Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Upset Gun Owners Set To Dump Bush
Shooters angered with White House support for firearm ban
Unhappy with President Bush's decision to support continuation of a controversial gun ban passed during the Clinton administration, many gun owners say they'll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.
Angel Shamaya, founder and executive director of the KeepAndBearArms.com website, said in a single day some 4,300 people responded to a poll on the site asking if respondents would continue to support Bush if he renewed a ban on so-called "assault weapons," initially passed in 1994.
According to polling results by midday yesterday, that figure had climbed to near 4,900 people, with most – more than 93 percent – responding "no" to this question: "If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called 'Assault Weapons' ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the presidency in 2004?"
Less than 7 percent said they'd still support Bush if he aids in reauthorizing the legislation.
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, among other things, banned the manufacture and importation of certain military-style semi-automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons" by bill supporters, while limiting magazine capacity to just 10 rounds. It is considered a crowning achievement for anti-gun groups, but to get more support, the bill's sponsors inserted a 10-year sunset provision, which takes effect in September 2004 – weeks before the general election.
Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association were hoping the GOP-controlled Congress would allow the law to expire. The current Congress and administration are considered the most gun-rights friendly in a more than a decade, but Bush's comments last week threw that presumption into doubt. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight-Ridder newspapers that the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
"There is no such thing as gun control, only incremental gun prohibition," said Brian Puckett, co-founder of national gun-rights organization Citizens of America, of the ban itself. "Gun owners must grasp another political reality, which is: Allowing the government to get away with dictating the features of some guns sets the judicial, legislative and psychological precedent for allowing them to dictate the features of all guns."
"Our gun-rights organization, along with many others, took a stand for Bush in and after the 2000 election," Shamaya told WorldNetDaily. "From urging even Libertarians and third-party voters to support him to helping account for 'lost' military votes in case it came down to that, we fought to turn the Texas governor into a president. If supporting a semi-automatic rifle ban – the Feinstein/Clinton gun ban, no less – is how he intends to repay us, he's lost his marbles."
While the results of the KABA poll are non-scientific, they do provide a glimpse into the angst of gun owners. As WorldNetDaily reported, some lawmakers and gun-rights advocates are also upset with Bush's stance.
"I was surprised and disappointed to learn of the report of the president's support for continuing the ban on homeland-security rifles, aka semi-auto rifles," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, a group with 300,000 members nationwide.
"I am also puzzled. Why would George Bush want to help Democrats? The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000," Pratt said. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security."
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also decried the current ban and does not support the president's position to renew it.
Gun-rights supporters voiced their opinions to WorldNetDaily regarding Bush's decision.
"I will not vote for [Bush] if this ban is in place by Election Day," one WND reader said. "I am a Republican who will vote for a Democrat if I have to, if they fight against this bill. All of my conservative, gun-owning friends are exactly the same as me."
"Recently we saw on TV our soldiers handing out AK-47s to Iraqi volunteer cops," said another reader. "Our government handing out AK-47s to people they do not know, folks that have not passed an FBI background check … Yet our government would fall over backwards before even suggesting that Americans arm themselves. Quite hypocritical, I think."
"I've said long ago that 'we'd see' about Bush on guns when this opportunity finally came about," said another. "What a non-surprise. One could wrap a dill pickle in a Godiva Chocolate box and bow, but the contents remain the same. …"
Not all gun owners have criticized Bush's decision.
"He stated during the campaign he supported the law. I am pro-guns and pro-NRA, but I agree that Bush should support this assault-weapons ban," said one reader. "When in Washington you have to pick your fights carefully and this is not one worth expending political capital on."
Gun-rights activists were also upset by the president's stance because it comes at a time when a new series of lawsuits against gun makers is being launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.
One retailer/activist, Concealed Carry Inc., of Oak Brook, Ill., has even begun a campaign to "cooperate with the NAACP" and is refusing to sell firearms to blacks.
"I am going to use the broad authority granted me as a federally licensed gun dealer to prevent straw purchases by denying sales to African-Americans. To insure fairness, there will be no exceptions," said John Birch, president of Concealed Carry Inc. He said he'll continue to ban sales to African-Americans "until the NAACP asks us to, at which point we will be pleased to resume sales."
"We must let Bush and the Republican party know that if they don't support our rights we will either refuse to go to the polls or we will vote for a third party," Puckett said. "If you give them your vote even when they sell you out, they'll keep selling you out."
"President Bush created the so-called Homeland Security Department, yet he wants to continue a ban on homeland-security rifles and has done nothing to protect the sieve laughably called a border," Shamaya added. "Bush's support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles is a vote to leave patriots in this great nation with inferior defensive capabilities."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I have voted Republican my entire life. At 43 years of age, I have voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Regean, in 1980. I voted for Geroge W. Bush in 2000.
If President Bush does not allow the so-called "assault weapons" ban to expire, I will not vote for him a second time.
President Bush took an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I expect him to do exactly that.
I wonder if the President's recent approval ratings haven't gone to his head. He seems to be flipping the bird to the very people who helped him become President.
I President Bush does not allow this ridiculous gun ban to expire, I will vote against him in the Republican primary. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will vote STRAIGHT Libertarian in 2004.
If President Bush does not allow the so-called "assault weapons" ban to expire, I will not vote for him a second time.
President Bush took an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I expect him to do exactly that.
I wonder if the President's recent approval ratings haven't gone to his head. He seems to be flipping the bird to the very people who helped him become President.
I President Bush does not allow this ridiculous gun ban to expire, I will vote against him in the Republican primary. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will vote STRAIGHT Libertarian in 2004.
I think he's playing a dangerous game here. Saying he will sign it if it comes to him to please Dems and the Left leaning voters, but hoping it does not so he does not anger enough Rep and Conservative voters to losse (he would). Might even work behind the scenes to make sure it does not come to him.
This is a sword of Damoclese hanging over his head. He really does not want that sword to drop, meaning Congress to pass a renewal he has to sign/veto. No matter what he does with it, he angers enough people to lose the election. His only chance is to hope Congress does not send it to him.
This is a sword of Damoclese hanging over his head. He really does not want that sword to drop, meaning Congress to pass a renewal he has to sign/veto. No matter what he does with it, he angers enough people to lose the election. His only chance is to hope Congress does not send it to him.
I think we all remember when this came up the first time. It was after cowards had already agreed to it and it was pushed thru the senate right before Thanksgiving.
Bob Dole supported it and sold out to the American people. He was NOT elected president.
But there was no talk about the high capacity magazine in the news at all. People on the streets and in stores seemed to be stunned when they learned that they, honest law-abiding Americans , could no longer purchase a 13 round magazine for their Browning Hi-Power. Why ???
Why do Senators and Representatives try to punish law-abiding American citizens for the actions of criminals ??? Why ??? Our Forefathers have to be rolling over in their graves !
This feel-good legislation was a SHAM on the American people. We have a federal background check system in place NOW ! Any American that can pass that check should be allowed to purchase any semi-auto firearm or magazine they choose.
I hope G.W. Bush does the RIGHT thing. We the People, have been wronged for TEN years. PUNISH the CRIMINALS, not law abiding AMERICANS.
R.I.
Bob Dole supported it and sold out to the American people. He was NOT elected president.
But there was no talk about the high capacity magazine in the news at all. People on the streets and in stores seemed to be stunned when they learned that they, honest law-abiding Americans , could no longer purchase a 13 round magazine for their Browning Hi-Power. Why ???
Why do Senators and Representatives try to punish law-abiding American citizens for the actions of criminals ??? Why ??? Our Forefathers have to be rolling over in their graves !
This feel-good legislation was a SHAM on the American people. We have a federal background check system in place NOW ! Any American that can pass that check should be allowed to purchase any semi-auto firearm or magazine they choose.
I hope G.W. Bush does the RIGHT thing. We the People, have been wronged for TEN years. PUNISH the CRIMINALS, not law abiding AMERICANS.
R.I.
The left has made "litmus tests" a standard, and the successfull re-election of this President will siwing on this one. I will never vote for Bush if he signs this bill.
Screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. The first Bush let me down before Klinton was ever an option. I certainly hope the second doesn't make the same mistake. He, up until now, has seemed to try to do what's right regardless of the consequences. If he extends his father's mistake on the gun issues, he won't be rewarded by me with my concientious and non-politically correct vote. I am not alone in understanding that the second amendment should have been the first and know that without it, none of the others, including the Constitution, even matter. Screw the "lesser of both evils" arguement. I'd rather lose to a scum bag antigun liberal and make my OWN gun laws than to be stabbed in the back by one who claims to represent the conservative, freedom-loving, pro-life, patriotic, Christian voter. I don't believe criminals should have guns. But they will. And because of that , so will I. I don't compromise my inheret right to self-defence and freedom from tyranny. "For sporting purposes" doesn't fit into my vocabulary when it comes to protecting my family from the crap that the ACLU and judges and lawyers let loose on society. I'll learn to run my own machine shop to produce the neccessities to insure a FREE state before I reward cowardice and politcal posturing. How many people in your state have been killed with a bayonet lug or collapsable stock? In the most extreme, why couldn't they at LEAST allow high caps and paramilitary style guns if you can pass an FBI background check to own FULL AUTOS per the NFA ????? What's next, a ban on the now legal .50 cal guns if ONE out of a million people goes out and shoots someone with one?? I'm surprised a liberal hasn't done it by now just to get THAT passed. How about classifying every bolt action hunting rifle as a potential sniper rifle? There's too many cowards in this melting pot nation who would rather blame a gun for the evil deeds than the poor soul that used one to release their pent-up anger on society. Mass murderers might get LIFE in prison, their victims get buried and forgotten, and more B.S. laws get passed to insure the judges and lawyers have job security while the innocent are slowly but surely stripped of the rights that made this country the greatest on earth. If it ever gets too bad, many of us would just as soon be called criminals by owning whatever it takes to insure our family's freedoms and it'll be every man for himself.
