CountryPlans Forum

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/04/Dems-push-eight-bills-gun-control

Isn't that a Carpenter's song?  I just can not believe how anyone in sane state of mind could think that any such measure would do any good.  I can appreciate wanting to do something as a natural knee jerk reaction, but to try again what has already proven to not work....something about the definition of insanity. 

Good.

Like muldoon says, Ajax is an ass.

Unfortunately there are large numbers of people with his or her mindset.

Laws enacted on gun control can be equated with that of locking your doors.  They are locked "to keep an honest man honest".  Anyone that wants to get in will.  Laws restricting guns will only work for those that are law biding and will have little or no affect on those who are not.  The problem lays far deeper in society than gun control to prevent such incidents experienced recently.  Of course that is my opinion.  Thanks John for allowing me to express it.

Ajax seems to be as most of that mind set.  And as an old advertisement for Ajax he wants to clean America like a white tornado.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vur_Mg1yffg

Funny the FBI reports more killed from clubbings and stabbings each year than rifles.  But they have this mind set that the world will be a better place if we just march in lock step with the wishes of a government.  The wish is that they be armed and us not.  By the way Ajax I feel that is the reasoning and the only reason behind this movement not the benevolence of a governments concern with shootings.  If they were so concerned they would park a squad of their Homeland Security in every school and every shopping mall.   

How many innocent people are killed each year from drunk drivers?  Where is the Government concern there?

How many each year are killed on Americas Railroads by either trespassing or crossing accidents?  (Surprisingly it is about 50 - 50 now.)  Again where is the Governments concern there?

SO really Ajax why are they really wanting the American peoples firearms?

Next question are you real?  Are you bigger than a bread box or some computer generated personage or drone that is out to test the water and find what people think.   

           

More guns means more gun deaths.  I'm not anti-gun.  I am, however, anti-gun violence, anti NRA and anti-gun culture.  More guns leads to more gun deaths, plain and simple.

(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Firearm-Homicides-Compared-q8ieux.jpg)

But at the same time the overall homicide rate in the USA is much lower than in many other world countries. Statistics are wonderful things, but they can be misused for one's own purposes. I can do that too.

(https://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx251/carlarmoore/maps/worldhomicide_zps60bbc564.jpg)


i guess the red parts are blood
I'd rather live in redoverfarms version of the USA than the other

Website I got that from is Chartsbin.com
http://chartsbin.com/view/1454


Plus a table of stats over here
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=161310

Firearms whether you like it or not have played a vital role in what the United States is today.  Yes guns kill that is not a disputed fact because that was there intention of their invention whether it be game for the table or protection.  If used correctly they are no different than any other modern invention.  The availablilty to persons that have no respect for human life is what needs to be controlled.  Being in the Mountain State we are probably one of the biggest firearm owners per population and yet we have one of the lowest crimes by firearms rate. 

Quote from: Carla_M on January 06, 2013, 02:42:08 PM
But at the same time the overall homicide rate in the USA is much lower than in many other world countries. Statistics are wonderful things, but they can be misused for one's own purposes. I can do that too.

Let's stick to countries that have some concept of the rule of law
(http://www.asymptosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/firearms-3.png)

And what do ya know?  The same trend works for states as well

(http://www.asymptosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun_ownership_deaths_500px.jpg)

Quote from: Redoverfarm on January 06, 2013, 03:46:40 PM
Firearms whether you like it or not have played a vital role in what the United States is today.  Yes guns kill that is not a disputed fact because that was there intention of their invention whether it be game for the table or protection.  If used correctly they are no different than any other modern invention.  The availablilty to persons that have no respect for human life is what needs to be controlled.  Being in the Mountain State we are probably one of the biggest firearm owners per population and yet we have one of the lowest crimes by firearms rate. 

You have in WV one of the highest firearm deaths rates in the nation.  Number 11.  The states are color coded by who they voted for in the presidential election.  It seems republicans keep shooting each other.

(http://www.asymptosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gundeathsbystate.png)

The charts provided by ajax seem to come from "globalsociology.com", yet while lacking data source citation are attributed to Simon Rogers of the Guardian.co.uk

I found that interesting since the Global Mail UK recently presented the UK as the most violent nation in the EU.  The UK where firearm ownership has long been virtually prohibited:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."

Now, if access to firearms were the catalyst to violence as claimed one could reasonably expect that shooting ranges, duck blinds and gun stores/shows would be awash in carnage.  But folks in those locations are usually polite and respectful of others. 

There must be some other explanation.

Since charts are popular .....

