you support citizens having tanks, missles, rpgs for the same reason?
Why not?
And there it is fokls…the dumbest argument of the day….go ahead just say Hitler.
No one in China was killed?
There are fates worse than death, my friend.
That makes no sense at all. Yes–no one was killed in that mass knife attack in China. Scenarios very similar: suicidal loner let loose with weapon in a school yard. USA = Gun = 26 Dead. China = Knife = Zero Dead.
Now–what about those other non-gun related issues? You must be thinking that if all the Chinese were armed then…… what? The Super Rich in China would have a lower tax? What?
General Gun ownership is faulty social engineering. Even when you “individually” might in fact be better for it==statistically, everyone is better off without the guns. Note, the “even if” statement is purely hypothetical as it can’t be proven. Too many examples of responsible informed gun owners losing their weapons to third parties.
Its a risk as long as guns are around.
Killed? No. But likely put through Chinese medical care afterwards. Which means… maybe half of them were killed.
It is working so well in Mexico right?
So… your “logic” is that because gun control in Mexico doesn’t work because the USA floods their country with illegal arms is a justification for not having gun control in the USA?
Well Done.
Thats 2 stupid humans in a row.
Or in Australia, the UK, and every other nation that has all but outlawed almost all forms of weapons. Guns in particular.
You are a LEFTIST SLAVE.
Just wow.
Gun violence in Oz and UK far lower than in the USA. Not proof==but correlation that gun control works.
Ha, ha. You are proving water isn’t wet by pointing out it is used to stop fires.
Probably too sophisticated a cause and effect relationship for you? Can’t “shoot your way” out of it?
Gun Nut = as stupid as the other Nuts, just more dangerous.
In Australia, they eat marmite. This explains why violent crime went up when guns were banned.
In England, they eat beans for breakfast and don’t drink enough coffee. This explains why you have to look at the ground when you walk around in public, lest some hooligan notice you and knock you to the ground just for the lulz.
In the US, as you well know, the vast majority of gun crime is criminals killing other criminals. There are also accidental gun deaths, as there are car accidents, drownings, food poisoning, bee stings, and shark attacks. (Notably, there have been no deaths resulting from cannabis overdoses or wolf attacks, so feel free to smoke that fatty with your wolf, it’s guaranteed safe.)
You want to save lives? Drop the national speed limit to 25. You’ll save millions of lives. Obviously the deaths of 20 children are abhorrent, but about that same number were killed in auto accidents that day. And a lot more from malnutrition and abuse. Worry about those things first.
I like a lot of your opinions but on this one you’re just being stupid.
They get more guns from the rest of the world than through the U.S.A. The massive of U.S. guns of late is because Obama’s administration.
Once USA cleans the sins from its own hands, the other gun supplying nations can be coerced to give up this evil trade. It won’t be stopped as long as the USA make a profit off this carnage.
Yes–its up to Obama to change the laws. Second term president, he might do more than he would have otherwise.
Fathers of children tend to be affected when 6 year olds have 11 high powered bullets put into them for breakfast.
Know what I mean? Freedom is not living with the increasing risk of bullets for breakfast.
I have a few guns but I have lots of knifes and swords which are a much more effective at quietly killing than a loud, alert all the neighbors I have pulled the trigger, assault rifle.
Another self styled fantacist killing is way most effectively in the world? Save your ideas for the post on the need for better mental health.
3 stupids in a row.
Go talk to the Brits dumbass!!!!
http://independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/14000-knife-victims-a-year-860857.html
You are pretty stupid aren’t you. Ha, ha: “London remains the centre of what is increasingly viewed as a nationwide epidemic. Fatal stabbings of teenagers in London total 14 since the start of the year..” /// Knife violence so minor the country does’t even keep crime statistic on it. They are starting to do so now because you know–people don’t kill people with their bare hands. We use weapons for that.
Go ahead—say it.
Obviously–guns should be illegal and not available. Obviously, the Sup Ct just recently ruled the other way.
Solution: make guns illegal and swamp the Sup Ct with Reality: guns kill people. Our society is NOT the rural self sufficient society facing wilderness that we once were.
Even you crackpot idiots mostly agree “we the people” should not have machine guns, bazookas, tanks, air missles and such. Why not? Now–just apply that VERY SAME reasoning down the potential for mass mayhem until you get to single shot muzzle loading inaccurate arms and you have the start for sound social planning.
Yes, it will take time. Make guns illegal and eventually they will be removed from society. Keep them legal and the problem will only get worse.
Its reality. something the right wing doesn’t deal well with as any further postings supporting the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia will demonstrate. But Joe what’s his name on Morning Coffee recited his perfect record with the NRA and his pride at securing gun rights for the people and he recanted in favor of the safety for children everywhere. Better late than never===but an asshole just the same.
Vote the bastards out of office. Its our country–not the country of anti-social right wing paranoid miscreants who need long term mental health services rather than another gun to add to their collections.
Just look.
Check your Hamster Bobbo. The wheel is still spinning, but I think the Hamster’s dead.
Oh Jeeze!!!! Someone shot my hamster.
I hate it when that happens.
Ditto Mr. Bobbo, well said.
This isn’t an issue of gun control. This is an issue of preventing self-defense causing these deaths.
There is a distinct possibility that the Clackamas shooter ended his spree when confronted with a concealed carry holder.
http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html
In Portland, Oregon, that same rush for information had the mainstream media skip past the fact that a concealed carrier confronted an active shooter and caused him to abandon his plans, run for a service corridor and stairway and kill himself as these shooters typically do.
Likewise, the shooting in Connecticut might have ended sooner if Victoria had been armed. She hid her students in closets and cabinets and when the shooter asked where they were she told them the gym. She saved their lives. He shot her in the head. She might could have saved her life and all the other lives after that had she been armed.
Statistics have shown numerous times and without doubt disarming people does not save their lives. If you believe otherwise, you are a stupid fool and should be sterilized to prevent further contamination of the gene pool.
Loser–how did I know that reality would never penetrate your dark hidey hole? When would you start arming all the kiddies too or do you just assume that?
Tanks, missiles, rpgs===why not?
C’mon gun nuts==why not full automatic REAL MAN TYPE WEAPONS for everyone? Why not?
Any issue will have examples of BAD POLICY having good results. You have to add up all the cases, not just the ones that work out. When you do that–USA leads the world in death from legal firearms. Deaths that would not have occured by knives or lead pipes.
Its a choice. What kind of society do you want??? The MAJORITY of Americans want gun safety.
……. figure that one out.
Crawl back under your bridge. No room for trolls up here.
Ahole, you don’t really believe that B.S. do you?
Do you kiss your mother with that hole?
And yes, I do believe it. It’s been proven many times that more people died in mass shootings where the targets were all unarmed.
How many people have died due to mass shootings in police stations or gun shows?