I was unaware of Bush's stand on this issue. Shame on me...I'll make sure that doesn't happen, again. I'll also make sure to cast my vote for someone else for president in 2004, should he continue to support this insidious back door attempt to further the cause of the gun-grabbers. That cause, I'm convinced, is the ultimate confiscation of all firearms in America.
Politicians bureaucrats and concerned citizens alike, take note...should the above-mentioned scenario come to pass, I submit that it will signal the beginning of the end of America as we know it; from that point, our nation will begin to accelerate its transformation into "Amerika," and we, its subjects, will be well on our way to suffering the same fate that awaits all those who neither recognize nor confront totalitarianism until it's too late.
"Oh, an American dictatorship? That could never happen, here," you say. Think not? I'm sure there were many in late 1920s Italy and Germany who uttered those very words. Nonetheless, such descent into tyranny is possible -maybe even probable - should the present political trend persist. But, can anything be done about it? Yes, much can be done to stop this seemingly mindless march toward the cliff's edge. However, only those of sound mind and strong stomach need apply for the job.
First, you must continue to work for and contribute to those who support your views, be they Republicans Democrats Libertarians...or vegetarians...whatever. Remember, as has been said before, "not all conservatives are our friends and not all liberals are our enemies."
Second, remember to vote for those who demonstrate support for your views. If you help them win office, you must continue to show your approval of them when they work to strengthen and preserve our freedoms, and hold their feet to the fire when they do not. Furthermore, do not hesitate to repudiate those who would weaken and destroy our liberty. Denying your votes and your campaign dollars to those who seek to usurp our 2nd Ammendment rights, especially, sends a powerfull message to those who embrace autocracy. It is a message difficult to ignore.
Third, and perhaps most important, you have to consider the possibility that despite our best efforts we may fail. Our nation might then slip into the abyss of this so-called "new social order" which many on the left and, yes, the right, as well, are trying to foist upon us. You should plan now, how best to resist these pretentious hypocritical wanna-be commissars and little Fuehers...for, make now mistake...that is what they hope to become, though they dare not admit it openly. After all, don't they, the elite, know better than we do what's best for us?
So, how do you prepare? How do you resist, should the unthinkable become reality? For one thing, you should move as quickly as time and funds permit, to make yourself as independent of "the system" as possible. If you can, find ways to use less power from the grid; produce your own electricity. Try to find alternate sources of water near where you live. Store food, water, medicines, and other supplies necessary to weather troubled times, so you'll be ready when that big welfare check in the sky bounces. Arm yourself, too. Let's be frank. When the 'MasterPlastic' hits the fan, do you think all your unprepared neighbors are going to just accept your response of "I'm sorry, but I have no extra (food, water, fuel...you fill in the blank) to give you," lightly and then go on their merry way?
Consider relocating to a small town or rural area if you are able and have a skill or trade that could sustain you in that environment. Make every effort to avoid being visible to government, at all levels, thereby making it more difficult for Big Brother to keep tabs on you. Use cash wherever feasible. Refuse to give out your social 'in-security' number as often as you can get away with it (in some ways that's easier to do now.) In any and every way you can think of, "monkey wrench" the system" (legally, if you can, or not, when you must)...refuse to cooperate in your own enslavement. These are just a few brief examples. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
Suffice to say that as a free-thinking individual, you must do whatever you can to frustrate the aims and designs of these global collectivists. By acting now, you might help slow down, or even reverse this tendency to concentrate power in the hands of individuals and groups who are less and less accountable to the will of the people.
Hopefully, I've given you some motivation and a few ideas about how you can begin immediately to become part of the solution to the problem of creeping American fascism/socialism. I started preparing several years ago for what I believe is coming...now, you must decide for yourself, what the future holds in store, and then, take the necessary actions to be ready to deal with it. Stop bitching about what's going on. Get out there and do something!
The U.S. Marines have a saying that I find appropriate, in terms of how best to resolve difficult problems. The Corps constantly challenges every one of it's members, from the Commandant to the rawest recruit, to "IMPROVISE! ADAPT! OVERCOME!" That is the challenge I now lay before you. IMPROVISE ways to expose and defeat the authoritarians in their attempts to undermine and destroy our way of life. Adapt to whatever new challenges present themselves, whenever and wherever they're found. Conscientiously pursue these first two aims and, together, we will attain our third goal. We will OVERCOME those who try to pilfer our liberties, bit by bit, like rats lurking in the darkened cellar. It has been said that there are three kinds of people in the world: those who make things happen; those who watch things happen; and those who wonder what happened. Which group will your children and grandchildren say you belonged to? Now is the time for you to choose...while choice is still possible.
Politicians bureaucrats and concerned citizens alike, take note...should the above-mentioned scenario come to pass, I submit that it will signal the beginning of the end of America as we know it; from that point, our nation will begin to accelerate its transformation into "Amerika," and we, its subjects, will be well on our way to suffering the same fate that awaits all those who neither recognize nor confront totalitarianism until it's too late.
"Oh, an American dictatorship? That could never happen, here," you say. Think not? I'm sure there were many in late 1920s Italy and Germany who uttered those very words. Nonetheless, such descent into tyranny is possible -maybe even probable - should the present political trend persist. But, can anything be done about it? Yes, much can be done to stop this seemingly mindless march toward the cliff's edge. However, only those of sound mind and strong stomach need apply for the job.
First, you must continue to work for and contribute to those who support your views, be they Republicans Democrats Libertarians...or vegetarians...whatever. Remember, as has been said before, "not all conservatives are our friends and not all liberals are our enemies."
Second, remember to vote for those who demonstrate support for your views. If you help them win office, you must continue to show your approval of them when they work to strengthen and preserve our freedoms, and hold their feet to the fire when they do not. Furthermore, do not hesitate to repudiate those who would weaken and destroy our liberty. Denying your votes and your campaign dollars to those who seek to usurp our 2nd Ammendment rights, especially, sends a powerfull message to those who embrace autocracy. It is a message difficult to ignore.
Third, and perhaps most important, you have to consider the possibility that despite our best efforts we may fail. Our nation might then slip into the abyss of this so-called "new social order" which many on the left and, yes, the right, as well, are trying to foist upon us. You should plan now, how best to resist these pretentious hypocritical wanna-be commissars and little Fuehers...for, make now mistake...that is what they hope to become, though they dare not admit it openly. After all, don't they, the elite, know better than we do what's best for us?
So, how do you prepare? How do you resist, should the unthinkable become reality? For one thing, you should move as quickly as time and funds permit, to make yourself as independent of "the system" as possible. If you can, find ways to use less power from the grid; produce your own electricity. Try to find alternate sources of water near where you live. Store food, water, medicines, and other supplies necessary to weather troubled times, so you'll be ready when that big welfare check in the sky bounces. Arm yourself, too. Let's be frank. When the 'MasterPlastic' hits the fan, do you think all your unprepared neighbors are going to just accept your response of "I'm sorry, but I have no extra (food, water, fuel...you fill in the blank) to give you," lightly and then go on their merry way?
Consider relocating to a small town or rural area if you are able and have a skill or trade that could sustain you in that environment. Make every effort to avoid being visible to government, at all levels, thereby making it more difficult for Big Brother to keep tabs on you. Use cash wherever feasible. Refuse to give out your social 'in-security' number as often as you can get away with it (in some ways that's easier to do now.) In any and every way you can think of, "monkey wrench" the system" (legally, if you can, or not, when you must)...refuse to cooperate in your own enslavement. These are just a few brief examples. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
Suffice to say that as a free-thinking individual, you must do whatever you can to frustrate the aims and designs of these global collectivists. By acting now, you might help slow down, or even reverse this tendency to concentrate power in the hands of individuals and groups who are less and less accountable to the will of the people.
Hopefully, I've given you some motivation and a few ideas about how you can begin immediately to become part of the solution to the problem of creeping American fascism/socialism. I started preparing several years ago for what I believe is coming...now, you must decide for yourself, what the future holds in store, and then, take the necessary actions to be ready to deal with it. Stop bitching about what's going on. Get out there and do something!
The U.S. Marines have a saying that I find appropriate, in terms of how best to resolve difficult problems. The Corps constantly challenges every one of it's members, from the Commandant to the rawest recruit, to "IMPROVISE! ADAPT! OVERCOME!" That is the challenge I now lay before you. IMPROVISE ways to expose and defeat the authoritarians in their attempts to undermine and destroy our way of life. Adapt to whatever new challenges present themselves, whenever and wherever they're found. Conscientiously pursue these first two aims and, together, we will attain our third goal. We will OVERCOME those who try to pilfer our liberties, bit by bit, like rats lurking in the darkened cellar. It has been said that there are three kinds of people in the world: those who make things happen; those who watch things happen; and those who wonder what happened. Which group will your children and grandchildren say you belonged to? Now is the time for you to choose...while choice is still possible.
For more information:
http://www.modernsurvival.net
i think everyone is right i wont vote for bush , but i think all gun owners need to get together and start getting everyone into it, all people should own guns , and the more people that do own guns, will get the support of the goverment because we will be a big group and they want support for re-election,
Frankly I cannot imagine what "genius" came up with GW's public stance on reupping the AW ban!
