For those of you who care, here is some info on crimes in other countires. I love the generalizations from other non US posters who see an isolated incident and think the US is some barbaric country. Please take a look at the link below. All numbers will be per-capita (usually per 100,000), starting from this page, the drop-down will show other results: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}
The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.
so the fact that you have a gun in your home for home protection means you crime rate should be pretty low huh? cos only stoopit people would burglarise or rape someone in their home if they had a gun in the house surely?
also... your much vaunted stats on how many crimes were prevented because of a gun... imagine if those crimes went ahead... your stats would be through the fucking roof!
sounds like a bad place... twice as many rapes, 30 times as much gun crime... ok we might have more cars stolen than you but i'll live with that.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
although this quote of yours came from the other thread... its the last line that is sooooo telling
Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
although this quote of yours came from the other thread... its the last line that is sooooo telling
I dont know what Obama taking a DUI test has to do with anything...
For those of you who care, here is some info on crimes in other countires. I love the generalizations from other non US posters who see an isolated incident and think the US is some barbaric country. Please take a look at the link below. All numbers will be per-capita (usually per 100,000), starting from this page, the drop-down will show other results: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}
The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.
Comparative statistics of crime rates around the world draws a surprising, if somewhat amusing, conclusion – the world we now live in is a safer place than before.
Crime in the only remaining superpower is seen to be declining. In US, street crime hovers near historic lows – hence the declaration of certain analysts that life in US has never been safer. And with the apparently downward trend of criminal activities all over the world, the world appears to be a friendlier place – notwithstanding terrorism. This is in sharp contrast to the perception that the world is getting more dangerous everyday. Though the United States still ranks among the highest in violent crimes among industrialized nations, and also in overall crime, the country is enjoying a decline in crime numbers, nevertheless. In the meantime, crime in many other nations – specifically in Eastern and Western Europe – appear intent on catching up. Low-crime societies like Denmark and Finland are ranking high among street crime rates in the present. Even countries absent from the crime radar are making themselves conspicuous – like another industrialized nation, Japan.
Homicide – US had been consistently high in homicide rates than most of the Western countries from 1980 – 2000. Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s, it is still higher than all nations without political and social turmoil with the 2000 rate of 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. Countries entrenched in turmoil like Colombia and South Africa, had 63 homicides per 100,000 and 51, respectively.
Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.
Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East. In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
This will be my last post in the thread, as after posting these facts from Harvard Law study, you will have no leg to stand on. Please actually read it, as it completely demolishes all of your arguements. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf
"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of
guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of
suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same
amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of
the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it.
One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot
to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations.
46 While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except,
perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death
by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but
which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder
overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several
other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by
strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."
Table 2: Murder Rates of European Nations that Ban
Handguns as Compared to Their Neighbors that Allow Handguns
(rates are per 100,000 persons)
Nation Handgun Policy Murder Rate Year
A. Belarus banned 10.40 late 1990s
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Poland allowed 1.98 2003
Russia banned 20.54 2002
B. Luxembourg banned 9.01 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Belgium allowed 1.70 late 1990s
France allowed 1.65 2003
Germany allowed 0.93 2003
C. Russia banned 20.54 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Finland allowed 1.98 2004
Norway allowed 0.81 2001
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to
the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in
crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted
criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm
without restriction"
"In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies."
"The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On
the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations."
The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic
warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder
almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate.100
But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of
the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.”
101 The invention provides some test of the mantra. If
it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
Yet, using England as an example, murder rates seem to
have fallen sharply as guns became progressively more efficient
and widely owned during the five centuries after the invention
of firearms.102 During much of this period, because the
entire adult male population of England was deemed to constitute
a militia, every military age male was required to possess
arms for use in militia training and service.
As for the second half of the twentieth
century, and especially its last quarter, a study comparing
the number of guns to murder rates found that during
the 25‐year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns
owned by Americans increased 160% while the number
of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder
rate declined 27.7%.125 It continued to decline in the years
1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two
to three million handguns and approximately five million
firearms of all kinds. By the end of 2000, the total American
gunstock stood at well over 260 million—951.1 guns for
every 1,000 Americans—but the murder rate had returned to
the comparatively low level prior to the increases of the mid‐
1960s to mid‐1970s period.126
In sum, the data for the decades since the end of World War
II also fails to bear out the more guns equal more death mantra.
