Bizarro World: Pravda Praises Americans For Standing Up For Their Right To Bear Arms… Russians learned the hard way when Communists (aka “progressives”) took away their guns. Via Pravda: These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. [...] The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture? No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Report: 532 Murdered In Gun-Outlawed Chicago During 2012… 2,670 People Shot… Via Weekly Standard: In 2012, 532 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, according to statistics compiled by theCrime in Chicago website. The number of people murdered the year before was 441, meaning in the city of Chicago, murders have increased by 91 from 2011 to 2012. The Chicago Police Department was not available to confirm these numbers today, which is New Year’s Day. The website also claims that, through December 25, 2012, there 2,670 people were shot in Chicago last year. That’s also an increase from the year before, when 2,217 people were shot in Chicago that year. In all, it means that on average almost 1.5 people were murdered in Chicago each day last year, while on average 7.3 people were shot each day.
Bloomberg’s Gun-Outlawed NYC: Nine People Shot During First Hours Of New Year… Bloomy’s so blinded by his fanaticism it won’t dawn on him criminals don’t care about gun laws. Via NY Post: The New Year has started off with a bang. Nine people have been shot since the city welcomed in 2013, police said. Gunfire first erupted at around 2 a.m., when two people were hit with bullets in separate incidents. In the first shooting, which happened on White Plains Road and Seward Avenue in the Bronx, a 32-year-old man was hit in the stomach and taken to Jacobi Hospital, cops said. He is in stable condition. In the second report of gunplay, a 19-year-old boy was shot in the back on Irving Avenue in Bushwick, Brooklyn, cops added. He was rushed to Wyckoff Hospital in stable condition.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Interesting, JO'Co...but what is most interesting is that I had posted almost the exact same stats from the same sources this fellow uses... in the other thread...and got little response. Ralph said he agreed, and Buckeye Terry said "I get all that but..." Not sure how to link to a previous post. I'll just quote it;
Thanks Stu, I didn't make the connection. I didn't realize that his stats were from the same sources that you used.
Fellas, the most noteworthy thing in either post is that guns are neither outlawed nor illegal in Chicago or New York. This is the same kind of rhetorical nonsense from the anti-gun side....bottom line is that there will be much emotional rhetoric and no meaningful solutions from either side and we will continue to lead the world in slaughtering our own at a sickening rate and piling up billions of unnecessary and uncovered costs borne by an already overstretched taxpayer and healthcare system.....and for what benefit? That's a victory for no one fellas.....
Actually just saw the vid for the first time the other day. The guy raises some valid points in the debate. He raises the point that the overwhelming majority of murders in the US take place in urban areas which is true of other countries as well. I thought it worthwhile to then compare the murder rates of urban areas in the US and the UK based upon population. London is approx equal to NY, Chicago, LA and combined Dallas/Houston There were 120 murders in London in 2011. NY = 420, LA = 517, Chicago = 532, Houston/Dallas = 538. To make the point even more stark is that there were more murders of children younger that 10 years old in LA than all ages murdered in London......10 years old and younger. Taking it down to the next size metro area would be Birmingham which is approx equal to Baltimore. There were 62 murders in Birmingham. Baltimore = 196. Taking it down to the next largest metro area would be Manchester which is approx equal to Columbus and Indianapolis. There were 35 murders in Manchester. Columbus = 92, Indy = 96. The cost to our society in human, economic and emotional terms is staggering. We can measure the economic costs in dollars easily into the billions and in a large number of these cases, the cost is borne by the taxpayers and an already stretched to the breaking point public health care system. The human and emotional costs are immeasurable.....for what benefit? If the argument from the gun lobby is that arming the population would result in a safer population, why are the death rates so much higher (3x-4x) in areas with fewer restrictions than areas with more restrictions? I'm not in favor of banning firearms. I am in favor of banning firearms from the hands of those unworthy of the awesome responsibility inherent in their possession. It is clear to me that we have a society that has way too many deadly weapons in the hands of those unworthy of their possession and the the cost to our society is well in excess of any possible benefit and we have an obligation to solve the problem.....and no banning "assault" rifles and high capacity mags is not a solution to the problem, I certainly agree with you there. In our society, all motor vehicles are required to be registered and all vehicle operators must be found qualified - and ongoing exams on a periodic basis - to earn that responsibility. Is it the position of the gun lobby that similar requirements for firearms has a greater cost to society than the potential benefits of keeping a large number of firearms out of the hands of those unworthy of their possession? And what exactly is their view of those costs? To Stu's point that England is largely an "unarmed" society, I think the last data I saw showed, "The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United Kingdom is 4,060,000". If that is case, I just can't agree that a society with over 4 million guns in the hands of private citizens is "unarmed".
