To Arm or to Disarm.

[Vince50 10]

One can't mow down a roomful of children with a knife.

 

Db

 

DB, Your statement cannot be argued with. It is fact. And that is what is very scary. We are a divided nation on this subject. Thats bad. But that so few are even willing to say, "I really dont know what would solve the problem but I need to do more research before I give my opinion all over the Internet is never spoken! You mean the answer is black and white. Its either ban guns or buy more of them? LOL Does this sound remotely right to any sane person? I hope not. I believe I know what we must start with. And that are things that might help,without having a war among ourselves politically and verbally over it.

 

1-YES! EVERY COUNTRY....................every country that limits the amount of violence movies can show,and Im betting money that the "awareness" of keeping violence to a semi-reasonable level is much more important to Swedish,Finnish and Denmark parents than us. Now more than ever. Do you know what fools this country looks like as the headlines of that school massacre make its way to those countries and they shake their head and go, "Do these Americans have to lose 60% of their children before they think about banning violence watching on TV And ion Video games before they catch on?

 

Ok you guys say, this is all suppposition. Really? You know what is supposition? If the Euro is going to be up from where it is now by same time next year is supposition. But if you arent convinced by now that a kid watching an average 14,000 murders on TV alone by age 14 is not going to be much, much more prone to violence at some point ,that its just supposition I will do this. Seiously. I would gladly close my Forex account and quit trading forever if someone would let me put up my entire net worth AND my house on a bet that going the other silly extreme of having no violence on TV at all would not make murder and violent crimes go down within 2 years...............in a huge way! I would be willing to leave myself penniless on this "supposition"

 

Now here is another question. 20 years ago we still had plenty of guns around. Why was this issue not even on most of our radar at that time. This discussion would bore most people at that time. Why? What has changed in 20 years to make so many more people irresponsible with weapons? Besides violent movies,TV and such? I think if we focus on that, the problem will fix itself! Shall we take a stab at it ,folks? We might even get lucky and have a big politician or journalist who trades and is on this thread that will hear us. Lets go for it. The floor is open!

 

Remember ,we arent going to talk solutions,for now. Lets talk about what changed so much in 20 years, so we will only be dealing with facts! (smile) Anyone care to start it off?:haha:

[MightyMouse 12]

 

My mother died in a car crash 2 years ago because she couldnt see the tree on the meridian on a darkly lit street. I dont blame the tree!

But if there was a gang shootout at that same place and as my mother drove by she was killed by a stray bullet, yes I would blame the gun, the person who fired it, and the NRA for letting that youth/thug/criminal from getting his hand on it.

 

 

Sorry about your mom. I suppose that if i were given a choice of how to die, accidentally hitting a tree would be first or second. It is the surprise and quickness that is enviable. Quick is the most horrible for the family, but self aside, quick is better than death by disease. Disease is painful for both the family and the victim.

 

Anyhow, you do touch on a good point. In both cases, death by accident or crossfire, the person is gone. Is there really any difference? If you wouldn't be angry at the tree, then why should or ought you be angry at the assailant who fired the stray bullet?

[Tams 20]

it sucks to have something like this happen on Christmas eve

 

 

2 firefighters shot, killed while battling New York blaze

2 firefighters shot, killed while battling New York blaze - CNN.com

[DbPhoenix 42]

Now here is another question. 20 years ago we still had plenty of guns around. Why was this issue not even on most of our radar at that time. This discussion would bore most people at that time. Why? What has changed in 20 years to make so many more people irresponsible with weapons? Besides violent movies,TV and such? I think if we focus on that, the problem will fix itself! Shall we take a stab at it ,folks? We might even get lucky and have a big politician or journalist who trades and is on this thread that will hear us. Lets go for it. The floor is open!

