Guns in the Sun

,    »  -   278 Comments
191
6.29
12345678910
Ratings: 6.29/10 from 21 users.

Storyline

Guns in the Sun

After so many recent mass shootings, VICE decided to travel to Florida to see why so many Americans are stockpiling firearms.

Weeks before the almost unfathomable mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, VICE editor-in-chief Rocco Castoro visited Florida to dive headfirst into its byzantine firearms laws and discover why his home state was the first in the nation to issue over one million concealed weapons permits.

Through interviews and time on the range with veterans, law enforcement officials, and gun-store owners, VICE digs deep into the gun debate and uncovers many troubling revelations along the way.

Oh, they also use a Craigslist-like site to arrange for the purchase of a handgun at 10 PM in the parking lot of a big-box hardware store. And it's all 100-percent legal. Welcome to Florida. They will shoot you dead and it'll probably be legal.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • dewflirt

    I find it funny that Walmart don't like to sell more than 2000 rounds of ammunition at once, if you're going to kill people surely that's plenty. What's to stop you going to the next shop and buying the same again. Here in little old England you can't buy bullets in any supermarket, we can't even get more than 3 packets of headache tablets in case we OD on them. Quite welcome to fill your trolly with booze and fags though, it's ok to kill yourself slowly ;)

  • docoman

    Here in Aus, it's no automatic's/assult rifles, you've got to be something like a professional shooter to get a semi-auto now I believe. I have my gun licence here, you have to prove you're licenced to buy ammo. That reminds me, gotta renew my licence before april. :) I'm a member of a shooting club (target shooting), but I also grew up i the country. ;)

    While we kill ourselves slowly, we'll pay more taxes before we go. ;)

  • Pysmythe

    Seems a little bit like some kind of variation on the English predilection for understatement, doesn't it?

  • dewflirt

    Maybe, but a pea shooter full of ibuprofen is enough to take a mans eye out, you know how rowdy we can get after a glass of sherry?

  • Pysmythe

    Just stay away from the Longbows afterwards, and I'll keep my helmet on! ;)

  • dewflirt

    I'm hoping to die in massive debt though, take that HMRC! Guns make killing too easy, point and click murder. Maybe they should ban guns and have longbows instead, something that means you have to concentrate better on the target and allows a few seconds thinking time. Mass killing would be more difficult then, not many people would manage more than a few accurate shots in a minute :)

  • dewflirt

    Spooky! You read my mind....:)

  • 4spie

    Even though this will probably get me flamed to death I just have to ask;

    Why haven't you Americans just scrapped that 2nd Amendment already?

    Recent events made me wonder about that (again) so I looked it up on the interwebz, the amendment I mean. After reading some about it and the times in which it was concieved I can understand why it was made in the first place. This law indeed made sense, over 200 years ago! I can't see any reason for it today.

    I see no reason for the US to:

    1. Enable the people to organize a militia. You already have the largest, most advanced military in the World. It doesn't even use Humans anymore to do the fighting.

    2. Have the people participate in law enforcement. I can't believe that is something you'd actually want.

    3. Deterring tyrannical goverment. Even though, arguably, the US goverment have done (and perhaps still do) some pretty questionable things, they seldom seem to do it to there own people.

    4. Repelling invasion. See number one. Nobody is going to invade you. It'd be suicide!

    5. Suppressing insurrection. There's no more slavery. And it seems to me that you're only arming those elements amongst your population from which you should really fear it, like right-wing anti-goverment groups and suchs.

    6. Facilitate a natural right of self-defense. I believe this point is actually still valid. But only because everybody else is carrying.

    So that leaves what, the NRA? The interwebz tells me the NRA has a little over 4 million members. It also tells me that there are over 312 million Americans. So how come you let yourselfs be pushed around by this small group?

    And why would you want to own a gun for any other reason than to take life. I mean, lets not kid ourselves, a gun is a tool that was created for just one thing, to kill. It can't even be used for anything else. It's not like, for instance, a knife, which was created for cutting things and can unfortunately also be used to cut people.

    Sorry if this is starting to sound like a rant, and perhaps it is, but the reason this is bugging me so much is that it is making America less cool. And unlike many of my countrymen I've always liked America. I visited it many times and just can't help but be enamoured with American culture. But this gun thing, it definitely makes America at least 20% less cool.

    You do realize that this is a big part of why a large part of the world still thinks Americans are cowboys, right? It's so much a part of your culture that tragic news like the recent school shooting doesn't even surprise anybody over here. I mean, everbody thinks it's wrong and sad and our hearts go out to the people who lost loved ones but it is what we've come to expect from America. It's part of the picture.

    America; Coca-Cola :), Rock and Roll :), Man on the Moon :), Star Wars :), Mass shootings >:(

    It makes me sad because I like America. And I want to go on liking America but stuff like this makes it so damn hard.

    Of course this all comes from someone who lives in a country where the only people who can legally carry guns are soldiers, cops or wildlife rangers. It's even illegal for me to own a double edged knife larger than the palm of my hand.

  • GRUMPY25608

    As an ex-serving member of the Army I could operate a bolt action rifle as quick as a semi-automatic rifle with more effect. It's not the weapon thats dangerous it's the person in charge of that weapon.

    I'm a staunch advocate for gun control, however when the Australian gun laws change only the honest law abiding citizens handed the then outlawed firearms in through the Goverments buy back scheme.

    I handed in one of my rifles that I paid $5000 for the Goverment gave me $2900 though there scheme. No incentive there for even the honest bloke to do the right thing. My rifle had only 17 rounds fired from it and custom built.

    All these massacres are done by disturbed individuals not by honest sane people. There is not enough being done with mental health to be able to clearly look at the signs appearing before these nutters go off. I know they must have a screw loose as if I was going to go on a rampage my rounds fired to my kill rate would be higher than they acheive

  • dewflirt

    I get your point but the fact remains, with fewer guns in circulation it would be more difficult for rampaging maniacs to rampage manically with guns. In the UK we just stab each other instead, we have doctors calling for an end to pointy kitchen knives and chefs saying that they don't really need them. It is sad that kids can't settle their differences with a quick scrap in the park and ridiculous that we're even discussing the end of pointy things. What next, knitting needles? In the wrong hands almost anything can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean we should have weapons easily available.

  • dmxi

    freedom is a double-edged gun (sword,actually,but the quote has to fit the times).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QA36KYL7EUEVEQ6D5VJ7ZVTJGY Claude

    We could do without this kind of crap "documentary".

  • dewflirt

    I don't know about that, even the naff ones can start good conversations sometimes :)

  • dmxi

    hi dew,how's life treating you?hope all is well with you & your family.oh,just to stay on topic:vice doc's are always worth a snoop.

  • JoeSC

    1. We were never supposed to have a standing Army. All able bodied men from 17-45 are part of the US militia as defined in 10 USC § 311.
    Additionally all legal inhabitants of my state are part of Florida's militia per Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.

    2. There's nothing about the Second Amendment that allows for citizen police.

    3. This is still very important. For one thing, many people in government want to take away our Second Amendment rights (which as Americans we believe—or are supposed to believe—is a human right, not one granted by government). That's tyranny. And where does it end from there? They already infringe on the First and the Second, and they've moved to infringe the Fourth with the Patriot Act and warrantless wire tapping.

    4. While unlikely, it is still possible to be overrun.

    5. First of all, being anti-government is a good thing. Right wing doesn't mean you want to abolish the government, it just means that you believe that, for the most part, you can govern yourself. You don't need Bloomberg to decide how much sugar you can drink for example. Second, there are still plenty of types of discrimination in this country. And third, suppressing insurrection isn't a Second Amendment issue. If anything, the Second Amendment allows for insurrection. That's why it lays out that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Our Supreme Court has left the work militia unbounded—i.e. it applies to one person or multiple people. Anyway, it doesn't protect a nanny state, or a police state. It protects a free state.

    6. It is valid. And it is necessary not because everyone is carrying, but because there is always someone in the world that wishes to do harm to others. And not everyone is able to protect themselves without a weapon.

    7. The NRA has 4.5 million members (it has spiked up since the recent shootings). There are plenty of people that are interested in guns but aren't members. My dad isn't a member and he's had guns since he was young. I've had guns for years and only recently became a member.

    8. This is a point everyone gets wrong. I carry a gun with me every day but I don't want to take anyone's life. I hope that I NEVER have to do that. I own a gun to protect me and my family from those who want to take away ours. Also, guns do have useful purposes. Hunting, protection, etc.

    Here's a perfect example. My friends and I went to a national park. There was a law that allowed carry in national parks, but it was under appeal, and the ban was continued during the appeal. The ban was later reversed.

    Being law-abiding citizens, we disarmed ourselves. Leaving our guns secured in a vehicle, we went for a hike. We planned to camp, but when we got a few miles in, we heard a heavy animal waling along the ridge. We saw a cougar print along the trail so we knew what was then stalking us. We tried to scare it away, but it must have been hungry so we abandoned our camping plans and turned back, with only knives to protect us. We got closer together to appear larger and more formidable. I had been a good distance ahead, and so I was probably the most likely target. I was lucky. We made as much of a ruckus as we could. Normally cougars don't stalk people for a distance. They usually only attack if there's an opportunity. Without a gun we were sitting ducks. We just got lucky it didn't attack or ambush us.

    9. If anything, being able to own guns should make us more cool. That means that we support people's right to life and we believe that people are, for the most part, trustworthy. If anything makes us uncool, is that there's a bunch of people who don't think our natural rights mean anything.

  • dewflirt

    All is well in my little world, I hope the same for yours ;) On the whole, vice docs are good. They don't pretend to be anything more than they are, they make you look, make you stare, make you lose your underwear... Maybe not that last bit, still cold up north isn't it :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    the dealer impressed me. i like his emphasis on the ability to "decline for any reason" a sale, and the fact that he actually used it, even if just for a "feeling". that guy would have declined the sale to both laughner, and holmes, i'll bet. overall a VERY evenhanded "expose lite". no real agenda pushing, just a factual "hipster" view of a current event talking point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    the limit on ammo sales is for commercial purposes. ammo is a VERY low profit item at walmart. you could actually buy it there, and resell it at gunstore prices and turn a decent profit. that said, it's kind of like the lottery ticket sales at a convenience store. they make a penny on the buck on the ticket, but the "coke and smokes" you buy also turns the profit on the sale. the ammo teases the consumer in, and the display psychology usually gets them to buy something else before they leave the store. that's why auto supplies and sporting goods are ALWAYS as far as possible from the doors (and preferably, each other). if you come in to buy a specific item, however, and it's not there, the disappointment destroys the "marketing magic". if you blow your whole paycheck on my low profit item (the ammo), you not only can't buy any of the sri lankan made lace doilies i make a 200% profit margin on, but you also spoil the sale of anything when the next guy comes looking for that ammo, and there is none.

  • 4spie

    Thx for taking the time to formulate a complete anwser to all my points, I sincerely appreciate that.

    I must point out though that the points I stated are what I understand historians believe to be the most likely reasons for the 2nd Amendment to have been created over 200 years ago. And I understand that the actual document doesn't necessarily say anything about them. I just tried to make a case about that those reasons might have been valid 200 years ago but no longer today. Some of your anwser gave me the idea that I should perhaps have been more clear about that.

    However, even though I respect your opinion, I can't say I understand it.

    The way you talk about "people in government" and your government in general suggests to me that you somehow view your government as some sort of external entity, not part of the american people. Isn't the idea that every American, no matter what part of society they were born into, could one day be president, part of American culture? Isn't your government made up of people just like you? I understand that you don't always agree with what they do. I often don't agree with what my government does. But that's why every 4 years you get the chance to kick them out if they screwed up, right? It's just that I get the feeling that perhaps many Americans feel that as soon as someone gets into the inner circle of government they somehow instantly turn into evil scheming b4stards. I just find that very hard to believe.

    And yes, there wil indeed always be someone, somewhere, in the world who whishes to do you harm. For most of them you've got your awesome military (and seriously, nobody is going to overrun you, it would take several countries working together and then still only maybe, the chances for that are so small it's beyond absurd). As for those that happen to live in your own country. I simply can not understand how making it easier for those people to get a weapon makes you more save. It just forces the situation. Now you have to carry a gun to feel save. And then they'll have to get bigger guns and so on. It just doesn't make sense to me.

    As for hunting, that's why humans invented Animal Husbandry.

    And though I do think a strong argument can be made for carrying a weapon when going into the wild to protect yourself I can't help asking why, if you know that there are dangerous animals, you would choose that part of the wild to recreate?

    I honestly believe you when you say you don't want to take life and that you hope that you never have to do that. But the fact that you own and carry a gun suggests to me that you think it very likely that one day you might have to. And that scares me.

    I know there are people here in my country that might mean to harm me. But because I also know that the chances of me encountering an actual gun on the streets are so small I don't feel the need to own a gun or any weapon. Would it surprise you to hear that I've never even seen a real gun in my life? Unless you you count those windbukses you get to shoot cards with at the carnival ;).

    So I just can't see how having the right to own a gun makes you save, cool and certainly not how it relates to supporting people's right to life. That just doesn't compute to me, I'm sorry.

  • GRUMPY25608

    You Poms are the only nation to use glass as a verb....LOL

    The problem start long before these people commit these acts of violence, we just have to look at the programs (eg. cartoons) our children are know watching, the toy we let them play with and a host of other factors in the way we have desensitised our children to violance. With the advancements made in computer games and the entertainment world, killing "the badys" has become acceptable in todays inviroment.

    I'm lead to believe that the first seven years of a child life is when their mind are at peak at being influenced by there inviroment.
    I will not buy my 4yr old son any type of toy gun, as in my opinion no gun is a toy as they all promote violence in some way.

    Gun control is a extremely important issue but lets not forget where the issue begins and look at our blatant disreguard to whats right or wrong. Ban violent computer game, greater control on what we as responsable adults allow our children are being exposed to.

  • dmxi

    cheers dew,made me smile as i pictured my 'undies' flying of me 'bum'
    whilst enjoying this 'excellent piece of journalistic art work,conjured up by the utmost integer editorial scribes ' & not hipsters as many claim (remember:TOPIC).best wishes..............................d.

  • tomregit

    I know your reply is not to me, but I would like to point out that violent computer games like Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft are played all over the world. I don't like the life lessons taught but I don't believe there is any evidence showing a link between them and violent crime (especially mass killing sprees with semi-auto carbines). BTW, I am sixty-five years old and well past the shoot 'em up gaming age.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005109781330 Andy Constitution

    watch documentary "Innocents betrayed" if u do not understand why Americans love guns.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  • pwndecaf

    No guns for me. One American - how many will join me?

    Militia - take on the government - I dare you. Don't tell me you are fighting for my rights - if you were, we wouldn't have a Patriot Act.

    Protection - bs.

    Hunting - fine, pick up your gun at the armory and check it out for the day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Courtney/1439096893 Dan Courtney

    There are two important questions that the pro-gun lobby seems to overlook. 1. From whence is the tyranny coming? 2. Will guns be a deterrent? I believe the tyranny is already upon us (and always been to a degree) and no bullet can stop it. While you're guarding the front door, the invisible hand of tyranny is turning you into an instrument for their own propagation.

  • tomregit

    Sorry Joe, but I think you are just a part of the problem. No one wants to take your guns away .....repete.....no one wants to take.......oh, what's the use.....it will still be your mantra. It's the large magazines, semi-auto carbines that are useless for hunting or target shooting, but make fine weapons for close range combat. It's lack of scrutiny before purchase, the hundreds of millions of handguns, etc. that is problematical. I know you have heard all of this before.

    The most recent school shootings were committed by someone who used part of his mother's private arsenal to kill her, then head for school. His mother may have been, in your words, "for the most part trustworthy, more cool & supported people's right to life". I guess we'll never know.

    When I lived in rural Alberta I owned a single shot .22 rifle at age 14, a bolt action .22 repeater at age 16, and a bolt action .303 and double barreled 12 gauge at 18. All of these weapons perfectly suited their legal purpose. Because I now reside in an urban area, I no longer possess any of them. We in Canada, especially in rural areas, live among at least as much wildlife as you but do not feel overwhelmed by nature on a hike.

    So happy you survived your near miss with the unseen cougar.

  • GRUMPY25608

    I understand completely with your points...

    My views on many different subject have change now I have the responsability of raising a child. In no way would I suggest that violent video games are the reason these people commit these acts against humanity, all I'm saying is we are alot more desensitised to violence in all aspect of our lives and like it or not the electric babysiiter must have a role in that.

    When the gun laws changed over here in Aust, I rallied against them as they were a kneejerk reaction over one inderviduals actions. The goverment needed to appear to be pro active in solving a problem, however violence and criminal acts still occur on a regular basis.

    The major underlining factor with many of the act is mental illness however, goverments would rather use the bandaid measure to appease the voting public, rather than tackle the biggest contributing factor being metal health in my opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005109781330 Andy Constitution

    Government hijacked by Banksters watch documentaries Zeitgeist and 911 Mysteries. They killed 3000 americans in controlled demolition in WTC and know they tell me they want to protect one us form criminals.
    Government are #1 terrorist and criminal and I need protection from them.
    Stalin, Mao and Hitler first think they have done before start killing people in death camps they confiscated guns from people. So learn history and wake
    up. 2nd Amendment of US Constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - What part of "shall not" u do not understand?

  • nada nada

    It will take a heck of an effort to disarm America. An effort comparable to abolitionism. In fact, in took a civil war to disarm the samurais in Japan in the dawn of the meiji era. But it's unlikely (rather impossible) a civil war taking place over this issue in the US, therefore IMO aside some minor regulations the big picture won't change at all ever.

  • john Palermo

    Bizzaro Marshal Law????? Only the most dangerous and prevalent threat to mankind in the 20th and now 21st century... What was this piece supposed to be? I'll leave it with the classification of another easy hit and run number lacking as always the vital data to give a viewer the ability to at all draw an informed opinion.

  • Nwttp

    Don't know why no one else understands this. Kinda hard to protect against tyranny when they finally take away everything but single shot .22 pistols.

  • Nwttp

    Even when this "these measures are supported by a majority of citizens." is the case, the majority is not always right, in fact I would say recent history would show quite the opposite.

  • Max Nafa

    a) Your country is already run by private corporations.
    b) it was viable argument when ppl used muskets
    c) assault weapons are no good against tanks, nucs and other toys your military has.
    maybe its you who is lost?

  • Pysmythe

    Nailed it.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Through movies, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood had a huge impact on America.
    1i

  • JoeSC

    I was just stating what I have read as reasons for the Second Amendment as well, not simply the current text. But that doesn't matter much. I appreciate you and I having this discussion in a nice and civil manner.

    Our government has, for a long time, not been of the American people. Small special interest groups have the ears of politicians, and they often ignore their constituents. Sure we can vote them out (which doesn't happen very often) but not before they can do a great deal of damage to liberty.

    In my case, one of our congressmen had a poll up about reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban, and the poll ended up being 97% against. While it's not a scientific poll, one would expect that he'd at least take it into account if he's going to post it. However, his opinions are still pro-ban, which is against the will of the people that visit his site.

    Being a politician was never supposed to be a career in this country. There are many good people in government, and many have good intentions. But the problem is that they think that they know what is better for us than we do. And most people don't pay enough attention or simply don't care. So maybe we are a government of the people still, because our politicians act the same way.

