(Advertisement)

Need assault-gun ban, lawmakers say

Listen to voters, not NRA, urge Democrats in wake of school massacre

Posted: December 17, 2012 at 4:52 a.m.

Democratic lawmakers and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that military style assault weapons should be banned and that a national commission should be established to examine mass shootings in the United States.

This story is only available from our archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/17/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Egyptians allege vote violations

Egyptian riot police walk past a military tank guarding the presidential palace in Cairo on Sunday. Islamists claimed a constitutional referendum had 57 percent support in the first round of voting, in which rights groups claimed widespread violations.

Egyptian rights groups called Sunday for a repeat of the first round of the constitutional referendum, allegin... Read »

Next Story »

Gunman was ready for war

Names of victims hang on a U.S. flag on a makeshift memorial in the Sandy Hook village of Newtown, Conn., as the town mourns victims killed in a school shooting, Monday, Dec. 17, 2012. Authorities say a gunman killed his mother at their home and then opened fire inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, killing 26 people, including 20 children, before taking his own life, on Friday.

The gunman in the Connecticut shooting rampage was carrying hundreds of rounds of especially deadly ammunition... Read »

How about putting more armed protection agents in schools instead of making laws criminals won't follow anyway.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 17, 2012 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Laws and bans do not prevent crime. Our prisions are full of people who have broken every law that has been written.

Learn to protect yourself. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

Posted by: Tumblebug

December 17, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Any time you create a "gun free" zone you also create an environment for a killing field. Just look at Norway.

Does anyone really believe taking guns away from normal people is going to keep whackos from getting guns? They still manufacture guns in other countries.

We can't even keep illegal immigrants out, how would we keep guns out, and away from criminals?

Everyone wants to know where God was during this massacre. Don't you remember? We kicked God out of the schools.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 17, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The pendulum never stops in the middle, it's either no guns or everyone has a gun. Let's use some common sense and take some time to think this through. I for one don't have much use for gun's, but I am not against anyone who has them. This issue has to be addressed, we might be able to avoid something like this from happening again.

Posted by: REPUBLICANSRNUTZ

December 17, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Could we please make a distinction between ordinary rifles with which a farmer might shoot a predator in the chickenhouse
and assault weapons and souped-up handguns which are only meant for killing a lot of people at once?

Posted by: Coralie

December 17, 2012 at 2:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The pendulum never stops in the middle, it's either no guns or everyone has a gun."
Either/or thinking at its best.
How about reinstating the ban on assault weapons for starters?

Posted by: Coralie

December 17, 2012 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Or we could do away with these silly "gun free" zones where only criminals are armed.

Bombs, guns, knives, boxcutters, ... it really doesn't matter. Criminals have proven they will find a way... especially if their target is known to be defenseless.
Gun bans are a murderer's best ally. It's no wonder that these things keep occuring in gun free kill zones.

The focus should be on preventing violent crime as a whole, not gun crime.

Do you think a person that's hacked to pieces by a knife or blown up by a bomb gives a darn that a gun wasn't used in their murder?

By the way, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than guns, but I don't hear anyone calling for prohibition or banning those with DWI's from purchasing alcohol (or a car for that matter).

If something has to stop, it's the idea that criminals will follow bans on anything. Otherwise we might as well all do away with locks on our doors and instead put up signs that read "BURGLAR FREE ZONE".

Posted by: JB30

December 17, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have, over the past twenty years, walked into and back out of the Grand Canyon ten times. Each time I did so, I carried a concealed handgun with me even though it was against the law to possess the firearm in a National Park. I carried this firearm, not to shoot game or animals, but to kill people. Thankfully, during these ten trips, I did not find a people that I deemed needed killing. I carry a firearm with me at all times because (now pay attention) It is better to have a firearm and not need it than to need one and not have it!

Posted by: JailBird

December 17, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have never fired a gun in my life (other than a bb gun as a kid). Early next year, my spouse and I are enrolling in classes and plan on getting our concealed weapons permit. We both plan on getting small handguns.

To this day, I have never heard a compelling reason as to why anyone needs assault weapons outside of our military.

Posted by: Dexter

December 17, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I should have said military and law enforcement...

Posted by: Dexter

December 17, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dexter and Coralie,

You should learn a little bit more about guns or what you have been taught about "assault weapons". Certain guns are being judged on nothing more than a tactical appearance. I suggest learning about guns from someone that knows guns.

Respectfully,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 18, 2012 at 1:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank,

Teach me, why should someone like me be allowed to own one? Why would a grade school teacher need one?

Posted by: Dexter

December 18, 2012 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I guess removing a few guns is a good treatment for psychosis.

Any grownups out there?

Posted by: SFret

December 18, 2012 at 8:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We had one man try to carry a bomb onto a plane in his shoe, and now we all have to take off our shoes at airports. We have had 31 school shootings since Columbine and nothing has changed. Why?

Posted by: pricem36

December 18, 2012 at 8:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why don't we ban school instead of firearms.

Posted by: JailBird

December 18, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not one mention of assault weapons, here. Why not?

Posted by: MATYCHY

December 18, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MATYCHY, I mentioned assault weapons.
I agree, we [civilians] don't need them.
We also don't need magazines or whatever you call them on handguns so that they can shoot a lot of people in a few minutes.
I don't need to be a gun expert to know that something is wrong and has to change.
***
Identification checks to make sure a gun buyer has no criminal record--they do not apply to 40% of gun sales, at gun shows or online. That needs to change.
The NRA is a lobby for gun manufacturers, pushing your buttons with their propaganda.

Posted by: Coralie

December 18, 2012 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Price, the Columbine shooting (1999) happened right in the middle of the last "assault weapons" ban (1994-2004). Gun bans are not the answer.

Posted by: JB30

December 18, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

http://www.tnr.com/topics/warren-e.-b...
------------------------------------------

Meantime, the Reagan arm of the Court is thinking and reviewing ways to have shoulder or hand-launched missiles as part of 2nd Amendment merchandise, if you can "bear" it, you can keep it, militia be damned:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/...

Posted by: cdawg

December 18, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB, one incident doesn't prove or disprove anything.
It's called OVERGENARALIZATION.

Posted by: Coralie

December 18, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excuse me, overgeneralization..

Posted by: Coralie

December 18, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is so easy to make a clip that will hold as many rounds as you can carry. Wheelbarrow them in. The answer is not to restrict of ban the sale of guns, but to limit the sale of ammunition to so many rounds over a certain period of time with ID and require the shooter to bring in spent cartridges before he can purchase more.

Posted by: JailBird

December 18, 2012 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Price, the Columbine shooting (1999) happened right in the middle of the last "assault weapons" ban (1994-2004). Gun bans are not the answer. "
In order to make the point you intend to make, you need to show that the number of people killed by assault weapons (not the same thing as assault rifles, as Mr. Tankersley has pointed out) did not decline, or increased, during the ten years the assault weapons ban was in effect.

As I understand it, three of the four weapons used at Columbine were a assault weapons, as defined for purposes of the law. Two of the weapons were pump-action shotguns. The semiautomatic rifle (Hi Point 9mm Carbine) had a magazine of ten shots. (Assault weapons, per the ban, have larger magazines.) The shotguns and the assault rifle were acquired through a straw purchase from unlicensed sellers at a gun show. The semiautomatic pistol used (Intratec TEC-DC9) was an assault weapon, acquired from an individual idiot who worked at a pizza parlor.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420...

Note that "Two TEC-DC9s were used in the massacre at a San Francisco law office that led Congress to ban the manufacture of assault weapons in 1994. Klebold's TEC-DC9 was made during the congressional debate by a Miami gun maker who tripled production to beat the ban - and called it his best year ever." Apparently that particular assault weapon was already out in the market before the assault weapons ban was enacted.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/sho...

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 18, 2012 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "require the shooter to bring in spent cartridges before he can purchase more."
What?-- recycling!? You hippie.

When I was a kid, we picked up carelessly-discarded soft drink bottles to return for the deposit. There weren't a lot of cartridges lying around next to the streets in my neighborhood. I guess that's a good thing.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 18, 2012 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I notice no discussion of prescription drugs/mental illness, etc. -- there have always been weapons, people had the Common Sense not to be stupid, keep on thier meds, and not go ballistic on "innocents"...with video games of shoot 'em up, prescription drugs, Less Ethic and Moral Values being taught at home and in school,... of course people are getting more psychotic!

Posted by: Commentor

December 18, 2012 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I didn't intend for that to serve as proof. I was just making a point that the same action that's being debated was in place prior to the Columbine shooting (which was referenced).

Posted by: JB30

December 18, 2012 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie: "MATYCHY, I mentioned assault weapons.
I agree, we [civilians] don't need them."

Until the politicians and an ignorant media decided to redefine assault weapons as any scary looking gun, we didn't own them. Assault rifles are, by nature, fully automatic.

"We also don't need magazines or whatever you call them on handguns so that they can shoot a lot of people in a few minutes."

Maybe you don't, but I do. A single shot pistol doesn't do a whole lot of good in a self-defense situation.

"I don't need to be a gun expert to know that something is wrong and has to change."

Take an objective look at the statistics and you will see what needs to change is not cosmetics or a ban that criminals won't follow. We need to move past the hysteria and base whatever measures we put into place on hard facts. The consequences of any solution should be weighed against what we would accomplish by making a change to existing law.

As I said before, violent crime must be the target, not gun crime.
***
"Identification checks to make sure a gun buyer has no criminal record--they do not apply to 40% of gun sales, at gun shows or online. That needs to change."

That statement shows how misinformed you are. You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep. You cannot buy from any FFL licensee without going through the NICS system.

Also, there is no loophole that allows dealers to sell guns at gun shows without running a background check. All FFL dealers must run you through the NICS system regardless of where they sell you the gun.

"The NRA is a lobby for gun manufacturers, pushing your buttons with their propaganda."

The propaganda is coming from the media, not the NRA. I can't count how many times I've heard various news anchors say how we must stop selling "fully automatic weapons". You just regurgitated some of it yourself with that line about online sales.

Posted by: JB30

December 18, 2012 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha: "In order to make the point you intend to make, you need to show that the number of people killed by assault weapons (not the same thing as assault rifles, as Mr. Tankersley has pointed out) did not decline, or increased, during the ten years the assault weapons ban was in effect."

The infamous Clinton AWB banned the sale of rifles with detachable mags and two or more of the following features:

1) Pistol grip (big killer that pistol grip is!)
2) Bayonet Lug (great huh?)
3) Flash suppressor (bet 90% of Congress doesn't even know what this does)
4) Threaded Barrel (uh, ok)
5) Collapsable stock (sorry criminals, you can't adjust the length of the stock anymore).

Basically, they tried to ban the scary black rifle. The AWB was (as most gun control measures are) a feel good, self congratulatory law that didn't make sense or reduce crime. The libs hate the gun industry like the cons hate the unions. It has more to do with campaign contributions than public safety.

"As I understand it, three of the four weapons used at Columbine were a assault weapons, as defined for purposes of the law. Two of the weapons were pump-action shotguns. The semiautomatic rifle (Hi Point 9mm Carbine) had a magazine of ten shots. (Assault weapons, per the ban, have larger magazines.)"

Not really. The magazine capacity was cut to a max of 10 rounds in the AWB, but it was not a defining feature of an assault weapon. Both pre-ban and post-ban guns could use the same magazines, so you could by a post-ban AR15 and put a 30rd pre-ban magazine in it and be perfectly legal. Also, the round count doesn't really matter all that much. It's more of a convenience issue than anything else (I can carry 3x30rd mags or 9x10 rd mags and use them almost the same exact way. Reload time is minimal.

"The shotguns and the assault rifle were acquired through a straw purchase from unlicensed sellers at a gun show. The semiautomatic pistol used (Intratec TEC-DC9) was an assault weapon, acquired from an individual idiot who worked at a pizza parlor.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420...

Unlicensed dealer? That's already a federal crime, as is purchasing a gun for someone else. Criminals don't follow the law. Otherwise, they wouldn't murder people.

"Note that "Two TEC-DC9s were used in the massacre at a San Francisco law office that led Congress to ban the manufacture of assault weapons in 1994. Klebold's TEC-DC9 was made during the congressional debate by a Miami gun maker who tripled production to beat the ban - and called it his best year ever." Apparently that particular assault weapon was already out in the market before the assault weapons ban was enacted.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/sho...

And do you think it would have stopped their whole plan if he had been forced to choose a different gun or other weapon? I don't. These people stop shooting when shot or when faced with a gun pointed in their direction.

.....

Posted by: JB30

December 18, 2012 at 10:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The common denominators in mass shootings are not assault weapons, but mental illness and "gun free" kill zones.

"With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/co...

Also, I encourage you to look at the DOJ and CDC studies on the AWB. Neither study could make any connection to lower rate of gun crime or predict a future reduction in gun crime were the AWB to be reinstated.

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

We can either spend the money to make schools similar to the secure area of an airport, or allow teachers and/or administrators to carry guns. If a teacher wanted to bring a gun to school and wipe out their class room, there's little we could do to stop it. Preventing them from self-protection reminds me of the days where we banned airline pilots from carrying as though they didn't have the power to kill everyone on the plane anyway.

Posted by: JB30

December 18, 2012 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What's lost in all this debate is the 2000 high powered rifles sold to Mexican drug cartels by the government operation known as "fast and furious". The same administration that now wants to take our guns was supplying them to the cartels, resulting in over 300 murders in Mexico and Brian Terry, our own border agent.

Liberalism knows no shame...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editori...

Posted by: patrioteer

December 18, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "What's lost in all this debate is the 2000 high powered rifles sold to Mexican drug cartels by the government operation known as 'fast and furious'."
Only about 100 of which have ever been used in crimes. Of course, "Fast and Furious" was created in the field, not centrally, so there was no oversight or control of the operation.

RE "The same administration that now wants to take our guns"
Speaking of rewriting history. Remember when Obama was going to take everybody's guns away if he was elected, and gun and ammo sales went through the roof? And nothing happened? When has Obama has shown any intention to "take our guns"?

RE "Liberalism knows no shame..."
Yeah, the ATF is a real bunch of liberals. And the "Wide Receiver" operation of the Bush administration was similar, and had similar problems-- though certainly not to the extent of "Fast and Furious". I guess Bush had no shame, either-- but not to the same extent as liberals.

Patrioteer knows no shame.
_________________________________________________

A patrioteer is no more a patriot than a musketeer is a musket.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 19, 2012 at 2:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let's unpack some of JB30's false claims.

JB: "Assault rifles are, by nature, fully automatic.">>

No, but most of them have that option. And the consumer ones can be modified.
Some times gun nuts try to hide behind semantic games regarding what exactly is or isn't a certain kind of gun. It's a meaningless distraction. Assault weapons come in many varieties. What this kid used was a consumer version of an assault rife, and being that, it was designed to be very effective at killing people, quickly, which it did.

JB: "A single shot pistol doesn't do a whole lot of good...">>

Coralie didn't suggest "single shot." Avoid the strawman nonsense. Incidentally, when the 2nd Amendment was designed, maximum capacity was single shot and loading times were very long.

JB: "Take an objective look at the statistics and you will see what needs to change...">>

Yes, I will be getting to those in a minute.

JB: "As I said before, violent crime must be the target, not gun crime.">>

No, it's actually the gun crime. Let's consider Britain's example. Here are the number of total firearm deaths in Britain, per year:

Homicide from all firearms, per year, England & Wales:
1999/00... 62
2000/01... 73
2001/02... 97
2002/03... 81
2003/04... 68
2004/05... 78
2005/06... 50
2006/07... 59
2007/08... 53

Government PDF here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs...
Also these folks have it up: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF...

The UK population is about 60 million, so the US is about five times larger. If you average the numbers above and times them by five, you get: 345. So, this number should give us a per capita comparison with one year of US gun homicide.

UK = 345
US = 12,352 (in 2004)

Notice that these numbers are adjusted for population. There is no reason why they should be different at all. The US number is *35 TIMES* larger than five of Britain’s years combined. This makes the UK number a rounding error.

It's the guns Sherlock.

D.
------------
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/b...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie said: "Identification checks... do not apply to 40% of gun sales, at gun shows or online.">>

JB30 responds: "That statement shows how misinformed you are.">>

Turns out you're the one misinformed.

JB: "You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep.">>

You're an idiot. http://www.gunbroker.com/

JB: "You cannot buy from any FFL licensee without going through the NICS system.">>

Then don't buy from one with an FFL license. Go to local a gun show, back up your truck, and buy guns all day long, no record, no receipt, no limit, no background checks, cash down, load and go.

Here, I'll let an Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda explain it to you (He was the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, and in this clip he urges terrorists to get guns and carry out attacks on the US):

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRQz...

JB: "...no loophole that allows dealers to sell guns at gun shows without running a background check.">>

Who cares about *dealers?* Observe:

"Undercover stings at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada documented that:

--63 percent of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check;

--94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislat...

This makes a mockery of the notion that the US has gun control.

JB: "The propaganda is coming from the media, not the NRA.">>

The NRA is a pack of liars that are entirely devoted to gun propaganda. When the NRA isn't lying about guns and misinforming the public they are working to make it so convicted violent felons can have guns. You have a good explanation for that?

Guns for Felons
How the NRA Works to Rearm Criminals
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

D.
-------
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, I don't bother to read your garbage, so I don't know what you said about my statements, so I can't comment.

Alpha, your ignorance knows no bounds.

RE "What's lost in all this debate is the 2000 high powered rifles sold to Mexican drug cartels by the government operation known as 'fast and furious'."
Alpha: "Only about 100 of which have ever been used in crimes. Of course, "Fast and Furious" was created in the field, not centrally, so there was no oversight or control of the operation"

2000 guns out there and "only" 100 used in crimes. What a stupid statement! Where are the other 1900?

