obama calls for Reintroduction of Assault weapons ban!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/Debate-Assault-Weapons/2012/10/16/id/460279?promo_code=EACE-1&utm_source=GatewayPundit&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

President Barack Obama is calling for reintroducing legislation to ban assault weapons.
In discussing the issue at the presidential debate Tuesday night, Obama said weapons that were designed for soldiers at war don't belong on the street.

Urgent Poll: Obama or Romney? Who Won the Second Debate? (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/RomneyvsObama/Mitt-Romney-vs-Barack-Obama/id/48/kw/default?promo_code=EACE-1)
After the mass shooting in Colorado last summer, Obama aides said that the president supports the ban that expired in 2004. But Obama had not called for reinstating it until the debate.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney repeated his opposition to banning assault weapons. He had supported a ban as governor of Massachusetts.
Romney says he's not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freaking scum cant help himself. He needs justice delivered quickly to him. Vote him out, then arrest his sorry worthless treasonous ass. Give him his day in court then give him the max sentence allowed by law..--Tyr

[jafar00]

Nooooo it can't be!

How can I leave my home and feel safe without my assault rifle? The first thing I think about when leaving the house is to make sure I have my gun with me in case I get mugged. (/sarcasm)

And I thought I had it bad checking to see if I have my keys, wallet and phone when I leave the house.

[DragonStryk72]

Nooooo it can't be!

How can I leave my home and feel safe without my assault rifle? The first thing I think about when leaving the house is to make sure I have my gun with me in case I get mugged. (/sarcasm)

And I thought I had it bad checking to see if I have my keys, wallet and phone when I leave the house.

The problem is that whatever weapon you ban, the criminals will pursue and use them against the law abiding. England and Canada are the perfect examples of this. In both countries, they removed firearms almost entirely, and not just the assault weapons, and in both countries, two things occurred: The occurrence of gun crimes rose, as well as the instances of knife crimes.

Criminals do not, and never will, care that you don't have a fair advantage against them. Crimes in this country are *lowest* where guns are more prevelent, and *higher* where they're not. Hell, DC is the murder capital of the world, and they have the strictest gun control laws in the entire country.

It's almost like criminals would rather try to rob people who can't stop them. Even when you look at the mass murders that have occurred here, they're always in a place where guns are denied. VA Tech, Colorado movie theater, Columbine, they're all done where the assailant has no fear of reprisal from the victims. That's not a coincidence.

What you're also not considering is what constitutes and "assault weapon" here, as well. It's not just AKs and M-14s here. Heck, some handguns can meet the criteria for an assault weapon.

My final point on the matter is that government expands, not contracts, its given powers. It doesn't surrender a power once given, and instead builds upon it. If the ban on assault weapons stands, then they'll start declaring the next weapon down to be "too much", just like they've tried at times already, such as banning handguns in DC (Look to my earlier point on the results for my thoughts on that one).

[007]

His second term will be all about gun control and increasing welfare.
the dems are a 2 issue party.
Guns and bums!

[jafar00]

The problem is that whatever weapon you ban, the criminals will pursue and use them against the law abiding. England and Canada are the perfect examples of this. In both countries, they removed firearms almost entirely, and not just the assault weapons, and in both countries, two things occurred: The occurrence of gun crimes rose, as well as the instances of knife crimes.

Criminals do not, and never will, care that you don't have a fair advantage against them. Crimes in this country are *lowest* where guns are more prevelent, and *higher* where they're not. Hell, DC is the murder capital of the world, and they have the strictest gun control laws in the entire country.

It's almost like criminals would rather try to rob people who can't stop them. Even when you look at the mass murders that have occurred here, they're always in a place where guns are denied. VA Tech, Colorado movie theater, Columbine, they're all done where the assailant has no fear of reprisal from the victims. That's not a coincidence.

What you're also not considering is what constitutes and "assault weapon" here, as well. It's not just AKs and M-14s here. Heck, some handguns can meet the criteria for an assault weapon.

My final point on the matter is that government expands, not contracts, its given powers. It doesn't surrender a power once given, and instead builds upon it. If the ban on assault weapons stands, then they'll start declaring the next weapon down to be "too much", just like they've tried at times already, such as banning handguns in DC (Look to my earlier point on the results for my thoughts on that one).

Guns are banned in Australia, and don't fear leaving my house without one. I understand what you are saying. If your society is so dangerous, I guess you need a gun to defend yourself. We on the other hand, apart from a few bikie gangs who get their hands on firearms, have a pretty safe place to live.

[007]

Guns are banned in Australia, and don't fear leaving my house without one. I understand what you are saying. If your society is so dangerous, I guess you need a gun to defend yourself. We on the other hand, apart from a few bikie gangs who get their hands on firearms, have a pretty safe place to live.
Those gangs you will note were not so prevailant prior to the gun control measures introduced by your government.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nooooo it can't be!