The per capita accumulated stock of guns has increased,
yet there has been no correspondingly consistent increase in
either total violence or gun violence. The evidence is consistent
with the hypothesis that gun possession levels have little
impact on violence rates.
This will be my last post in the thread, as after posting these facts from Harvard Law study, you will have no leg to stand on. Please actually read it, as it completely demolishes all of your arguements. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf
The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic
warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder
almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate.100
But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of
the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.”
101 The invention provides some test of the mantra. If
it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
A Flood Tide of MurderBy BOB HERBERT
By all means, condemn the hateful rhetoric that has poured so much poison into our political discourse. The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum, and the vilest of our political leaders and commentators deserve to be called to account for their demagoguery and the danger that comes with it. But that’s the easy part.
If we want to reverse the flood tide of killing in this country, we’ll have to do a hell of a lot more than bad-mouth a few sorry politicians and lame-brained talking heads. We need to face up to the fact that this is an insanely violent society. The vitriol that has become an integral part of our political rhetoric, most egregiously from the right, is just one of the myriad contributing factors in a society saturated in blood.
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.
Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.
The overwhelming majority of the people who claim to be so outraged by last weekend’s shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others — six of them fatally — will take absolutely no steps, none whatsoever, to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. And similar tragedies are coming as surely as the sun makes its daily appearance over the eastern horizon because this is an American ritual: the mowing down of the innocents.
On Saturday, the victims happened to be a respected congresswoman, a 9-year-old girl, a federal judge and a number of others gathered at the kind of civic event that is supposed to define a successful democracy. But there are endless horror stories. In April 2007, 32 students and faculty members at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute were shot to death and 17 others were wounded by a student armed with a pair of semiautomatic weapons.
On a cold, rainy afternoon in Pittsburgh in 2009, I came upon a gray-haired woman shivering on a stone step in a residential neighborhood. “I’m the grandmother of the kid that killed those cops,” she whispered. Three police officers had been shot and killed by her 22-year-old grandson, who was armed with a variety of weapons, including an AK-47 assault rifle.
I remember having lunch with Marian Wright Edelman, the president of the Children’s Defense Fund, a few days after the Virginia Tech tragedy. She shook her head at the senseless loss of so many students and teachers, then told me: “We’re losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence. As far as young people are concerned, we lose the equivalent of the massacre at Virginia Tech about every four days.”
If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.
Ordinary citizens interested in a more sane and civilized society would have to insist that their elected representatives take meaningful steps to stem the violence. And they would have to demand, as well, that the government bring an end to the wars overseas, with their terrible human toll, because the wars are part of the same crippling pathology.
Without those very tough steps, the murder of the innocents by the tens of thousands will most assuredly continue.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Gabrielle Giffords story is big for the time being, but so were Columbine and Oklahoma City. And so was the anti-white killing spree of John Muhammad and Lee Malvo that took 10 lives in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in October 2002. But no amount of killing has prompted any real remedial action.
For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.
Heidijam, those are interesting stats, but I dont care about them, no offense.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.
We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison.
Well, he is a master-debater...
teehee
Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
heidi
you and your pals "knife defense" makes wonder
weren't knives and their like originally designed to remove skin from flesh more easily?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
This will be my last post in the thread, as after posting these facts from Harvard Law study, you will have no leg to stand on. Please actually read it, as it completely demolishes all of your arguements.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
"If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us."
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
Like the stats that Heidijam posted show, handguns are not banned in Finland, but there are strict laws around them, some of the stuff I've posted earlier. Basically, you gotta be sane, you gotta have a damn good reason to have a gun (self-protection is not one, hunting or target practise stuff is ok, but you've gotta have proof that this is what you're using your gun for) and you definitely need to store your weapon(s) safely and securely if you've got them in your house.