    The people who may do me harm are mostly those here. They may be criminals, or they may be people who want to take my rights away. Americans view those rights as sacrosanct, or at least we did at some point. But now there are people who freely wish to give them up and politicians who are gladly there to take them. Only, those rights are basic human rights and cannot be given up. That is what makes America great, or did. And that is the main reason for the Second Amendment. It's a hedge against tyranny.

    Animal husbandry is fine, but hunting also serves to reduce overpopulation of animals and to cut back on invasive species of animals that aren't native to their current habitats.

    As for where I choose to go into nature, I don't like the idea that I should avoid a place simply because a wild animal might be there. I've hiked in many places where wild animals dwell without a gun. But coming across an angry bear without a weapon is certainly worse than coming across a bear with a weapon. :)

    As for the likelihood of me having to shoot someone, it is probably a very small chance. I don't think it'll ever happen. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be prepared for it if the situation arises. That's one thing I think people who don't understand really don't get—I don't carry a gun out of fear. I carry it to be prepared.

    It wouldn't surprise me to know that you haven't seen a gun in real life. There are probably more people who haven't than who have.

    The cool part was more in relation to having the freedom to own a weapon if I so choose. Liberty is cool and carrying a gun is definitely safer than not carrying a gun. YMMV.

  • JoeSC

    Sorry Tom, but you honestly have no idea who I am and you definitely don't understand my opinions, so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

    I've never been one of the people who say they want to take my guns away. But you cannot tell me honestly that there is no one who doesn't want to take them away.

    Diane Feinstein has said that if they had the required votes in 1994 she was prepared to say Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in. And I'm sure Carolyn McCarthy wouldn't have complained. Neither would the Brady Campaign. The only reason they don't is that it's political suicide.

    So no, no one wants to take my guns away because they can't. They just want to slowly erode my freedom to purchase new weapons because they think something is scary. There are plenty of more powerful semi-auto rifles that are not listed in the ban.

    So they go through these stupid, let's ban pistol grips, and mag capacities, etc. routines in the hope that it becomes so annoying or useless that there's no point in having them anymore.

    The problem with that is that it doesn't matter how many rounds I have, how many my magazine holds, what type of weapon I own, or even how fast the rate of fire is. I'm still going to shoot ZERO people who aren't trying to kill me or my family.

    And these small caliber semi-auto weapons with large magazines ARE perfect for close range combat. They're excellent for home defense because over penetration is much less of an issue. And they're more accurate than a handgun, so you're going to hit what you're shooting at. They're great self-defense weapons.

    As for the most recent shooting, it were committed by a crazy person who misused firearms. His mother in MY words is "a terribly irresponsible gun owner. She knew her son had mental problems. She should have either locked up her guns, or, better yet, stored them with a reliable friend or in a safety deposit box, etc. so that her son could not have access to such weapons."

    As for your use of weapons, that purpose in Canada is defined as hunting. That purpose in America is defined as necessary for the security of a free state. Which, as the Supreme Court has ruled, is a hedge against tyranny and personal protection along with hunting, etc.

    I was not overwhelmed by nature. I was just unprepared because some people were fighting a law that basically said that if I can carry in a state, I can carry in a park within the state.

    Since you seem perfectly happy to insinuate that I am somehow a wuss because I walked away from being attacked by a cougar, tell me, Tom, what would you have done? A cougar on a ridge above me has the upper hand when I am standing on a two foot wide path with a 300 foot drop on the other side carrying two tents and a backpack, especially if that cougar isn't scared as easily as they normally are. The animal doesn't matter, the point is that there are things that can kill you in the woods, especially if you're unarmed. Would you feel so confident walking into a grizzly bear den? Or how about standing among a pack of hungry polar bears? We're humans, we're not invincible.

    And you know what? You're welcome to stay in Canada where the gun laws suit you. I am, however, an American citizen. So I'll stay here and keep fighting to keep the rights that I was granted by being born and that I maintain by being a good, honest person.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Would you be able to steer me in the right direction so I may look at the list of weapons and components they want banned or controlled.

    Can you explain to me why anyone other than the military have a need or use for assault weapons. (I would prefer something more than its my rights as that sound like 19th century response.)

  • tomregit

    A good response, but may I say, America does not have a monopoly on crazies. They are everywhere. For most people it's just not as easy to kill dozens of people.

  • wald0

    Rally dude, you basically just said, "I'm not one of those people that thinks they want to take my guns, but they want to take my guns." Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them. But of course that isn't possible and even the most liberal democrat knows this, bad guys will have guns and so good guys need them too- we get it. That in no way justifies however the loop holes we have concerning back ground checks, the way we permit private sales which lead sometimes to huge straw-man purchases, or high capacity clips and semi-auto assault rifles. You can call it silly but the facts are that during the Sandy Hook shooting when someone was speaking to 911 in the back ground you can hear over thirty rounds go off in thirty seconds, thirty rounds. That is thirty potential dead children man, d@mn your rights. There is no excuse, people shouldn't die so you can have a hobby.

    Our rights have been eroded, just not in the way or by the people you claim. It was the neo-con republicans after 911 that truly eroded our rights with the so called patriot act, its the current on going drone strikes that kill innocent civilians in our name half way around the world without our consent, its the loser that flips and grabs that high capacity semi-auto you refuse to admit facilitates destruction and death and takes our children- enough!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/WQQKUZM2BT6SLPOJ63B4UHEI7Y Chrosmata

    This argument of having semi automatic rifles for home protection is ridiculous. This isn't call of duty, this isn't a video game where you take on a whole army with a single soldier. As wald0 said, this is your hobby, what use does anybody have with these types of weapons other making your balls feel three times bigger or killing large amounts of people in one setting. And again, if an army comes up to your house with 15 militants, are you going to take them all out? Negative, you're dead if you try. People need to get off the video games and get into real life. If anybody needed these types of weapons they would be part of our military. If not, they'd be planning to kill unsuspecting unarmed people by the handful. And if you think that you live in a crappy neighborhood in which you have to defend yourself and family with violent tactics.. MOVE. It's just like watching "doomsday preppers" and seeing all those idiots worried about city collapse and riots. Making a bugout location to escape to. If your that scared of cities and people, move, plain and simple. And for the record I don't think all guns should be limited, and I'd be willing to listen to a good reason to give civilians mass murder weapons if there was one. But, it's your paranoid hobby that keeps mass shootings in our newspapers.

  • Imightberiding

    Oh, wow! Man were you ever lucky on your hike through that park. Damn nature, you scary!

    *edit* Apparently the sarcasm in my comment was lost on some who read this. Believe me, sarcasm intended.

  • over the edge

    wald0
    that was almost exactly what i wanted to say. only much better than i could have.

  • over the edge

    JoeSC
    what would you have done if you had your gun in that park? would you have killed that animal? did you stop to think that it might have offspring that is was defending? you were in its house uninvited and it might have felt the need to protect itself. see both of us can play the what if game and appeal to emotion. all i see is that without a gun the situation was resolved with zero deaths. at the low cost of inconveniencing your hike. your story does more to support my case than yours. sad that you do not see it that way.

  • GRUMPY25608

    I would never say any one counrty has a monoply on crazies or violent crime.

    It appears that the christain values the majority of the American people seem to display to the rest of the world, are to say the least hypocritical, I have no problem with people defending their family, as I would kill anyone whom tried to harm my son, but I would not need an assult rifle to do that. I also except that my training has given me an advantage over most other people.

    It appears per capita the yanks are more prone to violence than us Aussies with the limited studies I've looked at over the last 24hrs and we are not allowed to walk around with any weapon without due cause (police and armed guards) and the appropriate licence.
    It seems to work as we don't have shooting homicides on a daily basis.
    We Aussies are far from perfect however for a civilized country in the free world. I believe that we have better equiped mentally than our Yank cousins for peace. Your track record with your Presidents display that, from a "B" grade actor to the Bushes. The first sign of intelligence to enter the whitehouse came from a black asian american by all accounts.

  • JoeSC

    Look up Diane Feinstein's bill.

    Can you explain to me why anyone needs a baseball bat? It's not for survival. It's not for hunting. You really can't do much with it but play baseball. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights.

    Also, these "assault weapons" that they want to ban are no different than a regular semi-automatic hunting rifle. They aren't automatic like the military M16 and M4 they are based on.

  • JoeSC

    First of all, I agree about all of the BS that has happened since 2011. I've been saying that stuff for years.

    And no, I didn't say that. I say I'm not one of the nuts that thinks that it's even possible. But if they think they could, they would.

  • dewflirt

    Hello Harry, do you have any idea how bizarre that is, that you can head down to the shop for a box of bullets and grab milk and nappies as an afterthought? No wonder each new generation thinks guns are as ordinary a thing to own as a tv or a cat. I still can't get my head around the idea of bulk buying them either, what would you do with them all? What is there to shoot at? 2000 beer cans? a massive rat infestation? If they're so cheap its not even that people are buying them while they're on offer, they just like to have lots. We keep a cosh by our bed, that's enough for me. Even thinking of the damage that could to someones skull is enough to make me wonder if it ought not be there :)

  • dewflirt

    Very funny! You know we don't always glass people, sometimes we bottle them instead, whatever comes easily to hand ;) I'm not so convinced that we can lay the blame squarely at the mismatched feet of tv and shoot 'em ups, the greatest influence in any kids life are the parents. All you have to do is teach them what's real and what's not, and they're pretty good at knowing the difference between right and wrong. That starts early, knowing what hurts them and realising that it's not nice to hurt others. I know a mother that won't let her 9 year old watch the news and likes to check wildlife docs to make sure there are no animals dying/eating each other. Seems a bit extreme to me, part of a parents job is to equip their kids to deal with the world they will live in. That includes teaching them to distinguish fact from fiction. At some point kids are going to sit up all night at their friends houses watching horror flicks and yelling at the xbox, you can't always be there when they have nightmares :)

  • 4spie

    Thanks again for taking the time to anwser. It's good to hear the other side of the argument. It helps me understand why there's one to begin with. Though I'm still not in your camp Joe, sorry.

    But I wonder if you and "your camp" so to speak, would agree to compromise. I'm beginning to understand that a big part of this is the need to be able to protect ones family and livelihood and I can understand and respect that. Let's be clear on this, if I myself were forced into a situation were someone would threaten to kill my loved ones and the only way for me to prevent that was to end that person's life myself, I would probably kill them dead right there. So if this is mostly about protecting ones home and family then I would agree to the right of having a gun at home. It's were a possible scenario would most likely happen. But why the need to take it out of the home and onto the streets? IMO it's the job of the police to protect you when you're in public. If something were to happen in a public place and everybody was carrying, that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

    So, guns in your home so you can protect yourself and your family but you're not allowed to carry them in public. You've said that you believe that people are, for the most part, trustworthy. Trust the police to protect you when your not at home. Would this be a compromise you'd be willing to accept?

    As for hunting. I agree 100% that it is needed to reduce overpopulation and cut back invasive species, no argument there. However, I also believe that it's something best left to the people who's job it is to do that, wildlife rangers. Any civilians who feel the need to work on their aim can go to the shooting range, right?

    Lastly, one thing you said sounded particularly contradictive to me. You say; "That's one thing I think people who don't understand really don't get—I don't carry a gun out of fear. I carry it to be prepared." And you're absolutely right, I really do not understand this. You say you're not afraid. But in my humble opinion, if you feel the need to prepare for whatever situation, that suggests to me that you fear that scenario might come true. It might be a more subtle kind of fear but it's fear nonetheless.

  • GRUMPY25608

    AK47, Armalite M15 carbine, Steyr AUG and Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

    Sporting shooters or game hunters would have no need for that style of weapon to my knowledge and has no pracaticle use other than military purposes, so why would anybody require them.

    "They aren't automatic like the military M16 and M4 they are based on" your saying. That BS look at the above examples above, I'm ex military so don't BS me about these weapons being as you put it "no different than a regular semi-automatic hunting rifle".

  • docoman

    A firearm is a necessary tool on many types of farms. Not everyone is a vegetarian, and not everyone buys all of their meat.
    There are professional shooters that make a living culling/controlling pest animals here in Australia.
    There is also the sport of shooting, (target, claybird ect) which if properly supervised is a safe sport. (on a side note, its one of the few sports I can think of that men and women can compete in as true equals, strength isn't a factor)
    Those are some examples where when used properly, firearms are useful, even necessary. None of those examples require an assault weapon with large clips.

    Grumpy mentioned the knee-jerk reaction our government had a few years ago to a horrific mass shooting. As Grumpy said, the only guns that were handed in were from law abiding, licensed owners. The info at the time also revealed that the vast majority of the violent uses of firearms were from illegally obtained guns, so just buying firearms back off decent people didn't do very much, other then waste $$ and score political points.

    The problem wasn't legal licensed guns, (we didn't have many assault type weapons around) it was the one's that were either imported illegally, or stolen. Instead of spending all that money the government did to have little result, they could have had a much more real effect, by bringing in better checks on gun storage and lock up. There are laws on how your firearms are supposed to be in a safe ect, but unless you have the police over for other reasons, it's not checked. Better storage law enforcement, would have the effect of less being stolen and getting into the wrong hands. I've been on many farms where the gun is behind a door somewhere, not locked in the safe.

  • urban deadite

    most of the world does not allow there citizens to own guns, just shows what a violent nation America is

  • dewflirt

    You read any Mathew Reilly books? You could give Scarecrow a run for his money with your gun knowledge ;)

  • docoman

    Are you sure it's most countries? I think you'll find you're wrong, check out 'number of guns per capita' on wiki mate.
    The US does have by far the most per capita though.

  • GRUMPY25608

    No I have not however he appears to be the style of ficton writter that I would enjoy reading and you can be sure that come Monday I'll be heading to my local library to get my grubby little hands on one of his novels. Thank you for pointing him out to me.

    Small arm weapons and there tabulated data was a requirement of my trade whilst serving my country and somethings just dont leave you even after you may no longer require that knowledge.

  • dmxi

    amok shootings are taking place in countries where gun control is unbelievable harsh (like germany,just to mention one) & i belive the common denominator is social alienation via aggressive marketing coupled with a horrific array of games & films cultivating the belief where the outsiders,rejected & weirdos (anyone that doesn't fill the norm is open to mobbing) can punish those by copying the loner who fights for revenge which is a classic american film stereotype.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It would be an empty bottle or non alcohol bottle...lol

    As I said earlier;
    My views on many different subject have change now I have the responsability of raising a child. In no way would I suggest that violent video games are the reason these people commit these acts against humanity, all I'm saying is we are alot more desensitised to violence in all aspect of our lives and like it or not the electric babysiiter must have a role in that.
    When the gun laws changed over here in Aust, I rallied against them as they were a kneejerk reaction over one inderviduals actions. The goverment needed to appear to be pro active in solving a problem, however violence and criminal acts still occur on a regular basis.
    The major underlining factor with many of these acts is mental illness however, goverments would rather use the bandaid measure to appease the voting public, rather than tackle the biggest contributing factor being metal health in my opinion.

  • thinkagainagain

    What you don't know about cougars would fill a book. What you don't know about guns would fill a warehouse.

    If you were to have had a gun, you would be more likely to have shot yourself with that gun than for that cougar to attack you - if it were a cougar. There have been 38 confirmed cougar attacks in North America 2001-2010. Included in those attacks are 4 deaths. Accidental gun deaths number about 600 a year alone. Accidental injuries from guns run to 15000 a year.

    When I go into the wilderness I have very much more to fear from gun-toting hikers than from any cougar.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    ok, ammo is a weird product from a consumer standpoint. fireams hobbyists tend to squirrel away ammo in bulk. guns are like racecars, in that certain variables being "tweaked" can result in incredibly impressive results, while variance from that "sweet spot" can give incredibly unimpressive results. that means that every arm has a particular load it shoots best, even if 50 other manufacturers make a load that has equivalent specs. when you find that miraculous combo, you tend to stock up on it, as even different lots produced by the same manufacturer might stray from the "magic combo" of components.
    if you own an arm that fires a round that is nearing obsolescence, very often the few manufacturers that still load for the "odd ball" will have VERY limited production runs of that caliber, so when you see that ammo available, it may well be the only chance you have to buy some for a couple of years. that tends to inspire stocking up some quantity in your personal inventory.
    then, you also have what most of the huge buying spree is about: speculative hoarding. do you remember the phenomena of "beanie babies"? for about a year here in the states, 'round about a decade ago, every simpleton with 20 bucks was convinced those palm sized stuffed animals had some magical power that made them valuable, and there was a huge boom of speculative hoarding, trading, and group insanity. lots of folks are buying up the cheap bulk ammo, and just squirreling it away so they can profiteer "when the ban comes" (a fear laced marketing tactic of the industry and it's pawns like the NRA). that's also why folks are buying up every example of arm that might make any kind of ban list, as market history shows when manufacture of a class of civilian arms is outlawed, the "grandfathered" existing examples skyrocket in value (as the supply is now "fixed"). when manufacture of civilian legal full auto arms was outlawed, values of pre-existing arms multiplied by 10 overnight.
    as to the availability of ammo at walmart, it's a mass marketing tradition in this country. sears was the biggest retailer of arms for a very long time. sporting firearms and ammo have been a "core item" of chain retailers for a century and a half. walmart sold firearms and ammo long before it ever stocked groceries. in the rural areas (where walmart blossomed into existence, along with most chain retailers) almost everybody owns firearms of some type, whether for hunting, pest control, target shooting and "plinking" to stave off intense boredom, or defense of farming equipment that represents their livelihood. when farmer joe needs a box of .22s to end the assault on his wife's garden by rabbits, the walton family would enjoy the opportunity to entice him to buy a set of overalls and rubber boots at the same time. when deer season approaches, they'd like his trip for .30-30s to feed the old winchester to include a chance to sell him a nice new wool hunting coat, and some boots and gloves. such marketing schemes date back to the old "trading posts" and "general stores" (only they HAD to stock everything, because the next store was hundreds of miles afield).
    as to who "needs" an ar-15, the honest answer is "pretty much nobody"... but the exact same answer applies to corvettes, porsche 911s, cigarette boats, hang gliders, RC aircraft, and 4 ft tall hash pipes shaped like garden gnomes, as but a very few examples.
    shooting is an incredibly fun sport, it is an incredibly addictive hobby. military style arms are a gas to fire (check out the vice doc here on the full auto shoot in arizona). watching a can of rootbeer explode on a fencepost a football field away can be a joyous experience far beyond reasonable expectations. there is a huge "zen" component to the sport, in that you must practice incredible control of both mind and body to produce those 5 holes in a piece of paper sitting a furlong away that one can cover with a dime. you need similar concentration and anatomical command to be able to empty a rapid fire 30 rd magazine from an AKM clone into a watermelon at 75 yds. or to knock bowling pins off a picnic table with a pistol at 25 yds. or even to knock over postage stamp sized silhouettes of game animals at 10 yds with a pellet gun.
    i'm going to avoid commentary on all the political machinations in the debate, as it has been proven long ago that if you ask 5 people "what's the purpose of the 2nd amendment?", you're going to get at least 10 answers, and most will contradict each other. i've seen the supreme court definition of it's meaning change several times (and theirs is the ONLY opinion that matters, at least in a legal/constitutional sense).
    i WILL however state that i think the "arms activists" have done some incredibly foolish "guerrilla theater" in their bids for national attention (always at the behest of the marketing lobbyists of the industry) which has destroyed the public image of firearms owners in general, and branded the owners of military style arms as "dangerous lunatics" in the eyes of those they should have been trying to win over to their view. but, as the price of an AR-15 clone has doubled since "sandy hook", it has resulted in windfall profits for the wholesale and retail sides of the arms industry.