When a tragedy such as Newtown is used as nothing more than an opportunity to push one agenda or the other, Americans look very shallow. Safe Storage procedures, such as are in place in Australia, might have prevented this. It seems criminal to leave your weapons lying around the house in a casual manner.
There is one question, though, that we are afraid to discuss. We are afraid to even mention it. It would not be Politically Correct. What has changed in our society over the last 50 years that turned the unthinkable into the possible? Hint: It isn’t guns.
Yes, several/many issues contribute to gun violence but it is the guns, the clips, the lack of prohibiting regulations that are the tip of the spear.
You are good to keep your stupid red herring second order issue a secret. Its just that inane.
So—no gun nut here wants to say everyone should have bazookas???
Not gun nut enough, or just not stupid enough to actually say it????
Poor gun nuts, wanting to have a machine gun but hesitant to say so. come out of your bunkers===say it: you won’t be free or safe until you have rpg’s to protect your self.
Stupid Hoomans.
The loss of personal responsibility (The Great Society, etc.) mixed with the American Dream that you can be anything you want to be.
When you realize you can’t be what you want to be and you’ve been taught that it isn’t your fault, then the only way to get the recognition you’ve been promised your whole life is to do something foolish.
We need to start teaching people personal responsibility again. And letting them know that not everybody can be a rocket scientist. We’re always going to need lap dances and chicken nuggets.
Terrorists brought down two planes with knives. No more knives allowed on a plane.
A terrorists try to bring down a plane by stuffing explosive in his shoes. Everyone must take off their shoes for checking.
..on land..
A nut kid takes a semiautomatic rifle to a school and kills 26 people. We just ask what caused him to do that, and tell people to say prayers.
Good thing we don’t apply this logic to civil aviation.
Can you imagine the headlines?
“A terrorist put a bomb on a plane, everyone dies”
“It’s a tragedy, we are trying to find out what caused him to do that, and say a prayer”
— that would make me feel safer 🙂 —
That’s one solution, put metal detectors and x-rays machines at every door in America to make sure no one is armed.
Have you tried to fly commercial these days? I really don’t want to go through that everytime I go to the mall or the supermarket.
The second link in the OP is to: “The next big issue in the national debate over guns — whether people have a right to be armed in public — is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.” /// And the rational answer is of course: NO. Guns should be illegal to begin with… so I assume the SC will say yes, its a “fundamental constitutional right.”
I see it much like walking around with your penis exposed. The same ugly stupidity on display with gun exposure, but at least not as dangerous.
We aren’t living in the “Wild West” any more and the teenage fantasy images that go with it do need to be saved for the movies where they belong.
Gun license really needs to be several 10’s of thousands of dollars per year: you know, to PAY FOR the damage they cause. You want a gun? Shouldn’t you pay all the costs associated with it?==what are you a leach on society wanting everyone else to pay for your play things????
Stoopid Hoomans.
Bobbo your opinions respect no one else’s opinions, and merely shows your intolerance, bloated ego and unabashed bigotry. You sure have that magical thinking down to a fine art.
Hey Prof sounds like your dealing in a little projection here.
If by some miracle, you could make ALL the guns disappear form the responsible gun owners as well as the criminals, You might have a case. Since this is an impossible scenario, then you will just be leaving the general public completely vulnerable to the wolves.
Time and time again the lefties on this blog defended Obama with the argument that he is not going after the guns. Another fucking lie from the left, and another Constitutional right that will be , by order of the dictator, ignored.
Lets face it, the entire Obama presidency is built on nothing but lies, and damn liars.
Two things:
1) Please find in the Constitution any reference about type of gun limitation (they have had at the time many types, sizes and purposes). Nowhere. Please find there any reference about hunting, sport shooting, etc. Nowhere. The purpose for 2nd amendment is clearly there: to be able to form militia. Serious fighting force. Able to combat. Able to combat with Governments (be it invading one or domestic gone astray). A check on Government power. Not only there should be no new restrictions but all old ones must be removed.
2) People cite UK and such about crime in no-gun countries but not about ALL crime there. Study have been done on Glasgow vs. Kansas City (similar sizes and types of population), over a decade. Results… Indeed there was significantly more gun violence in KC. In hundreds acts per year. BUT: there was 10 fold excess of rape in Glasgow vs. KC, in thousands per year. And 10 fold excess in assaults, in tens of thousands of events per year. Is that reshuffling of crime good? I’d trade 1000 rapes and 10000 assaults for just 100 gun crime events any time in my city.
douche-anal goes all analytical and says:
12/17/2012 at 8:07 am
Two things:
1) Please find in the Constitution any reference about type of gun limitation (they have had at the time many types, sizes and purposes). Nowhere. Please find there any reference about hunting, sport shooting, etc. Nowhere. The purpose for 2nd amendment is clearly there: to be able to form militia. Serious fighting force. Able to combat. Able to combat with Governments (be it invading one or domestic gone astray). A check on Government power. Not only there should be no new restrictions but all old ones must be removed. /// And now 250 years later we have professional full time standing armed forces and national guard. The need/rationale/basis for a militia has been superceded. Care to join the 21st century? but I do wonder what the VERY SAME founding fathers would have thought about allowing citizens to have semi-automatic weapons. You know–back then a man with a muzzel loader and a man bare handed were “almost” on even ground. After one shot, they certainly were. A group of 20 men could overpower one or even two with muzzle loaders. Do you see any relevant differences between the two times? Do you, can you? And its those differences that count even when you don’t.
2) People cite UK and such about crime in no-gun countries but not about ALL crime there. Study have been done on Glasgow vs. Kansas City (similar sizes and types of population), over a decade. Results… Indeed there was significantly more gun violence in KC. In hundreds acts per year. BUT: there was 10 fold excess of rape in Glasgow vs. KC, in thousands per year. And 10 fold excess in assaults, in tens of thousands of events per year. Is that reshuffling of crime good? I’d trade 1000 rapes and 10000 assaults for just 100 gun crime events any time in my city. /// People in Glasgow also eat more porridge, play soccer, and have bad teeth. Is that caused by the gun laws too? There is no caussation in your statistics which point more to the idea that Glasgow is more unlawful than KC–so just imagine what would happen if they did have guns? Many more murders than in KC. Your stats support just the opposite of your position if you want to use them that way.
Yes, its complicated. Sad you can’t conceive of less gun murders, less rape, less assaults. But you consider them as tradeoffs huh?
Stupid. Really not deserving of any respect at all.
Just like most gun nut positions. I wish I had a FLAME THROWER so we could talk eye to eye. Know what I mean?
Where were you when all the innocent Mexicans were / are slaughtered by your President and AH Holders policy to ship guns into Mexico? Where were you then bobbo? Were you calling for impeachment, heads to roll? Whats the matter, is it because they were just Mexicans?
No, you weren’t you were campaigning on this blog for Obama and his criminal sidekick.