How can I leave my home and feel safe without my assault rifle? The first thing I think about when leaving the house is to make sure I have my gun with me in case I get mugged. (/sarcasm)

And I thought I had it bad checking to see if I have my keys, wallet and phone when I leave the house.


After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Assaults are up 8.6 percent

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

Please read article at link and discuss-

http://current.com/community/89945552_crime-up-down-under-since-australias-gun-ban-armed-robberies-increase-45.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so safe there as you stated. Gun homicides after the gun ban== climbed 300 percent!!
How does it feel to be at the mercy of criminals? Or is your little community so "seperate" you do not have to worry about it?-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Guns are banned in Australia, and don't fear leaving my house without one. I understand what you are saying. If your society is so dangerous, I guess you need a gun to defend yourself. We on the other hand, apart from a few bikie gangs who get their hands on firearms, have a pretty safe place to live.

The key difference for Australia is its remote location. You don't actually border any other countries, so your borders are automatically secure, along with having a noticeably lower population density. Up here? Hell, part of Arizona was actually taken by mexican gangs since it resides right along the Mexican border. Mexico is a shit storm of corruption and crime currently, and it pushes more people across the border into the US, as well as south into other Latin American countries.

Even if 9/10 we are getting are solid, hard-working folks who are trying to get the hell out of Dodge, 10% of 4,000,000 is still hundreds of thousands of predators coming in. Then of course, there's the tanked economy, which of course pushes people more and more onto the raggedy edge, combined with too many workers for not enough jobs.

Even now, having a degree in this country is about equivalent to having a High School Diploma just 12 years ago. Because everyone goes to college, college becomes the baseline, and so employers make a college degree a requirement for jobs that in no way need it. Combine that with some 6-digit college loans that you can't get out from under, even with bankruptcy, and you begin to see some of the conflicting issues causing the problem.

[Little-Acorn]

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent


What's "amazing" about it?

Crooks know they won't be facing an armed victim any more.

The only strange thing about the results of Australia's gun ban, is that people like jafar feel "safer" in this hostile environment for some reason.

Well, leftist "big governments" have always needed ignorant masses to survive, even when fewer of those masses survive.

[007]

10 out of 10 criminals prefer an unarmed victim!

[aboutime]

Guns are banned in Australia, and don't fear leaving my house without one. I understand what you are saying. If your society is so dangerous, I guess you need a gun to defend yourself. We on the other hand, apart from a few bikie gangs who get their hands on firearms, have a pretty safe place to live.


jafar. How many of those bikie gang members blew up Buildings with Jet Airplane's in Australia?

And if you leave your house without a gun, or weapon. So do I here in the USA.

A large, proven, and documented number of Crimes with guns are....coincidentally committed in U.S. Cities like Chicago, and Philadelphia that are controlled, and run by American Democrat-Liberal administrations....which also, coincidentally, just happen to be like Obama's administration...NOW pretending he cares about his own city Chicago....where GUNS don't Kill people. People with Guns kill LOTS OF PEOPLE, almost EVERY DAY since Obama's Right Hand Man took over.

[gabosaurus]

Tyr is correct on this one. Obama's second term will be about gun control.
You will still be able to own all the guns you want. Hand guns and hunting rifles that are legally obtained and registered. No "military style" weapons.
There might also be a provision that anyone convicted of a crime involving firearms will no longer be allowed to own any.

[darin]

What makes a weapon an 'assualt' weapon?

Only the use. 30-30 lever action CAN assualt a large group of people. So can any shotgun.

Ignorant and mindless folk throw out terms like 'military style' weapons because the user of the term doesn't have the capacity to actually learn about weapons.

Our population is full of idiots. Chock-full. I mean really honestly stupid and foolish. Look who we elect to lead us, as a society?

There's no hope.

[Trigg]

Gun laws In Chicago

Law abiding people obey gun laws, and law abiding people die when criminals are the only ones with guns.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources&id=6159476


1. To purchase a gun in Illinois, you must first obtain a FOID card (Firearm Owner Identification Card through Illinois State Police. FOID requirements involve a criminal background check:



Must be 21. Age 18-21 requires consent of qualified parent or guardian
No felony convictions
No drug addictions
Has not been patient in mental hospital in preceding five years
Does not have mental illness
Must be a legal resident of U-S.
Must be 21 to purchase handgun. 18 (with responsible adult permission) to purchase a long gun.

1. Waiting Period


72-hours for handgun
24-hours for rifle or handgun

2. Cities with Handgun Bans


Chicago: Chicago bans possession, retail sales, and private sales and/or transfers of handguns and also bans the sale and/or transfer of certain types of handgun ammunition. It also requires that all other guns legally possessed be registered.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/chicago-homicides-reach-4_n_1929015.html


Homicides in Chicago have reached a new high this year, even as recent data show that surging gun violence in the Windy City has slowed from its devastating midsummer heights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/chicago-shootings-19-woun_n_1827530.html).