  • Nwttp

    Our country huh? Maybe stick to what you know and you won't sound so uneducated. However you're first statement was correct. Others are... not thought out opinion. Tanks can't run without sheep, If me and the two other free thinkers can wake up our population maybe we can win. A tank without operators is a big hunk of metal. A government without sheep is a small percentage of us. Unfortunately people like you, who want nothing more than someone else to run their lives, are the norm.

    If everyone thought like you, we'd still be living in caves.

  • Nwttp

    LOL. My God he did not. Think about it a little bit. Read some retorts first, do some research, actually have been to the U.S(cause he hasn't, I certainly don't go around telling Canadians what they should do, other than maybe "Don't tread on my freedom no matter where you live") before you say something so clearly false.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    @Grumpy
    I have to confess that as a child I used to have toy soldiers, toy guns, and as an adult I have played enough violent computer games, which I not proud of.
    Once I accidentally found a handgun that was dumped in the bushes; I was disgusted picking up the damn thing and was glad that someone else took it to the police.
    I have been a witness of an act of violence (guns were fortunately not used), and I have seen plenty of results from all kinds of violence on television (which is one of the reasons I don't have one any longer). I felt sick every time.
    I find myself getting more sick on every occasion that I am confronted with violence or the results of violence, directy or indirectly. Instead of getting used to it, the opposite is happening with me: violence becomes more and more revolting to me. (Not boasting about it, just being an acute observer of myself.)

  • Nwttp

    "if it were a cougar. There have been 38 confirmed cougar attacks in North America 2001-2010. Included in those attacks are 4 deaths. Accidental gun deaths number about 600 a year alone. Accidental injuries from guns run to 15000 a year."

    Quick! Take my guns so those 600 Darwin award winners can come back!!!!

    I think before trolls start posting things I dread, I should put out there that I don't own as much as a bb gun. However, I feel it is important to fight for everyone's freedom, not just my own.
    Oh and, what you don't know about freedom could oppress billions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    oh, and as an addendum, i might add that HUGE amounts of ammo can be "burned up" in a single shooting experience. an afternoon afield or at the range can easily go through several hundred bullets if you have a few folks involved, and you are engaged in one of the less "cerebral" arms of the sport, in that a benchrest shooter (precision slow fire target shooting aimed at achieving the smallest possible diameter grouping of 5 shots, a sport that tends to attract engineers and scientists) goes through much less ammo than a "plinker" does in a day of shooting ginger snaps from the dollar store as "action bullseyes" (they shatter into dust with a hit) with a .22 rimfire semi-auto. the local bugs and critters enjoy "cookie shooters", as it's quite a lot of "free calories" for them at the end of the day, BTW. i've gone through several hundred shots in a day with revolvers alone (though i loaded my own ammo to keep expenses low). i actually have plans to do a "torture test" on a much maligned low priced brand of pistol, by shooting 20,000 rounds through a single example and recording all failures and parts breakages (when market conditions and personal finances allow it, of course). i chose that number because it was the quantity that the us army used in pistol trials when they adopt a new arm for issue, it represents a fairly accurate "maximum expected service life" from a pistol. such a test would require buying in the largest bulk possible, just to get the lowest possible cost, as well as efficiency of time spent performing the shooting. no nefarious intent at all, yet to many it might appear i would be "stocking up for armegeddon", lol.

  • Nwttp

    "But why the need to take it out of the home and onto the streets? IMO it's the job of the police to protect you when you're in public."

    Easy answer to that one. At least 90% of the police I've dealt with in my lifetime, or have seen deal with others, have been the most horrible, uncaring, corrupt, constitutional shredding human beings I've yet met.

  • Nwttp

    Rally dude? You just said you are an extremist nut. LOL

    "Rally dude?... Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them."<---- you

    Sorry, I know I pick on you a lot, but you're just sooo wrong all the time, haha. And if it's not obvious enough, I really don't like people who infringe on others freedom (or would if given the chance).

  • JoeSC

    Since you clearly don't understand what an M4 or an M16 is, I'll tell you, Mr. Ex-military guy. Just like your standard AR they fire 5.56. But they have select fire capabilities. They generally come in two variants—safe/single shot/three round burst or safe/single shot/full auto. The AR only comes in safe/single shot. You know that semi-automatic means that you shoot a single bullet per trigger pull, right?

    So I don't consider an AR-15 an assault weapon. They're not full-auto or three round burst. And again, hunting is not the sole reason we are allowed the right to bear arms in this country, so your point is really just irrelevant. The Supreme Court has upheld that time and time again.

    And sporting shooters often use AR-15s in competition. So your point there is bunk too.

    An AR-15 is no different than, say, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which is a .223 semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting at least a 20 round magazine. One is banned under Feinstein's bill and the other is not. What's different? The AR has a pistol grip. There are plenty of other .223 semi-automatic rifles that people use for hunting. You'd know that if you were really ex-military.

    Now, most hunters prefer larger calibers since it is generally more humane. But those aren't banned either, even though they are more deadly. Why? Because they don't look scary. Also, I would argue that having a semi-auto hunting rifle is far more humane than a single shot rifle. If you make a terrible miss you can fix it quickly, instead of leaving the animal writhing in pain while you reload.

  • wald0

    If I respected your ridiculous attempt at insulting me it might matter to me that you say your "picking on me", but to be honest I hadn't noticed. I mean literally, I hadn't noticed. Have we been in an argument or debate lately? Which doc.?, I honestly don't think i have spoken to you or had you address me ever until now. Anyway, so you couldn't understand my point obviously, why doesn't that surprise me? I rest my case. By the way, if you sort this thread by best rated first you will see that the top five comments are right in line with mine, one is even an insult aimed at you specifically which got 9 likes- does this tell you anything?

  • JoeSC

    No problem. As I said, I enjoy our discussion. And I don't feel a need to sway you. I'm just trying to explain my side. So let's continue.

    Well, the police's job isn't actually to protect you but society as a whole. It may say "to serve and protect" on their cars and uniforms, and they should in most cases. But the Supreme Court has laid down many decisions that say that the police have no duty to protect any particular citizen.

    And even if they could, there's not a police officer near me 24/7. In the US, there are 395 people per police officer. It's simply not possible.

    I believe that most people are trustworthy. And I do trust the police to handle a situation when there are police available. But I can't accept your compromise because they can't be everywhere—and I don't want to live in a police state where they are everywhere. I trust people with guns. There's a lot more of us than there are police. My state has more concealed weapons permit holders than there are police in the entire United States, by about half. And no major shooting has occurred in my state (that I can find a reference for anyway).

    As for fear, I don't think it's fear. I live in Florida. I stock up water in my house during hurricane season. I'm not afraid that a hurricane is going to hit me (they always miss my particular area thankfully), but I want to be prepared in case it happens. I find having my gun on me to be no different. I would say that if I were afraid, I'd never leave the house without it. And I do on occasion.

  • JoeSC

    Umm, I would have continued on my hike to a safer area and if one couldn't be found I would have left. I wouldn't shoot it simply because I saw it, if that's what you're implying. I'm an animal lover. To be quite honest, I don't hunt. The only thing I'd really consider hunting is wild hogs because they're an invasive species. I have no desire to kill a deer, or kill anything. Hell, in my house I generally try to capture bugs to put them outside instead of killing them.

    If I had a gun in that situation there still would have been zero deaths. I didn't see the cougar, and it didn't attack. And I had a large knife with me, so it probably still would have been killed, and I might have died too. So without a gun and with an attack it probably would have been two deaths.

    So my story doesn't support your case. It's just a story about why a gun is a useful thing instead of simply a killing machine like people want to believe.

  • JoeSC

    Thanks. Nature can be dangerous. But that's not going to deter me from visiting it. :)

  • wald0

    "It's just a story about why a gun is a useful thing instead of simply a killing machine like people want to believe."

    See, no one actually thinks this, though you have convinced yourself that they do. We all know very clearly that it is people that kill, that they can do so with a rock or a knife and do not need a gun, and that guns are a tool, meaning they are but a means to an end. This is why we don't want 99% of your guns, we simply want the ones that give the sickos such an advantage that they can do unbelievable amounts of damage in such a short amount of time. No one has any use for them anyway, except as a hobby. You don't need one to defend yourself in any realistic situation that arises in our society unless you are law enforcement or military, they are useless for most hunting and even if they can be used there are much better guns made for that purpose that we don't want to touch, simply wanting to collect them or exercise your right to own one is just not good enough reason to have them available to the general public- children are being killed! You can't possibly defend your self from the government for long with one, they have more of them and better ones at that- plus other methods of control that trump any gun - besides, its not the eighteen hundreds anymore, i don't think an armed insurrection is the answer anyway. We also want everyone buying any gun to have to go through a back ground check- period. What could possibly be wrong with that? And we have to end private sells because like I said, everyone has to go through a back ground check at the point of purchase and we need a record of who bought what as well.
    Now as far as I know this all Obama is pushing for, what's wrong with it? It will not stop you from having guns, shooting guns, collecting guns, etc. It doesn't leave the good guys defenseless at all, it makes us no more subject to oppression or coercion than we already are. If people just must shoot high capacity, semi-auto assault rifles why cant there be licensed, controlled shooting ranges that have them available for shooting? People go pay a fee and get to shoot until their heart is content, then they turn the gun in and go. In fact such places already exist if I am not mistaken.

  • JoeSC

    What you don't know about opening your mouth is that you shouldn't.

    First, I was born, raised, and still live in FL, which is one of the last places on the east coast that still has cougars. So I know a good bit about them (although my particular incident occurred in Tennessee).

    Second, guns are in people's possession 24/7. People don't live amongst cougars. So the rate of being exposed is far lower.

    Third, cougars rarely attack, but obviously they do, and I'd rather not take that chance.

    Fourth, there are 300 million guns in America. There are less than 50 thousand cougars. Again, the likelihood of exposure is much lower.

    You have nothing to fear from a responsible gun owner no matter where you are. I've fired thousands of rounds and haven't ever shot myself or missed a target. I've been shooting guns with my family since I was 12. I've owned but did NOT have access to a shotgun since I was 1. I shot it for the first time when I was 5 with the supervision of my family. I've owned handguns of my own for the past three years. I'm a responsible gun owner.

    I know a ton of gun owners and none of them are irresponsible or dangerous. We're all very conscious about gun safety. And that's no surprise since Florida's rate of permit revocation is 0.3%.

    Let me ask you a few questions. Do you own a gun? Know someone with a gun? Have you ever shot a gun before? If you answered no to any of those questions you don't know anything more about guns that what you can find on the internet, which means you know a hell of a lot less about it than I do.

    And I've had this debate multiple times. So I'm pretty good that that too. You have to have something to compare things to if you're going to say something is likely to happen like shooting yourself.

    So let's figure it out. To find out how likely a gun is to end up in an accidental shooting, we need to first figure out the number of guns in America. So that's easy. It's 88.8% of the population (88.8 guns per 100 people). So 278,755,668.

    So take that, and divide the number of accidental shootings and deaths by the number of guns and multiply by 100 to get a percentage. Let's add even more to your numbers. Let's say 16,000.

    (16,000 / 278,755,668) x 100 = .006%

    So .006% of guns will be involved in an accidental shooting.

    There were about 32,000 firearms related deaths in 2010.

    (32,000 / 278,755,668) x 100 = .01%

    So only .01% of guns are likely to kill anyone.

    While you think gun deaths are high, the amount of guns in this country are way higher. There's almost one per person.

    So while you may think I'm more likely to shoot myself or someone else, the numbers don't lie. I'm more likely to shoot NO ONE.

  • JoeSC

    There is an irrational faction of those in your camp who believe that NONE of that is the domain of the individual.

    Second, the problem is they choose to ban weapons where there are many similar weapons and other, much more effective and dangerous weapons.

    There are plenty of mag fed, semi-automatic .223 rifles that are not up for banning. The only different between them and an AR-15 for example is the way you hold it, or the way things can be mounted to it. It's not logical.

    They put it out there, making sure to note that they're semi-automatic, which makes the uneducated public think that they spray bullets. Why? Because politicians who want to get this thing passed say so. They don't spray bullets. They're effective defensive weapons. They're reliable and accurate.

    That is why I find such bans stupid. I don't mind background checks. But I don't want to be forced to pay for them. I'd much rather only sell my weapons to people with CCWs. I'm responsible. If I were to engage in a private sale, I wouldn't sell to someone without one. I also don't want a record, because it is none of the government's business and it is illegal in my state to have a gun registry.

  • JoeSC

    That wasn't the first result in my google search. So they found four, and the most deaths were 8? Like the article says, none are like a Sandy Hook type of tragedy. I wouldn't exactly consider 8 a major mass shooting.

    First, I am completely against banning guns. They are infringing our rights already. Machine guns can easily be sold to the public, it requires filling out a form, paying a $200 tax stamp, and paying about $25,000 for the gun.

    The Constitution does not restrict what type of weapon you can buy. It doesn't say "shall not be infringed as long as you buy a Colt 1911."

    Guns are not simply for hunting. So that's a non-issue.

    The primary function of weapons is for protection. All can kill another human. So that's pretty irrelevant.

    And there are plenty of assault weapons that fire the same caliber, with the same magazines, that aren't on the banning block because they don't have a pistol grip. Watch Ted Cruz's questioning in the latest Senate Hearing.

    And your comment about being for my right to protection and then saying that something designed to kill another human isn't necessary is a statement at odds with itself. I'm not going to shoot someone who draws a baseball bat on me (even though it's pretty easy to kill someone with one). I'd draw on him, and he'd leave me alone (as happens half of the time when someone draws a weapon). But there are people who seek to do you harm with a gun, AKA criminals, and I can't defend myself against them with a baseball bat.

    I would imagine that such a thing was common sense. I guess not.

  • Pysmythe

    Not one word of anything he said was false.
    It's a shame you can't see it.

  • thinkagainagain

    "There are 300 million guns in America. There are less than 50 thousand cougars. Again, the likelihood of exposure is much lower."

    Now if that logic applies to cougars (less cougars=less death from cougars) should not the same logic apply to guns? Should not less guns equal less deaths from guns? Contrary to what the NRA preaches?

  • over the edge

    JoeSC
    " I wouldn't exactly consider 8 a major mass shooting" really? i consider one innocent person being killed a major event. i guess that is where we differ.

    you keep going back to "And there are plenty of assault weapons that fire the same caliber, with the same magazines, that aren't on the banning block" i agree with you. they should be banned as well but the government has the support of the majority on these changes and i support what has been proposed even if it falls short in some areas.

    as for your statistical analysis please do me a favor. replace "person" with "country" and then replace "gun" with "nuclear weapon" re-crunch the numbers and you just justified all countries having any and as many nukes as they want. what your analysis also makes clear is that you do not see ONE unnecessary death as too much. i do and giving up a right to shoot off an obscene number of bullets in a short time while not reloading is the price to prevent just one of these deaths then i am fine with that .

  • TheDanishViking

    These gunslingers always remind me of "Rocky Racoon" with The Beatles :-)
    (yes, it is on youtube)

  • thinkagainagain

    But Daniel was hot he drew first and shot.

  • Lastviewer

    What should be addressed is the lack of effeciency in the "Assault Arms" control. I mean the wording within the regulation.
    No doubt that there are those 30+ Y/O recognized arm collectors who shouldn't bothered about their "Rights".

    In the end, did the mandatory arm registration prevented the lost of one life?
    The law exist but the autority doesn't appear to know how to use it.
    Anyone shows up in a fire arm dealer? If he/she is alone, no sale!
    Bring your mum, your sis, dad of bro or sis in law and make sure that she or he has a few ID cards with him to that he/she adds his, her singnature.
    Is it to point where one needs a mental heath checkup in order to get a rifle to hunt deers with a semi-automatic? Geezus?
    In a conterpart, a close relative wouldn't sign for a "Weirdoo".
    Would you if you'd know that your nephew is a bit weird and that he lives sort of a "Secluded" life? I know I wouldn't.

    One thing classified for the brand new arms.
    Then, make the sale of an second hand fire arm a criminal offrence if done without proper identification. It wouldn't cost a cent to the Gov. but rather bring money in to be redistribute the communities!

    Oh Misery! I must have forgotten that the "Elites" never, ever share!
    Bwarff! Sorry for the "Essay" :-))

  • pwndecaf

    8 multiple gun deaths at a time is perfectly acceptable. Hardly even newsworthy anymore.

    Huffpo reported on Feb 1 that "Gun Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 1280." That was yesterday, so I doubt the number is still good.

  • docoman

    To get your firearms license here in Aus, you have to complete a safety lecture and questions (takes an afternoon) , and also have a police check done. If you've had violence charges in the last 5 years you're not going to get a license, it's apparently up to the discretion of the police minister after the 5 years.
    To purchase a firearm, you have to have a permit for that exact weapon, including it's serial number ect. (if no number, one will be 'assigned' to it) and it's sale is recorded.

    If you're even accused of assault here (not using any guns), you automatically loose your firearms license, and even if you're proven innocent it's still up to the police minister if you get your license back or not.

    So yeah, it cost me a few extra $ at the the start to have a police check done. And I have to not 'smack idi*ts' at the pub ect, or I'll loose it. I don't have a problem with my background being checked and evaluated to check if I'm considered sensible and safe enough. I don't have a problem with my law enforcement knowing what firearms I own. I can't legally get assault weapons, but I don't need them. For target shooting and hunting, I have enough of a choice of firearms to do the job effectively.

    I'm amused at twits like Nwttp that talk about rights to defend themselves, armed rebellion ect, but then says he doesn't even own a BB gun. Assault weapons are designed for one purpose, to kill people. Those are not needed in any decent society outside of the military and law enforcement.

  • JoeSC

    No, because I can't prevent a death with a cougar. When police show up to a mass shooting, the rate of death is much higher than when an armed citizen stops it.

  • pwndecaf

    I'm sure that happens a lot and you have reams of data to prove it. Thank goodness for armed citizens - maybe the same ones I bitch at because they can't be bothered to put their phone down while they are "driving."

  • JoeSC

    I consider any death to be a major event, but it is so common that it isn't newsworthy. Far more people are killed in car crashes, but you don't hear about every car crash on the national news.

    The proposed ban falls completely short, and it's illogical because they are the same thing except for a pistol grip. You do realize that rifles are rarely used in crimes and an FBI study found that the previous ban did nothing to stop crime, right?

    There is no majority that prefers the banning of those weapons, and even if there were it should be a 2/3 majority because it's going against the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. A 2/3 majority is required to amend the Constitution.

    While your nuke argument is total BS, who are we to say that we can have nukes and that other countries can't?

    So you are perfectly fine with giving up your natural rights in order to save a life? The founders of this country would disagree with you en masse. They spilled blood to protect the rights that they believed in.

    Any death is too much, however you fail to realize how many deaths may have been prevented by guns. What if carrying guns SAVES just ONE life? That one life argument is always BS. We do plenty of things each day that people die doing, and we don't stop them to save one life, or thousands.

    Let's think of all the things that we could stop to save one life.

    Sex
    Swimming
    Skydiving
    Bungee Jumping
    Driving
    Flying
    Going to the bank, because you might get robbed and shot
    Going into space
    Riding a roller coaster
    Snowboarding
    Walking, because falling deaths are greater than gun deaths
    Eating, because you might choke
    Working in a factory
    Drinking alcohol
    And the list goes on...

