[fool]

Originally Posted by PureX

And what do many Americans think is the solution to this enormous discrepancy in gun deaths? MORE GUNS!

I'm just sayin'

Put more accuratly I think that the solution to being shot at is to shoot back.
It's right up there with duck and run.

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by PureX

We have roughly 350 million people in the U.S., Australia has roughly 35 million. So, if we compensate for the difference in population, we are killing 1,000 times more of our people than they are killing of theirs. And when you equalize the numbers for all those other countries, you get about the same result.

And what do many Americans think is the solution to this enormous discrepancy in gun deaths? MORE GUNS!

I'm just sayin'

This is poorly reasoned in my mind. Guns don't cause gun deaths. A gun is an assembly of metal and wood components that does nothing at all until somebody picks it up. Thus, gun deaths are the result of the intentions of the person holding the gun.

In some countries such as Switzerland and Israel, people are required t serve in the army and when discharged, they MUST take their guns with them yet their rate of gun related crimes is much lower. A gun is a gun so something else must be at work here.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

The shooter.

No question.

Having said that...

Obama is already delighted at the tragedy. He hopes this will forward his agenda to outlaw handguns and other weapons.

Come on, VC. That's like suggesting fundamentalist preachers would rejoice over an elevated AIDs rate.

When did it become impossible to disagree, fundamentally, on important issues, without being a monster? And I support the NRA, by the way.

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

The reason Democrats are against guns is because for a government or institution to have control over a given society, society must be limited in power.
The consequences of this is clearly seen in events such as the Colorado shooting. A group of people completely defenseless against a madman.

Right. Because if there had been a packed theater of folks carrying guns once those gas canisters rolled in and the shooting began you just know fewer people would have died...

A theater filled with trained soldiers...maybe.

And a great many democrats aren't against gun ownership.

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

I suppose I will address this, since it was obviously aimed at me (my own words being used).

I ask again. WHAT LAWS COULD HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN PASSED that would have prevented this terrible tragedy?

None. This isn't about guns. This is about crazy and evil.

[aCultureWarrior]

Here's an interesting piece of information that I picked up last night while listening to the Laura Ingraham Show:

An investigator that works with the FBI's Infragard program, Bill Warner, stated that James Holmes might possibly be a member of the militant faction of the left wing Occupy movement "Black Boc"

http://www.examiner.com/article/occu...-movie-theater



http://cheatersflorida.wordpress.com...vie-slams-ows/

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

Well England, and most other 1st world countries for that matter, are far more cultured. Society in America is simply chopped and screwed, and so the current *falling backwards* of the conservative brand is, at least temporarily, doing more harm then good. Because America was always generally fixated on tooth and nail cowboy freedom, limiting such is an endeavor that doesn't roll over too well with it's social workings. That's why for over the past 50-60 years or so, America has had a gargantuan issue both 'crazies' like the Columbine shooting, DC sniper, etc. along with more permanent things like inner city gangs.

Jesse James Gang's last bank job in Northfield Minnesota stopped by citizens with guns, lots of guns!

After Clell’s first shot, Cole and he mounted their respective horses and began charging up and down the streets, yelling “Get in! Get in!” and shooting their guns in the sky, through windows, and over people’s head. Jim, Bill, and Charlie, on the bridge, heard Clell’s first shot as well and quickly rode to join the foray, using exactly the same guerrilla tactics as Cole and Clell were using. At first, it seemed that the gang was actually overtaking the citizens, but the situation quickly flipped. The citizens ran to their homes or places of business to grab their derringers, pistols, shotguns, and rifles. J. S. Allen ran to his hardware/gun store and began loading and handing out whatever guns he could to every passerby near his store. The citizens then all ran to various places in town, including rooftops, porches, windows, sidewalks, and more. They began randomly opening fire on the five outlaws. In a matter of seconds, Division Street became a shooting gallery, with bullets flying and zipping in every direction from every possible location. The owner of the other hardware/gun store in town, Anselm R. Manning, ran to his store in hopes of procuring a formidable weapon. What he chose to use was his personal breech-loading rifle. With this gun and pockets full of cartridges, he ran to the street, searching for a target. Henry Wheeler, meanwhile, ran to the Dampier Hotel, located across the street from the bank. He ran to the top-story and found an old Army carbine and three slugs. He grabbed the gun, loaded it, and placed himself in a strategic position in one of the upper-story windows overlooking the siege.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/jamesyo...orthfield.html

When the good guys have guns the bad guys run.