[Nukeman]

A cook county councelman is asking for a 0.05 cent per bullet excise tax.. what the hell.. tell ya whay I will by a boat load of ammo and sell it on the black market by Chicago!!

[Kathianne]

Tyr is correct on this one. Obama's second term will be about gun control.
You will still be able to own all the guns you want. Hand guns and hunting rifles that are legally obtained and registered. No "military style" weapons.
There might also be a provision that anyone convicted of a crime involving firearms will no longer be allowed to own any.

No second term is happening.

[Robert A Whit]

Nooooo it can't be!

How can I leave my home and feel safe without my assault rifle? The first thing I think about when leaving the house is to make sure I have my gun with me in case I get mugged. (/sarcasm)

And I thought I had it bad checking to see if I have my keys, wallet and phone when I leave the house.

First things first. Too many humans get killed due to the government they pay to protect them simply not able to protect them. At no time in this nations history has government actually protected any of us. Cops would have to be inside our homes just to keep us from being murdered. Then when you walk the streets, it is luck that you are not a victim of a criminal.

You may mock being able to protect yourself.

Look, it is your life. How valuable to you is your own life? You may not mind being robbed and want NOT to protect your property, but suppose with that robbery the thief takes your life?

We need not arm each and every human. But suppose as you walked down the path of life you had the comfort, (most turn to cops for this,) that your own neighbors (I define anybody who happens to be in your area at all times as your neighbor. when you are in a strange area on a sidewalk, the people in your areas are neighbors for these purposes) have sufficent weapons with them that criminals fear even robbing you?

Gangs own guns. Why do you fear owing your own gun? I don't tell everybody to carry a gun. Not all are highly trained to have guns as I have been trained. I really prefer those with little or no training let the rest of us bear the load.

If you want not to protect yourself, some of us will do it for you.

[DragonStryk72]

Tyr is correct on this one. Obama's second term will be about gun control.
You will still be able to own all the guns you want. Hand guns and hunting rifles that are legally obtained and registered. No "military style" weapons.
There might also be a provision that anyone convicted of a crime involving firearms will no longer be allowed to own any.

Oh, is this the new spin term? 'military style'? What is the exact difference between a military style weapon and a civilian one?

also, you just flat out lied "You will still be able to own all the guns you want."

Is completely mutually exclusive to "No "military style" weapons"

One is true or the other is true, but both cannot be true. Criminals will still have access to any weapon they want, though.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh God,

Spare me and my fellow citizens from Obama's further trashing of the constitution.

That document is all that stands between my rights and the Feds. They speak of regulations.

Right?

Each regulation diminishes your freedom.

Even the common traffic stop sign diminishes your freedom.

You may think that is fine.

The simple stop sign actually forces you by law to stop.

But what else does it do to you?

We all know that your auto gets best milieage on the highway.

And at some unsafe for city road speeds.

Cities abound with slow traffic.

Traffic stop signs put a hit on your income.

When you idle, you get zero miles per gallon. Cars can drive down a major highway and say they do it at city speeds. They may piss you off but if tghe car drives at only 25 miles on a major highway, you will get great gas mileage, not worse.

Thus you spend a lot more money driving in cities than on highways.

By law, you work to support the time you waste at stop signs.

Some may think I am saying to not have stop signs or red lights.

I believe the planners could have so constructed roads and established one way streets such that your time spent at a red light would be almost unnoticed. We had poor engineering of our system we use for our cars.

Some of you who have been to Europe realize their planners solved some of this using traffic circles.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr is correct on this one. Obama's second term will be about gun control.
You will still be able to own all the guns you want. Hand guns and hunting rifles that are legally obtained and registered. No "military style" weapons.
There might also be a provision that anyone convicted of a crime involving firearms will no longer be allowed to own any.

And thats because its a UN /globalist AGENDA!!! A Soro's agenda. An anti-American agenda!!
For once you are right, and that about my being right no less.
Obama is a liar, fraud and a damn traitor...bet you'll not agree but Im right about that too!-Tyr

[jafar00]

First things first. Too many humans get killed due to the government they pay to protect them simply not able to protect them. At no time in this nations history has government actually protected any of us. Cops would have to be inside our homes just to keep us from being murdered. Then when you walk the streets, it is luck that you are not a victim of a criminal.

You may mock being able to protect yourself.

Look, it is your life. How valuable to you is your own life? You may not mind being robbed and want NOT to protect your property, but suppose with that robbery the thief takes your life?

We need not arm each and every human. But suppose as you walked down the path of life you had the comfort, (most turn to cops for this,) that your own neighbors (I define anybody who happens to be in your area at all times as your neighbor. when you are in a strange area on a sidewalk, the people in your areas are neighbors for these purposes) have sufficent weapons with them that criminals fear even robbing you?

