# How do we curtail gun violence?



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 8, 2014)

There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.​_
*The United States has a murder rate on par with Thailand.* 
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of those murders, of the ones for which the FBI received weapons data, 67.5% involve the use of firearms in 2010.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data
The vast majority of homicides with a firearm were committed using a *handgun*, not an assault weapon. Most of these guns used in these homicides are obtained on the black market. The black market is fueled by the unregulated *secondary market*.

What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 8, 2014)

Maybe the issue isn't guns.



> As a student preparing to enter the work force, I am forced to  question what has gone wrong in the psyche of those my age to force them  to take the lives of their peers and often of themselves. Perhaps it is  the overstimulation of media and technology, the desensitization  occurring through violent video games, the &#8220;maybes&#8221; and &#8220;whys&#8221; span an  endless list explored by many.
> Regardless of the reason, it is time for something to change.
> Perhaps the strategy of approaching this situation should shift from  questions of gun control toward a military strategy to end a war.  Perhaps the conversation between students, parents and school  administrators must be constant about the state of our adolescent mental  health.
> The Civil War left the city of Atlanta in ruins. Despite the 200  years of technological progress since this war, I wonder what, if any,  moral progress has been made.
> The question must become &#8212; do we wait for another mass shooting, or  wait for our generation &#8212; like Atlanta and the soldiers &#8212; to simply be  gone with the wind?



Voices: Are college students in the middle of America?s next Civil War? | USA TODAY College


See why I didn't want this discussion in my thread?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 8, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



I think that while there is certainly gun violence here, that it is blown way out of proportion.  The chances you will be involved in such violence, unless your lifestyle is such that you increase your odds, is very small.  You are in far greater danger on the roadways.  

There are no proposals to curtail the issue that will have any impact upon it.  If one is ever proposed, one that actually will have an affect beyond allowing some politician some face time on TV, then I may have a different perspective.  Until then, I would much prefer to be free than to have illusionary safety.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 8, 2014)

How do we curtail gun violence? We don't. On one side you have the armed assailant, who kills with a gun. On the other, you have a citizen who owns a gun, who can capably defend themselves with one. 

Our mental health system is one of the biggest causes of mass murder. More often than not you have people who snap and in a blind rage kill a bunch of people with a gun.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 8, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



The US homicide rate is between 4 and 5 in 100,000 as a nationwide average.  That's actually rather high compared to the rest of the world.  Palestine has a similar murder rate.  
Automobile fatalities in the US in 2012 were 10.8399 per 100,000
So, what if you are growing up in Detroit?  Through no fault of your own, you are simply an American citizen smack dab in the middle of Detroit.  In that hypothetical, would you be more concerned about the murder rate?
The chances of getting murdered there is 54.6 in 100,000; less than living in Venezuela, but twice as high as Brazil.  You gave a much greater chance of getting murdered than dying in a car accident in Detroit.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 8, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



Still a very small chance of it happening to any given individual.  So you have identified a problem.  We can argue about the extent of the problem but the issue that remains are the solutions.  As I said, I am willing to consider any proposal that will actually do something about it.  So far, I haven't heard any.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jun 8, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Our mental health system is one of the biggest causes of mass murder. More often than not you have people who snap and in a blind rage kill a bunch of people with a gun.



Agree. The absolute most obvious first step to take is banning at least one fifth of this country from ever owning a weapon of any kind, including Teabaggers and anyone critical of President Obama and his administration. Science agrees with me on this one.

Sources:

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central


> Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is characterized by the frequent occurrence of at least four of the following behaviors:
> 
> often loses temper
> often argues with adults
> ...



Mental Illness And Gun Ownership | Guns & Ammo


> *The former U.S. Surgeon General estimates that 20 percent of Americans suffer from some type of mental illness.* How would mental illness be defined?
> 
> Such a broad definition could easily be applied to more than 20 percent of the population. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), the bible of the mental health profession, even lists cigarette smoking and coffee drinking as mental illnesses.



Even Speaker of the House John Boner has seen the light:
Boehner says there's 'no question' mentally ill shouldn't have guns | TheHill


> *Theres no question* that those with mental health issues should be prevented from owning weapons or being able to purchase weapons, Boehner said at a Capitol event.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jun 8, 2014)

A little while back, I wrote something on the research of Andrew Papachristos, a Yale sociologist not long out of Chicago, on the small social networks of Chicago homicide. In short, how much of fatal violence in Chicago is contained within a comparatively small group of people, who are themselves linked by crime. Chicago Gun Violence: Big Numbers, But a Surprisingly Small Network | Chicago magazine | Politics & City Life April 2014


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 8, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...






And the majority of gun deaths are suicides.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 8, 2014)

> How do we curtail gun violence?



With a comprehensive mental health program in conjunction with a fundamental change in American society and culture where violence is no longer perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution. 

Unfortunately its easier to identify the appropriate solutions than to implement them.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > How do we curtail gun violence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not even beginning to address the problem.  Mental health is just the cure d'jour.  This is not a mental health issue.  Cultural certainly.  This country was built by people who used guns to live and that has been passed down.  Our ancestors were pioneers, not serfs.  But the primary problem is economical.  Too many people with too few options.  Until you solve that, you are going nowhere.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 8, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> How do we curtail gun violence? We don't. On one side you have the armed assailant, who kills with a gun. On the other, you have a citizen who owns a gun, who can capably defend themselves with one.
> 
> Our mental health system is one of the biggest causes of mass murder. More often than not you have people who snap and in a blind rage kill a bunch of people with a gun.



Mass Shootings only account for 1% of gun related deaths.  I would never advocate that we ignore mass shootings.  I would only ask that we address the 99% problem as the priority.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 8, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



Suicide is not homicide.  The murder rate is somewhere between 4 and 5 in 100,000 depending on the source.  The majority of murders are committed with a gun.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 8, 2014)

Considering the demographics and the general state of the human condition we should be grateful that we don't have a lot more.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jun 8, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > How do we curtail gun violence?
> ...



You are one of the few people who has realized this. If we're going to get serious about stopping mass violence, we must regulate the murder industry much more tightly. The Wrongpublican goal of a completely deregulated economy just isn't working, and hasn't worked, and will never work. We need more federal laws regulating the murder industry if we are to rein in these killer-barons and stop them from running amok.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 8, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



oh the drama----there is no murder industry.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 8, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > How do we curtail gun violence?
> ...



Cultural, Psychological...  Is there a difference between these descriptions of the problem, really?  If there is, forgive me for thinking the difference a bit semantic.

Let's look at a success story: Washington DC
First the numbers:
Crime rate in Washington, District of Columbia (DC): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics
Murders down from 239 to 88
So what changed?

I think people and their situations account for much of the homicide rate.  Yes, that seems obvious, but it needs to be stated plainly that a mix of a harsh impoverishment with easy access to guns on the black market is from whence the gun violence flows.  This is a two prong problem.

It is said that victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan.  There are a number of policy decisions to which this reduction is attributed.  Improving the ability of the DC police to respond to violent crime, community outreach, gentrification, new jobs... some even credit improvements to the schools.  
I think all of the above.  All of the above indicate an improvement in opportunity, a shift in culture(_psychology?_) and a more component city government.

But no one is crediting gun control.  That does not mean gun control is evil.  That simply means that gun control alone does not solve a problem this massive.  The problem has two prongs.

The murder rate in DC is still high, and is likely to remain high so long as the second prong of the problem exists, which is easy access to illegal guns.  We cannot ignore that problem.  The illegal guns need to be removed from the street.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jun 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> LiberalMedia said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



From the conservatard morons who brought you Holocaust Denial and Denial 2: I Don't Watch the Weather Channel, comes the all-new flat out rejection of reality that's sure to leave you in stitches--Denial 3: Murder Doesn't Exist!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 8, 2014)

Anyone that advocates we lose rights over a problem ( all firearms deaths even MUCH smaller number for mass shootings) that effects .0001 percent of the population is insane.


----------



## sameech (Jun 8, 2014)

according to the ABA, the vast majority of people in the US charged with murder are represented either by public defenders or court-appointed private counsel.  In other words, it is directly linked to poverty.  

The republicans refuse to support most poverty initiatives and the democrats refuse to make any substantive changes to existing failed programs because they keep the recipients on the hook of voting for them.  Until the GOP comes up with realistic alternatives to existing programs, or poor people stop voting for the democrats, nothing will change.

The best choice is to go after all guns because the political pressures on both sides against it might cause enough ice to break for some water to get through.  I wouldn't hold my breathe, but until we completely rethink and retool these programs so that there are fewer gaps and fewer people being allowed to live their entire lives cradle to grave without ever having to support themselves, there is nothing that can be done to stop the violence or the murdering.