--Dave

[PureX]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

This is poorly reasoned in my mind. Guns don't cause gun deaths. A gun is an assembly of metal and wood components that does nothing at all until somebody picks it up. Thus, gun deaths are the result of the intentions of the person holding the gun.

No one is suggesting otherwise. But if those who did all that killing didn't have guns in their hands, they wouldn't have shot anyone. You can't deny that guns, especially hand guns, make it very easy to kill someone. That's what they are designed to do, after all. So it stands to reason that the availability of such easy-kill machines has something to do with the fact that we kill 1,000 times more of our own people with guns than those other countries do.

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

In some countries such as Switzerland and Israel, people are required t serve in the army and when discharged, they MUST take their guns with them yet their rate of gun related crimes is much lower. A gun is a gun so something else must be at work here.

I agree. It's not just that we have so many guns available, it's also that they are available to anyone for any reason. And they are available to people who have not been properly trained in how and when to use them.

I am not against Americans having guns, at all. I am against drunks, drug addicts, lunatics, and idiots having easy access to guns when they're drunk, high, enraged or otherwise behaving like morons.

We live in a culture in this country that promotes killing people as a solution to the problems they cause. We have all grown up watching the good guy blow away the bad guys every night on TV, and we now have multiple generations that accept this as the natural solution for dealing with "bad" people. When people get drunk, and high, and enraged, and crazy, their grasp of who is a "bad guy" and how "bad" they really are gets exaggerated and skewed, and they end up shooting someone who wasn't really a "bad guy" at all. Most gun deaths in this country are either suicides or people killed friends, lovers, or family members. None of whom were actually the "bad guys" that their killers envisioned they were at the time.

The problem isn't the guns. It's the guns getting into the hands of unstable and irresponsible people. And MORE people having guns isn't going to stop that. In fact, it just makes it worse. Somehow, we need to regulate who is getting them, better. But it's not just that, we also need to open our eyes to this cultural obsession we have with killing anyone who we deem to be a "bad guy".

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Jesse James Gang's last bank job in Northfield Minnesota stopped by citizens with guns, lots of guns!


When the good guys have guns the bad guys run.

--Dave

Many of those citizens, with clear targets in broad daylight, using rifles and shotguns, had been soldiers in a bloody civil war. Not exactly on point in any particular. There are any number of arguments for guns being in the hands of responsible citizens making a difference. The Colorado example just isn't one of them.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Many of those citizens, with clear targets in broad daylight, using rifles and shotguns, had been soldiers in a bloody civil war. Not exactly on point in any particular. There are any number of arguments for guns being in the hands of responsible citizens making a difference. The Colorado example just isn't one of them.

I'm from Wisconsin and lived in Minnesota, most citizens still have guns, lots of guns, for the same reason they had them after and before the civil war. They like to hunt and protect themselves rather than wait for help.

The citizens in the town of Northfield were not formally soldiers, the the bandits were.

--Dave

[drbrumley]

Exploiting Tragedy

Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 21, 2012 09:11 AM


With the Olympics about to start, the United States team might look to members of the gun control lobby for possible track medalists. The speed with which these people got to media cameras and microphones to exploit the Colorado killings for political advantage was remarkable, leaving intelligent minds to ask the question ancient Romans would raise: "cui bono?"

None of the 2nd Amendment foes are sincere in their efforts to rid the world of guns: they only want them out of the hands of private individuals. When I see any of these worshipers of state power proposing to take weapons away from the police and military as well, I might be prepared to listen to their case. In the meantime, gun-control laws, as well as efforts to restrict the Internet, serve no other purpose than to reinforce the state's monopoly on the use of violence to control people.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by drbrumley

Exploiting Tragedy

Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 21, 2012 09:11 AM


With the Olympics about to start, the United States team might look to members of the gun control lobby for possible track medalists. The speed with which these people got to media cameras and microphones to exploit the Colorado killings for political advantage was remarkable, leaving intelligent minds to ask the question ancient Romans would raise: "cui bono?"