Gangs own guns. Why do you fear owing your own gun? I don't tell everybody to carry a gun. Not all are highly trained to have guns as I have been trained. I really prefer those with little or no training let the rest of us bear the load.

If you want not to protect yourself, some of us will do it for you.

It's not that I don't want to protect myself or my family, I just don't live in a place that is so dangerous that I need to carry a firearm to be safe, ready to pounce on a criminal at a moment's notice vigilante style.

I feel sorry for you.

[007]

It's not that I don't want to protect myself or my family, I just don't live in a place that is so dangerous that I need to carry a firearm to be safe, ready to pounce on a criminal at a moment's notice vigilante style.

I feel sorry for you.
Tarquaia.

[Robert A Whit]

It's not that I don't want to protect myself or my family, I just don't live in a place that is so dangerous that I need to carry a firearm to be safe, ready to pounce on a criminal at a moment's notice vigilante style.

I feel sorry for you.

Thank you. I have an automatic .22 cal pistol in front of me. Directly under my computer.

Why you may want to know?

To prevent the blacks in my area from murdering me.

Why fear them?

I have lived in this same city for most of the period from 1965 till today. In 1965, you could not ask for a safer town. Around the corner, some few years back, several blacks from out of town entered the office of a business and killed the man. Well, i did not place my pistol where I Keep it at the time. I did not so much as keep the front door locked.

Then a kind woman in the business of working on people's clothes, 3 doors down was held up at gun point by blacks. The store next to my office was held up at gun point. Then one door west from that store they got held up.

That was enough. I lock the door all day long and keep my pistol ready. I know I am safer than just relying on cops.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thank you. I have an automatic .22 cal pistol in front of me. Directly under my computer.

Why you may want to know?

To prevent the blacks in my area from murdering me.

Why fear them?

I have lived in this same city for most of the period from 1965 till today. In 1965, you could not ask for a safer town. Around the corner, some few years back, several blacks from out of town entered the office of a business and killed the man. Well, i did not place my pistol where I Keep it at the time. I did not so much as keep the front door locked.

Then a kind woman in the business of working on people's clothes, 3 doors down was held up at gun point by blacks. The store next to my office was held up at gun point. Then one door west from that store they got held up.

That was enough. I lock the door all day long and keep my pistol ready. I know I am safer than just relying on cops.

Jafar apparently trusts in Allah and the fear of the muslims to keep him safe where he lives. Muslims like bombs and things that cut heads off not "bangbang" sticks. They are happy to have an unarmed populace because it gives them comfort to know that they can mob individuals that way without facing a man with a gun! We Americans have weapons for our own protection and a mob trying to harm a well armed man that is expert with weapons is likely to get all gunned down. That will not do to prevent Allah's righteous wrath from being executed. Muslims in America support gun control for that very reason.-Tyr

[007]

Jafar apparently trusts in Allah and the fear of the muslims to keep him safe where he lives. Muslims like bombs and things that cut heads off not "bangbang" sticks. They are happy to have an unarmed populace because it gives them comfort to know that they can mob individuals that way without facing a man with a gun! We Americans have weapons for our own protection and a mob trying to harm a well armed man that is expert with weapons is likely to get all gunned down. That will not do to prevent Allah's righteous wrath from being executed. Muslims in America support gun control for that very reason.-Tyr
If they deny it , or even pretend to support freedom, that is TARQUAIA!

mention TARQUAIA to a self proclaimed moderate Moslem and they go silent, they realise that the game is up!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If they deny it , or even pretend to support freedom, that is TARQUAIA!

mention TARQUAIA to a self proclaimed moderate Moslem and they go silent, they realise that the game is up!


Do you mean Taqiyya??--Tyr


http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allahby Warner MacKenzie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/index.html)
30 April, 2007
Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]
“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you mean that I agree. They do not like to discuss that at all. -Tyr

[Missileman]

It's not that I don't want to protect myself or my family, I just don't live in a place that is so dangerous that I need to carry a firearm to be safe, ready to pounce on a criminal at a moment's notice vigilante style.

I feel sorry for you.

Self-defense and vigilanteism are two totally unrelated issues. They are conflated by those who have no valid argument against legal firearm possession.

[fj1200]

http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm

... deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”.

No bias there eh? :rolleyes:

[Noir]

The key difference for Australia is its remote location. You don't actually border any other countries, so your borders are automatically secure, along with having a noticeably lower population density. Up here? Hell, part of Arizona was actually taken by mexican gangs since it resides right along the Mexican border. Mexico is a shit storm of corruption and crime currently, and it pushes more people across the border into the US, as well as south into other Latin American countries.

And living in Northern Ireland, a country that has probably one of the highest 'terrorist groups per capita' in the world, I feel more secure knowing that most people don't have access to guns.

That said, I don't think the gun laws in the states should be altered.