Not only do you alienate the base that put you into office, but your net gain of ZERO votes from people who already hate you and wouldn't vote for you even if you touted confiscation of all guns via EO defies logic!
I for one have supported the Republican party both with $$$ contributions and votes.
If the AW ban is renewed, I pledge to NEVER again vote for a Republican nor donate one solitary dollar to the party. I WILL vote my conscience for Libertarian.
Why vote for political reality when the Republicrats are the very same as Democraps?
Not only do you alienate the base that put you into office, but your net gain of ZERO votes from people who already hate you and wouldn't vote for you even if you touted confiscation of all guns via EO defies logic!
I for one have supported the Republican party both with $$$ contributions and votes.
If the AW ban is renewed, I pledge to NEVER again vote for a Republican nor donate one solitary dollar to the party. I WILL vote my conscience for Libertarian.
Why vote for political reality when the Republicrats are the very same as Democraps?
I never have thought Bush was the saviour that the NRA would like us to believe. Yes, he's more pro-gun than Gore, but because most think he is more pro-gun than he is, he's worse than Gore. With Gore, we wouldn't let our guard down as we do with Bush.
So far Bush has had his administration say that the second amendment confers an individual Right, but few noticed the qualifier: except for certain reasonable restrictions. Hell, Sarah Brady thinks her restrictions are reasonable. Once you concede that the federal government has the authority to regulate firearms in any way, then it's just a matter of bartering for which guns are banned last.
Also few people seemed to have noticed that Bush has asked the Supreme Court to not hear two potentially important second amendment cases, one involving a restraining order & the other involving a machine gun. A victory in either one could have speeled out a big shift in the battle for our Rights, but "pro-gun" Bush didn't want to take that chance.
& let us not forget Bush's inaction: there is not a federal firearms law thta is constitutional, yet he does nothing to attempt to get them overturned or repealed. He even promotes a program that strictly enforces them.
In conclusion, even if Bush does change his mind about the assault weapons ban, he's not on our side. he's a friend of the NRA, but then again they ain't on our side either.
For explanations of all this feel free to check out my blog .
One last thing: if you want to vote for someone who will stick up for your Right to Self Defense, then you can either convince Ron Paul or Alan Keyes to run as a candidate, or see what your Libertarian & other third parties have to offer. Yeah, I know they have little to no chance of winning, but I think voting for a Democrat or Republican who wins & will sell your Rights down the river for their own gain is more of a wasted vote than voting for a Libertarian or third party candidate who will probably lose but won't sell you out. Besides, if the Republicans see they lost umpteen percent of the vote to a Libertarian then they might change their tune.
For more information:
http://publicola.blogspot.com
What would you rather have? A Democrat that wants to take all our guns away? Don't vote Libertarian because your just throwing your vote away...I used to be a Libertarian I should know. Bush is not perfect, but hes all we got...don't let another Clinton get in!!! That would be disasterous!
"What would you rather have? A Democrat that wants to take all our guns away?"
With all due respect, that attitude is very likely one reason Bush has taken this stance. A growing number of Republicans look at gun owners and ask "Who else are they going to vote for."
If Bush does not allow this ban to expire, he's no better than a gun-grabbing Lefist Democrat. Better the enemy you know.
"Don't vote Libertarian because your just throwing your vote away..."
If Bush does not allow that idiotic "assault weapons" ban to expire, then I've already wasted one vote - the one I cast for Bush in 2000.
If I have to "waste" my vote to send a message to the Republican party, so be it. When the Republicans lose a few elections, they'll get the message.
Don't forget that the Dems have toned down their anti-gun campaign, after Gore's defeat. They got the message (at least in part.) It may be time the Republicans get the message too: Don't f*$& with gun owners.
"Bush is not perfect, but hes all we got...don't let another Clinton get in!!!"
If Bush does not understand, or respect, the Second Amendment, he does not deserve, and will not get, my vote in 2004. I'm sorry, but your attitude will condemn us all to disaster.
With all due respect, that attitude is very likely one reason Bush has taken this stance. A growing number of Republicans look at gun owners and ask "Who else are they going to vote for."
If Bush does not allow this ban to expire, he's no better than a gun-grabbing Lefist Democrat. Better the enemy you know.
"Don't vote Libertarian because your just throwing your vote away..."
If Bush does not allow that idiotic "assault weapons" ban to expire, then I've already wasted one vote - the one I cast for Bush in 2000.
If I have to "waste" my vote to send a message to the Republican party, so be it. When the Republicans lose a few elections, they'll get the message.
Don't forget that the Dems have toned down their anti-gun campaign, after Gore's defeat. They got the message (at least in part.) It may be time the Republicans get the message too: Don't f*$& with gun owners.
"Bush is not perfect, but hes all we got...don't let another Clinton get in!!!"
If Bush does not understand, or respect, the Second Amendment, he does not deserve, and will not get, my vote in 2004. I'm sorry, but your attitude will condemn us all to disaster.
Remember President Lincoln's words when he said
" To sin by silence when one should protest , makes COWARDS of men."
Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong there is no "in-between" our constitution shouldn't be labeled
"FOR SALE" so that a few liberals and democrats can pass feel good legislation to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them feel safe again.
The hair should be standing up on our necks instead.
Look at the crime problems in Austrailia since there BIG GUN BAN, do we need that here? Look at the United Kingdom and let us never forget the rath of HITLER. That's right, HITLER has gun control too !
The POLITICIANS need to learn to make the CRIMINALS accountable and NOT take rights away from LAW ABIDING AMERICANS. That is Pure and Simple. There is no " MIDDLE of ROAD " on this Issue.
One would like to think that all AMERICANS and ALL POLITICIANS swearing an oath to the constitution would take this for granted and understand it. Since the formation of our constitution, thousands upon thousands of Americans have given life and limb supporting and defending our constitution, I would sure as hell like to believe that all of those lost lives were not lost in vain.
I have been in law enforcement serving the people of my state for twenty years. I have seen several officers give their lives for the same great cause. EVERY officer I know in my state is Pro-Gun, FUNNY isn't it, Clinton always had the local police standing behind him on national television when he went to get new gun legislation passed, those officers were ORDERED there by their Chiefs, THEY didn't have a choice. Just another feel-good, look-good pull the wool over the publics eyes to make them think the "Police" supported his issues.
Wake up America
R.I.
" To sin by silence when one should protest , makes COWARDS of men."
Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong there is no "in-between" our constitution shouldn't be labeled
"FOR SALE" so that a few liberals and democrats can pass feel good legislation to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them feel safe again.
The hair should be standing up on our necks instead.
Look at the crime problems in Austrailia since there BIG GUN BAN, do we need that here? Look at the United Kingdom and let us never forget the rath of HITLER. That's right, HITLER has gun control too !
The POLITICIANS need to learn to make the CRIMINALS accountable and NOT take rights away from LAW ABIDING AMERICANS. That is Pure and Simple. There is no " MIDDLE of ROAD " on this Issue.
One would like to think that all AMERICANS and ALL POLITICIANS swearing an oath to the constitution would take this for granted and understand it. Since the formation of our constitution, thousands upon thousands of Americans have given life and limb supporting and defending our constitution, I would sure as hell like to believe that all of those lost lives were not lost in vain.
I have been in law enforcement serving the people of my state for twenty years. I have seen several officers give their lives for the same great cause. EVERY officer I know in my state is Pro-Gun, FUNNY isn't it, Clinton always had the local police standing behind him on national television when he went to get new gun legislation passed, those officers were ORDERED there by their Chiefs, THEY didn't have a choice. Just another feel-good, look-good pull the wool over the publics eyes to make them think the "Police" supported his issues.
Wake up America
R.I.
30.000 People are killed by gun loving uneducated morons, I wonder why that is?, could it be that any one can buy one, and you think we all should have one so we can fell safe?. 30.000, thats more then 10 time the number of Europe combined. In order to drive a car, you have to take 2 tests, a writen one and a driving one, but to buy a gun, all you have to have is no felonies. Here is some new's for all you rednecks, murderers are not born murderers, they become them by loosing theire cool while holding, or getting a gun, also most murders are not random, they are commited by husbands, wifes, son's, brothers, sisters, other relatives, and people you know very well...I'm the guy that is trying to repair what those wonderful inventions of mankind damage, I'm a Paramedic, and I have seen and worked on more gunshot victims then you have seen on TV, so dont bother telling me about youre rights, do what I do for a living, then lets talk...NREMT
30,000 people a year? actually it's around 28,000. Subtract the suicides & it's closer to 14,000.
So what we have is 14,000 people a year who killed by people using guns. I'm not sure how many of those are legitimate self defense shootings but for the sake of argument let's say 14,000 excludes justifiable homocide. We'd then have to knock it down to around 13,000 because there are around 1,000 accidental shooting deaths per year. So that's 13,000 people killed by criminals, not gun loving uneducated morons.
As for the requirements for driving a car, you're correct. However you fail to mention that no test is required to buy a car, nor is their an age limit. A 15 year old could buy a car & drive it legally on his own property. You only need a license to drive a car on a public road. You need to pass a background check & obtain government permission to buy a gun even if you only use it &/or keep it on your own property. See driving is a privilege ( although a good case can be made that it is in fact a Right) owning & possessing a gun is a Right.
& in fact any conviction punishable by more than two years ( 1 year in some places) will disqualify you from purchasing a gun. You could get a sentence of one day, but if you could have gotten two years then that counts as a disqualifier.
