Mom's Demand Action- no more dead children

[Ernie S.]

Now that's a link I'd really love to read.



I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

You want to restrict my rights to certain weapons and magazine capacities. You want redundant back ground checks each time I buy a weapon or ammunition. I am a legal gun owner. You are going after my 2nd Amendment rights.

No I'm not and you have no reason to say that I am -

BUT your post doesn't address what I wrote, which is that I would really like to read links that prove that

3000+ times a day law abiding citizens stop crime with their personal guns

and/or

There are times when that gun is an AR-15

Thanks anyway.

But I didn't say those things. I only said that you waant to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights. If you want links for that, refer back to post 1 and your agreement with it in post 5

 

[Circe]

No dads? The child mortality statistics for 2007 indicate that "natural deaths" among children 0 to 19 was around 36,200 with a 44% per 100,000 population. Unintentional deaths were around 11,500 with a 14% per 100,000. Drowning was 1.3% and Motor Vehicle accidents was 8.1 % accidental death by firearm was .02%. Shouldn't the million moms be more concerned about motor vehicle accidents and accidental drownings?

Whitehall?

The dads are the ones with the guns. Men are the PROBLEM. Only women can solve it.

The million moms are concerned about car wrecks: that's why they formed MADD in the 80s and wiped out the tradition of thinking drunk driving was a joke.

When the moms organize, things actually happen. This has been the case again and again in history. Moms started the French Revolution. Moms got Russia out of Afghanistan. Moms stopped drunk driving. If moms organized to stop this crazy gun nut business with the assault rifles, they WILL win.

Otherwise, we'll just end up like the inner cities and Mexico and Rio all over America. Constant crime, explosions, shootings all the time everywhere.

 

[Circe]

... It does no good to go after legal gun owners.

I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

I guess they go after legal gun owners after they shoot up a school or movie theater ----

Cho at VA Tech and Holmes at the Batman movie both bought their weapons legally, and killed a whole lot of people with them, too.

That old guy who held the kid hostage for so many days in the underground bunker got his guns legally, too. MOST of the shooters got their guns legally --- that guy who shot up his workplace in January? Some of them were too young and stole them or bought them illegally, like the Columbine kids. Well, no, they didn't buy illegally: they got an 18-year-old girl to buy the guns at a gun show while they stood right by her and handed her the money. Neither the girl nor the gun dealer went to jail for that...... because it was perfectly legal!

The 62-year-old who shot his sister and the four firefighters in New York was a felon so he bought his guns illegally, presumably. Otherwise, most of the shooters use legal guns or use their parents' guns, like the New Mexico kid who shot his parents and three sibs because he was mad at his mother. He used the AR-15, as they usually do.

 

[ConHog]

No dads? The child mortality statistics for 2007 indicate that "natural deaths" among children 0 to 19 was around 36,200 with a 44% per 100,000 population. Unintentional deaths were around 11,500 with a 14% per 100,000. Drowning was 1.3% and Motor Vehicle accidents was 8.1 % accidental death by firearm was .02%. Shouldn't the million moms be more concerned about motor vehicle accidents and accidental drownings?

Whitehall?

The dads are the ones with the guns. Men are the PROBLEM. Only women can solve it.

The million moms are concerned about car wrecks: that's why they formed MADD in the 80s and wiped out the tradition of thinking drunk driving was a joke.

When the moms organize, things actually happen. This has been the case again and again in history. Moms started the French Revolution. Moms got Russia out of Afghanistan. Moms stopped drunk driving. If moms organized to stop this crazy gun nut business with the assault rifles, they WILL win.

Otherwise, we'll just end up like the inner cities and Mexico and Rio all over America. Constant crime, explosions, shootings all the time everywhere.

Please remind me who's guns the New Haven shooter used. I'll wait.........

 

[Circe]

Please remind me who's guns the New Haven shooter used. I'll wait.........

Yes, well, you might have a point there! Mrs. Lanza is not covered in glory.

Here's another for the misogynist collection: Amy Bishop's mother covered for her when Amy shot her 17-year-old brother. Amy had a fight with her father, who left; she got the shotgun out of her parents' bedroom, shot the wall in her bedroom, came down when she heard her mother and brother in the kitchen, shot the kitchen ceiling and then her brother, ran out with the shotgun and tried to carjack SEVERAL people, and threatened responding police for some minutes with the shotgun.