    If you stopped doing things that killed people, you'd have no life at all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/victor.rich.104 Victor Rich

    LESSON (Positive Side): You SURELY don't want to attack the USA. Almost every civilian has a gun already and has been practicing a lot with it. Even before the military distributes weapons in case of an emergency, the civilians are already armed for you! Don't forget that most people whether professors, doctors & nurses, drivers, engineers, beggars, pastors, seniors & retirees etc are already some kind of freaking war veteran from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and all other US military posts around the world from land, sea, air and space!

  • JoeSC

    No, I mentioned the M4 before, and you noted my response in your last message. So, don't worry, I read what you wrote.

    I'm implying that the 5.56 NATO and .223 are highly similar. I'm glad you finally got around to mentioning that they are different, however slight. The difference mostly has to do with chamber pressure and thus exit velocity. But the ballistics are very similar.

    The M4 hasn't been put on the list because it already requires an additional check to buy it because it's FULL AUTO. You also seem to ignore that she pushes for a one characteristic test (from the previous two characteristic test of the last ban) and one of those characteristics is a pistol grip. So a standard M4, by default, is banned by this bill, even if you do pay the tax stamp and fill out the paperwork.

    And I did mention the weapons you cited. First an Armalite M15 is an AR-15. So there's that. Secondly, I don't care what types there are. I'm not for any ban. Belt-fed, full auto, .50 BMG, I'm not shooting anyone with anything so it's all really irrelevant. And neither is the general populace. As I outlined for someone else, there is a .01% chance that a gun in America will be involved in a death.

    As for your military background, that's great. I'm not accusing you of being a liar. I just expect that a military person should understand that there are far more powerful guns that aren't on the chopping block. I can buy a semi-auto .50 BMG that doesn't have a pistol grip and that passes the ban. I think it's safe to say that no one would argue that a 50 cal couldn't do way more damage than an AR. It can penetrate an engine block at a mile and a half. At a mile and a half, a 5.56 round could barely dent the sheet metal of the fender.

    And I know you're not a citizen of my country, but you have to understand that there can be no compromise because this bill goes against the letter and spirit of our Constitution. We can define what people are incapable of having these rights, but we cannot remove these rights from all individuals because these rights are not granted by the government but are granted to all humans. That's what the Second Amendment is about.

    And I'm sure they will remove some to APPEAR that a compromise has been made. Because at the end of the day, it's all about appearances and not actually stopping violence. If that were the case, they'd actually lock up criminals for using guns in crimes without any possibility of parole. And they'd enforce existing laws. Perhaps they'd even prosecute people who attempt to get weapons who knowingly cannot own them when they fail background checks.

  • JoeSC

    Nice sarcasm.

    You know Sandy Hook was 12/14 or a month and a half ago. One might think 1280 is high. However, the average in 2010 was 2,666 or so for a single month. Adjusting that it should be about 4,000. So we're actually having less than normal.

  • JoeSC

    Don't just take what they feed you. Cross check it with other numbers to get rid of the bias.

  • JoeSC

    Not sure where you going with this but I hate anyone that can't talk and drive but continues to do so. Since I've had a license I've been run off the road more times than I can count.

  • docoman

    JoeSC, can you not see the problem with what you're saying about how many deaths?
    8 didn't even register on your radar... you're arguing that 2,666 a month is somehow acceptable?
    IF that 8 happened here in Australia, it'd be news for weeks.
    You are arguing that an AR-15 you need? Please, anyone here, google AR-15, have a look at the images. You'll see the firearm in question, and most will see that anyone who argues there is a need for those in the community, probably shouldn't be taken too much notice of their opinions on what sort of community is good.

    I'm far from anti-gun, I'm a licensed firearm owner and user myself. But your indifference to over 2.5k killed a month is hard to fathom. Why would you want your kids to grow up with that sort of society? I'm all for freedoms, but not to just have anything for the sake of being allowed to, and assault weapons are not needed by the average joe.

  • over the edge

    JoeSC
    "I consider any death to be a major event, but it is so common that it isn't newsworthy. Far more people are killed in car crashes, but you don't hear about every car crash on the national news." and you don't see a problem in the fact it is so common? also my original comment was in response to your uninformed claim that "And no major shooting has occurred in my state (that I can find a reference for anyway)" you do not know what is happening in your own state so you try to brush it off and change the subject.

    "There is no majority that prefers the banning of those weapons," i meant the majority of citizens support it (they are the ones that matter) and if needed i will show you polls that far exceed 2/3rds.

    " who are we to say that we can have nukes and that other countries can't?" i say nobody should have them but that is not my point. my point is your logic can be used to justify every country having them. i hope we agree that is a bad idea.

    "think of all the things that we could stop to save one life" okay lets. many of these activities have laws banning the forcing of others to participate in them? how many of these activities are banned from public display? how many of these activities require training and licensing before performing? how many of these things are designed to kill? how many deaths per use does these activities carry? if used properly a gun always results in a death.

  • Imightberiding

    I'm afraid my sarcasm was lost in translation. I have hiked & camped for decades in the wilderness of Canada & The U.S. & have never needed a gun to defend myself against nature.

    Regardless of the creatures in the wild, they are more afraid of you then you of them. Be sensible & practice smart behavior with your food will camping. Common sense goes a long way when encountering a potential threat in the woods.

    Lucky for that elusive cougar, if a group of hysterical people with guns encountered a similar situation, most likely something or someone would have been injured or died. The result of your group hiking without guns was that no animal or person was injured or killed.

  • GRUMPY25608

    @Giacomo della Svezia

    Our childhood sounds very simular as I played the same games, and as an adult I've played most of the "action" computer games also.

    My thought process was more like JoeSC's until I had to do my job for real. That change my life forever and I live with what I have done and the nightmares. I'm extremely proud that I served my country and hopefully I made a little difference.

    I'm not anti=gun however the weapon that are being debated are designed for one reason and that is to kill the enemy,they are by no means recreational/sporting weapons in any way shape or form.

    JoeSC has made a valid point about other semi auto's not being on the list and to me that beggers the question why.

  • Imightberiding

    Yes! That's the answer... kill all the cougars. (not women of a certain age I should remind you, the more of those the better for mankind)

    It's just plain hard not to grin when this fellow so clearly busted his own argument with his own "logic".

  • GRUMPY25608

    Most soldier knew how to convert a semi=auto to fully auto by the time they had finish their basic training, it's not that hard even with your lack of intelligence I have not doubt that if you don't already know a quick search of the "net" the information would be available.

    I agree Feinstien left alot out so you rednecks should be greatful as if it was me proposing the bill as all semi=auto would be on list.

    "As for your military background, that's great. I'm not accusing you of being a liar" so please explain this statement you made;
    "You'd know that if you were really ex-military" it appeared to me as an accusation.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    Thanks for your answer, Grumpy
    I suppose the bad memories will probably never go away, I hope they don't bother you too much.

    My point was only that i.m.o. being confronted with violence in games and movies at a young age does not make people more violent or tolerant to violence when they grow up. A tendency to violence has probably more to do with the way children are treated by their parents and by other children.

    The principle of firearms that are not made for hunting is what I'm opposed to, but I also see these guns are unavoidable. I would prefer if only the police and the military were allowed to carry them while they're on duty.

  • GRUMPY25608

    G'day Dig How's the guts doing....

    Just venting some anger and disbelief about things I've watched, read and listen to about these "septics" and their "guns".

    Did you know that there are nearly 300 million privately owned guns in the United States, almost one gun per person. but wait there's more.....A minority of Americans own all of these weapons and just 20 percent are hoarding the majority of them. Don't worry it gets better.....United States, which has 5% of the world’s population, owns 50% of the world’s guns......you thought I'd finished hey mate, not yet,,,lol.......Gun rights advocates, who insist they need their guns to defend themselves from a potentially hostile and authoritarian government, I think this is a fantasy they dream about. Let’s pretend for a moment that it makes sense to sacrifice their children to massacres every so often in exchange for unregulated access to military-style rifles that they may one day need to use against a tyrannical government. Do gun owners really think their guns will protect them from F-16s and drone strikes? Perhaps they should begin stockpiling hellfire missiles to prepare for the coming battle.

    And That why I can honestly say THANK F**K I'm an AUSSIE

  • docoman

    G'day Giacomo,

    I too play 'shoot 'em' games from time to time. I actually often feel it's a 'release of tension', getting online and playing against mostly kids. (the quick littler buggers lol ;) A game is a game, anyone with a brain knows the difference to real life. I guess the same could be said about documentaries. I've watched many hours of war doco's, but its not made me more inclined to want war, in fact the exact opposite. It's help educate me on what the end results are, and how I don't want that in my part of the world.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It's my pleasure,GdS..(sorry 'bout the abbreviation,but shez a good handle mate).

    No they they probably wont, but you try to replace them with good one, I'm lucker than most my 4 yr old son is the best thing to have ever happened to me.

    I agree with all that you have said in your reply and have enjoyed reading all your other posts

    Cheers mate...

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    G'day mate, everything okay? : )
    I have to confess I still occasionally play a 'shoot 'em 'game as well and for the same reason.

    I' just remembered an edition of Penn and Teller's 'Bull****', in which a boy of about 16 was invited to shoot with a firearm on a shooting range. The kid played very violent games every day.
    After firing the gun once, he became upset, broke down and cried. The difference between fact and fiction was apparently too rough on him.

  • docoman

    G'day mate,
    you have every reason to feel insulted. For some as*hole to accuse someone of lying about their service is very low in my opinion. I guess some like JoeSC forget others have given so we get to live the way we do. Something he probably has very little concept of.
    Thank you for your service to our country mate. Hopefully, I'll never have to know what combat is like, because others like yourself have done that on our behalf. Cheers digger.
    Edit- not to mention the fact that 2 min research showed who knew what they were talking about.
    You also make some interesting points. About 1/2 the worlds guns, owned largely by 1 % of the worlds population. 20% of their nation. I guess the concept of democracy they keep touting around the world, is lost on that 20%. Too bad if 80% of the people want something else, they're going to fight for their 'rights' of their 'democracy', that wealthy minority needs their rights protected, just in case! Too bad it costs thousands of lives a month, many of them children. And, as you correctly say, an AR-15 isn't going to help much when a drone has just fired a missile at you.
    Where does it stop, the right to bear arms. It could be argued that they should be stockpiling a few nukes, to protect themselves from their untrustworthy government. They might have a point there, the US government is the only one in the world at this point that's actually used nukes against people.

    The pen is mightier then the sword, assuming others can read and write. ;) I wonder if that's where more in the US should be looking, at their education standard, instead of their armoury.

  • thinkagainagain

    Is that so? Please supply me with a list of all armed citizens who have stopped a mass killing. I will be happy to supply you with a list of all armed citizens who started a mass killing.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Hey Dig,

    Most pr**ks like him, are to lost in their own self importance, to realize that others have sacrificed so much, just so that the other 80% get held at gunpoint because they dare try to improve their safety and way of life.

    Your right there education system, appears to be failing dismally by all accounts, however I've heard that there healthcare system is on a par with it. I could be wrong but the USA work on a 20% policy on all issues ......

  • docoman

    JoeSC, from a post of yours earlier to Grumpy;
    "Since you clearly don't understand what an M4 or an M16 is, I'll tell you, Mr. Ex-military guy. Just like your standard AR they fire 5.56. But they have select fire capabilities. They generally come in two variants—safe/single shot/three round burst or safe/single shot/full auto. The AR only comes in safe/single shot. You know that semi-automatic means that you shoot a single bullet per trigger pull, right?"
    You clearly implied he didn't know what he was talking about with firearms. I'll tell you something I've noticed. I've read quite a few of his posts now over the last few weeks.
    I've not served in the ADF, so what I know is largely picked up from reading, and a couple friends I've have/had that have served. But I also take notice at times.
    I hope Grumpy won't take offense to my observations of him.
    I've noted a couple things I've seen him say, about his army career, and had a think a bit of a look into it. I've known people say they've served, and I've generally been fairly good at picking if they're telling the truth or are liars. Most returned vet's that are capable of openly talking about it, don't carry on like they're a hero. Grumpy hasn't done that, and only given info that was relevant to the talk.

    He has a 4 year old son. (so he's probably too young for Vietnam era)
    He has had a military career, and is now retired.
    He mentioned in a different thread, he'd used, or had a Parker Hale 7.62. This is where my knowledge helped me work out he's telling the truth, and probably what his job was. That was not a 'run of the mill' weapon in the ADF, so I looked it up, wondering if he was BS'ing about being in the Aus Army.
    If you look it up, you'll find the Parker Hale 7.62 was the Aus Army's sniper rifle, up to the late 90's.
    He was most likely a sniper. Otherwise he'd have had either an L1A1 SLR, or maybe a M16A1, if it was up to the late 80's. After that he'd have said what we now use, the Steyr, or F88 Austeyr to be exact.

    If you know what Australian snipers have seen combat action in the last 20 to 30 years, it is very likely to be with our special forces. Likely SAS, maybe commandos. IF you know anything about our SAS, you'll know they're every bit as good as your SEALS. (if not better ;) There is a very good reason that's who your military always asks us to send over first.
    IF that is the case, Grumpy may well rather not respond,
    but he'd have been instructed on more weapons then you've probably even seen. So when a 'weekend warrior' as you say that someone that probably at the very least was a sniper in the ADF, and quite possibly more, it is rather absurd you think you know more about firearms. If you think he doesn't know an M4 from an FU2, then you're out of your depth mate, by a long way.

  • JoeSC

    You completely misunderstand. Murder is going to happen whether or not there are guns. One sucks, but it's not news. 32,000 are killed by firearms and 43,000 are killed by cars. Death isn't news anymore. Sorry, but that's the world we live in.

    But as I've shown, there's very little that shows you'll be killed by a gun. .01% of the population will be killed by a gun. It's not likely.

    You're point to google an AR-15 shows that you are biased to how something LOOKS. Google a Ruger Mini-14. Go to their produce page. Which one looks to be the scariest? If you have an answer you have a bias, because you're trying to equate how deadly something is by how it looks. Those are all the same basic gun, but I bet you'd find the Ranch Rifle to look the safest.

    Again, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's no different than any other standard semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56.

    Another thing you guys don't seem to understand is that it's a Bill of RIGHTS not a Bill of NEEDS. There are a lot of things that can kill people that no one needs. No one needs a baseball bat. No one needs a golf club. No one needs a kitchen knife longer than 4". I can go on and on.

    Do I want my kids to live in a world like that? Nope. But the simple fact is that this country would rather lock up people for using marijuana than committing a crime with a gun. This country would rather the mentally ill be on the streets than in an institution.

    Fix those problems and the world is safer. Ban guns, and people will just find another way to kill each other. Actually, they'll probably still use guns, because there's no criminal that'll turn them in.

  • docoman

    I took offense at your sarcasm towards someone who has fought for my freedom, who no doubt understands exactly the results of the weapons being discussed more then you or I, not to mention basic information on them.
    I'm not arguing against guns, I'm an owner here. But there really isn't much need for semi-auto's. Unless it's for your job, for a reason. If you can't kill an animal quickly with a bolt or lever action, you need to improve your stalking and shooting skills.
    Shooting range weapons are mostly bolt action anyway.
    As Grumpy said, many semi-auto's can fairly easily be made to be fully auto. Reducing the availability of those types of weapons would reduce the amount of damage a 'nutter' going off could achieve before being stopped.

    I agree there is usually BS put up from both sides of the argument. I mentioned the BS my gov. did in the 90's.
    I agree that list of proposals shows some misunderstandings between some firearms being on, some being off.
    I don't agree with your saying that it being a relatively low % of deaths means there is no problem.
    Sure, deaths/murders will still occur. Have a look at Canada, Australia and the UK for example, who all have stricter gun laws. We still have murders, but no where near the 'big time' events as you regularly suffer in your country.
    What is weird to me, is your passive acceptance that over 2.5k killed in a month is nothing much to worry about, in fact it's 'better then expected'.
    And you're supposed to be civilised people, the 'leaders of the free world'. How are you ever going to 'bring peace' to other nations, when you can't even seem to organise it in your own country?

  • over the edge

    JoeSC
    you state "Murder is going to happen whether or not there are guns." yes but regulations and bans might limit the odds.

    again you bring up a comparison that does not support your case if you dig a little deeper. such as "32,000 are killed by firearms and 43,000 are killed by cars." yes but how many hours/day are each used for their intended purpose? also there are restrictions on size/speed and type of vehicle allowed. regulations were introduced to try to increase the public safety and there are few that oppose the safety regulations for cars.

    "Bill of RIGHTS not a Bill of NEEDS. " again logic has already led to restrictions of the types of arms allowed to be owned by the public.

    "Actually, they'll probably still use guns, because there's no criminal that'll turn them in." another version of "criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns" . another display of flawed logic. by your reasoning nothing should be illegal since only criminals will be able to possess the illegal items.

  • JoeSC

    I know what your original reference was. I didn't change the subject. If you look at any list of mass shootings in the US, Florida doesn't make the list. So as I said, no major shooting has occurred in my state.

    I know you mean citizens, what other people matter in the US? Polls are BS. And all of the major ones have NEVER shown support for a full ban. They've only shown support for small things like background checks. But I'm willing to tear apart any biased data if you want to present some.

    I understand your point, but I believe in freedom and sovereignty. I'm not sure it's a bad idea. Mutual self-assured destruction worked fine during the cold war.

    Seriously? Let me make my point first before giving you data because you have no idea what properly using a gun means. It means, always point it in a safe direction. Never point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. When you handle a gun, always check to make sure it is safe.

    Notice in those basic firearm safety rules there's nothing in there that says, "now go kill someone." A gun is best used when its not used at all.

    Also, most of those activities don't require a license. And most don't involve coercion, true. But having a gun is not a requirement. So you're not forced to deal with them. It's not very likely a specific individual will be killed by a gun, either.

    As for the data, it's all CDC 2010:

    STDs (Syphilis, Hepatitis, & HIV only) - 15,961
    Motor Vehicle - 35,332
    Falls - 26,009
    Accidental poisoning - 33,041
    Suicide by firearm - 19,392
    Suicide by other - 18,972 (so not having a gun doesn't make you safer from yourself)
    Assault (homicide) by firearm - 11,078
    Assault (homicide) by other means - 5,181

    Note that without suicide (since they're obviously going to do it anyway), firearms accounted for 11,078 deaths in 2010, or .003% of the population.

    Conversely, .008% of the population died from falling. .01% died in an auto accident and .01% offed themselves. So no, properly used guns don't result in death.

    Well, let's assume that all guns that are properly used don't result in a death. So we combine all firearm deaths (30,470) and divide it by the number of guns (approx. 278,755,667) and express that as a percentage: .01%. So 99.99% of guns are used properly.

  • docoman

    About your rights. Which would you consider a more important right, the right to bear arms, or the right to not get shot?

    When a right obviously impacts on the good of the majority, it's time to take a look at it. And, well, when you look at your 2nd amendment, it seems to be talking more about a state's militia, more then your right to have whatever gun you wish.
    You're shooting more of your own then you should be mate, however low the overall % is.
    I'm pretty sure your founding fathers didn't have that in mind. Even if they have, times have changed, your laws need to as well.