RE "Liberalism knows no shame..."
Alpha: "Yeah, the ATF is a real bunch of liberals. And the "Wide Receiver" operation of the Bush administration was similar, and had similar problems-- though certainly not to the extent of "Fast and Furious". I guess Bush had no shame, either-- but not to the same extent as liberals."

And yet another dumb statement. Alpha, do some research and you will find that "Wide Receiver" was an operation involving the Mexican government. "Fast and furious" was done outside of the knowledge of the Mexican government.

You know what? I'm going to ignore you as I do FFT. At least that way I don't feel compelled to respond to stupid comments.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 19, 2012 at 11:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT:

"JB: "Assault rifles are, by nature, fully automatic.">>

No, but most of them have that option."

Wrong. The US Army has defined Assault Rifles this way: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire (which means fully automatic) weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." FYI these guns became heavily regulated in the 1934 National Firearms Act (I guess you could call the the original Assault Weapons Ban... until the media/politicians decided to go after cosmetics).

"And the consumer ones can be modified."

You can modify any semi-auto gun. The cosmetic appearance is of little consequence, but filing off the sear gets you a gun you can't control. How many public massacres have used modified FA weapons? Thought so.

"Some times gun nuts try to hide behind semantic games regarding what exactly is or isn't a certain kind of gun. It's a meaningless distraction. Assault weapons come in many varieties. What this kid used was a consumer version of an assault rife, and being that, it was designed to be very effective at killing people, quickly, which it did."

From what I've read so far, the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB. It didn't have the features the media wishes to ban.

"JB: "A single shot pistol doesn't do a whole lot of good...">>

Coralie didn't suggest "single shot." Avoid the strawman nonsense. Incidentally, when the 2nd Amendment was designed, maximum capacity was single shot and loading times were very long."

She suggested banning detachable magazines and the ability to fire at multiple targets. Big mistake. Also, the criminals weren't armed with semi-autos back then either.

"JB: "As I said before, violent crime must be the target, not gun crime.">>

No, it's actually the gun crime. Let's consider Britain's example. Here are the number of total firearm deaths in Britain, per year:"

So you're fine with an increase in murders, armed robbery, and rape, as long as gun deaths decrease? Brilliant!

"It's the guns Sherlock."

Ok: "Now a gun ban dreamland, is crime in Britain out of control?" (http://www.examiner.com/article/now-a...)

"the level of violent crime in Britain has risen by 70 per cent. Gun crime is up by more than half and there are more than 100 serious knife crimes each day, with fatal stabbings having reached the highest level on record."

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT:

"Coralie said: "Identification checks... do not apply to 40% of gun sales, at gun shows or online.">>

JB30 responds: "That statement shows how misinformed you are.">>

Turns out you're the one misinformed."

Wrong.

"JB: "You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep.">>

You're an idiot. http://www.gunbroker.com/"

No, you're an idiot that didn't look far enough into it. This is what happens when someone that doesn't have a clue about gun laws attempts to speak out of their backside...

From that site you referenced...

"It is perfectly legal to buy and sell firearms provided federal and state legal statutes are obeyed. Transfer of firearms ownership between individuals must be managed by a third party who is a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. Virtually anyone who is involved in the sale or distribution of firearms is an FFL holder, including gun shops.

To take delivery of a firearm, buyers must either have an FFL or find an FFL in their local area to take delivery of the item for them. If you have an FFL, you already know what is required. For buyers who do not hold an FFL, this means the buyer must find an FFL in their area to take delivery for them. This typically means the buyer must contact a local gun shop and make arrangements for the transfer.

Buyers must contact the FFL holder before placing a bid on an item. By contacting the FFL holder before bidding, the buyer can verify that all state and federal laws will be observed. For most firearms, the buyer must be able to pass a background check."

http://www.gunbroker.com/Support/Supp...

"JB: "You cannot buy from any FFL licensee without going through the NICS system.">>

Then don't buy from one with an FFL license. Go to local a gun show, back up your truck, and buy guns all day long, no record, no receipt, no limit, no background checks, cash down, load and go."

You cannot be a gun dealer without an FFL. If you are an FFL, you must use the NICS. If a private individual wants to sell a gun to someone (in person), they can do so. FYI, you don't have to be a car dealer to privately sell a car either. I don't have a problem with tweaking the law here. We need a paper trail and some relationship between the seller/buyer to not involve a FFL (father and son etc.)

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Here, I'll let an Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda explain it to you (He was the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, and in this clip he urges terrorists to get guns and carry out attacks on the US):

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRQz...

It's not surprising that you would let al Qaeda speak for you, but that's total bs. You CANNOT buy fully automatic weapons at gun shows. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about (and neither does he).

"JB: "...no loophole that allows dealers to sell guns at gun shows without running a background check.">>

Who cares about *dealers?* Observe:

"Undercover stings at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada documented that:

--63 percent of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check;

--94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislat...

This makes a mockery of the notion that the US has gun control."

Straw purchases are already against the law. Pass another one and see how fast the criminals ignore it.

"JB: "The propaganda is coming from the media, not the NRA.">>

The NRA is a pack of liars that are entirely devoted to gun propaganda. When the NRA isn't lying about guns and misinforming the public they are working to make it so convicted violent felons can have guns. You have a good explanation for that?"

Yeah, it's not true. But based on some of the absurd things you said, it's not wonder why you would think that.

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 11:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why don't we pass a law against using a gun to shoot a person, except in self-defence? Good posts patrioteer and JB30 and no one pays any attention to FFT anyway, he is a loose cannon.

Posted by: JailBird

December 19, 2012 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks Moneymyst. I have enjoyed your posts as well.

FFT:

Do you have any response to the CDC and DOJ studies that say gun control has done no good/ wouldn't make things better? Or is the brady campaign the only group you will listen to?

How about Harvard? Are they liberal enough?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/o...

Any response for the fact that these shootings only seem to occur in gun free zones (as I said, one exception since 1950)?

Also, just out of curiosity, how does one appear to be a straw purchaser (your link didn't work). That is really an odd statement. Does it mean that people with an axe to grind decided to make broad assumptions to get the results they wanted? It sure sounds like it.

You're really good at shallow insults and copying/pasting gobs of irrelevant and skewed data, but you conveniently skip over anything that might force you to think for yourself. Shouldn't a freethinker actually do just that?

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "The US Army has defined Assault Rifles this...">>

I don't care about your semantic distraction. It's like we are talking about a vehicle running over someone and you want to quibble about whether it was a "truck," a "van" or a "flatbad." It's gun fetish masturbation, and it's boring.

I said: "And the consumer ones can be modified." [to be full auto]>>

JB: "You can modify any semi-auto gun. The cosmetic appearance is of little consequence,">>

That's nice. The gun in question here, being an AR-15 consumer variation of a military assault rifle also has other assault rifle conveniences which facilitate quick dispatch of human beings, such the high velocity rounds. But again, this is just more distraction from the fact that America has an extraordinary gun problem and it is because of serially uninformed NRA gun stooges like you.

JB: "the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB.">>

Not that it matters much, but you're wrong again.

JB: "She suggested banning detachable magazines">>

No she didn't.

JB: "and the ability to fire at multiple targets.">>

It's pretty clear that she was referring to large magazines. This would be appropriate considering this latest massacre involved a 30 round clip.

JB: "you're fine with an increase in murders, armed robbery, and rape, as long as gun deaths decrease?">>

Your comment makes no sense. We typically have more crime, and our gun crime stats drive this. Get informed, then post.

JB: "[Britain] Gun crime is up by more than half...">>

And our gun homicide is still 35x greater. And your point is?

JB: "and there are more than 100 serious knife crimes each day,">>

I'll take the knife crimes over the gun crimes any day. China had a knife attack the other day, some 30 were stabbed. No one died. We have 270 people shot each day.

Nice try though.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB then: "You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep.">>

JB now: "You're an idiot.">>

Hey JB, post your address and I'll mail you a gun and you'll have it tomorrow. Then you will have bought a gun online. Good grief.

JB: "You cannot be a gun dealer without an FFL.">>

Relevence = zero.

JB: "If you are an FFL, you must ...">>

More gun talk masturbation. Gun nuts can go on all day with these quibbles. They are so proud of how they have memorized so many details of their gun cult/fetish.

JB: "I don't have a problem with tweaking the law here.">>

This is rich. Let's review. JB says:

JB: "...no loophole that allows dealers to sell guns at gun shows without running a background check.">>

And I respond:

"Who cares about *dealers?* Observe:

"Undercover stings at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada documented that:
--63 percent of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check;

--94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7)

And his response is that the system needs some "tweaking." I can't even make fun of that.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 1:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "It's not surprising that you would let al Qaeda speak for you,">>

Hey, he's a religious conservative gun nut extremist with small pecker gun fetish, so he's on your team, not mine. And of course I will use people on your team to make my points.

JB: "but that's total bs.">>

No, I knew off course that he got the bit about full auto wrong (probably, he may have been referring to them being able to be modified) but being a religious conservative wingnut with a gun fetish, I don't expect him to be particularly good at getting his facts entirely straight.

But nice duck of the main point: The Gun Show Loophole. Look it up. You'll learn lots.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislat...

Coffee break's over.

D.
----------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrh...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer says "FFT, I don't bother to read your garbage, so I don't know what you said about my statements, so I can't comment."
Are you by any chance an ostrich?

Posted by: Coralie

December 19, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for the non-responsive diatribe.

One more question you probably won't answer...

Since we all know by now that you directly sending me a gun would constitute a crime, what is it that you're advocating for? A ban on the internet?

FFT playbook:

1) Stay on the offensive. Don't respond to questions or studies that don't stack up to the liberal ethos.

2) Post gobs and gobs of bs and hope that people will judge based on volume instead of content (note: big risk with #2 that they might actually read it).

3) When someone does the unthinkable and reads the bs and responds with facts, resort to name calling while ignoring all relevant data they might have brought up.

4) If someone points out inconsistencies that can't be rebuffed, just repeat the lie without any further explanation.

Rinse and repeat...

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free, I like that "Gun fetish masturbation" thought. Did you come up with that on your own? I think I will start using that in my own postings; like: "Ban guns fetish masturbation." I would give you credit for it though, if you own it.

Posted by: JailBird

December 19, 2012 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "Do you have any response to the CDC and DOJ studies that say gun control has done no good/ wouldn't make things better?">>

Yes. Your claim that the CDC and DOJ claim this, is complete (yet typical) distortion.

Hey JB, why do we have 35x the gun homicide of the UK? Gun control.

The NIH says:
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher."

Why is that? Gun control.

The CDC say:
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.” --ibid

Why is the US such a horrific outlier in gun death and destruction stats when compared to our peers? Gun Control.

The National Academy of Science notes:

"Review of these data indicate that while the United States does not have the highest rate of homicide or firearm-related homicide, it does have the highest rates for these among industrialized democracies. Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability. The same is true for firearm-related homicides, but the differences are even greater. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States is more like that of Argentina, Mexico, and Northern Ireland than England or Canada. While certainly not the highest homicide or firearm-related homicide rate in the world, these rates in the United States are in the upper quartile in each case."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor...

Why? Gun control.

They also note:

"During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States... Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame."
--Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Chapter 3", Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=...

But really, what does the National Academy of Science know about science compared to you?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lunch break. JB still blowing and going I see.

JB: "Thanks for the non-responsive diatribe.">>

You have no points I will hesitate to respond to. I've had a very busy day and tapped out a couple responses on my laptop in a restaurant (and currently). I'll be more thorough when I get on the desktop tonight. I respond to your points directly and if I missed something you think is important simply point it out and I will promptly address it. This may involve me explaining to you why I don't consider it relevant. The bells and whistles on what is and is not exactly an assault rifle, is of no interest to me because it isn't relevant to the US's extraordinary gun stats. The "zone" that a particular massacre occurred in is of no interest because these massacres are media hyped distractions from the actual problem which is the daily slaughter. These massacres are a fart in a hurricane compared to the daily death. Don't fall for the distraction.

JB: "One more question you probably won't answer...">>

I'll respond to any question. Why won't you? Such as, why the NRA works to put guns in the hands of convicted violent criminals? Citation provided. Where's your apologetic?

JB: "Since we all know by now that you directly sending me a gun would constitute a crime,">>

I bought two guns, online, a few months ago. Please cite the law which means Wal-Mart broke the law when they mailed them to me.

JB: "what is it that you're advocating for?">>

Excellent question. Sensible, national, consistent gun regulation. Something less restrictive than Canada. Nothing remotely like Britain, certainly not a ban. I have lots of guns and they are loaded.

JB: "A ban on the internet?">>

Nope. But when gun nuts say stupid things online, I think their comments should be promptly roasted. And since it's national "Take a Gun Nut Behind the Barn and spank them with the Truth stick," I'm all for doing it without mercy.

JB: FFT playbook:">>

More horse manure. Do try to stay on topic.

JB: "Don't respond to questions...">>

State your questions. Try to make them relevant.

JB: "Post gobs and gobs of bs...">>

I don't apologize for backing up my claims with careful reference to the FBI, CDC, NIH, National Academy of Science, etc. I've been debating this issue for years, and at a greater depth than you are going to muster. But maybe I'm wrong about that and you'll be able to raise your game above the level of the noisy ankle biters and we can get into the details. If so, I'll be your Huckleberry.

D.
-------------
"In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low."
-- http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Go JB30, if Free is free then Free is free in the free USA to have the freedom not to own a firearm. Then Free can post a sign on his home saying "Firearm Free Zone" and be proud by making a statement. Gosh, Free, its been nice knowing you.

Posted by: JailBird

December 19, 2012 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

“Yes. Your claim that the CDC and DOJ claim this, is complete (yet typical) distortion.”

Don’t take my word for it...

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[8]

“The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.”[9]

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

You might also find it interesting that the ATF couldn’t validate the claims made by your beloved Brady campaign either.

“Hey JB, why do we have 35x the gun homicide of the UK? Gun control.”

That doesn’t address the problem. Homicide and violent crime is… homicide and violent crime. The tool used by the perpetrator is neither the cause, nor a factor that should be ignored. The role of firearms in the broader issue of violence should be considered. The role of firearms in self-defense also must be considered.
Sane people want a reduction of murders and violent crime. Anti-gun hysterics don’t mind an increase in violent crime (as was the case with Great Britain) so long as guns weren’t used.

“The NIH says:
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher."
Why is that? Gun control.”

Your conclusions aren’t supported by the facts. At the end of the day, what matters is whether or not gun bans reduce violent crime in the good ole U.S. of A.. The evidence overwhelmingly says bans have the opposite effect.
“Why is the US such a horrific outlier in gun death and destruction stats when compared to our peers? Gun Control.”
Again, dead is dead. The fact that guns were used instead of knives, clubs, bombs, gasoline, etc. doesn’t matter.

“The National Academy of Science notes:
Why? Gun control.”

Nope.

“They also note:
But really, what does the National Academy of Science know about science compared to you?”

You have made no compelling argument tying murders and violence to stricter gun laws. In fact, your lack of evidence on the broader issue is alarming.

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

“Why won't you? Such as, why the NRA works to put guns in the hands of convicted violent criminals? Citation provided. Where's your apologetic?

Here is an explanation: http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

“I bought two guns, online, a few months ago. Please cite the law which means Wal-Mart broke the law when they mailed them to me.”

Show me the link to a gun you can order from Wal-Mart where they will ship it to your door without a background check. Was it a BB gun?

JB: "what is it that you're advocating for?">>
“Excellent question. Sensible, national, consistent gun regulation. Something less restrictive than Canada. Nothing remotely like Britain, certainly not a ban. I have lots of guns and they are loaded.”

So basically you want to keep all of the guns you feel you need but are fine with banning everything else. Typical.

“Nope. But when gun nuts say stupid things online, I think their comments should be promptly roasted. And since it's national "Take a Gun Nut Behind the Barn and spank them with the Truth stick," I'm all for doing it without mercy.”

Don’t you mean national “Emotions are running high so lets push hard for bans while people aren’t thinking clearly day”.

“More horse manure. Do try to stay on topic.”

I think you’re the one struggling there buddy. We can’t have the rational discussion everyone says they want until we open our eyes beyond the cosmetic features of a gun. You seem to be just fine with an increase in violent crime as long as guns aren't used. Why?

“I don't apologize for backing up my claims with careful reference to the FBI, CDC, NIH, National Academy of Science, etc. I've been debating this issue for years, and at a greater depth than you are going to muster. But maybe I'm wrong about that and you'll be able to raise your game above the level of the noisy ankle biters and we can get into the details. If so, I'll be your Huckleberry.”

Your references were careful alright. You cherry picked irrelevant data and completely ignored the conclusions on gun bans and the USA.

I’m sure you have a lot of information but you obfuscate when it comes to the issue that matters to me… violent crime. The best analysis I have read is still John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”. I know anti-gunners hate him and his book, but I have yet to see anyone come close to disproving his conclusions.

Posted by: JB30

December 19, 2012 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think the whole idea of banning assault weapons is just silly. An "assault weapon" is no more deadly than an average hunting rifle. In fact, I have personally seen more people killed with a .22 caliber weapon than any other caliber. The idea of "high velocity" guns being worse than others is also just silly. In fact, the FBI ceased their use of "high velocity" 9mm handguns because of their lack of stopping power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI...

Gun violence is a horrible issue in the United States, but limiting assault rifles, etc. is not going to solve the problem. Gun violence will never end until such time as we start to understand and mitigate the reasons that violent acts take place to begin with. Honestly, there are too many guns out there already for legislation to really make a dent and attempting to take guns away from the citizenry would result in the next American civil war.

I am a gun owner. I own guns not to hung, but to protect myself and my family and will continue to do until there are drastic changes in our society.

Posted by: superdave10

December 19, 2012 at 9:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB can sing and dance, but he can't answer a straight question.