And no civilians are allowed to carry a loaded gun with them in any situation. There are even pretty strict rules for having firearms on display in museums and such.
A complete ban may not be the solution for the US (or other countries for the matter), but some changes desperately have to be done to the (legal) availability of firearms.
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
The laws in acquiring a Gloch in Arizona found that this guy would be "responsible" enough to own a gun - so perhaps the definition of "responsible" ownership of firearms needs to be revisited and re-defined.
One of the problems, though, is that little to no measures are made to make sure only people responsible enough to own a gun can do so.
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison. [/quote]
You should probably keep reading...
If it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
Isn't that what you are arguing??? And before commenting, why don't you actually take the time and site down and read the study. Are you afraid of being wrong?
Heidijam, those are interesting stats, but I dont care about them, no offense.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.
We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.
I agree with you, I am just pointing out that everybody in here that is for gun bans really have no leg to stand on. No if people in here were talking about only restriction and stricter enforement on who and how one can recieve a gun, I would not have even posted in this thread. But some people in here are blinded by ingnorance that gun bans work, and seem to think that crime does not exist with out guns. As the study stated more guns do not equal more crime and less guns does not equal less crime. It seem that people in here only care about guns instead of actual crime.
Dude, I'm busting your chops. I found that post quite interesting. It was just that part that I found discrediting to the author, but you are right, those stats don't lie. Something to think about, for sure.
I'm not afraid of being wrong. I'm wrong all the time. See my past posts on AMT. Some of them have been borderline ridiculous.
I guess part of it is I don't see the purpose in keeping a gun. Like I said before, you believe it is safer to have one. I think it is safer not to have one. I don't live in fear of the world around me. Not saying you do, but I really believe that lots of people do, and that's why they own a gun. And to me that's dangerous.
I understand what you are saying about your right to own a gun, and that no responsible gun owner hurts anyone, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that there so many more gun owners that are not responsible? Is that just collateral damage to you? My freedoms and the safety of my immediate family are more important than the safety of thousands of other innocent people?
I'm not here stating owning a gun makes someone a bad person. Just want to make that clear. I don't judge gun owners. One of my closest friends goes hunting all the time. I hate it, but we avoid the argument by just not talking about it.
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison.
You should probably keep reading...
If it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
Isn't that what you are arguing??? And before commenting, why don't you actually take the time and site down and read the study. Are you afraid of being wrong?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Heidijam, those are interesting stats, but I dont care about them, no offense.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.
We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.
I agree with you, I am just pointing out that everybody in here that is for gun bans really have no leg to stand on. No if people in here were talking about only restriction and stricter enforement on who and how one can recieve a gun, I would not have even posted in this thread. But some people in here are blinded by ingnorance that gun bans work, and seem to think that crime does not exist with out guns. As the study stated more guns do not equal more crime and less guns does not equal less crime. It seem that people in here only care about guns instead of actual crime.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
Actually, dunk (and others) have argued what people WOULDN'T do, which is kill easily if they did not have access to guns. You have always argued what they WOULD do, which is kill each other with staple removers and ninja stars. How is that any different? You have some seriously good hypocritical skills.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter
(written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a
gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason
and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal
firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a
way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on
equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier
for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims
are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no
validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact
opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only
make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations
lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns
involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party
inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely
in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of
an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it
wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a
fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only
persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables
me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would
interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
One of the problems, though, is that little to no measures are made to make sure only people responsible enough to own a gun can do so.
That is a good point. When I bought my handgun, all I had to do was wait seven days and pick it up. I did not receive any tips or training on handling, cleaning, shooting, etc. Now I was responsible enough to go seek out qualified individuals to train me, but I doubt most people do.