----------



## Politico (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



I think you identified the real problem right there. The hyping of assault weapons.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



So you agree that guns are not the problem and your solution is to restrict guns.  That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I would agree it was all of the above.  What it wasn't was gun control.  I am not saying gun control is evil, I am saying it in ineffective and takes the focus away from the actual problem.  It is a bandaid, and not even applied to the wound.  It is an easy sound bite for politicians so they don't have to deal with the real issue.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Simple answer. We need more good guys with guns to kill the bad guys with guns. Law of attrition

-Geaux


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

sameech said:


> according to the ABA, the vast majority of people in the US charged with murder are represented either by public defenders or court-appointed private counsel.  In other words, it is directly linked to poverty.
> 
> The republicans refuse to support most poverty initiatives and the democrats refuse to make any substantive changes to existing failed programs because they keep the recipients on the hook of voting for them.  Until the GOP comes up with realistic alternatives to existing programs, or poor people stop voting for the democrats, nothing will change.
> 
> The best choice is to go after all guns because the political pressures on both sides against it might cause enough ice to break for some water to get through.  I wouldn't hold my breathe, but until we completely rethink and retool these programs so that there are fewer gaps and fewer people being allowed to live their entire lives cradle to grave without ever having to support themselves, there is nothing that can be done to stop the violence or the murdering.



Once again....  The problem you agree is poverty and your solution is to go after guns.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

To those who have suggested significant changes to the mental health system needing to be put in place directly related to firearms, I have a question.....

If these things were put in place,..... *Why would any intelligent gun owner ever allow themseves to be involved with the mental health system in any way?*

I live in Massachusetts which already has significant mental health restrictions on firearms licenses and which REQUIRES mental health professionals to report any potentially dangerous gun owner to the state. I know of at least a dozen individuals who are gun owners who WOULD HAVE sought out professional mental health treatment for depression and other theraputic issues IF they weren't concerned that they ran the risk of being classified as "dangerous" and losing their license. I include myself in that number.

Just keep that in mind when you draw up your fantasies about how this would work.


----------



## sameech (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > according to the ABA, the vast majority of people in the US charged with murder are represented either by public defenders or court-appointed private counsel.  In other words, it is directly linked to poverty.
> ...



Yes since neither side is willing to go after poverty, then I am willing to resort to extortion--hold people up with their own guns.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

sameech said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > sameech said:
> ...



So we waste effort and resources to pursue a solution which will solve nothing, based upon the idea that it will extort people to do what you want?  How has that worked out so far?


----------



## sameech (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Brilliantly.  It is why america is the "leader" of the "free" world.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this issue.

Gun violence increased with the fire power of the guns themselves.  The popularity of the semi automatic  firing and reloading systems made guns more lethal and gave the shooter the ability to change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'.  But the gun lovers will tell us that 'mass shootings' are no problem as they effect a very small part of the population.  This attitude dismisses the typical neighborhood drive by shooting while ignoring the headline grabbing mass shootings.

Gun lovers will tell you that the gun itself is a benign implement, no more lethal as it sits on a tabletop than a baseball bat or a lawn dart or a home made pipe bomb. It's only when a mad man obtains a gun and uses it to massacre innocents in a playground or a theater or a shopping center we see the tragedy.  But keeping guns from the mentally disturbed constitutes an infringement of their rights and no gun owner should be scrutinized by mental health professionals to determine competence and responsibility.

So we are essentially handcuffed to the gun lover's agenda.  They do not want back ground checks, they do not want to ban the most lethal of weapons.  They seem to want guns for everyone all the time.  And so goes the spiral.  As long as the gun lovers call the tune, we must dance to the rhythm of the Glock and AR-15.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Let me see if I can wrap my head around this issue.
> 
> Gun violence increased with the fire power of the guns themselves.  The popularity of the semi automatic  firing and reloading systems made guns more lethal and gave the shooter the ability to change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'.  But the gun lovers will tell us that 'mass shootings' are no problem as they effect a very small part of the population.  This attitude dismisses the typical neighborhood drive by shooting while ignoring the headline grabbing mass shootings.
> 
> ...



You have failed to wrap your head around the issue.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can wrap my head around this issue.
> ...


So long as the gun lovers fail to proffer any solution, so long as the gun lovers fail to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence and so long as the gun lovers reject out of hand any and all suggestions to curb the problem, there will be no solution.  And that's where I've wrapped my head.  Apparently, we as a society must accept gun violence as the price of gun lover's intractability.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Yes.  As I said, you have failed to wrap your head around the issue.  Guns are not the problem so any solution that centers on guns will solve nothing.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> So long as the gun lovers fail to proffer any solution, so long as the gun lovers fail to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence and so long as the gun lovers reject out of hand any and all suggestions to curb the problem, there will be no solution.  And that's where I've wrapped my head.  Apparently, we as a society must accept gun violence as the price of gun lover's intractability.



Gun owners have watched for four decades as our Rights have been eroded in the name of "safety" and nothing has improved. At some point maybe trying the idea of enforcing the THOUSANDS of existing laws might be an idea before adding new ones.

Gun owners understand that there is a problem with gun violence. We also realize that very rarely is it legal gun owners who are the ones at fault in these incidents. How about we start by putting criminals where they belong.... IN JAIL (or the ground) rather than continuing to allow them to roam the streets? Think that might help?

Any "Free" society must accept that a certain level of violence in inevitable. It's an unpleasant truth but that's part of Freedom. There is an incredibly long tradition of gun ownership here in the United States and that's not going away without a fight; whether it's purely political or spills over into physical combat as well.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 9, 2014)

Enforce the laws already on the books. The risk of infringing on the 2nd Amendment is too great to have a total ban. Also should crack down on drugs. I think many of these shootings are done by meth-heads.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > So long as the gun lovers fail to proffer any solution, so long as the gun lovers fail to acknowledge that there is a problem with gun violence and so long as the gun lovers reject out of hand any and all suggestions to curb the problem, there will be no solution.  And that's where I've wrapped my head.  Apparently, we as a society must accept gun violence as the price of gun lover's intractability.
> ...


And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act.  I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are.  Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.


----------



## racewright (Jun 9, 2014)

Get rid of cities


----------



## whitehall (Jun 9, 2014)

Enforce the laws on the books and prevent people who are undergoing court ordered psychiatric counseling from buying guns and maybe extend it to any psychiatric disorder. If the gun grabbers would demonstrate their sincerity by indicting the Attorney General for gun running it might be a positive step. The crazy stunt of sending thousands of guns to Mexico should put the A.G. and the ATF under psychiatric care.


----------



## KGB (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them.  Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 9, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


This is why gun violence and the poor stand little to no chance in this country.   People like this actually believe that the economy has been deregulated when in fact, the opposite is true.  The poor remain poor and blinded by rage and violence because they have no means to reacquire their dignity and self worth.  Instead, their hatred and rage is fueled by passing blame to people who are easy scapegoats.

And for what?  So that they can continue to rule the 'unwashed masses'.....


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

KGB said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine.  We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand?  Because they are not 100% effective?  Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.  

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



It is you who wish to curtail my rights.  Why is it me who needs to come up with the solution?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...


Public health and safety?  The safety of your children as the go to school or play?  The safety of the innocents living adjacent to a drive by shooting?

Unless you don't think there is a problem with gun violence in this country.  Do you?

If you do, don't you feel as if not suggesting a problem is tantamount to believing there is no problem?


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act.  I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?
> 
> And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are.  Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.



What you folks need to understand is a very basic principle.... There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO to stop the mass attacks. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to his mother's (not his) firearms, he's have pulled a Timothy McVeigh and driven a truck full of gas and fertilizer into the front doors of that school, or something similar. Killers will ALWAYS find a way to kill. That's basic human psychology. 

The term "semi-automatic firearm" covers a very large and incredibly broad swath of guns (pretty much everything other than revolvers, pump/lever action, and single shot guns). Since you apparently don't understand that, I'm going to guess that any attempt to actually explain to you what it means would be a massive waste of my time and energy.

Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner. His mother was. Therefore any suggestion that Lanza is a case of "gun owner goes rogue" is incorrect. It IS a case of a gun owner failing to properly secure her firearms, but that's a different story.


----------



## sameech (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine.  We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.
> 
> In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand?  Because they are not 100% effective?  Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.
> 
> ...




No we just need to take them out of the mix and not give a hoot about their screams of oppression.  I was practically born with a gun in my hand and have several.  They are tools, not some great symbol of freedom, and the access to them by the masses does nothing to preserve or protect our nation.  I am willing to compromise if for no other reason than to send the message to people to shape up.  Universal background checks, magazine limits, registration of transfers are all fine with me.  Personally, I think all handguns should be banned (and I have 4 of those as well)


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.



You folks won't like the realistic solution....

1. Enforce all existing gun laws. That includes the SENTENCING GUIDELINES for them, and ending the ability of DA's to plea bargain the gun charge away to get a guilty plea on a lesser charge. 

2. No early release for ANYONE involved in a gun-related crime. Not on the gun charge or on whatever other crime they were charged with in that incident.

3. Institute a truly USEFUL NICS program. Require ALL mental health providers who accept any sort of Federal funding to provide the names and SSN's of all violent or potentially unstable individuals in their care. Require ALL Local, County, State and Federal Law Enforcement agencies and Courts to provide the data on all convicted felons and those with a drug/alcohol conviction in their Jurisdiction.  

3. Institute a single, FEDERAL licensing guideline for all state's CCW. The license would be issued at the State level, as an attachment to the driver's license. At any time from age 18 on that an individual renews their driver's license they could opt OUT of their right to purchase, possess, or use firearms. There would also be a NICS check run on them by the DMV when the license is renewed. That check would not be allowed to take more than 90 seconds. So long as the check comes back APPROVED, the driver's license is issued with no disclaimer on it. If the individual has chosen to decline their RTKBA or the NICS check comes back DENIED, an "INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE FIREARMS APPROVAL" note would be printed on the face of the license. 