JB [quotes] "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[7]">>

Here's a relevant quote from your study at wiki footnote #7:

"A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed before an intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness."

What do you think is the reason we have 35x the gun homicide of Britain JB? I think it's the guns.

CDC says that “…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined."

Why do you think that is JB? I think it might be the availability of guns and lack of consistent control, as practiced by these peer countries that get superior results. This really isn't brain surgery.

JB: [quotes] "studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence">>

I completely agree. An assault weapon ban is really just a tiny fig leaf minimum to see if our legislators have the courage to do something as sensible and baby step as this. At the moment, they don't. That'll probably change, but it's *very* much small potatoes as I've said. Anything to do with these sensational massacres is insignificant in the big picture. I just added up the total carnage of all the big gun massacres in the last half century, answer: 238. http://tinyurl.com/d4fs9za

More people are shot with guns each day in the US (about 270). That many people die from guns every 2.8 days in the US.

Again: as many people are killed by guns in the US every 2.8 days, as were killed in all of the major gun massacres in the last 50 years.

Understand? That's why these massacres, for those interested in this issue in the big picture, understand the massacres to be a flea on the elephants back.

JB: [quote] "[if] the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small,...">>

This suggests that because something provides little improvement, it's not worth doing. When a country is having the extraordinarily bad results we are having, I think a small step is better than no step.

JB: "the ATF couldn’t validate the claims made by... Brady campaign either.">>

What claim? The Brady Organization doesn't do studies and they are careful to back their claims up with careful reference.

I asked: “Hey JB, why do we have 35x the gun homicide of the UK? Gun control.”

JB: "That doesn’t address the problem.">>

I think the dead folks would disagree. And you've ducked the question, again.

We are not talking about 2x, or 3x, or even 10x, it's 35 times. That's extraordinary. It's off the charts different. I think this suggests gun control does work. Obviously. The experience of our peer nations shows this.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB" "Homicide and violent crime is… homicide and violent crime.">>

See tautology.

JB: "Sane people want a reduction of murders and violent crime.">>

Sane people, when looking at our gun experience, don't think the cure is more guns. We've tried that.

I quoted: "US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher."
Why is that? Gun control.”

JB: "Your conclusions aren’t supported by the facts.">>

Careful readers will notice that again you've *completely* dodged the question.

It's because you don't like the answer.

JB: "what matters is whether or not gun bans reduce violent crime in the [US].">>

Neither I nor the Brady group have suggested a gun ban. Avoid irrelevant strawmen.

JB: "The evidence overwhelmingly says bans have the opposite effect.">>

Let's check. Japan has a ban:

***
"The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations,...

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000." http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

Japan bans guns, we swim in them and we have a gun mortality rate that is 284.8 times greater than Japan.

Two hundred and eighty four times greater.

This suggests what everyone reading this with an IQ above 70 already knows... your claim that:

"The evidence overwhelmingly says bans have the opposite effect."

Is ludicrous.

I asked: “Why is the US such a horrific outlier in gun death and destruction stats when compared to our peers? Gun Control.”

JB: Again, dead is dead.">>

Again JB *completely* avoids and ducks even an attempt at addressing the question.

JB: "The fact that guns were used instead of knives, clubs, bombs, gasoline, etc. doesn’t matter.">>

Apparently it does. According to the evidence I have provided, and you have ducked, guns are really really good at effectively being used to shoot and kill people. Especially handguns, which are designed for that purpose.

JB: "You have made no compelling argument tying murders and violence to stricter gun laws.">>

Sorry, I think people can see that this is exactly what I've done.

And you dodged each and every one of my questions. Even after citing them. Amazing.
And you do this not because you're too dumb to understand them, it's because you find the answer incompatible with your religious devotion to a completely ludicrous, completely indefensible American gun mythology

D.
-------
"Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults and Handguns,`` in the New England Journal, compared homicides and suicides in Seattle and in Vancouver, B.C., between 1980-86, finding that almost everything about the cities, 140 miles apart, was the same except gun-control laws and homicide rates. Your chances of being shot were eight times greater in Seattle."
http://tinyurl.com/d5jttqa

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I asked:
"why the NRA works to put guns in the hands of convicted violent criminals?"
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

JB: Here is an explanation: http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

No it isn't. Your link has no relevance to my question.

JB: "Was it a BB gun?">>

Shoots pellets too. I have another one that is full auto (well, bursts of six). Very deadly. Ask the squirrels trying to steal my pecans.
Semantic quibbles are great eh? This is what I think about quibbles regarding assault rifles.

JB: "you want to keep all of the guns you feel you need but are fine with banning everything else.">>

I would like to see us get our gun mortality rate down to only 18 times that of the UK. I think that is a reasonable request and I think we can do that with minimal "banning." I said less restrictive than Canada, and they have lots of guns in Canada.

JB: “Emotions are running high so lets push hard for bans while people aren’t thinking clearly day”.>>

I think when attention is drawn to our daily gun slaughter with a horrific example, it might be that people are actually thinking more clearly. People often don't respond until it's shoved in their nose.

JB: "You seem to be just fine with an increase in violent crime as long as guns aren't used.">>

Again you float a mere assertion that less guns will mean more crime. Put some meat on that bone and I'll take you to the woodshed again. Btw, roasting John Lott is a specialty.

JB: "You cherry picked irrelevant data...">>

You provide no example. When I accuse you of irrelevancies, I am careful to explain exactly why they are irrelevant.

JB" "ignored the conclusions on gun bans and the USA.">>

We've never had a gun ban in the US. You'll definitely lose this issue in the long run, as you are losing all of your conservative positions over the years, but it won't be by a ban. The gun cult will become more and more of a minority and fade away. See:

"The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part IV: The Declining Role Of Guns In American Society"
http://tinyurl.com/78pom84

Your studies don't conclude what you say they do (I am familiar with them and already cited a caveat from your study you didn't read). I'm not interested in vague prophecies and postulations about what may happen based upon admitted limited data. The problems I have established above are right here right now problems. And they're really obvious to those who can consider this subject with a little objectivity.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "The best analysis I have read is still John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”.">>

Ha. I didn't even read ahead. I can smell Lott silliness paragraphs in advance. He (also known as "Mary Rosh" when he's being an online sockpuppet) sells pop science junk to gun nuts who like to have their ears tickled and biases confirmed. Begin here: "Econometric Modeling as Junk Science"

"Myth One: More Guns, Less Crime."
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/myt...

And: "More guns, more homicide"
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/...

Excerpt: "states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."

I can roast Lott for days. Even the National Academy unpacked his claims (see below).

JB: "have yet to see anyone come close to disproving his conclusions.">>

How would you know if you haven't read those who in fact have already disproved his conclusions?

Please cite what rebuttals to Lott's material you have read.

D.
----------
National Academy of Science:

"...the right-to-carry issue... This chapter reviews the existing empirical evidence on the issue. We also report the results of our own analyses of the data. We conclude that, in light of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there are many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the imprecision of some results, it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor...

That's saying John Lott's claim is full of poop, but putting sugar on it.

Oh, and CCW? Small potatoes.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 11:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, and I have a little time (more than I had this morning) to look at this interesting question regarding whether one can buy guns online and have them shipped to your door.

JB said: "...you're an idiot that didn't look far enough into it. This is what happens when someone that doesn't have a clue about gun laws attempts to speak out of their backside...
From that site you referenced...">>

Yeah, this is from the site I referenced:

"The seller will send you instructions on making payment and will request your address for shipping."

It's shipped to the buyer's address, as I said. Continuing...

"Typically you will be required to prepay using a money order,...

If your item is a firearm, you will need to get a copy of your transfer dealer's FFL license, signed by the dealer in blue or red ink, and enclose that with payment. You may need to send proof of age for other purchases; again please follow the seller's instructions carefully.">>

"I won, now what?" http://www.gunbroker.com/User/HowToBu...

Legally bought online and shipped to your door, as I said. Just need to provide a copy of a dealers license. If they get around to it.

D.
-----------
JB: "You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep."

JB, getting it wrong again.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 19, 2012 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee what a rant, Free, from from 10:34 until 11:48 and the bad thing about it is that nobody gives a rats rear end what you think about guns.

Posted by: JailBird

December 20, 2012 at 2:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The ACLU isn't gonna come save all the gun haters when violent intruders come into their homes in the middle of the night. But, what do you expect from some people that don't know the difference between semi and fully automatic or equate playing video games to combat experience.

American culture is not British, Canadian, French, etc... It is American. You put more restrictions on guns in America and violent crime goes up. Some people get bored with their war on religion, so they have to switch it up and bat for the war on guns.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42564771...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 20, 2012 at 3:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think that some of the video games the kids are playing at home should be illegalized. Most of them anymore are loaded with violence and glorified killings and these kids sit at home in front of the tv and play these damn games constantly. They loose touch with reality and then they think that it just might be fun to get a real gun and do it in real life.

Posted by: oldrustynut

December 20, 2012 at 4:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,
Actually the paragraph you are quoting doesn't say that that John Lott is full of poop.
What it does say is that there is not enough hard verifiable data to support Lott's claim about right-to carry.
"it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws."
Read the dissent Appendix 6 as well.

Posted by: P5harri

December 20, 2012 at 6:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "The ACLU isn't gonna come save all the gun haters...">>

Nobody's been hating the guns. Even the Brady group doesn't hate the guns. Be honest.

TNK: "people that don't know the difference between semi and fully automatic...">>

I knew the difference before you were born sweetie. Depending on what you were doing 1983, I was getting marksman awards in rifle class before you were born.

TNK: "American culture is not British, Canadian, French,">>

Yes, we're special. Exceptional.

TNK: "You put more restrictions on guns in America and violent crime goes up.">>

That would be neat if it were true, but it's not true.

"WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates according to a new analysis issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death."
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressR...

Etc.

P5: "...doesn't say that that John Lott is full of poop. [says] there is not enough hard verifiable data to support Lott's claim about right-to carry.">>

That means when Lott says there is enough data, he's full of poop. And if we are going to get into how full of poop Lott is, it's gonna take a while.

See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?...

And: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012...

And: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/02/

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 20, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What rifle class, where? Free, sex education in High School only taught us how to clean our weapons, not how to aim them. Shouldn't call Tank "sweetie" unless you are planning a move to Eureka Springs.

Posted by: JailBird

December 20, 2012 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Oh, and I have a little time (more than I had this morning) to look at this interesting question regarding whether one can buy guns online and have them shipped to your door."

You should have put a little more thought into it or spoken with someone that knew a little bit about it.

"Yeah, this is from the site I referenced:

"The seller will send you instructions on making payment and will request your address for shipping."

It's shipped to the buyer's address, as I said."

A lot of products are sold on that site that don't require an FFL transfer. Those are the products that you can have shipped to your doorstep.

For example: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/View...

"Continuing...

"Typically you will be required to prepay using a money order,...

If your item is a firearm, you will need to get a copy of your transfer dealer's FFL license, signed by the dealer in blue or red ink, and enclose that with payment. You may need to send proof of age for other purchases; again please follow the seller's instructions carefully.">>

"I won, now what?" http://www.gunbroker.com/User/HowToBu...

Yeah you won alright. You proved that you don't know what you're talking about.

The reason you have to provide an FFL is because the gun has to be shipped to the address listed on the FFL!

One more time...

"To take delivery of a firearm, buyers must either have an FFL or find an FFL in their local area to take delivery of the item for them. If you have an FFL, you already know what is required. For buyers who do not hold an FFL, this means the buyer must find an FFL in their area to take delivery for them. This typically means the buyer must contact a local gun shop and make arrangements for the transfer."

http://www.gunbroker.com/Support/Supp...

...

I'll respond further when I have time.

Legally bought online and shipped to your door, as I said. Just need to provide a copy of a dealers license. If they get around to it."

Posted by: JB30

December 20, 2012 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free has been wrong many times before, but facts have never prevented him from being wrong again.

Posted by: JailBird

December 20, 2012 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why would anybody so vehemently defend the right for everybody to own assault weapons and clips whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a very short time (or pump scores of bullets into one victim)?
Military weapons.
Nobody is talking about taking away the farmer's right to fire at varmints, or the hunter's right to shoot animals for meat.

Posted by: Coralie

December 20, 2012 at 6:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Armas para que?'.....Fidel Castro

Posted by: JailBird

December 20, 2012 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "I'll respond further when I have time.">>

Okay. How about addressing the questions of substance on this issue? This shipping matter is certainly small potatoes, and while your claim:

"You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep."

is largely right in most instances (so I guess you're not an "idiot" as I said), it still fails on three counts. So your claim is not true.

You CAN legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep if it is:

1) an antique firearm older than 1898. As your very own link notes:
"'Antique' firearms need not be shipped to a licensed dealer. These can be shipped directly to the buyer. An antique firearm is a firearm built in or before 1898, or a replica thereof."

2) a black powder firearm. There are lot's of these to choose from here and they don't need to be antique, they can be brand new:
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/br...

3) an air gun (it's not a "firearm," but it's still a gun). Some of the larger models (including 22 caliber), have high velocities and can be quite lethal. For instance:
http://www.airgundepot.com/benjamin-m...

I have an air rifle (177 cal) that breaks the sound barrier at 1,200 fps. They're up to 1,600 fps now my neighbor tells me.

Here is one I bought from Wal-Mart a couple months ago, online, and they shipped it to my door:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Umarex-EBOS...

D.
-----------
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 20, 2012 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I was born before you were winning your alleged precious awards in 1983. Not that it matters.
You remind me of the social worker on King of the Hill. You would have to watch TV to know what that is. You want to decrease gun violence? Keep criminals in jail or support the death penalty for deserving crimes. Of course there's always the Dukakis apporach on guns and letting violent criminals have furloughs. You calling me "sweetie" makes me wonder if you have more in common with your perceived heroinethan I originally gave you credit for.

http://1630revellodrive.files.wordpre...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 20, 2012 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BB and pellet guns... give me a break. Constant loads of deliberate misinformation.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 20, 2012 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "BB and pellet guns... give me a break.">>

Look at that. Even you know they are "guns." Which rather makes the point. Now if you could just learn to be honest and precise with language even when it isn't going well for the point you are trying to argue for.

D.
--------------
"You CANNOT legally buy guns online and have them shipped to your doorstep." --Oops, turns out, in several instances, you can

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 20, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."....Adolf Hitrler, Edict of 18 March 1939

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."...Joseph Stalin

You are in fine company, FreeSmoker

Posted by: JailBird

December 20, 2012 at 11:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The issue of the 2nd ammedment has nothing to do with farmers shooting predators or people hunting rabbits, deer, and other lovable creatures when they can go to the store to buy meat where no animals were harmed making it. Nor is it to support the arming of state militias.

According to reasoning in our own articles of confederation, declaration of independence, and constitution It is about the individual's right to self defense of hearth and home as well as to exercise the right and duty to cast off and change a repressive government if needed.

The reality of gun control advocates agenda is very different from what they profess to want to do to "protect" us. The truth is that the first step to dominating and subjugating a people is removing their ability to defend themselves. This move, generally led by liberal progressive thinkers, is not unanticipated.

It is straight out of the every dictators playbook throughout history. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, and every two bit regime that ever achieved any success all have it in common. A defenseless people are a docile people completely subject to the whims of whoever wields political power.

The Supreme Court most recently ruled that owning firearms is an individual right, not one reserved to the Federal Government or to the states. They were correct because when the ability to defend oneself is given over to government and taken from the individual the individual is not only powerless, he is no longer free.

Posted by: jeffieboy

December 21, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As far as gun transactions are concerned you can buy a "smoke pole" or muzzle loading "black powder" firearm if you are 18 including through the mail. Cabela's has a muzzle loading "six shooter" on sale this week for $139 no paperwork needed. Certain cartridge firing arms considered curios and relics also have few restrictions.

The argument that you don't need assault weapons or high capacity magazines is silly. The government sold a couple thousand to Mexican drug cartels and free law abiding American citizens have the right to be similarly armed.

The government has even more destructive and dangerous stuff in it's arsenal therefore people have an absolute right to be similarly armed, and can be (will cost you a $400 tax stamp to own a "machine gun" or cannon if you can pass the detailed background checks).

Thousands of law abiding American citizens already own these "super weapons" and none of those have been used in domestic crime. That seems to prove that the problem is some people just aren't responsible or "law abiding".

A few bad apples don't give anyone the right to restrict everyone. Just because some people will drink and drive and others will speed and drive recklessly doesn't mean we have to ban fast cars or beer. What it means is that some people will always act irresponsibly or break the law and put others at risk. The only way to end vilolence, death and irresponsibility gun or otherwise is to ban people.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: jeffieboy

December 21, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Real Killing Machine.

In a single two-year period 1872-1873 the US Army estimated that twenty-five million Bison were killed on the great plains. Bones, bleaching in the sun at rail-road terminals, were used for fertilizer. Among the gluttons for killing was a man named Tom Nixon, who was documented to have killed 120 Bison in 40 minutes using a single shot Sharps 50 cal. black power rifle. Not only was this rifle a single-shot, it had to be primered and cocked. If Old Tom had been after school children, No, you don't even want to think about it.

Oh, buy the way, you liberial gun grabbers, that acohol proibition thing back in the 20s and 30s worked out real well, didn't it.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "Look at that. Even you know they are "guns." Which rather makes the point. Now if you could just learn to be honest and precise with language even when it isn't going well for the point you are trying to argue for."

Yeah, you can also have toy "guns" shipped to your door that don't shoot anything. I thought we were talking about firearms as defined by the law. By the way, the Feds don't consider black powder guns to be firearms either.

"Okay. How about addressing the questions of substance on this issue? This shipping matter is certainly small potatoes"

I'm responding to statements you have made. It might help for you to stop introducing arguments that you later declare to be "small potatoes".

Now, I'll give you the answer (i think) you're looking for...

The main reason the U.S. has more gun deaths than is because...