  • pwndecaf

    Not persuasive in the least. Motor vehicles of all kinds have a purpose and perform an overwhelming number of good things vs accidents that happen. Those deaths go down every year due to safety regulation and safer highways despite millions more miles driven. That argument is ridiculous but always comes up. Lame.

  • JoeSC

    I had a feeling that was sarcasm. The woods ARE a dangerous place. Plenty of people die from various things in the woods. I'd rather have a gun than not.

    Yes, common sense does go a long way. But one cannot account for every animal in the wild. That's why they are wild animals. Perhaps you unknowingly enter its territory, or shelter. You can probably get out safely, but if you're hemmed in without realizing it, you're in trouble.

    I've hiked for decades as well—and so have the other two people who were with me—and have never come across a situation where I needed a gun. However, I have been in situations where it would have been nice to have one if the situation turned out differently.

    I often hike in areas where there are no tourists. And this cougar wasn't drawn by improper food storage (we didn't make it to the camp site).

    If a group of hysterical people were in a similar situation, perhaps they would. But we are not a hysterical group. We were quite calm for the situation thanks. Please don't assume that I'm crazy because I own a gun. Since we never saw the cougar anyway, we would have never shot it. So the result would have been the same in either case, thanks. I would rather not shoot anything. I don't hunt, although I respect that right, and as I've said I often take insects out of my house when I find them.

    I don't like killing. But if it's it or me, I'm killing it.

  • docoman

    It's a pity you can't ask any of the what, 50 odd thousand isn't it, US servicemen and women that died in Vietnam, how well your 'mutual self destruction' worked for them during the cold war.

  • GRUMPY25608

    How well do you know your 2nd amendment rights?

    Are you a religish man?

    If so, what faith (catholic, jewish, islam,etc)?

  • JoeSC

    Yep, it's usually quite easy. However, it's also a federal crime so law-abiding people, like myself wouldn't do it.

    I'm not a redneck. Sorry. My dad is, but we both live in the city. And I don't have anything against them. A lot of them have more common sense than city dwellers, actually. Also, not being from the US, your use of that term is suspect since you are not a part of our culture.

    Feinstein didn't leave the M4 out. It's not specifically mentioned because it doesn't need to be. It has a pistol grip. She left hardly anything out.

    I will explain it. I would expect anyone in the military to understand that there is no difference between an AR and any other semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56 because the only differences are cosmetic. You didn't show that you know that. So I questioned it. You also didn't seem to notice, until your last response, that I only mentioned .223 and not 5.56 NATO. And I was curious about that too.

  • pwndecaf

    I'd guess white supremacist. With a hint of fundamental christianity. But I repeat myself.

  • JoeSC

    There are plenty. I actually need to get some work done today so do your own research please and you'll be happy to see what you've learned. And you'll have done it all by yourself!

    Why don't you start with the Pearl High School shooting? You don't see those reported because the media, for the most part, has an anti-gun agenda. And the deaths were low. Only two people were killed and 7 shot before the principle detained the shooter.

    Start there.

  • thinkagainagain

    "Lions and tigers and bears oh my!"

  • thinkagainagain

    So two were killed and seven shot. Sounds to me as if the armed citizen did not stop a mass shooting, after all 9 people were shot en masse.

  • JoeSC

    Then why would he have the opinion that an AR is somehow different from a Ruger Mini-14 for example?

    I'm not a weekend warrior, or an armchair commando. I don't have a military background. I've just been shooting and using guns for about twenty years or so. And I know that there's no difference between an AR and any other semi-automatic .223/5.56 rifle. It's just more customizable (at least at a cheaper cost, and by the user).

    Where I come from, the military supports our right to have weapons. Why? They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they want those rights when they get out too. And they believe that a free citizen should have those rights as well.

  • pwndecaf

    I can understand busy, but that shouldn't take long since "you don't see those reported." I'll look that one up - you said the principal "detained" the shooter.

    The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.

    That's one, sort of. Hardly an regular citizen. Didn't have his gun on him, either. I suppose you call that a victory for gun owners.

  • pwndecaf

    That was apparently below the minimum and acceptable number of 8 killed, remember?

  • GRUMPY25608

    There a very good reason for my questions and upon his reply it may start making sense.

  • JoeSC

    I don't think we should be bringing peace to other nations. Other nations have sovereignty. They should only have our help if they want it.

    If he actually is ex-mil I apologize. I wasn't trying to say he wasn't I was saying that I can't understand how someone who is wouldn't know that an AR is no more functionally different than another gun chambered in the same round. I mean you can switch uppers and have an entirely new gun (which can be done on other guns), but that's not what this is all about. People here think an AR is scary, and it seemed like he was of the same opinion.

    When there are roving looters like what happened after Katrina, a bolt-action rifle is going to get you killed unless you're Carlos Hathcock.

    And yeah, in about two minutes I could file the disconnector in my 1911, and have a full auto (though uncontrolled) 1911. Hell, I could even put a drum mag on it and go nuts. But as I said, it's a federal crime.

    And as I also said, hunting is not the only legal reason to own a gun in America. So it really is irrelevant what weapons are good for hunting. If that were the case, we should make everything under .308 illegal, because it might not be effective against every animal on the continent.

    A lot of those countries you listed have higher incidences of violent crime, but perhaps not homicide. My point is that having a lot of firearms of any type does not affect our crime negatively. Gun ownership is up and crime is down. That doesn't make sense if you argue that these weapons are killing more people. Also, crimes committed with a rifle are so small compared with handguns.

    And I was actually incorrect, firearms deaths in 2010 according to the CDC were 923 a month. That other figure included suicides.

  • pwndecaf

    Looking forward to it!

  • JoeSC

    Regulations don't limit the amount of marijuana in this country. They only lead to a prison population composed of a good amount of non-violent offenders.

    Consider this, more than half of those deaths are suicide. And the other are intentionally committed murders. 606 were accidents. 37,961 were traffic accidents. If you're going to compare it like that, you should compare it apples to apples. My point before was just that there are more deaths by car than firearm because you were talking about saving just one life.

    Logic hasn't resulted in restrictions the absence of logic has. "Shall not be infringed" cannot be misconstrued. I disagree with the SCOTUS rulings that have conceded to some restrictions. Now, I would say some can forfeit that right by their actions or mental state. But those problems are individual, and should not be liberally applied.

    I am no more dangerous with a full auto weapon than with a semi-automatic weapon. Why? I don't want to shoot anyone.

    OTE, to be quite honest, I really don't think that much should be illegal because free people are responsible. It's misuse of the items that lead to problems, not the items themselves. Alcohol doesn't make you get in a car and drive drunk. You still make that choice. And there are laws against misuse, as there should be. And we should punish those who misuse things to hurt others the most.

    And it's not flawed logic. There was a gun buyback yesterday and almost everyone was a gun owner who was turning in broken junk. They weren't criminals tossing their pieces.

  • docoman

    Go read it for yourself. His first post made the point certain weapons are not needed by civilians. You carried on saying he didn't know what an M4 or M16 is... with this little gem;
    "So I don't consider an AR-15 an assault weapon"
    He didn't mention your BS straight up, because that was your BS, not what he was saying.

    Some background on the AR-15, since you seem to be arguing that it's not a weapon of war, but a 'civilian use' firearm.
    From Wiki;
    "The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers."

    So it was built and used for the military. Bit of a problem then fitting with your assertion that it's not an assault weapon, don't you think?

    I agree that there is little difference to a Ruger Mini 14, that's why that should be on the ban list too. It's not needed by the average civilian. Unless there is a legitimate reason, and I obtained the correct licensing, I couldn't purchase one here. So what, I don't need one.

  • JoeSC

    I would consider both to be important and one protects the other. You can't stop crazy people by punishing law-abiding citizens. That leads to a police state, not a free state as the Second Amendment protects.

    It doesn't impact the majority. It impacts .003% of the population (firearm homicides by population). Everyone is shooting more of their own than they should be. But you can't stop a crime before it's committed. We don't live in Minority Report. You can only punish those who do misuse firearms severely. And we don't.

    The militia portion is a independent clause, and the SCOTUS has ruled that it's an individual right.

    The Second Amendment is NOT a law. It is protection of a natural right. My rights don't change because it's 2013 instead of 1791. And it specifically states that there shall be no law infringing on the rights it protects.

    I'm pretty sure that our founding fathers would hate the society we've become, not because we've killed others (it happened then too), but because we've allowed our rights to be abridged because it seemed reasonable to do so. And I mean all rights here, not simply gun rights.

  • thinkagainagain

    "Gun ownership is up and crime is down. That doesn't make sense if you argue that these weapons are killing more people."

    The fact is that these weapons are killing more people. So then it must be what you are saying that doesn't make sense.

  • JoeSC

    Your argument is equally lame. There are all sorts of good things that can happen with a gun. You can protect yourself, hunt, target shoot, compete against others in competition, etc.

  • JoeSC

    Considering that that had nothing to do with nuclear weapons proliferation, I don't see the point you're trying to make with respect to my argument. I'm not saying that the cold war was a good thing. You realize that, yes? I'm saying that having a lot of nukes in the world didn't lead to ending the world.

  • JoeSC

    How well do I know my Second Amendment rights? Pretty well, I'm aware of most of the cases the Supreme Court has had on the issue, as well as my states laws, and those of other states I have been to.

    I am no longer a practicing Catholic. I am agnostic. I understand that the founders viewed such rights as being from god, but please, go on.

  • JoeSC

    I'm well aware of the history of it. That doesn't make it an assault rifle.

    If I were in the military, I would rather have a weapon capable of burst (not full auto) if I were in the business of actually assaulting people.

    They developed the 1911 for the military, that doesn't make it an assault handgun. In fact, the version I own even includes the tweaks the military made after using the original design for a bit. It includes the curved mainspring housing for example because that helped the weapon point better.

    And my dad has the weapon they currently use. Well, a Taurus based on the Beretta M9. It's not an assault handgun either.

  • docoman

    I can agree with you up to a point, I guess that's largely the difference between me being an Aussie and you an American. (United Statesman;)
    I felt the same way in 96/97 with the law changes here, much of it BS that sounded good but had no real impact.
    But I've got say, 17 odd years later, I've not missed out on anything. Sure, I can't have a semi-auto anymore, but I don't really need one. I can still enjoy the good things with shooting as before.

    I think you in your country should also, while guard your constitution and bill of rights strongly, should also remember there is amendments, which means they didn't get it all correct first up. You can make adjustments, it's not the 'Bible', or infallible. The right of freedom of choice is important, but there has to be a logical line somewhere with weapons. To me, it seems logical the line should be where civilian use ends, and military use starts.
    At the end of the day it's your country, and your laws, it's up to you what you guys want.

    Edit- for people obeying the law, background checks, permits for buying and selling are a minor pain in the butt, but worth it to help stop the non-legal owners, the ones that give us a bad name, from getting them.

  • JoeSC

    Funny then that firearm homicides according to the CDC were:
    12,352 in 2005
    12,791 in 2006
    12,179 in 2008
    11,078 in 2010

    It's annoying to find the data on their website, but I'm sure you could go find more.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    Maybe a stup!d question: Isn't 'AR' an abbreviation of 'Assault Rifle' then?

  • JoeSC

    I appreciate this response. Thank you. You are one of the few people that understand that it's our country, and up to us to decide what happens. I don't try to tell Australia what to do. ;)

    Certainly the founders didn't get a lot right. Slavery was a big one. Jefferson actually wrote against it in the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence. But it was removed, probably because it didn't have support.

    Gay marriage is another right that should be added.

    But remember, the Bill of Rights was necessary to get the Constitution ratified. Some states ratified the Constitution on the promise of its addition in the future.

    I don't need a semi-auto rifle. I don't need a gun. To be honest, I don't need a lot of things that I own (guns excluded). But, it is my right to have one if I choose. And I choose to own guns. And I would rather there be no restrictions placed on me because I am a responsible citizen, and I am trustworthy until I prove otherwise—or innocent until proven guilty. It is not the other way around.

    While I'm not in favor of background checks on private sales, I would be willing to concede on that point given no other concessions in the present or the future. The problem is, these talks of bans come up every time something happens. And I'm quite sick of it. I'm afraid that making any concession will lead to further concessions down the road.

    To be honest, I hadn't even always wanted an AR. It was low on my list. But right now it's at the top because it might get banned and I was caught flat-footed. I passed on the opportunity to buy a used Colt for $1000 in July, and now they're about $2700 if you can find it. I just can't pay that right now. So I'm SOL if such a ban passes.

  • JoeSC

    No. That's what people try to imply. It's the name of the company that designed it—ArmaLite—combined with rifle. AR = ArmaLite Rifle. I wish they had just called it an AL.

    The AR-15's full designation is ArmaLite Rifle Model 15.

    Various companies have their own names for them as well. Ruger = SR-556, etc.

  • docoman

    I believe it was the model name, coming from the original company to build them, ArmaLite. The company Colt brought the design, but kept the AR.
    It was apparently originally designed as a military weapon. It really boils down to your definition of what an 'assault weapon' really is ;)

  • docoman

    I can see your point with similar weapons. But, if anything, if they (being the one's trying to ban everything) actually understand that, you'll likely loose all, it's more a mistake (in their minds) the others weren't included, rather then the AR was. The pistol grip point is silly, I get that. Get shot with either gun, you'll not care what grip they had.
    But for me, I now have changed my mind from my experience here with all semi-auto's for non commercial use.

  • thinkagainagain

    It may be annoying digging out the data but you just can't list arbitrary numbers. Arbitrary in that you only listed homicides.

    All firearms deaths USA 2010 - 32,672 Source CDC. This increased in 2011, 2012 and will surpass vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2015.

    Yeah it's real funny.

  • JoeSC

    I'm glad they don't know that. But I'd rather have an AR with a changeable upper, so I don't have to spend another $1K on a different caliber. :)

  • pwndecaf

    You bring up alcohol. I think everyone will admit that alcohol can cause many problems in the family, in society.

    However, no one has ever claimed that the answer to alcohol problems is MORE alcohol.

    And claiming guns and cars are of an equal utility is ludicrous.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was inclined to think so because the 'AR' in 'SCAR' does stand for 'Assault Rifle'. I'll leave the discussion to others with more expertise in this field.

  • JoeSC

    Yeah, because you're including suicides. Suicides can't be attributed to gun violence because they were intentionally killing themselves. The only statistic that matters is homicide.

  • JoeSC

    No problem.

  • JoeSC

    I'm not as familiar with the FN SCAR, but I believe it's operation is similar. Not 100% on that though.

  • pwndecaf

    Check out FactCheck dot org and look for Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts. I think it is a balanced article and really shows that statistical correlation is interesting but isn't a causal relationship. No study has shown a causal relationship either way. A REAL scientific study cannot be done - it's impossible.

    So all we can do is what common sense tells us. You believe that owning a gun makes you safer. I will argue the opposite. That is the line in the sand that neither of us will cross. Violent crime was going down for some time. Is it because more people have guns or more gun owners have more guns? Not in my mind.

  • thinkagainagain

    You make no sense. A suicide by gun can't be attributed to gun violence? Then a homicide committed by a gun can't be counted either because the murderer intentionally killed someone just as the suicide intentionally killed someone.

    Dead by a gun is dead by a gun. You are not less dead because you killed yourself.

    I'm quite serious. Some things you say are bordering on bizarre. And to think you walk around with a loaded gun.

  • pwndecaf

    What are the odds of having a gun pointed at you in a home invasion? The invader generally wants to avoid people in the home, logically, so I'd say the odds are very low unless you have seriously pi$$ed somebody off. That is a different circumstance altogether.

    What are the odds of you confronting the home invader and beating him to the draw? Remember, although the chances of this happening are low, IMO, he may have come prepared with a weapon, although I'd say the odds on that are also low. I'd have to say the armed invader has the upper hand and the better odds of shooting you before you shoot him.

    If you say you keep your gun by your bedside for easy access, I'd say you had better live alone or you have just put your family in extreme risk of being shot by friendly fire. The odds of a gun tragedy in the home of a gun owner is higher than that of the home with no gun. I can say that is common sense, at least. I do believe stats will back that up, but stats are a funny thing, so I'll just go with common sense.

    This debate has mostly been around what guns should be banned and which not. I will not argue against someone having a gun in their home for safety (though I think if is a false sense of safety), but I will not ever agree with concealed carry, which was passed in my state last year. I do not want any civilian "help" with their trusty sidearms putting me or others in danger.

    Commentary: Do you (anyone) think that these people that are responsible for mass shootings/killings are lazy serial killers? That's the trouble with today's citizens - too lazy to do any decent planning and execution. They want to get it all done in one incident, lazy ba$tard$. JK, a little.

  • pwndecaf

    If you want to seriously discuss natural rights and freedoms, have a look at this first. I hope the site will allow this.

    you tube dot com/course?list=EC30C13C91CFFEFEA6

    Aternate: justiceharvard dot org

    Justice with Michael Sandel, about 19 hours of philosophy on what are such rights and freedoms. Absolutely fabulous stuff. It is said that the professor is the model for Montgomery Burns! He is very good and really gets the students involved and gets them to make the discussion - he does not preach his philosophy, but nudges the students. Try one at least.

  • JoeSC

    I have read it. I've also read the excellent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study that concluded the very same thing. The point is, crime had been decreasing, and guns have been increasing. While there may be no causal relationship, it does prove one thing: more guns does not equal more crime.

    You can argue the opposite all you like, but there's no proof to that. :)

  • docoman

    You are correct about the 'AR' in SCAR, it's name stands for, Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle. It is a Belgian made weapon, there are 2 versions, one using the 5.56x45 NATO round, and another using the 7,62x51 NATO round.
    A quick wiki check and you'll find details.

    I do find it interesting and revealing, that JoeSC said, "I believe it's operation is similar." He is correct on that point, they are similar to operate.
    The revealing part, is they both are designed for military use, using military ammunition.
    By his own words and it's original design and use, the AR-15 he's talking about is a military weapon (for killing people). :)

  • JoeSC

    The things I say are reasoned responses, thanks.

    The point is that with a suicide you aren't attacking another person. You're making the choice to die. When you commit homicide you are taking a life that doesn't belong to you.

    In other words, you are forcing your will onto another. Hence violence.

    What we are talking about, and what most people believe to be gun violence, is homicides. Thinking otherwise is actually quite bizarre.

    People aren't worried that they're going to end up killing themselves with a gun. They're afraid that they're going to be killed by someone else with a gun. That's the whole point of the statistic.

    And to think you drive around in a car.

  • thinkagainagain

    Let's take a look at one of your "reasoned" responses.

    You are saying that an armed citizen could stop a mass shooting, yet you also say, and I am quoting you directly, "But you cannot stop a crime before it's committed", and "You can only punish those who do misuse firearms".

    Now you've got a problem with your "reasoned" responses. For if it is true that armed citizens can stop a mass shooting then it is untrue that you cannot stop a crime before it is committed.

    If it is true that you cannot stop a crime before it is committed then it is untrue that armed citizens can stop a mass shooting.

    Reasoned responses. Yeah right.

  • thinkagainagain

    In reference to your fourth paragraph: No, that is not what we are talking about and it wasn't what you were talking about either. Once again you said "That doesn't make sense if you argue that these weapons are killing more people." You did not say more homicides you said weapons killing people.

    Now suddenly a suicide by gun is not a weapon killing a person when in fact it is a weapon killing a person. Bizarre.

  • JoeSC

    You're being purposefully obtuse. Or at least I hope you are.

