Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't put gangsta rap in the political realm. The practitioners are mosly apolitical, though, apparently, highly greedy.

They deserve no less a place in the political realm than some dude who shoots tin cans with an AR-15 in his backyard in a trailer park in West Virginia.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Nitpick. Weapons of Mass Destruction is most commonly used to reference nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. However, the phrase is not definitively defined. The FBI after the Boston Marathon bombings tried to call a pressure cooker bomb driven with match heads and fireworks a weapon of mass destruction. It seems to me that modern drones are intended for precision strikes against valued targets, but none the less the civilian casualties might often be comparable to a 'terrorist' pressure cooker bomb.

In general, the traditional use of WMD for nuclear, biological or chemical attacks seems to be proper. Next thing you know, shotguns or assault rifles with large magazines will become WMDs.

It's not a nitpick as much as it's redefining what most weapons can be when murdering and destroying numerous lives. Just ask the families of all of those innocent victims killed in the movie theater and Sandy Hook school, if they think who murdered their loved ones, were using a weapon of mass destruction. IMHO, even the sanctions on Iraq that took the lives of thousands of innocent babies and children, was a stealth WMD.

When it comes to violence and murder at the hands of the United States, there's a great deal of rationalizing. But if you want to stick to nuclear, biological and chemical attacks, then so be it. The United States has used all of them on human beings.

By all means, let's use George W's definition of WMD.

"Yet, there is little accountability built into America’s barely-secret drone war against suspected militants in numerous countries. The heinous Hellfire missiles they launch “indiscriminately” kill civilians at anobscenely higher rate than piloted bombing missions. But those are not “technically” WMDs. Drones also purposely double back and kill “vulnerable” first responders after the initial attack. But those deaths are purely “conventional.”

"Even though death by conventional weapons versus non-conventional weapons seems more and more like a distinction without a difference, the sad fact is that American hypocrisy runs deep on the issue of non-conventional warfare."

American Empire: A Glass House Built By Stone Throwers

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons comprise the three-headed beast of the 21^st Century’s Leviathan. Somehow, bunker-busting bombs, costly cruise missiles, indiscriminate cluster bombs and life-altering land mines—along with an inventive array of massively destructive ordinance made, used and sold by the United States—don’t seem to qualify as “weapons of mass destruction.”

This is, of course, in spite of Iraq.

An obvious “case in point,” it suffered massive destruction by a shocking onslaught of said weapons. In fact, Iraq’s significant toll of civilian causalities will continue to mount decades after the war because of America’s widespread use of depleted uranium—a chemically toxic, radiological weapon that was first used in the 1991 Gulf War and then used again in the 2003 invasion.

But don’t call that a WMD. Like Agent Orange before it, America’s “leadership” hides behind the veil of collateral consequences to obfuscate the mass destruction caused by both of those weapons. One defoliated. The other disabled armor. Any mass destruction was purely coincidental. But any hypocrisy you detect is completely understandable.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle36280.htm

Edit: Formatting

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

They deserve no less a place in the political realm than some dude who shoots tin cans with an AR-15 in his backyard in a trailer park in West Virginia.

Shooting-off ones mouth bares little resemblence to shootin-off a firearm. If you happen to inadvertantly get on the receiving end of some bad rhymes, nothing much happens. The same cannot be said for being of the receiving end of a few misplacedd 5.56 mm rounds.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Shooting-off ones mouth bares little resemblence to shootin-off a firearm. If you happen to inadvertantly get on the receiving end of some bad rhymes, nothing much happens. The same cannot be said for being of the receiving end of a few misplacedd 5.56 mm rounds.

No - but it does prove that all Americans embrace the so-called gun culture - be they urban or rural, North or South, blue or red, and yes, black or white.

The South is the most peacable place in America:

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/19/yo...ats/?hpt=hp_t3

We need to contract everything out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...6dd_story.html

"Someone just tweeted my new favorite bumper sticker: "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE; well, maybe a little.""
........ Anne Lamott

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...n-for-his-team

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

No - but it does prove that all Americans embrace the so-called gun culture - be they urban or rural, North or South, blue or red, and yes, black or white.

NO they don't; that's a ridiculous statement. Gun ownership is decreasing; just concentrating in the hands of the gun nuts. Urban, North, blue and black do not embrace the gun culture, generally speaking. Rural, South and red generally do, and shame on them for doing so!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

NO they don't; that's a ridiculous statement. Gun ownership is decreasing; just concentrating in the hands of the gun nuts. Urban, North, blue and black do not embrace the gun culture, generally speaking. Rural, South and red generally do, and shame on them for doing so!