Since you mentioned cars, what about the 60,000 car related deaths a year? Shouldn't you be preaching to us about that instead of the 13,000 killings committed with guns?
there are roughly 112,000,000 cars in the U.S. Roughly the same amount of guns. That means there are about 8,615 gun owners who didn't shoot anyone of those 13,000 people a year for every one that did. While one out of every 1867 car owners were involved in a traffic related death. I won't go into much detail, but it's estimated between 60,000 & 2,500,000 people use guns in self defense each year w/o firing a shot. Let's say 500,000. That means for every death there's 38 people saved from confrontational crime.I would suggest you sort out your priorities.
& contrary to your assertion murderers don't become murderers by loosing their coll when around guns. They become murderers because of very complex socio/economic/psychologial reasons, but let's just say it's more due to bad decisions on their part than to the presence of firearms.
Tell you what, if you don't like guns then don't own them. If however you try to influence people to take away my guns, then you're damn skippy gonna hear about my Rights even if you're to foolish to understand. & while you're whining about the people you have to patch up because of bad decisions on other peoples part just take a minute & think what it'd be like to have 38 people added to every one you see die as a result of a gunshot wound. Cause if everyone thinks like you & disrespects our Right to Self Defense & Arms then your workload will increase. People make the difference. Guns are merely tools. If you take away those tools for fear of some abusing them, then all you'll be left with are the ones who will abuse them. The good people will be defensless. As it stands now you benefit from the protection afforded by an armed society. Don't believe me? Put up a sign on your lawn that says "This is a Gun Free home". Might not happen for a while, but you'd be the vicitm of a crime at your home because those who would do you harm would know you're defensless.
BTW, if you want to make any kind of attempt to communicate without the insulting stereotypes, then perhaps people would take you seriously.
So what we have is 14,000 people a year who killed by people using guns. I'm not sure how many of those are legitimate self defense shootings but for the sake of argument let's say 14,000 excludes justifiable homocide. We'd then have to knock it down to around 13,000 because there are around 1,000 accidental shooting deaths per year. So that's 13,000 people killed by criminals, not gun loving uneducated morons.
As for the requirements for driving a car, you're correct. However you fail to mention that no test is required to buy a car, nor is their an age limit. A 15 year old could buy a car & drive it legally on his own property. You only need a license to drive a car on a public road. You need to pass a background check & obtain government permission to buy a gun even if you only use it &/or keep it on your own property. See driving is a privilege ( although a good case can be made that it is in fact a Right) owning & possessing a gun is a Right.
& in fact any conviction punishable by more than two years ( 1 year in some places) will disqualify you from purchasing a gun. You could get a sentence of one day, but if you could have gotten two years then that counts as a disqualifier.
Since you mentioned cars, what about the 60,000 car related deaths a year? Shouldn't you be preaching to us about that instead of the 13,000 killings committed with guns?
there are roughly 112,000,000 cars in the U.S. Roughly the same amount of guns. That means there are about 8,615 gun owners who didn't shoot anyone of those 13,000 people a year for every one that did. While one out of every 1867 car owners were involved in a traffic related death. I won't go into much detail, but it's estimated between 60,000 & 2,500,000 people use guns in self defense each year w/o firing a shot. Let's say 500,000. That means for every death there's 38 people saved from confrontational crime.I would suggest you sort out your priorities.
& contrary to your assertion murderers don't become murderers by loosing their coll when around guns. They become murderers because of very complex socio/economic/psychologial reasons, but let's just say it's more due to bad decisions on their part than to the presence of firearms.
Tell you what, if you don't like guns then don't own them. If however you try to influence people to take away my guns, then you're damn skippy gonna hear about my Rights even if you're to foolish to understand. & while you're whining about the people you have to patch up because of bad decisions on other peoples part just take a minute & think what it'd be like to have 38 people added to every one you see die as a result of a gunshot wound. Cause if everyone thinks like you & disrespects our Right to Self Defense & Arms then your workload will increase. People make the difference. Guns are merely tools. If you take away those tools for fear of some abusing them, then all you'll be left with are the ones who will abuse them. The good people will be defensless. As it stands now you benefit from the protection afforded by an armed society. Don't believe me? Put up a sign on your lawn that says "This is a Gun Free home". Might not happen for a while, but you'd be the vicitm of a crime at your home because those who would do you harm would know you're defensless.
BTW, if you want to make any kind of attempt to communicate without the insulting stereotypes, then perhaps people would take you seriously.
For more information:
http://publicola.blogspot.com
what's the difference between a democrat who wants to take our guns away & a republican who wants to take our guns away? Not a damn thing. Granted the republicans give better lip service, but in the end it's no different.
& go to my site to learn about a true waste of resources in the fight for our Rights - the NRA. Among other things they could have stopped the assault weapons ban, but chose not ot for a number of selfish reasons. You want to waste a vote, then participate in the NRA, or listen to their political recomendations.
But voting for Bush wouldn't be much different than voting for Clinton, at least on the gun issue. To me there's no difference between a man who says he can take away your Rights because you have none & a man who says he can take away your Rights because there not absolute. All that's different is the approach used.
Again, voting Libertarian is not as much of a wasted vote as it would be to put a republican or democrat in office who will ignore your Rights.
& go to my site to learn about a true waste of resources in the fight for our Rights - the NRA. Among other things they could have stopped the assault weapons ban, but chose not ot for a number of selfish reasons. You want to waste a vote, then participate in the NRA, or listen to their political recomendations.
But voting for Bush wouldn't be much different than voting for Clinton, at least on the gun issue. To me there's no difference between a man who says he can take away your Rights because you have none & a man who says he can take away your Rights because there not absolute. All that's different is the approach used.
Again, voting Libertarian is not as much of a wasted vote as it would be to put a republican or democrat in office who will ignore your Rights.
For more information:
http://publicola.blogspot.com
The authors of the US Constitution saw the muzzle loading, single shot rifle as a necessary tool. Not only did it provide security in the wilderness it also put food on the table. The idea of a .223 assault rifle or 16 shot 9mm pistol was not fathomed.
Publicola if you really need to upgrade your wang size I suggest dumping your big guns for a vibrator.
Publicola if you really need to upgrade your wang size I suggest dumping your big guns for a vibrator.
Don't tell me George Washington only used his muzzle loader for hunting. Interesting that you also said guns of the time also provided security. Yes, but against what? Not against bears or wolves, but against the other weapons of the time. The concept of the arms race was not unknown, even then.
From what I gather, their intention was that every citizen should be proficient with firearms. Are you?
From what I gather, their intention was that every citizen should be proficient with firearms. Are you?
Yes I am proficient. I got rid my guns years ago after seeing the terrible consequences of this countries obsession with firearms. I quit hunting, going to the range etc. And when I indicate I got rid of them I turned them into the local PD for destruction not over to my local gun enthusiast for a few bucks. Yes I am proficient, and probably a little bit older than you with some real time experience involving the horror of guns.
"30.000 People are killed by gun loving uneducated morons, I wonder why that is?, "
Cite?
"could it be that any one can buy one, and you think we all should have one so we can fell safe?. "
No, "anyone" cannot buy a firearm. Felons & those with a history of mental illness cannot purchase firearms. Also, most most states have age limits of at least 18, and in some cases 21 years of age, to purchase a firearm. Get your facts straight.
"30.000, thats more then 10 time the number of Europe combined."
Sophistry.
"In order to drive a car, you have to take 2 tests, a writen one and a driving one, but to buy a gun, all you have to have is no felonies."
1.) Automobiles are not protected in the Bill of Rights.
2.) I only need a license & insurance for my auto if I want to operate it on public roads. I can operate my vehicle on my private property with NO "tests," licensing, insurance, etc.
"Here is some new's for all you rednecks,"
Narrow minded bigot.
"murderers are not born murderers, they become them by loosing theire cool while holding, or getting a gun,"
And drunk drivers are not born that way, they become them when they guzzle a few drinks & get behind the wheel of a car. So, by your logic, we should ban booze & automobiles as well.
"also most murders are not random, they are commited by husbands, wifes, son's, brothers, sisters, other relatives, and people you know very well..."
So? What's your point?
"I'm the guy that is trying to repair what those wonderful inventions of mankind damage, I'm a Paramedic, and I have seen and worked on more gunshot victims then you have seen on TV,"
Oh, I see. You're one of those vindicitve SOBs who thinks I shold be punished for someone else's actions. Some gang-banger uses a gun to settle an arguement, and I'm supposed to surrender my rights because of it? Not hardly.
"so dont bother telling me about youre rights, do what I do for a living, then lets talk...NREMT"
We don't have those problems here in rural Michigan - but then nearly everyone around here owns (several) firearms. It's been that way around here for decades.
Local factories & business close on November 15: it's the opening day of the firearms deer season, and they know no one will show up for work.
Funny, we don't seem to have murders & shootings on a daily basis around here. Obviously, your contention that firearms cause crime is wrong.
Cite?
"could it be that any one can buy one, and you think we all should have one so we can fell safe?. "
No, "anyone" cannot buy a firearm. Felons & those with a history of mental illness cannot purchase firearms. Also, most most states have age limits of at least 18, and in some cases 21 years of age, to purchase a firearm. Get your facts straight.
"30.000, thats more then 10 time the number of Europe combined."
Sophistry.
"In order to drive a car, you have to take 2 tests, a writen one and a driving one, but to buy a gun, all you have to have is no felonies."
1.) Automobiles are not protected in the Bill of Rights.
2.) I only need a license & insurance for my auto if I want to operate it on public roads. I can operate my vehicle on my private property with NO "tests," licensing, insurance, etc.
"Here is some new's for all you rednecks,"
Narrow minded bigot.