Typical hypocrite.
Jamie–do you “think” I or any rational person supported shipping guns to Mexico? No–we don’t.
Add that detention mark to everyone who was engaged in that activity.
If you want to blame Obama for every bad thing that happens in the World, be my guest. Its stupid beyond belief….at least you will be consistent.
dusanmal- the politicians don’t care about the Constitution, not anymore.
prof. johnnycakes special of the day says:
12/17/2012 at 7:45 am
Bobbo your opinions respect no one else’s opinions, /// wrong–I merely don’t respect the idiotic pro gun positions posted so far. A thoughtful opinion in support of gun is hard to come by I’ll give you that. Thats a characteristic of a BAD POSITION. sucks don’t it? Tell us johnnycakes–why should a bad position that results in 20 children being killed deseriving of respect? =====I’ll wait for your respect deserving answer.
and merely shows your intolerance, /// yes, I am intolerant of stupidity that gets locked into our culture by unthinking clods who can’t defend their own position and therefore seek cover by ad hominem. Why don’t YOU answer ANY of my questions posed? Because you can’t without being foolish even by your own values BUT you won’t change your mind. WHY should you be respected for that?=====I’ll wait for your respect deserving answer.
bloated ego /// bloated only to the degree I take a position that can be defended and do not take a position that cannot be defended. Shouldn’t we all be bloated that way? And why aren’t you? =====I’ll wait for your respect deserving answer.
and unabashed bigotry. /// That doesn’t make any sense. I thought you were starting your word salad at bloated ego but gave you a pass. Now you reveal yourself….. posted too soon.
You sure have that magical thinking down to a fine art. /// NAME the magical thinking. Bet you can’t do it.
The best a gun nut can offer. At least LOSER dresses it up in constitutional ravings. You might follow his lead. He has learned not to blather in public unless in dialogue with Pedro. You should do the same as you have no defense of your own position.
COME ON GUN NUTS===WHY NO TANKS, MISSILES, FLAME THROWERS, RPG’S. The gubment is stepping on your freedoms.
NO FLAME THROWERS, NO FREEDOM.
c’mon boys==howl like the pack animals you run with.
You’re obviously not going to get anyone to respond to that particular strawman. Shut up and move on to something that others can at least argue with.
Strawmen are easily destroyed by FLAME THROWERS.
Haw, haw. Yes–dismiss the argument that reveals your own position as mindless.
Go ahead—why should you not have a flame throwing Gawd???? You can use it to hunt deer. What are a few trees when your freedom is so at stake otherwise?
Ha, ha. Even GAWD himself can’t burn this strawman. Such is reality.
C’mon Gun Nuts: show us the legitimacy of your position: its a necessary evil that 13,000 innocent people die in America each year so that ………
You finish the sentence.
Ha, ha. 39 comments before Jamie gives voice to the first rational argument. Lets parse:
Jamie says:
12/17/2012 at 8:02 am
If by some miracle, you could make ALL the guns disappear form the responsible gun owners as well as the criminals, You might have a case. /// Not a miracle, and we don’t need perfection==but our laws and social sensibilities should be those that move us in that direction. Outlaw guns and over time gun violence will reduce. CERTAINLY—more guns is not the anser?
Since this is an impossible scenario, /// magic is impossible, I agree. But legal and social changes towards that legitimate and logical goal is only one of insight and patience.
then you will just be leaving the general public completely vulnerable to the wolves. /// Completely not true. We have a police force. They catch criminals. We have mental health professionals. They help people not become criminals. And so forth throughout the social fabric.
Time and time again the lefties on this blog defended Obama with the argument that he is not going after the guns. /// I’ve never seen Obama defended that way. He was an asshat for implementing nothing but pro gun polcies (carry into National Parks is only one I know of)) but righty loons love to lambast the Democrat in office. Its a substitute for thinking.
Another fucking lie from the left, and another Constitutional right that will be , by order of the dictator, ignored. /// This makes no sense.
Lets face it, the entire Obama presidency is built on nothing but lies, and damn liars. /// Well, you started off strong and then went off the rails. Hard to be rational. Ha, ha.
Is Jamie the Best you GUN NUTS have???? Could well be the case, after all, you are gun nuts.
Gwad==you made a good post above. Hard to find with this forums nested response system. At its heart you say:
“In the US, as you well know, the vast majority of gun crime is criminals killing other criminals. There are also accidental gun deaths, as there are car accidents, drownings, food poisoning, bee stings, and shark attacks. (Notably, there have been no deaths resulting from cannabis overdoses or wolf attacks, so feel free to smoke that fatty with your wolf, it’s guaranteed safe.)
You want to save lives? Drop the national speed limit to 25. You’ll save millions of lives. Obviously the deaths of 20 children are abhorrent, but about that same number were killed in auto accidents that day. And a lot more from malnutrition and abuse. Worry about those things first. ”
/////////// As if our Society cannot do more than 2-3 things at a time? As if the death of innocents by guns is too minor an issue? As if the degradation of entire communities into “no go” zones is not a broader more deadening event?
I think you are making the error of completely misplaced priorities. We are IN FACT working to better all the issues you name–better road designs, traffic reporting on delays, school lunch programs etc. Other than Texas though, we DON’T raise the speed limits in part because of the public safety. But in the USA we don’t reauthorize the no large clips national law. That probably will get reauthorized now given the attention. Good–but not near enough.
Silly to think/post that USA has too many other more important issues. We live in a SOCIETY where all these issues are addressed all the time. Its not an issue of time–but what the actual policies applied are.
There is no rational support for general gun ownership. Time to grow up, put away the Davey Crockett Coon Skin cap and be adults.
It won’t happen I know. Doesn’t change the issue though.
Your premise is incorrect. In the light of recent USCoA rulings and anticipated SCOTUS cases next year, gun carry laws are being and will continue to be relaxed further. In Illinois, the state-wide ban was struck down by the 7th circuit, specifically criticizing the ruling by the 2nd circuit concerning New York’s restrictions on carry.
An uncle of mine killed his last wife with a kitchen knife, with the excuse that the voice in his head instructed him to do it. Do we then ban or severely limit the access to kitchen knives?
Clearly this is an argument about detection and treatment of mental illness, not about knives, or guns. Yes, parent’s should control their children’s access to guns. They should not buy guns for them, as has been reported in the Newtown case (not sure whether or not that’s actually factual), and they should not allow their adult children whom they know to mental problems own guns, as in the Tuscon (Gabby Giffords) case. In fact, there are already laws on the books at the state and federal levels that preclude people with a history of mental illness from owning or possessing guns. Instead of rolling out this red herring every time there is a tragedy, why not shift the debate to where it belongs: diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
Juggling ideas require more than one idea. What you reveal is that our society needs MORE mental health services and less guns.
Faulty reasoning to link mental health with guns as an either or proposition.
