Here is a plot of all OECD member countries scaled on a relative basis.... Tom, I would never support a ban on gun ownership in our country, but the data is clear, compelling and inescapable and in my view threatens the very existence of our society as we know it. The data is staggering.....London, Los Angeles and the combined cities of Dallas/Houston have approx the same populations 13-15 million. In 2009 there were 18 gun-related murders in London, 300 in LA and 499 in Dallas/Houston. Clearly we have issues. Guns are not banned in England.... To be effective, the solutions must encompass a broad array of new regulatory and legal solutions, more strict enforcement and social reforms. Personally, I can see no other way....there is no magic bullet or easy fix.....
BT, I am not concerned about our ability to defend ourselves from a government tyranny. We are a long ways from anything remotely approaching that, though I believe that the concept is precisely why the founders put in place the second amendment. Nor, George, am I at all concerned about an invasion from Kowabunga. And no, these fellas usually aren't described as "nice guys...who'd have seen it coming?" Serial killers have been traditionally found to be that way...but not these guys. It sounds to me like this kid had obvious issues and no solution was there for him or his mother. I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I do not believe that we are on the cusp of anarchy...homicide rates and firearm deaths are in fact decreasing. The very thought of dry humping an AK or an AR is...disturbing, to say the least...but maybe as long as there was no bayonet... :shock: I think that when most folks talk about having a SHTF gun (and I have never had one) they are not talking government, foreign country, or even Tin Foil Hat Apocalypse. They are talking about possible temporary breakdowns in the fabric of society...whether widespread or local. The L.A. riots where Korean shopkeepers defended their stores comes to mind...perhaps a bit disingenuous to use because Korea is a pretty gun free country and I have read that most Korean Americans are in favor of more gun restrictions...however; http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/04/24/32140/saigu-or-4-29-remembered-korean-americans/ Another example would be in the case of Hurricane Katrina. There were plenty of looters and thieves running around, and the police were unable to protect the citizenry adequately. Finally the National Guard showed up...and were ordered to go into people's homes and disarm them. http://therionorteline.com/2012/12/03/aftermath-of-disaster-one-armed-citizens-story-new-orleans-katrina/ BT, you held England up as an example...they had a few problems of their own last year in London when defenseless citizens were at the mercy of mobs without the benefit of police protection. http://able2know.org/topic/175872-1 Also, an analysis of the weapons used in the 9 school shootings since 1997 (I had to look up the weapons used) shows that so-called assault weapons were used in only 3 of the shootings. Sandy Hook is the only school shooting since 1999 involving a center fire semi-automatic weapon. The two highest death tolls were Sandy Hook (24), and Virginia Tech (32). The Virginia Tech shooter used a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun and did not use any extra-high capacity magazines. There were two incidents in 1998 and 1999, Jonesboro(5) and Columbine(12) where semi-auto's were used. So in 60% of the deaths and two thirds of the shootings, an "assault weapon" was not even taken to the scene. Folks, these were helpless teachers and kindergarten kids...you could ban this weapon or that weapon and if someone wanted to break in and do them harm...banning a certain type of weapon just isn't going to be helpful. PS...re: dry humping...muzzle or breech??? :?:
The statistics on this will be played out in the media in an endless drama, because they have found a topic that catches the attention of America. The "identity" of gun ownership in America compared to other countries is in a different stratosphere. Correct me if I am wrong but most countries do not have written into law that they the citizens have the right to bear arms. England where there is one camera per 14 people is much different than the US of A....It is almost Fascist in its quest to control the populace and what it does. In Italy you are allowed to own a gun with proper paperwork but cannot keep it in your house. You must keep it at the nearest police station and request the date you plan on using it. Ammo is an entirely situation that requires many different rules and qualifications to purchase, own and store. Is this what we want?? The local police station holding "all" guns and in charge of the checks and balances of when you can use the gun that you purchased and own?? Even worse it could fall into the hands of the Federal government to control how and when you use your firearm. More than likely this is what we would be looking at because the quest to control and have the power over guns would be like heroin to a druggie to Homeland security. What I have always thought is we will soon lose control over our ammunition. Why not?? There is nothing in the law that states we have a right to purchase, own or control firearm ammunition. At the very least expect it to be taxed at 50% (Sin tax ?) to purchase. I will say this and it may rile the firearm rights folks, we honestly do not need to sell high round clips and firearms that belong in a military base. I have owned guns for 30 plus years and will say that my gun safe is running over with firearms. I have never purchased a gun with intent to kill another human being and the thought has honestly never crossed my mind. I "always" fall back to a single shot rifle as my comfort gun because it is what I grew up with. My shot is always better with a gun of this type and the banana clip capacity which is fun to shoot does me no good in shooting a target or putting down the nasty wild hogs that do so much damage. This being said I fear only our government and no other government no matter the hype the media pours out to us at times. The idea of a populace that is armed is one to consider and believe it or not has great influence on the direction of those who govern us... In a perfect world to diminish the atrocities that occur in America where innocents are slaughtered we need to go back to a form of control over firearms that are military standard. Will this prevent another form of killing in the future, no it will not. Hell, look at your history and read about the janitor who bombed the elementary school in the 20's because he was mad. There was not a single firearm involved. Man will find a way to kill if he so desires. The Oklahoma bombing was done with the same fertilizer I use on a daily basis, anything is possible with the human mind...