1) Freedom: A high threshold must be reached to put away criminals, we have more privacy and civil liberties, we're allowed to legally engage in activity that might be considered dangerous (skydiving, hunting, atv'ing...).

2) History: We have 300,000,000+ privately owned firearms in this country.

3) Gun Control: Guns are a preferred tool of criminals, but not the only tool. Guns are also the preferred tool of those that want to protect themselves and others. In nations where you don't have a lot of guns, and you ban and/or confiscate the ones you do have, the number of gun deaths will decrease. The frequency of murders and violent crimes are another story.

As I have said over and over again, the only debate that interests me is one that addresses the larger problem of murders and violent crime. Guns are a part of that discussion... excuse me... I meant firearms are a part of that discussion as both a tool used by criminals and law-abiding citizens. I don't have any interest in stats that include the use of firearms in self-defense, police operations, military operations, suicides, accidental death of a firearm owner from his/her gun, etc.

I will never be in favor of limiting a fundamental freedom based on claims so weak that they have to be qualified with statements such as:

"A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed before an intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness."

FFT: "--94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7)"

I'd still like to know how someone can appear to be a criminal or straw purchaser.

Posted by: JB30

December 21, 2012 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: JB: "the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB.">>

Not that it matters much, but you're wrong again."

Connecticut has an assault weapons ban. Reports indicate the gun was legally owned by the shooter's mother and it conformed to the standards of the Clinton assault weapons ban. What information do you have to contradict that?

FFT, you still have not advocated for any specific laws to be enacted. If there are certain ideas or aspects of this that are more important to you than others, lets' hear what those ideas are.

I would ask that you make your case with statistics or studies that show the measure you wish to implement would reduce violent crime. Stats that use "gun deaths" distort an important issue.

Posted by: JB30

December 21, 2012 at 3:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy says "The government has even more destructive and dangerous stuff in it's arsenal therefore people have an absolute right to be similarly armed."
I think he's actually serious.
Only the cost prevents most of us citizens from owning nuclear rockets and bombers that drop cluster bombs.

Posted by: Coralie

December 21, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own govertnment."....George Washington

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you...it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."....Dalai Lama

Coralie you are so far out of the mainstream, the Coast Guard couldn't find you.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"God and guns...You really can't know that much about 'm If you think we're better off without 'm"

Lynyrd Skynyrd

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

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 21, 2012 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good, Tank, I would have never found that one.

Posted by: JailBird

December 21, 2012 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffie makes an important point, and one that sounds really scary.

Jeff: "the first step to dominating and subjugating a people is removing their ability to defend themselves.
...straight out of the every dictators playbook throughout history. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler,...">>

Yes, careful readers will note that all of our peer countries listed below which have successfully implement some measure of gun control that provides them the better results (as I have provided above), have quickly been taken over by Stalin/Hitler type despots and have promptly became dictatorships.

In the list below the number refers to the gun-related deaths per 100,000 people (and the first 3 below us aren't really peer nations):

United States 14.24;
Brazil 12.95;
Mexico 12.69;
Estonia 12.26;
Argentina 8.93;
Northern Ireland 6.63;
Finland 6.46;
Switzerland 5.31;
France 5.15;
Canada 4.31;
Norway 3.82;
Austria 3.70;
Portugal 3.20;
Israel 2.91;
Belgium 2.90;
Australia 2.65;
Slovenia 2.60;
Italy 2.44;
New Zealand 2.38;
Denmark 2.09;
Sweden 1.92;
Kuwait 1.84;
Greece 1.29;
Germany 1.24;
Hungary 1.11;
Ireland 0.97;
Spain 0.78;
Netherlands 0.70;
Scotland 0.54;
England and Wales 0.41;
Taiwan 0.37;
Singapore 0.21;
Mauritius 0.19;
Hong Kong 0.14;
South Korea 0.12;
Japan 0.05.

Oh wait my mistake. While these countries have been able to successfully implement some measure of gun control we find that none of them have been taken over by Stalin/Nazi dictator types. So maybe Jeffie's point is just as ridiculous as it seems.

Jeff: "The Supreme Court most recently ruled that owning firearms is an individual right,...">>

And if you have read that decision you would have noticed that they also ruled, as they always have since the beginning of time, that like all rights, it is not without limit and can be (and is) regulated by law to restrict use. This leaves the question of where those lines are to be drawn. Which is exactly what we are talking about. Except for a few anarchist nuts and gullibletarians, everyone believes in gun control and gun regulation (children, mentally ill, incarcerated, violent felons etc., shouldn't have guns), it's just a matter of where the lines are drawn.

I think, when we find the US has a “…rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined." --ibid

It's a bright and shiny clue that we should move the lines in the direction of having a few more restrictions and decrease the daily slaughter a bit.

D.
------------
"Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States"

--Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gu...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB has some more word games.

JB: "you can also have toy "guns" shipped to your door">>

Yes, but I didn't refer to toy guns. I referred to guns that shoot projectiles at a high speed, and actually kill people. But air guns was only one of the three reasons your claim is false.

JB: "I thought we were talking about firearms as defined by the law.">>

Hey JB, when you are reduced to not considering the original firearm, that actually shoots a goodly amount of fire out its muzzle, a firearm, it's a sign you're really reaching. Let's check common usage;

fire·arm, noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

Hey JB, is a pre-1898 gun/rifle/pistol that takes cartridges a "firearm?" Sure. And you can buy those and they'll ship them right your door (the #1 reason your claim was false, which you ducked).

JB: "The main reason the U.S. has more gun deaths than is because...
1) Freedom: ">>

That's really funny actually, because those 35 countries I just listed in my post above, they have freedom too. They just draw the lines a little differently on this matter, and with very good results. This shows gun regulation actually works.

JB: "we have more privacy and civil liberties,">>

That's a little broad brush. I think the 100,000 people shot each year in the US might be up for a little adjustment of our gun laws.

JB: "we're allowed to legally engage in activity that might be considered dangerous (skydiving, hunting, atv'ing...).">>

I don't know of any of our peer countries listed above that don't allow all of those things. So you're reaching, again.

2) We have 300,000,000+ privately owned firearms...">>

And a few of those are mine. That's just a wild guess. We really have no idea. Canadians have lots of guns. They may even have guns at about the same rate Americans do (we don't know). What they don't have is the loose regulation of handguns. And a few other restrictions that have proven very successful in reducing death and destruction. And no Hitler in sight.

JB: "3) In nations where you don't have a lot of guns, and you ban and/or confiscate..., the number of gun deaths will decrease.">>

Well, that is the worthy goal I think. These parents and their families who had their children blown away last week, will never really recover from it. And this media focus provides an opportunity to look at the real daily slaughter which is *far* larger than these massacres.

Again: the total death from all the big gun massacres (more than 4 killed) in the US in the last 50 years is: 238 http://tinyurl.com/d4fs9za

More people are shot with guns each day in the US (about 270), than all of these massacres combined.

As many people die from guns every 2.8 days in the US, than 50 years of these massacres.
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvs...

That's the big picture. And it isn't pretty.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB.">>

FFT said: "Not that it matters much, but you're wrong again."

JB said: "Connecticut has an assault weapons ban.">>

You said "proposed." You didn't say current. I referred to proposed. This gun in question would have been illegal under the original assault weapons ban crafted by Feinstein, and it's a safe bet it'll be illegal under her new one. Unfortunately, these massacres, in the big picture, are small potatoes. I don't think it would have mattered much if the kid had full auto. The massacres will happen on occasion, and they can happen in any country. We can try to mitigate it a bit, but the real death and destruction is at the daily mundane level, not the sensational massacres.

JB: FFT, you still have not advocated for any specific laws to be enacted.">>

I don't follow that all that closely. Usually just swatting down the silly gun claims. Standard stuff really, shut down the gun show loophole, have a waiting period, limit total without special licences, training required for handguns, background checks increased, restrict military and assault type weapons and ammo, etc.

Basically an NRA nightmare I guess.

Like I said, Canada's recipe but a little less strict on handguns. And Canada is less strict than Australia and far less strict than the vast majority of the 35 countries in the list I gave above.

JB: "If there are certain ideas or aspects of this that are more important to you than others, lets' hear what those ideas are.">>

The US still have too many gun nuts. So I don't expect much to be done in the short term. But the gun culture is very much in decline, so after a few more decades of death and destruction from the guns, we'll be tired of this unnecessary silliness and the gun club will have shrunk enough so that, (like the smokers I suppose), we can get some good restrictions in place. Until then, blast away.

"The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part IV: The Declining Role Of Guns In American Society"
http://tinyurl.com/78pom84

D.
-------------
"Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually."
--Cook, Philip J, and Jens Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gu...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Disarm the people and take away their religion... brought to you by Lenin.

The US shouldn't be worried about "gun nuts" as much as aetheists waving banners embroidered with the hammer and sickle on a mission to indoctrinate our kids and adults in search of answers. A constant reference to "peer countries" sound like talking points from the Comintern.

Look, we can all post links from the net. This one happens to be one about a Harvard study and I didn't mask the URL.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study...

_________________________________________

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 22, 2012 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Yes, but I didn't refer to toy guns. I referred to guns that shoot projectiles at a high speed, and actually kill people. But air guns was only one of the three reasons your claim is false."

If I found a way to have Aroldis Chapman to my door, would that count? Sheesh. BB Guns. I guess I should just leave it alone.

"Hey JB, when you are reduced to not considering the original firearm, that actually shoots a goodly amount of fire out its muzzle, a firearm, it's a sign you're really reaching. Let's check common usage;"

What about cig lighter guns? I guess that fits the bill as well.

"fire·arm, noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

So not BB Guns? Now I'm confused.

"Hey JB, is a pre-1898 gun/rifle/pistol that takes cartridges a "firearm?" Sure. And you can buy those and they'll ship them right your door (the #1 reason your claim was false, which you ducked)."

It's not considered a firearm by the gov't. In a discussion about laws, the legal definition is the only one that matters. It's extra silly when the discussion is also directly related to multiple-victim shootings.

"That's really funny actually, because those 35 countries I just listed in my post above, they have freedom too. They just draw the lines a little differently on this matter, and with very good results. This shows gun regulation actually works."

Since we're on the subject, I don't believe they have the 2nd Amendment in any of those countries. When in doubt, our laws favor the individual over the government. That's the difference.

"That's a little broad brush. I think the 100,000 people shot each year in the US might be up for a little adjustment of our gun laws."

Look, I've got no problem with the fact that it's particularly difficult to commit someone in this country, but that doesn't make it a non-factor. We don't have "big brother" either.

"I don't know of any of our peer countries listed above that don't allow all of those things. So you're reaching, again."

My point is that your statistics that include incidents from a hunting accident, self-defense shootings, lawful police shootings, suicides, etc. shouldn't be included.

"And a few of those are mine. That's just a wild guess. We really have no idea. Canadians have lots of guns. They may even have guns at about the same rate Americans do (we don't know). What they don't have is the loose regulation of handguns. And a few other restrictions that have proven very successful in reducing death and destruction. And no Hitler in sight."

It is a wild guess. I took it from Piers Morgan (so no one could say it came from the NRA). If Hitler was "in sight" Germany probably wouldn't have given up their rights either.

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Well, that is the worthy goal I think. These parents and their families who had their children blown away last week, will never really recover from it. And this media focus provides an opportunity to look at the real daily slaughter which is *far* larger than these massacres."

I'm sure it is a worthy goal for someone more focused on the tool used to commit the crime than the crime itself. As I've said over and over again, it isn't for me. Reducing violent crime is the key for me and gun bans increase the violent crime rate (which might be why a lot of those countries with gun bans have more violent crime than we do... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... ).

"Again: the total death from all the big gun massacres (more than 4 killed) in the US in the last 50 years is: 238 http://tinyurl.com/d4fs9za"

Yep. And all but one of these massacres happened in "gun free" kill zones. I think I know what law needs to be changed to prevent this.

"More people are shot with guns each day in the US (about 270), than all of these massacres combined."

Meaningless stat as explained above

"As many people die from guns every 2.8 days in the US, than 50 years of these massacres.
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvs...

Again, that's meaningless.

...

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"You said "proposed." You didn't say current. I referred to proposed. This gun in question would have been illegal under the original assault weapons ban crafted by Feinstein, and it's a safe bet it'll be illegal under her new one. Unfortunately, these massacres, in the big picture, are small potatoes. I don't think it would have mattered much if the kid had full auto. The massacres will happen on occasion, and they can happen in any country. We can try to mitigate it a bit, but the real death and destruction is at the daily mundane level, not the sensational massacres."

Really? Check here: http://www.courant.com/news/connectic...

"Bushmaster's version of the AR-15, a civilian firearm modeled after the military M-16 rifle, has a grim history, with links to the D.C.-area sniper shootings. But under Connecticut's firearms laws, considered strong by national standards, the lethal weapon that Lanza employed was perfectly legal to own... Connecticut has an assault-weapons ban, modeled after a federal law that was enacted in 1994 before expiring a decade later. But it takes more than a dark fiberglass body and a menacing shape to fall under the ban."

"I don't follow that all that closely."

It shows.

"Usually just swatting down the silly gun claims. Standard stuff really, shut down the gun show loophole, have a waiting period, limit total without special licences, training required for handguns, background checks increased, restrict military and assault type weapons and ammo, etc.

Basically an NRA nightmare I guess."

Sounds like it's the other way around. The NRA is your nightmare.

"Like I said, Canada's recipe but a little less strict on handguns. And Canada is less strict than Australia and far less strict than the vast majority of the 35 countries in the list I gave above."

Canada's recipe on firearms and Western Europe's recipe on entitlements. God help us.

"The US still have too many gun nuts. So I don't expect much to be done in the short term. But the gun culture is very much in decline, so after a few more decades of death and destruction from the guns, we'll be tired of this unnecessary silliness and the gun club will have shrunk enough so that, (like the smokers I suppose), we can get some good restrictions in place. Until then, blast away.

"The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part IV: The Declining Role Of Guns In American Society"
http://tinyurl.com/78pom84"

Yeah, we're a dying breed... or not. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmini...

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Those who hammer their guns in plows, will plow for those who do not.".....Thomas Jefferson

No one really is serious about any new gun laws, if anyone was, Obama wouldn't have put Joe Biden in charge of it.

The United States had far too many aetheists and not near enough gun nuts. I believe that in order to own a firearm, one should have a drivers license. Automobles kill more children than firearms. There is your restriction. See, Free, you just have to use your brain, not others.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I kinda looks like Free got into a war of wits and facts with JB and Free didn't bring a large enough clip to the fight.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "Sheesh. BB Guns. I guess I should just leave it alone.">>

Yes, you should just leave it alone. Your "no guns bought online and delivered to the door," is wrong on three counts.

JB: "What about cig lighter guns?">>

I have one of those. It's a lighter that doesn't shoot projectiles, not a gun. But thanks for blatantly equivocating.

JB: [dictionary]
"fire·arm, noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder."
So not BB Guns? Now I'm confused.">>

Yes, I know you are confused. A BB gun is not a firearm, but it is a gun. Your original comment, which is wrong on three counts, referred to guns. Firearms are also guns. When you get tired of semantic word games, perhaps we can move on to the adult stuff.

JB: "I don't believe they have the 2nd Amendment in any of those countries.">>

The 2nd has *always* been interpreted by SCOTUS as being limited. Like all other rights.

Here's an interesting article about how the right lies about the 2nd:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/...

JB: "your [stats] incidents from a hunting accident, self-defense shootings, lawful police shootings, suicides, etc. shouldn't be included.">>

Those things are included for all of the countries considered. We must compare apples to apples, even if you don't like the answer.

JB: "If Hitler was "in sight" Germany probably wouldn't have...">>

Hitler was democratically elected. Kinda.

When your gun arguments are reduced to talking about Nazis and Lenin, tis a sign you've reached the bottom of your gun apologetic barrel.

It's quite possible to have sensible gun control, have lots of guns for hunting and self defense, and not descend into a dictatorship. See dozens of our peer countries with thriving democracies.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "gun bans increase the violent crime rate...">>

No they don't. Reference already provided from the National Academy of Science. Your John Lott material is rubbish, multiple lines of evidence already provided in this post above:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/de...

JB: "all but one of these massacres happened in "gun free" kill zones.">>

Since people walk freely in and out of gun free zones, it's useful to have consistent national regulation of guns. See Japan for rather strict but very spectacular results in this regard.

[quote] "More people are shot with guns each day in the US (about 270), than all of these massacres combined."

JB: "Meaningless stat as explained above">>

Not impressed with mere assertion. Raise your game. That a great number of those are suicides is also significant. Here's why:

"Suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be fatal than attempts with other methods. Firearms are used in only 5% of all suicide attempts, but more than 90% of the attempts are fatal. In comparison, drugs or cutting are the methods used in 85% of suicide attempts, but the attempt is fatal only 3% of the time."
--Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael, "Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast," Journal of Trauma 57 (2004)

[quote] "As many people die from guns every 2.8 days in the US, than 50 years of these massacres.
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvs...

JB: Again, that's meaningless.">>

Dismissing something as meaningless, is not a rebuttal, or an argument. I think that reasonable people can see that having as many people killed in the US every 2.8 days, as were killed in 50 years of massacres, is rather profound considering the profound grief being appropriately expressed over this singular school shooting. And this is true regardless of attempt to dismiss with a hand wave.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: "Really? Check here: http://www.courant.com/news...">>

As your article says in the title:

"In State With 'Assault Weapons' Ban, Lanza's Rifle Still Legal"

Obviously this refers to "current" and simply repeats what I already knew and have said and is repeated in the above article we are all responding to. You said "proposed." That's different than "current." It'll be nice when you get tired of hiding behind word games.

JB; "Sounds like it's the other way around. The NRA is your nightmare.">>

Not at all. But I do like roasting gun nuts. I define a gun nut as someone who sees America's situation with guns and thinks the solution is more guns. It's not a position that can be defended.