[Kathianne]

And living in Northern Ireland, a country that has probably one of the highest 'terrorist groups per capita' in the world, I feel more secure knowing that most people don't have access to guns.

That said, I don't think the gun laws in the states should be altered.

Noir, what are the gun laws there? As strict as in England? So who holds the guns? Terrorists or law abiders?

[Robert A Whit]

Jafar apparently trusts in Allah and the fear of the muslims to keep him safe where he lives. Muslims like bombs and things that cut heads off not "bangbang" sticks. They are happy to have an unarmed populace because it gives them comfort to know that they can mob individuals that way without facing a man with a gun! We Americans have weapons for our own protection and a mob trying to harm a well armed man that is expert with weapons is likely to get all gunned down. That will not do to prevent Allah's righteous wrath from being executed. Muslims in America support gun control for that very reason.-Tyr

Actually, there are far more Muslims around this area than there are blacks. But the Blacks do the robbing.

[Noir]

Noir, what are the gun laws there? As strict as in England? So who holds the guns? Terrorists or law abiders?

Gun laws here are the same as those in England as far as I'm aware, the only citizens with legal firearms would be farmers.

[Missileman]

Gun laws here are the same as those in England as far as I'm aware, the only citizens with legal firearms would be farmers.

For defense against man-eating crops?

[DragonStryk72]

And living in Northern Ireland, a country that has probably one of the highest 'terrorist groups per capita' in the world, I feel more secure knowing that most people don't have access to guns.

That said, I don't think the gun laws in the states should be altered.

Um, no... most of the law-abiding people don't have guns, but I doubt the criminals care that laws were placed. You do see the difference there, right?

Let me put this a different way: If you're to the point where gunning down random strangers in a theater seems like an appropriate idea, how much would you care that the firearm you're doing it with is denied to the general public, and that they're likely unarmed? Yeah, see where our argument is coming from?

And it's not just groups. Part of the country is knowingly taken by criminals with assault weapons, and since they're not attached to a single cause, just getting more money/drugs, it's not like they have any reason to hold back.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No bias there eh? :rolleyes:

A TRUE STATEMENT DOES NOT EVIDENCE BIAS.
:laugh:

[fj1200]

A TRUE STATEMENT DOES NOT EVIDENCE BIAS.
:laugh:

I wouldn't expect you to be able to see through your own. bias that is.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wouldn't expect you to be able to see through your own. bias that is.

Nor you pedro. Thanks for playing.-;)

[fj1200]

Nor you pedro. Thanks for playing.-;)

Point out my bias then.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Point out my bias then.

As if you bias against me and my posting is not self-evident for all to see..-:laugh2:
Surely you jest or else you are very delusional.. possibly both even.-;)

[fj1200]

As if you bias against me and my posting is not self-evident for all to see..-:laugh2:
Surely you jest or else you are very delusional.. possibly both even.-;)

Oh, I didn't realize we were discussing biases against each other because I clearly pointed out the bias of the author I quoted, and then that of you.

[Noir]

For defense against man-eating crops?

I think its moreso for shooting foxes and other 'pests' but ya never know!

[Noir]

Um, no... most of the law-abiding people don't have guns, but I doubt the criminals care that laws were placed. You do see the difference there, right?

Let me put this a different way: If you're to the point where gunning down random strangers in a theater seems like an appropriate idea, how much would you care that the firearm you're doing it with is denied to the general public, and that they're likely unarmed? Yeah, see where our argument is coming from?

And it's not just groups. Part of the country is knowingly taken by criminals with assault weapons, and since they're not attached to a single cause, just getting more money/drugs, it's not like they have any reason to hold back.

Most americans don't have guns? I'd find that surprising.

In any case, its more an issue of availably, they're so widely available in the states, and have been for so long, than bans will only affect the law abiding.
Whereas here, its a different matter.

[mundame]

The police in Wisconsin just this minute posted a photo of Radcliffe Haughton who went into a woman's spa today near a mall and shot it up, injuring 7. What IS that weapon he is carrying? It may or may not be the one he was using, I don't know whether that is a security camera photo or not.


http://lh6.ggpht.com/-iU_WyPYLWmU/Tv0VBLwoCMI/AAAAAAAAAAw/JbUtQh110Qw/s256/11.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-iU_WyPYLWmU/Tv0VBLwoCMI/AAAAAAAAAAw/JbUtQh110Qw/s256/11.jpg

[mundame]

Unluckily, this guy is still running around as of 4:15 PM, looking for more places to shoot up, I suppose. And so do the police, who seem to be pretty worried.

[Robert A Whit]

Um, no... most of the law-abiding people don't have guns, but I doubt the criminals care that laws were placed. You do see the difference there, right?

Let me put this a different way: If you're to the point where gunning down random strangers in a theater seems like an appropriate idea, how much would you care that the firearm you're doing it with is denied to the general public, and that they're likely unarmed? Yeah, see where our argument is coming from?

