Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Guns do not kill. People do.

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 21, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST by highlander (-163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

On April 19, 1995 168 people, including 19 children, were killed in Oklahoma City at the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building. What killed them? A rental truck with ammonium nitrate, racing fuel, and nitromethane. So, basically, if a person wanted to follow Timothy McVey's example, they could get a rental care for $50, about 100$ worth of products that you can purchase at your neighborhood hardware store, and a basic fuse. Banning assault rifles will not prevent mass murders from happening.

221 Comments

221 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

My "Big Brother" won't let me play with guns and therefore I don't own any at the time, but anyone that thinks firearms restrictions, bans, or confiscations may be a good idea in light of last year's tragedies may want to consider the following website:

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

In a nutshell, anyone with basic hand tools, the skills to use them (no lathe needed!) and supplies readily available from hardware stores and plumbing supply houses can construct some really dangerous weapons in the privacy of their own homes, including a fully automatic 9mm SMG or a 12-ga. pistol. This website has been around for probably ten years so it's pretty much a given that thousands of people have already downloaded these plans although most probably haven't built any. Yet.

My point is, a highly determined individual or group that's bent on mass murder will ALWAYS be able to get the weapon(s) they need to achieve their goal, be it a Ryder truck full of fertilizer or a full-auto 9mm "zip gun." What's next? A background check to buy plumbing supplies and steel washers? Be careful what you wish for.

[-] 2 points by tomdavid55 (93) 1 year ago

Okay. So let's allow everyone to buy atomic bombs. Then when the crazies start setting them off, we could say, "The bombs don't kill, people do."

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

there, that's it! I could buy 1 or 20 and become a dictator.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2737) 1 year ago

Sure, but would a kid be able to pull this off?

Why make it so easy for the criminals and mentally disabled.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/

How many mass shootings will it take to convince you there is a problem

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/
Gabby Gifford's new anti-NRA group

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Here's something else, the old line of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" can be retorted witih "wel then, guns don't protect freedom either, people protect freedom".

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Guns are a means. Nothing more. A person will protect themselves and their freedom by other means. Just as a fanatic will kill by other means if they intend to cause harm.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (368) 1 year ago

ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

[-] 1 points by KofA (495) from Muenster, TX 1 year ago

AGREED +20.

What progressive SHOULD have done is made this about our complete lack of Health (mental) Care.

We've got to be better able to find and fix 'crazy'...

[-] 1 points by Objectivity (-2) 1 year ago

► They Want America Disarmed ! BE AWARE.

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the "legitimate" government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacremento or Albany claims to be today. And their attempt to disarm us, stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We must, therefore, hold onto our guns--legally or illegally--for the very same reason the colonists did.

By the way ...

The reason people shooting at each other is not because they have access to guns. IN FACT in Canada people have more guns ! but not much shooting. Do some research WHY

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Go back to your high school history teacher so that they may beat the living shit out of you with a textbook. Unless, of course, you are a fine example of homeschooling.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

The fact the thread exists shows the EXTREME problem America has with understanding the origin of behaviors or how to help to control them ethically and effectively, shows we are adrift as a species.

Row, row, row your boat, gently to extinction.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Control of the root causes, not the means to the behavior

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Indeed.

Let's control gun nuttery!!!!

It's about time you came to your senses and stopped posting idiocy like "guns don't kill people".

Guess what?

Guns don't make themselves either.

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Oh come on! Let us prohibit manufacture of knives, axes, pistols, and while we are at it let us prohibit tree growth (spears) and geologic processes (you can throw a rock). The burning of rome, Canae, Hannibal, etc, etc, etc. Guess what, NO GUNS. People are people. People will kill as long as there is a free will out there. I honestly cannot believe that people believe that gun control will solve the problem. Your goals are noble, but misguided.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

See.

You've proven yourself to be an irrational, extremist.

You mention "root" cause, but are unable to articulate it in a rational fashion. Instead, citing the burning of Rome?

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

To pontificate about the root cause would imply a knowledge in an area in which I an not an expert. However, I know what I see and I know what I read. Stricter gun laws is not a guarantee of a decrease in these violent events. It is a guarantee of a restriction of our freedom. In the time it takes to pass a gun law of any sort, in a congress that cannot go to the bathroom without a referendum, other measures can be put into place that would help protect our children; such as metal detectors or surveilance cameras in schools. Forensic psychiatrists,. who study the minds and workings of all serial killers and mass murderers, can study this case and hopefully gain some more knowledge into what causes people to do this.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

" Stricter gun laws is not a guarantee of a decrease in these violent events"

Pro'ly not, but there will be a whole lot FEWER dead people around because of it, and those "events" will tend be fewer and much smaller..

I'm just sayin'.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Oh jeeze. They can't even manage to produce a valid argument?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They've been repeating themselves for almost a month now.

It's tiresome.

Watch as they claim that "honest" gun nutters are the victim now.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

They already have.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Bang! You caught me in a verbal fart. Still, all the arguing about a new gun law will not solve what causes these people to snap.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There ain't no insanity clause......This is America.

Going insane was your "choice".

[-] -3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Pro'ly you should actually find out the facts instead of pro'ly just sayin' whatever bullshit pro'ly come's to your mind,...just say'in.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Dear Mr. tumor,

Things like facts and logic are completely lost on gun nutters.

Why do you think they call them nutters?

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You are the only person that refers to law abiding gun owners in that way. You can not defend your anti-Constitutional stance so you resort to name calling.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Lots of crazy people appear to be "law abiding" until they are not.

the craziest part of all?

All those kids died for your precious amendment, and YOU"RE proud of it.

You even feel victimized by their deaths.

If I were a religious man, I would call you evil, but nutter will do just fine.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Coming from a crazy person I'll concede irony.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm not the one fighting to allow even more dead folks.

You are.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

But that's exactly what you're doing.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Only from the point of view of a FLAKESnews/NRA/Limbaugh endorser.

And you know what they say about FLAKESnews!

It makes you stupid.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Chicago has very strict gun laws , it also has one of the highest murder ( by gun)rates in the nation.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Stick a bucket full of holes in the lake and it will leak, even if you tell it not to

Do you have any more ignorant statements?

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

What was " ignorant " about my post?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Well gosh, why do you think that situation might be so?

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Well, gosh, why don't you explain it

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I already did.

It's your turn.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

You didnt explain a thing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I did, but unfortunately, you don't understand very much.