BT.... I would expect England's homicide rate to be below ours for many reasons...partly perhaps because of their gun restrictions but cultural and societal reasons as well. But they get it done....our firearms homicide rate is 24 times higher, but overall our homicide rate is only 3 times higher. They simply find other ways. Our overall homicide rate is 1.5 times the firearms rate. Their overall homicide rate is 12 times their firearms rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence Damn I hate referencing wiki...but good charts are hard to find.
Ralph, they are magazines...clips are different. And banning them is not much of a fix. I respect your opinion...it's hard for me to think of a reason why I may need one...but that kid at Va Tech needed only 10 round magazines (I think) to kill 32 adults.
Stu, There are never any hard feelings with a response, we are all searching for the best alternative. If I want to 'redneck" a response I would say come get my gun and we will see who lives and who dies. But in the "real" world where people have compassion and are willing to compromise I would do what would ensure the safety of those around me even though it may remove something I enjoy... Up to a point that is and with sound science and reason... Unfortunately, this will be political and handled in the media to get the most attention. For those that do not live in a suburban or urban society they will be left sucking "hind tit", their way of life is of no concern to the democratic party and its supporters, that's just the way it is... Folks in Alaska, Arkansas, West Virginia or any area that puts a firearm into their vehicle with never a thought of violence against their fellow man have "NO" say in the debates that cross America these days... Heck, they probably believe in Jesus anyways.....
Either way, that reminds me of a saying I heard a long, long time ago: "Needle dick da bug f$#%er" I would be more comfortable dry humping a 122mm Howitzer myself but you can dry hump a .223" muzzle if you wish! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6YGshScF-Mo" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Here are 20 reasons we don't need assault rifles in civilian hands. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/connecticut-school-shooting-dylan-hockley-1496530
George I'd say this is 20 reason why wev should. Just imagine if this man had no access to guns but his mother had a car with the keys on the counter. He picks up the keys and drives the truck through the playground of the school killing 26 or more people. Do we then ban trucks? If someone is intent on doing harm, harm will occur. He/she will just use other measures.
I believe they were all killed with an assault rifle. That's what I've read. Listen, you guys and gals cherish your weapons. I understand that. You all have taken your gun safety classes and you can shoot a hair off a flea's ass at 200 yards. In controlled conditions. Have you ever shot at a target that is shooting back at you? Or when you are in a blind rage or scared out of your wits? If you were driving down the street that day and heard the gunshots coming from the school would you have grabbed your sidearm and charged through the front door of the school to confront the unknown? I am going to be honest with you. I could not answer definitely to any of those questions. I never served in combat. I am not sure how I would react in a crisis involving firearms. I do own a handgun and I am good with it. I can promise you that no paper silhouette is safe from me when I have it in my sites. I can't show you mounted photos of my assault rifles. I can only show you photos my grandsons, ages 4 and 2. They look a lot like the photos of the 20 posted above. And I don't want them shot at school by some half-assed idiot in body armor with a chip on his shoulder and access to assault rifles. The specter of everyone walking around with weapons strapped their belts is frightening to me. Home protection is one thing; this is altogether different. The potential of unintended consequences are staggering.
I do not accept the term assault rifle. It is false in it's implication. These are rifles and they are not military rifles. You believe that banning them will somehow make your grandchildren safer. I do not. I respect your opinion and realize that we are not going to come to agreement on this. I enjoy recreational shooting and have never put myself forth as some kind of Rambo. I have taken some defensive courses to try to educate myself better and be more responsible. If I ever got into some kind of confrontation I would be most likely too busy crapping my pants to shoot straight. Polymer, adjustable stocks, and flash suppressors are for utilitarian purposes useful on any type of rifle.
Interesting data....a couple things here. Perhaps there is something there as it relates to cultural and societal differences and perhaps therein lies some of the key levers that need to be addressed in our society? Why would we expect such cultural differences for immigrants to our shores than say immigrants to Canada, Australia or New Zealand? The differences are massive....the median total homicide rate of the developed countries in the sample is 1.25 with a standard deviation of 1.1....we are 3 sigma/std dev from the mean - far, far, far out on the tail of the bell curve - a gross outlier by any measure. A culture that slaughters its own at a rate of 3X greater than other developed societies collectively does not seem to be indicative of one with a healthy and prosperous outlook. That fact cannot possibly be anything but bad..... Are there other societal factors - UNIQUE TO US - or simply put, does the greater availability of firearms in the US contribute to the fact that we as a nation destroy the lives of our own citizens at a rate that is grossly in excess of the rest of the developed world? And hell, perhaps it has always been this way and we've always been f'ed up.....I don't know, but it can't be beneficial and it is not rational to allow it to continue.....and yes, in my view, the destruction of those babies in that manner crossed a line for me.....and millions of others.
:idea: No assault rifle was used in this case. The confusion was caused by media reports that he had an "assault-style" weapon. This means a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle. He never used it. All of the killing was done with two semi-automatic hand guns. The attack on assault rifles is just another thing that the dear leader wanted to do and has nothing to do with this case. Assault rifles have rarely been used in domestic killings anywhere. As the Big Ballerina once said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Well, again...the rifles we are talking about have been used very infrequently in those homicide stats that you cite. Even in school mass killings deer rifles and .22's have been used more than semi-autos. To me the solution is in trying to get these truly evil people off the street...and in providing protection to our children, whatever we decide that entails. Does banning the AR-15 make our kids any safer? I would say no.