There is already in place for LEGAL gun owners a requirement to retest ans requalify every time you renew. You refer to wanting to ban firearms for those unworthy of the responsibility. That would be the people carrying illegally. And they don't follow the laws in place now so what makes you think more laws will compel them to comply?
Terry, Great statement, and you will find no resistance to this from ANYONE. The problem is: How do you TRULY make it happen. You can bet the list of those with ill intent that will apply for a weapon license legally is very short and will not grow. I think your analogy is poor. While it's true we all have a driver's license, and we all have registered vehicles, the two are NOT specifically linked. Your vehicle is registered for taxation purposes, not to make sure you are a safe driver. Everyone that is licensed to carry a weapon is recorded. So why is the specific weapon important? Tightening up the acquisition rules would be a good idea, but specifically keeping a weapon inventory list smacks of Big Brother a little too much for me. Again I say... adding further lawful restrictions as proposed would not have changed Sandy Hook one bit. The shooter obtained the weapons illegally, so new laws would not have kept him from acquiring them, and doing as he did. Just for reference I'm not a huge gun fanatic. Other than a .22 I've had since a kid I've only just gotten the guns I have in the last 5 years. They are not for protection, they are for target shooting and pig hunting. Giving them up would not kill me, but the idiotic reaction-ism I see from our officials has pushed me to stand up for the 2nd amendment. And further... the idea they could suddenly seize my property with little or no compensation is very disturbing. Guns will always be available on the black market - ALWAYS, so anyone that even remotely believes you will stop gun crime by restricting lawful citizens is floating in a river in Egypt. I would suggest that the penalties for committing a crime with a gun should be made MUCH stiffer, akin to actual murder, and have ZERO chances of early parole. Remove the problem people and you get a start toward stopping the violence.
Ron White jokes about this but it is true. In Texas, if you kill someone, we will "kill you back". And if there are three or more eye witnesses, you get moved to the front of the line. Texas does not mess with killers. Texas needs to be more strict on armed robbery and aggravated assault... any crime involving the use of ANY weapon, firearm or not. Waiting until there is death is where our country is lacking.
Cindy, it is my understanding that in the vast majority of states there is no legal requirement for gunowners to be qualified, licensed or registered in any way. Similarly in the vast majority of states there is no legal requirement for a weapon to be licensed or registered. Scott, I don't know that there is any answer as to how to make it TRULY happen....the only thing I know is that imho the status quo is unacceptable. I have no expectations that we will ever eliminate gun violence nor do I ever expect our society to be crime free. That is an unreasonable expectation. However, I do not think it unreasonable to expect our nation to perform much better than 3x-4x the rate with the rest of the developed world in terms of the pace at which we destroy young lives in our society. In fact in my view a civilized society would demand it...... I understand that many of the restrictions being discussed would not have altered what happened at Newtown. Newtown just got my attention and motivated me to become better informed about our embarrassing standing in the developed world. About the immense cost to our society..... Newtown was tragic and will compel changes but Newtown is not our biggest issue. Our bigger issues are the wanton slaughter that occur across the country on a daily basis. The thousands of children that will lose their lives in our cities each and every year. The deaths that occur at a rate that places us as a clear and unambiguous statistical outlier in a category that one could argue defines civilization. Perhaps its only me that believes that a society that slaughters innocents at a rate 3-4x the rest of the developed world is not the sign of a healthy society but is a clear indicator of one that needs to find answers to an obvious problem. We desperately need to become more effective in terms of keeping weapons out of the hands of the unworthy. Doing nothing is not an option in my view. Given our problem, it is inconceivable to me why we require those wishing to operate a motor vehicle to be qualified and licensed and renewed periodically but don't have the same requirements of gun owners. Similarly, I don't know why we don't require registration of all firearms and an effective tracking system not unlike car registrations....if you want to consider taxation, I have no problem with that....harsher penalties and more effective enforcement are also ingredients in the mix. Will these and other measure eliminate violence in our society? NO....will it begin to address the problem and be a place to start...absolutely. Not taking steps to address the issue because it is imperfect is simply not a good excuse to do nothing here.....