Look up the term analogy.

Perhaps an overdose of FLAKESnews, or some other dedicated propaganda mill could be at fault here?

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Perhaps rephrase?

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Violence is a part of society. It has been part of humanity for millenia. Mass murders have happened long, long before guns came on the scene. Lets study the forensic psychiatry behind these murderers. Work on an advancement of humanity as a whole. Taking away guns takes away freedom, not the risk of violent death.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Violence is an instinct, yes, from the beginning. And yes, mass murders have been around. And yes, let us study our human instinctual structures and learn how to interface with them so we can intervene effectively in the internal torment that drives the mass murderer.

And finally, yes, guns are vital tools for survival and cannot be relinquished in lieu of the lack of proper performance by psychology. Such a structure CAN BE USED TO TAKE FREEDOM, and it is.

If you are okay with this reply, we are in complete agreement. That's a particularly good thing in this discussion because some real basic stuff is involved:-)

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Violence as an easy conflict resolution is a learned behavior.

Especially to the point of death.

It's not the natural reaction.

Flight is.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Global warming kills people and things too, eh?

The origin of THAT behavior is manipulated by propaganda.

Same thing with guns.

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

And there is no competition with the propaganda. Corporate power makes the crap visible. Good, universally guiding words and expression are not so easy to find.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Obviously there are those that have issues with logic, or they wouldn't make statements like "guns don't kill people"...............

Gun nutters have been manipulated by propaganda and fear for decades, thanks to the NRA and organizations like the John Birch Society, now with the full backing of ALEC.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Your point is understood, however, guns actually don't, people are what takes action. In an ethical, logical, reasonable world, that fact is prime THEN worry about the misuse of vital tools for survival.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Let's try one of the gun nutter's favorite analogies.

The humble knife.

You can say, knives don't cut meat, people cut meat.

But the reality is this.

People don't cut meat so well without a knife.

Same thing with guns.

So you see the Bumpersticker logic of ,"guns don't kill people", fails miserable.

It really is just a large hunk of oft repeated propaganda.

The question you SHOULD be asking yourselves is this.

Why did the (R)epelican't party, starting with Reagan, in effect, ban mental health care, by defunding it?

A process, they continue to this day.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Realistically, without distortions, intent is what kills. My neighbor was murdered with a tire iron, but his assailant only used that because the knife wasn't getting the job done.

Now, here's a test for you.

How many people can a nuclear weapon kill?

Or

People don't conduct genocide so well without a nuke.

Your demonstration of your fidelity to reason is upon you. How important are guns now?

Will you forget about them and instead work for control over nuclear weapons?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Can you guys come with something that isn't such a total stretch?

Here's one that isn't so much of a stretch, based on your argument.

Imagine that guy had a powerful machine gun, instead of a tire iron.

One capable of penetrating the walls of the surrounding homes.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Uhhhh stretch. C'mon. Extinction MF!

What's more important?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Extinction?

What's global warming have to do with gun nuttery?

Besides the fact that it seems to be making even more gun folks into nutters.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Cognitive distortions, misrepresentations, intentional loss of context. Hmmmm, working so hard against critical thinking.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That IS the gun nutters every response.

So c'mon, 'splane yourself.

What's extinction have to do with it?

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Pretending that the problems we are causing are less than something that can cause our extinction, is not really human. You expose yourself as an agent of the elite who are deluded into thinking they can evade environmental devastation by hiding under our dead bodies.

Context? Yer out of it. This exchange here is about nuke control and evolution not gun control.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Actually, no it's not.

It is about the term "guns don't kill"

Here's the quote that spurred my response.

"Row, row, row your boat, gently to extinction."

Something to do with being adrift as a species, yet we are rowing a boat.

Badly mixed metaphor.

This was in response to a knife analogy I had offered.

Well, at least it took you a week to get lost.

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

It's not the propulsion system that is the problem, its the guidence system.

"Something to do with being adrift as a species, yet we are rowing a boat."

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

On that note. Toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Well ya know guns do make it easy for those who are a little short in the imagination department.It also makes it easy for those spur of the moment people.You know the wife burnt the toast and rat a tat - tat..But they also make the would be bad guys think twice before kicking in your door etc.They also make it hard on overt facist to take total control.Life is nothing buy trade offs,your money ,your life or your wife.I know there is no such thing as a bad guy.Just ones that did not get enough love.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And I say, "You can keep your guns. Just give me ALL of the clips. Guns don't kill people. Clips full of ammo kill lots of people.

Have you tried to buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and nitromethane and caps?

"Who Must Register

6 U.S.C. 488a(c)(1)(A) and 6 U.S.C. 488e(a)(3)(B) require owners and operators of AN Facilities (including facilities that provide ammonium nitrate application services) to register with the Department. For the reasons provided below, the Department proposes in section 31.200 that any person who may individually perform a sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate on behalf of an AN Facility would be required to register as an owner or operator. Registered AN Facility personnel (whether owners or operators) involved with sales, transfers, or provision of application services are collectively referred to in the proposed rule as “AN Sellers,” of which “AN Facility Representatives” and “Designated AN Facility Points of Contact (POCs)” are subsets that have special responsibilities under the proposed rule. “AN Facility Representatives” are any AN Facility personnel, be they owners or operators, designated to act on behalf of an AN Facility for purposes of compliance with this rule. A “Designated AN Facility POC” is the AN Facility Representative designated by an AN Facility to act as the primary point of contact with the Department on behalf of the AN Facility for purposes of compliance with this rule.At ambient or normal room temperature, nitromethane is resistant to shock from rough handling. Numerous tests have been conducted which involved dropping full nitromethane drums from low-­flying airplanes and from heights of 50 feet onto other nitromethane drums, all without incidence of detonation. It is nevertheless recommended that careless and rough handling of drums be avoided.."

"Nitromethane (NM™ Nitromethane) from ANGUS Chemical Company (ANGUS) is made in the USA. As the global nitromethane supply leader, we’re committed to its safe and effective use in the markets we serve. As one measure to help ensure safety and security, we have a rigorous qualification process that all ANGUS customers must go through in order to receive nitromethane shipments. We require that all customers go through the process every three years if they are to remain an ANGUS nitromethane customer. To receive nitromethane from ANGUS, customers must have approved applications and the appropriate safety and security measures in place. Before we approve a new customer, we review the end-­use application, chemical compatibility, handling, storage, safety and security."