And it's not just groups. Part of the country is knowingly taken by criminals with assault weapons, and since they're not attached to a single cause, just getting more money/drugs, it's not like they have any reason to hold back.

Guns in the USA
While I don't fear the Feds imminent attack, bear in mind that a law had to be passed to stop the Feds from being the national police.

We have guns, not to shoot somebody, but to make sure they won't attack us.

Cops show up, not on time, but later. They investigate, not prevent crime. It is rare a crime will happen in front of a cop. The death takes place first then the cops show up.

It is futile to try to disarm criminals in the USA. Even if you passed a million laws to ban them from owning guns, they will keep guns.

The country was founded by gun owners. It is defended by gun owners.

To ban us is to put the cops in charge and since they investigate, your death though mourned won't be prevented by law or cops.

I have my guns to protect me from crooks.

The second purpose is to make sure that no Government can turn me into a serf.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Guns in the USA
While I don't fear the Feds imminent attack, bear in mind that a law had to be passed to stop the Feds from being the national police.

We have guns, not to shoot somebody, but to make sure they won't attack us.

Cops show up, not on time, but later. They investigate, not prevent crime. It is rare a crime will happen in front of a cop. The death takes place first then the cops show up.

It is futile to try to disarm criminals in the USA. Even if you passed a million laws to ban them from owning guns, they will keep guns.

The country was founded by gun owners. It is defended by gun owners.

To ban us is to put the cops in charge and since they investigate, your death though mourned won't be prevented by law or cops.

I have my guns to protect me from crooks.

The second purpose is to make sure that no Government can turn me into a serf.

Its the second purpose that the Federal government is 100% against us embracing!
To them the first purpose is a mere annoyance but the second purpose is intolerable.
Which yet again points to their plan for our future status!
A DICTATORSHIP MUST HAVE ITS SLAVES! --Tyr

[Drummond]

Though I haven't checked, I think Noir is right when he says that his location is broadly on a par with the UK as a whole when it comes to gun ownership and the accessibility of guns. We have some of the toughest gun laws on the planet.

What this means, of course, is that compared to Americans, we're a lot more personally disempowered, and we're forced to be more reliant on the authorities for personal protection.

And .. this is, of course, a Leftie dream. Force people to not only be more dependent on what the authorities they run provide, but to make sure that such dependency is a part of everyone's thinking.

Few people own a gun legally in the UK. Gun ownership, therefore, is likely to be illegal, meaning, that criminals are more likely to have them than law-abiding citizens.

How they get those guns is in itself interesting .. because, just today, a senior Government Minister has announced that a legal loophole is being addressed. See this link ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20019914


A new offence of supplying a firearm will be introduced to tackle people who hire out weapons to gangs, Home Secretary Theresa May has said

Ms May told the BBC those supplying guns were "as guilty" as those using them as the impact was just as deadly.

The maximum sentence for the offence, which will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, will be life imprisonment.

Isn't it incredible that such 'middle men' haven't had to face the law in this way before now ?? It's a part of the reason why gun ownership has been weighted in favour of criminals over here.

And it's what you get when the State insists upon strict controls on legal ownership ... stupidity such as we've had, here, for DECADES, with criminals having an upper hand.

By the way .. it appears that Northern Ireland won't get the same coverage as the rest of the UK on that measure. Sorry to hear it, under the circumstances.

[Robert A Whit]

Since there is no way for the unarmed to defend themselves against the criminal who has his gun, but to have his own gun near him, I feel very sorry for the UK and for Australia and indeed, any nation whose government disarmed them.

Normally to get at criminals, you pass laws that affect them. But when you take down your own citizens, you know the government got too powerful.

I think this socialism found in the UK went to their head so they really imagine that their government has nothing but good will to the people.

I thought they wanted to be shed of kings and that is the route i thought they might follow.

[DragonStryk72]

Most americans don't have guns? I'd find that surprising.

In any case, its more an issue of availably, they're so widely available in the states, and have been for so long, than bans will only affect the law abiding.
Whereas here, its a different matter.

Wasn't talking about the US, but England or Ireland. Like I said, if you're up to the point of murder, the weapon is really just a secondary concern. It's like blaming the baseball because the last five batters got beaned by one. It's more likely the pitcher throwing the ball, but we wouldn't ban pitchers, we would just bounce the one out and replace him.

But that's the thing: You're still on a small island that can be controlled easily. Ireland as a whole would fit inside one of our small states, some with room to spare. All of Europe could be set down in just the unsettled land in TX. We have vast tracts of open land around here, with unprotected borders to a country that is busy falling in on itself from the criminals and the corrupt. And all we talk about are the weapons, as opposed to the real threat, the people wielding the weapons.

[gabosaurus]

Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?

[Missileman]

Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?