Also faulty to say guns should be freely available because knives are. Do you REALLY think that?
Why don’t you answer then for the pack the following question which so far no on has: why not flame throwers? The question is entirely relevant. Answer it and you answer why modern guns should likewise FOR THE VERY SAME REASON not be allowed.
For some reason, people think that a gun is a gun is a gun as in “arms” as in what the constitution allows. Hard to cirticize this nonsensical thinking when the majority of the SCt enshrines it in law. Same court that said money did not corrupt politics.
Know what I mean?
So what was the rate of psychotic mass-murder/suicides by teenagers before we started drugging all the kiddies in the early 90s? Our society has deeper long-term problems…
Awwww Sea Lawyer===all these posts and you commit the same non lawyerish sin of confusion?>>>add drugging our kiddies to the list of problems to be addressed in ADDITION to guns, not as a substitute.
So simple.
when Sea Lawyers run aground, what to think?
Bobbo chasing after red herrings
Hey Gawd
You gave me the honor of mentioning you often agree with me. That is an interesting premise: what to think when people you often agree with take a position you don’t have? What to think???
When I find that in my own case, I do carefully review my position. I don’t unthinkingly keep or reject my position or the other persons. Its a stimulus to think more deeply, more honestly, about the issue.
Guns, gun violence, has a certain dead weight (sic) logic about it that leads to one conclusion. OOPs–time to change my nom de flame for this new tangent…..done. If I thought guns made me safer, of course I would advocate for them. They don’t, and I don’t.
Why do you argue for social policy that put you and your loved ones at greater risk? So republican—to vote against your own self interests.
We see it so often. You have to think and SAY that 13,000 deaths of innocents per year is “worth” whatever value you find in your position. when you can’t even voice what you think that value is……. must be something else.
Sea Lawyer thinks its drugs that we give our kiddies. Did you ever go to school gwad? Or do you stand outside school, learning, and reality?
Everything is a tradeoff. Pesticides and anti-fungal sprays are bad for people, but rotten or infested fruit is also bad for people. How do we decide how to balance this? Lowering speed limits saves lives, but costs money in terms of longer transit times and increased traffic. How do we find this balance? And the list goes on and on, it’s never black and white.
While you do not find utility in firearms, MANY people do. You can find statistics that will support both positions. In your mind the choice clear because there is no downside to banning firearms. I and about half of the general population disagree. It’s not about being a cowboy, or making your johnson larger, to us it’s a matter of taking your safety into your own hands. Sadly in our current society, the police serve mostly to keep the crowds away, gather evidence, and take care of the paperwork AFTER a crime has ocurred. They really don’t (and can’t) do anything to protect you personally. If you look at the countries where citizens are not allowed to protect themselves, they are MUCH more likely to be a victim of violent crime. This can be as much of a life-changing experience as being shot, but it’s simply not reported nor taken as seriously as something dramatic, like a gunfight. Same with traffic accidents, child abuse, and so on and so on.
The fact that shootings get so much media attention actually evidences that they are, in fact, a relatively rare events. (Irrelevant if you are personally involved, of course.) Traffic accidents and deaths are seriously underreported in local media, and pretty much completely absent in national media, even though the actual number of deaths and injuries produced are orders of magnitude more than gun-related deaths.
Now, what would be the biggest public outcry if national speed limits were reduced to, say, HALF of their current levels on every road? PEOPLE WOULD BE INCONVENIENCED. They would not be willing to be inconvenienced merely to save the lives of 20-40 children a day. Not everybody would feel that way. People who hate cars would be overjoyed, just as people who hate guns would love to see their availability curtailed.
Let’s try to keep all of this in perspective.
Here’s what the NIH has to say about child mortality…
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm
Note that firearm related deaths don’t show up as significant. When we’re allocating resources to make children safer should be allocate them based on need, or on how much attention they get in the press?
What are your priorities?
Why are so many people so eager to give up even more freedom and control to the government?
The police are a government controlled army that is tasked to protect and serve the people, yet they didn’t stop this.
The government did not help these people, and you want to trust the government to be the only people with guns ?
Do you think if you give the government more power and control then somehow they will magically prevent all harm and start doing ‘the right thing’ ? this same government that invents evidence to go into a war ? the same people that sold weapons to mexicans?
Do you think maybe if the bad guys are the only ones with guns it will make the world a better place? The kind of people that want to murder people are not going to care about the legality of his killing tools.
But if we ban guns then he might not have access to guns?
Ban cars too, ban all unhealthy foods, ban all art(it may make you think!) and let only the government decide what you can do and when you can do it. For your own safety of course.
I do not understand why you think the government is so qualified to decide whats in your best interests. They have a track record of not caring in the slightest. This government that is letting people die on the streets homeless while it gave billions of dollars to banks.
If you don’t like guns don’t own one. And if someone breaks into your house be very glad that you have no way of defending yourself because statistically you are more likely to hurt yourself if you owned a gun. i’m sure the staff that died the other day were thinking the same thing .
“thank goodness i don’t have a gun to stop this man from killing me and all these children.”
The gun control issue will end up solely focused on assault riffles. So what is the big deal? Get them off the streets for good and impose stiffer penalties for trying to keep one illegally!!! Cops will definitely appreciate the help. There are PLENTY of other firearms for home defense, hunting and recreation. Better to keep the big boy toys for the military for which they were intended.
Bobbo’s friends might account for increased gun sales in his area and likely become one of his “Gun Nuts” if often subject to his frothing tirades. Type away op-ed boy, You’re making “Jersey Shore” actors seem quite normal.
More ad hominem. Its all you got.
Ha, ha.
He’s just looking for attention. One of these days, the local constabulary will chain him back under the bridge where he escaped from.
While we’re at it, most bank robberies are done with the aid of automobiles. Stabbings are usually done with knives.
We should try to have more control over who can buy automobiles and prevent people from buying knives larger than 2″.
Both items seem to foster criminal activity. Just like CO2 CAUSING global warming, there’s a strong correlation (which is redefined as causation in the liberal eyes) with respect to knives and automobiles.
Whats your evidence that knife ownership fosters knife crime? /////////// of course, you don’t have any.
You do know co2 poisoning is a chemical reaction not complicated by the vicissitudes of human intervention–aka==a wholly different thing.
but I assume someone that can’t deal with scientific chemical reactions on the order of 2+2=4 would have problems with the sociology of a heterogenous society with lots of problems + guns = gun violence.
Guyver—getting more stupid with each day. co2 poisoning? Standing too close to the bong?
Ha, ha. See the IPCC report leaked last week. Its worse than previously thought: yes, I know in your gun littered world that means 99.9% of qualified scientiests are only lying more to justify those grants.
Stoopid Hoomans.
WILL NO ONE TELL ME WHY I CAN’T HAVE A FLAME THROWER FOR GODS SAKE?????? I gotta be free!