And from a patent application we find:

Abstract: A method for priming nitromethane to strong shock which comprises immersing in said nitromethane an open-celled polymeric foam and a blasting cap in close contact with said polymeric foam. Claim: I claim:

  1. A method for priming nitromethane to detonation by strong shock which comprises immersing in said nitromethane an open-celled polymeric foam having a blasting cap in close contact with said polymeric foam.

So, caps are required. Now about registering all guns and purchases, it should be similar to buying explosives like dynamite and fertilizer.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

We dissociate, forget, our problems because we have no good environment to share an accurate understanding of them. Free speech is abridged.

America has been induced, and has learned to forget the difficult problems they learn about, and simply go on tomorrow as if the implications of yesterday are meaningless.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Mass murderers that know of effective treatment might choose that over murder. Currently they know mental health care is BS, why bother?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

No it will not,then again it will make people feel more secure.And that is what they want to feel secure.So the politicians blow smoke up there ass and give them the illusion they crave.All the same time making them less secure.See patriot act etc.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I am willing to see multiple changes to reduce a problem. They don't all have to be perfect. They each contribute what they can. The first solution is for almost everybody to be willing to help make the changes that may contribute to the reduction of the problem which should be defined broadly. Death from unnatural causes and intimidation by threat of force.

Have steps been taken to reduce the likelihood of the Oklahoma bombing? Yes Have they reduced the problem? It would appear so.

Have you tried to buy ammonium nitrate lately? Nitromethane? Aerosol paint cans? Sudafed? A wire transfer of more than $10,000. When has a fully automatic machine gun been used? RPG? TOW? Poison? Are you willing to change? It doesn't take legislation for you to change, you. Hmmmm.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Check out Lt. Col Grossman, and his book "On Killing". He also has a "Killology" website. He is a retired military psychologist who says the U.S. public is literally being "trained" to kill through video games, movies, and a political/social atmosphere which essentially simulates the same training given to military people to get them to kill people in war. Put on top of that only a modicum of gun handling laws, we have completed the formula for making mass murders. On the morning after the latest school shootings, Lt. Col Grossman was on TV saying to those parents allowing their kids to play video games and watch violent movies, and who go around singing bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, the blood is on their hands.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Actually it is the projectiles that kill them, unless the gun is used as a club.

Kinda like falling out of an airplane is not actually fatal, it is the impact that is.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

gun deaths per 100,000 in the US - around 10
gun deaths per 100,000 in India - less than 1
gun deaths per 100,000 in Japan - less than 0.1

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

You say "Guns do not kill. People do." But the reality is that most people do not kill. People with guns kill. True, the tautology is there that not all people with guns kill, but still, people with guns (or other weapons as you show in your example) kill, and people without guns (or other weapons) do not. So, eliminate the weapons as much as you can. A ban on semi-automatic assault weapons is a no brainer and should be imposed immediately.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

It's handguns that are the real problem. As bad as these mass shootings are they are just a tiny blip on the total number of shootings in this country. You can ban the guns that cause the least number of deaths and feel like you've accomplished something but it isn't going to really solve the big problem.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Well, JenLynn, I don't think anyone needs to have any gun, except for hunters which I can understand, but that sentiment doesn't go over very well.

Certainly, we don't need any more 6 year olds shot 11 times, right? We need someplace to start.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

Most hunters don't "need" to hunt, they simply want to. If the majority goes with the gun owners and hunters, then guns stay available. The actual decision isn't likely to effect me one way or the other. I'm more likely to get hit by lightning then be involved in a mass shooting. I just think banning some guns is a foolish waste of time, especially when you're not going after the number one gun used in crimes, the 0.38 revolver.

It doesn't seem sensible or even compassionate to rush to do something-anything to save a small number of victims, because of their age, while refusing to act to save the greater number of gun victims. Banning assault weapons may make everyone feel better but it doesn't help the majority of the 10,000+ dead victims of this years gun violence.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

What is your position then? Ban all guns? Ban no guns? Should we all have bazookas pointed out our living room windows and tanks in our driveways? The line must be drawn somewhere. To start with there should be a ban on assault weapons.

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

My personal feelings on the whole thing then. I don't own a gun and probably never will. However if you're going to allow others to have them I'd like the right to get one too if I ever change my mind. I don't believe you can protect yourself from an insane criminal. If there had been one child killed it would be just as devastating on that one family as 100 or 1000 deaths. If you have to start someplace, then find out what the real problem is and work on that.

FBI statistics for 2010 show that rifles of all types were used in about 350 murders, there were about 6 times more murders committed with knives. For handguns the number is over 6000. If you have to do something at least make it productive and not based on the emotion from one event, make a decision on handguns they are the real killers.

I see it as an all or none proposition. Either we repeal the second amendment or we continue as we are. I'm fine with repeal, but know I'm in a minority and repeal is unlikely. It's also complicated by the fact that there are 300 million guns already out there and criminals are not likely to turn theirs in.

Assault weapon restrictions try to dance around the constitution. I don't want government or any group taking that approach. I see it as dishonest, playing semantic games with the constitution. For that reason I wouldn't support an assault weapon ban. Besides, all the effort placed limiting assault weapons is likely to rest on the decision of the Supreme Court. I see the "ban assault weapon" crowd as being hysterical. They are reacting to a horrific, but one time, death toll of 27 in one day. Then either through ignorance or indifference they ignore what happens in cities like DC or Chicago because it's "only" several deaths a night and there is less media coverage when it's inner city kids getting shot.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the second amendment has nothing to do with private ownership of weapons

only the rights of a state to maintain its own militia

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

That was up to the Supreme Court to decide. Until the 2008 decision they agreed with you, now they have accepted the idea of the right going to the individual.

At this point with so many guns already out there, it may not make any difference. I don't know if repealing or reinterpreting the second amendment could ever remove guns from this society. Certainly not in our lifetime.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I don't protest to stop weather or the sunset either. Some things you are simply not going to change. Handguns are the real problem and the Court decision in 2008, I think, makes their ownership a right for individuals.

I don't see a ban on a few weapons, used in a very few crimes, as being effective. So I wouldn't waste my time with that.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Saying that all guns can not be banned and then implying no ban on assault weapons in civilian hands would be effective, is just being defeatist about gun control or is even claiming that any 'control' is unwarranted. I completely disagree with this - whether it be your position or not.