 

Remember ,we arent going to talk solutions,for now. Lets talk about what changed so much in 20 years, so we will only be dealing with facts! (smile) Anyone care to start it off?:haha:

 

You'd have to go back more than 20 years. More like 70, to Brown v Board of Education, though one could go back even farther. The 50s were in many ways the first stirrings of empowerment paired with an increasing sense of disenfranchisement. Trace that forward into the 60s and 70s and dovetail it with the efforts of the wealthy to diminish the power of the middle class (which continue today so aggressively, obviously, and shamelessly). By the 80s, the current situation was more or less cemented in place.

 

Db

[Ingot54 13]

Since the outrage that shocked the world,

another 500 Americans have died because

of absurd gun Laws. They include a boy,

just 3, a church volunteer and a victim of

road rage. And the solution? More guns,

says the NRA. Unbelievable...

 

read on ...

 

After the slaughter at Sandy Hook school, America's firearms debate intensifies - Americas - World - The Independent

[Patuca 13]

thats the problem. need more guns to increase the number of people that can deal with the number of increasing idiots that murder people. not enough people have guns to stop them or if they have them they don't carry them.

 

more armed bad people then we need more armed good people to stop them

[Patuca 13]

Since the outrage that shocked the world,

another 500 Americans have died because

of absurd gun Laws. They include a boy,

just 3, a church volunteer and a victim of

road rage. And the solution? More guns,

says the NRA. Unbelievable...

 

read on ...

 

After the slaughter at Sandy Hook school, America's firearms debate intensifies - Americas - World - The Independent

maybe the government should regulate beards too? or maybe what you can or can't eat... drink...etc...

[SunTrader 10]

Since the outrage that shocked the world,

another 500 Americans have died because

of absurd gun Laws. They include a boy,

just 3, a church volunteer and a victim of

road rage. And the solution? More guns,

says the NRA. Unbelievable...

Well as the saying goes ........... Only in America.

 

Well maybe Afghanistan and Syria too.

 

Such good company we keep.

[SunTrader 10]

thats the problem. need more guns to increase the number of people that can deal with the number of increasing idiots that murder people. not enough people have guns to stop them or if they have them they don't carry them.

 

more armed bad people then we need more armed good people to stop them

Yeah, yeah. That's it more guns so we can have less killing.

 

2 + 2 equals 57 3/5ths now huh?

 

Mo money, mo money, mo guns.

[Patuca 13]

Yeah, yeah. That's it more guns so we can have less killing.

 

2 + 2 equals 57 3/5ths now huh?

 

Mo money, mo money, mo guns.

that is correct. glad you finally figured it out. more guns = less killings. less guns = more killing. second half of the equation. milk sops understand neither.

[Vince50 10]

maybe the government should regulate beards too? or maybe what you can or can't eat... drink...etc...

 

Patuca, I dont know what they are, but all we have to do is look abroad at our first world nation allies who have very tight restrictions on guns to know if disarming the citizens work. I dont have the time to google all that info out. But there in lies the answer Period! Because human beings are human beings regardless of what country they live in. So...who on this board wants the facts!!!!!? It jas been given to us already. But lazy as we are it is easier to spout crap at each other rather than do research and present facts or stats to prove our point.

 

I am as guilty as the rest.

[Vince50 10]

worth repeating !

 

 

Wow! Great video of that guy shooting himself with a Glock no less. Those guns get such high praise from every pistol lover in America. They even talk about how Glocks dont jam after 300,000 rounds and Glock co. itself is reported to have thrown a glock pistol out of an airplane to see the damage incurred. None!!! It was thouight to be almost mistake and idiot proof. This video would probably buckle the sales of Pistols if......very big IF......someone with money decided to show this all over the country. But since they cant make money from it,just save lives,why bother,right?

[Ingot54 13]

thats the problem. need more guns to increase the number of people that can deal with the number of increasing idiots that murder people. not enough people have guns to stop them or if they have them they don't carry them.

 

more armed bad people then we need more armed good people to stop them

You wrote this as a joke ... right?

 

America has 89 guns for every 100 people ...