Her mother rushed into the police station and claimed loudly that it was all just an accident, a misfire, despite the fact that the Mossburger shotgun was a pump action, so she kept racking in shells. She knew the police chief. He released Amy to her mother, no charges........

Later she probably mailed a bomb to her graduate advisor, and later yet she shot six profs at a faculty meeting.

Amy's mother kept saying over and over, "I've lost one child, I'm not going to lose the other!!" But you know....I'm going to say that was probably a bad decision.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem the anti gun nuts have is that too many moms use guns to protect themselves and their children. They know that liberals intend to keep the criminals well armed. Then tell women all they have to do to stop an attack is piss themselves.

 

[PaulS1950]

Whether or not I post the link you will deny it as "propaganda" but for my entertainment here you go:

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

The Defensive Gun Use Statistics

I cut the statistics to 1.1 million acts a year but the latest statistics say 2.5 million each year use a gun to protect themselves or others from criminals. The daily number would be 6,850 or so.

The AR-15 derivitives have been used as defense in a very recent news artical - it is posted on these forums - and also in the LA riots.

I certainly don't expect you to bother accepting the data provided which is why I don't post them in the first place.

 

[Circe]

... the latest statistics say 2.5 million each year use a gun to protect themselves or others from criminals. The daily number would be 6,850 or so.

I don't know what people protecting themselves with guns has to do with people using guns to assault lots of schoolchildren or moviegoers.

It's the assaulters with their assault weapons we want to stop.

 

[martybegan]

... the latest statistics say 2.5 million each year use a gun to protect themselves or others from criminals. The daily number would be 6,850 or so.

I don't know what people protecting themselves with guns has to do with people using guns to assault lots of schoolchildren or moviegoers.

It's the assaulters with their assault weapons we want to stop.

The only way to do that is to eliminate human nature. good luck with that.

 

[Redbone]

Agreed. Just saying you cant just say one thing is the cause of anything. And certainly lots of kids who were raised right ended up dead, and lots of idiots who had crappy parents end up never being shot.

Of course, but take 1000 deaths and look at the victims. I'm betting a kid who's dropped out of school on the South Side in Chicago is at least 20 times as likely to end up shot to death that a kid from a 2 parent family in Newtown Connecticut.

I'm sure you left at least 1 zero off that number, maybe 2. but I'm not sure you can blame it on parents. Not entirely anyway. I think environment outside of the home play into it quite a bit to. An awful lot of inner city kids of single mothers make their way out of that life just to condemn single mothers as the cause.

So obvious that math is not your strong suit.

 

[freedombecki]

All right, where are the moms to stop abortions for their grandchildren?

Some people think it's ok if 1.4 million preborn American children die by plan, but not 20 in a school who die from the weapon of a lunatic. Go figure.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sheeeesh, still blaming parents. Stop blaming parents. There are no parents. The sires and dams don't care. The dams whelp out these children, collect whatever money they can get and put these kids out on the street as soon as possible. Bears are better mothers, and they abandon the cubs at two years old. Like bears, there's no telling who the fathers are. The mothers don't know.

If you are going to "save" any of these kids you will have to find some way other than telling these "parents" they are bad parents. They don't care, give them a hit of crack and you could rip the kids limb from limb right in front of them and they'll ask for another hit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Moms Demand Action | Common Sense Gun Laws

One Million Moms For Gun Control Becomes Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America | Reuters

Moms Demand Action's middle-ground solutions to the escalating problem of gun
violence in the United States are straightforward:

1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.

3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online
sales of ammunition.
4) Counter gun industry lobbyists' efforts to weaken gun laws at the state
level.

Makes perfect sense to me....

 

[Circe]

The only way to do that is to eliminate human nature. good luck with that.

Australia and Britain had good luck with that --- they eliminated "human nature" by eliminating guns, to stop horrific madmen school shootings. For some reason they always go after small children in those two countries, too.

It worked.

 

[Intense]

No dads? The child mortality statistics for 2007 indicate that "natural deaths" among children 0 to 19 was around 36,200 with a 44% per 100,000 population. Unintentional deaths were around 11,500 with a 14% per 100,000. Drowning was 1.3% and Motor Vehicle accidents was 8.1 % accidental death by firearm was .02%. Shouldn't the million moms be more concerned about motor vehicle accidents and accidental drownings?

