Gunman wielded AK-47 inside Georgia school

[ScienceRocks]

We should focus on limitinating ghetto and thug culture.

 

[velvtacheeze]

I thought guns were needed for self protection. Against whom was this guy protecting himself?

And is Chris Lang to blame for not having a gun for self-protection too?

In Chris Lang's country, guns are controlled strictly. They've seen marked decreases in gun violence. In the UK and Canada, gun violence is also low, and gun restrictions are high. In the US, where guns are ubiquitous, so is gun violence.

 

[idb]

We should focus on limitinating ghetto and thug culture.

Yes, because gangbangers have been the ones shooting up schools...great point.

 

[NightFox]

I thought guns were needed for self protection. Against whom was this guy protecting himself?

And is Chris Lang to blame for not having a gun for self-protection too?

In Chris Lang's country, guns are controlled strictly. They've seen marked decreases in gun violence. In the UK and Canada, gun violence is also low, and gun restrictions are high. In the US, where guns are ubiquitous, so is gun violence.

Same old spurious apples-to-oranges argument, the United States is not the UK or Canada, our population is orders of magnitude larger, our culture and values are distinct and our political system is distinct, not to mention the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our federal constitution and is also subject to further protections in individual state constitutions.

If you want to go the route of XYZ country does this and has seen XYZ results we can also point to Mexico and it's strict gun control and how that's working out for them, however it still remains an invalid argument for the same reasons I listed. Of course those relying on this argument aren't interested in examples that don't support their preconceived political narrative anyways, they're only interested in foisting their own irrational beliefs down the throats of everyone Else whether it'll solve the problem in question or not.

Gun control does nothing to address the root causes of the violence committed using firearms, essentially all it does is make the market for illegal arms more lucrative and turns otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

 

[candycorn]

I thought guns were needed for self protection. Against whom was this guy protecting himself?

And is Chris Lang to blame for not having a gun for self-protection too?

In Chris Lang's country, guns are controlled strictly. They've seen marked decreases in gun violence. In the UK and Canada, gun violence is also low, and gun restrictions are high. In the US, where guns are ubiquitous, so is gun violence.

Same old spurious apples-to-oranges argument, the United States is not the UK or Canada, our population is orders of magnitude larger, our culture and values are distinct and our political system is distinct, not to mention the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our federal constitution and is also subject to further protections in individual state constitutions.

If you want to go the route of XYZ country does this and has seen XYZ results we can also point to Mexico and it's strict gun control and how that's working out for them, however it still remains an invalid argument for the same reasons I listed. Of course those relying on this argument aren't interested in examples that don't support their preconceived political narrative anyways, they're only interested in foisting their own irrational beliefs down the throats of everyone Else whether it'll solve the problem in question or not.

Gun control does nothing to address the root causes of the violence committed using firearms, essentially all it does is make the market for illegal arms more lucrative and turns otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Canada and the UK--advanced democracies--have access to the same books, movies, Internet, etc... The cultures are subject to the same influences such as fashion, music, etc.

In 2007, the US had 10,000 homicides more than the UK.

The only reason is the 2nd Amendment it would appear.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yanks don't give a shit. All they care about is their 'right' to walk around with dangerous weapons, and murder innocent schoolkids.

oH GAWD!!





Bubble dwellars.......how the fuck do they even navigate a regular day?

 

[skookerasbil]

I thought guns were needed for self protection. Against whom was this guy protecting himself?

And is Chris Lang to blame for not having a gun for self-protection too?

In Chris Lang's country, guns are controlled strictly. They've seen marked decreases in gun violence. In the UK and Canada, gun violence is also low, and gun restrictions are high. In the US, where guns are ubiquitous, so is gun violence.

Same old spurious apples-to-oranges argument, the United States is not the UK or Canada, our population is orders of magnitude larger, our culture and values are distinct and our political system is distinct, not to mention the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our federal constitution and is also subject to further protections in individual state constitutions.

If you want to go the route of XYZ country does this and has seen XYZ results we can also point to Mexico and it's strict gun control and how that's working out for them, however it still remains an invalid argument for the same reasons I listed. Of course those relying on this argument aren't interested in examples that don't support their preconceived political narrative anyways, they're only interested in foisting their own irrational beliefs down the throats of everyone Else whether it'll solve the problem in question or not.