4. At any time that a licensed individual becomes no longer legal to own, carry, or use a firearm, their current license would be revoked and a new one issued with the appropriate disclaimer. This new license would be delivered by the US Marshall Service to the individual within 72 hours of NICS becoming aware of the situation.

5. When a firearms purchase is made, the dealer will run the license electronically, similar to a credit card. NICS will have 90 seconds to confirm or deny the validity of the license. Failure to coimplete the verification in the time period is assumed to be approval. Records of checks would not be allowed to be kept.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act.  I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?
> ...


On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.  

Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15.  Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15?  Was she a big hunter?  If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting?  Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow?  Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears?  Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?

Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?

Spare me.  Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner.  But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre.  But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.



Condescention is about the nicest thing I have for those who want to further restrict my access to firearms and other self-defense tools. Your commentary, at least the wording of it gave me little hope that you understood what you were talking about.  



Nosmo King said:


> Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15.  Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15?  Was she a big hunter?  If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting?  Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow?  Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears?  Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?



Doesn't matter. The US Constitution does not require firearms owners to provide a REASON for owning a firearm. That's what so many of you miss. You need to prove we DON'T need a firearm, and that there is no legitimate use for it, not the other way around.



Nosmo King said:


> Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?



What would either of those pieces of paper done to stop Adam Lanza. Most states require a safety course which includes discussion of safe storage procedures. That doesn't mean the gun owner can't choose not to follow them. Funny thing about Laws..... they're very easy to break and get away with most of the time.



Nosmo King said:


> Spare me.  Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner.  But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre.  But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.



No regulation other than a total ban on the firearms would have stopped that shooting. Even then, as I noted all it would have meant is that Adam Lanza would have found a different tool to carry out his evil intents. Possibly, if not probably leading to even greater loss of life and damage to property. 

No. Massacres are the price society must pay for people who don't want to actually suggest that some "people" are actually little more than rabid dogs and should have the same thing done with them that is done to the afforementioned animals.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.
> ...


What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado?  Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres.  They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado?  Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres.  They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.



I've got a brilliant idea.... 

How about we actually start demanding parents be responsible for knowing who their children are and what the fuck they're doing (Columbine and Sandy Hook)? 

How about we provide proper security (that means armed people who are trained and ready to KILL individuals who threaten bodily harm to others on the property) in places where individuals are denied their right to bear arms (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, & Aurora). 

How about we get rid of the damn ridiculous restrictions on parents and guardians being able to FORCE unstable family members into in-patient mental health facilities until they can be fully diagnosed and their dangerousness determined (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora). 

Outside of that there is no way to proactively prevent these things from happening. We can only react to them. That's one of the down-sides to living in a nation where Freedom is an integral part of the society.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado?  Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres.  They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.
> ...


Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out.  Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution.  There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres.  More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage.  More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.

Unless we can divine some practical use for weapons with semi automatic firing and reloading systems, we should exclude them from our society.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with need. But to the point, the 2nd is designed to ensure that regular citizens can be formed into useful militias in time of need. Bringing with them their own weapons. That means as a matter of National survival that private citizens have access to weapons of USE. IN USE or usable by the military as has been codified by Supreme Court rulings.

So yes private citizens need access to AR-15's AK-47's and all the other semi automatic rifles out there. To include especially the so called ASSUALT RIFLE.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.
> ...



Same objection.  It will not change the situation and will, imo, exacerbate it.  I did a little number crunching and comparing the US and europe (including Canada) the average per capita prison population per 100,000 is 104 while the murder rate by gun is .27.  For the US the prison population is 707 with a murder rate of 10.3.  

Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it.  Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant.  Quite the opposite.  I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out.  Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution.  There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres.  More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage.  More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.



Most of them do take themselves out when confronted with potential reactive from from the other side. You might want to tell the Israeli's how impractical that "armed teacher" solution is, since they've used it with a 100% success rate for something on the order of 40 years after the ONLY school-related massacre in the country's history. The idea isn't only to be able to fight back, but to disuade the armed individual from choosing a school as a target in the first place. More guns does not necessarily mean more stray bullets. Not if people are properly trained. 



Nosmo King said:


> Unless we can divine some practical use for weapons with semi automatic firing and reloading systems, we should exclude them from our society.



The CONSTITUTIONAL use for semi-automatic firearms is very simple..... Whatever the hell the law-abiding citizen wants to use them for. Just like the CONSTITUTIONAL use for any other firearm or defensive tool (pepper spray, knife, kubaton, steel baton, etc.....)


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it.  Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant.  Quite the opposite.  I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.



You mistake me for someone who thinks that we should let the vast majority of those people out of their cages before they are corpses.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out.  Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution.  There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres.  More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage.  More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.
> ...


I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.

Where does this arms race conclude?

In March of 1981, four people were shot and grievously wounded on a Washington D.C. street.  They were all surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in human history.  In fact, two of the wounded were armed themselves.  With all those guns present, John Hinckley still managed to shoot four individuals.  I wonder if the third grade teacher at Sandy Hook could have fared better than the United States Secret Service?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it.  Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant.  Quite the opposite.  I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.
> ...



Won't make the problem better, will vastly increase the cost of both prisons and the legal system, and would be considered unconstitutional.  A really bad idea.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.



So long as you can prove that you have the means to properly and safely store the device, so be it.



Nosmo King said:


> In March of 1981, four people were shot and grievously wounded on a Washington D.C. street.  They were all surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in human history.  In fact, two of the wounded were armed themselves.  With all those guns present, John Hinckley still managed to shoot four individuals.  I wonder if the third grade teacher at Sandy Hook could have fared better than the United States Secret Service?



In March of 1981 the Secret Service had become lax and complacent. They've admitted this. The attempted assassination of President Reagan began a total review andchange in the way the POTUS is protected. Trust me, if it were still that easy to get to a POTUS, the current one would not likely still be alive.

Personally, my preference isn't to arm the teachers, but to provide proper security personnel in all public buildings where CCW is precluded by law or policy. Great opportunity for those returning US Military personnel. 




PratchettFan said:


> Won't make the problem better, will vastly increase the cost of both prisons and the legal system, and would be considered unconstitutional.  A really bad idea.



Not really.... Violent felons and those convicted of moral crimes, executed 4 hours after their one appeal is turned down. Non-violent felons spend the rest of their life in prison. Individuals convicted of misdemeanors spend not less than 5 years nor more than 10. Second offense treated like a felony of the same type (violent or non-violent). That would clean up the system very quickly.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.
> ...


Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service?  Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts.  Where's the cash for Rambo?


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service?  Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts.  Where's the cash for Rambo?



The cash is coming from cutting the things that don't belong in schools..... Gym, art, music, interscholastic sports, clubs, etc.... and returning schools to what they should be about.... BASIC SKILLS and nothing more.

I'm not talking about "a security force better than the Secret Service". I'm simply talking about ensuring the safety of the students and faculty who are not allowed any opportunity to defend themselves.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service?  Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts.  Where's the cash for Rambo?
> ...


No!  Stop right there!  gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools?  What do you know of education?  Apparently nothing.

Do not hijack education at the point of a gun.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> No!  Stop right there!  gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools?  What do you know of education?  Apparently nothing.
> 
> Do not hijack education at the point of a gun.



What do I know about education? Not much. Just what I learned from my own education, and the experiences of my mother, father, 2 aunts, an uncle, one grandparent, and my youngest brother who are or were all involved in the field of education on both the public and parochial sides from early elementary up to teaching Biology on the college level.

What I know is that education is supposed to be an OPPORTUNITY for people to learn the BASIC skills necessary to function in our society. As an opportunity, not everyone chooses to take advantage of it, and that should be their choice. However, those who do choose to do it should be safe in that environment and the only way to do that is to provide proper security for those facilities and to keep out those who don't want to be there for the education.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 9, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > No!  Stop right there!  gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools?  What do you know of education?  Apparently nothing.
> ...


But you said that art, music, sports and clubs do not belong in schools while armed guards do.  you are blunting the educational opportunities for students just to pay for security.  That is no bargain.  

School is not merely a training center for efficient employees.  It should be a palace where all life's opportunities are presented like an intellectual smorgasbord.  Stripping away extra curricular activities to pay for the introduction of the gun culture would be the worst thing to happen to the educational experience since nuns found wooden rulers.


----------



## KGB (Jun 9, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



actually, a gun is a rather benign object.  I have yet in all my years of being around firearms to ever see one come out of its storage container, load itself, go up to person & pull its own trigger.  When that day happens, I will gladly join you in calling for their abolition.  Until then, I will recognize the simple fact that any firearm requires two essential components to function:  a guidance system & an operating system.  I'll give you a big hint:  both components are organic in nature & come from dominant bi-pedal species on the planet.  

the fact is, like most gun grabbers, you wish to assign communal blame for the crimes of individuals.  I, as a responsible gun owner, categorically refuse to accept that blame.  I categorically refuse to give up my rights in the vein attempt of establishing a feel-good situation that does nothing to address the root cause.  I believe it was said once on these boards that even with perfect gun control, a good family, & a close relationship to God did not stop Cain from killing Abel.  So, maybe, just maybe, it isn't the instrument we should be looking at....