"murderers are not born murderers, they become them by loosing theire cool while holding, or getting a gun,"
And drunk drivers are not born that way, they become them when they guzzle a few drinks & get behind the wheel of a car. So, by your logic, we should ban booze & automobiles as well.
"also most murders are not random, they are commited by husbands, wifes, son's, brothers, sisters, other relatives, and people you know very well..."
So? What's your point?
"I'm the guy that is trying to repair what those wonderful inventions of mankind damage, I'm a Paramedic, and I have seen and worked on more gunshot victims then you have seen on TV,"
Oh, I see. You're one of those vindicitve SOBs who thinks I shold be punished for someone else's actions. Some gang-banger uses a gun to settle an arguement, and I'm supposed to surrender my rights because of it? Not hardly.
"so dont bother telling me about youre rights, do what I do for a living, then lets talk...NREMT"
We don't have those problems here in rural Michigan - but then nearly everyone around here owns (several) firearms. It's been that way around here for decades.
Local factories & business close on November 15: it's the opening day of the firearms deer season, and they know no one will show up for work.
Funny, we don't seem to have murders & shootings on a daily basis around here. Obviously, your contention that firearms cause crime is wrong.
The problem of gun violence in the United States pops up now and then with horrible news stories of classroom shootings or racial killing rampages. The usual response by politicians and media is talk of the need to close loopholes in gun sales laws or require safety locks. The thinking behind such moves apparently is that making the purchase of guns at gun shows take longer or preventing innocent people such as children from accidentally shooting themselves or others will reduce gun-related trauma.
As a United States citizen I applaud these efforts. But I believe that it is time to recognize that that the high rates of gun-related deaths in the United States compared with other modern industrialized countries is related more to the availability than to the operational safety of guns. Consider the following gun incident statistics from the United States and Japan, where possession of handguns is limited to police officers and rifles for hunting are very difficult to obtain. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 1997 there were 32,436 gun-related deaths in the United States. Japan's National Police Agency reports 19 gun-related deaths nation-wide in 1998. Yes, 19 deaths in an entire year, among a population half the size of the United States.
Of course, there may be cultural explanations beyond gun availability to account for the startling differences between the United States and Japan in gun-related deaths. Some gun rights proponents even argue that it is not guns that kill people in the United States, but rather the culture of violence in that country. According to this argument, those 32,436 gun-related deaths in 1997 would have been deaths even without guns (death by punching or kicking or clubbing perhaps.) But the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics for 1998 shows that in the state of California that year, 71% of all murders were committed with firearms. Given those figures, it is unreasonable to imagine that the availability of guns made no difference.
The fastest and best way out of the terrible gun violence problem in the United States is for politicians and citizens to gather the courage to go bravely beyond gun safety measures by outlawing all handguns. The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics for 1998 reports that 38.5% of Americans favor a ban on handguns except for police, and 15.6% support a total ban, including police. It is likely that if more U.S. citizens understood the ways in which the NRA and other gun rights groups in the United States systematically misrepresent the intent of the "right to bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, support for a ban on handguns would grow.
Enough of the mindless violence in the United States made possible by easy gun availability. Sure, criminals will find a way to access guns on the black market despite any future ban. But the next time some unbalanced person decides to wreak havoc on a day care center, downtown street or school classroom, let him or her wield a tree branch or throw rocks. Knives of course are effective murder weapons, but not particularly efficient at a distance. Unlike the use of guns with criminal intent, the outlawing of guns in the United States might prove painful for some people, but not fatal.
As a United States citizen I applaud these efforts. But I believe that it is time to recognize that that the high rates of gun-related deaths in the United States compared with other modern industrialized countries is related more to the availability than to the operational safety of guns. Consider the following gun incident statistics from the United States and Japan, where possession of handguns is limited to police officers and rifles for hunting are very difficult to obtain. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 1997 there were 32,436 gun-related deaths in the United States. Japan's National Police Agency reports 19 gun-related deaths nation-wide in 1998. Yes, 19 deaths in an entire year, among a population half the size of the United States.
Of course, there may be cultural explanations beyond gun availability to account for the startling differences between the United States and Japan in gun-related deaths. Some gun rights proponents even argue that it is not guns that kill people in the United States, but rather the culture of violence in that country. According to this argument, those 32,436 gun-related deaths in 1997 would have been deaths even without guns (death by punching or kicking or clubbing perhaps.) But the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics for 1998 shows that in the state of California that year, 71% of all murders were committed with firearms. Given those figures, it is unreasonable to imagine that the availability of guns made no difference.
The fastest and best way out of the terrible gun violence problem in the United States is for politicians and citizens to gather the courage to go bravely beyond gun safety measures by outlawing all handguns. The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics for 1998 reports that 38.5% of Americans favor a ban on handguns except for police, and 15.6% support a total ban, including police. It is likely that if more U.S. citizens understood the ways in which the NRA and other gun rights groups in the United States systematically misrepresent the intent of the "right to bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, support for a ban on handguns would grow.
Enough of the mindless violence in the United States made possible by easy gun availability. Sure, criminals will find a way to access guns on the black market despite any future ban. But the next time some unbalanced person decides to wreak havoc on a day care center, downtown street or school classroom, let him or her wield a tree branch or throw rocks. Knives of course are effective murder weapons, but not particularly efficient at a distance. Unlike the use of guns with criminal intent, the outlawing of guns in the United States might prove painful for some people, but not fatal.
ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
I laugh every time I see people who compare gun-death rates in the U.S. with other countries, while taking no other factors but the presence of firearms (or lack thereof) into account, and then try and use this pseudo-science propaganda as justification for violating my rights.
Do you people think European and other countries are identical to the U.S. in every way? Because only if they are, would these ridiculous comparisons have any merit.
"The fastest and best way out of the terrible gun violence problem in the United States is for politicians and citizens to gather the courage to go bravely beyond gun safety measures by outlawing all handguns."
Go ahead and try. You think gun owners would meekly surrender their firearms? Hahahaha.
Punish the criminals, and leave honest, law-abiding people alone. Start executing some of the little SOBs using firearms in the commission of a crime (and don't let them spend 15-20 years on death row, filing endless habeas corpus appeals either) and then, maybe, you can come talk to me about "gun control."
Do you people think European and other countries are identical to the U.S. in every way? Because only if they are, would these ridiculous comparisons have any merit.
"The fastest and best way out of the terrible gun violence problem in the United States is for politicians and citizens to gather the courage to go bravely beyond gun safety measures by outlawing all handguns."
Go ahead and try. You think gun owners would meekly surrender their firearms? Hahahaha.
Punish the criminals, and leave honest, law-abiding people alone. Start executing some of the little SOBs using firearms in the commission of a crime (and don't let them spend 15-20 years on death row, filing endless habeas corpus appeals either) and then, maybe, you can come talk to me about "gun control."
Back when the bill of rights were drafted, most U.S. soldiers (and there were very few of them) were equipped with smooth bore muskets. These were very inaccurate, and had a usable range of about 100 yds. or less. Most private citizens at that time were buying guns with rifled barrels, which allowed them to fire accurately for over 200 yds.
Nobody at the time had a problem with this, as they perceived that the government should serve the citizens, not the other way around. No one had a problem with the general population having superior weapons to those of the military.
Nobody at the time had a problem with this, as they perceived that the government should serve the citizens, not the other way around. No one had a problem with the general population having superior weapons to those of the military.
There are about 100,000 firearm-related civilian deaths per year, including suicides, gang wars (criminal-on-criminal) and accidents.
There are about 2,500,000 civilian instances each year of firearms being used to defend life.
There's much more to the story than what the anti-firearms groups want you to know.
Firearms are defensive tools that are sometimes used for offensive purposes. Punish the misuse, not the possession. Defend the right of law-abiding sensible citizens to own firearms of all types, and society is a safer place. Disarm said citizens, and all that's left is the armed common criminal and the police who are unable to respond in time.
There are about 2,500,000 civilian instances each year of firearms being used to defend life.
There's much more to the story than what the anti-firearms groups want you to know.
Firearms are defensive tools that are sometimes used for offensive purposes. Punish the misuse, not the possession. Defend the right of law-abiding sensible citizens to own firearms of all types, and society is a safer place. Disarm said citizens, and all that's left is the armed common criminal and the police who are unable to respond in time.
When the people lose their guns, criminals lose their fear. London is up to almost 200 muggings a day.
In Australia, there is growing momentum to repeal the ban on guns, due to growing crime rates. So, while gun homicides have declined, other felonies including assault, burglary, robbery, and rape are on the rise.
In addition to the millions of crimes that are actually stopped by a firearm (usually the mere threat), many more are deterred by the fact that, in most parts of the U.S., the probability of a gun being in a home is so great that criminals do not even attempt to break-in unless they are absolutely sure that no one is home.
Let's focus on the criminals who are prone to violence, and leave peaceful citizens the means to protect themselves.
In Australia, there is growing momentum to repeal the ban on guns, due to growing crime rates. So, while gun homicides have declined, other felonies including assault, burglary, robbery, and rape are on the rise.
In addition to the millions of crimes that are actually stopped by a firearm (usually the mere threat), many more are deterred by the fact that, in most parts of the U.S., the probability of a gun being in a home is so great that criminals do not even attempt to break-in unless they are absolutely sure that no one is home.
Let's focus on the criminals who are prone to violence, and leave peaceful citizens the means to protect themselves.
Oh, great. Not only does Dave have conversations with himself, but he also owns a gun. That is a dangerous combination.
You're hoplophobic!
I love all people, even name-callers like yourself.
I love all people, even name-callers like yourself.
Does Wal-Mart sell straightjackets? My psychiatrist told me that I need one.