How about 'Gun Buyback' - http://www.nationofchange.org/thousands-la-citizens-choose-groceries-over-handguns-1356624727 - as less guns in public is better, right? Never Give Up Trying To Be Reasonable! Occupy Some Common Sense!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must deal with the irresponsible, unscrupulous people who sell guns to criminals and mentally ill. Certainly ban assault weapons, but also close the loopholes.

80% of criminals who used handguns claim they got them without background check, online, or through some unscrupulous dealer.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

Is you're going to go after guns then handguns is certainly the more appropriate target. Going after Assault weapons may be emotionally satisfying but they make an insignificant contribution to the murder total. From what you say, the place to start sounds like it should be to get current laws enforced.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

'Going after' assault weapons, high capacity magazines are fine. I don't think that it is the 'magic bullet', (<--oops. sorry) I don't think it is against the 2nd amendment, I don't think it is enough.

Universal background checks. improved mental health care, Accurate, updated registries for criminals, mentally ill.

And to pass real gun safety measure we must identify the NRA 'A' rated pols & mount a pressure campaign.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

Older Court decisions leaned toward the state militia interpretation for military type guns. In, I think, 2008 a decision made handgun ownership a right.

I do agree with you of background checks and safety measures. What I don't want to see is something rushed through on emotion.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm not worried about that. It's impossible to rush it because we've talking about it since before the 1st ban 20 years ago.

So don't worry.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

You make many valid points there. How about looking at the Second Amendment from a historical perspective? Does anyone really think, or can anyone argue with any sanity, that loading a musket every 10 minutes and having the right to have that musket in order to form a militia because there is no standing army in 1791, truly translates today to that there should be no restrictions on gun control? Can you imagine how insane historical figures would think we are today to allow all 300,000,000 of these guns in our society? It's laughable, really.

I agree with you that every death by a handgun matters just as much as every death by a semi-automatic weapon and I would like to see all guns banned, frankly, except for hunting (though I'm no fan of hunting). The problem is, as you point out, that that will likely never happen. So, then the problem becomes: Where do you draw the line? I am saying that one place to draw the line, right now, is semi-automatic weapons. Should hand guns be eliminated too, hell yes.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

The british army in the late 1700's had it down to about 3 shots per minute. Most other armies were about 2, but that isn't the point.

I've been reviewing crime statistics as I post with different people on this. Lets pretend for a moment that all 350 rifle deaths were from assault weapons. That's about 3 or 4% of all murders. Murder has dropped since 2006 by about 2500 people, about a 14% decline. Whatever effort groups want to put into an assault weapon ban might yield better results, and save more lives, if they could determine what made all murders go down and get society to do more of whatever worked.

The assault weapons ban ended in 2004, yet murders continued to decline. I don't pretend to have an answer, but finding out what really works would be better then reacting with pure emotion. That would go for both groups, the NRA as well as those that want to ban assault weapons again.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I think emotion is where we get our humanity. I think react on emotion. React on the fact that 20 little 6 and 7 year olds were shot up in a matter of minutes with one little boy suffering 11 shots. Emotion is everything. It is what separates us from the animals.

I am getting a suspicious feeling that your "all" or "nothing" thesis is merely a ruse, that you are all for guns because you know damn well there will never be a total ban on guns.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I'm neither for nor against guns. I don't even know if I can legally own one yet in my state. It's good to suspect people's motives though, few people are trustworthy.

What attracted me to respond to the post was what I saw as an ineffective response to something based on emotion only. An emotion due to 27 at one time that seemed to ignore the larger numbers of dead children in our cities because their deaths, although greater in number, are spread out across the calendar. Emotion is normal, but it's responsible for as much violence as it is for love or caring. I also see emotion as a poor way to make laws.

Why have murder rates been dropping? Finding out the answer to that could save more lives then a ban on one type of gun that many people don't own anyhow and rarely use to commit crime. The assault weapon ban may get renewed, I don't care and don't see it as even a partial solution. It's hard for me to care about a gun I'll never be interested in getting, until the zombies come.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Overall crime rates are dropped because of better more proactive policing, higher incareration rates and changing demographics. Most crime is committed by males under 30. The baby boomers are aged.

You suggest since we can't eliminate all guns, we should therefore ban none. This is a logical fallacy of the excluded middle. Based on a false dichotomy of absolutes.

Police can't stop every crime before it happens. We accept this as a trade off to living in a full out militariized police state. But according to your logic, since police can't stop every crime, we should therefore not even try. Your all or nothing argument is really flawed.

Same as the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument. Guns are an inanimate object. Of course they don't kill people by themselves. People kill people. And guns kill people.

A military assault weapon has no purpose for civilian use. There is no serious responsible hunter that needs more than a 10 round clip. Not an assault weapon with 50 or 100 rounds. Same for self defense. A 50 round military assault weapon is not necessary for self defense.

We will never completely stop people from killing people. We won't stop all crime. But it can be minimized. And it has been minimized. In part due to better policing.

Your all or nothing logic excludes the middle.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Appropriate to both comment and forum-post :

Despite our differences sometimes and my occasional uncouthness, my regards for xmas & beyond.

pax et lux ...

[-] -1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

If it makes you feel safer then go ahead and support a ban on assault weapons. Maybe this time you'll get a law that has some meaning to it. The Bushmaster used in Connecticut shooting wouldn't have been banned under it and existing guns could stay in the hands of their owners.

I see little point in banning an object used in less then 3% of murders and doing noting about the handguns. Assault weapons don't represent the middle they are more or less a fringe weapon.

[-] 1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

If you take the time to read the constitution, article 1 , section 8 , clause 16, covers the " militia". The 2nd amendment is about the "right of people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed". It's about the people being armed to keep the tyranny of govt at bay. No restriction on gun ownerhip according to the constitution.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

The definition of "militia" is:

a. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service

You see, we have a standing army these days with 560, 560!!!! bases around the world. We do not need a militia. The 2nd amendment is antiquated, so it needs to be interpreted for the 21st century. George Washington would have a stroke if he heard how people like you are interpreting this. Freaking insanity!

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

It's precisely because we have a standing federal army that we are the militia. This really is a non-issue anyway because no one: no individual - no president - no congress - no law enforcement agency of any kind - will ever have the power to remove guns of any kind that are legally possessed; not even a police state is capable of this.

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

did you read article l , section 8, clause 16?. Its. quite different from the 2nd amendment.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I read it. Be specific. What do you think is different and why does it matter? We are still in the 21st century with a standing army. We do not need a militia. The British are not coming.