Gun control does nothing to address the root causes of the violence committed using firearms, essentially all it does is make the market for illegal arms more lucrative and turns otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Canada and the UK--advanced democracies--have access to the same books, movies, Internet, etc... The cultures are subject to the same influences such as fashion, music, etc.

In 2007, the US had 10,000 homicides more than the UK.

The only reason is the 2nd Amendment it would appear.

Harvard University concludes following research released in April of 2013 >>>


"The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate."



more guns = less crime

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

 

[NightFox]

We should focus on limitinating ghetto and thug culture.

Yes, because gangbangers have been the ones shooting up schools...great point.

No they're not but our culture which glorifies ignorance, violence and hedonism is certainly a contributing factor in the disintegration of the morality of the unstable individuals that DO shoot up schools. The "gangbangers" while generally restricting their violence to their own communities are almost certainly subject to the same morally destructive forces not to mention the principle root cause of violence coming from that quarter which is drug prohibition (we saw the same thing in the 20's with the imposition of Alcohol Prohibition).

Couple all that with the fact that our own federal government is itself by far the largest purveyor of violence on the planet (how many 10's of thousands of innocent people has it murdered in the last decade alone?) and how many young men and women have been subjected to the horrors of carrying out said murders on the orders of the state? All the ingredients for an environment that breeds barbarity on an industrial scale and yet we want the federal government to be the agent that controls the means of gun of violence? All while simultaneously not raising a peep about it's unwillingness to lift a finger to discover and address the root causes. The hypocrisy and irrationality of this proposition is so far beyond the pale that it falls into the realm of pure fantasy.

 

[idb]

Same old spurious apples-to-oranges argument, the United States is not the UK or Canada, our population is orders of magnitude larger, our culture and values are distinct and our political system is distinct, not to mention the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our federal constitution and is also subject to further protections in individual state constitutions.

If you want to go the route of XYZ country does this and has seen XYZ results we can also point to Mexico and it's strict gun control and how that's working out for them, however it still remains an invalid argument for the same reasons I listed. Of course those relying on this argument aren't interested in examples that don't support their preconceived political narrative anyways, they're only interested in foisting their own irrational beliefs down the throats of everyone Else whether it'll solve the problem in question or not.

Gun control does nothing to address the root causes of the violence committed using firearms, essentially all it does is make the market for illegal arms more lucrative and turns otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Canada and the UK--advanced democracies--have access to the same books, movies, Internet, etc... The cultures are subject to the same influences such as fashion, music, etc.

In 2007, the US had 10,000 homicides more than the UK.

The only reason is the 2nd Amendment it would appear.

Harvard University concludes following research released in April of 2013 >>>


"The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate."



more guns = less crime

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

I find this study referred to back in 2007.
Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violen

 

[zeke]

Fuking fun nuts are crazy.

Gun ownership and gun sales are at record high levels.

And murders by gun, accidental deaths by gun and suicides by gun are increasing.

So much for the stupid fuking idea that more guns makes us safer.

But if the NRA says it, gun nuts will believe ANYTHING.

 

[NightFox]

And murders by gun, accidental deaths by gun and suicides by gun are increasing.
.

Even assuming that your unproven assertions are true, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[hazlnut]

Thanks Wayne.

More blood on your hands.

 

[Sallow]

Same old spurious apples-to-oranges argument, the United States is not the UK or Canada, our population is orders of magnitude larger, our culture and values are distinct and our political system is distinct, not to mention the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our federal constitution and is also subject to further protections in individual state constitutions.

If you want to go the route of XYZ country does this and has seen XYZ results we can also point to Mexico and it's strict gun control and how that's working out for them, however it still remains an invalid argument for the same reasons I listed. Of course those relying on this argument aren't interested in examples that don't support their preconceived political narrative anyways, they're only interested in foisting their own irrational beliefs down the throats of everyone Else whether it'll solve the problem in question or not.

Gun control does nothing to address the root causes of the violence committed using firearms, essentially all it does is make the market for illegal arms more lucrative and turns otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Canada and the UK--advanced democracies--have access to the same books, movies, Internet, etc... The cultures are subject to the same influences such as fashion, music, etc.