Are you suggesting most stabbings are not done by knives?!?!?!?!?! Or are you suggesting most stabbings are accidental and not a crime?
Is global warming as the alarmists (including yourself) suggesting that CO2 is CAUSAL instead of correlated?
I would hardly call your philosophy of “correlation is causation” remotely anything like science. I just made a similar liberal conclusion off of some other issues that could be correlated to inanimate objects.
Yes we have a problem in this country of criminals, crazies, and liberals doing all sorts of stupid things… but this is no reason to punish law-abiding people because big government has not been successful in thwarting liberalism, criminal activity, or crazies.
So problems + guns = gun violence, but problems + knives != knife violence?!?!?! What a hypocrite. LOL.
If you were logically consistent, at least you’d be on the bandwagon of limiting the sale of knives because you can’t protect everyone from a crazy wielding a knife.
Just show me the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that global warming is CAUSED by man-made CO2. Otherwise, you’re just screaming the sky is falling and cherry picking your “science” when it’s convenient.
Something tells me you’re going to do an appeal to authority based off of correlation… and scream bloody murder that this is in fact science because science is all about a consensus.
So wait, cars and knives are the same as assault riffles? Not sure I follow. I thought cars are meant to take you places, knives are meant to cut things and assault riffles are “rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifles designed for infantry use.” Is this not correct?
No it’s not correct. Assault rifles are generally semi-automatic not fully automatic. You press the trigger once for each fire.
Gotcha. You gotta make every trigger pull count. That definitely creates more of a challenge.
You bet.
If you break into my house in the middle of the night, you can bet there will be a nice group pattern on your chest using hollow points.
I don’t think so. The AR-15 evolved into the selective fire M-16. The current AR-15 is a semi-automatic.
The M-16 with selective fire is a military assault rifle.
All inanimate objects whose use and purpose are determined by its user.
Or be a getaway vehicle.
Who determines its use or whether it’s involved in a crime?
How far down a slippery slope do you want to go in outlawing inanimate objects as used by criminals onto law-abiding citizens?
There isn’t much of slippery slope and I think you lost the point on purpose. Guns are are intended to be used as lethal force, especially assault rifles. And assault rifles make it that much easier to kill than other firearms. That’s why the military uses them. There are a variety of pistols, shotguns and rifles for true home defense, hunting and sport shooting that you should be able to hold onto.
Law-abiding citizens in the U.S. use firearms to either hunt game or to protect / defend themselves against criminals.
Lethal force is supposed to make criminals think twice.
You SOUND like someone who’s never been in the military or is trying to make a case because you have a very high level understanding but not of the bigger picture.
Assault rifles don’t make it necessarily easier to kill someone. And the military has pretty much eliminated the assault portion of it for general issue rifles because they found fully automatic rifles wasted bullets more than anything else. Care to take a guess at how long a magazine will last on a fully automatic?
Fully automatic is great for suppressive fire, but you burn through a lot of bullets. So much so that you could put yourself in danger because if the other side knows you’re switching magazines, then you’re likely to be shot.
I think it does make it easier to kill in the sense that it is more stable than a handgun, the mags can have a higher capacity and you can discharge more than 1 round at a time. If some psycho showed up at a public place, what would you want pointed at you and what do you think you have better odds of surviving?
We’ll have to see if the Connecticut shooter used tight little bursts or went full auto on all of the children he mowed down. He certainly didn’t serve in the military.
@super77
“I thought cars are meant to take you places”
I guess you never heard of a car bomb, or the numerous times they have been used to run people over — on purpose. Google Bath School.
“knives are meant to cut things”
Yeah, like humans.
FYI, firearms are also used for sports, recreation, hunting.
Also, don’t confuse a semi-automatic black rifle with an assault rifle which by definition means that it is switchable to full-auto or burst fire.
Just because a rifle is black metal and has accessory rails does not make it an assault rifle.
Just because a car has a fancy paint job and flames on the side doesn’t mean it is a rocket.
Don’t forget the pistol grip or the flash suppressor. Both sure signs of an “Assault Rifle” that make it a lethal military weapon.
That crap got started by the MSM and now anything is an Assault Weapon.
There sure are a lot of memes collecting on this drama:
“Survivalist with lots of guns.. planning for the end of the world”
“Medicated child with mental problems”
“Home schooled”
“Reclusive, shy, gifted kid turns into a killer”
Barry’s crew are really making sure that this time, positively, absolutely, those lone wolf, gun toting weirdos are marginalised.
YOU WILL OBEY!
Kyusoath says:
12/17/2012 at 10:01 am
Why are so many people so eager to give up even more freedom and control to the government? /// Because YOUR freedom to shoot 26 innocent kiddies in a school yard interferes with my freedom to live peaceably with my fellow man.
The police are a government controlled army that is tasked to protect and serve the people, yet they didn’t stop this. /// Correct because laws that interfere with this ability are supported by people like you. The police here did the very best any service could: they responded quickly and took action. Had they waited for whatever bureaucratic BS we so often see, the count would have gone up. I assume the first 2-3 officers that went into the school are “real” heroes of this story. They took action. So should we—the voting law passing public.
The government did not help these people, and you want to trust the government to be the only people with guns ? /// The gov did help these people. The police stopped much more killing, the hospitals tended to the survivors, mental health will provide services, the schools were public I assume.
Do you think if you give the government more power and control then somehow they will magically prevent all harm and start doing ‘the right thing’ ? /// What is this reference to “magical” thinking as the Strawman about people joining together to do the best they can? COUNTER: WHAT MAGIC do you think exists that keeping guns legal will not allow this very same thing to happen again? Pure stupidity you evidence by this argument. Wipe your ass.
this same government that invents evidence to go into a war ? the same people that sold weapons to mexicans? /// Its the same government that keeps guns legal, large clips legal, gun show/private sales legal, does not match up computer data basis, cuts back on mental health services and so forth. See how that stupid street works?===>its two ways. Now–wipe that ass of your and stop shitting on common sense.
Do you think maybe if the bad guys are the only ones with guns it will make the world a better place? The kind of people that want to murder people are not going to care about the legality of his killing tools. /// When only bad people have guns, they will be identifying themselves for immediate arrest and jail. Good idea.
But if we ban guns then he might not have access to guns? // Over time, yes, thats exactly it. Every person, every where at all times? Of course not. But not a mass shooting once a month either. Again–wipe your ass. Shit for brains is never pretty.
Ban cars too, ban all unhealthy foods, ban all art(it may make you think!) and let only the government decide what you can do and when you can do it. For your own safety of course. /// Train done run off the tracks and is now half way down the mountain side. Cars, food, art all have a social utility not involving the purpose of killing people. Can you see the difference or are your eyes blinded by your own shit of ideas?
I do not understand why you think the government is so qualified to decide whats in your best interests. /// Common sense, logic, history, country comparisons, majority rule. Yes, all foreign to you.