 

Harold Meyerson: Why does America have way more guns? - The Washington Post

 

 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything - we already have our bias fairly heavily set on this. No one reads the links or tries to understand the other point of view anyway ... so it's a line drawn in the sand and we all take our sides.

 

But I would like to know: "How many guns are enough?"

 

If 89 per 100 people is not enough ... (and still 575 people are dying by the gun each week) ... then how many guns does it take for death-by-gun to cease?

 

Is there something absurd here promoted by the gun lobby?

 

Or is it me who can't see that more guns = lives saved?

 

Say we increase the number of guns from 89 per 100 people, to 200 guns per 100 people ... does that mean gun deaths will decrease

[Ingot54 13]

Just a bit of perspective here .... (links below):

 

Country .................... guns/100 people .......... Murders/100,000

 

United States.................... 88.8 ............................ 50.36

Switzerland ...................... 45.7 .............................. 0.52

France ............................ 31.2 .............................. 0.22

Germany ......................... 30.3 .............................. 0.06

Australia ............................ 15 .............................. 0.09

United Kingdom ................. 6.2 .............................. 0.04

China ................................ 4.9 .............................. 1.1 (approx)

India .................................. 4.2 .............................. 0.93

Japan ................................ 0.6 .............................. 0.02

Singapore .......................... 0.5 .............................. 0.07

 

I think the obvious conclusion from the stats, is that the country with the most guns, USA,

has a 96 times higher murder rate, than it's nearest gun-ownership/100 people

competitor, Switzerland.

 

The difference between these two countries' homicide rates compared to

gun-ownership, can only be put down to "other factors." My own conclusion is that

Switzerland might lack a "wild-west" mentality ... ie: "If you touch me muvvucker, I'm

gonna x-y-z you to hell" doesn't exist in Switzerland - at least to the same extent?

 

Instead, the Swiss might have a more civilised method of dealing with petty disputes

other than wanting to incinerate the opposition? Maybe they talk to each other more,

and are less easily offended? Maybe they have learned that to agree to disagree can

guarantee both parties live another day?

 

I do not know ... but one wonders.

 

Other things to come from the stats ...

 

Although there does not seem to be a linear relationship between gun-ownership and

homicides ... it is clear that the countries with low homicides per 100,000 citizens also

have gun-ownership rates tending towards the lower side.

 

But I am not going to claim it is conclusive.

 

There is nothing civilised about committing homicide ... so I guess you could draw your

own conclusions about the mental health of a population that wants to own guns, and

the number of homicides directly related to those firearms.

 

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Unfortunately I couldn't find comparable stats for ownership vs homicides for other

countries of interest (eg Russia) so had to pass on those.

 

And just for the record, Australia, with a population 1/15th the USA, has a homicide

rate 560 times lower than the USA, with a gun ownership rate of only 17% that of the USA.

 

Conclusion:

 

It takes an average of 1763 guns in circulation to murder one person in America, but

166,667 guns in circulation in Australia to murder one Australian, and 505,000 guns in

circulation to murder one German citizen!

 

Does anyone still have any doubt about whether we need more guns ... or am I just as

crazy as those who think more guns will fix the problem here.

 

If so, then again, I ask: "How many more?"

 

And if I am as crazy as they are, then what medication should I take in order to correct

my thinking? :rofl:

[MightyMouse 12]

Does anyone still have any doubt about whether we need more guns ... or am I just as

crazy as those who think more guns will fix the problem here.

 

If so, then again, I ask: "How many more?"

 

And if I am as crazy as they are, then what medication should I take in order to correct

my thinking? :rofl:

 

It is no wonder at all.

 

WISQARS Details of Leading Causes of Death

[MightyMouse 12]

States with Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Death « Gun Law Forum

 

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm

[DbPhoenix 42]

Since this is a day dedicated to peace, here are some sources for those of you interested in facts and data and stuff:

•

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country

(Guardian)

•

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

says results are clear: more guns = more homicide.

