The Daily Mail and... Funtrivia.com... That's who you're going to cling to for your confirmation bias? Really? I can't say I'm surprised, but really? You know we have people whose job it is to study these things, right? That they have other tools than just the uniformed report? They have self report studies and victim report studies, and they even have ways of analyzing them to wind up with a fairly reasonable estimation on what the true crime rate is. And that goes for everywhere. And we have people who study the differences between laws and they can interpret and coorelate the statistics appropriately and yeild a fairly solid analysis. There's an entire field of people who study crime and study it cross culturally and they don't write for the daily mail or funtrivia.

These aren't "military weapons". Our military would never use a rifle that didn't have selective fire. Because, you know, it's 2012. But beyond that, a lot of sniper rifles are bolt actions. Are bolt actions now "military weapons"? Create a definition of "military weapons" that doesn't include taking a weapon out of the hands of a hunter. Good luck on that.

And also, nobody is promoting mass murder. Screaming angry, baseless, self-righteous rhetoric may have gotten you somewhere in the 2T, but here in the 4T the only people who do that are infants and crazy people. Mass murder is mass murder. Gun ownership is gun ownership. Trying to say they are one and the same is childish.

It's not "libertarian nonsense" it's knowing when what you're trying to do is unrealistic and counterproductive. See grown-ups understand when something is unrealistic, and that while nothing is impossible per se, that many things are just not practical. Trying to regulate trade in a global economy on previously legal and widely popular items owned by greater than 1/4 of your population is childish and unrealistic.

Most people who own firearms own semi-automatics. Magazine capacity varies, but it doesn't take much to switchout magazines. It really doesn't matter if you've got 6 10 round magazines, 3 20s 2 30's or 1 60 (except the 60'll look stupid and get you laughed at). It really doesn't matter if it's semi-auto or bolt action, because it doesn't take that much to learn to fire a bolt really fast. Again, doing so will make you look stupid, but it is what it is.

You know how many times I've seen a person open carry in my life? 1 time. 31 years I've lived in this state, from one end to the other, and I've been to just about every county therein and I've seen 1 person open carry once. He gained some weight and his gun chaffed, so he open carried one time. It was pretty funny. But open carry isn't a normal thing to see around here, regardless of legality.

Making things harder to buy is infringement. It wouldn't fly under the 2nd ammendment, and it doesn't matter much if you like it or not, it is the law. And, if a nutjob has it in his head he's going to get a gun, he'll get one. He'll score a job with private security or the police or the military and he'll get one and spree shoot just as easily. Or he'll turn around and buy several hundred pounds of common household cleaner unregulated and make explosives in his bathtub and go around bombing stuff. You wanna ban Bleach? Either way, it won't stop nutjobs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As usual, Galen is to be ignored, and Deb to be congratulated. The facts about Columbine, Ft. Hood and Virginia Tech are duly noted.

Eric the Obtuse still doesn't understand that not everyone shares his world view and will not comply with his edicts, or the government's for that matter.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In the statistics I reported earlier here, England had 0.06 firearm homicides per 100,000 people, and 6.2 firearms owned per 100 people. The USA had 2.97 homicides per 100,000, and a rate of ownership of 88.8 per 100 people...

-A common flaw in gun controllers' reasoning when they compare society x today with the USA today. Britain had a lower murder rate before they instituted gun control in the 1920s and 1930s.

Originally Posted by Deb C

1) None of those places had armed guards inspecting each perosn with a metal detector.

2) The three places you named were perfect examples of gun control in action, where teh only guy in the building was the killer.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-A common flaw in gun controllers' reasoning when they compare society x today with the USA today. Britain had a lower murder rate before they instituted gun control in the 1920s and 1930s.


1) None of those places had armed guards inspecting each perosn with a metal detector.

2) The three places you named were perfect examples of gun control in action, where teh only guy in the building was the killer.

Are you seriously suggestion that every school have metal detectors and armed guards? How do you propose funding such a measure?

Originally Posted by Galen

There is one other factor that people like Eric the Obtuse is overlooking is that as 3D printing and CNC machine tools get cheaper the barriers to manufacturing firearms by individuals will be eliminated.

^ This.

On another thread I noted my expectation that by 2300 there would be personal WMD. That was not meant to be a far fetched forecast. I really believe it. Probably much sooner - by 2050.

You are a condescending, ignorant manchild. There's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you, is there? You can't even be dragged kicking and screaming into a reasonable or logical discussion.

Presented without comment.

Originally Posted by yahoonews

man with a criminal history shot and killed two West Webster, N.Y. firefighters and seriously injured two others as they responded to a fire at his home., police say.

William Spengler, 62, apparently started a 5:35 a.m. fire at his home on Lake Road and then waited with an armament of weapons for first responders to arrive, Webster N.Y. Police Chief Gerald Pickering said at an afternoon news conference.

“He was shooting from high ground or a berm," Pickering said. "He was barricaded with weapons to shoot first responders."

After a brief exchange of gunfire with police, Spengler then shot and killed himself at the scene, Pickering said.

Originally Posted by Kepi

You are a condescending, ignorant manchild. There's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you, is there? You can't even be dragged kicking and screaming into a reasonable or logical discussion.