There are a few things that the government mandates training or testing on because we could be a threat to the safety of ourselves and others, such as driving motorcycles and cars. I don't understand why handgun purchases don't require the same initial training / test. (well, actually I do understand it's the NRA, but ...)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
That’s a pretty simplistic way of thinking about it -- I dont like this kind of attitude. Then again, with a firearm, you can just skip ‘reason’ altogether, and go straight to ‘force’.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
Not if someone else’s ‘force’ is forced on you first.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
Also incorrect. Many people think guns are terrible and would never be caught anywhere near one. Some HATE guns, but know there is a place for them. I know it makes it easier for a mugger to take things from me. I also know it makes that confrontation much more deadly than if he didn’t have a gun.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here.
Again, I am not in this to see guns banned. Guns are a problem though, and that is evident from the mass murder that is occurring more and more recently. Stricter laws are needed.
Heidijam, those are interesting stats, but I dont care about them, no offense.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.
We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.
I agree with you, I am just pointing out that everybody in here that is for gun bans really have no leg to stand on. No if people in here were talking about only restriction and stricter enforement on who and how one can recieve a gun, I would not have even posted in this thread. But some people in here are blinded by ingnorance that gun bans work, and seem to think that crime does not exist with out guns. As the study stated more guns do not equal more crime and less guns does not equal less crime. It seem that people in here only care about guns instead of actual crime.
I don't know what you mean by everyone in here wants gun bans, I know I certainly don't want anything like that. However yes they do needs to be some sort of tighter restrictions on who is allowed to purchase and carry a gun by stricter background check. Passing a certified gun range test similar to when one is seeking a drivers license. However, the minute anyone brings up these restrictions or certifications it's looked upon as the government is taking away our constitutional rights.
Just because some disagree with you doesn't mean they want guns to be banned from it's various uses in this country which I've pointed out previously.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
and a single guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
That gun also makes a single guy more powerful than a gathering of people listening to their congresswoman.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Comments
so the fact that you have a gun in your home for home protection means you crime rate should be pretty low huh? cos only stoopit people would burglarise or rape someone in their home if they had a gun in the house surely?
also... your much vaunted stats on how many crimes were prevented because of a gun... imagine if those crimes went ahead... your stats would be through the fucking roof!
sounds like a bad place... twice as many rapes, 30 times as much gun crime... ok we might have more cars stolen than you but i'll live with that.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
I dont know what Obama taking a DUI test has to do with anything...
from that same website you quoted stats from
http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Cri ... -the-World
Crime Rates Around The World
Comparative statistics of crime rates around the world draws a surprising, if somewhat amusing, conclusion – the world we now live in is a safer place than before.
Crime in the only remaining superpower is seen to be declining. In US, street crime hovers near historic lows – hence the declaration of certain analysts that life in US has never been safer. And with the apparently downward trend of criminal activities all over the world, the world appears to be a friendlier place – notwithstanding terrorism. This is in sharp contrast to the perception that the world is getting more dangerous everyday.
Though the United States still ranks among the highest in violent crimes among industrialized nations, and also in overall crime, the country is enjoying a decline in crime numbers, nevertheless. In the meantime, crime in many other nations – specifically in Eastern and Western Europe – appear intent on catching up. Low-crime societies like Denmark and Finland are ranking high among street crime rates in the present. Even countries absent from the crime radar are making themselves conspicuous – like another industrialized nation, Japan.
Homicide – US had been consistently high in homicide rates than most of the Western countries from 1980 – 2000. Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s, it is still higher than all nations without political and social turmoil with the 2000 rate of 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. Countries entrenched in turmoil like Colombia and South Africa, had 63 homicides per 100,000 and 51, respectively.
Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.
Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East.
In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf
"There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of
guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of
suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same
amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of
the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it.
One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot
to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations.
46 While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except,
perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death
by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but
which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder
overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several
other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by
strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."
Table 2: Murder Rates of European Nations that Ban
Handguns as Compared to Their Neighbors that Allow Handguns
(rates are per 100,000 persons)
Nation Handgun Policy Murder Rate Year
A. Belarus banned 10.40 late 1990s
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Poland allowed 1.98 2003
Russia banned 20.54 2002
B. Luxembourg banned 9.01 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Belgium allowed 1.70 late 1990s
France allowed 1.65 2003
Germany allowed 0.93 2003
C. Russia banned 20.54 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Finland allowed 1.98 2004
Norway allowed 0.81 2001
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to
the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in
crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted
criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm
without restriction"
"In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies."