JB: "Canada's recipe on firearms...">>

Yes, how could we ever get by if we were to cut our daily death and destruction toll from guns by more than two thirds? The horror!

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people ('94):
United States 14.24;
Canada 4.31;

JB: "Western Europe's recipe on entitlements. God help us.">>

I said nothing about that. Don't make things up. Oh, and there probably isn't a God anyway.

JB: "Yeah, we're a dying breed... or not.">>

Yes you are. All nicely in one chart:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/u...

Also: "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports show there were 19.1 million hunters in 1975. That number declined to 12.5 million in 2006 and by 2025 the number is projected to be 9.1 million."

http://host.madison.com/sports/recrea...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks to the citizens of Louisiana who voted in Proposition Two, an amendent to their state's constitution that solidifies the US Constitution's second amendment in the State. The new law says that "the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right" and would require courts to apply "the highest standard" of law when and if laws are enacted which are in violation of the second amendment of the US Constitution.

The ballot measure stated:

"Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standred of review by a court?" (Amends Article 1, Section 11)

(Select One)

__Yes

__No

The amendment passed. Yes, 1,331,891 73.45%
No 481,360 26.55%

Arkansas, where are you? Every citizen should be able to carry firearms, open or concealed, without a permit just like in the Great State of Louisiana.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If only the rest of the nation could rise to have the results that Louisiana gets.

Oh wait, maybe that's not right:

"...the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death." http://www.reuters.com/article/pressR...

"...states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Yay. Go Louisiana.

D.
------------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That was basicially 75% to 25%, or 3 out of every 4 voters. Wow! What do you think FFT, could Arkansas match that? Surely you would like to put it on the ballot just to see, you being a freedom loving Free, as we all know you are. I, like every free thinker, have a new respect to New Orleans and the great shipping port of Mobile.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How many of those crimes are committed by criminals bleeding heart gun haters have petitoned the government to take it easy on them following multiple offensives? It isn't law abiding gun owners fault. Who are the nuts?

America's gun culture isn't going anywhere. "Peer countries", we have none but folks are free to move to their perceived paradise at their leisure, if said countries would have them.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 22, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

100% Tank. Your comment is short, intelligent, and hits right to the point. My precieved paradise is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Our job is to keep it. Someone said that.

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

:Yes, you should just leave it alone. Your "no guns bought online and delivered to the door," is wrong on three counts."

"Yes, I know you are confused. A BB gun is not a firearm, but it is a gun. Your original comment, which is wrong on three counts, referred to guns. Firearms are also guns. When you get tired of semantic word games, perhaps we can move on to the adult stuff."

I honestly thought you were joking about BB guns and toy guns (many of which do shoot projectiles http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.... ). I guess I gave you too much credit.

"The 2nd has *always* been interpreted by SCOTUS as being limited. Like all other rights."

I never said there were no limits.

"Those things are included for all of the countries considered. We must compare apples to apples, even if you don't like the answer."

When you compare Apples to Apples, you lose. You are the one that has to throw in all gun deaths in order to paint the picture you want to believe.

"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."

"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."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-n...

"Hitler was democratically elected. Kinda.

When your gun arguments are reduced to talking about Nazis and Lenin, tis a sign you've reached the bottom of your gun apologetic barrel."

Right, right. Don't pay attention to history! Great advice.

"It's quite possible to have sensible gun control, have lots of guns for hunting and self defense, and not descend into a dictatorship. See dozens of our peer countries with thriving democracies."

And see dozens and dozens of countries where people have been oppressed by tyrannical governments.

...

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Put er on the ballot, let the people decide!

Posted by: JailBird

December 22, 2012 at 6:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"No they don't. Reference already provided from the National Academy of Science. Your John Lott material is rubbish, multiple lines of evidence already provided in this post above:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/de...

D.C. Murder Rate Down 25% After Gun Ban Lifted: http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blog...

"Since people walk freely in and out of gun free zones, it's useful to have consistent national regulation of guns. See Japan for rather strict but very spectacular results in this regard."

We walk freely in and out of most every public place in the country, with two exceptions: 1) We can carry guns, and 2) Massacres don't seem to be occurring in these places.

"Not impressed with mere assertion. Raise your game. That a great number of those are suicides is also significant. Here's why:

"Suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be fatal than attempts with other methods. Firearms are used in only 5% of all suicide attempts, but more than 90% of the attempts are fatal. In comparison, drugs or cutting are the methods used in 85% of suicide attempts, but the attempt is fatal only 3% of the time."
--Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael, "Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast," Journal of Trauma 57 (2004)"

I'm not about to trade my ability to protect myself so Joe Smith will only maim himself in an attempted suicide. Give me a break.

"Dismissing something as meaningless, is not a rebuttal, or an argument. I think that reasonable people can see that having as many people killed in the US every 2.8 days, as were killed in 50 years of massacres, is rather profound considering the profound grief being appropriately expressed over this singular school shooting. And this is true regardless of attempt to dismiss with a hand wave."

You're right. It's not a rebuttal or an argument and it wasn't meant to be. You're trying to dance from one issue to the other... talking about suicides, BB guns, etc. I'll only play that game up to a point. I've made it clear that reducing violent crime is my only interest when discussing limits on the 2nd Amendment. The rest is smoke and mirrors in a blatant attempt to disguise a weak argument. In all of your ramblings, you have yet to present one single shred of evidence showing that gun bans reduce the violent crime rate.

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"As your article says in the title:

"In State With 'Assault Weapons' Ban, Lanza's Rifle Still Legal"

Obviously this refers to "current" and simply repeats what I already knew and have said and is repeated in the above article we are all responding to. You said "proposed." That's different than "current." It'll be nice when you get tired of hiding behind word games."

Good grief. Is it that hard to understand?

1)The U.S. had a national "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Gun grabbers are PROPOSING to reinstate this ban.
2)Connecticut enacted their own "assault weapons" ban which is based on the on the aforementioned expired federal ban.
3) The gun Adam Lanza used was legally bought under the provisions of #2 (and therefore #1)
4) The gun Adam Lanza used would not be banned by a reboot of the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.

Do you get it now, or would it help if I just said that you're wrong?

"Not at all. But I do like roasting gun nuts. I define a gun nut as someone who sees America's situation with guns and thinks the solution is more guns. It's not a position that can be defended."

And I like roasting gun grabbers, but you're doing most of the work for me.

"Yes, how could we ever get by if we were to cut our daily death and destruction toll from guns by more than two thirds? The horror!"

Which gun restriction instituted by Canada resulted in a reduction of the violent crime rate in that Country?

"Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people ('94):
United States 14.24;
Canada 4.31;"

Ok, I'll try a word you know... Irrelevant. Is that better?

"Oh, and there probably isn't a God anyway."

Aren't you glad you live in a country where no one has limited your right to say that?

"Yes you are. All nicely in one chart:"

Looky here!!.... "American Gun Ownership at Highest Level in Almost 20 Years" (Gallup)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ameri...

"Also: "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports show there were 19.1 million hunters in 1975. That number declined to 12.5 million in 2006 and by 2025 the number is projected to be 9.1 million."

http://host.madison.com/sports/recrea...

Now we're adding hunting to the discussion? Take your own advice and "stay on topic".

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money:

"No one really is serious about any new gun laws, if anyone was, Obama wouldn't have put Joe Biden in charge of it."

hahaha

Posted by: JB30

December 22, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: I honestly thought you were joking about BB guns...">>

Perhaps you did. But I don't need to refer to high power hunting pellet guns to refute your claim which is wrong one two other counts.
On your view we are asked to believe that the original firearm, isn't a really a firearm, and even more absurdly, a gun manufactured in 1897 isn't a fire arm, but the exact same gun manufactured in 1899, is a firearm. Does one have to be a gun nut for that to make sense JB? Because I don't think it makes any sense.

Here's an idea, maybe you could just be an adult about it and admit the mistake.

JB: "and toy guns (many of which do shoot projectiles">>

Yes, nerf guns and air-soft are great. In case conservatives get confused the nerf ones are clearly labeled as "toy" and the pellet guns are clearly labeled "not a toy." But I never referred once to toy guns anyway. So you're just equivocating again.

JB: "When you compare Apples to Apples, you lose.">>

No, I've been comparing apples to apples all along and it makes a clear case that gun control works in all of our peer countries. Of course it couldn't possibly work here, because we are special and exceptional.

JB: "You are the one that has to throw in all gun deaths...">>

Yes, why on earth would anyone want to refer to stats referencing "gun deaths" when discussing the topic of gun death?

JB: [quote] "According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a...">>

Oh yes, let's look at Australia. NRA folks have been telling whoppers about that for years and you've probably fallen for all of it.

Factcheck knocks down a popular one:

"Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-...

ABC:

"Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control"
"The laws banned assault rifles, tightened gun owner licensing, and created national uniform registration standards....

But something extraordinary happened: the laws tapped into public revulsion at the shooting and became extremely popular. And they became extremely effective.

In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur." --ABC, http://tinyurl.com/c9mk6ux

That sounds pretty good, I'll have some of that.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The ABC article continues:
"Australians continue to own guns for hunting and for sport and that the new laws have not in any way diminished Australian freedom.

"In fact, people are more free in Australia," she said. "People are not afraid to express their opinion because they're not afraid someone near them might take issue and want to pull a gun on them. You can walk on the streets and know you're your chances of being shot are 1/30th the chance in the USA." --ibid

I like that too.

JB: "Right, right. Don't pay attention to history!">>

This is where we are asked to believe that we can't put in place some sensible gun control measures, because it will lead to Hitler and Stalin. Standard paranoid NRA garbage. Even Murdoch's NY Post can't believe this swill anymore:

"The New York Post and the New York Daily News tore into the National Rifle Association on Saturday for the gun lobby's bizarre press conference...

Responses ranged from disgust to disbelief.

The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch.

Saturday's New York Daily News cover called LaPierre the "craziest man on earth."

Check out the covers: http://tinyurl.com/cvn8p9n

When the FOX News organization is calling you a rightwing gun nut, might be time to give your head a shake.

D.
----------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Snopes has a nice unpack of a popular error filled gun nut email about Australia: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistic...

JB: "We walk freely in and out of most every public place in the country, with two exceptions: 1) We can carry guns,">>

Wrong. You can't carry a gun into a hospital, a school or court house. That's why it's important that you don't just have no gun zones that are surrounded by areas that are awash in guns. That's why sensible countries limit the abundance of guns outside of "no gun" zones.

JB: 2) Massacres don't seem to be occurring in these places.">>

The numbers killed in massacres is tiny overall but they do get people stirred up. If people are unaware of the people getting slaughtered they tend to not have empathy for them. And massacres can happen anywhere, but we tend to have the most. I think it's the guns.

JB: "I'm not about to trade my ability to protect myself so Joe Smith will only maim himself in an attempted suicide.">>

Of course not. You're the main person that really counts. Not other people.

JB: "You're trying to dance from one issue to the other... talking about suicides,">>

Suicide is very much a gun issue. For the reasons I gave.

JB: 'BB guns, etc. I'll only play that game up to a point.">>

I was kinda hoping you were done with the gun equivocation game.

JB: "you have yet to present one single shred of evidence showing that gun bans reduce the violent crime rate.">>

Had you been paying attention and reading for comprehension you would have noticed that at no time have I ever argued for a gun ban. Not once. In fact I explicitly stated I was not arguing for that. Even the Brady Organization does not advocate for a gun ban. Perhaps set down the gun propaganda for a while and try to approach this issue sensibly and with some objectivity.

D.
--------------
The NRA is basically a publicity sales front group for the billion dollar firearm industry. Here's their latest sales gimmick:

"On Friday, National Rifle Association vice president Wayne LaPierre proposed a program that would put armed guards and perhaps other adults with guns in every school,...

Nichols, of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, described the NRA’s proposal as preposterous.

“I think it’s an absurd and dangerous idea,” Nichols said. “But as with so many of their proposals I think its real aim is to encourage the sale of more firearms. The biggest donors to the NRA are firearms manufacturers. Besides, arming and equipping all these people he wants to put in schools, having guns where kids see them daily is a tool to market weapons to the next generation.” http://tinyurl.com/d9rc5ej

Probably in a few short years the NRA will be viewed as the tobacco industry is viewed after being exposed trying to cover up all of the deaths their product causes. I hope so. Even papa Bush told the NRA to get stuffed 17 years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/d3nkt47

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB: 4) The gun Adam Lanza used would not be banned by a reboot of the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.">>

Here's what you said and I was responding to:

"...the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB."

Here is the "proposed" AWB:

"In the aftermath of the Newtown shootings, those efforts have increased, both nationally and in Connecticut. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun-control advocate, said she would introduce legislation reviving the federal ban on assault weapons, including high-capacity clips.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Monday that he would reintroduce legislation to ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. "These high-capacity magazines, which were used in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and so many other tragedies, were designed for one purpose only — to shoot and kill quickly," Lautenberg said in a statement."
http://tinyurl.com/cxsaswl

JB: "And I like roasting gun grabbers,">>

Well if I see one, I'll let you know. Since I have several guns, firearms (the kind you can't send through the mail), I'm not a gun grabber. But I am for stricter control. The world watches in amazement at the American gun bloodbath:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

(current headline showing part of one week slaughter)

JB: "Which gun restriction instituted by Canada resulted in a reduction of the violent crime rate in that Country?">>

Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_poli...

This seems like a good report, (if you don't live in the US):

"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States." --WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

Also:
"In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low."
--http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Seattle is very similar to Vancouver Canada. Eight times more likely to be shot in Seattle. I think it might be the guns.

[I said]: "...there probably isn't a God anyway.">>

JB: "Aren't you glad you live in a country where no one has limited your right to say that?">>

Do you have a passport? You should get one. None of our peer countries limit my right to say that. You might check out our American Freedom mythbuster board: http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster...

Comparatively, you're not a free as you've been sold.

JB: "Now we're adding hunting to the discussion?">>

Yep. That's your core gun nut constituency. And it's been cut in half. Of course you would want to dismiss that category too.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 22, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free, if you would change that aluminium foil wrapped around your head, shell out the cash and get a Osha aproved aluminium lineman's safety helmet, you might hear from Roswell without all that static and make more sense with less words.

Posted by: JailBird

December 23, 2012 at 2:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Comments like,

"Comparatively, you're not a free as you've been sold."

makes me beg the question,

how much world travel has been done?

That kind of comment also reinforces how full of crap some people really are.

Moneymyst,

I respect your comments more and more each day.

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/f...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 23, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Perhaps you did. But I don't need to refer to high power hunting pellet guns to refute your claim which is wrong one two other counts.
On your view we are asked to believe that the original firearm, isn't a really a firearm, and even more absurdly, a gun manufactured in 1897 isn't a fire arm, but the exact same gun manufactured in 1899, is a firearm. Does one have to be a gun nut for that to make sense JB? Because I don't think it makes any sense."

In a discussion where you pointed to gunbroker.com as a way to circumvent background checks to obtain murder weapons, I assumed we were using the ATF's definition of a firearm/gun, and not one that could include items such as BB Guns (which are labeled BB Guns), antiques, etc... To put it a different way, I believed we were discussing anything you would buy in a store that required a background check. I thought this was a reasonable assumption when I made the statement, and I still feel that way.

My claim held to be true under my definition but not under yours. That doesn't make either of us wrong (or right). I'm happy letting whoever reads this thread determine whether or not your examples should be considered proof that I was (or was not) wrong.

"Here's an idea, maybe you could just be an adult about it and admit the mistake."

I'll admit that items with the word "gun" attached to them can be shipped to your door, as well as antiques and other items that the US Govt doesn't recognize as a regulated firearm. You have worked very hard to make this discussion about anything but violent crime.

"Yes, nerf guns and air-soft are great. In case conservatives get confused the nerf ones are clearly labeled as "toy" and the pellet guns are clearly labeled "not a toy." But I never referred once to toy guns anyway. So you're just equivocating again."

No, you referenced things most people don't consider a gun/firearm because the word "gun" was in the title of said item. My comment about toys is intended to show you how ridiculous that argument is if it's played out to it's fullest.

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"No, I've been comparing apples to apples all along and it makes a clear case that gun control works in all of our peer countries. Of course it couldn't possibly work here, because we are special and exceptional."

Apples to Apples ignores the weapon and focuses on the violent crime rate. Otherwise, it's like saying a country that bans red cars has less red car accidents than a country that doesn't... then drawing broad conclusions that we should therefore ban red cars here for the safety of society, while completely ignoring the real problem of total car accidents regardless of the car's color.

"Yes, why on earth would anyone want to refer to stats referencing "gun deaths" when discussing the topic of gun death?"

I told you much earlier in this thread that I have no interest in deviating away from the real problems: massacres and violent crime. As I've said over and over again, guns are only a part of that discussion.

"Oh yes, let's look at Australia. NRA folks have been telling whoppers about that for years and you've probably fallen for all of it."

I'm not an NRA rep and I don't see a rebuttal in there to the stats I gave you. Try again?

"Factcheck knocks down a popular one:

"Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-...

And in that same article, after factoring in pre-ban trends and other studies, we get this sentence: "So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. "

Wow, that looks an awful lot like something I've read before:

P5: "Actually the paragraph you are quoting doesn't say that that John Lott is full of poop.
What it does say is that there is not enough hard verifiable data to support Lott's claim about right-to carry.
"it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws.""

FFT: "P5: "...doesn't say that that John Lott is full of poop. [says] there is not enough hard verifiable data to support Lott's claim about right-to carry.">>

That means when Lott says there is enough data, he's full of poop."

So who is full of poop now?

"ABC:

"Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control"
"The laws banned assault rifles, tightened gun owner licensing, and created national uniform registration standards....

That sounds pretty good, I'll have some of that."