Thanks Nessie. I'm new to threads and hadn't heard of trolls.
I thought his tactics were analagous to the kid who eggs cars or spray-paints people's houses. He hides and thinks he's clever when he makes other people do work. Now when people want to read about gun owners opposed to the bush administration, they have to sort through this idiot's crap. He's probably down at his public library tearing out pages of books.
I thought his tactics were analagous to the kid who eggs cars or spray-paints people's houses. He hides and thinks he's clever when he makes other people do work. Now when people want to read about gun owners opposed to the bush administration, they have to sort through this idiot's crap. He's probably down at his public library tearing out pages of books.
(((30.000 People are killed by gun))) ?
let's see those stats!
proof please.......................
let's see those stats!
proof please.......................
Bend over, you cum dumpster.
Bend over, you cum dumpster.
Bend over, you cum dumpster.
Bend over, you cum dumpster.
Bend over, you cum dumpster.
people in certain situations surrounded by certain objects are more likely to do certain things.
if you always had a gun in your hand loaded then there would be lots of opportunities for you to use it. maybe at some stage you would. for example a bit of road rage or a slap to your wife might become a murder.
Also the other person has less reason to carry a gun if you dont and less reason to shoot first if he doesnt think you do.
that "people kill people" stuff can be applied to anything as a argument for "dont do anything systematically and just beat up on the individual" Go on apply it to anything war, oil, capitalism, communism or anything.
if you always had a gun in your hand loaded then there would be lots of opportunities for you to use it. maybe at some stage you would. for example a bit of road rage or a slap to your wife might become a murder.
Also the other person has less reason to carry a gun if you dont and less reason to shoot first if he doesnt think you do.
that "people kill people" stuff can be applied to anything as a argument for "dont do anything systematically and just beat up on the individual" Go on apply it to anything war, oil, capitalism, communism or anything.
When the last time you seen a gun move on it’s own with no one touching it? See guns don’t kill people! People KILL People, the gun was only the tool choice. If not a gun it would be a bomb or a knife. Bomb only takes a couple of minutes to build if you know what you are doing.
The gun is the weapon of choice in today’s world because its easy and small. With out guns people may use bombs which can inflict much greater damage. Then these same people that want to ban guns will ban garden fertilizer and all know fuels and chemicals.
The gun is the weapon of choice in today’s world because its easy and small. With out guns people may use bombs which can inflict much greater damage. Then these same people that want to ban guns will ban garden fertilizer and all know fuels and chemicals.
A Test on Guns
The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test.
1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?
2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?
3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself?
That's the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question: How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?
You could call 911 unless, as often happens these days, the intruders have taken the trouble to cut your telephone wires before they kick your door down. But if you did get the call off, you still have a problem: The intruders are there in your house, and the police aren't.
The sad fact is that, because of logistics, police can't protect you. In more than 99 percent of the cases, by the time the police even get called -- and certainly by the time they arrive -- the crime has already been committed.
The hard truth is that, when you are confronted by a criminal, you're in the same situation today you would have been in if you had lived alone on an isolated ranch on the American frontier. There's nobody at the dance but you and the criminal. You have to fight. You win, you live; you lose, you die. Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your begging and some thug's mercy. But in serious encounters, by the time the cavalry gets there, there will be dead and wounded lying around. The question you have to answer is: Do you want to be among the dead or among the living?
Now you may suppose that you are a glib talker and when some crack-crazed thug sticks a gun in your face, you can reason with him. That's a very far-fetched supposition. I would bet on the thug. Any honest street cop will tell you that the predators roaming today are far more dangerous than even mob hit men of the past. The hit men would never kill without a reason. Today's thugs kill on a whim for no rational reason at all. And many of them will kill everyone there, including babies and children.
The neo-totalitarians -- sometimes known as the gun-control crowd -- will repeat the big lie that a gun kept for self-protection is more likely to injure you or your family than a criminal. The flawed study that is based on was discredited years ago.
If you take a gun to a gunfight, you may not win; if you don't, you will surely lose. Credible studies by respected scholars with no bias show what common sense tells you -- that thousands of Americans every day save themselves from criminal harm by using a firearm, most of the time without having to shoot.
To me, there is no more outrageous insult or bigger example of stupidity than a government that is such a gross failure at preventing criminal, armed attacks on the population that it would take the position that the answer is to disarm the future victims. I take it as a given that any politician who proposes to deny honest people the means to defend their lives and the lives of their children is too evil or too stupid to tolerate in public office.
Some guy once wrote that a characteristic of Southerners is that they take things personally. I know that's true in my case. When I hear some politician talk gun control, I think, ``You (expletive deleted), you're endangering my children.''
You have a right to own a firearm. Don't let anyone take that right away from you. Use it.
The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to take this little test.
1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?
2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?
3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think that you have a right to defend yourself?
That's the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final essay question: How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an armed intruder or intruders?
You could call 911 unless, as often happens these days, the intruders have taken the trouble to cut your telephone wires before they kick your door down. But if you did get the call off, you still have a problem: The intruders are there in your house, and the police aren't.
The sad fact is that, because of logistics, police can't protect you. In more than 99 percent of the cases, by the time the police even get called -- and certainly by the time they arrive -- the crime has already been committed.
The hard truth is that, when you are confronted by a criminal, you're in the same situation today you would have been in if you had lived alone on an isolated ranch on the American frontier. There's nobody at the dance but you and the criminal. You have to fight. You win, you live; you lose, you die. Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your begging and some thug's mercy. But in serious encounters, by the time the cavalry gets there, there will be dead and wounded lying around. The question you have to answer is: Do you want to be among the dead or among the living?
Now you may suppose that you are a glib talker and when some crack-crazed thug sticks a gun in your face, you can reason with him. That's a very far-fetched supposition. I would bet on the thug. Any honest street cop will tell you that the predators roaming today are far more dangerous than even mob hit men of the past. The hit men would never kill without a reason. Today's thugs kill on a whim for no rational reason at all. And many of them will kill everyone there, including babies and children.
The neo-totalitarians -- sometimes known as the gun-control crowd -- will repeat the big lie that a gun kept for self-protection is more likely to injure you or your family than a criminal. The flawed study that is based on was discredited years ago.
If you take a gun to a gunfight, you may not win; if you don't, you will surely lose. Credible studies by respected scholars with no bias show what common sense tells you -- that thousands of Americans every day save themselves from criminal harm by using a firearm, most of the time without having to shoot.
To me, there is no more outrageous insult or bigger example of stupidity than a government that is such a gross failure at preventing criminal, armed attacks on the population that it would take the position that the answer is to disarm the future victims. I take it as a given that any politician who proposes to deny honest people the means to defend their lives and the lives of their children is too evil or too stupid to tolerate in public office.
Some guy once wrote that a characteristic of Southerners is that they take things personally. I know that's true in my case. When I hear some politician talk gun control, I think, ``You (expletive deleted), you're endangering my children.''
You have a right to own a firearm. Don't let anyone take that right away from you. Use it.
The funniest story I ever read about a lawmaker who wanted to protect us from all the dangerous tools in the world was about a British Parliamentarian who proposed a law outlawing bottles made of glass. You see, guys in bars were getting into fights and breaking bottles in order to stab their opponents!
There is a lot of data out lately about the long term consequences for victims of rape. NOW should join the NRA in making sure that every woman has the right to defend her body with a firearm. For many women, it is the only hope against a 200 lb assailant.
There is a lot of data out lately about the long term consequences for victims of rape. NOW should join the NRA in making sure that every woman has the right to defend her body with a firearm. For many women, it is the only hope against a 200 lb assailant.
Rights.... right to live, right to defend yourself...... rights?
"Rights" really doesn't mean anything to me.
It's a word, a word created by a civilized entity to help it feel better about being a domestic herd.
Everyone is a victim of circumstance from the beginning, you either make it or you don't. It's 50/50 at best, (50% of the time you're at the wheel, 50% of the time, you're just along for the ride.)
A gun ...... to me, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
But those things aside, I can hardly believe how some people decide a leader based on his/her gun ownership position. Maybe, fear of total gun confiscation, I don't know. Regardless, that would probably never happen...... SO....
the economy MIGHT be a good place to start when deciding a president!
For example, man/woman gunowner works a middle brackett Union job, normally they vote democratic. That's self explanatory.
However, both political parties begin changing their ideas on guns over time. More rules, more regulations. Let's say this worker is realitively informed on the gun debate, but not so in touch with the economic climate. Next election, their "rights" feeling threatened, they vote republican. And to make it more interesting, imagine that this is the closest most controversial election of all time. Now there's a rub.
That has happened all over America.
It's knee-jerk. .
American troops are dying overseas while America goes bankrupt and the current administration is the epitome of jingosim.
Don't just vote them out because you're afraid they'll take your guns, but because if they are voted back in, you may have to depend on your guns to survive.
"Rights" really doesn't mean anything to me.
It's a word, a word created by a civilized entity to help it feel better about being a domestic herd.
Everyone is a victim of circumstance from the beginning, you either make it or you don't. It's 50/50 at best, (50% of the time you're at the wheel, 50% of the time, you're just along for the ride.)
A gun ...... to me, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
But those things aside, I can hardly believe how some people decide a leader based on his/her gun ownership position. Maybe, fear of total gun confiscation, I don't know. Regardless, that would probably never happen...... SO....
the economy MIGHT be a good place to start when deciding a president!
For example, man/woman gunowner works a middle brackett Union job, normally they vote democratic. That's self explanatory.