"The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On
the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations."
The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic
warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder
almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate.100
But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of
the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.”
101 The invention provides some test of the mantra. If
it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
Yet, using England as an example, murder rates seem to
have fallen sharply as guns became progressively more efficient
and widely owned during the five centuries after the invention
of firearms.102 During much of this period, because the
entire adult male population of England was deemed to constitute
a militia, every military age male was required to possess
arms for use in militia training and service.
As for the second half of the twentieth
century, and especially its last quarter, a study comparing
the number of guns to murder rates found that during
the 25‐year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns
owned by Americans increased 160% while the number
of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder
rate declined 27.7%.125 It continued to decline in the years
1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two
to three million handguns and approximately five million
firearms of all kinds. By the end of 2000, the total American
gunstock stood at well over 260 million—951.1 guns for
every 1,000 Americans—but the murder rate had returned to
the comparatively low level prior to the increases of the mid‐
1960s to mid‐1970s period.126
In sum, the data for the decades since the end of World War
II also fails to bear out the more guns equal more death mantra.
The per capita accumulated stock of guns has increased,
yet there has been no correspondingly consistent increase in
either total violence or gun violence. The evidence is consistent
with the hypothesis that gun possession levels have little
impact on violence rates.
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
A Flood Tide of MurderBy BOB HERBERT
By all means, condemn the hateful rhetoric that has poured so much poison into our political discourse. The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum, and the vilest of our political leaders and commentators deserve to be called to account for their demagoguery and the danger that comes with it. But that’s the easy part.
If we want to reverse the flood tide of killing in this country, we’ll have to do a hell of a lot more than bad-mouth a few sorry politicians and lame-brained talking heads. We need to face up to the fact that this is an insanely violent society. The vitriol that has become an integral part of our political rhetoric, most egregiously from the right, is just one of the myriad contributing factors in a society saturated in blood.
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.
Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.
The overwhelming majority of the people who claim to be so outraged by last weekend’s shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others — six of them fatally — will take absolutely no steps, none whatsoever, to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. And similar tragedies are coming as surely as the sun makes its daily appearance over the eastern horizon because this is an American ritual: the mowing down of the innocents.
On Saturday, the victims happened to be a respected congresswoman, a 9-year-old girl, a federal judge and a number of others gathered at the kind of civic event that is supposed to define a successful democracy. But there are endless horror stories. In April 2007, 32 students and faculty members at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute were shot to death and 17 others were wounded by a student armed with a pair of semiautomatic weapons.
On a cold, rainy afternoon in Pittsburgh in 2009, I came upon a gray-haired woman shivering on a stone step in a residential neighborhood. “I’m the grandmother of the kid that killed those cops,” she whispered. Three police officers had been shot and killed by her 22-year-old grandson, who was armed with a variety of weapons, including an AK-47 assault rifle.
I remember having lunch with Marian Wright Edelman, the president of the Children’s Defense Fund, a few days after the Virginia Tech tragedy. She shook her head at the senseless loss of so many students and teachers, then told me: “We’re losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence. As far as young people are concerned, we lose the equivalent of the massacre at Virginia Tech about every four days.”
If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.
Ordinary citizens interested in a more sane and civilized society would have to insist that their elected representatives take meaningful steps to stem the violence. And they would have to demand, as well, that the government bring an end to the wars overseas, with their terrible human toll, because the wars are part of the same crippling pathology.
Without those very tough steps, the murder of the innocents by the tens of thousands will most assuredly continue.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Gabrielle Giffords story is big for the time being, but so were Columbine and Oklahoma City. And so was the anti-white killing spree of John Muhammad and Lee Malvo that took 10 lives in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in October 2002. But no amount of killing has prompted any real remedial action.
For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.
This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.
We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.