They have a track record of not caring in the slightest. /// Don’t confuse “our government” with the Republican Party. That leads to posts like yours.
This government that is letting people die on the streets homeless while it gave billions of dollars to banks.
If you don’t like guns don’t own one. And if someone breaks into your house be very glad that you have no way of defending yourself because statistically you are more likely to hurt yourself if you owned a gun. i’m sure the staff that died the other day were thinking the same thing . /// Well, now, thats a nice rolly polly hodgepodge of issues isn’t it. Would I like to have a gun, or a ladder, or a rope, or a flashlight, or a lightning rod WHEN I need one? Sure. But thats not how life presents itself. Better for all including myself as you even said is: a good police department, fire service, emergency room etc. We live in SOCIETY. You don’t understand that skippy. Society–all together.
“thank goodness i don’t have a gun to stop this man from killing me and all these children.” /// Yes, why not a flame thrower? RPG==you know, the right tool for the job. Small tactical nuclear weapon when one is needed too.
We live in Society you dumbass–not the frontier wilderness of 1770 Pennsylvania. Grow up. Wise up. Your life is not just about you, your fantasies, your initial id driven associations that are actually disfunctional illusions.
Guns kill people. Ban them.
So do cars, cigarettes and alcohol to name but a few.
Banning guns would only leave the honest unarmed. The naughty folks don’t worry about the legality funnily enough.
Your position was refuted in the first 50 posts.
Cars etc have a primary purpose other than killing people.
People are protected by SOCIETY–police, mental health, para medics, school reporting and so forth. Most studies show there is a positive correlation between number of guns and illegal use of guns.
Reality. Not common sense defying talking points.
“People are protected by SOCIETY–police, mental health, para medics, school reporting and so forth”
What are you 12 yrs old? Do you really believe that?
Here is reality: The UK has banned all weapons, knives, guns etc and yet people still get shot and stabbed.
Get caught with a multi-tool in your pocket and you have a good chance of a free overnight stay in a jail with a record for breakfast.
United States 60% of homicides by firearm.
England and Wales 6% of homicides by firearm. Can’t find an overall UK figure, I expect Scotland to be similar Northern Ireland worse.
http://tinyurl.com/c99edm2
I find the US figure unlikely but it’s the only one I’ve got.
US homicide rate 4.2 per 100,000
UK homicide rate 1.2 per 100,000
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6x4pmk
wikipedia but I’m prepared to believe it.
From Crime shows on TV I imagined the US homicide rate to be much higher.
What does it mean, dunno. What’s the answer not a clue.
The main purpose of firearms for civilians in the U.S. is to hunt game or protect / defend people. Pretty simple.
What a dope. Correlation is not causation.
And did you see any reports over how many crimes are thwarted because a law-abiding citizen was nearby with a firearm?
You see what you want to see and use correlation to jump to a hasty conclusion (as usual).
Hilarious rant Bobbo. btw; amazing how ad hominem works so well for you.
You don’t understand the concept do you prof: attacking the person because you have no argument to respond with. Thats YOU and too many of the gun nuts here.
I don’t do that.
I attack with MANY EXCELLENT arguments, and because your position has nothing to come back with but don’t change your mind, then I attack the person.
See the difference? One is rightfully deserved–the other has no alternative.
Ha, ha.
@bobbo said:
“Because YOUR freedom to shoot 26 innocent kiddies in a school yard interferes with my freedom to live peaceably with my fellow man”
No offense but this is the most stupid thing I have ever read from you.
No one has the freedom to shoot children.
Murder is against the law, illegal, immoral.
The shooter broke the law by murdering people. Attempting to throw other laws onto firearms that restrict the millions of law abiding citizens only infringes on their rights.
When 9/11 happened did the government just put signs in airports stating they are “hijack free zones”?
Does anyone honestly believe that would work?
Then why would all of the idiots in the USA think that putting a sign stating that a school is a “gun free zone” be any different?
No, they put airport screening, armed air marshals, etc. into place.
So why no armed security at schools? I have no doubt that many properly trained persons would volunteer a few hours each week to be security at grade schools.
Thats a fair call deegee, glad you are capable of seeing that. You have some of the basics to rise above the mire that formed your current value system.
You know what happens when a psychopath is confronted with a big complicated problem?……
…………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………….
they focus on some small detail as if that dealt with the issue.
the big problem here is gun control given how corrupt our St Ct is. You choose to focus on the sinlge word freedom as if any intelligent reader would not know the assumed antecedent of “so called.”
What else is the demand for multiple and extended clips except a claim of freedom to make multiple kills? Semi automatic rifles–same thing.
When B does not occur without A, then A and B are related if not the same thing. Multiple Mass Slayings does not occur without extended clips and automatic weapons. See the connection?
So what are your claimed Second Amendment rights but the freedom to kill innocent people? What makes you post as if the freedom of one person is not an assault on another? THATS WHY FREEDOMS need to be balanced against each other–or dare I say regulated?
Hurts don’t it?
The recent attack against children is a vote for home schooling.
The state has proven they cannot protect those individual within their custodial care.
It’s well known that if you want to find unarmed victims, go to a school or college.
Firearms or other means of self-defense are not permitted by federal law on public school property, therefore the state is by implication responsible for safety.
If, on the other hand, teachers were armed as in Israel, or parents were allowed to protect their children inside the school as they do outside of the school, using firearms if necessary, than these events would not happen.
Say Boggy–you know the shooter in this case was home schooled and raised by a gun nut survivalist?
Ha, ha. Everything you think is shit.
Shit, shit, shit— and so are you.
Guns kill people. Get rid of them and get rid of the individualist attitude that the whole world is just there for you to rebel against. It ain’t true–just your dysfunction.
Truth hurts, if you are sensate.
You’re just full of hasty conclusions today. Let me guess… you’re government-schooled which is why you’re so adept at committing logical fallacies all of the time?
Another liberal mantra. People are not responsible for their own actions… just the inanimate objects which compel criminals to commit a crime. Ha!
we HAVE gun control. Gun control is not gun banning. The left has used the term ‘control’ as a NLP for banning and violating the constitution.
Maybe we should enforce the laws we have now.
Mass Murder, and murder is BANNED, hows that working?
Recreational Drugs are BANNED, hows that working?
Political bribes are BANNED, hows that working?
Insider trading is BANNED, hows that working?
More laws you will not enforce will not solve a thing.
Liberals are always quick to exploit a tragedy to push their political issues. They are wishing right now for another school shooting so they can really get things going.
Yes MikeN, and to strike when the real story isn’t yet fully formed. Play on people’s fears, force it through before the population notice. Seems to be going around a lot recently.
C’mon==SAY IT!!!!
You know you want to say it.
No one is SAYING IT.