    My statement "but you cannot stop a crime before it's committed" does not imply that you can't stop a crime in progress—i.e. AFTER the first crime is committed.

    In other words, you can't know who's going to be a shooter until they start shooting.

    I'm pretty sure that's logical.

  • JoeSC

    It's not bizarre. That person would kill themselves without a weapon. So it is not simply the weapon that led to the killing.

    And for the record, it is what I am talking about, and it is what anyone is talking about when they're talking about gun violence. That is, unless they are too dense to understand that a person killing themselves is going to do it anyway.

    Gun violence implies violence against another person. And that is down. Unless you're worried that you're going to kill yourself with a gun, you shouldn't be worried about it with respect to gun violence statistics.

    Now, do you have anything else to waste my time with, or are we done here?

  • thinkagainagain

    I agree I'm being obtuse. I'm quoting you. Seriously you cannot get more obtuse than to say that you can both stop a crime before it's committed and cannot stop a crime before its committed. Stopping a killer after he has killed has not stopped a crime. Stopping a killer before a he has killed is not stopping a crime. It is not a crime until it is committed. It's the very same as your Pearl River shooting. The principal did not stop any crimes. If he did as you say stopped a crime I challenge you to state specifically what crime he stopped.

  • JoeSC

    You're not quoting me. You're misunderstanding the point. I didn't say stopping a mass shooting was stopping a crime, I said it was stopping a mass shooting. In order for the to be a mass shooting to stop, someone has to at least get shot.

    In simpler words, stopping a mass shooting means having less murders at the end of the event that would otherwise have occurred with no intervention—which is what happened at Pearl River because the principal intervened and detained the gunman.

    Look, if you're going to incorrectly interpret the English language, we're done. If you'd like to try to somehow win with facts, give it a shot.

  • thinkagainagain

    Now you are really out on a limb. I am sitting here looking at a report from Harvard on that very subject. Their research along with testimony from failed gun suicide attempts shows that the gun is implicit in the decision to commit suicide. Of those polled 90% said they would not have attempted suicide if a gun was not available. So much for your theory.

    But take heart, you are correct about one thing. It is a waste of time to present facts to someone who is unconcerned with the facts.

  • JoeSC

    Interesting. First, they have several studies. Which particular one are you talking about? I have seen none that mention 90% attempting simply because they had access to a weapon. One study listing only 65% having access.

    Also, here's a little protip, if you're going to present facts, present them with a reference. I highly doubt you read the actual study since most are in peer-reviewed journals that often require a subscription.

    So let's see it. Obviously it wasn't a factor for about 50% of those who succeeded. So prove me wrong.

    I still maintain, however, that it has nothing to do with fearing gun violence unless you fear yourself. And if you have no access to a gun, it's not a factor for you at all. So please, continue.

  • thinkagainagain

    No that is not what happened at Pearl River. The principal accosted the shooter in the parking lot as the killer was leaving the school AFTER he had finished his dirty business. How's that for a fact.

    Stopping a mass shooting is not stopping a crime? Are you saying a mass shooting is not a crime? In order for a mass shooting to stop someone must be shot? Yikes!! What the hell does that mean? I only thought you were bizarre before but saying that stopping a mass shooting is not stopping a crime is showing me new levels of bizarreness. Or are you going to say I have misinterpreted a mass shooting as being a criminal act?

  • JoeSC

    Often they leave weapons in the trunk.

    Seriously, obvious troll is obvious. If you can't understand English, we can't debate.

  • Glen Dooer

    Gun control is like trying to ban religion will never happen...mental illness is where the problem is and lot more money should be spent on that than any thing , that way we can find out why people believe in some form of God, gamble, beat their partner. fraud, psychopathia's and politicians.

  • thinkagainagain

    Often they leave weapons in the trunk? What in God's name does that mean?

    So because I'm calling bullsh*t on you that makes me a troll. Typical.

  • JoeSC

    No. I'm not calling you a troll for that. That was the best you had. Often shooters leave additional weapons in their vehicles. Most shooters also kill more than two people.

    Anyway.

    I'm calling you a troll because you are twisting English. Obviously mass shooting is a crime. It's actually MULTIPLE crimes. You can stop the subsequent crimes—and thus the shooting—but you can't stop the first one. That's the point.

    I'm typical? No, typical is the type of people who want to play word games and act dumb rather than talking about actual facts.

  • JoeSC

    I posted some other links here, but they have to be moderated. In the mean time, you can look up the crime stopped in College Park, GA. Though someone was injured in crossfire, they survived. You can also look up the Golden Food Market shooting in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

  • thinkagainagain

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You want to talk about not understanding English? Did I not say this came from those failed attempts using a gun? That would mean that 100% of those attempting suicide by gun had a gun. Where do you come up with 65% only having access. I will make this real simple. 100% of people who attempt suicide with a gun must have a gun to attempt suicide with a gun. Then I said of those attempting suicide with a gun 90% said they would not have attempted suicide if did not have access to a gun.

    Now you are calling me a liar without any evidence at all. Zero. It's just as I said- you are not concerned at all with facts. You are the one just pulling stuff out of thin air not me.

    It wasn't a factor for about 50% who succeeded? You can't have a 50% success rate for failed suicides.You will either have a 100% failure rate or a 0% success rate. A 50% success rate for failed suicides! Man oh man.

  • JoeSC

    It was owned in 65%. You can kill yourself with someone else's gun. As I was just skimming the article looking to see if it was the one you were referring to, I saw that figure. I don't know if it was 65% of those who killed themselves via a gun owned the gun, or if the figure was for all suicides of any type. It's irrelevant. The point was that it wasn't your figure. So show me your study.

    I didn't call you a liar. I said PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE. I am extremely concerned with facts. You didn't present any, and I didn't find the one you're talking about amongst Harvard's list of studies on the subject.

    50% killed themselves in another way, the other 50% used a gun. I'm not talking about failed suicides. I'm talking about successful suicides.

    Typical. You take separate arguments and try to put them into one, either because you can't follow it, or because you're creating a diversion.

    Just show me the study that you're talking about. Stop ignoring it. Stop diverting. Stop being obtuse. If you have facts, present the study. If you don't, stop wasting my time.

    I'm not going to sit here and argue your claims without being able to look at the study.

    There, I said it three times. Show me the study.

  • over the edge

    JoeSC
    as far as i can tell neither story required an assault weapon to defend themselves. again you do not do your case any favors. but as i am not sure i will ask. would the current proposals have stopped the victims from defending themselves?

  • thinkagainagain

    Sweet Jesus. It does not matter who owns the gun. Now just so you'll understand what I'm talking about when I say I'm quoting you. Here are two statements quoted verbatim and I am not twisting anything here.

    Statement one: "It (the gun- my clarification) was owned in 65%.

    Statement two: "I don't know if it was 65% of those who killed themselves via a gun owned the gun or if the figure was for all suicides of any type."
    Now both statements cannot be true.
    And you say I'm twisting words? Show me.

    Now on top of that you are throwing out "facts" without citing your source.

    Now I'll make a deal with you. Stop demanding citations when you don't give citations, make a statement without conflicting facts, and quit calling people liars without any evidence ("I highly doubt you read the actual study") and I might tell you exactly where to find the study.

  • docoman

    Car death stats. were talked about earlier, did he ask who owned the car in the car deaths? Ownership is really besides the point isn't it, it's the deaths overall, as you said. :)

  • JoeSC

    It doesn't help yours either. No, it wouldn't prevent them from defending themselves. However, it wouldn't have prevented the crimes either.

    In a situation where looters are breaking into your house after a natural disaster, having an accurate gun with a lot of rounds is necessary.

  • JoeSC

    First, why have you stopped replying to me? So I wouldn't notice?

    Second, statement two clarifies the first. I was skimming a study looking for your figures. The table showed that 65% of the guns used in suicide were owned by the person who committed suicide. I don't know if that figure was only for those who committed suicide by gun or for all suicides.

    Third, I have cited sources everywhere I've given a figure. In this case I wasn't presenting a source, I merely was commenting on the fact that I couldn't find your figure listed anywhere amongst the studies Harvard had on their site.

    Fourth, stop playing games. Stop playing dumb (like asking things like isn't a mass shooting a crime? Then how can you stop a shooting and not a crime?). Show what evidence you have. It's been three volleys with this and you still haven't presented a study. So I'll call you a liar until you prove me wrong.

    If your next reply doesn't have directions to this study. I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

  • JoeSC

    I always liked Jeffries. Actually that's just like Jeff Foxworthy's joke. Just replace what he said with redneck.

    I mostly took offense to him using the word at me. But, that's fair. I wasn't the nicest to him either. In this country, in an insulting fashion, it implies that you are dumb and backwards. I also don't intend to mean that about my dad. He's quite the opposite, really.

    I actually had a class in college on Australia. The professor was an expatriate. I know there's a lot of similarities between us. I think the "redneck" one is probably universal amongst all countries.

    Hopefully I can visit there one day.

  • docoman

    I like Jim :) I'm also a fan of Foxworthy and the Blue Collar Crew. Tada Salad cracks me up.
    It's all a bit of tongue in cheek mate. ;)

    You're welcome to visit anytime, you just won't be able to bring your AR-15 with you, not if you want to keep it. ;)

  • JoeSC

    I know you're kidding.

    And I don't have an AR yet, so I guess I better visit now!

  • Jack1952

    One million permits in Florida allowing one to carry a concealed weapon. I wonder how many of those permits are held by individuals engaged in criminal activities and have yet to be caught. They can now legally carry a weapon to facilitate their illegal activities. Gang enforcers, without criminal records, could form a posse, walk around with handguns and terrorize people, and do it under the protection of the law as long as there is no official record of wrong doing. Am I the only one who sees the insanity of this idea?

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    honestly, Jack, that really isn't a factor. not in current practice, at least. the more realistic danger is "ammo muscles". the bitter ineffectual middle-aged herb that becomes "the sword of justice" after that permit comes in the mail. we had one gun down a teen a few weeks ago for his loud sound system at a gas station. everybody on earth has heard of zimmerman. every couple of months an example makes the news. sometimes it's "road rage" inspired, sometimes it's "defending" their property from a fleeing burglar, sometimes just "bad blood" escalating after emboldening. the VAST majority of those with criminal intent manage to get themselves convicted of something that precludes the permit long before their 21st birthday. i have little doubt there have to be SOME permit holders who use them as a cover for criminality, but the numbers must be incredibly low, because such a scenario NEVER gets reported.

  • thinkagainagain

    I stopped replying to give the matter a little thought. Such a silly and unproductive discussion you and I are having. Obviously you and I have differing thoughts about guns and gun ownership but that doesn't mean we have to act like a couple of talking heads.

    I apologize.

  • Jack1952

    I was also thinking of organized crime. Hoods carrying weapons legally, looking for protection money, and can't be touched because their victims are too frightened to say anything (for good reason, too). If accosted by a police officer, they just produce their permit and they're on their way. They've carried handguns illegally for decades. A permit would make their job easier and a mafia type associate with a gun permit might become a highly prized employee.

    Years ago, I spent the winter in Florida. In two and a half months there, I saw more handguns than I have seen in the sixty plus years living in Canada. In every case where I was a witness to someone with a handgun, one theme kept recurring. That theme was that the one possessing the gun was ready to use it if anyone dared to mess with him. The gun had only one purpose...to kill another human being if necessary.

    I worked as a bartender for over ten years. I have had reason to refuse service to intoxicated patrons and have to deal with violent reactions. I have been told by angry and frustrated drunks that they were going home to get their shotgun and returning to blow my "flippin" head off. None have ever returned. One guy actually stole a truck after I physically had to expel him from the bar. He ran it off the road and ended in the hospital. I often wonder what would have happened if these patrons had access to guns like they do in Florida or anywhere else in the States for that manner. I'm glad I live in a country where we don't have to deal with gun totting citizens as a normal routine. Every confrontation in the States has the strong possibility of ending in disaster. The perception of danger can be just as strong an incentive to shoot as the reality of danger. "I thought he was going for his gun. I didn't know he wasn't armed. Who walks around without a gun, these days." In a state of twenty million with one million of them with permits to carry a gun and who knows how many carry one illegally this is getting to be the norm there rather than the extreme, almost unheard of, exception in Canada.

    Almost everyone in Canada thinks that the American gun laws are absolutely crazy. We had 556 homicides in Canada last year... in total. The United States had over 11000 by guns alone. If that doesn't bother Americans, what does?

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    oh, i don't doubt that such a scenario happens, but it also happened when only the "connected" could get carry permits. my point is it really has not been a perceptible problem that is prevalent enough to actually impact the debate.
    our carry law in florida forbids carry in bars, or any "hospitality" venue that derives more than 50% of its revenue from sales of alcohol. same with school sporting events. when the carry statute was written, the legislators at least attempted to address the dangers of "packing heat" where adrenalin and alky tend to flow, lol.
    i was avoiding wading into "the debate" on this topic because i see arguments that back up both camps, as well as outright falsehoods spread by both sides (often out of ignorance of fact, rather than ill intent). i only offered up my voice now because i live in the state in question, and actually pay attention to "fine print" news stories (the page 15 of the "local" section stuff). my only point was that circumstance really hasn't appeared to be a problem, in this locale, as of yet. i had no intent to confirm or condemn either position in the debate, but felt it worthwhile to offer up "eyewitness testimony" for as little as that is worth, lol

  • Jack1952

    Plaxico Burress wasn't supposed to have a gun either. Luckily he shot himself and no one else. Greater accessibility to guns will allow the those who are out of control a better opportunity to act this foolish or to shoot someone for an irrational reason. I suppose that same accessibility would allow me to shoot him after he has shot someone else. A great idea. Allow me the right to own a gun so I can shoot someone who has shot someone else with a gun legally allowed by law. A law that allows me to protect myself from the people that the law allows to carry a weapon... of course, from those who aren't allowed to either. There is a circular logic here that defies my sense of logic. I can only wonder how people got along before the gun was invented. Oh yeah...I live in Canada. We already kind of live under those conditions.

    If those guns were impossible to get, I would think that I would not need a gun to protect myself from the gun totters. Actually, in over sixty years, I have never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary to defend myself. I don't think I know anyone who has.

    I know what you mean about taking a stance. I have done so in the past and have been addressed by a few angry individuals. Just suggesting gun control drives some people wild with rage.

  • pwndecaf

    I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but the first link has a link at the bottom to another story of a 2nd grader waving a loaded gun on a school bus.

    The second link had 4 comments at the bottom. I didn't think one could even print that kind of language anymore. I guess you can in Georgia.

  • pwndecaf

    OMG. Jim Jeffries is hilarious!

  • JoeSC

    Florida's rate of revocation is .3%. It's similar in most other states. I believe that number comes from the Attorney General's office. There's a similar number in the excellent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study.

    There's not much of a point to get a license as a criminal. No one has ever asked me to see a permit. And that includes cops that have pulled me over to whom I disclosed that I had a gun with me.

  • JoeSC

    Indeed. I apologize as well.

  • JoeSC

    Wow, that's uh, quite racist there. That's old-fashioned racism to boot. Most of those words lost out in the 70s. The 1870s.

    As for the 2nd grader, I didn't see the article, but that parent should get the book thrown at them. I never dreamed of touching my father's guns. He made sure I knew better. Hell, even today I wouldn't grab any of his guns without asking to first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    i tend not to cleave to absolutes, nor do i abandon reality to defend my ideal. my "ideal" would encompass a right for one to responsibly possess pretty much anything one has the desire to own. for such a right to be universal, without imperiling all, would require a society of intelligent, rational, civic minded, responsible people. i honestly think, on many levels, america fails all those preconditions.

    i also have to admit the much vaunted "right" was long ago diluted to a system of permissions. reality insists that one face the fact that the federal government ALREADY has the final word on whether one is permitted to own any arms, what manner of arms the individual may own, and to require both registration and taxation of "restricted ownership" classes of arms. the supreme court has backed up that state of affairs for quite a while now (closing on 80 years), so it is indeed "constitutional".

    i think the real "problem" is systemic lack of responsible behavior, from top to bottom. in our recent rash of tragic murders (say over a decade or so), there were opportunities for the tragedy to have been prevented. courts, educational institutions, mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies, firearms dealers, and parents had various levels of irresponsibility. no firearms dealer should ever have put a gun in the hands of laughner, no matter what the background check result was. that guy was an obvious basket case, by ALL accounts. adam lanza would be completely unknown to us, and those 20 kids would still be alive, if his mother had been even remotely responsible, because she alone gave her mentally unbalanced son access to firearms of any kind. laughner had previous run ins with the law dismissed due to his mental state, to spare the county the expense of any mental health evaluation and treatment. holmes was "too disturbing in behavior" to be allowed to continue his studies, but not enough for the educators and MH professionals to feel a need to prevent realization of the homicidal ideas he admitted to. one must make note that the columbine massacre occurred using arms that were 100% compliant with the "assault weapons ban" that was in effect, and took place on a campus with armed security. neither fact lessened the carnage.

    as to the point of any particular type of arm being more malevolent than others, i see points in both arguments. as general classes of machine, there is little difference between a remington 7400 sporting semi-auto rifle and a h&k91 "clone" of the g-3 rifle. but if the examination is more in-depth, differences become apparent. though both can hang a 20 rd box magazine that uses the same cartridge, the ones that would fit the remi are an ultra-expensive rarity(that due to mechanical limitations of the rifle design, tend to be unreliable), the g-3 was common enough that a surplus magazine of that capacity could be had for less than 5 bucks apiece from HUNDREDS of internet suppliers. when we switch to the rounds the ar-15 or akm clones fire (the "assault rifle" cartridges), we are faced with an interesting fact. there are NO semi-automatic rifles of sporting origins that fire those rounds. there are sporting adaptations of military designs (the ruger mini 14, the saiga sporting rifles), there are arms that were designed for the civilian "black rifle" market that often interchange some parts with the "evil rifles", but there are no purpose built hunting or target original designs, though both rounds have existed for a half century or more, and sporting semi-automatic rifles pre-date military ones. it doesn't make them "evil" of course, but it negates the argument of "there are compliant arms of equivalence".

  • GRUMPY25608

    Do you stand up for the whole of the Constitution for the United States of America or only your 2nd amendment rights?

    have you ever served your country in any of the armed services??

    Are the freedoms of all citizens of the USA important to you or just your own??

    Now some points you should be able to clarify for me;

    "You are no longer a practicing Catholic" Why??

  • GRUMPY25608

    did 2007 and 2009 no happen or were the figures not to you liking as they spiked in those periods.

  • GRUMPY25608

    It appears to be a redneck answer as GdS, was asking about the SCAR and yes the AR in SCAR does infact mean Assault Rifle, now can you see the problem your half truth are worst than no truth as now your inflicting your stupidity to other people with ensuring that you are right.

  • JoeSC

    Of course I stand up for the whole of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is what helps to guarantee those rights.

    I have not served because there has not been a cause that I have considered serving for. Had I grown up in the time of WWII I probably would have.

    The freedoms of all citizens are important to me, and not just in this country but elsewhere. I believe the right to bear arms is a universal right that is not granted by government. It is a natural right.

    I am an agnostic because I went to a Catholic high school. I was baptized during that time, and I found the common Catholic high school student to be pretty irreverent. Additionally, I believe that whether or not a god exists is irrelevant. I've always been a good person. I don't need to be told what is right to do what is right.

  • JoeSC

    I'm not sure what happened in those periods because those CDC studies were difficult to find. You're welcome to go look. I didn't have time to look further then.