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I have a question about this. Prior to the Constitution, When King G3 was in charge , what were the gun laws then ?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I have a question. What were guns like then? How long did they take to load? What percent of the population lived in rural areas and hunted as compared to today?

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Yes, I understand your concern.. truly I do.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Guns were deadly .. then and now.. One must be very careful and well trained to handle weapons.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

They were far less deadly, though, wouldn't you say? Harder to aim, took longer to load. There is really no comparison.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

A complete and total ban on all auto and semi auto guns, as well as a ban on revolvers.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I wasn't aware auto and semi auto even existed back than ?

  • wasn't it all musket loading ?
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There ya go............:)

Now you see how silly your question was.

Here's one for you.

Since the constitution didn't specify "guns" as arms, what's the problem with banning them?

It would seem perfectly constitutional in that light.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Thats why the 2nd amendment says arms" and is not specific on what type. There were cannons back then too.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

article l section 8, clause 16 is about a standing army. the 2nd amendment is about a persons ( single indivuduals ) right to keep ( own ) and bear arms,...." shall not be infringed" the 2nd is about personal arms ownership. those people do not have to belong to a militia, can be of any age or sex, since neither is mentioned The reason that right is on the bill of rights is that's it a check against govt tyranny. a disarmed populace is easy to subjugate.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

You don't see it do you? They let you have your guns while they economically strangulate and tyrannize you. It is all a ruse.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That is the clause you speak of. It is regarding a militia, so I'm just not understanding you. We have a standing army. This just does not apply today.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1637) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The Constitution has many more proclamations and amendments than the ones pertaining to number 2. But you'd never know that listening to these RW talking point Zombies! The vast majority of the constitution advocates the welfare, protection, freedom, happiness, and rights of We The People! It doesn't have a getting shot exception ANYWHERE!! We The People are not supposed to get shot by fucking gun nuts!

At first the Constitution was OK with Slavery and Denying Women the Vote, so we changed it.

Now the Constitution has some vague proclamations about arms or guns that fucking gun nuts interpret as a call to go all David Koresh/Branch Davidian and maintain an arsenal to fight the Big Bad Guvmint. It's to the point that our 5% population on this planet has amassed 50% of it's guns. That's like our 1% owning 42+% of our wealth (that we ~ offshore, tax havens ~ know of), equally FUCKED UP!! Gun nuts need more guns like the 1% need more money!!! So it's TIME TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION again!!

Meanwhile, let's address the singularly glaring URGENCY here and stop people from grabbing freely available guns and shooting other people. The idea that some sort of harm would come to fucking gun nuts if we applied some gun control IS INSANE!!!! And even if it did WHO FUCKING CARES!!! If we only saved one life a year with gun control IT'S WORTH IT!!!

But how we allowed this wild west mythology with guns to continue into 2013 is OUTRAGEOUS!!

Time to get real and move forward. We should copy the UK ASAP!

In the meantime we should begin a moratorium on gun and ammo sales yesterday! And go ahead and collect all guns for processing. Slap a $10K fine on per gun ownership! Sorry nuts, you brought this on yourselves. And OUR LIVES trump your hobby/sport/paranoia!!

Then we have to sort out the gun hair ball we have allowed to wad up until we find something that works.

Another thing to start with, revoke/repeal the Bush-Cheney gun manufacturer liability exemption law! NOW!

None of this would be on our little minds at all if gun nuts shot the 1% instead of us 99%. We do their shooting for them, in the Class War we're losing! And they FUCKING love it!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I agree with you. And, you remind me of the preamble to the Constitution, the General Welfare Clause! The Constitution in it's totality must meet the guideline of promoting the general welfare of the people.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No offense to the US population , but this one is a bit different than Britain's. And not in a good way.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Thats why it says "arms" , and does mention specific weapons.The need for arms is for protection against the tyranny of govt.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

No. The vote is the protection against the tyranny of government. The right to peacefully protest is the protection against the tyranny of government.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

and that coma after " state" means everything. A militia is covered in article 1 , section 8, clause 16. The 2nd amendment was written to guarantee that everyone had a right to own and bear arms and that the govt could not take that right away. That's what "shall not be infringed "means.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

This is up for interpretation because first of all this was written at a different time in history, when a militia was needed. Also, what "arms" were then are not what "arms" are now. Things have changed greatly. Would we allow citizens to have the ultimate "arm" the "nuclear bomb?" The second amendment must be viewed in light of historical perspective with consideration for the present day and a line must be drawn as to it's sensibility.

Also, why do you feel such a strong need to have guns? Do you hunt? Do you have a threatening neighbor? Do you live in fear? Do you hate your government? Do you hate your fellow citizens? I really want to know. What is the big need for guns?

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Just about everyone living in the west in the 19th century owned a gun and knew how to use it. while there was violence , most of the armed citizenry lived in peace and knew that being armed was for their own self defense. where i live, most people own guns and violent crime rate is very low, hardly anything because people own guns. and any would be criminals know that..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Suffice it to say we will never agree.

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you are deficiant regarding being informed.
as an aside, in south africa, winnie mandela practiced " necklacing" which is putting tire aound someones neck, dousing it in gasoline and setting it on fire.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Winnie Mandela did not practice "necklacing." Get your facts straight. She may have said some stupid things, but she didn't practice that herself.

Here is a list of non-violent resistance movements through history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

Non-violent movements are very effective and should be what the way we strive for change.

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

are you really that naive to think that peacefully protesting is any sort of protection against the tyranny of govt? it worked out so well in Tiananmen Square. The vote is not much protection when fraud is so easily accomplished. gun control is not about guns, its about control.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I am that naive, yes. Thank you. South Africa, India, African Americans, women, etc. all freed themselves non-violently.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

upholding the 2nd amendment is not " gun mongering". what a silly uninformed term.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Guns are violent. Upholding the 2nd amendment without consideration for limitations to the types of "arms" citizens are allowed to bear is gun mongering and it leads to increased violence.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Is their an illogical, exaggerated, fear of crime at the center of most gun owners?

Everyone I've ever heard say they sleep with a gun (or even have a gun) have NEVER experienced a crime against them.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13625-social-paranoia-feeds-us-gun-culture

Whatta ya think? What are you afraid of?