Once again, we're back to ignoring the violent crime rate and focusing on the weapon used.

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That picture, Heh, Heh, Heh. Thanks to Tank, we all now know what Free looks like through that little round thingy on the top of his laptop.

Posted by: JailBird

December 23, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The ABC article continues:
"Australians continue to own guns for hunting and for sport and that the new laws have not in any way diminished Australian freedom.

"In fact, people are more free in Australia," she said. "People are not afraid to express their opinion because they're not afraid someone near them might take issue and want to pull a gun on them. You can walk on the streets and know you're your chances of being shot are 1/30th the chance in the USA." --ibid

I like that too."

Tell that to the mecca of U.S. gun control: Chicago.

Violent Crime Up 18 percent in 2011, First Rise in Nearly 20 Years

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/viole...

"This is where we are asked to believe that we can't put in place some sensible gun control measures, because it will lead to Hitler and Stalin. Standard paranoid NRA garbage. Even Murdoch's NY Post can't believe this swill anymore:

"The New York Post and the New York Daily News tore into the National Rifle Association on Saturday for the gun lobby's bizarre press conference...

Responses ranged from disgust to disbelief.

The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch.

Saturday's New York Daily News cover called LaPierre the "craziest man on earth."

Check out the covers: http://tinyurl.com/cvn8p9n

When the FOX News organization is calling you a rightwing gun nut, might be time to give your head a shake."

Yeah, all of that coming from a non-American that is so uninformed, he thinks we still have easy access to automatic weapons.

I wonder if these papers called Clinton a loon when he proposed the same remedy in 2000 (Armed cops in schools)?

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Snopes has a nice unpack of a popular error filled gun nut email about Australia: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistic...

Where in there does it say the violent crime rate didn't rise? Still wanting to focus on the gun instead of the crime, I see.

"Wrong. You can't carry a gun into a hospital, a school or court house. That's why it's important that you don't just have no gun zones that are surrounded by areas that are awash in guns. That's why sensible countries limit the abundance of guns outside of "no gun" zones."

That's not quite accurate, but I won't quibble with the broader point you make that some places don't allow guns. Maybe you didn't see the word "most" places in my statement. There are "gun free" exceptions. These are the places where massacres have happened (all but one since 1950). Get it? Gun free zones are part of the problem.

Here is a fix: Any "gun free" zone must have armed guards and metal detectors. That way, instead of just disarming the law-abiding citizens, the criminals have to give up their weapons too or face a "good guy" with a gun as a consequence.

"The numbers killed in massacres is tiny overall but they do get people stirred up. If people are unaware of the people getting slaughtered they tend to not have empathy for them. And massacres can happen anywhere, but we tend to have the most. I think it's the guns."

Except they don't happen everywhere. They happen where guns are banned.

"Of course not. You're the main person that really counts. Not other people."

Bring up Jack Kevorkian and I'd bet you'd start singing a different tune on suicide. Suicides are not a reason to limit a constitutionally recognized freedom.

"Suicide is very much a gun issue. For the reasons I gave."

Then we should also consider limiting access to rope.

"I was kinda hoping you were done with the gun equivocation game."

That a'way. Divert attention away from the subject at hand and then blame someone else for your own tactics. I'm not impressed.

"Had you been paying attention and reading for comprehension you would have noticed that at no time have I ever argued for a gun ban. Not once. In fact I explicitly stated I was not arguing for that. Even the Brady Organization does not advocate for a gun ban. Perhaps set down the gun propaganda for a while and try to approach this issue sensibly and with some objectivity."

Just because you didn't say we should ban every single gun, bb gun, firearm, etc. doesn't mean you haven't called for a gun ban. The Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" is... (say it with me)... a BAN!

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Here's what you said and I was responding to:

"...the gun the kid used would be legal to purchase under the proposed AWB."

Here is the "proposed" AWB:

"In the aftermath of the Newtown shootings, those efforts have increased, both nationally and in Connecticut. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun-control advocate, said she would introduce legislation reviving the federal ban on assault weapons, including high-capacity clips.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Monday that he would reintroduce legislation to ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. "These high-capacity magazines, which were used in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and so many other tragedies, were designed for one purpose only — to shoot and kill quickly," Lautenberg said in a statement."
http://tinyurl.com/cxsaswl"

Yes. So what I said was absolutely true. The gun Lanza used, which is legal in Connecticut (a state that already has the AWB), would not be restricted under the new AWB. The magazines have nothing to do with my point. The AR15 style gun ban is stupid and based on cosmetic features.

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Well if I see one, I'll let you know. Since I have several guns, firearms (the kind you can't send through the mail), I'm not a gun grabber. But I am for stricter control. The world watches in amazement at the American gun bloodbath:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

(current headline showing part of one week slaughter)"

No, you're the worst kind of gun grabber. Owning a gun does not give you an exemption any more than being a person of color means you can't be a racist. Feinstein has CHL. She has also said she would like to ban ALL guns.

In her own words:

Feinstein: "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995

"Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

"Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_poli...

This seems like a good report, (if you don't live in the US):

"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States." --WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

Also:
"In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low."
--http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Seattle is very similar to Vancouver Canada. Eight times more likely to be shot in Seattle. I think it might be the guns."

More irrelevant drivel focused on guns instead of violent crime.

"Do you have a passport? You should get one. None of our peer countries limit my right to say that. You might check out our American Freedom mythbuster board: http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster...

Comparatively, you're not a free as you've been sold."

Thanks for the condescending remarks, but I've been overseas and on foreign soil plenty of times to know why (as Tank said) we have no true peers. Maybe you need to take into account the many countries where that comment would have gotten you arrested:

http://global.christianpost.com/news/...

"Yep. That's your core gun nut constituency. And it's been cut in half. Of course you would want to dismiss that category too."

Then how, based on the stats you and I have shown, is gun ownership going up while hunters are decreasing in numbers?

Posted by: JB30

December 23, 2012 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun ownership is going up because hunters are killing each other and decreasing in number, we militant enviromentalists are getting their guns. If I have a black friend then I can't be a racist, right? If I kill someone with a single shot it isn't a hate crime, twienty years, but if i unload a clip into them, I get the needle. "Stupid is as stupid does."....George Bush

Posted by: JailBird

December 23, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It isn't that many would even want assault weapons, the point is we live in a free country and once the goverment starts taking away our freedoms, it will not stop.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 23, 2012 at 8:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth,

When people hear, "assault weapon", their antennae go up.

A big part of the problem is what a whole lot of mostly unknowing folks are being fed large amounts of hippie blog feculence mixed with opinions about carefully selected stats from "Progressive" enthusiasts that don't enough about guns (or the American "gun culture" for that matter) to be preaching about them.

http://www.nobodygoeshere.com/wp-cont...

JB30,

Thanks for having the patience to fight this one.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 24, 2012 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, And that is the unfortunate thing about this country. It isn't just gun control, but many issues that are effected by selected info and listened to by people that don't use their God-given gift of common sense to check it out for themselves.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 24, 2012 at 9:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you Tank. I have greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on many topics.

Same goes for Moneymyst and several others.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: JB30

December 24, 2012 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, but not 10" of white. Jesus is the reason for the season and Merry Christmas to the Virgin and her Child and to all of you.

Posted by: JailBird

December 24, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Same to you, Moneymyst and all friends in Christ. Keep up the good fight and a Very Merry Christmas and a Very Blessed 2013. (Snow is great, as long as it is after I'm home for the night)

Posted by: mycentworth

December 24, 2012 at 6:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Merry Christmas, NWAonline folks.

I truly wish all of you and your families the best.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 24, 2012 at 9:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I also want to wish ALL NWA online posters a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
We may differ on our opinions, but God loves
us all and has shown us this through the birth of our Savior, Jesus.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 25, 2012 at 7:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

These "lawmakers" aren't interested in improving things. They use these incidents as an excuse to make more laws to further erode our rights. Making new rules, regulations and laws never does anything to fix problems. All it does is slowly and methodically continue to give our "leaders" more control over us. They won't be happy until they have it all and we have nothing left.

Posted by: jeffieboy

December 27, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB30 says (or quotes somebody else?) "I've been overseas and on foreign soil plenty of times to know why (as Tank said) we have no true peers."
Not Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland (best country for women), Finland (kids score highest on international tests), Norway, New Zealand, etc.?
What, you're comparing us with Somalia or Yemen?

Posted by: Coralie

December 27, 2012 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The United States is the galdarnest best country in the in the whole blasted world because I am here. If I was there, then there would be the best. That's called "Home Cooking" in sports.

Posted by: JailBird

December 27, 2012 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I like it here. I value all of my freedoms, inc. the 2nd Amendment. I value economic freedom. I value the fact that our freedoms were the basis for the creation of our nation, Constitution, legal system, etc. I don't want "big brother", socialism, collectivism, etc. If you do, there are plenty of places you can go.

Maybe you should move to Iceland.

FYI: Not only did I not imply that we live in the only nation that FFT would have been able to make that statement, I linked an article that referenced Iran.

Posted by: JB30

December 27, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ind...

Have any of you fine-minded posters seen this? It is scary and just wanted to pass it on.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 27, 2012 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interesting discussion. The thinker always presents the best argument - thanks for your heroic swatting efforts thinker. I particularly enjoyed reading about how the Canadians are dealing with guns, or firearms, to be more specific, per thinker's link.

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

The Canadians seem to recognise that these "tools" can be dangerous and they specifically prohibit the possession of those that appear to be most specifically designed for close combat. Makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

December 28, 2012 at 12:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank,

Your last post depends on what your perception of said "tools" are and your understanding of them or "close combat" for that matter.

Are sport cars designed for racing? Before you begin to go down the high capacity magazine road, you should know that minimal practice makes lower capacity magazines just as capable. Reference tactical reloading and transition techniques.

At least you admitted to judging on what you think "those that appear to be most specifically designed for", the key word being "appear". Anybody can be deadly with weapons regardless of the weapon's appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFV...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 28, 2012 at 3:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good point, Tank, sport cars are designed to look like race cars, as simi-automatic wal-mart bought tactical looking rifles are designed to look like the real weapons that Special Forces uses.

By the way left wingers, they use an M4A1 manufactured by Colt with a fire suppressor, laser sights, and M203 grenade launcher, weighs 6.9lbs fully loaded, and has full or semi-automatic fire, or bursts of three.

Another real gun is a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. A gas-operated air-cooled fully automatic rifle and fires 750 round per minute, which are fed from a linked belt. It is affectionety called the SAW by the men who use it

Next is a MP5A3 Submachine Gun made by Hechler & Koch for Special Forces and Navy Seals. This fully automatic fires 9 mm at 800 rounds a minute, has a integrated suppressor and weights in at 5.5 lbs

Aren't you glad FLL that what we can buy only looks like the real things?

Posted by: JailBird

December 28, 2012 at 6:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

While you are all debating the gun issue, they will just confiscate weapons and then throw you in military prision without option of a jury if you cause problems. But I hate to interrupt, so just go ahead and bond while there are other issues as my above post that should scare the heebie-jeebies out of you.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 28, 2012 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, I am just bored as the topic is assualt weapons, etc. Go at it.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 28, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JB, I like it here (US.) too, although I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to move to Arkansas 40 years ago--I should have stayed in the more civilized upper Midwest.
The weather's colder up there but the people tend to be saner.
It is a ridiculous argument to say that because someone wants to change a U.S. policy, or work on a social problem, or thinks some other country might have a good idea about something, that therefore that person should move abroad.
The very same people who insist that America is 100% perfect are the first to rant and rail against the Democrats, the results of the last election, or the 47% of our citizens who have not been paying income taxes during the Great Recession.
Is the nation perfect or not?
And how could a nation be perfect anyway?

Posted by: Coralie

December 28, 2012 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A "peer" by definition is somebody who's in the same general class as you--neither a lot better nor a lot worse.
Does your country have to be superior to every other country so that you can feel superior to everybody else?
It seems to me quite possible to love your own country and still appreciate other countries.

Posted by: Coralie

December 28, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In several years of reading ADG and NWA blogs, I've noticed that when it comes up, the gun issue dominates all other issues.
And the gun-lovers dominate the threads.

Posted by: Coralie

December 28, 2012 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"more civilized upper Midwest"

I think it is curious when people who move to Arkansas say things like that and don't move back to where they came from. By all means go back to your perceived land of greater civilization at your soonest convienence.

You want to talk about who dominates the threads when certain other issues come up? It is ok for certain people to have their views but not gun enthusiasts or those that support gun rights? Is that the "progressive" approach?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6zH7tdatQUA...

America has no "peer" nation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuv0K8...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 28, 2012 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Additionally, I have great appreacition for other nations. I have actually been to several. I don't blindly want to adopt the policies of other countries based on what I read on the Internet.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 28, 2012 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For all those that believe they can determine what I need and don't need, let me remind you that the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights is there to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. So, when you're ready for me to tell you what you need or don't need then I'll accept you telling me the same until then, your argument is mute!

Posted by: deweyh11260913

December 28, 2012 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well said, deweyh

Posted by: JailBird

December 28, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

deweyh - I'm afraid you are living in the past. This country has way too many that couldn't care less about the constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think we will be surprised (or not so much) at what we will see some try for the good of the people.

Posted by: mycentworth

December 28, 2012 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Posted by: mycentworth
"It isn't that many would even want assault weapons, the point is we live in a free country and once the goverment starts taking away our freedoms, it will not stop".

Bingo...my sentiments exactly! That's the main point to defending our freedom to own weapons, and one that libs will never understand. I guess it's just over their heads.

Like I said before I have quit reading anything Fayfreeloader says but I want to mention his name so he can unload more garbage from his liberal mind. I think it's fun to rattle the cages of Coralie, FFT, Alphakitty, Franklloydleftist, and others. Let's see if we can push this thread to 200!

Posted by: patrioteer

December 28, 2012 at 7:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Glad that someone mentioned the importance of an acute sense of fear that all the gunrotica fans have in common.

.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

December 28, 2012 at 11:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank,

Are you for individual rights and liberty more than just for things you agree with?

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 28, 2012 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank,
i love your new photo.
is that really you?

Frank,
thanks for the info on the canadian gun
laws . it appears to have worked as the decline
in gun related deaths were much lower.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

December 29, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "By all means go back to your perceived land of greater civilization at your soonest convienence."
Doesn't occur to you that at 82, owning my house, relatives in area, friends, and network established over 40 years, small social security income, that it would be difficult to move anyplace else?
Does that mean I can't have nostalgia for the area where I grew up, where people tend to be more literate and reasonable?

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "I have great appreacition for other nations. I have actually been to several. I don't blindly want to adopt the policies of other countries based on what I read on the Internet."
Which nations have you been to and what do you appreciate about them?
I have been to Paris, Berlin, and several places in Mexico. I liked some things and not others about each place.
I have read about other parts of the world in books and articles, as well as on the Internet. I have talked with people who have traveled. I've seen movies and television documentary programs about various places.
Onlyl an idiot would "blindly" adopt policies from any source, including American pundits or bloggers.

Posted by: Coralie

December 29, 2012 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Only an idiot would "blindly" adopt policies from any source, including American pundits or bloggers."

Great statement, true, truth, and more truth. Could you add CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to that list also, Coralie?

Posted by: JailBird

December 29, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"where people tend to be more literate and reasonable?"

There you go again. And you are always pining for civil discusssion but constantly insult the community that harbors you.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 29, 2012 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

lady,

Yes that is really me.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 29, 2012 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank,

She (Coralie) will also call you a liar if you don't agree with her perceived agenda. But that's civil discourse, liberal style.

Posted by: patrioteer

December 29, 2012 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

She (Coralie) has called me worse than a liar, but she did it in a civil manner.

Posted by: JailBird

December 29, 2012 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The annual Central Connecticut State University literacy study ranked Minneapolis as the 3rd most literate city in 2011."
I went to elementary school in Minneapolis.

Posted by: Coralie

December 30, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Madison, Wisconsin is listed first on a different list of most educated people--I spent a lot of time with relatives in and around Madison. Fargo, North Dakota is 8th on that list--another old stomping ground of mine.
However Cleveland, Ohio is 99th on that list (it's not Upper Midwest though)--I went to high school there.
Little Rock is 33rd on that list. Not bad.
http://www.menshealth.com/best-life/e...
In other words, I've got some stats to back me up on the "literate" and am not just blowing smoke and sending insults.

Posted by: Coralie

December 30, 2012 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Did you graduate, Coralie

Posted by: JailBird

December 30, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Maybe I'm just an illiterate unreasonable Southerner and just misread then, Coralie.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 30, 2012 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Probably making a law against owning "assault" weapons won't work: the gun nuts will still own them. Those same gun nuts feel that they must "carry" to feel dressed. It seems to me that there must be something wrong in the head to feel that way. A further translation: those who must be armed all the time equals bullies and cowards. I do know several of the gun nuts and don't trust any of them.

Posted by: Oldearkie

January 1, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oldarkie,

RE-

"who must be armed all the time equals bullies and cowards"

You are entitled to your opinions, and I'm sure it is true in some cases, but the overarching assumption the all who carry all the time are those things is wrong.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."-- Robert Heinlein (described by Issac Asimov as a "flaming liberal")

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 2, 2013 at 1:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oldearkie, here take it on the chin again:

"Carrying a gun is like carrying a handkerchief, it is better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.".....ME

What do ya do Arkie, blow it in your hand?

Posted by: JailBird

January 2, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Robert Heinlein was a science-FICTION writer, and your quote may have been out of the mouth of one of his fictional characters. Also, I don't believe his politics were especially liberal. Asimov may have been ironic.
The usual modus operandi, somebody tries to get in a different opinion and people gang up on him..
Could we say that many or most of those people who must be armed all the time are bullies and cowads?
Yes, I think we could.