But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people



If gun ownership results in murder, explain that!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By subregion
<THEAD>
UNODC (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_Nations_Office_on_Drugs_and_Crime) murder rates most recent year


Subregion
Rate
Count
Region

</THEAD><TBODY>
<SMALL> </SMALL> Eastern Africa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Eastern_Africa)
21.9
69,344
Africa


<SMALL> </SMALL> Middle Africa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Middle_Africa)
20.8
25,330
Africa


<SMALL> </SMALL> Northern Africa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Northern_Africa)
5.9
12,276
Africa


<SMALL> </SMALL> Southern Africa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Southern_Africa)
30.5
17,484
Africa


<SMALL> </SMALL> Western Africa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Western_Africa)
15.4
44,671
Africa


<SMALL> </SMALL> Caribbean (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Caribbean)
16.9
7,001
Americas


<SMALL> </SMALL> Central America (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Central_America)
41.0
19,293
Americas


<SMALL> </SMALL> Northern America (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Northern_America)
10.2
39,315
Americas


<SMALL> </SMALL> South America (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/South_America)
20.0
79,039
Americas


<SMALL> </SMALL> Central Asia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Central_Asia)
6.1
3,667
Asia


<SMALL> </SMALL> Eastern Asia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Eastern_Asia)
1.3
19,828
Asia


<SMALL> </SMALL> South-Eastern Asia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/South-Eastern_Asia)
6.0
34,787
Asia


<SMALL> </SMALL> Southern Asia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Southern_Asia)
3.8
63,102
Asia


<SMALL> </SMALL> Western Asia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Western_Asia)
2.6
5,736
Asia


<SMALL> </SMALL> Eastern Europe (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Eastern_Europe)
6.4
19,072
Europe


<SMALL> </SMALL> Northern Europe (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Northern_Europe)
1.5
1,432
Europe


<SMALL> </SMALL> Southern Europe (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Southern_Europe)
1.4
1,669
Europe


<SMALL> </SMALL> Western Europe (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Western_Europe)
1.0
1,852
Europe


<SMALL> </SMALL> Australasia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Australasia)
1.0
268
Oceania


<SMALL> </SMALL> Melanesia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Melanesia)
11.1
898
Oceania


<SMALL> </SMALL> Micronesia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Micronesia)
2.5
10
Oceania


<SMALL> </SMALL> Polynesia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Polynesia)

</TBODY>


Tells quite a different story about the murder rate. North America at 10.2 which is lower than even Melanesia.
Murder is murder ,the use of which weapon is bullshat because dead is dead.
You dumb as a box of rocks anti-gun people need to get a damn life. -Tyr

[mundame]

Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?


I don't know where people are safer: impossible to tell with these figures, because you've left out the homicide rate.

What is the comparable rate of homicide overall, any weapon, for the United States and Australia per 100,000 population?

[fj1200]

I don't know where people are safer: impossible to tell with these figures, because you've left out the homicide rate.

What is the comparable rate of homicide overall, any weapon, for the United States and Australia per 100,000 population?

Australia 1.0, United States 4.2. I'm sure that there are other societal factors that determine homicide rate than just gun ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Drummond]

But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people


If gun ownership results in murder, explain that!

... wow. Just for a change, we're arguing the same point. If you hadn't posted that piece first, I'd have done so myself.

I've two other observations to make.

First .. if you have two groups, criminals v law-abiding citizens, and only one of those groups is likely to be armed with a gun, then OF COURSE you're going to get a reduced homicide rate caused by gun usage. In a society where both groupings are 'tooled up' with such weapons, with legal ownership boosting the numbers, you'd get an increased incidence because of the fact that guns are involved on both sides. However, would you also have a DETERRENCE factor also at work, reducing the numbers at an indeterminate rate ?Criminals armed with guns will provide a percentage of the total potential homicides, laws or no laws. You'll never succeed in creating a totally gun-free culture, but what you WILL manage to do is force an unequal balance of confrontation. People will die, victims unnecessarily created as such, where a deterrence factor from gun ownership could've otherwise played a part.

This is the chief source both of stupidity, and of injustice, involved in draconian restriction of gun ownership.

Second observation ... Gabby, thanks for offering us material from a LEFT WING source, which is what the Guardian is. Tell me .. did you offer us knife crime statistics, too ? Because, gun laws or no gun laws, knife crime will also play its part in homicides ...

[Gaffer]

Gun control is the disrupting of the balance of power between the law abiding and the lawless.

[DragonStryk72]

Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?

Let's look at the numbers: How many homicides are committed by criminals? 100%

How many criminals care that you're unarmed, or that the murder weapon they're using was obtained illegally? 0%

Australia? You need to read the rest of the thread Gabs, cause I already took down that weak excuse. The highlights reel: Lower pop density, with easily controlled borders that do not have a massive illegal immigration problem to a country that is overrun with crimelords.

[jafar00]

Since there is no way for the unarmed to defend themselves against the criminal who has his gun, but to have his own gun near him, I feel very sorry for the UK and for Australia and indeed, any nation whose government disarmed them.