•

12 Facts About Guns in the U.S.

(Washington Post)

•

The gun control that works

(Economist)

•

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

(The Atlantic)

•

Battleground America: The United States of Guns

(New Yorker)

•

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control

(Washington Post)

•

The money behind the Newtown massacre

(Fortune)

•

The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence

: Gun deaths correlate to per capita gun ownership (The Atlantic)

•

Fifteen things to know about Australia’s incredibly effective gun clampdown

(Quartz)

• Pro Publica also reviews

The Best Reporting on Guns in America

 

Barry Ritholtz

[Ingot54 13]

It is no wonder at all.

 

WISQARS Details of Leading Causes of Death

 

Thanks for your links, MM

 

I couldn't get that one to work, so have reposted ... hopefully it hasn't detracted from your post.

If mine wasn't the one you used, could you please repost.

 

 

WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

[zdo 20]

Just skimmed through some of the posts since I was last in the office...

Dang, it’s amazing how some of us can dismiss, twist, and smash the ‘stupid’ statistics and correlations of one poster so soundly, then turn right around and post statistics that are even more worthless... statistics that could be turned against their own position so easily, and then show even more stupidity by making even worse causal connections than did the poster they just so artfully ‘slammed’

– and btw, this observation applies to posters on ‘both’ sides of this emotional, not rational, argument

… and we’re talking pages and pages of it.

[Tams 20]

LOL :doh:

 

 

imagine talking to an American face to face? you will have your face smashed before the end of the conversation; some of the people are very passionate about what they are talking about.

[MightyMouse 12]

Just skimmed through some of the posts since I was last in the office...

Dang, it’s amazing how some of us can dismiss, twist, and smash the ‘stupid’ statistics and correlations of one poster so soundly, then turn right around and post statistics that are even more worthless... statistics that could be turned against their own position so easily, and then show even more stupidity by making even worse causal connections than did the poster they just so artfully ‘slammed’

– and btw, this observation applies to posters on ‘both’ sides of this emotional, not rational, argument

… and we’re talking pages and pages of it.

 

Zdo,

 

Make it simple:

 

2 people with 1 gun each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people with no guns each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people: 1 has a gun and the other doesn't. A heated argument ensues.

 

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental death? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an intentional homicide? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental homicide? Least likely?

 

The gun advocates would say that when everyone has a gun, the world is safer. The anti-gun advocates would say that we are safer with no guns.

 

Reason is possible without emotion.

 

Most rational people will rank the above properly.

 

The bias is in favor of life. If we remove that bias and replace life with, say, profit, then there are other rational outcomes.

[Vince50 10]

Zdo,

 

Make it simple:

 

2 people with 1 gun each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people with no guns each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people: 1 has a gun and the other doesn't. A heated argument ensues.

 

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental death? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an intentional homicide? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental homicide? Least likely?

 

The gun advocates would say that when everyone has a gun, the world is safer. The anti-gun advocates would say that we are safer with no guns.

 

Reason is possible without emotion.

 

Most rational people will rank the above properly.

 

The bias is in favor of life. If we remove that bias and replace life with, say, profit, then there are other rational outcomes.

 

Mouse, I know you probbaly dont have the energy or desire to do so, but that example is so unquestionably true, that you could change the country by sending that to many newspapers and even congressmen who will have to vote on that. Imagine if we got bombarded with TV commercials asking those questions. Better yet.....imagine if we got the head of the NRA on a tv interview to ask HIM those questions, watch him twist it all around, and then after he leaves you or the interviewer can say to the whole country...."This is a man you pay money to join his organization?" Is this man not a sane logical man? Of course! So then he has to be lying thru his teeth! Ask yourselves why?"

 

AWESOME POST,MOUSE!

[zdo 20]

Zdo,

 

Make it simple:

 

2 people with 1 gun each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people with no guns each. A heated argument ensues.

 

2 people: 1 has a gun and the other doesn't. A heated argument ensues.

 

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental death? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an intentional homicide? Least likely?

Which case is more likely to result in an accidental homicide? Least likely?