Well, he is a master-debater...
teehee
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
you and your pals "knife defense" makes wonder
weren't knives and their like originally designed to remove skin from flesh more easily?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press- ... 12007.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
Like the stats that Heidijam posted show, handguns are not banned in Finland, but there are strict laws around them, some of the stuff I've posted earlier. Basically, you gotta be sane, you gotta have a damn good reason to have a gun (self-protection is not one, hunting or target practise stuff is ok, but you've gotta have proof that this is what you're using your gun for) and you definitely need to store your weapon(s) safely and securely if you've got them in your house.
And no civilians are allowed to carry a loaded gun with them in any situation. There are even pretty strict rules for having firearms on display in museums and such.
A complete ban may not be the solution for the US (or other countries for the matter), but some changes desperately have to be done to the (legal) availability of firearms.
Responsible gun-owners harm no one.
The laws in acquiring a Gloch in Arizona found that this guy would be "responsible" enough to own a gun - so perhaps the definition of "responsible" ownership of firearms needs to be revisited and re-defined.
One of the problems, though, is that little to no measures are made to make sure only people responsible enough to own a gun can do so.
I find it hilarious that you use a study conducted by an idiot that actually compares violence in present day to that of the Middle Ages, and finds it to be a relevant comparison.
You should probably keep reading...
If it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.
Isn't that what you are arguing??? And before commenting, why don't you actually take the time and site down and read the study. Are you afraid of being wrong?
so I guess that was your second last post?
Dude, I'm busting your chops. I found that post quite interesting. It was just that part that I found discrediting to the author, but you are right, those stats don't lie. Something to think about, for sure.
I'm not afraid of being wrong. I'm wrong all the time. See my past posts on AMT. Some of them have been borderline ridiculous.
I guess part of it is I don't see the purpose in keeping a gun. Like I said before, you believe it is safer to have one. I think it is safer not to have one. I don't live in fear of the world around me. Not saying you do, but I really believe that lots of people do, and that's why they own a gun. And to me that's dangerous.
I understand what you are saying about your right to own a gun, and that no responsible gun owner hurts anyone, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that there so many more gun owners that are not responsible? Is that just collateral damage to you? My freedoms and the safety of my immediate family are more important than the safety of thousands of other innocent people?
I'm not here stating owning a gun makes someone a bad person. Just want to make that clear. I don't judge gun owners. One of my closest friends goes hunting all the time. I hate it, but we avoid the argument by just not talking about it.
Peace.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter
(written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a
gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason
and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal
firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a
way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on
equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier
for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims
are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no
validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact
opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only
make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations
lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns
involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party
inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely
in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of
an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it
wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a
fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only
persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables
me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would
interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
There are a few things that the government mandates training or testing on because we could be a threat to the safety of ourselves and others, such as driving motorcycles and cars. I don't understand why handgun purchases don't require the same initial training / test. (well, actually I do understand it's the NRA, but ...)
That’s a pretty simplistic way of thinking about it -- I dont like this kind of attitude. Then again, with a firearm, you can just skip ‘reason’ altogether, and go straight to ‘force’.
Not if someone else’s ‘force’ is forced on you first.
Also incorrect. Many people think guns are terrible and would never be caught anywhere near one. Some HATE guns, but know there is a place for them. I know it makes it easier for a mugger to take things from me. I also know it makes that confrontation much more deadly than if he didn’t have a gun.
This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here.
Again, I am not in this to see guns banned. Guns are a problem though, and that is evident from the mass murder that is occurring more and more recently. Stricter laws are needed.
I don't know what you mean by everyone in here wants gun bans, I know I certainly don't want anything like that. However yes they do needs to be some sort of tighter restrictions on who is allowed to purchase and carry a gun by stricter background check. Passing a certified gun range test similar to when one is seeking a drivers license. However, the minute anyone brings up these restrictions or certifications it's looked upon as the government is taking away our constitutional rights.
Just because some disagree with you doesn't mean they want guns to be banned from it's various uses in this country which I've pointed out previously.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
and so should you
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press- ... 12007.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
That gun also makes a single guy more powerful than a gathering of people listening to their congresswoman.