However, both political parties begin changing their ideas on guns over time. More rules, more regulations. Let's say this worker is realitively informed on the gun debate, but not so in touch with the economic climate. Next election, their "rights" feeling threatened, they vote republican. And to make it more interesting, imagine that this is the closest most controversial election of all time. Now there's a rub.
That has happened all over America.
It's knee-jerk. .
American troops are dying overseas while America goes bankrupt and the current administration is the epitome of jingosim.
Don't just vote them out because you're afraid they'll take your guns, but because if they are voted back in, you may have to depend on your guns to survive.
Good point on the battle we have with ourselves when a candidate we'd otherwise support goes against our belief on a big issue, usually guns, abortion, or the environment. That last one probably cost Gore the election b/c of the Nader voters.
Bush had it happen too though, with buchanan supporters who thought bush was not conservative enough.
It's probably the case that, with a two party system, for better or worse, we end up with some kind of compromise gov't that doesn't really satisfy anyone's notion of an ideal model or set of policies.
Bush had it happen too though, with buchanan supporters who thought bush was not conservative enough.
It's probably the case that, with a two party system, for better or worse, we end up with some kind of compromise gov't that doesn't really satisfy anyone's notion of an ideal model or set of policies.
Hmm bio weapons dont kill people - people kill people. but Im still not planning on distributing bio weapons to everyone who wants them. other countries with less pervasive gun ownership seem to have less crime particularly deadly crime
But I do acknowledge the other side.
- bio weapons of course represent a much higher level of danger
- It could be higher crime (nationally speaking) leads to more gun ownership as opposed to the other way around.
- and that the constitution (for better or worse) does appear to guarantee the right to have guns.
But the question remains.. why do we hear that the USA has such a high murder rate?
" If not a gun it would be a bomb or a knife. Bomb only takes a couple of minutes to build if you know what you are doing."
In lots of other 1st world countries it is hard to get your hands on a gun. As far as I know they tend to have lower murder rates (although i hear the opposite is true between american states). bombs dont usually work very well to achieve the purpose (for example a mugging).
Jessie
The idea is to reduce the availability of guns to everyone. to reduce the amount of crimes that involve guns. Sure it would not be true for the first year or maybe 10 years, who knows.. (while criminals maintained their illegal guns) but it would eventually have an impact. (too bad for the people who get robed in the meantime I guess)
"You win, you live; you lose, you die. Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your begging and some thug's mercy."
- statistically speaking that isnt all that bad a bet. At least outside of the US.. maybe your thugs are worse of course...
If you go for the shoot out option you are implying preserving your dignity is worth more than the increaced risk the "thug" will kill you even if he was not planning on doing anything other than taking your TV.Im not sure your family would agree.
But I do acknowledge the other side.
- bio weapons of course represent a much higher level of danger
- It could be higher crime (nationally speaking) leads to more gun ownership as opposed to the other way around.
- and that the constitution (for better or worse) does appear to guarantee the right to have guns.
But the question remains.. why do we hear that the USA has such a high murder rate?
" If not a gun it would be a bomb or a knife. Bomb only takes a couple of minutes to build if you know what you are doing."
In lots of other 1st world countries it is hard to get your hands on a gun. As far as I know they tend to have lower murder rates (although i hear the opposite is true between american states). bombs dont usually work very well to achieve the purpose (for example a mugging).
Jessie
The idea is to reduce the availability of guns to everyone. to reduce the amount of crimes that involve guns. Sure it would not be true for the first year or maybe 10 years, who knows.. (while criminals maintained their illegal guns) but it would eventually have an impact. (too bad for the people who get robed in the meantime I guess)
"You win, you live; you lose, you die. Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your begging and some thug's mercy."
- statistically speaking that isnt all that bad a bet. At least outside of the US.. maybe your thugs are worse of course...
If you go for the shoot out option you are implying preserving your dignity is worth more than the increaced risk the "thug" will kill you even if he was not planning on doing anything other than taking your TV.Im not sure your family would agree.
London is up to almost 200 muggings per day. I've also read that their murder rate is approaching ours - bad when you consider their population is much more homogenious than ours.
Criminals there know they will not have to face a gun. If we're talking about reducing crime, an armed citizenry is the way to go.
Our forefathers understood this; and the fact that the government is kept in check a bit when the common man has access to firearms.
Criminals there know they will not have to face a gun. If we're talking about reducing crime, an armed citizenry is the way to go.
Our forefathers understood this; and the fact that the government is kept in check a bit when the common man has access to firearms.
Hmm can anyone find some real comparable statistics for murder rate per capita or per 100,000 people?
I found this but the stats don't seem to make sense
http://www.fadetoblack.com//bestcountry/best1.htm
I found this but the stats don't seem to make sense
http://www.fadetoblack.com//bestcountry/best1.htm
I'll try to find some stuff on the murder rates, and some recent stories about how poorly the fairly recent 'de-gunning' of Australia is going.
Think about it Scottie - if you have a daughter, do you want to take away her right to defend herself effectively?
Think about it Scottie - if you have a daughter, do you want to take away her right to defend herself effectively?
For more information:
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...
<<I've also read that [Britain's] murder rate is approaching ours - bad when you consider their population is much more homogenious than ours.>>
pony up some stats, dave.
and what's up with the homogenity comment? you sound like that befuddled old fool, Charlatan Heston.
{= - - - - - - - ----
looking at the insane murder rate in America, it's hard not to come to *at least* one of these two conclusions:
1) that there are too many guns circulating in the population;
2) america is a sick society
i prefer the second explanation.
but unlike many pro-gun dogmatists, i don't discount the first just because i'm opposed to granting the state more power.
pony up some stats, dave.
and what's up with the homogenity comment? you sound like that befuddled old fool, Charlatan Heston.
{= - - - - - - - ----
looking at the insane murder rate in America, it's hard not to come to *at least* one of these two conclusions:
1) that there are too many guns circulating in the population;
2) america is a sick society
i prefer the second explanation.
but unlike many pro-gun dogmatists, i don't discount the first just because i'm opposed to granting the state more power.
Stats..
USA 5.61 per 100000
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/usa2001.pdf
UK (including only england and wales) 1.63
hmm doesnt sound very believable. but at least tonga beat them (see below)
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/UKEnglandWales2001.pdf
Canada 4.1 per 100 000
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/canada2001.pdf
Israel 3.43
Switzerland 2.41
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/switzerland2001.pdf
Tonga 1.05
Ahh sweet island life.
South africa
114.84. (EGAD)
USED TO BE 54.08
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/1995/SouthAfrica1995.pdf
Someone *pointing at the SA primeminister* cant run a country to save himself.
However interpol has been known to screw these things up at times.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
Israel is as safe as switzerland when they took these stats?
Dave
- If it was possible to show that gun ownership had a causal relationship to murder rate I would expect the state to take that into consideration more than some emotive call to defending ones family by he supporters of gun lobbies.
Interestingly as a non gun owner who lives overseas I am aware that many other countries besides the USA have lots of guns and yet negligable problem with guns in schools and low useage in crimes.. They tend to have large rural areas with many guns and yet they dont appear in the cities much. I dont know exactly why that is although some people would hypothesise somthing about subcultures in inner cities and a culture of anger or resentment (or even dependance). Some would go further as below...
Aaron
"and what's up with the homogenity comment? "
more blacks are murder victims (and people convicted for those crimes) in the USA than whites (per capita) - just like there are more men than women. I guess you can draw from that what you like. There are good sociological arguments for not going down that track, but if you dont then at some level I guess you have to accept it as given.
Whatever the solution to that might be the USA has issues related to it as dave has pointed out.
USA 5.61 per 100000
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/usa2001.pdf
UK (including only england and wales) 1.63
hmm doesnt sound very believable. but at least tonga beat them (see below)
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/UKEnglandWales2001.pdf
Canada 4.1 per 100 000
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/canada2001.pdf
Israel 3.43
Switzerland 2.41
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/2001/switzerland2001.pdf
Tonga 1.05
Ahh sweet island life.
South africa
114.84. (EGAD)
USED TO BE 54.08
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/1995/SouthAfrica1995.pdf
Someone *pointing at the SA primeminister* cant run a country to save himself.
However interpol has been known to screw these things up at times.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
Israel is as safe as switzerland when they took these stats?
Dave
- If it was possible to show that gun ownership had a causal relationship to murder rate I would expect the state to take that into consideration more than some emotive call to defending ones family by he supporters of gun lobbies.
Interestingly as a non gun owner who lives overseas I am aware that many other countries besides the USA have lots of guns and yet negligable problem with guns in schools and low useage in crimes.. They tend to have large rural areas with many guns and yet they dont appear in the cities much. I dont know exactly why that is although some people would hypothesise somthing about subcultures in inner cities and a culture of anger or resentment (or even dependance). Some would go further as below...
Aaron
"and what's up with the homogenity comment? "
more blacks are murder victims (and people convicted for those crimes) in the USA than whites (per capita) - just like there are more men than women. I guess you can draw from that what you like. There are good sociological arguments for not going down that track, but if you dont then at some level I guess you have to accept it as given.
Whatever the solution to that might be the USA has issues related to it as dave has pointed out.
Thanks for the good stats. Very interesting.
Given your observation that people in rural areas have guns but do not use them violently (that is my circumstance) and that those in your urban areas do not have guns, we should examine why our urbanites seek guns.
Perhaps, as Nessie indicated, the urban drug trade causes people to seek and use firearms. Solving that problem might cut the murder rate in the U.S. dramatically.
I'd agree we need some value adjusting here in the u.s.
Given your observation that people in rural areas have guns but do not use them violently (that is my circumstance) and that those in your urban areas do not have guns, we should examine why our urbanites seek guns.