Please say it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don’t know why you aren’t saying it. I missed the memo? Anyhoo==yes, very liberal to address an issue when it actually arises. Best to pretend it doesn’t happen. There really is nothing to think about here is there my gun toting nuts? Nothing at all.
You know====when your head is in the sand, you ass is up in the air. But you are right===nothing to see.
but tell us===how exactly does the discussion change if we wait until what/when to establish sane gun controls. What you gonna say then? “Hey–there haven’t been any mass shootings of 6 year olds for 5 weeks, so it really isn’t a problem”
Are you two really that stupid??? You post that way, I just want to hear you actually say it.
SSSAAAAYYYY IT!!!!! I want to hear you say it.
btw==where is my FLAME THROWER. Why don’t you guys care about the stupid government taking away my FLAME THROWER??? You know===If I could keep my TANK mounted FLAME THROWER AND ROCKET LAUNCHER, then your guns would be safe for you. Personnel Popup Mines in your front yard would be good for homeowners safety too.
You gun nuts sure are short sighted.
Silly gun totting hoomans.
Darn, others all ready beat me to it. So I can only repeat: If we are banning guns because they kill people, then we need to ban cars, alcohol, drugs, and governments. All are used by people to kill other people. And that is the short list 🙂
Gun control is as efficacious as the war on drugs, the war on porverty, etc.
Governments’ increased firepower must be matched by the private party, or tyranny results. Remember, we humans love to prove it over and over: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The underlying cause in the last mass shooting may very well be mental illness, yet we will not treat that until illegal acts have been reported to the authorities.
I suggest we would have better results analyzing our response to mental illness than sliding down the slope of banning this and banning that.
I do not foresee myself owning an assault rifle, yet if I must put down a rogue government that is no longer of the people, by the people, and for the people, and is instead the antithesis of this republic, then I am going to need all of the tools I can obtain.
“If we are banning guns because they kill people, then we need to ban cars…”
Dumbest argument going.
Obviously because you don’t understand what an analogy is to demonstrate flawed logic.
McGuyver–obviously YOU don’t understand that for an analogy to have relevance it must not break down before the point of the analogy is reached? In this case, the analogy breaks right at the beginning because the primary purpose of cars is to burn oil thereby poisoning the atmosphere, thereby killing us all. The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot a bullet to kill one person.
You really can’t compare the extinction of mankind with killing a couple thousand a year.
Ooops. Where did my Apple Maps Metaphor application go wrong on this?
Confuscius has several quotes on the use of metaphor. Seems only wise men can understand them properly. No guns in Confuscius’ time. Dynamite though.
Where is my TNT?????? WHY CAN’T I HAVE BOXES OF TNT TO PROTECT MYSELF??????? Damn gubment interfering with my God Given Right to blow stuff up.
It not FREEEEEEDOM if you can’t act as self centeredly as you would like to do.
RATS I tell ya!
Bobbo, your argument is flawed in multiple ways.
There are many many firearms designed and built specifically for target shooting, skeets, hunting, etc.
The primary purpose of the bow and arrow is to kill.
Why no ban on archery?
The primary purpose of the rod and reel is to kill.
Why no ban on fishing?
This entire “ban firearms” argument is a straw man.
Firearms are NOT the problem. They are simply a tool. Any tool in the hands of a “tool” for illegal/illicit use is the problem.
Attempting to engineer society by banning everything is akin to trying to cover the entire earth with fluffy pillows so everyone can bounce around happily and safely among the rainbows and unicorns.
deegee==you are too late to the party.
MONSTER beat you to it. Once stated, it should not be repeated–at least not in earnest as you do===its too funny.
You may be too dull witted to see it though. Maybe just skipped to my own postings and missed it?
People without guns cannot kill with a gun. The logic is inescapable. See that post from Jess Hurchist above? He posted facts and stuff.
Facts and Stuff. Its what good argument is based on–not vapor.
But I’m being too curt and snarky. I apologize. You are meeting more than half way.
Its just the subject. 20 dead kiddies and you support what directly has lead to it. You say and might even think that you don’t…… but you do. And thats the harm of bad thinking.
@bobbo said:
“People without guns cannot kill with a gun.”
Incorrect view of the world and reality again. Not meant in offense.
In Canada (where I live) murder by knife greatly outnumbers murder by firearm (we have strict gun regulations).
What is the answer to this problem then? Ban knives?
The UK has a ban on firearms, yet they still have multiple murders every year by firearms. How is that possible according to your logic and your view of no guns = no gun crime? But no doubt if you “banned” them then all of the criminals would just happily turn in their guns, right?
The issue is that firearms have been available for a few centuries, they are simple enough in function that almost anyone can make one in their basement, so banning them will never work. You can’t uncook an egg, you can’t get the cat back into the bag. So you (we) had better learn how to more better deal with the issues. And banning has worked so well with crime, murder, drugs, that it is shown that it does not work at all.
Should the US (and all countries) have a variety of regulations in place for firearms? Of course. That is one of the better ways to try to weed out those who are unfit and to try to reduce accidents. Does crime and murder still exist? Of course.
In Canada we have licensing (PAL) which requires multiple days of schooling and exams, followed by federal and provincial background checks. Strict storage and transportation laws. Regulations and classifications of firearms including prohibited models. The necessity to produce your PAL when purchasing firearms or ammo (which can result in verification calls by the vendor to the CFO office).
Do we still have gun crime and murder here? Yes, we do.
Wow ! 85 comments in 2 hours!
Nothing gets Teapublicans in a lather like God, Gays and Guns!!
According to Bobbo, the first 50 are liberal. 🙂
Gwad his own self dropping the comfort of his nom de flame, as I will in response, says:
12/17/2012 at 11:06 am
Everything is a tradeoff. /// Exactly so. The start of legitimate analysis.
Pesticides and anti-fungal sprays are bad for people, but rotten or infested fruit is also bad for people. How do we decide how to balance this? /// Just as we do—by which kills more.
Lowering speed limits saves lives, but costs money in terms of longer transit times and increased traffic. How do we find this balance? /// Majority rules as defectively made law by our Representatives. Don’t forget increasing gas mileage as a reason for lowered speeds. All to the point that BIG OIL destroyed mass transit in the USA in the 1920’s as they continue to do so today. Tradeoffs did you say::—or more simply just rip offs?
And the list goes on and on, it’s never black and white. /// Wrong. In a world that is often gray, there are still many issues that are almost purely black and white. Rational people don’t let minor exceptions invalidate what common sense and statistics shows to be the majority if not overwhelming case.
While you do not find utility in firearms, MANY people do. /// Of course there is utility. I didn’t say it, but you won’t find absolutist statements posted by me, other than when having fun with a few no brainers here.