No, shame on you for wanting to deny a fundamental right to American citizens. Also many in the north "embrace gun culture". Ever been to Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Vermont? Its your right to choose to be a defenseless victim, do not deny my right to self defense.

Originally Posted by Weave

Ever been to Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Vermont?

Of course not. I'd be surprised if he's even been as far as Chico or El Centro.

Originally Posted by Weave

No, shame on you for wanting to deny a fundamental right to American citizens. Also many in the north "embrace gun culture". Ever been to Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Vermont? Its your right to choose to be a defenseless victim, do not deny my right to self defense.

What a crock! Are they coming to get you? Are you scared? Do you have a bigger gun than the one the other guy has?

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. Because it's bad now, we have to allow it to remain bad, so I can protect myself from the foolish policies of the past. Brilliant. You do realize that this thinking has a built-in positive feedback. Bad today means worse to tomorrow and even worse the day after that.

At some point, the personal right to own weapons will be reviewed and found crazy. How that gets resolved is anyone's guess, but never going there would have been so much better.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What a crock! Are they coming to get you? Are you scared? Do you have a bigger gun than the one the other guy has?

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. Because it's bad now, we have to allow it to remain bad, so I can protect myself from the foolish policies of the past. Brilliant. You do realize that this thinking has a built-in positive feedback. Bad today means worse to tomorrow and even worse the day after that.

At some point, the personal right to own weapons will be reviewed and found crazy. How that gets resolved is anyone's guess, but never going there would have been so much better.

Yes indeed; well said.

And embracing the gun culture is a bit more over-the-top than approving of the "basic right," although I don't myself approve of it-- though realizing that compromise is necessary with the rural folks now. And I hasten to add that I don't approve of the government using guns to take away someone's guns, unless that person is proven by law not to have the right because of his/her behavior, mental condition etc.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course not. I'd be surprised if he's even been as far as Chico or El Centro.

lol

yes I have been to Chico!

gun_violence.pdf

• In one year, 31,224 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes: 12,632 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).
(and) 17,352 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).
• In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun.
• U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates.
• The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1).
• Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States (Richardson, p. 1).
• Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually (Cook, 2000).
• An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, p. 780).
• Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).
• Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, 1992, p. 467; Wiebe, p. 771).
• Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
• Every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15) compared with over 30,000 gun deaths (NCIPC).
• A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault (Branas).
• There are five times as many deaths from gun assaults as from knife assaults, where the rates of assault with knives and with guns are similar (Zimring, p. 199).
• More than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626). In comparison, only 3 percent of attempts with drugs or cutting are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626).
Gun Violence 11/2011

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma
633 N Saint Clair St, Ste 2600 * Chicago, IL 60611
Ph: 312-202-5508 * Fax: 312-202-5064
Email: managementoffice@east.org * Web: www.east.org

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997, 46(5): 101-105
United Nations Tenth Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, 2005-2006; Australian Institute of Criminology.
National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report 2006-2007; Home Office Statistical Bulletin, “England / Wales: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/07”
Population Reference Bureau, 2006 World Population Data Sheet; Population estimates for England and Wales
Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009 Children's Defense Fund, Protect Children Not Guns 2009, September 2009
Cook, Philip J, and Jens Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000
Cook, PJ and J Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, (Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1996).
Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Homicide – Suicide – Accidents – Children and Women, Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, 2009, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html
David and Deborah Azrael., “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results From a National Survey,” Violence and Victims, 15(3) (2000): 257-272
Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 45(2) (1998): 263-267
Kellermann, Arthur L. MD, MPH, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 329(15) (1993): 1084-1091
Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership,” New England Journal of Medicine, 327(7) (1992): 467-472
Miller, Matthew, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael, "Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast," Journal of Trauma 57 (2004):626-632.
E. D. Shenassa, S. N. Catlin, S. L Buka, "Lethality of Firearms Relative to Other Suicide Methods: A Population Based Study," Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57 (2003): 120-124.
DISCLAIMER: EASTERN ASSOCIATION FOR THE SURGERY OF TRAUMA
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO, AND DOES NOT, PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. All health care content available on or through this information is presented by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma ( “EAST”) for general informational purposes only and must not be regarded as a substitute for advice, diagnosis or treatment by a professional health care provider. THE EAST DOES NOT RECOMMEND OR ENDORSE, AND DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY RELATING TO, any particular products, procedures, opinions or other information presented or referred to on or through this fact sheet
Gun Violence 11/2011
Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma
633 N Saint Clair St, Ste 2600 * Chicago, IL 60611
Ph: 312-202-5508 * Fax: 312-202-5064
Email: managementoffice@east.org * Web: www.east.org
(including but not limited to the content of any advertisement), except for any statements specifical

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

lol

yes I have been to Chico!