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

How do I propagate violence?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

With your gun mongering.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Yes, she endorsed it on behalf of the ANC. The woman is filth. We are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own and bear arms. If you choose not to own, your decision, but you have no right , and neither does the govt have the right to make that choice for anyone else.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Your argument is so utterly backward. You call her "filth" yet you propagate violence yourself.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

finally, something you and i agree on,....you ARE naive.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

If naive is to see truth in love and not in fear, then yes, that is naive aville. Try it sometime.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

The constitution was written first,....ratified between 1787 and 1790, then the bill of rights was written, ratified in 1791. the 2nd amendment specifically states the right of individual people. ........."the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infrigned".

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Now, now. Don't leave out the first part:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

going to ban cars too?

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I don't care what we do or don't ban. What I am saying is attacking one type of gun is foolish. It's an emotional response, not a reasoned one to something we can't ever really protect ourself from. I also said if the majority don't want a ban then that's what I'd accept.

Although cars are not made for the purpose of killing, if you wish to equate the two we can. Lets say you want to regulate high performance cars because they can go fastest. I'd say you're wasting your time, you'll never stop traffic deaths by regulating one model. If you are not prepared or able to ban all cars then don't waste your time on one model. Especially a model that isn't responsible for a majority of the deaths.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

you dont have to be driving at a high speed to kill someone.

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I agree, and focusing on one detail like speed or, in the case of the gun, rounds per minute, to make a decision to ban or not to ban is foolish.

I didn't state my personal position on guns, it didn't seem important. I commented on the idea that somehow a ban on assault rifles would be of some help. I see it as foolish.

The choices are amend or don't, total ban or none. Have a national debate and decide. Not go for some partial dance around the second amendment out of emotion and hysteria.

Rifles are used in about 350 murders a year, assault weapons are thrown in that category by the FBI. Blunt objects kill twice as many people as all rifles. Handguns were used in over 6000 murders. Banning the weapon that is used in the fewest murders seems a waste of effort. If you think banning works then you need to be honest about it and ban all guns. If you think banning things doesn't work then keep the constitution as it is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the US provides 40% of all internationally sold weapons

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

The jobs created by that industry will make a strong argument to do nothing. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm not convinced renewing the assault weapons ban is worth the effort.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

so, you're against the 2nd amendment?

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

Not at all, it's there, it's the law, and protects all guns. It's also true though that we can change it, if a large enough majority wishes to. I'm against an emotional reaction to a tragedy that in the end isn't going to be of much help. I see it as an overreaction because it was 27 people all at once. Our major cities are providing us with that many dead each month.

Assault weapons are not the real problem, they are just the more impressive weapon, and easiest to go after. Violent people are the problem and too many of them already have handguns. They also don't care what laws you write or what we ban.

A ban on all guns would take decades to become effective, but a ban on only some guns is foolish. If you are going to actually ban anything then you need to get enough support to repeal the second amendment and pull all guns out of society.

I'm not even saying I support that action. Bans didn't work with alcohol and don't seem to work with drugs. I'm saying if you are serious about banning guns, get the support to do it right it's an all or nothing thing.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the 2nd amendment doesnt protect guns, it protects the rights of the citizens to own them so that they can protect themselves.

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

Semantics, protects gun ownership then. I don't think a repeal is in our future anyhow. There are too many guns already in the hands of criminals and they are not likely to simply turn them in. Violating the law is pretty much the only thing criminals are good at.

I quite honestly haven't thought through it all in detail, just enough to know banning some guns seems to be a hysterical reaction. Think the issue through then decide, you pass an amendment repealing the second or you don't. If the support isn't there then we continue as we are. I would absolutely be against what I see as a dishonest dancing around the constitution to ban some guns but not others. I don't want government nibbling away my rights, we have a process to decide as a nation to amend or not.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"violating the law is the only thing criminals are good at" thats why they're criminals. what the 2nd amendment does is guarantees the citizens right to own a gun. it's not semantics, words mean things.

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I agree, I was sloppy in my original statement saying it protected guns. The constitution itself is important, that is why I would say if you are going to ban anything you need to work through the whole thing starting with the second amendment, following the constitution. While that debate goes on, you also have to consider that the criminals will likely still be armed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I've read it and as I said in my other response, until the 2008 decision the court was leaning toward the right going to the state militias to regulate guns. Now the interpretation is that it is an individual right.

If (and that is a big if) there is to be a ban on guns it may have to be through the amendment process.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3548) 1 year ago

The Bill of Rights were our Birthrights as a nation so the Second Amendment should only be changed or rescinded through the constitutional amendment process. Nevertheless, I believe that we can still regulate handgun possession through federal laws not in violation of the Second Amendment because the Bill of Rights were adopted by the several and independent States to guard against the potential tyranny of the federal government. For this reason, the phrase "well regulated militia" was inserted.

To be "well regulated" implies military training and submission to the will of the people so the militia was not envisaged as being one and the same as the people who in general are not militarily trained. Federal statues regulating handgun possession by the people are fine as long as their intent is to provide for the general welfare. To safeguard the subservience of the militia to the will of the people requires the people possess sufficient firepower to take ultimate control if need be so the people's right to possess weapons of firepower shall not be abridged.

Banning the possession of handguns outside homes will not infringe upon such right and will take away the most frequent means of deadly violence in our (un)civil society.

Besides the means, we also need to work on the motivation by attending to the mental health problems because the motivation of people is the origin of the violence and it can manifest through diverse means.

[-] -2 points by threedgs (-6) 1 year ago

guns do not kill, people do

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I know that, eliminating guns only eliminates gun deaths. It's people and human nature that is the real problem. You want to stop all violence you'll have to ban people I guess. I read an article about violent crime in Europe. The US wouldn't make it into the top ten most violent.

[-] -1 points by threedgs (-6) 1 year ago

When these individuals commit the act or murder or mass murder, they are plastered all over about every media outlet in the US and sometimes World wide. By the media putting these "psychos" in the spotlight, it often opens the door for "copy cats" The media needs to stop putting these individuals in the spotlight.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

There is no shortage of possible causes for violence. Guns, movies, video games, lack of mental health care. You could be right, i simply think man is violent and certain individuals will occasionally lose it and kill. Another sad quality of human beings is they want to know things. You can't blame the media for doing what the majority want and will watch.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think your right about the movies and video games, but would add that I think our society in general drives, or raises people to be crazy theses days. I think that if people from fifty years ago were exposed to the horrendous violence that we take for granted in movies and video games, they would think that its crazy.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3548) 1 year ago

We have video-game rating system largely because of previous bouts of mass murders linked to the playing of violent video games. That certainly did not prevent the Sandy Hook/Newtown mass shooting because Adam Lanza was allegedly playing with them. He qualified as an adult although his independence and mental competence were subject to questions.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I'm just mentioning causes I've heard or read of. One theory I read links overpopulation to an increase in violence in people. The real point is we are violent. I'm not sure anyone knows all the reasons why or can offer a workable cure for that.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

In that case and in the interest of stopping all that.