  • JoeSC

    In case you do, those studies are called, 'Death: Final Data for' followed by the year. Also, the data is usually in Table 10.

  • JoeSC

    There you go with that redneck thing again. Also, I think I've shown that I'm not stupid, but you're free to have your opinion. In this case, you're incorrect.

    He asked about the AR first. Then he mentioned that it stands for Assault Rifle in the SCAR. And I didn't protest that.

    "Maybe a stup!d question: Isn't 'AR' an abbreviation of 'Assault Rifle' then?"

    "Thanks for clearing that up. I was inclined to think so because the 'AR' in 'SCAR' does stand for 'Assault Rifle'. I'll leave the discussion to others with more expertise in this field."

    As far as it goes, I just don't consider a gun that doesn't have a mode other than safe and semi-auto to be an assault weapon, regardless of what they call it. Why? I'd rather have a gun with burst mode than one without if I were actually going to assault anything.

    And people say that it's an assault weapon because it's designed to kill. But with rare exception, what gun doesn't kill when used to shoot someone? It's all up to the person behind the trigger. My guns will never be used to kill unless it's to protect the life of an innocent person.

  • GRUMPY25608

    As incorrect as you implying that I have not served in the ADF.

  • GRUMPY25608

    replied to myself (must of needed a sensable response...lol)

  • GRUMPY25608

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    As you see in the preamble to your Constitution, it was written for all of you not just the 20% of you that does not want change. Democracy is for all not 20% so if 80% want change and you believing in your constitution, why are you so against what they want.

    "I don't think we should be bringing peace to other nations. Other nations have sovereignty. They should only have our help if they want it."

    "The freedoms of all citizens are important to me, and not just in this country but elsewhere. I believe the right to bear arms is a universal right that is not granted by government. It is a natural right."

    You made both statements, so can you see that you are saying one thing to appease one poster and then another statement that contradicts your other to appease the next poster. your all over the place like a mad woman's sh*t.

  • JoeSC

    I've explained my reasoning and have since apologized.

  • JoeSC

    First, it's not just 20% of people who support the Second Amendment. Second, the Amendment states that it shall not be infringed. Third, the Bill of Rights are out natural rights, and thus only an individual may choose to give them up because they don't own the right. It is granted to them by virtue of being born. Fourth, I support anyone's right to change it the right way, even if I disagree with changing it. It requires a 2/3 majority to start the process, which is why they don't even try to amend the Constitution to get rid of it—they don't have the support.

    As for those statements I'm not denying that I made them. It's a public forum, why would I do such a thing? Don't you think I know that I'd be called out? And again someone accuses me of pandering. I'm not. Those statements are not at odds with each other.

    Of course I want all people to be free, but it is not our duty, or right, to interfere with another nation's sovereignty. There are grey areas to this of course (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, etc.). But in general, we should not be anywhere where we're not wanted.

    I don't change my views to appease people.

    Here's another one. I'm totally against infringing on the Second Amendment, but I'll uphold your right to amend the Constitution and attempt to repeal it.

    They can go ahead if they think they can get the 2/3 majority to propose it (either by state conventions or Congress) and then the 3/4 of states to approve it.

    That is the only way it should be infringed. I would still think it's a natural right, but the people would have given it up. And that's a lot better than a simple majority of Congress giving it up.

  • thinkagainagain

    Let's discuss the Second Amendment, particularly your stressing of the word infringed.

    A little (very little) background on me. I am a gun owner, I am ex-military, and I have fought in war and have most likely killed another human being(s). These are my bona fides. They may be mildly surprising considering my previous statements.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Did you watch the link to Jim Jefferies as he explained my reasons and I don't apologize, as I'm just saying it the way I see it.

  • JoeSC

    First, thanks for your service. Second, American military or elsewhere?

    Third, it is surprising because you of all people should know that people can be deadly with anything, and it's all up to the person using the tool.

  • JoeSC

    I was saying it the way I saw it too. But I did apologize about calling your service into question.

    So you think I'm a dumb c**t? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Because I'm certainly not religious—in either direction, because Atheists have faith too. I have none.

    Or does that explain your reasons for asking me about religion?

  • GRUMPY25608

    First; Your natural right????? Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

    Second; If your constitution was correct why was there any need to make amendments in the first place????

    Third; Your class in college seems to me as an Australian a waste of time as you have now idea about us or our position with the way the yanks appear to show the rest of the world contempt. the best thing to ever come out of the USA is the Harley Davidson motorbike.

    Docoman said your welcome to come and visit, well I disagree with him there as we have enough rednecks of our owe to deal with, the last thing I'd want is another redneck from half around the world to my country.

  • GRUMPY25608

    What faith/beliefs does an Athiest have???

    Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

    Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.

  • thinkagainagain

    That I am an American I suppose is pertinent. It does give me a dog in this fight.

    So let us return to the Second Amendment.

  • JoeSC

    I am well aware of all of that. I've had enough world religion classes, thanks.

    However, you are incorrect about atheism. Atheists have faith. They believe that a god does not exist. As it is unknowable, they have faith. It's the same conceit as any theistic religion, but in the opposite.

    Agnosticism is the closest one can get to having no faith/beliefs. And there are even shades of agnosticism that think one way or the other is likely, but they know it is impossible to know definitively.

  • JoeSC

    First, that's exactly right. This country was founded on that. The founders believed the right to bear arms is inalienable. And as an American, I believe it too.

    Second, the Bill of Rights was necessary in ratifying the Constitution. I never said the Constitution was perfect. Again, I support people's right to go about this the right way and amend it. It's a difficult path. But that's the only valid way around the Second Amendment that I see. I disagree with all of the laws that deal with it already.

    Third, wow good attack there. You really got me. Luckily everyone I've met from there has been a lot nicer of a person than you are. Just as I don't know you, you don't know me. I don't have contempt for the world as I have shown. I do have contempt for those who interject in our politics, however—you know, like those who aren't American, you know, like you.

    Fourth, with all that you know about America, you should know one is either a redneck or a yankee, and I'd rather be the former. In fact, yankee is usually reserved for the British. You're closer to that than we are, I'm afraid.

    Fifth, I'm no longer sorry about what I implied. I tried to be the bigger man. But if you're going to be a douche who makes personal attacks at every turn, why should I waste my time on you?

  • JoeSC

    Great. Well, thanks again for your service.

    Let us not return to the Second Amendment, because we've exhausted it. As you said, we're just wasting time. Unless you're advocating that we actually return to it. ;)

    I'm not sure why someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution would be for any law that obviously goes against it. But that's for you to decide, know, or whatever, as it really is irrelevant to me.

    Check out Oath Keepers, especially if you want a different view of it.

  • JoeSC

    You know, until today I've never met an Aussie I didn't like, and I've never met a serviceman I didn't like. And I've met my fair share of both. Who would have thought I'd find out that they're both the same person?

    You're welcome in my country. We have plenty of pretentious, condescending dicks who don't have the intelligence to back it up. You'd fit right in.

    I also don't think it fair to deny someone access to my country because they believe things that I don't. But I also don't tend to call people whom I don't know names that I don't understand. And if you're wondering why I called you names in the paragraph above without knowing you, it's because I don't have to. You've proved it.

  • GRUMPY25608

    Atheists have a lack of faith......(the absence of belief any deities exist)

    Scientology is a cult, however it's members will tell you it's a religion(tax exception and other benifits appears to be there motovation),but the fact is that it is a cult. Say that at the most extreme end of atheism, there are movements that appear to have cult like views, it is still far from a religion. by definition.

    Agnosticism don't have an opinion one way or the other so your wrong there as well. (they are proberly the most honest in the true sceme of thing, however....
    a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    c. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

    I'm class myself as agnogstic as I'm a sceptic on everything, not just religion, to your true motives for your stance on this small arms issue.
    As if being allowed to use such firearms are available for you to use all you have to do is show your true patriotism and sevre your counrty that has given you so much. If you have made no attempt to serve your country in any capacity. I think you don't have the right to bear arms to any of your fellow "sceptics".

  • GRUMPY25608

    You and I have never met so that statemnent is like most of your other post BS.

    If I recall your the one that started this insult game, I'm just the pr*ick that wont forgive anyone whom insults my service to my country, and I shall keep showing you the contempt I think you deserve because of that.

  • JoeSC

    Met was a figure of speech.

    And actually, I didn't call you names first. I questioned your service, and I was rude about it, but I didn't call you names for it. Perhaps it was insulting. But I owned up to it. And you can't forgive or apologize. So really man, I feel sorry for you.

    So have a good life. Take your unforgiving attitude to the grave if you want to. I hope you don't. And I hope you have a wonderful day tomorrow. I mean that sincerely. You apparently need it more than anyone else, Grumpy.

    Take care.

  • GRUMPY25608

    As the moderators have now decided to step in and my rebuttle appear to have breached the rule, I leave it at that.

  • JoeSC

    I'm not sure what was moderated. But as I said, have a good life. If anything, I admire your dedication to your service.

  • over the edge

    GRUMPY25608
    sorry about that. discus mistook " religion. by " as a link so it automatically went to moderation. i added the space between the "." and "by". no rule was broken and your post is up

  • GRUMPY25608

    thank you for your clarification as I've tried to ensure have been following the rules, very loosely at times admittedly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    "I am well aware of all of that. I've had enough world religion classes, thanks.

    However, you are incorrect about atheism. Atheists have faith. They believe that a god does not exist. As it is unknowable, they have faith. It's the same conceit as any theistic religion, but in the opposite."

    you should go slap your "world religion" teacher then.
    to be an atheist is to not believe a deity exists, either in a gnostic way : "i KNOW no god exists because....", or an agnostic way: "i have seen no proof of existence of a deity, therefor i cannot just "believe" one exists.".
    similarly, a theist believes in the existance of a deity either in a gnostic manner: "i KNOW god exists because...", or an agnostic manner: " we can't know everything, so i choose to believe."

    theists believe in the existence of god or gods. atheists dont believe in deities. gnostics claim knowledge, agnostics admit lack of knowledge.

    their is NO component of "faith" in atheism. none. it is, for all intents and purposes, a lack of "faith". atheists are "from missouri", they are "show me" kinda people.

    you can claim a "gnostic atheist" is equally as arrogant as a "gnostic theist" (in that both claim knowledge of that which they can't possibly know), but that does not equate as an atheist maintaining a faith, any more than your disbelief in the existence of polka dancing fairies that ride orange and pink striped unicorns is maintaining a faith. you can be a gnostic "polka fairy denier": claim absolute knowledge of their lack of existence, or you can be an agnostic "polka fairy denier": admit no absolute knowledge, but deny their existence based on the fact that no one has ever claimed to have encountered one.

    of course, if you do believe in polka dancing fairies that ride orange and pink striped unicorns, please forgive my assumption of your "heretical" mindset.

  • GRUMPY25608

    At no stage did I say you called me names, however after your said apology, you proceed to imply that I was liaring about my military service on more occasions. So I'd rather not apoligize, than give someone lip service as it appears you have done to me. Honesty and integrity are very important factors in a mans make up and you my good man, have shown very little or none on several occasions...

  • JoeSC

    Actually, no, I didn't. I explained my reasoning to Docoman. My word is my bond.

    You have shown a propensity to believe what you want to believe without proof. So, please, continue to do so. And have a great life with it.

  • JoeSC

    Again, that's all well and good, but one of the definitions of 'faith,' besides a belief in a deity, is 'belief that is not based on proof.'

    And they didn't teach that. I was smart enough to figure it out on my own.

    Thanks. And have a great day, or I guess night where you are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    "Again, that's all well and good, but one of the definitions of 'faith,' besides a belief in a deity, is 'belief that is not based on proof.'

    And they didn't teach that. I was smart enough to figure it out on my own."

    then it would appear you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. my apologies to your world religion teacher.

  • JoeSC

    Or perhaps you don't understand logic. Let's work it out.

    Remeber the definition of faith, as it's important: belief that is not based on proof.

    Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Whether a god exists or not cannot be PROVEN.

    Hence atheists have faith because they believe in something they cannot prove.

  • thinkagainagain

    Let me give you a piece of advice son. You don't need to be talking your chicken hawk sh*t to veterans who have walked the walk. We have taken the oath, lived the oath, and deal with the consequences of fulfilling that oath. You go mouthing off to the wrong veteran about what you think a person who has taken that oath needs to support and he(or she) is going to rearrange your face.

    I neither want or need your patronizing thanks. If you want to show thanks, put the Doritos down, get up off your ass, and go do something to help these veterans otherwise we don't want to hear your bs.

  • JoeSC

    One, I'm not your son.

    Two, I'm not telling you what to support, other than the oath you took.

    Third, I have not taken the oath, but I will support the Constitution of this United States with every fiber of my being. Speaking it aloud is irrelevant to me. I was born on this soil and I believe in what this country stood for. The only reason I have not joined the military is that I do not believe in the missions that we are in today. However, I support the troops and do my best to do so. And I thank everyone for their service, regardless of whether I support the cause or not.

    Fourth, I come from a family with a strong military background, and none of them would rearrange my face for suggesting that they uphold the Constitution they took an oath to.

    Fifth, I'm not sitting here eating Doritos in my mother's basement. I'm working my ass off as a self-employed person so that I'm a productive member of society using the skills I have. So if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get back to that, so that I can pay my mortgage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    once again, you illustrate my point. atheists are in "disbelief". disbelief is not a belief. if your car won't start, and there is no spark, yet the fuel system shows evidence of fuel delivery, it isn't "faith" that leads one to investigate the ignition system, and skip testing the fuel pump. it is response to evidence.

    if a man walks up to you on the street and informs you that he is abraham lincoln the 16th president of the united states, would it require faith for you to doubt the claim? you honestly have no "proof" that he indeed couldn't possibly be lincoln, but such evidence as historical record (from ALL sources), knowledge of human lifespans, and other obvious observations and accepted facts make the claim exceedingly unlikely. accepting the claim would require faith, rejecting it would not.

    as each new plateau of human knowledge is reached, more of the claims of superstition are disproved. at some point, logic demands intellectual rejection of a claim when enough evidence emerges to show foundational elements of that claim are false. one doesn't need to find a dated cornerstone to reject the claim that the empire state building was erected by viking raiders in the 13th century. there is no faith involved in the rejection of that claim. it would require faith to accept the claim, as NO evidence of any kind supports it. yet neither side has "proof" that the tower was erected in the 20th century. i can't prove the moon isn't made of green cheese, would it require "faith" on my part to deny that makeup of the celestial body? should neil armstrong have been wearing footwear suitable for walking on a surface of cheese when he hopped off that ladder for the first time? did it require faith on his part to be confident that such footwear was not needed? does it require faith for me not to be on guard for rattlesnakes when i open my gas cap?

  • JoeSC

    Once again, let me take you through it since logic appears to fail you, or rather you fail it. Nice try though.

    Atheists are in disbelief that a god exists. True. But they are not in disbelief that a god doesn't exist. In fact, they believe that they don't.

    Ask any atheist whether or not god exists, and they will tell you "no." They won't say, "I don't know because there is no evidence that a god exists."

    As evidence cannot be gathered on that matter, it is belief without proof.

    Agnostics believe that it cannot be proven. And as you noted, there are various shades of grey within that.

    All of the other things your reductio ad absurdum argument states have evidence to the contrary. There are prior experiences, things that can be deduced from other things, written history, etc. I suppose one could ignore the evidence and believe such things. There are Holocaust deniers.

    I would imagine that to most people, the connotation of faith is slightly different than the denotation. I would imagine evidence of any kind would be enough to banish the faith argument. But in terms of god existing, there can be absolutely no proof OR evidence either way. So picking a side is picking based on faith.

    One could argue as you have done that there is no proof of anything because anything is likely. Once could argue that when I go to start my car, I have faith that it will start, because it is just as likely that it won't. I tend to take a far more reasonable view than play mind games with myself about it all day.

    Good luck with your next fill up, I hear that there can be rattlesnakes in there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.nutzack.1 Harry Nutzack

    you set a double standard of absurdity. there is no greater or lesser absurdity in the notion of a moon of green cheese, as opposed to a deity. neither have any support in reality, only in folklore. the polka dancing fairy is equally supported by evidence as yahweh is. i am indeed an atheist, and i can assure you if evidence of the existence of a deity was found, i would have no more or less trouble accepting that existence than the existence of bacteria that feed on nylon. as it stands, i place deities in the same category as polka dancing fairies, as equal evidence supports both claims. if i were to see a polka dancing fairy move in next door tomorrow, and others could repeatably demonstrate it's existence as well, then i would firmly believe in the existence of polka dancing fairies. however, without the evidence, is it reasonable to believe in a polka dancing fairy, even if told they are both invisible and non-corporeal? a claim is not made more reasonable by using unreasonable claims to justify it.

    you scoff at the idea of the rattlesnake behind the fuel cap, yet that idea is much more supported by foundational facts than the existence of a deity. on a very hot day in rattler country, flipping over a stone that you know covers a cylindrical hole in the ground is VERY likely to reveal a rattler. other obvious facts just as obviously disprove the likelihood of a rattler lurking behind your gas cap, but at least a couple of facts related to rattlers lend the idea minimal credibility. does any such foundation (no matter how weak) support the existence of a deity? if rejection of the more supported idea is "common sense", then how is rejection of the completely unsupported idea "an act of faith"?

  • GRUMPY25608

    'My word is my bond" You have no idea about honor, respect, loyalty and obligation (bond) as if you had any of those traits you would stop being a keyboard worrior and do something for your nation. You have been shown to be miss leading (I'm trying to be polite) to others, disrespectful to me and others, and obtuse to all. Your kind are too wrapped up in there own little world to see the big picture.

  • JoeSC

    If such a thing as a polka dancing fairy existed for us to find, evidence could be gathered to support it. Perhaps it is belief that such a thing does not exist, and faith since there is no evidence to support it.

    However, evidence for whether a god exists or not is impossible to find or determine, and thus it is always based on faith.

    I understand your point. Without any evidence it is not simply faith to believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence that such a thing exists or could ever exist.

    However, since such things may indeed exist, it is still only faith until some evidence can be found. In the case of the rattler, one can test that theory at their own peril by opening the gas tank. One can go to the moon.

    I have faith that there's no polka dancing fairy.

  • JoeSC

    You're grasping for straws there buddy. I haven't been misleading. And you don't have to be polite, because there's nothing to say to that. I've introduced fact where possible, and I've given my opinion where fact doesn't exist.

    I know you're probably going to go back and try to grab clips of my words here an there and try to make something out of it that isn't there. You're welcome to go ahead. I never misrepresented anything. I never changed my beliefs. I didn't go contrary to them because I believe in what I believe through and through.

    And I agreed that I was disrespectful to you, and for others I reserved it until it was brought to me. And you know what, I regret it. I really do. I try not to challenge anyone's service—even for people I do not know. As you know, people often use that as some sort of upper hand over the common man in such arguments. You seemed to not understand that an AR-15 is no different from another 5.56 semi-automatic rifle. Maybe you did, I don't know. And I no longer care.

    You have been disrespectful to a man who has apologized to you. Do you find honor, respect, loyalty, and obligation in that?

    I know well those things. And I no longer respect you either, because a real man who has been disrespected and apologized to, would not turn around and disrespect the person right back. Sure fire away, but if someone apologizes, don't continue to hammer them after it.