... Then I am surprised

We're not the Show Me State, for nothing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3983902.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

NO they don't; that's a ridiculous statement. Gun ownership is decreasing; just concentrating in the hands of the gun nuts. Urban, North, blue and black do not embrace the gun culture, generally speaking. Rural, South and red generally do, and shame on them for doing so!

But where are all the references to AK-47s and Uzis in country music? And I didn't even know what a Desert Eagle was until I heard Spice One rap about it 20 years ago.

This is like the latest youtube "sensation" - some cracker shooting an elephant in the face and filming it; he no doubt thinks that what Michael Vick was mixed up with was reprehensible.

Hey, lawmakers couldn't object to someone doing this in a state capitol, where it's legal:

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3172245.shtml?cat=0

Interestingly enough, a ban on firearms at that same capitol building is now being considered...

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Hey, lawmakers couldn't object to someone doing this in a state capitol, where it's legal:

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3172245.shtml?cat=0

Interestingly enough, a ban on firearms at that same capitol building is now being considered...

I'm stunned... One of the legislature underlings actually used the correct term to describe a rifle (long gun).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yep, There was a woman murdered on television in Washington DC just yesterday.

But does that automatically mean that guns themselves are the root cause of this 11-to-1 ratio?

Could America's racial/ethic diversity be a contributing factor (see my "Revolving Door Theory," which I have expounded several times on here), and/or our high level of wealth inequality?

And might Switzerland be offered as an example to vindicate either or both of the above?

Switzerland has notoriously gun-friendly laws, low wealth inequality, is if not mono-ethnic, then certainly mono-racial - and has a very low rate of violent crime.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But does that automatically mean that guns themselves are the root cause of this 11-to-1 ratio?

Other factors may contribute -- undereducation, economic inequality, and a violent mass culture... all of which make firearms more dangerous. A firearm may be the optimal weapon of defense so long as one has no hesitation to use it... but someone who hesitates in using it may be overpowered with the gun being used against an attacker being taken and used by an unscrupulous attacker.

Could America's racial/ethic diversity be a contributing factor (see my "Revolving Door Theory," which I have expounded several times on here), and/or our high level of wealth inequality?

Ethnic diversity? Middle-class blacks are about as violent as middle-class whites (basically not at all) even if their political views are very different. If ethnic differences contributed to violence, then the San Francisco Bay Area would be the most violent urban area in America -- and it is toward the bottom in violent crime. Do Chinese-Americans scare you?

A high level of economic inequality of course makes people more likely to endure economic distress and to commit to a pattern of short-sighted concern for immediate survival. Extreme inequality fosters crime of all kinds, and it exaggerates personal differences. To the extent that such inequality entrenches itself it creates resentment that manifests itself in anger that on occasion boils over. Add to that, poverty is bad for psychic health as well as to physical health.

Maybe poverty doesn't create such violence if it comes with a culture that effectively inculcates guilt among the poor for being poor or the widespread belief that social stratification is a God-given blessing necessary for the functioning of a neofeudal society in which the inequality allows some sort of elite beneficence upon those that those elites exploit and abuse at will (which I offer as mockery of every rationale for economic inequality). Inequality in a crassly-materialistic society like ours indicates a severe gulf between its promises and its results. Our economic order either achieves its promises or recognizes that happiness for all but the few is nothing more than a conditional promise of "our daily bread" and evasion of imprisonment and nothing higher on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and desires.

And might Switzerland be offered as an example to vindicate either or both of the above?

Know well that those firearms are military weapons (Israel is much the same), and that those weapons come with military training and discipline. Military weapons are generally not good for committing street crime, and anyone who commits a burglary in Switzerland or Israel had better have very permissive life insurance.

Someone who believes in "guns for everybody" might as well go all out and practically draft every suitable adult (exclusions are obvious) into some national reserve forces so that every household in which the head is not a lunatic, criminal, or dullard can have a military weapon. But that comes with formal military training, something that might make private, politically-alienated militias unattractive.

Switzerland has notoriously gun-friendly laws, low wealth inequality, is if not mono-ethnic, then certainly mono-racial - and has a very low rate of violent crime.

It is also culturally authoritarian, which comes from being a highly-militarized society.