Please stop posting in any of the myriad, redundant threads on the subject here on the forum.

[-] -2 points by threedgs (-6) 1 year ago

take your meds and then come back and try again

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So you're just another liar.

Doing exactly what you are bitching about.

That would also indicate that it's you who's taken far too many "meds".

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

We need to call "gun violence" what it really is

It is not the gun that comitted the violent act it was the violent individual so lets call it what it is

Violent Person Firearm Crime.

The violent person commited the firearme crime with a firearm.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

You are really going out of your way to defend guns. I'd rather meet up with a violent person without a gun than a violent person with a gun. Who are you kidding?

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I am not going out of my to defend guns I am making a point that the problem is with "violent people". BTW, the perp that killed all those innocent children did buy those weapons so he comitted a felony.

But that doesn't matter - what does matter is his mother gave him access. So my take on that is we need to ban all parents who have children from gun ownership. That will solve a lot of the problem.

As far as meeting up with a violent person without a gun - would that be you without a gun and the violent person with a gun?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Oh, your last sentence is sssso funny.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

You might want to look at my reply to that last comment also....

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Your naive view is that this is only about a physical confrontation, where a gun is obviously superior. With that naive view you argue that the wielder of the gun is just "violent" or "mentally distrubed" as if that explains it all. The truth is that the interaction is an encounter with part of the collective psyche of the USA, and that encounter will not be resolved by a mere bullet or another gun.

America just has to face a Truth: it is diseased. Guns won't preserve the values of America, only further its destruction.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Nice try, but we aren't having any today.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

So you won't admit that the violence is caused by the person will you. The phrase sounds more catchy when you say "gun violence" - the gun comitted the violence didn't it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You have entirely too many sockpuppets to remember what I have said.

Slow down there, Speedy. Try to remember.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

You could also say people with cars, knives, clubs, bats, etc also kill. But most do not. Maybe we should say "people with intent" kill, irregardless of the weapon or means. Maybe that's the real problem.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

People with mal-intent. Why is it so extreme? Where does that come from? How do we single it out and treat it if the individual seeks to have that done?

We cannot. Lame psychology.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Or that no one wants to discuss the real problem. My post is about that.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/guns-do-not-kill-people-do/#comment-900934

We are dissociating the real problem. Most of the posting in this thread is effort to avoid that problem and aid in dissociation.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Oh, yes, the deepest roots of this problem go to the vacuous nature of our society. Living in a capitalist economic system causes human misery and loneliness as the worshiping of materialism and individualism above all else fails to sate the needs of human beings for love and community.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Or we could just tell the truth.

Economic inequality kills people.

Occupy Wall Street. It's the place to start.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

I also think that the powers that be are happy to let Americans have their guns as long as they can control them economically. It is a form of manipulation. We'll rape and pillage you economically (half of Americans earn less than $26,000 per year), but you can have your gun. Most Americans feel powerless in their lives economically and in many other ways so having a weapon in the house gives them a sense of control and power. We've been conned. It is time to wake up. Fight for a living wage, not a gun.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"Fight for a living wage, not a gun." - bingo & succinctly in a nutshell :-)

Thanx for your very important comment and for evidence thereof & ':-( ly' :

"Please share this article with as many people as you can. Time is running out, and we need to wake up as many people as possible."

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Those 75 economic facts are absolutely astounding. What kind of country do we want to live in? Do we want to evolve or regress? Do we want feudalism or an economic system that works for everyone?

Clearly Americans have been asleep while being raped and pillaged. It is time to wake the f--k up!

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

That is so succinctly true 'be double you' and : "Forecast : 13.1% Of US Workers To Be Jobless in 2013", by David Walsh : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33404.htm & it's time to wake the sleepers !

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

We can do better than this as a society. Americans must wake up before it is too late. Choose love over fear, sharing over hoarding.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Fight for FULL unionization, then wages will ALL be set by negotiation.

This is my solution for the constant bickering about the very definition of a "living wage".

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Well run unions could be the answer. All workers need to work together in order to bring some balance to the imbalance of power that the individual worker has vs. the employer.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

personal arms ownership is guaranteed by the bill of rights. salaries are not.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Okay, in a very antiquated way it says people can have guns to form a militia, but we don't need a militia. Keep in mind that capitalism is not guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights either and capitalism is what keeps your wages down. There are many things we put up with that are not outlined in the Constitution such as a government bought by and controlled by corporations.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

It does not say people can have guns to form a militia. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Yes it does. You are leaving out the beginning of the sentence!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Do not agree with that. It may cause misery, or unequal standard of living, etc, but how is that equal to intentional murder. Are you justifying murder with greed?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Leave it to you to disagree with the truth.

The more equal the society, the less violent crime they suffer.

Check out Canada and Switzerland.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I am not referring to overall crime but "killing" as per the post. Your going off on a tangent. Are you stating that inequality results in more "killing" or just more crime? Are you excusing crime (especially murder) resulting from inequality? I see no excuse for criminal behavior and to do so is irresponsible. That is the truth.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Both.

Besides, I've seen you make lots of excuses for criminal behavior, if only by pretending it isn't criminal.

I've yet to see you say anything at all about the criminal behavior of the GOP, in any of it's many forms.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I have never made excuses for criminal behavior. Not sure where you get that. And where am I defending any party? There is plenty of criminal behavior from both parties that can be presented. But that is not the point of this dicussion, which is about people and killing and guns. Again, show me a correlation of killing and inequality. There is plentybof inequality all around the world. And, again, are you excusing criminal behavior in any form by any person in any circumstance? I do not. And, again, are you equating greed with murder? You did not answer the question.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Are you really this bad at logic and research?

http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2012/01/new-study-supports-link-between-inequality-and-crime/

Not a good sign for a purported "engineer".