----------



## shart_attack (Jun 9, 2014)

KGB said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



Good to see the KGB here.

I like your style. 

(Btw, what do you think of gay pride parades in the States? What's the official word from the top Rezident?)


----------



## KGB (Jun 9, 2014)

shart_attack said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




&#1042;&#1099; - &#1101;&#1090;&#1086; &#1076;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086; &#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1088;&#1080;&#1097;


----------



## shart_attack (Jun 9, 2014)

KGB said:


> shart_attack said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



&#1058;&#1099; &#1091;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1102;&#1090; &#1085;&#1077;&#1082;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1099;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1082;&#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1097;&#1080;&#1085;&#1099; &#1090;&#1072;&#1084;, &#1073;&#1088;&#1072;&#1090;. 

&#1071; &#1085;&#1077; &#1076;&#1091;&#1084;&#1072;&#1102;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1084;&#1099; &#1073;&#1091;&#1076;&#1077;&#1084; &#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1077;&#1097;&#1077; &#1084;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1080;&#1079; &#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1079;&#1076;&#1077;&#1089;&#1100;, &#1074; &#1064;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1072;&#1093; &#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1076;&#1086; &#1076;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1077; &#1074; "&#1043;&#1077;&#1081; &#1057;&#1064;&#1040;". 

&#1044;&#1072; &#1073;&#1083;&#1072;&#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1090; &#1074;&#1072;&#1089; &#1041;&#1086;&#1075;, &#1089;&#1086;&#1083;&#1076;&#1072;&#1090;.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



An attempt at morbid humor I presume.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I agree that poverty is the larger problem that needs to be addressed.  Desperation and a gun don't mix well.
On "Gun Control" I would ask the question "What is gun control"?  Is a three day waiting period not "Gun Control"?  Maybe the question should be "How much Gun Control is reasonable?"
There's a very funny anecdote I'd like to share.  It's from Chris Rock:
_You dont need no gun control. We need some bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If a bullet cost $5,000, therell be no more innocent bystanders. Every time somebody gets shot itll be like, Man, he must have done something. Shit, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass._​
Is there any truth to the idea of imposing a vice tax on guns?  Would imposing a vice tax on guns and/or ammunition make illegal guns prohibitively expensive?  Would the thought of lost revenue make the government more likely to enforce the laws we already have?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

Politico said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:
_Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. *Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it.* Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows._​
That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory?  If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite?  Such as in the military?  Or the police force?  Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right irregardless of membership in a militia. Further by US law all males age 17 to 45 are members of the Unorganized US Militia. The purpose of a militia is so that private citizens can respond to a government call for troops and bring with them their own weapons. That means in order to be effective semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are a must.

And the 2nd specifically states the right shall not be infringed so no sin tax, no raising the cost of bullets to ignorant levels and no special added tax.


----------



## sameech (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



"Assault Rifle" is an ambiguous phrase.  It opens the door for people to post a photo of two rifles, 1 legal and 1 illegal and demand you identify which is which and other such nonsense.

From my perspective, today's police and the military are the militia as intended by the Constitution when you look at the function of militias then and LE/military now.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Gunny,
I'm sorry, you are wrong about taxation.  

26 USC § 4181
That statute inflicting a tax on guns has not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.

26 USC ch. 53
These statutes, collectively known as the National Firearms Act of 1934, which among other things inflict a tax on guns, have also not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.  
_United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


The SCOTUS has held that private persons have an individual right to types of weapons as may be used by a militia, those being common household weapons.  However, SCOTUS has provided dicta that would find bans on weapons like the M-16 to be constitutional.
_McDonald v. Chicago,_ 561 U.S. 742 (2010)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



Fully automatic weapons are banned if produced after 1986. Any done before then is legal with a license in all but 16 States. An AR-15 is NOT an M-16. It is a semi automatic with no burst function and no automatic fire option. The Supreme Court has NOT ever agreed to a ban on semi automatics, that is a bald faced lie.

Once again the Court HAS ruled that a weapon of use, in use or common use of the military is what is protected by the 2nd. And they have never rescinded that decision. BUT they have further stipulated that the 2nd IS an individual right not dependent on membership in a militia. And they have forced cities that ban firearms to rescind those bans, or haven't you heard of Chicago and Washington DC?


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



The majority of rapes are committed with a penis. Are you advocating outlawing *them* too?
A gun is a tool. A hand gun is a tool. You can pound a nail or kill a person with either one. A gun is simply a more efficient tool for killing.

What needs to be done is to work on the reasons why people kill.
 #1 drugs
Frankly, the older I get, the more convinced I am that all so called "recreational drugs" should be made legal. In the case of meth, crack and heroin, free for confirmed addicts. I figure it will eliminate the criminal and territorial aspects and allow substantial profit at a reduced margin.
The side benefit is that Darwin will cull the gene pool.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Clean discussion, Ernie.
Please leave flame, straw men, red herrings and perverse projections at the door.
Let's try to keep it a bit classier in the clean discussion section.  Is that asking so much?


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 9, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I'm thinking there are enough laws regulating murder right now. Hell! One should suffice. "Thou shalt not kill." works for me.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 9, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Gunny,
I cited the Chi-Town case above.
The court ruled against bans on handguns in _McDonald_.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 10, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



A financial approach to guns will only impact legal users and, once again, is directed at the wrong problem.  Chris Rock, though entertaining, is wrong.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 10, 2014)

These are the people enabled by the far right talking and media machine in America. The NRA too. 

Indiana dad of Las Vegas shooter: 'I begged her not to marry him' - chicagotribune.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...has-become-a-killing-field-2.html#post6498531

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me-5.html#post7038526

Guns are the crack of the partisan hacks. Courage is an imaginary passion for them and thus the gun huggers cling to the source of their only strength, an empty bravado. They are like a child with its blankee who cries when separated. Drugs, even when they are hard metal talismans of courage are not something the frightened can part with. They have come to represent freedom for the unfree, teetered as they are to the gun lobby and the NRA, and a gross misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment. They need their fix and their fix is an object of imaginary security, an object that gives meaning to a senselessness that only programmed Americans can believe is real. Oh and I laugh that the NRA removed the word 'militia' from their retard headquarter's slogan misuse of the second. 


*"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was  interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second  Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second  Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word  'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't  guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second  Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." *


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 10, 2014)

Lets put a gun in every home.

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux


----------



## sameech (Jun 10, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> I agree that poverty is the larger problem that needs to be addressed.  Desperation and a gun don't mix well.
> On "Gun Control" I would ask the question "What is gun control"?  Is a three day waiting period not "Gun Control"?  Maybe the question should be "How much Gun Control is reasonable?"
> There's a very funny anecdote I'd like to share.  It's from Chris Rock:
> _You dont need no gun control. We need some bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If a bullet cost $5,000, therell be no more innocent bystanders. Every time somebody gets shot itll be like, Man, he must have done something. Shit, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass._​
> Is there any truth to the idea of imposing a vice tax on guns?  Would imposing a vice tax on guns and/or ammunition make illegal guns prohibitively expensive?  Would the thought of lost revenue make the government more likely to enforce the laws we already have?



The recent Obamacare decision would seem to indicate that as long as you call it a tax and not a fine, things that would otherwise be unconstitutional become constitutional.  

The problem is a political one.  This tax the ammo only makes moderate/middle class sense so you will have both ends coming at it in opposition.  Rich people who can afford an M-16 and fire off a 1,000 rounds a week as range queens will oppose it because they are already "taxed too damn much" and the poor people will oppose it because it either makes it harder for them to hunt (rural) or makes it harder for them to protect themselves from gangs (urban).  I would support it, but that dog will never hunt.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 10, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> These are the people enabled by the far right talking and media machine in America. The NRA too.
> 
> Indiana dad of Las Vegas shooter: 'I begged her not to marry him' - chicagotribune.com
> 
> ...



Comrade. do you have a sign in front of your trailer, assuring everyone that there are "no guns here?"

I strongly urge ALL Obamunists to advertise the fact that you have no weapons or ability to defend yourself.

A nice sign that says "Feel free to rape and rob, we are unarmed" will work as well.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 10, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > These are the people enabled by the far right talking and media machine in America. The NRA too.
> ...



Oh boy, another post about rapine.

You stay classy, San Diego!


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 10, 2014)

sameech said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that poverty is the larger problem that needs to be addressed.  Desperation and a gun don't mix well.
> ...



What about a progressive tax on firearms and associated ammunition?  Low taxes or no taxes on the typical varmint rifles, higher on more powerful bolt action rifles, even higher on handguns, and higher still on more powerful weapons.  We already have such a tax system codified in 26 USC §4181
U.S.C. Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Right now, under this statute, there are only two categories.  The current difference in taxation is 1%.  Pistols and Revolvers are the category taxed less.

I'm really not proposing anything radically new.  We actually have something like this on the books.  I'm just suggesting we use a tool we already have more effectively.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 10, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Poverty has proven to be the larger problem.  No argument.  I'd call it a concession, but I'm not arguing otherwise.  