Here's one sourced from CDC, FBI, US Federal Government

It would seem that there are bigger problems than firearms

In fact, medical errors account for almost 20 times the number of firearm homicides --Doctors are more lethal the guns .....

And the top one is 50 times more lethal -- and tobacco is still legal

In fact a person is one and a half times  more likely to be killed by knives, ball bats, poison or hammers than by a firearm



(http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/10-big-killers.jpg)

Interesting.  Did you know that almost 50% or better of the death by firearms contained are probably not indicating they were self inflicted. As for the republican statistics they maybe fell under this catagory knowing what they would have to go through the next fours years with the democratic choice.  ;D    Lets not try to compare these or we would be debating sleeping pills and razor blades as well. 

In fact the firearm murder rate for WV is 2.87  @100,000 or a total of 43 in the year of 2011 according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting.  Hey guess what it is from your own source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Now lets compare Apples w/apples shall we.

Firearms whether you like it or not have played a vital role in what the United States is today. Yes guns kill that is not a disputed fact because that was there intention of their invention whether it be game for the table or protection. If used correctly they are no different than any other modern invention. The availablilty to persons that have no respect for human life is what needs to be controlled. Being in the Mountain State we are probably one of the biggest firearm owners per population and yet we have one of the lowest crimes by firearms rate.

[waiting]  On second thought I am satisfied. But heck I was when I started. 

Quote from: Ajax on January 06, 2013, 05:29:26 PM
Let's stick to countries that have some concept of the rule of law

You did bring up the rest of the world first, did you not?

But you have as much of an anti-gun agenda as I have a pro-gun stance. Very unlikely we will ever see eye to eye on the subject so there is little point in beating this dead horse with you.

 Hey Huge,

The Carpenter's song was "We've Only Just Begun"

Pretty much the same effect.



sparks

Stating that "if there are less guns, gun deaths go down" is a bit silly.  Of course that is true.  After all, if there were no guns anywhere, then of course gun deaths would be zero. 

However, the other thing that goes down with fewer guns is the statistic of how many guns prevent gun deaths.  Statistically impossible to prove that.  Can't prove something that does not occur.  Heck, we can't even get the media to report broadly on events in which a gun is used for defensive means.   It isn't in their political agenda, and they don't want to report on the buildings that didn't burn down (so to speak).  Look at the restaurant / theater shooting in TX right after the Connecticut shooting.  You have to dig to find that story about the off duty officer who shot the bad guy with a gun to stop the crime. 

Gun deaths are the wrong statistic to look at anyway.  Violent crime is the statistic to look at.  I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming evidence shows that violent crime goes up when gun control goes up. 

I am amazed at the outright naivete of folks such as Ajax who believe that those who wish to do harm to others would simply turn in their guns, or not turn to another means to conduct their attacks on others.  This is pretty much the liberal mindset though.  They ignore hard facts, or just don't possess the mental acuity to correctly analyze a situation.  Pity, as they seem to breed so quickly too. 

What gun control does, is disable the ability of the average person to be able to provide competent defense for themselves. 

Thanks for the clarification Sparks!
What Ajax fails to consider is that these deaths are the R's having to shoot the D's as they break into their house looking to satisfy their drug habits and such.  Had the intruders not been shot it is hard to say what would have happened.  2009 was the lowest violent crime rate in about 50 years nationwide, yet it was 5 years after the ban expired; how does one explain that if a ban even came close to achieving its purpose? 
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19419913
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22617747
What I can't figure out is how the Connecticut nut job had an AR???  Those are banned in CT; are you going to tell me that law breakers don't obey the laws and you only restrict the law abiders?

Well, it's good to see that CT is way down there in the 'safe' category.

Quick question- What kind of guns were used in the World Trade center attacks?

Quote from: NM_Shooter on January 07, 2013, 12:02:56 AM
However, the other thing that goes down with fewer guns is the statistic of how many guns prevent gun deaths.  Statistically impossible to prove that.  Can't prove something that does not occur.   

Actually you can;

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

I'm a big fan of statistics and graphs.  ::)

(https://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b516/marinarar/Graph_zpsd8410a27.jpg)

Quote from: archimedes on January 07, 2013, 10:45:58 AM
Actually you can;

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

That study is a joke.  For starters, look at how they amassed the control data :

"To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. "

Here is a detailed analysis of why that Penn study is bogus : http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/ 

My point is that you can not get a mortality statistic when a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.  Consider this story : http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

How many lives were saved by that off-duty officer?  one?  10? 100?  You can not account for that statistic.  What you can prove is that the shooter was stopped right then.  By a good guy with a gun.  edit.... by a good gal with a gun.