None of the 2nd Amendment foes are sincere in their efforts to rid the world of guns: they only want them out of the hands of private individuals. When I see any of these worshipers of state power proposing to take weapons away from the police and military as well, I might be prepared to listen to their case. In the meantime, gun-control laws, as well as efforts to restrict the Internet, serve no other purpose than to reinforce the state's monopoly on the use of violence to control people.

Amen, well said.

--Dave

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

I'm from Wisconsin and lived in Minnesota, most citizens still have guns, lots of guns, for the same reason they had them after and before the civil war. They like to hunt and protect themselves rather than wait for help.

I'm reasonably sure that doesn't describe the populace of Aurora.

The citizens in the town of Northfield were not formally soldiers, the the bandits were.

Some were and some weren't and all of them, with the exception of the particularly young, had lived through that Civil War. All of those factors and the ones you noted above make a strong case for the distinctions I noted. As a side note, the robbers here were mostly trying to get away and, by testimony and body count, weren't really looking to kill the citizenry.

So again, you're comparing a situation that happens in broad daylight, with clear targets and citizens armed with rifles, most of whom have tested familiarity with their weapons, many of whom had involvement in a bloody war, with a situation that almost couldn't have been more divergent.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I'm reasonably sure that doesn't describe the populace of Aurora.

Some were and some weren't and all of them, with the exception of the particularly young, had lived through that Civil War. All of those factors and the ones you noted above make a strong case for the distinctions I noted. As a side note, the robbers here were mostly trying to get away and, by testimony and body count, weren't really looking to kill the citizenry.

So again, you're comparing a situation that happens in broad daylight, with clear targets and citizens armed with rifles, most of whom have tested familiarity with their weapons, many of whom had involvement in a bloody war, with a situation that almost couldn't have been more divergent.

In Wisconsin, at night, a drunken man said he was going to kill someone. My brothers friend Paul, the county sheriff, was called. He went to the bar and was told the man's discription, car, and where he was headed. He caught up with the man, pulled him over, and the man stepped out of his car with a shot gun in his hands and threatened to kill him. To Paul's surprise, three cars had followed him and a number of citizens jump out with their guns and told Paul they had his back. Sadly the man raised his gun to fire and Paul had to kill him.

My brother in law told me of an incident when a few robberies of rural homes, when no one was there, had taken place where he lived. Neighbor's keep watch for each other and when one saw an unfamiliar car pull up to his neighbors home, knowing he was not there, he called him and together they went, with guns in hand, just in time to see intruders about to leave with stuff they were stealing.
They told the bad guys to kneel down and put their hands behind their back heads and pray the sheriff would get ther soon or they would just shoot them.

The police are never there when you need them the most.

--Dave

[alwight]

All I'm reasonably sure of is that what we don't more of in the UK is guns in the community.
More guns would not make our society safer.

In the US is seems that a gun culture version of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what you have and an arms race against the bad guys exists, ramped up by fear.
Meanwhile crazies, bad and good guys can all just walk into a shop and stock up with more and more guns and ammo to raise the levels of MAD in the community, now that really is crazy imo.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by alwight

All I'm reasonably sure of is that what we don't more of in the UK is guns in the community. More guns would not make our society safer.

In the US is seems that a gun culture version of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what you have and an arms race against the bad guys exists, ramped up by fear. Meanwhile crazies, bad and good guys can all just walk into a shop and stock up with more and more guns and ammo to raise the levels of MAD in the community, now that really is crazy imo.

Who would have stopped the Soviet Union from taking over all of Europe after the defeat of Germany if America did not have "bigger and more guns" than they did?

If the "bad guys" give up their guns we will have world peace, if the "good guys" give up their guns we will all live under tyranny.

The guys and gals who don't know the difference between the "good" and "bad" guys will end up with tyranny but probably won't know the difference.

--Dave

[eameece]

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

America is a nation of rebels. It was founded on high treason and is the Protestant capitol of the world.
As such, it's society reflects the image. It simply works better for citizens of a country such as that to arm their selves.

Or, America could change.