That is not to say we should ignore the ill effects of illegal firearms.  I'm going on the premise that there is a markup on handguns in the black market therefore inflicting a tax on these weapons of choice upfront will drastically increase the prices required by the black market.  Hence they sell fewer of them, unless you think the demand is so inelastic as to not wane in response to such a high price?

As for stolen firearms winding up on the black market, if a man says his home was burglarized and his gun cabinet was picked clean of twenty or thirty weapons... how are we going to track down where those weapons went?  Maybe if the guns cost more, people would purely of their own volition invest in a gun safe?

Additionally, what if we funded the ATF off these taxes?  Is it possible that the ATF would be less incompetent if it needed to chase down those who violated its own tax-based funding?

What is the alternative to stymieing the flow of illegal firearms?


----------



## sameech (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> What about a progressive tax on firearms and associated ammunition?  Low taxes or no taxes on the typical varmint rifles, higher on more powerful bolt action rifles, even higher on handguns, and higher still on more powerful weapons.  We already have such a tax system codified in 26 USC §4181
> U.S.C. Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> 
> Right now, under this statute, there are only two categories.  The current difference in taxation is 1%.  Pistols and Revolvers are the category taxed less.
> ...



I am fine with it.  I still Think it is politically a hard sell.  Maybe if the revenues were automatically earmarked to something related like buy back programs, it would seem more sellable.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



Illegal firearms are....  illegal.  You want more laws to make them more illegal?  The solution you are presenting will not solve that, it will just make it more likely for a firearm to be illgal - for no other purpose than to do so.  

If you want to attack the problem of illegal firearms, then take away the source of money buying them.  This is driven by the drug trade.  Make drugs legal and you remove the money paying for the illegal guns.  

But we won't do that because it would actually help solve the problem.  And there is money in the problem.  Money for the DEA, money for police departments, money for governments.  The problem may hurt people, but it also pays a lot of salaries.  So don't hold your breath for any solution that will solve anything.  Too many people make too much money solving the problem to want the problem to go away.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Oh boy, another post about rapine.



That's why you Obamunists want women disarmed, to keep the streets safe for rapists!

I mean otherwise, it might be *your* nuts she blows off with a 9mm.... democrats are all about protecting people - provided those people are predators...


----------



## Zombie_Pundit (Jun 12, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I don't want to make anything illegal "more illegal".  That would be nonsensical.  Since a tax is constitutional, I ask the question "would increasing the price reduce demand?"

I agree that the war on drugs is no small part of the funding for these murders.  I'm not going to support legalizing smack and other opiates for recreational use, as these drugs were used by foreign powers to destructive effect in China not so long ago.  But we don't need to be such militant prudes or destroy the lives of young people by labeling them felons over what they do to themselves.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 12, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Zombie_Pundit said:
> ...



No.  It would not reduce the demand.  As I said, increasing the price would only affect people who buy legally and they are not the problem.

While heroin is certainly a destructive drug, what you decide to put into your body is your decision and none of my business - nor the business of the government.  It would be far cheaper to provide you with free rehab than to put you in prison for it, and considerably more productive.  It would also allow you the opportunity to sue the supplier if the quality was bad.  But that would cost law enforcement a lot of money, so it won't happen.  For our own good, of course.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 26, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



The answer is simple.  Make everyone carry a handgun or shotgun wherever they go.  School kids starting in kindergarten should be armed with something small like a 22 and should graduate to a semi-automatic by high school.  If everyone is carrying a gun, we'll all be safer.  It's especially important for everyone going to a nightclub where alcohol is served to be carrying a gun.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 26, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


It would be far cheaper to give heroin addicts all the heroin they want for free. 6 months and the problem takes care of itself.


----------



## YouthDebate (Jun 26, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> The answer is simple.  Make everyone carry a handgun or shotgun wherever they go.  School kids starting in kindergarten should be armed with something small like a 22 and should graduate to a semi-automatic by high school.  If everyone is carrying a gun, we'll all be safer.  It's especially important for everyone going to a nightclub where alcohol is served to be carrying a gun.



Coming from a UK background I find it hard to believe such a system would result in increased safety. I can see the logic but it draws on Mutually Assured Destruction principles, no one will nuke because we will all start firing off. Better than MAD would be having no nukes so surely the same logic can apply here?

Semi-automatics in high school? Coupled with puberty hormones? I cannot believe that this would reduce gun violence, perhaps you could explain it further than; If everyone is carrying a gun, we'll all be safer. Or is this as simple as you can reduce your argument?


----------



## editec (Jun 26, 2014)

Far too many people who feel like they have nothing to lose


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 26, 2014)

editec said:


> Far too many people who feel like they have nothing to lose



Yep- Not much out there today for our youth to hang their hats on

-Geaux


----------



## racewright (Jun 26, 2014)

This get ride of guns because of gun deaths is total bullshit. If its lives you wish to save there are plenty of other needed help to saves lives . like a better economy so the less fortunate can go to work and not beat each other to death.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 26, 2014)

This is not about gun deaths, but about gun owners. Just look at what we allow the government to screw up on a daily basis. They destroy everything they touch. The fact that I and many, many others today enjoy the continued use of our firearms is the only reason we still have them.

That's because we'll not let you have them!

Again, the anti-gun loon movement is about disarmament of all law abiding citizens. For them, its a marathon, not a sprint to the final outcome

-Geaux


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 27, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Could repeal the 2nd Amendment, outlaw private firearms ownership across the board, confoscate everyone's guns and melt them down, then hope psychos murder their victims with knives and barehands again like in the olden days.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...








8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime in the USA.  Keep them in prison forever.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 2, 2014)

westwall said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



Careful, you'll be called racist for that suggestion...


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

YouthDebate said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is simple.  Make everyone carry a handgun or shotgun wherever they go.  School kids starting in kindergarten should be armed with something small like a 22 and should graduate to a semi-automatic by high school.  If everyone is carrying a gun, we'll all be safer.  It's especially important for everyone going to a nightclub where alcohol is served to be carrying a gun.
> ...









The UK is one of the most violent countries out there.  Much more violent than the US.  We have a higher murder rate but other than that the UK has us cold.

*
UK is violent crime capital of Europe* 

"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research." 

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



right there with ya.  How about extending technology that won't allow a cell phone to work in a running vehicle.  I am more concerned that I will be affected by a texting driver than shot by a gun.  My observation is that 70% of people text and drive.  And incidents are escalating.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 7, 2014)

Simple!  We curtail violence!  Guns are not the problem!

After all, you're trying to curtail deaths and injury from guns.  The removal of guns from the general public is not the answer.  We all know that criminals will obtain guns no matter what the laws are.

Gun-crime rates (and accompanying violence) in the USA are higher per capita in areas where guns are prohibited by law.  (Again, the criminals do not obey the law.)


----------



## whitehall (Jul 7, 2014)

Every mass shooter in modern history (including Oswald) was a left winger, the child of a left winger or a left wing crazy person. Think about it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 7, 2014)

asaratis said:


> Simple!  We curtail violence!  Guns are not the problem!
> 
> After all, you're trying to curtail deaths and injury from guns.  The removal of guns from the general public is not the answer.  We all know that criminals will obtain guns no matter what the laws are.
> 
> Gun-crime rates (and accompanying violence) in the USA are higher per capita in areas where guns are prohibited by law.  (Again, the criminals do not obey the law.)



So, how do we curtail violence?

A couple of observations;

The less educated, the less well off, the more violent people are. Desperation leads to people who engage in violence. A man who's kids are hungry is libel to do anything to feed them.

So how do we increase education among people who are openly hostile to education? Those who equate education with "going white?" How do we decrease poverty among those who are unable to defer gratification in favor of future reward?  

You're right that we have a violence problem, but what do we actually do to address it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 8, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Is there any truth to the idea of imposing a vice tax on guns?  Would imposing a vice tax on guns and/or ammunition make illegal guns prohibitively expensive?  Would the thought of lost revenue make the government more likely to enforce the laws we already have?


Taxing the exercise of a right for the purpose of restricting that exercise qualifies as an infringement and violates the constitution.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 9, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



After WWII and the Holocaust a lot of research was done trying to figure out why despite advanced knowledge and technology we're so f'in stupid and cruel. Answers werre found and solutions discovered.

We know how to reduce violence. We just don't want to because having scapegoats and fear in societies benefits governments.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Jul 19, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> a completely deregulated economy just isn't working, and hasn't worked,



It's never been tried.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Jul 19, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The less educated, the less well off, the more violent people are. Desperation leads to people who engage in violence. A man who's kids are hungry is libel to do anything to feed them.



Yes, that's why the murder rate (in particular murder by gun) went so high during the Great Depression.

Except... it didn't. That period was no higher than the periods before or after it... and considerably LOWER than many periods.

(By the way, there were virtually NO so-called "gun control" laws then.)

Compare that to the last 30 years, when people were much more prosperous... and the murder rates were HIGHER.

The idea that falling prosperity leads to greater violence, or rising murder rates, or rising gun murders, is one of the more easily debunked notions in the whole debate. And it has been repeatedly debunked. Yet people keep citing it as though it held any truth.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 1, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> *"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was  interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second  Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second  Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word  'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't  guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second  Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." *



Can you quote any statements from Burger on the right to arms or the 2nd Amendment from when his thoughts mattered, you know when he was on the Court?