I certainly have no issue with anyone who chooses not to exercise their second amendment right.  I take extreme issue with those who attempt to remove the use of that right from others.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

Now here is a twist to gun ownership.  Not sure of the validity but appears legit.  Probably not much chance in passage but as they say " the thought was there".

http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/vermont-to-require-non-gun-owners-to-pay-a-fine/

Quote from: Huge29 on January 07, 2013, 02:04:27 AM

What I can't figure out is how the Connecticut nut job had an AR???  Those are banned in CT;
?

I could be wrong, but I believe that it was owned before the ban and was then likely grandfathered in to the mother.

Good article there NM_Shooter.  :)  My own belief is that more harm is done by prescription drugs than good. That goes for drugs that affect the mind as well as other parts of the body. But then the drug companies control the medical establishment, and that is another rant. But it does have a bearing here most likely.

Ban drugs, not guns  ?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php
According to this article Medical deaths due to error each year is about 195,000 in the USA. I say we make a law restricting the use of Doctors! Oh we did that would be Obama Care, never mind.....(please read this with great sarcasam)

Quote from: Carla_M on January 07, 2013, 03:58:51 PM
Good article there NM_Shooter.  :)  My own belief is that more harm is done by prescription drugs than good. That goes for drugs that affect the mind as well as other parts of the body. But then the drug companies control the medical establishment, and that is another rant. But it does have a bearing here most likely.

Ban drugs, not guns  ?

That would never happen Carla with the amount the pharmaceutical industry lobbies congress each year.   

"In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun"

Well dang - someone has got to inform the Police that possession is less than effective when encountering those who intend harm - military too.  Put the gun down & back away -now that there makes sum sense.

Mebbe Fred is right:
"Today I'm going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.

First, some orientation.  Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times.

When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music—which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.

So with guns.  They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so.

Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That's a partial success, isn't it?

While I am in favor of illegalizing guns and thus ending crime, I think the principle should be democratically applied. Let us begin by disarming the Pentagon. If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself: who kills more children in a month, Ritalin-addled little boys in America, or the US Air Force in every Moslem country it has heard of? All I ask is an honest body count. I will accept your numbers."
more @ fred's place - fredoneverything.net/SovietAsylum.shtml

Alex jones on Piers Morgan

I am not a big fan of AJ but he effectively points out the false arguments

BTW violent crime in the UK where virtually all guns are banned  is at 2000 per 100,000 people

in the US it less an one fourth that at ~ 450 per 100,000

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/fEbBM4DG9V0[/embed]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/JAnKOMex_eQ[/embed]

The Upenn study is a joke.  I have always hated that study.  It made huge news and was completely flawed.  They used a sample of Philadelphians involved in gun violence as a representation of the U.S. as a whole.  At best it is representative of an east coast city, but no conclusion can be drawn if you even take a cursory glance at the data.

The vast majority of victims of gun violence in Philadelphia are:
1.) Poor
2.) African American
3.) Male
4.) Have criminal records
5.) Are suspected in drug related crimes

These statistics are reported on a daily basis in every media publication in the area.  The Philadelphia Inquirer even keeps a digital map of every shooting victim with full statics such as race, age, and gender.

So when you state " As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot."

So when gang banger A, shoots drug dealer B in a shoot out, you are drawing the conclusion that both being armed didn't help either of them.

It is head slappingly stupid.

This is getting out of hand :

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

In case anyone is still interested in this here is an interesting video about crime rate and the USA.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/important-gun-violence-video-to-share-with-friends/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Seems the ridiculous keeps coming:
http://politicker.com/2013/01/bloomberg-slaps-down-criticism-of-painkiller-restriction-plan/ (http://politicker.com/2013/01/bloomberg-slaps-down-criticism-of-painkiller-restriction-plan/)

It might be nice if he got a dose of his own medicine.

Also, my first paycheck of the 2013 year was about $27 shorter than the last one in 2012, thanks Democrats and all you castrated Republicans, oh that's right Social Security withholdings is not considered a tax,  ;) 2014 and 2016 is coming, if we can make it that long, or if there is not executive order eliminating elections.

I don't know how much more people need to see and experience before they wake up to what is going on.

armed custodial staff in schools

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/armed-janitors-approved-school-shootings_n_2458167.html?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D256328

Good to see you folks are still sane and see AJAX still has his job at the ministry of truth.  :)

Quote from: ScottA on January 15, 2013, 10:50:20 PM
Good to see you folks are still sane and see AJAX still has his job at the ministry of truth.  :)

Only a seasoned member would be able to distinguish that.  Welcome Back.