I wonder how many kids are endangered with their Mom's talking on Cell Phones and Texting? How many lives are put in danger daily?

 

[Intense]

... 3000+ times a day law abiding citizens stop crime with their personal guns. There are times when that gun is an AR-15 or derivitive. ...

Now that's a link I'd really love to read.

... It does no good to go after legal gun owners.

I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

Are you unaware of your own actions? Those points target legal gun owners directly. Why exactly did you choose the CDZ for this Thread? Along with civil discourse, a level of honesty is required here. Are we on the same page here? Is there a concern for Constitutionally Recognized and Protected Natural Rights here? I'm curious. I'm for civil discussion and debate. Again, I hope we are on the same page here.

 

[Vandalshandle]

... 3000+ times a day law abiding citizens stop crime with their personal guns. There are times when that gun is an AR-15 or derivitive. ...

Now that's a link I'd really love to read.



I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

I haven't hear of anyone "going after legal gun owners". Another link Id like to see.

Are you unaware of your own actions? Those points target legal gun owners directly. Why exactly did you choose the CDZ for this Thread? Along with civil discourse, a level of honesty is required here. Are we on the same page here? Is there a concern for Constitutionally Recognized and Protected Natural Rights here? I'm curious. I'm for civil discussion and debate. Again, I hope we are on the same page here.

If it is unconstitutional for us to require background checks on all guns sales, why is it not unconstitutional for a licensed dealer to require background checks, which is the law right now? Secondly, why do gun advocates, who are constantly claiming that something is unconstitutional, not repect and acknowledge that the Constitution gives the authority to determine what is constitutional, to the Supreme Court?

 

[FA_Q2]

The only way to do that is to eliminate human nature. good luck with that.

Australia and Britain had good luck with that --- they eliminated "human nature" by eliminating guns, to stop horrific madmen school shootings. For some reason they always go after small children in those two countries, too.

It worked.

Did it?

Gun Control - Just Facts
Oh! I guess not!

 

[Circe]

It worked.

Did it?

Gun Control - Just Facts
Oh! I guess not!

Are you saying that mass murders of school children by madmen are still occurring in Britain despite the gun bans? Because I don't think that is true.

There are more guns being smuggled in from Serbia and also an ever-increasing population from immigration from several non-British countries, an invasion that is very upsetting to the Britons, so you'd expect more crime with all that going on.

You don't have any graph from Australia; Australians are apparently very satisfied in general with the better protection from howling madmen their laws give. "Howling mad" is exactly what the latest Aussie madman was, in Tasmania -- he howled in joy and delight that "It was so fun! It was so fun" when on trial for shooting 35 small children in a school and kept laughing hilariously.

Not a well man......

That will happen a time or two more here in America and then they'll finally ban those assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, I think. And hopefully the public will become more suspicious and disapproving of the very dubious men who collect large numbers of guns in their homes.

 

[Circe]

Why exactly did you choose the CDZ for this Thread? Along with civil discourse, a level of honesty is required here. Are we on the same page here? Is there a concern for Constitutionally Recognized and Protected Natural Rights here? I'm curious. I'm for civil discussion and debate. Again, I hope we are on the same page here.

Uh-oh.

Is this the first sign that discussion on the CDZ has to be in agreement with rightwing gun collectors? Or what, be banned by a rightwing moderator? Darn.

I don't see why anyone has to be in agreement with anything particular, certainly not with exactly the attitudes that are under such serious discussion all over this country.

What do you mean by honesty: agreeing with you?

Honesty implies truth: whose truth, exactly? Are you under the impression that there is a common ground of objective truth? Because there isn't. Anywhere, about anything. Consider how many millions of people believe in gods with eight arms, or think the Mossad bombed the Twin Towers or heavy artillery hit the Pentagon or the USA never landed on the moon.

I suggest that free debate is the purpose of a discussion forum; the rules of this forum are simply that it must be civil. To imply that everyone also must agree with people who want to collect lots of assault rifles is a step way too far. Gun collecting and how far it can properly go considering the serious public safety issues that have developed is exactly the issue under general discussion.