Gun owners push back: a former Marine's letter to Dianne Feinstein http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owners-push-back-former-marines-letter-dianne-210043517.html I have mentioned this in several of my post but no matter your current feelings on this issue the idea of MORE government intervention in American lives is at stake here. What is different this time is the question if the government is prepared for the consequences in acting to register 80 million gun owners who have no such intention...I for one being one of them..
So, the answer is to do something... even if it is wrong? That sounds like something I recently heard: Let's pass this healthcare bill so we can see what's in it!
Not at all Tom....but clearly something needs to be done. Is it your view that nothing needs to be done...that all is okey dokey. That slaughtering innocents - mainly youth - at a rate that is 3-4x the rest of the developed world is acceptable for a civilized society? I do not....the costs to our society are astronomical and there is no doubt that we can make improvements. I would characterize it as doing something even if it is not perfect.....there is no perfect solution. Some solutions can be helpful even if not optimal. Improvement does not have to be perfect to be progress.....
Ralph, I saw that as well....I respect your views. I, for one, would have no problem in the present circumstance
T, Thanks I have always respected your thoughts and insights as well. I realize you have given this topic much thought and only want the protection of our next generation. As I have mentioned as many others have if I thought the act of giving up my 1 gun that could be labeled in the assault weapon class would prevent the loss of anyone's life I would do so and never look back. Unfortunately I feel that this would not prevent a nut-job from hurting innocents with his gun or some other weapon of choice. Yes sometimes the issue at hand must start with "me" first because it is the right thing to do which is what I think I sense from you in your postings. I personally have more of a problem with allowing more government intervention and fear that America is entering a post-constitutional era where basic precepts like the Second Amendment are curtailed by a central authority. The problem is that the fear of a post constitutional era is wrapped all around the current gun issue. But if we accept this new post era and allow it to be conformed where does it end. I for one have not a drop of faith that it will be confined to just guns, just as I thought the Cheney era reasoning for wiretaps on everyday Americans would stop after the Iraqi wars.
BT, have you not read my posts. I have even lined out step by step measures to move toward a solution, not just a feel good knee jerk reaction that will fix nothing. I am not the one with the magic black box with the label "a miracle occurs here" in my formula. So far, from you I have heard: * Something needs to be done (I agree but it must be something that will make a difference) * I don't know what needs to be done. (That is our government defined. They don't know but they are going to do what fits their agenda.)
Not fair Tom, you have not been reading my posts either then. I have put forth my views along several dimensions that I believe will begin to address the problem that include licensing and qualification requirements for all owners, registration and effective tracking for the weapons and any and all subsequent transfers, harsher penalties and more strict enforcement. I see no reason we can't study what has worked in other developed countries to see if we can't design a model that is workable here......I don't buy the argument that those cultures are so different from ours that some regulatory and enforcement framework, customized for our unique needs, cant be crafted. Nor do I buy the argument that in so doing we somehow infringe on our constitutional rights nor promote the general welfare.....in fact I think quite the opposite. The core issue, in my view, is that we have too many weapons in the hands of those unqualified to hold them. Any steps that we can take to: 1) identify them, 2) remove them and/or 3) make it more difficult for them to possess can help us along the right track. My personal opinion is that if we don't address those core elements, we are just diddling ourselves and not attacking the root of the issue..... Ralph, of course I want to protect our youth, but it is more than that....it is the overall cost to our society. The senseless slaughter of our youth, the loss of standing among developed countries as a place to live, work and play and migrate to, the $billions$ of unnecessary costs borne by our society, adding to an already overburdened taxpayer and stretching an already struggling public healthcare system beyond its capacity......unnecessarily. Data that I have seen estimates the average cost of treating a gunshot victim is $160,000. We have approx 65,000 gunshot victims per year in our country.....that equates to over $10 billion per year. I think we can agree that a large number of those victims do not have private insurance and the tab is picked up by Medicaid.....I just don't believe we have that kind of money to piss away from Medicaid and doesn't take into account the cost to society at large from higher health care premiums or piling on to public healthcare. I have noted Stu and others speaking to a decline in gun deaths which is a trend throughout the developed world. Here is an interesting piece on what is likely a key factor driving those trends.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html