 

 

That was not simple enough for me…. Why not? Because

A heated argument ensues.

!

 

 

 

Both the gun nuts and gun grabbers tend to neglect that part. You just did.

When “a heated argument ensues”, “the bias in favor of life” goes poof. Whether ‘chronic’ or ‘episodic’ , the brain governs violent behavior. Research shows that ‘defects’ in the hippocampus can cause rage, "as if you poured gasoline on a fire-and it went whoosh!" states Benson E. Ginsburg, a geneticist.

 

"200,000 potential presidential assassins live in the United States alone. ...Many manage their delusions on the fantasy level. Others engage in other forms of violent behavior." David Hamburg, who headed the psychiatry department at Stanford University Medical School,

 

"Hoping to rehabilitate such a violent individual through psychotherapy or education, or to improve his character by sending him to jail or by giving him love and understanding, [or taking away his tools/guns, - brackets mine] - all these methods are irrelevant and will not work. It is the brains malfunction itself that must be dealt with, and only if this fact is recognized is there any chance of changing behavior." Violence and the Brain Vernon Mark and Frank Ervin

 

Abnormal chemicals in the brain fuel violence

Many people with chronic and episodic behavior disorders have abnormal toxic mineral levels in their blood. These imbalances can easily be diagnosed via tests of blood and urine. Parents, educators and mental health providers need to become aware of the nutritional research, some of it decades old, that can TREAT these individuals, many of whom are currently on pharmaceutical medications that only mollify them up to a certain point then diabolically trigger and exacerbate their delusions, suicidal tendencies and impulses to violence.

 

Unstable brain chemistry is the cause of "heated argument ensues". Unstable brain chemistry is likely more of a factor with what snapped with the Newtown, Conn. shooter than was who "brought a gun". The ability to commit antisocial behavior and violence against people is not a choice for people with altered brain chemistry. The brain is altered and nothing short of fixing the individual biochemical and activity outliers will start to get at our 'violence' and 'homocide' issues.

 

So, statistically, the idiots who showed up to your "heated argument" without tools, ie without a gun, are ultimately the losers. Reams more of legislated morality won’t move that simplicity one bit. I truly wish the people of the world were ready… christbodhi enough … to be sufficiently non violent and to ‘disarm’. They ain’t! Not at an individual level AND EVEN LESS SO AT A GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL !!!!!!!!! ... so you cain’t making it simple enough

 

The ‘grown-up’ arguments presented herein this thread are basically

• Banning assault weapons would not completely eliminate mass shootings, but they might help. And "might help" should be enough to consider banning them.

Read more: I'm Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Mass Shootings All The Time - Business Insider

 

I personally am not your typical gun nut. ... and using the best scene survey and situational awareness I could muster, I seriously re-considered the ‘might help’ part of this argument… really hoping… but it did not make the threshold for me…

 

"might help" is not enough to ban any guns. Simply - the root of the problem is not well understood. When the root of a complex problem is not well understood, sudden, 'obvious' solutions that ‘dispense’ safety via legislation, actually any solutions implemented, almost never really even help at all, tend to hurt as much as they help, and are never real solutions…

 

Even before any legislation, the 'solution' with just the threat of losing the freedom is leading to unintended consequences.

Gun Owners Freak Out After Newspaper Publishes Their Names And Addresses - Business Insider

 

Let’s publish these maps nationwide… it’s a great idea (o snik)… would pro-gun folk ever purchase their arms ‘legally’ again?

 

Click here to get your fkn buttons pushed… the author does his best to “make it simple”

A warning to gun grabbers and collectivist media: By calling for gun control, you are unleashing your own worst nightmare

 

 

Gun myths exposed: Assault rifles, full-auto, buying guns online and more - YouTube

 

 

 

 

 

 

"He who does not move does not notice his chains."