You can find statistics that will support both positions. /// Be careful there. What statistics on what issues? Still–you add up the statistics and I think its pretty clear you need a gun to kill someone with a gun. You don’t need more than a single shot long rifle to kill deer. All to be repressively licensed and logged in. How many people feeding themselves deer and squirrel meat is worth 13,000 innocents killed each year? Statistics backing your position? I don’t think so. ….. by I fake left, when on the right we have home and personal safety issues?==Again, present those stats. They show “some” people save themselves, but then we are left with those 13,000 KNOWN dead per year. Your numbers don’t add up.
In your mind the choice clear because there is no downside to banning firearms. /// There is a downside. When you need and would benefit from having a gun, of course, its good to have one. It is Statistics that factually show this emotional response is wrong.
I and about half of the general population disagree. /// Yep, and 50% believe in fairies too.
It’s not about being a cowboy, or making your johnson larger, to us it’s a matter of taking your safety into your own hands. /// That is what being a cowboy is about. Clip size goes to your Johnson.
Sadly in our current society, the police serve mostly to keep the crowds away, gather evidence, and take care of the paperwork AFTER a crime has ocurred. They really don’t (and can’t) do anything to protect you personally. /// Not true, and no one advocates pre crime police work. It is what you name that results in any country being as safe from predators as we are. Silly to post otherwise. go to any country without mostly useless police and see what you have. Pre crime is for the mental health professions, schools, and what not.
If you look at the countries where citizens are not allowed to protect themselves, they are MUCH more likely to be a victim of violent crime. //// BULLSHIT. Name that country. Page one has the reference to Kansas City vs Glasgow. Thats if you want to compare being killed with a gun to some category of assault. In other words—statistics used without knowing squat one about what the statistics are about.
This can be as much of a life-changing experience as being shot, but it’s simply not reported nor taken as seriously as something dramatic, like a gunfight. Same with traffic accidents, child abuse, and so on and so on. /// Its not reported, so no one has any idea about its statistical occurrence. When such events rise to the level of being killed by a gun, then statistics will be kept on it. See the weakness of your (lack of) insight? Tell me specifically—-what again is as life-changing as being killed?
The fact that shootings get so much media attention actually evidences that they are, in fact, a relatively rare events. (Irrelevant if you are personally involved, of course.) Traffic accidents and deaths are seriously underreported in local media, and pretty much completely absent in national media, even though the actual number of deaths and injuries produced are orders of magnitude more than gun-related deaths. /// Not true…. just on the statistics I last recall they are fairly close===the RELEVANT DIFFERENCE being the utility being derived from automobiles compared to deer and squirrel meat and the fantasy of self protection. You are starting to wander.
Now, what would be the biggest public outcry if national speed limits were reduced to, say, HALF of their current levels on every road? PEOPLE WOULD BE INCONVENIENCED. They would not be willing to be inconvenienced merely to save the lives of 20-40 children a day. Not everybody would feel that way. People who hate cars would be overjoyed, just as people who hate guns would love to see their availability curtailed. /// Yea–so whats the solution? Majority rule??? Majority of Americans are for gun control. You lose every which way.
Let’s try to keep all of this in perspective.
Here’s what the NIH has to say about child mortality…
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm
Note that firearm related deaths don’t show up as significant. When we’re allocating resources to make children safer should be allocate them based on need, or on how much attention they get in the press? /// I’ll second your implication that resources should be spent most efficiently with the highest returns and with enough resources spent to address the identified needs. In gross generalities, we agree. Gun restrictions aren’t made to protect children though. They are done to protect EVERYONE. The kiddies just call attention to the very same issue that otherwise gets ignored.
What are your priorities? /// my nom de flame captures most of it. Goals–the most good for the most people. Not believing something because it feels good or its what I personally prefer. There is a reality that is knowable outside what we each currently think today. Its brought forth by experience and finding out the facts. Being willing to change one’s mind when the facts are corrected. Forming an opinion after the facts are collected rather than selecting the facts to support a given position. Accepting the consequences of my own thinking:::: such as===why can’t I have a FLAME THROWER.
People dismissing that question as a troll or stupid demonstrate their own intelligence informs them that guns need to be restricted, but their habit patterns of unthinking kneejerk response to the issue keep them ignorant, republican, and self destructive–but destructive to the rest of us as well.
Silly Hoomans.
Reply
Do you even know the difference between a firearm and a flamethrower? Do you? Continue to make your arguments from incredulity, please. Everything you post is a fucking logical fallacy.
20 children killed? Let’s say it’s 2 more, the mother and the shooter. That’s 22 dead. You can square that number and it will equal the number murdered in Chicago this year.
So why are places with lots of gun control getting so many murders while majority of US counties have one or zero murders for the year, the ones with all the guns?
Um, no.
Um, yes. And in the UK according to multiple sources (go do your own damned research) violent crimes, especially against women have risen over 50% since the country required its citizens to “forcibly surrender” their handguns.
Anyway, as for Chicago after their handgun ban:
Murders with handguns averaged 40% higher after the ban. There was a 17% decrease in overall murders that coincided with a national decline in murder, and that was nationally around 25% at the time.
Oh yeah, and please note the second header under Arguments: “Chicago’s Handgun Ban Is An Utter Failure”.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_PetitionerAmCuHeartlandInst.authcheckdam.pdf
Oh, but let’s not talk about that. It would make the gun control crowd’s assholes pucker. But really, if all we’re going to do is leave the police armed, maybe we should listen and observe some of their data:
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/2005%20Murder%20Reports/Murder2005.pdf
Table 6 (page 25), Table 7 (page 26), and Figure 13 (page 27)
Try finding and analyzing all the facts from multiple sources, instead of the sources that appeal to you and the information that appeals to you.
” Violent crimes against women have risen 50% since citizebs were forcibly required to surrender their handguns”
Why does this first cited statistic seem like a crock of shit? I tend to throw out everything else you said.
You could have picked something less outrageous from the NRA list of talking points
It’s okay, I don’t expect someone with your apparent lack of intellect to actually read anything that doesn’t agree with your media-fed rhetoric.
Why, that’s a poor response defending your assertion that fewer guns on tge street led to a rise of attacks on women!
Homicides in Chicago
1974: 970
2010: 436 (ban overturned)
2012: 488
You really have to learn how to cherry pick stats better.
See folks, this is what happens when you give hard facts to clearly incompetent readers.
Go look at page 27, figure 13 and please, tell me how the statistics say handgun crimes decreased.
Fucking idiot. Learn to read.
Oh here, I’ll do it for you:
“On the other hand, despite an ncreasing trend, prior reports did not indicate that there was a significant long term change in the percentage of murder incidents that involved shootings. Consistent with this, there was no significant change in the percentage of shootings from 1991 to 2005. Moreover, the percentage of shootings in 2004 was nearly identical to the percentage of shootings in 2005 (75.4% vs. 75.2%).
Again, learn to fucking read. But please, continue to astound people with your half-ass attempt to debunk facts based solely on the premise you can’t fucking read.
LOL. I love this guy. Keep the handle.