Perhaps, as Nessie indicated, the urban drug trade causes people to seek and use firearms. Solving that problem might cut the murder rate in the U.S. dramatically.
I'd agree we need some value adjusting here in the u.s.
Murder rate in the US appears to be trending downwards.
So US seems to be doing somthing right.
So US seems to be doing somthing right.
if the bay area is any indication, the murder rate is heading upward.
murder stats ballooned in the late 80s and early 90s with crack hitting the streets. it leveled off and the murder rate leveled off with it. but still was/is higher than in most places in the world.
high unemployment tends to correlate with a high(er) murder rate as well.
personally, although i'm no big fan of his, i think michael moore covered the gun issue in america pretty well.
murder stats ballooned in the late 80s and early 90s with crack hitting the streets. it leveled off and the murder rate leveled off with it. but still was/is higher than in most places in the world.
high unemployment tends to correlate with a high(er) murder rate as well.
personally, although i'm no big fan of his, i think michael moore covered the gun issue in america pretty well.
the murder rate is heading upward.
the bay area is not typical (as we all know) but we have to ask our selves what motivated these murders
and how can we disrupt this behavior cycle ?
few of these murders are random...there is a link .....
Oakland :
over 85% of the murders are gang and drug related.
do we legalize drugs? would it help?...no
the gangs would only switch to robbing 7-11's
stealing cars robbing banks....(same story different day)
out law guns (yes lets set up another probation situation) the Australians tried that and illegal guns started flowing into the country now they have NO control over who has what...
where did the problem start?
the bay area is not typical (as we all know) but we have to ask our selves what motivated these murders
and how can we disrupt this behavior cycle ?
few of these murders are random...there is a link .....
Oakland :
over 85% of the murders are gang and drug related.
do we legalize drugs? would it help?...no
the gangs would only switch to robbing 7-11's
stealing cars robbing banks....(same story different day)
out law guns (yes lets set up another probation situation) the Australians tried that and illegal guns started flowing into the country now they have NO control over who has what...
where did the problem start?
Near as I can tell, the ultimate problem began 10-12,000 years ago.
We are becoming a disinherited species.
People die all day every day in the blink of an eye.
Guns with no basic discretion behind them only help speed this process up.
People want solutions to a list of endless problems, problems with roots so deep they reach down to the well. The well of a civilized history.
People looking down into the well asking, "where did the problem start?"....the gun problem, crime, poverty, greed, corruption,etc....... The voices echo down to the receding water line, then drown. No replys return.
There is no solution. Extinction maybe?
There is a bottom line;
People have been arming themselves since the primitive stages of evolution.
People are still armed today and that's that.
We are becoming a disinherited species.
People die all day every day in the blink of an eye.
Guns with no basic discretion behind them only help speed this process up.
People want solutions to a list of endless problems, problems with roots so deep they reach down to the well. The well of a civilized history.
People looking down into the well asking, "where did the problem start?"....the gun problem, crime, poverty, greed, corruption,etc....... The voices echo down to the receding water line, then drown. No replys return.
There is no solution. Extinction maybe?
There is a bottom line;
People have been arming themselves since the primitive stages of evolution.
People are still armed today and that's that.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-Dalai Lama
-Dalai Lama
Our murder rate is ALOT lower than it used to be
The human murder rate, even counting World War I and World War II battle and genocide deaths as murders, was much lower in the 20th century than in the bulk of human history.
The Kung of Africa’s Kalahari Desert, a tribe once considered "noble savages" in the book The Harmless People and the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, actually has a murder rate four times higher than in the U.S.
But there is a bright side. getting lots of sex may reduce the likelyhood of murder if the bonobos (a close ape relative) are anything to go by.
The human murder rate, even counting World War I and World War II battle and genocide deaths as murders, was much lower in the 20th century than in the bulk of human history.
The Kung of Africa’s Kalahari Desert, a tribe once considered "noble savages" in the book The Harmless People and the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, actually has a murder rate four times higher than in the U.S.
But there is a bright side. getting lots of sex may reduce the likelyhood of murder if the bonobos (a close ape relative) are anything to go by.
On any given day, anywhere in the world can have the highest "murder rate".
Nuclear device goes off in a city, a mass murder.
Could be Cape Town, could be Sao Paulo, could be San Fran.
Or genocidal warfare; Rwanda, 800,000 people in 100 days. Pol Pot.
The effect is the same. The loss is the same.
But this thread is about gun ownership liberty.
I'm purposely confusing the issue.
Anyone else purposely confusing the issue?
However, I don't buy into any statistical comparison drivel appearing in debate forums. Particularly, murder "rates" of small isolated third world tribes compared to superpowers.
And how can there be less murders now, when we create more and more people every year?
There is no comparison between 609 B.C. murder rates with 1987A.D. murder rates. More people now more weapons(more advanced weapons) and more accurate documentation.
In warfare and murder; Americans have certainly killed more of there fellow species with guns than any other group.
Native Americans, French Indian War, Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korean, Vietnam, etc.....
Yikes, there's that dogmatic comparison again!
Sorry.
There is a larger picture.
The ape sex theory is a start.
Seriously, that's a pretty good notion, I like it.
Nuclear device goes off in a city, a mass murder.
Could be Cape Town, could be Sao Paulo, could be San Fran.
Or genocidal warfare; Rwanda, 800,000 people in 100 days. Pol Pot.
The effect is the same. The loss is the same.
But this thread is about gun ownership liberty.
I'm purposely confusing the issue.
Anyone else purposely confusing the issue?
However, I don't buy into any statistical comparison drivel appearing in debate forums. Particularly, murder "rates" of small isolated third world tribes compared to superpowers.
And how can there be less murders now, when we create more and more people every year?
There is no comparison between 609 B.C. murder rates with 1987A.D. murder rates. More people now more weapons(more advanced weapons) and more accurate documentation.
In warfare and murder; Americans have certainly killed more of there fellow species with guns than any other group.
Native Americans, French Indian War, Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korean, Vietnam, etc.....
Yikes, there's that dogmatic comparison again!
Sorry.
There is a larger picture.
The ape sex theory is a start.
Seriously, that's a pretty good notion, I like it.
I forgot to state; I do not support Bush in any way.
I do support gun ownership. I am a gun owner.
Now we can continue debating statistics.
I do support gun ownership. I am a gun owner.
Now we can continue debating statistics.
"However, I don't buy into any statistical comparison drivel appearing in debate forums. Particularly, murder "rates" of small isolated third world tribes compared to superpowers."
only a few thousand years ago the human population was kept about the same by disease murder and starvation. Or look at some of the less developed nations 5 murders per 100,000 is not that bad. sure it is worse than the UK or switzerland but its better than many other countries even given the fact that there is MASSIVE under reporting in those countries.
'And how can there be less murders now, when we create more and more people every year? "
- less murders per person
"There is no comparison between 609 B.C. murder rates with 1987A.D. murder rates. More people now more weapons(more advanced weapons) and more accurate documentation. "
You have one valid argument there - that there are less people so we live further apart and so at one stage people just did not encounter each other that often.
"In warfare and murder; Americans have certainly killed more of there fellow species with guns than any other group. "
NO. CHINA and RUSSIA. or if you mean in a per-capita sense then the majority of other countries in the world. remember even in the iraq war the US killed only a TINY fraction of how many china russia the hutu or any of a number of other people killed when they were going at it.
"Native Americans, French Indian War, Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korean, Vietnam, etc.....'
remember USA was late entering into some of those wars it is also not responsible for deaths on fronts on which it was not fighting. besides that. add up the numbers.. go on. try dividing them by population and see what you get. compare it with the top murder rates etc. You will see you are wrong even if we take your odd method of attributing the blame of wars like WWII to a country that wasnt even in it until near the end.
"There is a larger picture. The ape sex theory is a start. Seriously, that's a pretty good notion, I like it. "
haha might make you feel like your doing a service to humanity each night ;)
only a few thousand years ago the human population was kept about the same by disease murder and starvation. Or look at some of the less developed nations 5 murders per 100,000 is not that bad. sure it is worse than the UK or switzerland but its better than many other countries even given the fact that there is MASSIVE under reporting in those countries.
'And how can there be less murders now, when we create more and more people every year? "
- less murders per person
"There is no comparison between 609 B.C. murder rates with 1987A.D. murder rates. More people now more weapons(more advanced weapons) and more accurate documentation. "
You have one valid argument there - that there are less people so we live further apart and so at one stage people just did not encounter each other that often.
"In warfare and murder; Americans have certainly killed more of there fellow species with guns than any other group. "
NO. CHINA and RUSSIA. or if you mean in a per-capita sense then the majority of other countries in the world. remember even in the iraq war the US killed only a TINY fraction of how many china russia the hutu or any of a number of other people killed when they were going at it.
"Native Americans, French Indian War, Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korean, Vietnam, etc.....'
remember USA was late entering into some of those wars it is also not responsible for deaths on fronts on which it was not fighting. besides that. add up the numbers.. go on. try dividing them by population and see what you get. compare it with the top murder rates etc. You will see you are wrong even if we take your odd method of attributing the blame of wars like WWII to a country that wasnt even in it until near the end.
"There is a larger picture. The ape sex theory is a start. Seriously, that's a pretty good notion, I like it. "
haha might make you feel like your doing a service to humanity each night ;)
They're not going to vote for Bush?! Who are they going to vote for--Bob Barr?
Bush has every conservative in this country by the balls--and he knows it.
Bush has every conservative in this country by the balls--and he knows it.
Are these people serious? Or is this a tounge-in-cheek parody of the news?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network