    That's why I do my best to not make a personal attack until one is made against me. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Sometimes anger gets the best of me—like challenging your service—but I am a humble, fallible man, and I admit when I'm wrong. And I think that's one of the most important traits of being a man.

    As for doing something for my nation, I believe I am. Gun rights are paramount to me, because they guarantee all of our other freedoms. I don't agree with our current wars, so I can't join the military. And I have a family to protect, so I'd rather not die in a war I object to. So please don't assume that, because I spend a few hours of my life here, I'm not doing anything for my country or its people.

    And, respectfully, you don't know my kind, sir. You don't know me, just as I don't know you. So please just leave me alone. I see the big picture, I'm keeping my eyes on it because I know it's important. That's why I don't let tragedies like Sandy Hook sway my belief in keeping my rights. I know you can't legislate away crazy people conducting mass shootings by banning a gun that is barely used in crime in my country.

    Can we please be done? Or does mercy not fit into your philosophy either? I think we've beat this horse to a pulp.

  • over the edge

    while the theism/atheism debate is fun lets try to stay on topic or move the conversation to an appropriate doc

  • GRUMPY25608

    If you had apologized and then never implyed again that my military service was fabricated then your apology would have been humbly excepted, however that was not the case was it now.....

  • JoeSC

    Actually it was the case. I didn't imply it again and I wouldn't once I believed it. And I do believe it.

    I simply explained myself to Docoman. I wasn't implying it again.

  • JoeSC

    So after we were cool you call me an a*hole? Nice. I come from a military family, actually, so I think about it every day. And I am very glad that others served so that I don't have to.

    By the way, most estimates put gun ownership above 40% and as high as 50%+ in my country. So yes, 2 minutes of research does show what someone knows about their own country.

    Gallup reports 47% for what it's worth. The amount of guns throughout the world is really quite irrelevant when talking about a documentary about Guns in Florida.

    And you know what, I'm not stupid, and I'm not representative of our school system (I spent about half of my life in public school, and the other was all private). But there are dumb kids there. My wife is a teacher and she tells me about it all the time. I met a lot when I was growing up.

    Anyway, think what you want. I think it's time I unsubscribe to this page. It's been nothing but a time suck.

  • pwndecaf

    Sorry, you are just wrong.

    Atheists do not "believe" there is no god, they do not "have faith" there is no god; their claim is that there is no evidence of a god and since it can't be proved that there is or isn't a god, the lack of evidence to the existence of a god points to the answer. I have never seen a zebra, perhaps, but there is plenty of evidence that they exist. I don't have faith they exist, I know they do.

    I have also seen evidence of the damage unloaded guns can do. During my first year in high school, a grade school friend of mine, playing with an "unloaded" shotgun, killed his cousin and badly wounded his sister.

    A few years ago, a friend's father, on a hunting trip out west with that son, shot himself in the leg.

    Thankfully, that was only one dead and two wounded by "unloaded" guns.

  • pwndecaf

    I agree with your last paragraph.

  • pwndecaf

    I don't think the you said, no you said, has been all that enlightening either. Perhaps entertaining, in a car-wreck kind of way...

  • GRUMPY25608

    Your last paragraph is without doubt the best you have written

  • docoman

    Wft? You remind me of an ex missus of mine. Why reply to a post 3 days old, when we've discussed it and moved on since then? Having problems with everyone else, so you've fished out an old one to have a go at me about. lol. Don't make the mistake of thinking my indifference or tolerance is a sign of weakness mate. ;)
    You first insulted by saying you didn't think Grumpy had served, so I called you an as*hole, then later after being 'corrected' you added the word 'IF', implying there was still some doubt in his word. Others have tried to explain to you why you don't know what you're talking about compared to veterans who do.

    The 2 minutes research I referred to was about the AR-15, and how it was designed and built for military use, and then as an afterthought a 'civilian' version was sold.
    2 minutes research showed your assertion that it's not a gun designed to kill people showed you to be incorrect.

    You are correct, TDF does chew up your time. If you think that learning new things is a time suck, then maybe you are correct and should stay away. That seems to be a side-effect of watching and discussing documentaries, ;) I'm not fussed, stay or go mate, that's up to you.

  • Nothing_Is_Real

    I am an athiest and have plenty of faith. I was taught as a child that there was a god and at 15 yrs old decided that I would like to hear from god, " himself or herself" directly, not through other people, as people win lie to justify their.beliefs. I am noy 57 yrs old and have not heard a word from god directly, so I would say that I have my proof. A god that has to be taught and installed in a childs brain is nothing more than an opinion of a certain group. A real god would have us created us with the information alreadt installed then it could not be manipulated by mans prejudices. I have faith that god is man made and installed in the mind of children for powers and control of the masses. What is really funny is that people believe in god would rather have me believe in the god I just described than not believe in a god at all.

    Still haven't heard from god.

    I have learned to see for myself and think for myself and realized that everthing is just a passing thoughts.

    Oops thought it was god but they just hung up :) maybe next time

  • Nothing_Is_Real

    I am glad real people are stockpiling, Japan refused to invade with ground troops just for that reason. Maybe our private bank owned government will have the same fear.

  • bringmeredwine

    I'm so glad that the gun laws are so strict where I live.
    If there was a gun in every household, it would be so tempting for people to USE them on someone during a heated arguement.
    When shootings do occur here, it is a rare and unusual tragedy.
    Spouses shoot each other in crimes of passion.
    Children find guns and accidently kill a friend or themselves.
    people committ suicide....
    Its all so unnecessary and could have been prevented.
    Thousands of people dying at gun point in one country is not acceptable.
    Why can't some Americans see this?

  • JtothaP

    After flicking through the comments all i see is a load of bigoted nonsense (from both sides). Why go into so much detail about an issue which is so simple?

    - Many countries are perfectly safe without guns
    -Guns result in the deaths of many innocent people.
    -Guns don't contribute enough to economic development to account for the economic loss from those deaths so it is ridiculous to compare them to other lead sources of deaths (such as cars), which make up for their dangers by making society far more productive and efficient.
    -Guns are mainly carried to protect from other people with guns, if guns were outlawed your chances of meeting another person with a firearm are going to be reduced significantly. Why should 30 people die just so you (1 person) can defend yourself in an unlikely case of an attack, that's called selfishness.
    -If you go somewhere with dangerous animals or other unlikely dangers that is your choice and responsibility and not an excuse to allow the deaths of many innocent children. There are plenty of safe activities you can do that you don't require a gun to defend yourself. Again if you value your own entertainment over the lives of many people then that is selfish.

    Who cares what guns are for, why they were introduced etc. It really should be only about the facts and the fact is that they are leading to many unnecessary deaths and not saving enough lives (within the US) to account for that.

    As with religions, this is just another form of brainwashing, it is just a shame that the religious brainwashing in America that states Jesus taught people to be as selfless as possible isn't for some reason considered as important as this. Do you think Jesus would support owning guns? Of course not, there is no question about it, supporting gun laws is about as selfish as you can get.

    Now watch the brainwashed people avoid my points and talk selfishly about how THEY want guns because its good for THEM and THEY want to defend THEMSELVES. Spare a thought for all those dead children while your at it!

  • docoman

    Being my luntsman doesn't get you a free-pass to be wrong, so hang on, here we go. Try to keep up.

    Please point out to me where in the post you're replying to I say anything about homicide numbers.
    Please point out where what I said was incorrect.

    And about your stats. Why don't you actually read and understand what you're babbling on about.
    Do you understand what a trend, or a mean average is? It seems not. Might pay to find out if you want to look at and understand stats. Especially if you're going to get smart about them.

    From your source regarding numbers of homicides (how many people killed);

    "The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.

    The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.

    The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded."

    Go take a mean average of their graph since '96, and you'll find the trend is fairly stable, slightly downward more recently (up to 07, the end of your sources records).

    Also from your source, regarding incidents of homicides;
    "The figure shows that although there have been fluctuations from year to year, the number of homicide incidents has shown a steady decline since
    the inception of the NHMP in 1989. 2006-07 saw the second-lowest number of homicide incidents in the collection period"

    So homicide incidents have shown a 'steady decline' between 89 and 06/07.

    But as we're talking about firearms here, not all homicides are relevant.
    If you'd checked all your source and understood what it says, you'd have also seen this;

    "The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.

    So the number of people killed is fairly stable, on a slight downward trend more recently.
    The number of homicide incidences are on a steady decline.
    The % of firearms used are on a steady decline.

    Clearly, less firearms are being used in homicides.

    Your source's stats actually show the complete opposite to what you're sarcastically suggesting. LOL.

    If you want to talk decently with me I'm all eyes, if you want to be flat out wrong, I'll return your attitude.

    actuallythinkaboutshit....lol.... that'd be a nice change from you.

  • jackmax

    I'm also an Aussie mate! It was not the semi-automatic rifle/firearm ban/restrictions that became law in '96 that caused the fluctuation durind that period. If you were to look at the over all picture of that period you would see, that violent crime, underworld warfare may have increased more or nutters may have been set free on the innocent masses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.j.caudill Michael J Caudill

    YES! And why don't we just scrap our first amendment as well!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.garibay.7921 Robert Garibay

    Sadly the true culprit psychotropic pharms are not being scrutinized greatly enough most gun crime that is non-gang related usually has some form of psychotropic involved do your own research if you don't believe me. compare america's addiction to psychotropics and other gun cultured nations and the truth becomes evident

  • texastea2

    The reason we American's will always keep our weapons is varied. #1 We like to believe we are free. Once America won it's freedom from England through the use of guns, acquired the land it now occupies from the people that lived on it through the use of guns. Played a very large role in saving the so called "west" ass in two world wars it simply seems to go on and on. That is external and government only. We have not even gotten into the domestic public and one can easily conclude that the men with the most /best guns does pretty well for themselves.
    Then you can go to the sixties and look at all of the examples of the government trying to ignore the will of the people sometimes with force. The real damage to society started with President Nixon proclaiming "drugs" public enemy #1. President Carter tried his best to warn us what we were becoming but with prodding and propaganda from the other party he was laughed out of office and even today gets very little respect here at home.
    Then we got Reagan and with him came his wife Nancy and together they went on some kind of propaganda tour PT Barnum could not have done a better job with. Just say no to drugs. Just say no. Catchy huh? The violence the Government has created by this absolutely ludicrous approach to marijuana and drugs is simply almost unfathomable. The "crime" these laws create leaves the common public just trying to make ends has no choice (too brainwashed to think for ourselves anymore) but to live in the middle.
    So now you have made criminals out of anybody that sells weed drugs buys either consumes either on and on. Then you add in the fact that the police departments of America mainly hire combat veterans straight back out of combat. Mix all that together and it really should not take a genius to see there might be a problem. One that could and SHOULD be solved.
    Problem is people who want a better safer less violent neighborhood seemingly do not think problems through. It was the Gov. play on the publics conscience that allowed the detrimental laws on drugs and marijuana to start with..
    Now what after the government created this mess ordinary law abiding (no matter how harmful the law) citizens are just supposed to trust the Gov. to make smart decisions and there will suddenly be no need for self defense. Ridiculous. It is not guns that are the problem you just have to think a tad bit and turn off the television /phone /tablet / computer.
    You did not like the Chinese competing in America so you outlaw opium to deal with them. Then you outlaw the marijuana to put the Mexican and Mexican American's under control. Then you outlaw cocaine to put the Black man in prison and out of the way.
    We all have heard the saying be careful what you ask for. We should also be careful of what we create. Now we are supposed to believe this is all because I go shoot at targets like deer elk bear birds hogs and gators. Stupid is as Stupid does according to Forest Gump's mother. Change the (proudly self titled WAR on DRUGS) and you will start to become a civil society until then. REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

  • texastea2

    The mass shootings usually are from mentally ill people we neglect to take care of. Weapons are far more important than health care in America.

  • texastea2

    So why not work to legalize drugs and explosives? PS No body cares who you like "Dude" RALLY!!! LMAO what a putz.

  • Nwttp

    Wow, seems like a child wrote that comment. Ever heard of history?

  • Nwttp

    Trying to use logic with these people will get you no where.

  • Nwttp

    Yea, it tells me I'm about right when I say around 80 - 90% of the population are completely illogical sheep. Thanks. And where was your retort to this?

    Rally dude? You just said you are an extremist nut. LOL

    You said...
    "Rally dude?... Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them."<---- you

    Forgive me if I missed it, but saying you don't respect me is not a defense of why you said you're an extremist nut. Actually that says a lot. It's a lack of respect that makes you think you have the right to take away others freedom.

  • Nwttp

    Who said I wasn't? And if you think any free thinking person cares about what you or the rest of the flock believe they think, you are sorely mistaken.

  • Nwttp

    Hah, you two are about two thirds of the group that argues against logic with me on this site. Thought you were the same person this whole time. Too bad you're not really, only means there's that many more, worse than worthless people out there.

  • Nwttp

    Try reading the other comments. I say it on every doc even sorta about guns.

  • Name

    Your last paragraph implies anybody with a gun will go on a mass murder spree, and that's just illogical.

  • JtothaP

    My last paragraph has nothing to do with that so assume you are replying to another comment, however, to referece your point, although not everyone with a gun WILL go on a mass killing spree, everyone with a gun CAN go on a mass killing spree, you can't deny that. Do you really think that its a good idea to give people this opportunity so freely and easily? Surely we should be trying out best to make it as hard as possible to make it so that people CAN go on a mass killing spree, even if they might not necessarily do it? Do you also think i should be able to go to a store and buy a bazooka or grenade launcher? Not everyone that buys them would necessarily go on a mass killing spree so by your 'logic' there is no harm in selling them.

    I suggest you read my entire post and then rethink your opinion about such a selfish proposal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chad-Leach/100000685628293 Chad Leach

    I would claim there is no such thing as a fairy or leprechaun either simply because no evidence for such an existence has ever been brought forth, same deal with god. An Agnostic is someone who says I cant disprove its existence so I will remain undecided, a rather poor stance to take. Personally I prefer Anti-theist as it more accurately describes ones views on superstition in its entirety. Another reason to support individual liberty and limited government is as with religion in which individuals are divided into the saved and the dammed (to varying degrees) just as a powerful government will divide its people into the loyal and the traitors (Snowden and the nsa comes to mind here). Reality is always better than superstition, whether that's in discovering the mysteries of the cosmos or in governing our society and self defense is a cornerstone of any functioning republic, especially defense from ones own government.

  • Lauri Neva

    For your information the Shooting at Sandy Hook was a "False Flag" operation staged to demonize the gun and cause more legislation against guns. All these so called "terrorist" acts are "False Flags" created by some of the most horrible people on earth!

  • Janell

    Agnostics don't believe it can not be proven. An agnostic understand that by our very nature, the nature of life, time and circumstance, nothing is ever certain. We neither believe or disbelieve simply because "it" can never be known.

  • PennAnimal

    i heard about it being false but where can i find this information

  • Mark Johnson

    Anyone who would be willing to murder someone using a firearm is the type of person who would acquire a firearm through illegal means. Gun control is an illusion. The criminals who want to use them already own them. No matter what government regulations say, they aren't very likely to give them up voluntarily. All gun control does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase use them for hunting, sport shooting, etc. You mention there are safer activities for someone to do. That's a fact. But if someone enjoys shooting, who are you to say they shouldn't do it because of the potential danger. It's dangerous every single time you get behind the wheel of a car. Should I suggest you walk everywhere? OF COURSE no one values entertainment more than human lives.

    I respect the point of view of those who say guns are dangerous. They certainly can be in the hands of someone who doesn't understand them. But, swimming pools also kill children. No one is talking about controlling pools at all. Come to think of it, any object can kill a child, potentially. Not a whole lot of items at Toys R Us are getting attacked as much as guns do.

    Look, I really really understand your point. It's sad when people die, especially children. But honestly, guns do not kill people. They can't. People kill people, either on purpose or accidentally. Accidents will happen. Again, it's sad but reality. As far as people who kill on purpose, they will be doing that no matter how many laws we pass against acquisition of firearms.

  • over the edge

    just replace all references to "guns" with "nuclear weapons" and voila. you have just justified allowing everyone to have nuclear bombs. Do you feel safer now?
    Also cars and swimming pools are heavily regulated. and in many cases they have more regulation and supervision than guns. The main purpose of these things isn't to kill but they are still controlled

  • Mark Johnson

    Nuclear weapons and guns are completely different things other than they can both potentially kill people. Might as well also replace all references to "guns" with "giant polar bears on pcp" if we are going to play that game.

    I own a car and also used to own a swimming pool. I understand they are regulated, but i wouldn't use the word "heavily". A public pool might have more regulation and supervision than the average firearm but not a private one.

    Furthermore, the main purpose of most guns owned by non-military and non-law enforcement individuals is also not to kill people.

    I guess my main point, which really cannot be argued is that people who WANT to kill people will be able to get a gun no matter how many rules are imposed.

  • over the edge

    I never said said that the main purpose of guns is to " kill people" even though that is debatable. The regulations purposed tend to not affect hunting guns. The main purpose as i stated is to "kill". thanks for putting words in my mouth. Yes you are right if you are motivated enough to kill someone you have a high percentage of success regardless of regulations. But the same can be said for everything that is regulated. That doesn't mean that there should not be sensible regulations of things.

    As for "giant polar bears on pcp" if that was a problem and then it would be regulated. my analogy was fair. i do not know where you live. But where i live permits/assessments and permissions are required for a pool. not only that but there are many regulations and laws regarding safety involved in getting a pool. If you want a gun designed for hunting or target practice then fine. But any hunter or hobby shooter that requires a high capacity magazine, semi/full automatic, easily concealable and military variant gun to perform these tasks is not skilled enough to have the privilege of owning a gun. as for a home invasion (i know you did not bring it up ) a shotgun will outperform most alternatives in that situation. i am not anti gun. I am anti over compensation

  • over the edge

    I agree that any gun can kill. But large capacity magazines and full auto (or easily converted to full auto) guns can kill easier and have more victims. i did read the article you linked to . My question is if the common sense regulations purposed recently were implemented would a persons ability to defend themselves be diminished? How would the stats in the link be affected? Also as far as i remember there was no proposal to take away people's guns.

  • Mark Johnson

    No immediate proposal to my knowledge about taking people's guns away. I know from some of the NRA magazines I've read, there is that fear.

    I see your point about high capacity and full auto fire but I respectfully disagree. Civilian magazines don't take but two seconds tops to reload. It's a small advantage to have the size of the magazine at 12, 10, 8, etc rounds versus 15, 20 or 50. I don't believe this will be a life saver in most cases. As far as full auto fire, it's inaccurate generally speaking. It's used in the military for suppression, not for actual hits on the enemy. Most, if not all soldiers have their guns set to semi auto most of the time in combat.

    So...I don't believe regulating these features of firearms will impact the problems we are discussing here. It's my opinion, of course, but I also believe it's from a logical perspective.

    You ask if these regulations would diminish ability for self defense? Well, if you argue that full auto and large capacity magazines would provide an advantage in killing someone, then yes, taking the opportunity for a law abiding citizen to be equally well armed would in fact diminish their ability to defend themselves.

  • Our Fortress Is Burning

    Are you being facetious, or are you and actual stupid person?

  • Our Fortress Is Burning

    One thing that these shootings all seem to have in common is firearms. Someone should scrutinize our weak gun laws and regulations.

  • armchair sociologist

    No you should do a little research. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I was shocked but the evidence is incredibly compelling that no kids were actually killed. Google it and see what you find.

  • Cory

    When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government..