What you have posted above is a mish-mash of claims, some attributable and some not from when Burger was a paid shill for Handgun Control Inc.

Burger's statements can only be explained by the abandonment of reason for $$$$$ or dementia.  

Have you ever read *his Parade Magazine article*?  He sounds like he's schizophrenic . . .


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 1, 2014)

We clean-up our culture and destroy the inner city gangs in America. Then go to church and read the good book.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 1, 2014)

They used to sell Thompson sub machineguns in mail order catalogs, guns were sold freely back  80 years ago. No mass shootings, no workplace shootings. Well, until the Mafia in Chicago got a hold of the Chopper, the Chicago typewriter. The original gangsters doing drive by's.  During prohibition. Now we are talking about a new prohibition on firearms...Well, I would rather have a time machine, and go back 80 years than deal with this conflicted mess America is in NOW.  There is no answer. We are better off without guns, but that ain't gonna happen. We were better off without alcohol, too, but that didn't work. Late at night I have heard the rapid fire report of a fully automatic weapon firing  off in the distance. This isn't what  America or the what the second amendment  was meant to be.  I would like a new amendment to the constitution, freedom from fear of people baring arms.


----------



## AquaAthena (Aug 1, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> How do we curtail gun violence? We don't. On one side you have the armed assailant, who kills with a gun. On the other, you have a citizen who owns a gun, who can capably defend themselves with one.
> 
> Our mental health system is one of the biggest causes of mass murder. More often than not you have people who snap and in a blind rage kill a bunch of people with a gun.



 And there is no way, to detect when a lost person, is going to lose it completely. If they are on meds, they may not even take them as prescribed. There are symptoms in certain people.....things to be on the lookout for, but until someone has committed a crime against others or themselves, there are no solutions. Even then, only stopgap measures can be implemented.


----------



## AuntiE (Aug 2, 2014)

Related Story: Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - Los Angeles Times

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center.

In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.

The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren&#8217;t fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found.

The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes -- less than 1% -- reported using a firearm to defend themselves.

Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed  more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased.

It&#8217;s unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news.

&#8220;It&#8217;s hard to know what&#8217;s going on there,&#8221; said D&#8217;Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year.

Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country.

Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates.

Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children.

The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 2, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
> What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?



If you want to investigate a problem, then you should look at all features of it.

Here is how the CDC records all of the homicides in the US in 2011 and the corresponding homicide rate.






Let's look at the white, non-Hispanic, homicide rate. How does it compare to Northern Europe, the lands that liberals love to point to as being model societies.






The American white, non-Hispanic, homicide rate is lower than what is seen in Estonia, a tad higher than what we see in Finland, and unquestionably higher than what is seen in Denmark.

How do we compare to Canada and how do the individual states fare?






Look at the upper-midwest and compare to British Columbia and Ontario. About the same. 

Overall, looking at all American demographic groups, how do we compare on the issue of domestic homicide? We have the lowest share in the world. 






Now go back and look at the first table, the one from the CDC. Our homicide rate in the US is high, but when we isolate out population groups we see that American non-Hispanic males have a homicide rate in the ballpark of what we see in Europe. We're definitely on the high side compared to many European nations but there are also nations there which match and even exceed ours. That analysis doesn't even factor in the massively disproportionate gun ownership rate, for in many European countries gun ownership is quite rare.

America doesn't have a gun-centered homicide problem, we have a black-centered homicide problem that other nations don't have because they have small black populations or none at all. Look at the CDC table again and note the 19.43 per 100,000 homicide rate. That is the problem and it drastically inflates the overall US homicide rate.

If you want to fix the problem, the problem really isn't homicide rate, it's black homicide rate.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 2, 2014)

MaryL said:


> They used to sell Thompson sub machineguns in mail order catalogs, guns were sold freely back  80 years ago. No mass shootings, no workplace shootings. Well, until the Mafia in Chicago got a hold of the Chopper, the Chicago typewriter. The original gangsters doing drive by's.  During prohibition. Now we are talking about a new prohibition on firearms...Well, I would rather have a time machine, and go back 80 years than deal with this conflicted mess America is in NOW.  There is no answer. We are better off without guns, but that ain't gonna happen. We were better off without alcohol, too, but that didn't work. Late at night I have heard the rapid fire report of a fully automatic weapon firing  off in the distance. This isn't what  America or the what the second amendment  was meant to be.  I would like a new amendment to the constitution, freedom from fear of people baring arms.



The mob violence of the 1920's is tame by comparison of the violence meted out by the rap gang culture that glorifies packing a 9 and randomly shooting someone because they are wearing red or blue.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 2, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
> ...


Somebody just dropped the atomic bomb on the 2nd Amendment haters and won this war.


----------



## Politico (Aug 3, 2014)

Yeah with the black haters at least.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 3, 2014)

Politico said:


> Yeah with the black haters at least.



Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Rip the data I presented. Show us all how I'm wrong.


----------



## Politico (Aug 4, 2014)

No worries. Your own data shows that.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2014)

Sorry, I'm not letting people get away with just counting and recounting those murdered by bad guys as the only side to the gun debate...

Murders by guns in the U.S. Are about 11,000 per year, lives saved by gun per year, 100,000, and that number is too low but it is the number actually acknowledged by anti gun groups, in particular anti gun researcher hemmenway.

why is that number reported too low...because other studies,put the number upwards of 300,000lives saved per year while on the real far side up,to 2.5 million lives saved,per year.   even these numbers are not accurate because if you take the gun grabber number of 100,000 lives saved per year, that doesn't count all defensive gun uses/lives saved because in the majority of events, no shots are fired and no bodies are put on the ground...meaning there is nothing to count for statistical purposes.

also, the 100,000 lives saved doesn't count the lives saved,because in these defensive gun uses a lot of the criminals are captured or killed by the intended victim which means that future, uncounted victims, are also saved from attack...

How can we know this...from stories,like the one where the female college student who was raped 50 feet from the campus police station because even though she had a cocealed carry license, she had to leave her gun off campus the night she was brutally raped because the school was a legally mandated "gun free" zone...her attacker then went on to brutally rape 3 more victims and kill the third...

and by the way...this is the desired outcome that the anti gun people want, it is better that these women be brutally raped and beaten or murderd, than that they have,a gun on their person to stop it from happening...how do I know this...because,if put to the question...would you allow these women to carry a gun knowing what was about to happen to them...would you?  the anti-gun people will say,no...it is better that they not have access to that gun that will prevent that attack...so by extension...the preferred outcome for the anti-gun people is that these women are brutally raped,and the one is murdered...because innocent people can't be allowed to have guns....thereby allowing them to be brutally beaten, brutally raped and brutally murdered...


so no more one way street for the gun grabbers...criminals may murder 11,000 people each year...a lot of those other criminals in gang violence...but over 100,000 peoples lives are saved from violent beatings, violent rape, and violent murder because good,people can stop the attacks,because they are,carrying guns on their hips...

what causes gun violence,in democrat controlled cities...generations of children raising children on government welfare, with no adult role models,other than gang members and other criminals, which produces stone cold killers without remorse or compassion or human empathy...all the while the democrats in control of those cities....check out he top most violent cities in the U.S., they are in general controlled by democrat mayors...undermine the police by not employing enough or tying their hands as they try to deal with the criminal drug gangs the government policies have created...

*Solution*:

As Anethma points out...long prison sentences for criminals/felons who use guns to commit crimes or who are caught carrying guns on their person during any routine searches, and the directive to district attorneys to actually prosecute,these gun crimes and judges directed to give long sentences for gun crimes.

We see this in Chicago...in one shooting at a park where three gang members shot at a crowd of people...they all had prior convictions for violent crimes and at least one had a previous gun arrest but was out on parole at the time of the shooting, for a previous gun crime conviction in which he received 3 years only for the gun crime and was out in 18 months...in another shooting...the killer had another gun arrest..but was given 3 months in a "boot camp" instead of prison for the gun crime


so don't tell me the problem is guns...the problem is bad law enforcement policy decisions that allow violent criminals to keep using guns to commit crimes over and over again in the same small areas of democrat controlled cities...which are then used as a reason to take guns away from law abiding citizens who use them to save over 100,000 lives a year...

and another thing...the mentally ill...they are the smallest of the problem when it comes,to gun violence...the real problem is inner city killing fields created,by democrat welfare and police,policies....but we know why the anti- gun crowd focuses so much on the mentally ill getting guns..because it gives them a powerful tool for getting guns away from those people  least likely to use guns for murder...law abiding citizens...because they will use any and all mental health laws to target law abiding citizens.  We have seen the precursor to this in Illinois with the medical pot cards used to deny gun permits...even as they don't deny those same people drivers licenses...because more medical pot card holders are more likely to be driving under the influence than they will to use guns to commit murder...but they still use it to deny concealed carry permits but not drivers licenses, don't they...and the use of PTSD to deny military vets the ability to get carry permits....even though these same soldiers would be allowed to carry weapons in the line of duty...but they won't be allowed to carry weapons when they leave the military for their personal protection...

so keeping guns out of the hands of the Colorado theater shooter and the Newton shooter are what we want...two killers who were known to have serious, dangerous mental problems who were still able to get guns, one went through legal background checks that the anti gunners insist will stop crime, while the other simply murdered a legal gun owner to get their guns...but we know that what the anti-gun people,want is another way to keep law abiding people from having and carrying guns...because the anti-gun people will use that power to keep anyone who even talks to a therapist from getting a gun...even if the only reason they talk to a therapist is because they are felling a little down and could use someone to talk to...and then they will have a permanent block on their ability to own or carry a gun to protect themselves from violent criminals...we know the anti-gun strategy and goals and we do not trust them...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2014)

> We see this in Chicago...in one shooting at a park where three gang members shot at a crowd of people...they all had prior convictions for violent crimes and at least one had a previous gun arrest but was out on parole at the time of the shooting, for a previous gun crime conviction in which he received 3 years only for the gun crime and was out in 18 months...in another shooting...the killer had another gun arrest..but was given 3 months in a "boot camp" instead of prison for the gun crime


And some people STILL think we can enact laws that will prevent people from breaking the law.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 6, 2014)

Right here is your problem:

I was watching some Youtube videos and this story popped up in the sidebar.