Quote from: ScottA on January 15, 2013, 10:50:20 PM
Good to see you folks are still sane and see AJAX still has his job at the ministry of truth.  :)

Welcome back!

Quote from: Windpower on January 08, 2013, 07:28:22 AM
Alex jones on Piers Morgan

I am not a big fan of AJ but he effectively points out the false arguments

Jones put forth some false argements of his own, such as Hitler taking the guns.  Hitler didn't take the guns, the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, passed in 1919 after the Treaty of Versaille took the guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#Restrictions_imposed_by_the_treaty_of_Versailles

Quote

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

In 1938, Hitler passed the German Weapons Act, which, contrary to what Alex Jones would have you believe, liberalized the gun ban:

Quote

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]

The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]

The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]

Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

So it was no Second Amendment, but the point is, Hitler loosened the draconian gun control laws imposed after the Treaty of Versaille, ironically demanded by ostensibly democratic Allied countries.

Now look what you've done: you've made me defend Hitler.

Looks like it came pretty easy to you.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Alex jones. His main motivations are keeping himself in the spotlight and his listeners scared. All that matters is the 2nd amendment is the law and anyone trying to infringe on the right it secures is breaking the law. The only legal way to implement gun control is to amend the constitution.

The key here is that:

"NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions."

Go figure. 

Actually, Germany looked the other way with regards to that gun law, and it was not enforced with any enthusiasm until Hitler.  He was the one who played it to his advantage to disarm his opponents.  Not his own party, which was above the law. 

Hitler did not make the law, but he certainly used it to carefully disarm only those who were a threat to him.  Ultimately, it led to the atrocities that were committed. 

Plenty of references below :

http://kentuckysip.homestead.com/files/Nazi_Firearms_Law_and_the_Disarming_of_the_German_Jews.htm

Well, what do you know. 

It now appears that NO RIFLES were used in the Sandy Hook shooting.  No AR's, no AK's, nothing.

That certainly didn't stop the howling apes of the liberal left from using this to promote their restrictions on black rifles :

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

You just don't know what is factual anymore.   ???

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

Quote from: Redoverfarm on January 23, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
You just don't know what is factual anymore.   ???

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

Yeah... no kidding.  I have to put some trust in that.  Although I'd like to know more about it being carried into the school, or just used to breach the door or whatever.  MSNBC, in odd form, sure jumped all over the story about an AR not being used.  I wonder what their source was. 

Sort of like the game you use to play at school.  Start a subject and pass it opn and by the time it reached the end it was nothing like the original.  If you go by the Police website it states that the AR was in the school.  The news media states it was in the car when in fact the shotgun was in the car.  Clips showed the officer remove the long gun and it was cleared of the ammo like you would a shotgun so that would coincide with the officals claim.  Some persons don't actually know the difference  d* only that it was long.   ;) Didn't have time to check but the coroner would be the reliable source as to what ammo was used.  Either way the media is not "fair & balanced" .

Quote from: Redoverfarm on January 24, 2013, 11:11:24 AM
........................   snip................................Some persons don't actually know the difference  d* only that it was long.   ;) Didn't have time to check but the coroner would be the reliable source as to what ammo was used.  Either way the media is not "fair & balanced" .

Most all Politicos and Reporters don't know the different between a 44 Mag and a .223.  Seems most agree that over ten rounds is 9 and a half to many.

Fair and balanced is only in eye of the talking head at the time.

Brass on the floor would be additional data, I would also find it surprising if there were not security cameras that recorded much of the event.

I guess they will tell us what they want us to know.  But I bet it is a completely different story delivered to the ones that make the laws. ;)

In regards to the "violent" crime in UK- we report the figures diferently.

To us just about every crime is included

heres just gun related homicides- from wikipedia

firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

United Kingdom  0.25      2012
United States     10.2       2010

Not having guns in society would make a diference--------the thing is I'd rather have a gun !
and plan to at our Colorado cabin- just have to work out how !

Quote from: UK4X4 on January 24, 2013, 01:28:37 PM
--------the thing is I'd rather have a gun !
and plan to at our Colorado cabin- just have to work out how !

Better hurry at the rate that this administration is going after the 2nd Adm probably will not be that many new owners before long.   ;)

Quote from: Redoverfarm on January 24, 2013, 02:17:10 PM
Better hurry at the rate that this administration is going after the 2nd Adm probably will not be that many new owners before long.   ;)

Something seems wrong with the US rate.  Everything I read shows the homicide rate by Firearm in the US is more like 4.7/100,000.  This Wikipedia rate is quoted as 3.2/100,00:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States