My over-the-top rhetoric was unfortunate, but it does appear that discussions between us are futile, and you have crossed the line.

Originally Posted by Kepi

You are a condescending, ignorant manchild. There's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you, is there? You can't even be dragged kicking and screaming into a reasonable or logical discussion.

You are absolutely correct about Eric the Obtuse in this regard. His signature reflects the way he goes through life, with his eyes closed and believing that his imagination reflects the real world.

I am very proud of my signature line.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My over-the-top rhetoric was unfortunate, but it does appear that discussions between us are futile, and you have crossed the line.

Yes, your condescending attitude and ignorant rhetoric had nothing to do with it... It's totally me that crossed the line. Look, please ignore me. It'd be a blessing.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Yes, your condescending attitude and ignorant rhetoric had nothing to do with it... It's totally me that crossed the line. Look, please ignore me. It'd be a blessing.

That is how I felt when he started ignoring me. Sadly, he stopped for some reason.

I love this idea!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am very proud of my signature line.

You would be. It totally reflects your values. If one ignores reality, reality is good.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or not:

How would your pooch react to an intruder?


Unless you're talking about having trained protection dogs in schools, accompanied by handlers who know how to manage them (i.e. keep them from attacking the kids.)

Another point from Greek Myth. Cerberus, the nasty three-headed dog that's supposed to guard the underworld? Yeah, you can easily sneak past him, as long as you've got food.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by B Butler

You would be. It totally reflects your values. If one ignores reality, reality is good.

Not at all. The bozos and unforgiving creeps like Galen don't have a clue. As Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. The situation is more complicated than the creeps like Galen and stubborn fools like Kepi think. Ignorance is not good. But just because some people here are totally clueless and insulting, as you were here, or ignorant about some things, does not mean that my signature line is wrong. Debate here seems fruitless, especially with those who knock my siggie. Most people here do not budge from their opinions, no matter what anyone says. Your values are as "locked" as anyone else's, which this comment shows clearly. It's too bad, but this is not a good site anymore, and most people here live within a very narrow spectrum of "reality." No one wants to learn.

Reality is spirit, not matter, in my estimation. So there's no need to ignore "reality." Subjective and objective, real and ideal, are interdependent. A lot of what reality is now, is what has been created from vision in the past; or "created" by "God" (the intelligent universe doing its thing). Those who get my siggie, get it; those who don't, knock it. The real "liberals" are those who can see a better day, and work toward it as well as pray for it. JB does. "Some people look at things as they are and say why, others see things that never were and say why not," said RFK. I am an N type; so I agree with Robert Kennedy, and not with you and Galen and Kepi, et al.

I agree with you Deb. There are better ways of protection.

Gun possession, gun violence, gun deaths. Guns may not kill people (it's the ammo), but they certainly make killing easy:



...Does anyone notice a political pattern?



No, Mr. Wang is not counting bears shot in Alaska, alligators shot in Louisiana, or pumas shot in Wyoming as "gun deaths".

Nevada and New Mexico are the only "blue" states that had extraordinarily-high rates of firearm death.

http://www.investingchannel.com/arti...e#.UNnv6nfheSo

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Nevada and New Mexico are the only "blue" states that had extraordinarily-high rates of firearm death.

http://www.investingchannel.com/arti...e#.UNnv6nfheSo

Interesting. So the states where gun ownership is more common -- where the average person has a relatively higher familiarity with firearms -- also tend to have populaces less afraid of guns and more opposed to the idea that restricting them from private possession is a solution to anything.

The more knowledgeable a people are about guns, it seems, the less inclined they are to ban or restrict them. And the posters here most stridently opposed to private firearms are the ones most abjectly ignorant of them. Funny, that...

I'm surprised all the gun-nuts even dare show themselves here after Wayne LaPierre's showing of their tone-deafness twice live on national news.

All these "millitary-style" weapons should be banned, as should magazines holding more than 6 rounds. And I don't care about all the gun-nut rationalizations and prpaganda based on RW Libertarian fantasies of fighting off UN black helicopters, I am just going to ignore that shit. If it is not a gun designed for hunting, or a pistol designed for personal self-defense, you do not need it and should not be allowed to get it. Those things' only purpose is KILLING PEOPLE. If you are keeping a gun for self defense, get a Glock pistol, a Bushmaster assault rifle with 30-round magazines is overkill.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Interesting. So the states where gun ownership is more common -- where the average person has a relatively higher familiarity with firearms -- also tend to have populaces less afraid of guns and more opposed to the idea that restricting them from private possession is a solution to anything.

The more knowledgeable a people are about guns, it seems, the less inclined they are to ban or restrict them. And the posters here most stridently opposed to private firearms are the ones most abjectly ignorant of them. Funny, that...