We just don't feel the need for them.


Why not just look at the numbers and decide?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In the U.S., 60 percent of all homicides are committed by firearms. In Australia, it is 11.5.

In the latest reported year, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides due to firearms, which is 2.97 per 100,000 population.
Australia had 30 homicides due to firearms, or 0.14 per 100,000.

The U.S. ranks no. 1 in the world in firearms ownership, with 88.8 firearms per 100 persons average.
Australia ranks no. 42 with 15 firearms per 100 population.

So where are you safer?

I can understand why they want their guns. The USA seems like a place full to the brim with criminals that want to shoot you.

[jimnyc]

We just don't feel the need for them.



I can understand why they want their guns. The USA seems like a place full to the brim with criminals that want to shoot you.

I think it's better than living in many Islamic countries where instead of a gun you have to worry about some animal blowing up a ton of innocent people because he thinks that's what his religion wants of him. Seriously, you should probably be concerned more about the Muslims in non-stop attacks worldwide instead of the USA, or do you care more about us? I think the hundreds of thousands dead due to 20,000 terror attacks would be more of something for you to speak out against, but I guess not.

[jafar00]

I think it's better than living in many Islamic countries where instead of a gun you have to worry about some animal blowing up a ton of innocent people because he thinks that's what his religion wants of him. Seriously, you should probably be concerned more about the Muslims in non-stop attacks worldwide instead of the USA, or do you care more about us? I think the hundreds of thousands dead due to 20,000 terror attacks would be more of something for you to speak out against, but I guess not.

That's funny. I thought we were talking about gun control in the USA?

[jimnyc]

That's funny. I thought we were talking about gun control in the USA?

We were, and you spoke of how Americans wanted to kill people, and I replied with how laughable that is based on the sheer amount of attacks in Islam. I find it funny that someone who wants to condemn America, turns a blind eye to the 20,000 attacks committed in the name of his religion in 10 years.

[DragonStryk72]

We were, and you spoke of how Americans wanted to kill people, and I replied with how laughable that is based on the sheer amount of attacks in Islam. I find it funny that someone who wants to condemn America, turns a blind eye to the 20,000 attacks committed in the name of his religion in 10 years.

Jim, come on, we can't keep turning every single thing he says into the "well, muslims are terrorists!" argument. They're not the same topic, and going at it to that isn't even needed in this instance.

[jimnyc]

Jim, come on, we can't keep turning every single thing he says into the "well, muslims are terrorists!" argument. They're not the same topic, and going at it to that isn't even needed in this instance.

When someone states that my country is filled to the brim with criminals that want to kill people, I think it's only logical to point out the hypocrisy in such a statement. It's an asinine statement, first off, and presents an opportunity to show how foreigners have some interest in criminal activity and death when it's from the USA, but look to the sky and whistle as if nothing happened when it's so many other countries around the world. It's one thing to discuss the ban, or whether not to ban, but it doesn't take a genius to see someone not from the states trying to take a pot shot at us.

[gabosaurus]

I think it's better than living in many Islamic countries where instead of a gun you have to worry about some animal blowing up a ton of innocent people because he thinks that's what his religion wants of him. Seriously, you should probably be concerned more about the Muslims in non-stop attacks worldwide instead of the USA, or do you care more about us? I think the hundreds of thousands dead due to 20,000 terror attacks would be more of something for you to speak out against, but I guess not.

You need to come up with a new line of BS. This one is getting pretty stale. Most likely from overuse.
Seriously, the U.S. has plenty of "animals" who kill innocent people because they believe their religion wants them to.
I've never heard a story of Muslim drowning her kids in a bath tub because Allah told her to. Or carving their kids genitals off. Or sticking their kid in a microwave. Not to mention the general lack of pedophile Imans.
If you are going to spew hate filled garbage, at least find some fresh garbage.

[jimnyc]

You need to come up with a new line of BS. This one is getting pretty stale. Most likely from overuse.
Seriously, the U.S. has plenty of "animals" who kill innocent people because they believe their religion wants them to.
I've never heard a story of Muslim drowning her kids in a bath tub because Allah told her to. Or carving their kids genitals off. Or sticking their kid in a microwave. Not to mention the general lack of pedophile Imans.
If you are going to spew hate filled garbage, at least find some fresh garbage.

Quite frankly, I'll explain myself to DS72, but you can kindly go fuck yourself. I've got no time to go any further with a hypocritical bitch.

[gabosaurus]

Quite frankly, I'll explain myself to DS72, but you can kindly go fuck yourself. I've got no time to go any further with a hypocritical bitch.

How does disagreeing with you make me a "hypocritical bitch?"
I agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others. On some topics, I disagree with you a bit more vociferously.
If you don't like my tone, feel free to tell me so. This is your right.
But please do so on the board or through PM. These are the only comments I read.