Rosa Luxemberg

 

Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence - BlackListedNews.com

 

 

 

 

Again, I wish the people of the world were ready… christbodhi enough … to be sufficiently non violent and to ‘disarm’. They ain’t. ... and you cain’t making it simple enough. I understand your "bias", but from your posts, I think you have not had enough sustained exposure to life threatening violence and also enough exposure to crazies and craziness to really understand these issues.

[Ingot54 13]

Just skimmed through some of the posts since I was last in the office...

Dang, it’s amazing how some of us can dismiss, twist, and smash the ‘stupid’ statistics and correlations of one

poster so soundly, then turn right around and post statistics that are even more worthless... statistics that could

be turned against their own position so easily, and then show even more stupidity by making even worse

causal connections than did the poster they just so artfully ‘slammed’

– and btw, this observation applies to posters on ‘both’ sides of this emotional, not rational, argument

… and we’re talking pages and pages of it.

That's a fairly comprehensive trashing of everyone, ZDO.

 

And your position?

 

Are you on the side, and making "observations" ... or do you have another solution to the problem?

 

My own position - and I have not previously stated this - is that there is a missing link here.

 

The problem is not with guns.

 

And the statistics, which I believe point to issues ... and undeniable facts .... only come about because of the missing link.

 

There is a "national psyche" that underlies every nation.

 

In the USA, that psyche is set in "dominate" mode - to win at all costs, to succeed, to dominate others and not to be subservient.

 

The gun is a symptom of this.

 

The gun is used when discussion fails

 

It is used as soon as there is a perception that the other party has a position that is not congruent with our own.

 

And as soon as we perceive we are on the losing side of a discussion/disagreement/debate/argument yada yada ... we reach for the gun.

 

"If I can't win here, then no other muvvucker is going to win either."

 

Conciliation is what is missing. The principle is no longer taught in families in these violent societies - to the extent at least that

it forms a significant part of the national psyche. That principle is no longer strong enough to influence a situation to avoid the tragedies we are seeing.

 

It is a result of fear - of losing ... or at least fear of no being seen as the winner.

 

I mentioned love earlier, because love overcomes fear.

Love has a desire to see others prosper as well as, or even more greatly, than ourselves.

 

This is gone.

 

It was George W Bush - that great leader of the American nation, who famously stated:

 

"Either you're with us, or you are with the enemy."

 

And thus he drew the lines for war ... and perpetrated the national psyche problem - perhaps closing the door to the peace and freedom that

Americans and the rest of the "free world" so clearly want. George could not see the cause-and-effect scenario that created the problem to begin with.

And he lacked the backbone to stand up to the Rumsfield's and the Powell's and the Cheyney's who goaded him to make some unsound

decisions - jmv - even if he did doubt what the outcome would be.

 

But clearly, at a time when he could have done something that would stand through time immemorial, he chose war over conciliation, and humility.

 

That is the missing link ... it has nothing to do with guns at all.

 

With a sound state of mind, a need to own a gun will disappear from the national psyche. The issue would solve itself.

 

I say "would" and not "will" because I do not have enough faith in people to understand this ... yet.

 

 

Maybe America needs a leader who can see beyond these issues, and truly lead a

national reawakening - a spiritual renaissance, where values are reinstituted that have

stood the test of time, and blend well with the golden rule. To lead by example perhaps?

[SunTrader 10]

I try to keep things short and sweet, well short anyway. Who has time for dimestore novels anymore.

 

What I'd like to know is if Republicans, high percent of gun owners, are supposed to be in favor of smaller, less intrusive government (keep yer &^%#!@ hands off my guns) but need a militia size stock of guns under their bed just in case the govmint gets too uppity than why are they so in favor of big military to the point of preferring to see grandma have her SSI check cut than one less missle in a silo in North Dakota.

 

Seems Ron Paul is the only one, of either major party, that thinks we spend too much F&^%$#@ money on the war machine abroad and the war on terror machine here. And it is here or USA, not the homeland. :evil tongue:

 

Any one?

 

Could it be it keeps guns (govmint and citizens) in circulation and the manufacturers in the green.