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

There was nothing in your article about murder. Only crimes related to theft. So this is your proof that inequality is responsible for rise in murder rates? Again, you did not answer the questions posed to you. I am not refuting that more theft occurs when people are poorer. We see this in bad economic times, and then in good times, it is reduced, even when there is inequality. Crime rates and the up/ down movements, in my opinion, are more tied to unemployment rates, and general economic conditions especially in poor areas. So I ask you again: do you condone, excuse or condemn criminal behavior, no matter the circumstances, by anyone, either rich or poor? Is that so difficult to answer? what about the greed to murder comparison? Stay on topic please. We can discuss any other items later. My research abilities are fine, I was asking "you" for an answer or opinion to my now much asked questions, yet you seem only able to deflect and avoid the topic above.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OMG You really are that bad at logic and research.

In fact your research abilities really suck.

Here's a quote from a FSU study.

Cross-cultural studies have similarly found higher homicide rates in nations characterized by a greater degree of economic inequality. However, the correlation did not hold true for property crimes. American studies of economic inequality have found it to be a more significant variable than poverty. These studies often use cities or historical eras for comparison purposes. Cities with higher rates of economic inequality are compared to those with less differentiation. Cities like New York and Los Angeles have much wider gaps between the rich and poor than cities in less prosperous parts of the country like Appalachia or the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi).

And it's link.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/poverty.htm

Now here's a whole lot more.

I'm not going to spend another second of My holiday doing crime/murder research for guy that should be able to make the connection by logic alone.

So here you be spammed with truth.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/620401/study-income-inequality-homicides/

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2012/08/30/explaining-high-murder-rates-in-latin-america-its-not-drugs/

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/03/inequality-and-the-murder-rate.html

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/crime_and_inequ.html

It's works that way all around the World, just not in your mind.

So sorry for you.

Have a nice holiday reading about murder. I'm done with this.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Thanks, I will read some of what you sent. No need to attack or use insults. In the article you linked before, there was not much there. BTW, you never did answer my questions, not sure why you avoided that part of the discussion. Have a good holiday.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You are a "no brainer" for suggesting that a ban on our right to keep and bear arms should be "imposed immediately".

Every law abiding gun owner shouldn't have to give up their Constitutional freedoms because Adam was a whack job murderer.

Choosing one type of rifle and handgun over another to ban is just feel good Liberal wanker shit and will do nothing but give politicians cover enough to fool low information voters such as your self.

This logic and narrative you Leftist's are pushing is way over your heads. You are puppets and shills for the higher goal of a complete disarming of ALL private American citizens.

You truly are just that stupid.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Letting go of fear mongering is a scary thing isn't it outlawtumor? But, just think how freeing it would be if you lived in a society where love was primary and you didn't have to worry about "self-defense" and how much you hate your government. Imagine if you lived in a society where your government looked out for you and all your fellow citizens and made sure everyone had enough to live a decent life.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In compliment - to starting the day right.

How about starting the day with something like.... or Good morning.....

Continue on with something like....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Sweet, DKA. Thanks. :)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Welcome - need gr8 ways to start the day and then continue on in a positive manner.

[-] -2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Imagine,if you could live in the real world and not an imaginary Utopia?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Oh, I do live in the real world. I am very aware of the real world I live in. I have no blinders on. That is why I want change.

[-] -3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

But the change you seek is unrealistic and your ideology is really just blinders anyway.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

It's not unrealistic, just hard. If something is hard should you give up on it? No. In life, usually the only things worth pursuing are the things that are hard.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Must suck having nothing good to strive for.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Giving up is the worst thing, I think, DKA. So, outlawtumor knows things are screwed up, but he/she has given up. Maybe we can give him/her hope.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Rebirth is always possible. Where there is life there is hope. You are such a good and giving person to be thinking that way.

[-] -3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

It is unrealistic to change the fundamental nature of man. As long as there is free will and freedom there will be evil and murderous people.

This won't change regardless of how many tools of murder you ban or laws you pass to stop it.

If you want to live free from danger and injury society must do away with freedom,liberty and assume complete and total control of every aspect of every person living in that society.

Is that what you're trying so hard to accomplish?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22089) 1 year ago

Please watch this 4 minute video. It pretty much sums up what I am trying to accomplish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtc-k6dhgs

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well certainly I support replacing the resources cut from investigating, prosecuting domestic terror but that right wing wacko terrorist attack doesn't change the need to deal with strong gun safety measures.

You're not makin sense.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Forget "disturbing" info now! Cease to be so afraid of that part of the human, their unconscious mind, which can commit extreme violence, that you forget that it really is the human, and PLEASE, try to prevent others from forgetting that it is behavior which is the problem.

Mental health care is archaic in this nation.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Okay, people kill, not guns; why all the discussion about guns? Seems humans don't want to talk about human problems that need to be solved. Easier to focus on what isn't the problem.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

that's if tim mcvey actually did oklahoma city with no outside support. we know that is not the case. there is substantial evidence of fbi involvement much like the first world trade center attack.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Where you come from?

my question in video form - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0vpSxAJZmw

an interesting theory - http://occupywallst.org/forum/rush-of-new-users-pushing-wedge-issues/

Also there can only be one Highlander!!

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

People not guns- dailypaul lniks, same issue.

This is a critical cognitive anchor and it is astounding how many people do not stand for logic and reason.

http://www.dailypaul.com/245587/mental-health-guns-which-comes-first

http://www.dailypaul.com/266529/mental-health-issue-not-a-gun-issue-tragedy-at-sandy-hook

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1637) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Deranged!!

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Who, pray tell, is being referred to as deranged?

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1637) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Demand A Plan

It's not too soon after Sandy Hook...but it is too late for Sandy Hook. Check out the video. Powerful.

Read more: http://www.am760.net/pages/gloria.html?article=10661915#ixzz2H0gvNh7c

Demand A Plan to End Gun Violence

Published on Dec 21, 2012

Artists have joined the effort to Demand A Plan and recorded a powerful, personal message. Watch, share, and join them: http://www.demandaplan.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg&feature=player_embedded

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yawn

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

mouth breather

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

knuckle-dragger.

[+] -4 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

dont confuse the dems/libs/progressives with facts. its too much for them .THEY have their own opinions which they believe to be " facts">

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

labels and generlizations signify a mind that cannot be specific and reason

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil


yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58
  • L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers


Widow Winchester's riffle wealth warped her house.

Stairs to ceilings. Windows to walls.

Always slept in a new room,

hiding from shot souls

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yawn.