Posted by: Coralie

January 3, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, specifically comparing the upper Midwest with the Old Confederacy:, IN GENERAL:
*They read more books.
*Have more respect for education
*Don't have a gun culture (which in the case of the South was brought over in the 18th century by a large group of emigrants from the lawless Borderlands of Northern England and the Scottish Lowlands).
*Have more respect for working people
*Don't mix up their religion with their partisan politics.

Posted by: Coralie

January 3, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

More baseless attacks on Southerners of Scots-Irish descent with religious convictions I see. All three of your claims are bullspit.

-A Southerner of Anglo/Scots-Irish descent with a college degree who reads books (of all kinds) all the time

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 3, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"The usual modus operandi, somebody tries to get in a different opinion and people gang up on him..
Could we say that many or most of those people who must be armed all the time are bullies and cowads? Yes, I think we could."

You like rusty are entitled to your opinion. The problem is, when someone disagrees with you, you lable them as white trash lunatics that can't read. In this case specifically the insulting words are, "bullies and cowads."

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 3, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and stupid Yankees, but Hydrogen doesn't float in the toilet bowl.".....ME

Posted by: JailBird

January 3, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not going to start in on the bashing of "Yankees" as you put it, Moneymyst. I have "grown up" with enough folks from the above the Mason-Dixon in my travels of this world to learn to appreciate their differences. A couple of my favorates are some really good buddies of mine from Detroit. Some others are family in Wisconsin with a huge gun culture there. Heck, I've even got friends from Boston and the Bronx, both gun owners.

The thing is, as far as I know all the folks I haved worked and interacted with from the places colder than Dixie are gun-toters, and a lot of them read quite as bit as well. Glory sakes alive, most of them even know how to read. Then again, I'm not going to make insulting remarks about other Americans based on where they are from.

Maybe some find solace in insulting Southern folks, gun owners, Conservatives, those of Scots-Irish ancestry, those that oppose unions, anyone who disagrees with them about ANYTHING, or any other thing on their group effort letter writing agenda.

The amount of garbage unloaded on anyone opposed to the views of the aforemention group would be enough for them to rally a march on Dixon... if the garbage was targeted anyone else.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 4, 2013 at 1:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yankees are kinda like cute little puppies when they are babies, but they grow up.

Posted by: JailBird

January 4, 2013 at 4:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

coralie,
i agree but i also think the old confederacy
seems to still have alot of racial tension today.
they seem to still vote against the colored folks, especially Obama.

Moneymyst:
you need to take turns blogging not hoard the posts so much. it is annoying.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

January 4, 2013 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am really really tired of Moneymyst's insults and toilet references. He is a troll and he's ruining these threads for serious discussion. I will leave shortly as most others have who are not totally rightwing.

Posted by: Coralie

January 4, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, my paternal grandmother was "Scots-Irish" but the term 'Borderers' is better to describe this huge group of immigrants that came over in the 18th century because many came directly from the Borderlands without the detour to Northern Ireland. The English settled some of the borderers there to keep down the Catholic Irish, but they didn't improve their own fortunes much, so they came to the colonies.
If you want to read some serious history about these ancestors, try ALBION'S SEED by David Hackett Fisher. He first uses the term 'borderers.'
For an updated, easier version try Colin Woodard's AMERICAN NATIONS. Here's a map:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...

Posted by: Coralie

January 4, 2013 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, you noticed I capitalized the words IN GENERAL. I didn't claim that there were no gun owners in the upper Midwest (not sure MIchigan is part of the uM anyway) only that they did not have a GUN CULTURE of centuries' duration.
You said "All three of your claims are bullspit." I thought I had made five claims, so which ones are you attacking and on what grounds?
Since you read books all the time, another one you might try is BORN FIGHTING by James Webb. He is quite sympathetic to the Borderers, coming from the same background
Also DEER HUNTING WITH JESUS and online articles by Joe Bageant.

Posted by: Coralie

January 4, 2013 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The claim that the US doesn't need any more laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but instead, needs to inforce the ones already on the books is a partial falsehood.

The mission of the ATF has been undermined by acts of Congress. The ATF has been operating without a permanent director for six years because of the Democrat controlled Senate's failure to act on confirmation proceedings.

The ATF is prohibited from creating a national registry fo gun transactions while, at the same time, agents cannot make more than one unannounced insepection of a licensed gun dealer each year.

All records on background checks on firearm buyers must be destroyed within 24 hours and the ATF is limited in its ability to share tracing information on firearms linked to crimes with local and state agencies without a court order.

There is something terribly wrong with a policy that creates a "watch list" of persons who are considered too dangerous to fly, but those same people can legally buy firearms. Congress will not correct this contradiction.

Newtown, Conn has only sparked interest in passing new gun laws when that massacre should have focused our attention on the huge gaps in our existing firearm laws. Easing the restrictions on the ATF's mission would have been a good start

Thanks to sfgate

Posted by: JailBird

January 4, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I mistyped. I should have put 5 instead of 3. You are crawfishing. Your backpeddling attempt to use socialogical quackery mixed with stereotypes to justify your hateful remarks is not convincing. I'm not saying regional divisiveness isn't in existance in present times. Just watch college football.

Certain people are real good at creating regional divisiveness today through slander, insults, and general snobbery. I'll admit, it goes both ways.

By the way, if Michigan isn't part of the upper Midwest then Mississippi isn't part of the Deep South. That is just silly. You want to talk about a gun culture, meet some Yoopers, plenty of whom are of Scandinavian descent (Finnish specifically).

"IN GENERAL" is a big problem with a large amount of comments in this world. Labeling people based off of "IN GENERAL" creates problems.

I don't have a problem with diagreement on the issues, in this case guns. I have a problem with labels based off uninformed stereotypes.

ladyLiberty,

Why do you think people voting a certain way automatically means "racial tensions"?

What if Condi Rice would have gotten the nomination? Results probably would have significantly different.

Moneymyst,

Then sfagte thing you bring up is interesting. I'm going to look into that some more. In the mean time...

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.p...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 2:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Born Fighting is good stuff. I have picked it up before. I haven't seen Deer Hunting with Jesus yet.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 2:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I just looked up Deer Hunting with Jesus and read some other stuff by the author and know why I haven't seen it and why I wouldn't want to. Come on now. Anyone who refers to Hank Williams as "white trash saint" and espouses the cause of the "LSD spiritual movement." isn't what I would call a beneficial contributor to this conversation.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Anyone who refers to Hank Williams as 'white trash saint' and espouses the cause of the 'LSD spiritual movement.' isn't what I would call a beneficial contributor to this conversation."

Yet you respect Moneymyst's comments more and more each day.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 5, 2013 at 2:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

The serious comments Money makes tend to be more balanced than the alternative most times. Nice to see you back in the mix.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 2:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

Thank you-- I'm glad to be back. And thank you for the kind Christmas wishes; I hope your Christmas was satisfactory as well.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 5, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The misinformation and uninformed BS on this post is laughable. Why is it that persons uneducated about firearms,concealed carry laws and progun activism in general make such slanted and stupid remarks and statements. And for the record a coward is someone unwilling to stand up for himself or his loved ones.Not a gun owners. Criminals are always going to break the law.Don't worry I will also protect those who don't have the intestinal fortitude to protect themselves. That is why we call them the weak.Those who equate fear with being armed are sadly inept in their assertions. Being prepared is the the reason most of us carry and have permits to do so. When you compare cowardice to being armed you also call law enforcement and soldiers cowards. And tell me please if you believe gun control works then why do you think law enforcement need "ASSAULT WEAPONS" as you so mistakenly call everything that looks "scary".

Posted by: gunny55

January 5, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do we need to give BATF more power? Really!!
I have heard them called" jackbooted thugs". Don't know about that but they are bad about gun running. Liberals are worried to death about gun owners but could care less about the thousands of illegal people flooding across our borders.No one has any idea who they are are why they are coming here. Thats just insane.

Posted by: gunny55

January 5, 2013 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

gunny,

I don't disagree with you on guns. But to answer your remarks about the large amounts of people coming here:

It is pretty easy to guess that most, not all, are doing it for work and a better life for their families (the American Dream). As for why they are doing it illegally... well I chalk it up desperation and that Ellis Island isn't around with open gates these day.

"Do we need to give BATF more power?" Perhaps we should just enable them to enforce the laws on the books.

Respectfully,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 5, 2013 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Liberals are worried to death about gun owners but could care less about the thousands of illegal people flooding across our borders."

Good comment, gunny. It isn't that we don't care about illegals desperation, but closing the borders would definitly help ease the problem. We don't need any more power given to agencies to rule over the people. We have far too many of our freedoms taken away and if you look to other countries, the strong arm of the law does not help.

It is this liberal society that blames everything but the offender, in which case there are plenty of laws that cover punishment.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 6, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "It is this liberal society that blames everything but the offender, in which case there are plenty of laws that cover punishment."
It is this conservative society that blames liberals for everything because the world is a scary place.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 6, 2013 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "socialogical quackery mixed with stereotypes to justify your hateful remarks" and "uninformed stereotypes."
Since you're such a history reader, read some of ALBION'S SEED or ask your history professors about David Hackett Fischer.
You may be the one who is uninformed.

Posted by: Coralie

January 6, 2013 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaking of divisiveness, these threads are part of the New Civil War.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welco...

Posted by: Coralie

January 6, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fischer won the Pulitizer Prize for one of his history books
http://www.historians.org/perspective...
Joe Bageant came from the culture he wrote about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bageant
Despite being generally liberal, he defends gun ownership in DEER-HUNTING.
++++
As for IN GENERAL, I know that you prefer black&white, either/or statements without any qualifications.

Posted by: Coralie

January 6, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Your line of thinking about Joe Baegent is the same one that tries to convince people that is alright for people with darker skin to use the N word.

As for the so-called "neo-Confederacy", I think some people like you want for there to be an issue so you weaponize the discomfort/disagreement felt towards some peoples opinions on certain issues to rally dissent between people of different areas.

"New Civil War"... give it a rest.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 6, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have thought about this some more and beg the question again, Coralie, what would you say if someone was making hateful insulting remarks about a group of people based off of something like their ethnic background or where they were from if they were from say somewhere like Minnesota or were of different color or sexual orientation than white and heterosexual?

Also, back to the issue at hand (guns), it doesn't have anything to due with regions, there are people in every part of this counry on both sides of the debate.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 7, 2013 at 7:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think, Tank, that you are in deep denial about many things.
You have not really heard anything I was trying to say about history. I have some doubts about your supposed interest in history.
"the issue at hand (guns), it doesn't have anything to due with regions" Then why is it that growing up in Minneapolis, Cleveland, small town near Madison where my grandparents lived, and later Eugene, Oregon, San Diego, etc . for my first 40 years, I never knew ANYBODY who talked about guns, who indicated that they had one in the house, who talked about their fears for home protection, who collected guns, or who were in any way associated with guns.
Only exception: my grandfather kept his father's Civil War rifle on the parlor wall.
I didn't happen to know any hunters, either. If you live in a city or even an area of dairy farms without any wilderness, you have to go a long ways and make a big expedition out of hunting.
I am sure some people did this, especially when we lived in Scranton, PA because I would see an occasional car drive by with a dead deer lashed to it, or we would see people in hunter's costumes in a restaurant or whatever. . I just didn't happen to know them. It seemed like kind of a luxury sport.
===
I am not talking about a DEBATE I'm talking about a gun CULTURE that goes back centuries to another land.

Posted by: Coralie

January 7, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I am not in denial about anything.

RE-

"I have some doubts about your supposed interest in history."

Bless your heart. I have some doubts about your respect for the Constitution.

You said rather insulting things about a large group of people because some of them have a different opinion than you as do many from other places you try to play them against. And you continually try to justify it.

I have family in Wisconsin (incidently near Madison), and my experience there over Thanksgiving holidays growing up is in great diasgreement with your experience.

You would do better to stand by your points of why you don't like guns instead of insulting people and trying to gin up a "new Civil War."

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 7, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank,
coralie does have a strong point about the obsession of guns in our culture over the last 2 decades.
What do you think of this tragedy in wisconsin
as you must be familiar with if you lived there.
so sad.
+++++++++
On nov 2004 six Wisconsin deer hunters were shot to death. The man convicted of their murders was a Hmong truck driver from St. Paul, MN. On that Sunday morning, the hunters found him perched in one of their hunting stands and what followed led to an altercation and eventually the shootings. The intruder said that the hunters surrounded him and began spewing profanity and racial epithets at him. He pleaded self defense. However the evidence, including the fact that four of the hunters had bullet wounds to the back, made it clear that it was in a fit of anger that he lashed out at the deer hunters and not as a desperate act of self preservation. The location of the bodies made it clear that the killer had "hunted down" his victims, including chasing them around trees and ATV's. Only one of the victims was armed and he (one of two survivors of the massacre) was wounded and unable to defend the group. There is much to this story including racism angles, and the great irony of hunters becoming the hunted. We choose, however, to concentrate on the immeasurable loss and horrendous grief that has been steeped on the victims and their families and friends.
what part of this could have been avoided if we had better gun respect and regulations?

Posted by: ladyLiberty

January 7, 2013 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Six Wisconsin deer hunters and only one was armed? Hogs just hired a Wisconsin yankee for head football coach. One St. Paul Hmong truck driver against six hunters; damn good thing a deer didn't get in the way. I say; take all guns away from Wisconsins and Hmongs.

Posted by: JailBird

January 7, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ladyLiberty,

I think you missed a big part of the debate. My point was our gun culture also exists outside the South.

Full disclosure: I have never lived in Wisconsin, I just have family and friends there.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 7, 2013 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are some that would have the gall to call the woman in this picture a "bully" and/or "coward."

http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/blog/...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 7, 2013 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says I "said rather insulting things about a large group of people..."
I would like to know what you are talking about.
+++
Also, whether there are hunters or gunowners in Wisconsin--which I'm sure there are---isn't really the point. (BTW I doubt they do their hunting in Dane County but probably go to a wilder part of Wisconsin farther north).
Also the Borderer immigration was HUGE in the 18th century and while they largely settled the South and the West (pioneers) their descendants are everywhere.
Several U.S. presidents were descended from this group starting with Andrew Jackson.
You can't seem to separate what I'm saying about history from your general defensiveness.

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You might look at this about "natural liberty," an important Borderer belief (p. 81-82, I can't excerpt it)
http://books.google.com/books?id=uc8K...

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

You are using your borderer line to backpeddle, cover, and justify your insulting remarks about people that you disagree with.

Dec 28th

“I should have stayed in the more civilized upper Midwest.”

Dec 29th

“Does that mean I can't have nostalgia for the area where I grew up, where people tend to be more literate and reasonable?”

Jan 3rd

“OK, specifically comparing the upper Midwest with the Old Confederacy:, IN GENERAL:
*They read more books.
*Have more respect for education
*Don't have a gun culture (which in the case of the South was brought over in the 18th century by a large group of emigrants from the lawless Borderlands of Northern England and the Scottish Lowlands).
*Have more respect for working people
*Don't mix up their religion with their partisan politics.”

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

Oh yeah, and you think people that carry are "bullies and cowards."

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excerts from Fischer's book ALBION'S SEED.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albi...

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Those hunter in Wisconsin are darn good, thats a fact. One gun to six hunters, In Arkansas it would be six guns to one hunter. You are right, Coralie, Ar-kan-sans are inferior to Yankees.

Posted by: JailBird

January 8, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just for general knowledge, these charts are good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Somebody else said that those who feel the need to be armed at all times (same thing as those who carry?) tend to be "bullies and cowards."
You jumped on him and I suggested that the words "many or most" be added to the statement.
+++
Tank, let me give you a little lesson in logic.
If I say "everybody loves ice cream" and you say "my cousin Eliza doesn't" you have refuted my argument because it was OVERSTATED.
But if I say 'MOST people love ice cream" you can't contradict my statement with one or two instances of somebody who doesn't. And the statement is much more likely to be true.

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

At the time I gave a statistical source indicating that people do read more books in some of the places I used to live, esp. in what I call the Upper Midwest ((I've found definitions differ) but I'm mainly thinking of as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
I have found that information about the Borderers, an amazingly little known part of our history, has been a vital key to understanding it.
BTW, you have ignored the fact that some of my own ancestors were Borderer desceandants who settled in southern Ohio.

Posted by: Coralie

January 8, 2013 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Did you get that English lesson there, Tank, don't know about it being a logic lesson though. Are Borderers anything like the Illegal Latino border jumpers in NWA?

Posted by: JailBird

January 8, 2013 at 5:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

That dog doesn't hunt. Can you just be honest that you not only don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, but also made unfounded and insulting comments about groups of people based off of where they are from because you disagree with some of them and can't acccept the fact that we have an American gun culture that spans the entire country. Stand by your words. It is your right no matter how wrong you are.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2013 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sorry Coralie,
i did not read the previous posts.
just jumped in..my bad!

i am now enjoying all the history of America's
gun culture. thank you. fanscinating.
it is quite a strong force here maybe based
on the borderers.

Tank,
the wisconsin hunters were vikings ..tall , large, even tempered , slow to anger, blonde norweigen ancestors .(2 times the size of the Hmong man from St. Paul)
the man who shot them dead was from Laos, a refugee . see movie with clint easwood about how they have settled in Mn after the viet nam war. "Gran Torino"
He was a hot tempered man Hmong, mad because the wisconsin folks own all that land and all the rights of hunting there. near Hayward WI .
the Hmongs are now featured at the history museum in Mn as the largest immigrant group to minnesota. they have had trouble assimulating as the movie depicts.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

January 9, 2013 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

moneymist,
coralie did indeed give a "logic" lesson as our concepts in thinking are derived from the greek logic.
she is right too.

here is distortion of the logic which can lead to wrong thinking:
Some cognitive distortions are also logical fallacies
.
All-or-nothing thinking (splitting) – Thinking in terms of a false dilemma. In other words, splitting involves using terms like "always," "every" or "never" when this is not either true or equivalent to the truth.