In 2007, the US had 10,000 homicides more than the UK.

The only reason is the 2nd Amendment it would appear.

Harvard University concludes following research released in April of 2013 >>>


"The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate."



more guns = less crime

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

I checked your link because I was interested in which countries and who did the study.

Neither was shown.

Could you provide?

Thanks.

 

[BDBoop]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0]Ed -- A Petition For Stronger Gun Laws - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Edgetho]

Yanks don't give a shit. All they care about is their 'right' to walk around with dangerous weapons, and murder innocent schoolkids.

Yeah. Gun rights advocates stand and cheer every time a maniac blows away a child. That's what they're fighting for, more dead kids. Yup.

There is more anger over the thought of having your precious guns removed than about saving the lives of schoolkids.

Maybe we should have followed Australia's lead and instituted our own version of your "White Australia Policy'

White Australia policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hazlnut]

Why don't the smart NRA members just vote the old nut out?

Maybe the smart ones aren't allowed a voice in the organization. Who the fuck knows.

 

[idb]

Canada and the UK--advanced democracies--have access to the same books, movies, Internet, etc... The cultures are subject to the same influences such as fashion, music, etc.

In 2007, the US had 10,000 homicides more than the UK.

The only reason is the 2nd Amendment it would appear.

Harvard University concludes following research released in April of 2013 >>>


"The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate."



more guns = less crime

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

I checked your link because I was interested in which countries and who did the study.

Neither was shown.

Could you provide?

Thanks.

Try this
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Edgetho]

Gun Control Strategists' Battle Plan Explicitly Includes Pushing Emotionalism and Suppressing Facts


Ace of Spades HQ

If you missed the Washington Examiner's amazing exposé, and then Taranto's column, and then you missed Andy writing about it yesterday, here's your chance to finally make amends.

Newly uncovered Democratic anti-NRA talking points urge anti-gun advocates and politicians to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws.
In talking points likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December, the anti-gun "guide" urged gun foes to speak out when a shooting "creates a unique climate" to shout down the National Rifle Association.

"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," said the 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

The guide was produced in 2012, before the Sandy Hook shootings. According to a report posted on NRA News from Examiner.com, not connected to the Washington Examiner, it was developed to help anti-gun advocates in Washington State's effort to control gun purchases, though it clearly has national overtones and uses, especially as groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner client -- expand their fight for gun control.

The guide spells out how to talk about gun control and when to press the issue, the best time being in the wake of a publicized shooting. For example, it calls on gun control advocates to speak out, "don't wait" for the facts, after a shooting like Martin's heightens awareness of the issue.

"The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts," said the guide.

"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," added the talking points. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence," said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

This is an accidental disclosure of the truth every bit as arresting and important as Mitt Romney's "47%" remark (which itself was actually off-the-cuff, and not a thought-out, written strategy guide).

So why isn't the media talking about it?

For an obvious reason: They follow the guide themselves. How can they publicize a story that explains the manner in which they permit themselves to be used by gun-control advocates?

Indeed, by employing most of these tactics themselves first, they practically wrote the guide. The authors of the guide are really just collators of the fine work the media has already done.

By the way, be careful of this blog-- it's a Tactical Blog. Some of the posts are even Semi-Automatic.

Actually most of them are but, hey, so are David Brooks' columns.


Edge:

I remember in the Movie 'Red October' when Fred Thompson's character as Admiral of a Carrier Group said to one of his subordinates, "Son, commies don't take a dump without a plan."

Remember that. Ever wonder why they all sound the same? It's all coordinated. And most of them don't even know it

 

[Wildman]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

True.

The snag is determining which weapons are in ‘common use at the time’ and subject to Second Amendment protection, and those that are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to protection.

The alleged shooter in this case likely had a semi-auto only AK/M clone of some type that is no more ‘dangerous’ than any other semi-auto rifle, clearly in common use, where its possession is subject to Constitutional protection.

would you care to elaborate on that statement.., please ?

using the word "weapons" is just a bit too general.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Weird thing is these schools are gun free zones.