> Press-Register files show that Williams pleaded guilty last November  to the 2009 shooting of Griggs and his then 19-month-old daughter.
> 
> The  pair was shot in the early afternoon as they were getting out of a  Cadillac that had broken down at St. Stephens Road and Clark Avenue,  according to the files. The gunfire came from a car with tinted windows,  police told the Press-Register at the time.
> 
> ...


So Williams,  a criminal with a long list of priors,  shoots Griggs,  another criminal with a long list of prior convictions,  and Griggs' 19 month old daughter in 2009 with an illegal firearm.

He is OUT OF PRISON six days into 2012.

So Griggs kills Williams in April 2012,  and is convicted and sentenced by the jury to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Mind you,  he has already previous been convicted as a drug dealer and sentenced to 17 years.



> A jury last month convicted Travis  Dewayne Griggs, 31, of murder in the death of Deandre Williams on April  4 of last year.  With an extensive criminal record, _including five  felony convictions_, Griggs could have been sentenced to life without  parole.
> 
> *But Mobile County Circuit Judge Rick Stout said the case  was not egregious enough to warrant that penalty.* He said he wanted more  time to consider a prosecution request that the life sentence run on  top of a 17-year prison term Griggs is serving for an unrelated cocaine  offense. If the sentences run at the same time, he would first be  eligible for parole in 15 years.
> 
> Prichard man gets life for revenge killing, but judge spares him life without parole | AL.com


Want to reduce gun crime?  Fix this.


----------



## MDiver (Aug 6, 2014)

Personally, I'm weary of this subject.  It's been posted over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
Approximately 60 million private citizens own an approximate 260 million firearms (I own several myself).  We are responsible individuals who either use them as a sport at the range, are hunters, licensed to carry a firearm for safety, or a combination of any of the above.  Many of the shootings are gang related and who obtained firearms illegally; others are suicides.  Doctors need to be assured through legislation that they can report dangerous or suicidal individuals, without fear of litigation.
Some individuals use firearms for robberies, with many of their firearms being again, obtained illegally.  The bottom line is that the almost entire 60 million firearms owners are never going to be a threat to you and those that legally carry concealed weapons, are also not a threat, but rather, a lifeline should a crime occur.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2014)

> Want to reduce gun crime? Fix this.



That is the problem...isn't it?  sadly, they don't really care about the crime...they just want the guns, otherwise their effort would actually be aimed at repeat felons who commit gun crimes and serve short sentences...but this isn't the fight they fight.  they fight hardest to take guns out of the hands of people who don't break the law, and use all their clout and power to this end.  if they actually went after the criminals who used the guns they would save lives..but again, saving lives isn't their concern...banning guns is...


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 7, 2014)

Modern Internet enables mass talk about this issue which is a great start.  This is a great improvement from yesteryear's isolated dining room and den and Senate office conversations in Texas and Michigan.

Talk gets the attention of politicians and voters which is good.

So here's more chatter with perhaps a devilish twist:

How about curtailing gun violence (the overall problematic mindset) or at least addressing the issue with talk about the art world?

How does art encourage violence or motivate human peace?

America has given birth to many great pop culture artists such as Andy Warhol who have celebrated the 'coloring' of capitalism.  This is not a small achievement.  After all, it's the patriotic small-town gun store owner who could be tempting tomorrow's high school and post office shooting spree maniacs.

The artistic film industry has offered us reflection with movies such as "American Gun" (2005).

Continuing this art world investment suggests (albeit implicitly) that Toys R' Us, the toy store giant representative of America's cultural successes with toy marketing, stands in a great position to benefit from the issue of gun violence culture.

Toys R' Us offers consumers wonderful and colorful water guns.  A water gun is a fake gun, usually made of plastic, that shoots water instead of plastic pellets, rubber darts, or anything else.

Marketing (and advertising) the iconic water gun could facilitate more talk about the intriguing relationship between fun and capitalism.  It could also give a more kid-friendly face to capitalism which can only add something new to gun violence dialogue.

After all, aren't toys representative of hands-on art?

A water gun may not save the inner-city, but it could certainly give the American store owner a better image.


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 12, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



the first thing we have to do is take the focus off guns, which are not the issue and put the focus on the multiple issues which lead to the majority of our violence.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 12, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Wow is this a bunch of cr_ap!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 12, 2014)

What a bunch of Huey, talk about a useless thread!!!


----------



## BillyP (Aug 12, 2014)

Stop selling bullets, there's no constitutional guarantee for bullets, only arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 12, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Stop selling bullets, there's no constitutional guarantee for bullets, only arms.


Yeah...
And there's no constitutional guarantee for words, only speech.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 12, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Stop selling bullets, there's no constitutional guarantee for bullets, only arms.



that is actually incorrect.  arms includes arrows for bows, bolts for crossbows, pellets for slings and cartridges for firearms.  Major fail on your part


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2014)

Politico said:


> No worries. Your own data shows that.



It does?

In what way?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 23, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...




It's actually rather simple.

Bring corporal punishment back to the public school.

That is the beginning step to bringing discipline back to children, and children who are disciplined don't generally run out and shoot people.

It isn't the gun, it's discipline.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 23, 2014)

sameech said:


> according to the ABA, the vast majority of people in the US charged with murder are represented either by public defenders or court-appointed private counsel.  In other words, it is directly linked to poverty.
> 
> The republicans refuse to support most poverty initiatives and the democrats refuse to make any substantive changes to existing failed programs because they keep the recipients on the hook of voting for them.  Until the GOP comes up with realistic alternatives to existing programs, or poor people stop voting for the democrats, nothing will change.
> 
> The best choice is to go after all guns because the political pressures on both sides against it might cause enough ice to break for some water to get through.  I wouldn't hold my breathe, but until we completely rethink and retool these programs so that there are fewer gaps and fewer people being allowed to live their entire lives cradle to grave without ever having to support themselves, there is nothing that can be done to stop the violence or the murdering.



It's about poverty? I could equally say it's about blacks. Blacks are MUCH more likely to commit murder than any other race.

But that is a factor, again, of DISCIPLINE.


----------



## sameech (Aug 23, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > according to the ABA, the vast majority of people in the US charged with murder are represented either by public defenders or court-appointed private counsel.  In other words, it is directly linked to poverty.
> ...





SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> It's about poverty? I could equally say it's about blacks. Blacks are MUCH more likely to commit murder than any other race.
> 
> But that is a factor, again, of DISCIPLINE.



That is because blacks are still mostly poor.  People with no money don't have discipline.  The factor, again, is poverty.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 23, 2014)

sameech said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > sameech said:
> ...




Bullcrap, There are TONS of poor folk out there, of all all colors who never commit a crime in their lives, let alone murder. In fact if one looks at the poverty statistics versus the crime statistics in this country one would have to absolutely admit that only 1 out of every 100 poor people is likely to commit a crime. Be they black or white.

Likewise, I can link to story after story of very wealthy people who have no discipline and so commit crimes. You know this is true.

It doesn't take money to discipline your children. Actually I could further the argument and say that poverty is often times a direct result of a lack of discipline. Don't have the discipline to not buy those 22" rims so you can go to college instead? Welcome to being poor. Don't have the discipline to not become a parent when you can't afford it? Welcome to poverty, etc etc.

See, that's why our country is falling apart, lack of logical deductive reasoning skills. Lack of discipline is absolutely, positively the root of what is wrong with this country.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 24, 2014)

sameech said:


> People with no money don't have discipline.  The factor, again, is poverty.


That's why the murder rate and other crimes rates soared in the U.S. during the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940, right?

Of course, crime rates didn't soar, actually. They remained the same as they had been before the Depression. The "lack of discipline" your theory predicts, never happened even when far more people and families were impoverished. This misstatement keeps getting debunked, but still keeps coming back as though it had some basis in fact.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 24, 2014)

Little-Acorn said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > People with no money don't have discipline.  The factor, again, is poverty.
> ...



As if poor people can't discipline their kids? I mean my God I'm honestly surprised some liberal do gooder moron hasn't suggested we pay these poor parents if their kids don't get in trouble.


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 24, 2014)

Zombie_Pundit said:


> There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.
> 
> Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Interesting fact


United Kingdom0.25 (2010)




United States10.30 (2011)
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 24, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...


As these numbers are given with no context or explanation whatsoever, your post could not be more useless.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 24, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > sameech said:
> ...


This fallacy has even been offered earlier IN THIS VERY THREAD. It was routinely debunked. Now some other wishful thinker has offered it again, as though it had never been mentioned and disproven.

How do we curtail gun violence Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It is becoming clear that the main reason the anti-gun-rights people have any arguments left at all, is because they are hoping no one knows they have already been proven wrong in every detail.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 24, 2014)

Open a few more Alcatrazes and lock up every gang member, mobster, etc in this country for starters. Then put the Democrat party in there with them


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 24, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> As these numbers are given with no context or explanation whatsoever, your post could not be more useless.



It was from the link that was quoted in my post.


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 24, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Open a few more Alcatrazes and lock up every gang member, mobster, etc in this country for starters. Then put the Democrat party in there with them



Who is going to pay for that?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 25, 2014)

> Who is going to pay for that?



Actually, it costs us more to let these criminals run free than it does to keep them locked up...the only difference is we actually see the money for locking them up while the cost due to the crimes they commit is hidden in lives ruined, property damaged, medical costs for injuries, insurance rate hikes and pay outs....look at the cost one criminal on the loose creates....lock em up...it's cheaper...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 25, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > As these numbers are given with no context or explanation whatsoever, your post could not be more useless.
> ...


Your links are the wiki articles on both countries.
Care to narrow it down a little?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 25, 2014)

Inspired by "The Purge" why don't we just make Texas a 100% legal, do as you like sorta state for all the gun nuts to move to. Wanna drive a tank to work, shoot people who leave the toilet seat up, and that sort of thing move to Texas, it's like a whole other country.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Inspired by "The Purge" why don't we just make Texas a 100% legal, do as you like sorta state for all the gun nuts to move to. Wanna drive a tank to work, shoot people who leave the toilet seat up, and that sort of thing move to Texas, it's like a whole other country.




Texas?

Make it West Hollywood, San Francisco, and Seattle and I'm good.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 25, 2014)

"How to curtail gun violence?"

Puts scientists in charge of everything. 

Step 1: Make everybody read Dr. Prescott's "Body Pleasure and the Origns of Violence" 39 years ago now and people still act like they haven't got a clue why people become violent.
Article Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

Step 2: Revamp laws pertaining to violence and sexuality in entertainment, media, internet, etc. No legit reason to show violence as 'entertainment.' Remove all censorship though pertaining to sexuality since everybody wants to do that but no one sane wants to be the victim of violence. 

Step 3: Pass a Constitutional Amendment actionally forbidding any discussion of religion in government and government sponsored enviroments. As it is so-called 'separation of church and state' isn't a matter of law so much as a consequence. If we make it a law though it'll get out of government and stay at home and in church where it belongs. The relationship between religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and violence are well-established.

Step 4: Slash defense spending and redirect money saved there to Arts, healthcare, and other programs of social uplift as per Dr. King's,
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." 

Further steps as warranted.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Who is going to pay for that?



Mom wants you to put the bong down, turn off Call of Duty, and go upstairs and do the dishes. She says you need to start helping out or she'll kick you out of the basement.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mom wants you to put the bong down, turn off Call of Duty, and go upstairs and do the dishes. She says you need to start helping out or she'll kick you out of the basement.



Yuu have a very cool Mom. Mine'd flood the basement after locking the door before telling me to put a bong down.  Sorta zero tolerance family.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 25, 2014)

> The relationship between religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and violence are well-established.



As is atheism and mass murder...the 20th century was all on the atheists, wether they were in Germany, China, Russia or any of their satellites...and keep in mind...the atheists couldn't blame a feudal society for the violence...they murdered their citizens in the most modern of times in some of the most modern countries in the world...so if anything...ban atheism...those guys aren't held in check by anyone...at least with Judaism and Christianity God has the 10 commandments...and if those were followed we would be a lot more peaceful


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 25, 2014)

> Slash defense spending



So you would prefer that foreigners to come here and conduct the violence...since defense spending prevents that...ask the early Americans who were here before the Europeans came if in retrospect...perhaps they should have spent more on their defense spending...


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 25, 2014)

Hmmm....



> A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."



Well, since the opposite of this is happening in Europe...massive social welfare spending and very little on their own military...since America does all the heavy lifting...perhaps they will have to rethink that philosophy now that Russia and China, and ISIS are getting frisky again and we have decided to "spend more money on programs of social uplift" instead of on the military...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Yuu have a very cool Mom. Mine'd flood the basement after locking the door before telling me to put a bong down.  Sorta zero tolerance family.




You have to give Onepercenter a break - he's only 35 - not enough time to finish high school and get a job yet....


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 25, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your links are the wiki articles on both countries.
> Care to narrow it down a little?



So what? Are they wrong?


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You have to give Onepercenter a break - he's only 35 - not enough time to finish high school and get a job yet....



Do you have a point to make or is bloviating your favorite past time?


----------



## asaratis (Aug 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, how do we curtail violence?
> 
> A couple of observations;
> 
> ...



Do you have any scientific data to support your claims?   My experience suggests to me that there is some correlation between low intelligence and short fuses, but this does necessarily lead to violence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Your links are the wiki articles on both countries.
> ...


Since I do not know what the numbers you posted are supposed to refer to, and your wiki link is far too broad, I cannot tell.
What are these numbers supposed to represent?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Do you have a point to make or is bloviating your favorite past time?



My point is that your perspective as someone who contributes nothing to society, is significantly different than that of those of us who got educations and earn our own way.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 26, 2014)

asaratis said:


> Do you have any scientific data to support your claims?   My experience suggests to me that there is some correlation between low intelligence and short fuses, but this does necessarily lead to violence.



Scientific data supporting a link between poverty and violence?

Uh, yeah...

http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/jbatwood/pdf/link_poverty_conflict.pdf
How Violence Perpetuates Poverty - US News
Conflict and poverty The economics of violence The Economist


----------



## asaratis (Aug 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any scientific data to support your claims?   My experience suggests to me that there is some correlation between low intelligence and short fuses, but this does necessarily lead to violence.
> ...


Duh!  My post challenged your conclusion regarding intelligence (less educated) and violence...not just poverty and violence.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 26, 2014)

asaratis said:


> Duh!  My post challenged your conclusion regarding intelligence (less educated) and violence...not just poverty and violence.




Education is not the same as intelligence. Obama is highly educated, intelligent he is not.

But education IS the fundamental tool to escape poverty. Lack of education is what keeps most people in poverty, and as proven, poverty is the root cause of most violence.


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 26, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Since I do not know what the numbers you posted are supposed to refer to, and your wiki link is far too broad, I cannot tell.
> What are these numbers supposed to represent?



Why don't you post the correct numbers, or would that blow your opinion?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Since I do not know what the numbers you posted are supposed to refer to, and your wiki link is far too broad, I cannot tell.
> ...


I don't know why you choose to not understand that the numbers you posted have neither context nor commentary that gives them any meaning; as such, there's no way to post "correct" numbers because there's no way to know what those numbers supposedly represent.


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Scientific data supporting a link between poverty and violence?
> 
> Uh, yeah...
> 
> ...



If you have nothing to loose, wouldn't that make the perceived value of property and even freedom less?


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Why don't you put down the oven cleaner and paper bag, and try to post something that approaches rational?



I thought this was the clean debate zone.


----------



## OnePercenter (Aug 26, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't know why you choose to not understand that the numbers you posted have neither context nor commentary that gives them any meaning; as such, there's no way to post "correct" numbers because there's no way to know what those numbers supposedly represent.



Sure it is. The question is gun deaths per 100,000/by year/UK vs US.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you put down the oven cleaner and paper bag, and try to post something that approaches rational?
> ...



Is it?

Damn, I try to stay out of here...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why you choose to not understand that the numbers you posted have neither context nor commentary that gives them any meaning; as such, there's no way to post "correct" numbers because there's no way to know what those numbers supposedly represent.
> ...


See!  There you go!  Been looking for that for 2 days now.

According to you :

Gun deaths per 100k population:
UK  0.25
US  10.3

What do you think this proves, and how?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 26, 2014)

> Gun deaths per 100k population:
> UK 0.25
> US 10.3





Well...your numbers are only half the story...taken together, gun murders in the Untied States. Comitted by criminals, are 11-12,000 every year.   However, guns also stop crime, murders, rapes, robberies and beatings...on average between 250-375,000 times a year...crimes stopped and lives saved....

Looking at only the murder numbers is only half the picture and it is an inaccurate way to look at the issue...

Keep in mind,the 250-375,000 number is the middle range of the statistics...the anti gun researchers claim that the number is over 100,000, and other studies put the number much higher...upwards of 2million times a year....

So in truth...guns used to stop crime and save lives are a net positive, not the negative one side of the numbers presents...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 2, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
> ...



Breed black males out of existence


/thread


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 2, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


 Apparently 1% doesnt want to tellus what his numbers mean.


----------