I have never owned or fired a gun. I am not and have never been a police officer or soldier. I have no desire to do sport hunting. Above all, I have never committed any violent crimes or dealt drugs. I have shot an arrow from a bow, but I was shooting at a target. I don't see target shooting in any way objectionable -- it is in the league with golf, not a violent activity. I don't have a problem with target shooting, sport hunting, or collection of antique weapons. But target shooters, sport hunters, and legitimate collectors have much sophistication about firearms. They select their guns with great care. The military and the police? They are heavily regulated. People amassing arsenals in the prospect that they might have to resist an American Gestapo or KGB? People would be wiser to watch the political trends that allow an extremist regime to flourish and oppose politicians who show contempt for the niceties of democratic process.

I don't provoke the police, and I have no business getting into a war zone. Someone collecting flintlock rifles knows his hobby as does a stamp collector. So one who has legitimate involvement with firearms usually has knowledge far above the average with weapons -- and had better, in view of their costs and dangers. If one has no involvement with firearms one usually knows little about them. I could say the same about stamp collecting -- one knows much about postage stamps if one is involved in it (or gets it quickly if one is a curious and active novice). Of course one can do little harm with a postage stamp as a collector. A firearm is a different matter; it is inherently dangerous. Then there are the gangsters.

Street criminals who use guns aren't so knowledgeable about firearms. They have specific purposes -- to kill or maim someone, or to scare someone into surrendering property or submitting to rape. The garden-variety armed robber is a dope addict or a near-moron who doesn't know the subtle distinctions between guns. Any dimwit can use a gun for the wrong reasons. I see the stats and recognize that a firearm is a tool that any dimwit can use to kill someone with ease. Maybe there are gun-using subcultures that use their arms wisely and aren't particularly dangerous. Such subcultures as a rule know how lethal a firearm is and distinguish themselves readily from armed robbers and gangland enforcers.

I know little about guns, but I understand statistics very well. Because I have no reason to know much about firearms I don't accumulate the knowledge. The statistics show a strong positive correlation between a widespread ownership of firearms and deaths from firearms. Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey have the lowest rates of gun ownership and very low rates of firearm deaths. South Dakota isn't much worse in deaths from firearms despite being toward the top in firearm possession per person, but its gun-death rate is still higher than that of the low-gun cluster.



Maybe South Dakota has a large gun subculture that acts responsibly. But what about neighboring Montana and Wyoming? What is wrong with Arizona, which has a near-average rate of gun ownership but a high rate of firearm-based deaths? Urban gangs, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm surprised all the gun-nuts even dare show themselves here after Wayne LaPierre's showing of their tone-deafness twice live on national news.

All these "millitary-style" weapons should be banned, as should magazines holding more than 6 rounds. And I don't care about all the gun-nut rationalizations and prpaganda based on RW Libertarian fantasies of fighting off UN black helicopters, I am just going to ignore that shit. If it is not a gun designed for hunting, or a pistol designed for personal self-defense, you do not need it and should not be allowed to get it. Those things' only purpose is KILLING PEOPLE. If you are keeping a gun for self defense, get a Glock pistol, a Bushmaster assault rifle with 30-round magazines is overkill.

I'll bet real money that Glock pistols killed more people than Bushmaster rifles last year Odin.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or not:

How would your pooch react to an intruder?


Unless you're talking about having trained protection dogs in schools, accompanied by handlers who know how to manage them (i.e. keep them from attacking the kids.)

Ah yes, the always comical dog argument. We had some new neighbors move in upstairs, including a big, burly, and quite loud pit bull. When I first met him he attempted to intimidate me with all of his bluster and might. That lasted... Oh all of about 10 seconds. Now he's my new buddy.

Not surprisingly, dog intimidation only works on people who are afraid of dogs.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm surprised all the gun-nuts even dare show themselves here after Wayne LaPierre's showing of their tone-deafness twice live on national news.

Of course, thinking people (of which I'm sure there are more than a few on all sides) recognize that Wayne LaPierre shows only the tone-deafness of Wayne LaPierre. Oh, and if he is permitted to remain in his position given that tone-deafness, additionally you might argue, of the voting majority of the members of a very small political lobbying organization.

I presume he doesn't speak for gun owners in your neck of the woods, eh Odin? The ones you know almost certainly aren't such delusional asses as Mr. LaPierre? Funny thing is, the one's you know are the norm, not the exceptions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Interesting. So the states where gun ownership is more common -- where the average person has a relatively higher familiarity with firearms -- also tend to have populaces less afraid of guns and more opposed to the idea that restricting them from private possession is a solution to anything.

The more knowledgeable a people are about guns, it seems, the less inclined they are to ban or restrict them. And the posters here most stridently opposed to private firearms are the ones most abjectly ignorant of them. Funny, that...

Not really. Why should we be experts about guns? People who know a lot about guns, are people who are interested in guns and thus know more about them, or at least claim to know. I know enough, and have learned enough more, to know what the facts are. Why should people be interested in guns? Guns have one purpose: to kill, primarily to kill other people. Those of us who are not interested in that, are not especially interested in guns. And I know that semi-automatics are not hunting rifles, but that doesn't stop some here from just going right on and denying that fact, and then insulting people who disagree with them by calling them ignorant children who don't engage in honest discussion.

It's too bad, but I didn't want to get involved in this pointless gun debate. It was my mistake to get drawn into it. It is a stupid debate, and people all have their minds made up. It is something to learn more about; but debate? Forget it.