Overgeneralization – Making hasty generalizations from insufficient experiences and evidence. Compare with misleading vividness. Contrast with precautionary principle, where a possible harm is rightly presumed true upon a reasonable suspicion until proven false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Magical thinking - Expectation of specific outcomes based on performance of unrelated acts or utterances. In logic, this is called wishful thinking.
Mental filter – Inability or refusal to view positive or negative features of an experience, for example, noticing only an aesthetic flaw in a piece of otherwise useful clothing, or a single good dish in an otherwise awful meal.
Disqualifying the positive – Discounting positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons.
Jumping to conclusions – Reaching preliminary conclusions (usually negative) from little (if any) evidence. Two specific subtypes are also identified: Mind reading – Inferring a person's possible or probable thoughts from their behavior and nonverbal communication in the context of the situation.
Fortune telling – Inflexible expectations for how things will turn out before they happen.

Magnification and minimization – Giving proportionally greater weight to a perceived failure, weakness or threat, or lesser weight to a perceived success, strength or opportunity, so the weight differs from that assigned to the event or thing by others. This is common enough in the normal population to popularize idioms such as "make a mountain out of a molehill." In depressed clients, often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negative characteristics are understated. There is one subtype of magnification: Catastrophizing – Giving greater weight to the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or experiencing a situation as unbearable or impossible when it is just uncomfortable.

Emotional reasoning – Experiencing reality as a reflection of emotionally linked thoughts, e.g. "I feel (i.e. think that I am) stupid or boring, therefore I must be.
Should statements – Patterns of moral reasoning based on what a person morally should or ought to do rather than the particular case the person is faced with, or conforming strenuously to ethical categorical imperatives which, by definition, "always apply". Albert Ellis termed this "musturbation".

Posted by: ladyLiberty

January 9, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

lady,

Not only are you not paying attention to the debate, you don't understand it. Playing Freud doesn't make your friend look any better.

http://libertyendanger.files.wordpres...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 9, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gosh, I think I just got a psychoanalysis psychotherapeutic treatment and didn't even have to pay for it. Thanks, ladyliberty, because of you I know what the problem is. I hated my mother and because of that, I am now transfering that hate to Coralie. Couldn't have been anything she posted, right, ladyliberty?

Posted by: JailBird

January 9, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

She's not playing Freud so much as ARISTOTLE!
I admit a little cognitive therapy seems to have crept into her post, but most of it is about logic--"over-generalization" "false dilemma."
You guys don't know the difference between logic--a field that was well developed by the Greeks 2,500 years ago--and psychotherapy???
And what I said was definitely about logic, not about English.
I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time here.

Posted by: Coralie

January 9, 2013 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment"
I certainly do believe it is part of the Bill of Rights.
I don't agree with your interpretation of it, or the latest Supreme Court interpretation which differs from 2 centuries of previous interpretations.

Posted by: Coralie

January 9, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
Does that remind you of anybody, Moneymyst?

Posted by: Coralie

January 9, 2013 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shouting and using exclamation points makes your point so well, Coralie. It's funny how your disagreement will the Supreme Court is so much more justified than someone elses on any other issue you happen to side with the court on. Please tell us about Aristotle.

Hail to the queen of Liberal Tolerance.

http://whistleblower-newswire.com/wp-...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 9, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is it true that liberals will flee from the Holy Bible much in the same way that vampires flee from garlic?

My Red Herring fallacy for the hour.

Posted by: JailBird

January 9, 2013 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Beauty is power the same way money is power the same way intelligence is power the same way a gun is power"......Chuck Palahniuk

I just realized that if Obama takes my gun away, I've got nothing left.

Posted by: JailBird

January 10, 2013 at 5:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some people on here are so angry they're not making sense.
Others rarely make sense anyway.

Posted by: Coralie

January 10, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't worry Moneymyst, you still have your toilet jokes.

Posted by: Coralie

January 10, 2013 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

i enjoy your article. great job. keep it simple

Posted by: negruvoda

January 10, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will dissapear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."----Mohandas K. Gaundhi

Gosh, and we got stuck with "you didn't build that" Obama and "grab their guns" Biden.

Posted by: JailBird

January 10, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

Watch out, it's only a matter of time before someone might try to convince you Ghandi was wrong and those Indians were perfectly capable of defending themselves before European incursion.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 10, 2013 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution THEY don't like."---Alan M. Dershowitz

"Having a gun certainly doesn't make you right, but it sure as hell adds to your argument."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

January 10, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

Watch out quoting those Jewish Northerner lawyers who support gun rights. Wait....

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 10, 2013 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE [Dershowitz quotation]
Reading what the Constitution says is not "reading the Second Amendment out of the Constitution". As for whether it grants an individual right, note that a well-regulated militia-- that is, a collective organization, and an organized collective-- is an explicit conditional on the granting of the right to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Dershowitz forgets-- theoretically with great effort, as he should know better-- that this right was not seen as an individual right until very recently in our history, and that the Second Amendment required a considerable amount of rebranding in order to accomplish this. There is far more legal precedent for the states' right argument than for the individual right argument.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Do you believe in the individual's right to bear arms?

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 11, 2013 at 3:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Do you believe in the individual's right to bear arms?"

Yes, but I also understand that the right is not absolute, and I believe that recognizing this fact is one of the responsibilities that is concurrent with the right.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 11, 2013 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat.

Well said, sir. We still have disagreements on the gun issue, but well said.

This might make you chuckle:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv0...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 11, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gads. Same silly liberal ideas, same meaningless arguments. Over and over. You guys can nit pick a knat to death over nothing because you miss the simple fundamental underlying principle most people get instantly.

Freedom isn't free. Freedoms come with risks. They do demand responsibility. The fact that some will abuse their freedoms is never an excuse to take freedoms from others.

The whole idea of abridging fundamental individual rights of everyone because of the irresponsible behavior of a few is simply rediculous.

With each new rule and law the government further defines people's behavior thereby restricting their freedom. It is not the role of government to make over society or attempt to change the thinking of the people. Government is the servant, not the master.

As always, progressive thinking liberals will not understand the simple truths in this. That is because most suffer from a very real mental illness that makes them incapable of it. I pity them their hand wringing and worries over things that need be none of their business because in spite of similar efforts in the past they are not only ineffective, but have proven harmful.

It makes one be thankful for the fact that in this wonderful Republic the people have inalienable individual rights that cannot be abridged in spite of the misguided and encourageable mental meanderings of progressive "fix everything that ain't broke do gooders".

I vote we repalce Pelosi and Obama with Princess Honey Boo Boo and her Mom and Harry Reid with Troy Landry of "Swamp People"! Uncle Joe? No problem, just keep his glass full and don't run out of booze and he'll be fine.

Posted by: jeffieboy

January 11, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

By the way, the second ammendment is not a newly discovered "individual" right. Think about it in a very simple way for a second. How many rights in the bill of rights are not individual rights? None.

Duh?

They all are and always were individual rights until some anti gun activists decided to try to redefine the second ammendment by reading it impropery. When one reads the parts of the federalist papers written by people that created the ammendment it is stunningly clear that it was always intended to be an inalienable individual right.

It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with sport shooting. It has nothing to do with how fast you can reload or how many bullets you have. It has nothing to do with where or when you can have them.

It has everything to do with a person's right to defend themselves and property from aggessors and enemies, even if that enemy becomes a government they have the right and duty to abolish.

Take that away and free people are no longer free, they become truely powerless.

Posted by: jeffieboy

January 11, 2013 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's a great point, jeffieboy, I went back a looked. They are all individual rights. Why do you think dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Obama what to get rid of citizen ownership of firearms?

Posted by: JailBird

January 11, 2013 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think there is a connection. We are at a turning point in this country where we will decide to continue to pursue personal responsibility and individual freedom or give ourselves over to the control and direction of government.

The balance is swinging back and forth between returning to the system that allowed the country and most of its people to become great and prosper and decline into the socialst model that has decimated Europe.

Our first breaking away from European methods made us great. We became the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. Why toss it away?

Posted by: jeffieboy

January 11, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are some who say that the turning point has been reached and this country can't survive. I look for individual states to break away and this time the Federal Goverment will not or could not bring them back. New York and California would now say good riddance to Texas and George Bush. Texas or Alabama are must states because of seaports. This would divide the country down the middle and the east and west coast would then govern seperatly also. This would divide the United States into three seperate countrys, the middle being the strongest. Where the US Military would stand is anybodys guess? I think they would not interfere.

Posted by: JailBird

January 11, 2013 at 5:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I like Wyoming.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming...

They got it right!

Posted by: jeffieboy

January 11, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy,

The thing in Wyoming is could to come down to the same Federalism vs. States' rights battle not unlike the medical mj thing.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 12, 2013 at 1:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The way I see it the Federal Government started getting much too intrusive and out of line during four terms of the reign of King FDR. Not unlike Obama, FDR used the stock market crash and depression to completely re-mold people's thinking and open the doors to socialism in America.

Obama is trying very hard to push the country over that cliff into complete socialism using the current economy and what is mostly government induced economic failures and perceived crisis. It is almost frightening in some respects. It is certainly disturbing that so many can be so easily deceived by this man. But in retrospect perhaps that is what a lot of people actually want?

In order to do that successfully he must first disarm us as he continues working to divide us as a people and culture. I believe those efforts will prove futile and he will fail. There just isn't enough geography in blue support to accomplish that. Wyoming is just the tip of the iceberg. People are waking up all over the place.

Posted by: jeffieboy

January 12, 2013 at 1:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffeiboy,
you give your enemies way too much power over you!
Obama does not have such elaborate and evil machinations at all. he is just surviving like the rest of us.
Your biggest enemy seems to be your own fear.
it is a hard lesson to learn that your enemy may lie within your own mind.
get help.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

January 12, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he used to frighten you."---Eric Hoffer

What does Obama fear most?

Posted by: JailBird

January 12, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Can anyone tell me with any certainty exactly what Congress intends to ban?

Do our elected officials propose to disallow me possession of whatever radio-controlled model airplane that they pay Tank to fly? (I ask because I'd really like to have one - only for sporting use [and neighbor control] you understand... .)

Perhaps all us idiots ought to wait to see what's actually proposed before getting our panties knotted up.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 12, 2013 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's funny Gen. I bet your neighbors love you.

Should have worded the last line:

Perhaps all us citizens ought to wait to see what the idiots actually propose before getting our panties soiled.

Posted by: JailBird

January 12, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, Money . . . I'll tell ya - there's little love lost between me and anybody who knows me.

However, I'll also tell you this:

If one actually cared about such issues, one's time would be much better spent educating oneself about our Constitution and laws, and otherwise keeping one's ignorant mouth shut - now wouldn't it . . . ?

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 12, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Should have worded the last line:

Since you actually care about such issues, and since you have educated yourself on US History and our Constitution, I applaud you for writing about it and not mouthing off like some ignorant politician.

Posted by: JailBird

January 12, 2013 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't care about the issue, because it's not really an issue - them kids in wherever it was are dead, and more just like 'em will die whether Congress passes a law or not. I think that's just fine. No one actually "cares about the children" - that nonsense is nothing more than a Republican political tagline from the '80's.

Likewise, nobody actually cares about the law. I'm upset because you idiots are ruining my America with your poorly reasoned and ill-informed opinions.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 12, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gen, ah, did you ever relate to the film, "One flew over the Cookoo's Nest." ??

Posted by: JailBird

January 12, 2013 at 10:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I just read the above posts and have to say jeffieboy said it all and very well. I especially like the first post, which you can see came out of frustration over many of these posts. That being:

"Gads. Same silly liberal ideas, same meaningless arguments. Over and over. You guys can nit pick a knat to death over nothing because you miss the simple fundamental underlying principle most people get instantly."

I so agree with you, jeffieboy, on all what you said. Please keep posting as you make so much sense and lay it out so plainly. I'm going to watch "Swamp People" as it sounds like I'm missing a good show.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 13, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think jeffieboy is wrong, Harry Reid should be replaced by Zed, the cockroach guy in Men in Black.

Of course Rip Torn is a Republician and might throw-up at the idea of being Harry Reid even though bugs didn't bother him.

Posted by: JailBird

January 13, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy says "I vote we repalce Pelosi and Obama..."
The nation just voted last month and Obama was reelected by about 4 million votes.
You do believe in democratic representation?

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy says "FDR used the stock market crash and depression to completely re-mold people's thinking and open the doors to socialism in America."
That means we have had socialism for 70 years?
Are you referring to Social Security?

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I've never seen a good war or a bad revolution."---Edward Abbey

"Three words remain that can yet stir the blood of a man: the word 'rebellion', the word 'revolt', and the word, 'revolution".---Edward Abbey

As long as men still think like this and are well-armed, freedom will survive!!!

Posted by: JailBird

January 15, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excuse me, 75 years.
Social Security began in 1936.
I joined it with a summer job I had in 1945.
++++
If socialism is defined as "A political and economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated,." how does a plan for social insurance fit into that?
Jeffieboy should instead be railing about municipalities that own their own electric utilities and charge customers less..
For instance, 82 in Wisconsin. http://www.meuw.org/aboutus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevelan...
Seattle has the lowest residential and commercial electrical rates amongst comparably-sized cities in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_...
http://www.massmunichoice.org/

Posted by: Coralie

January 17, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Having a 500 round clip is a lot like having 500 cable chanels. What's the difference, you can only use one at a time anyway.

Posted by: JailBird

January 17, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money:

Have you ever actually watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?" Ever read the book? If so, you might have paid better attention to your spelling of the work's title.

But, that's just like you people, isn't it? Never mind with either the process, or the substance. Just go full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and declare "Mission Accomplished," right?

I love my guns and hate paying taxes, just as do you and your ilk. The difference between me and your sort is that I actually know what our Constitution means. The rhetoric is thus:

If you love children, and hate the people who'd kill them . . . well, then, you must be in support of disarming the crazies who'd wade into a school and shoot kids. Therefore, you must likewise avow death upon those who'd use their 24 years of medical education and training to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape.

Conversely, if you hate children, you must therefore support those who would arm themselves with assault weapons and, along with their doctor friends, engage in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent.

Money, if you want to use an obscure literary or film reference in support of your argument, try reading (and/or watching the movie - whichever best suits your particular intellectual capabilities) "Catch 22".

Because, that's exactly what you're in.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

January 21, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't pay much attention to you as I did in the past since Tank said you were a fake general. How about Private Buck Turgidson. At least, Col Womack is a real Colonel. You disapoint me Buck, inpersoninating an officer. No wonder he has more bandwidth than you.

Posted by: JailBird

January 21, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."---Albert Einstein

Posted by: JailBird

January 24, 2013 at 6:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And whatever happened to the thread which was about a proposed ban on assault weapons?

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The Tampa Bay Times found that in almost one-third of Stand Your Ground cases analyzed, “defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim-and still went free.” According to the latest CDC data, between 2005 and 2009 Florida’s gun homicide rate jumped 21%. Since more people brought guns into their homes, between 2005 and 2009 Florida’s firearm suicide rate rose 20%. [In contrast] since 1989 California has passed over 40 gun laws. As they took effect, the state’s gun death rate plunged-by 48 percent since 1990. By 2009 California’s firearm mortality rate (8.1 per 100,000) was well below the rest of the nation’s (10.2).
By 2009 Florida’s firearm mortality rate was 48% higher than California’s."
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/categor...

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I like the brady campaign because of its usual made-up facts and bold-faced lies to support their bias.

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 4:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"made-up facts and bold-faced lies"
Which you can say about anything that doesn't support YOUR bias.

Posted by: Coralie

January 28, 2013 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"made-up facts and bold-faced lies"">>

More projection from the unhappy troll. I've always found the Brady Campaign's claims and material to be accurate and carefully backed up with verifiable references from standard, independent, usually peer reviewed sources (they do have an agenda of course, so they are going to argue for their side of the case obviously). Unfortunately, this differs entirely from the silly person making this charge, who's posts (again I say unfortunately), when they aren't full of name calling and insults, are brimming with: "made-up facts and bold-faced lies." Perhaps even worse, poor MM doesn't even know how to begin to construct an argument and make a case for what he would like to assert, even if one day he did manage to figure out what that might be.

D.
-------------
Brady has a nice one pager on gun stats:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/F...

My page on this topic is well referenced too. And much larger:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

On another post you called me an "ankle biter" and now I'm "the unhappy troll". Soon the name will be so long it will take take your whole post just to say it.

You can call me "My Superior" or "My Teacher". Either one of those titles will help you to construct an argument and, also, help me to fill in the space between your links to others material. Next thing you know, you will be quoting me, Oh my sakes alive you already have and didn't credit me. Thats OK Freeby, I know you need a father figure.

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money shoots, Moneymissed.

When one accuses a person or organization of engaging in... "...made-up facts and bold-faced lies."

It's essential to have examples in stock to back the charge up. You might be up to it, but that would be a first.

Bluff called.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Essential in your own little world. If I make a charge, I don't have to look it up, I've trained you to do that for me. Some of the examples you come up with are a bit on the weird side, sorta out of the mainstream, I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 2:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sniping is so much more fun than actually saying something.

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What could I say, Coralie, that you don't already know?

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I don't know much about how a car works, or baseball statistics.
And a few other subjects.
But I do know how to use Google!

Posted by: Coralie

February 1, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK then google, (Equipping the saints free thinker), and click on the first hit.

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I introduce a lot of topics that freethinker hasn't commented about.
If you can't find any differences between us then you are lacking in discernment.

Posted by: Coralie

February 3, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I didn't mean it to be taken that way, I certainly would not confuse you with free. You use links to enforce your opinions, free uses links to make his opinion. You and I disagree on most subjects, but to your credit and class, I can say that you have never made a personal attack on my person and for that you have my respect.

Posted by: JailBird

February 3, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )