One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
What Liberals Refuse to Acknowledge About Gun Violence
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jun 21, 2015 15:28:40   #
peter11937 Loc: NYS
bmac32 wrote:
But he sure could with a back pack full of TNT or nitro, that would kill more than 9 people.

He could make a "fertilizer " bomb with diesel duel, some nitrogen base fertilizer, put it in a 55 gal. drum, use kitchen matches as a detonator and truck it in, explode it and destroy the entire building and kill every one. What the gun ban crowd really want is political control and enforced ignorance.

Jun 21, 2015 21:51:54   #
PeterS wrote:
How did the president misspeak? What he said was that it didn't happen in other advanced countries which is correct, it doesn't. Now the question begged is why? Why is the United States on the level of a Mexico instead of a very liberal and godless Europe? And since we all know your only purpose is to somehow blame all of this on liberals then why isn't Europe ripe with violence like in the US?

Europe Has the Same Rate of Multiple Victim Shootings As the United States

That's according to Dr. John R Lott, a recognized expert in the field even by gun control advocates
The media-(and Obama) typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple victim shootings in Europe and the U.S. over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a coup;e big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half tears ago you had a big shooting in the UK, 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 people died]. Two years ago, you had shootings in Austria at a Sikh temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings over the last couple of years in France. Over the last decade you've had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public school shootings and they have very strict gun control laws. The one common feature in all of these shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

But I agree Obama didn't misspeak-he lied. He knew what he was saying was false, but he also knew that he would not be challenged, at least not right away. You were more than willing to pass on the false narrative. And it's obvious that a lot of people can't be bothered to check the facts. That is what liars count on

Jun 22, 2015 22:54:02   #
peter11937 Loc: NYS
PeterS wrote:
Because with a hammer a 21 year old kid wouldn't be able to kill 9 people in just a few seconds...

Yeah, only 3 or 4 with a 2 pound ball peen hammer.

Jun 23, 2015 00:47:05   #
Here is the list of gun control items being purposed. which of these items would have any effect on your ownership of a gun.
•Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
•Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
•Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
•Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
•Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
•Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
•Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
•Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
•Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
•Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
•Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
•Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Gun Law 101: National Firearms Act of 1934

If we are going to have any understanding of any potential
legislative changes that may be coming, we need know
how things stand now, and why firearms receive so much
legislative attention. So let’s go back a
ways. All the way back to the 1930s.
Back then, mobsters and bootleggers received a fair amount
of media scrutiny. Running liquor was a (sometimes)
profitable business, and some of the parties involved
armed themselves with revolvers, pistols, modified shotguns
and early machine guns (like the Thompson Model 1927 A1).
There may have been some rifles thrown in, too, but you can
see where this is going. When legislators decided to
regulate firearms, they targeted the favorites of organized
crime. In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms
Act (NFA). The law, modified slightly in 1968, had
some far reaching effects.
The Ban
Even though the NFA has been in place for almost 80 years,
many people still don’t understand it. To be
slightly reductive, the NFA restricts sales, ownership, use,
and transport of short barreled rifles, short barreled
shotguns, machine guns, silencers and suppressors, and
“destructive devices.” The emphasis seemed to
focus on firepower (machine guns), concealable weapons
(short this, short that, silenced etc.), and things that are
generally deemed destructive.
Just to make things really cloudy, it provides one more
category of banned items that is commonly labeled “any
other weapon.”
The common definitions.
•Machine guns—should be obvious to most
readers. Full auto or burst fire. Because the
magic of automatic fire happens in the receiver of a
firearm, the receiver has been designated the “firearm”
•Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—a rifle with a buttstock
and either a rifled barrel under 16&#8243; long or an overall
length under 26&#8243;. If a rifle has a collapsible stock, the
length is measured with the stock extended.
•Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—if a shotgun’s barrel
is under 18&#8243;, it is designated as an SBS. Likewise,
if the total length is under 26&#8243; (even if the barrel is
longer than 18&#8243;) it is still considered an SBS. But
it has to have a buttstock to be considered a shotgun in
this category. Otherwise it is a smooth bore pistol.
•Silencers —anything that is portable and attaches to a
firearm to disguise the sound.
•Destructive Devices (DDs)—this is a broad category that
covers explosives, missiles, and poison gases. It also
covers anything really big, like firearms with bores over
.50 (except shotguns, which are seen to have legitimate
sporting uses).
•Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this one can be
confusing. The term comes from language used to cover
anything the legislators hadn’t considered, or that might
be developed in response to to NFA regulation. The
most common guns to be classified as AOWs are smooth bore
pistols (which are made without stocks, so they aren’t
technically “shotguns”), guns that are disguised as
other things (or hidden inside other objects), or handguns
with forward grips.
Why is the NFA important?
With the passage of the NFA, these guns immediately faced
severe restrictions. While owning them is still
technically legal, they must be registered (which isn’t
exactly easy) and they are taxed more heavily ($200 for
owning a silencer, for example, or as low as $5 for some
smooth bore pistols, like the Serbu Super Shorty pictured
earlier). Anyone wanting to own one or manufacture one
has to go through the BATFE for approval.
It is a fascinating snapshot of our American reactionary
impulses, for one. Has any would-be bank robber
remembered the NFA and resisted the temptation to take a
hacksaw to his scatter-gun in the hopes that it might fit
more easily inside his trench coat? Doubt it.
If you want a firearm (or suppressor or destructive device)
that is covered by the NFA, you can get it. The
paperwork is a hassle, to be sure (and impossible to get
cleared in certain places). But the paperwork is much
easier to handle than the consequences of being caught with
an unregistered NFA firearm.
But firearms enthusiasts should look at it from a cautionary
perspective, as well. This was possible. In
fact, it is one of several legislative acts that govern the
way we think about firearms. And the NFA will be the
cornerstone on which new restrictions will be built.
So pay heed to the winds of change. And if you’re at
all concerned, contact your political representatives and
support organizations that are fighting for common sense

10 Arguments for Gun Control

There’s no doubt about it—we sure do love our guns. Last
year, the small arms survey concluded that the United States
has 88.9 firearms for every one hundred people. That’s
more than Yemen, Mexico, Pakistan, and the West Bank/Gaza
combined. Yet there’s a heck-load of research out there
indicating that a pinch of gun control would keep us safer,
and potentially even save our lives. After all:
More Guns Equal More Homicides
If you compared gun ownership levels with homicide rates,
what would you expect to see? Fewer people willing to start
a fight when everyone is armed? No correlation at all? Well,
not exactly: according to decades of data analyzed by the
Harvard School of Public Health, guns and homicides go
together like Nicholas Cage and terrible movies.
Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to
guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t
have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not
just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on
a State-to-State level too.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that you definitely won’t
get shot in Massachusetts—just as it’s entirely possible
that you’ll live ninety years in Arizona and never
experience the slightest harassment. But statistically, the
trend holds true. And on the subject of statistics…
More Guns Also Equal More Suicides
There’s a widespread perception that committing suicide is
like planning a wedding or something; you sit down, give it
a lot of thought, set a date, and get on with it. But study
after study indicates that suicide is not so much a rational
decision, but something people do on the spur of the
moment—meaning that a lack of access to a death-shooting
murder-stick at that critical moment could be the difference
between life and death.
It might sound far-fetched, but look at the evidence:
according to this report in the Boston Globe, States with
high levels of gun ownership have a suicide rate almost
twice as high as those with low ownership levels. Even more
worrying, people who committed suicide were found to be
seventeen times more likely to live with guns at home than
not. Now, you might assume that gun owners or gun owning
States are more likely to have mental health issues (for
whatever reason), but research shows this isn’t true. So
you have a bunch of people exactly as miserable as people in
other states, but anywhere between two and ten times more
likely to end up “going the Heming-way.”
The Public Supports (some) Gun Control
For all the claims of politicians that they represent the
public, the truth is that they basically don’t. For every
“Mr Smith Goes to Washington” type sticking up for the
little guy, there are about two hundred others doing their
best to trample him into the ground.
Case in point: at least fifty-four percent of Americans
support very strict gun laws, with that number rising to a
whopping ninety-one percent (LINK 6) when it comes to
common-sense stuff like required background checks. You may
recognize this as the same common-sense policy Congress
recently shot down in what can only be assumed was an effort
to become even more unpopular.
This support for gun control, by the way, is pretty
bipartisan: even with controversial stuff like reinstating
the assault weapons ban, roughly half of Republicans are in
favor, along with a majority of Democrats and Independents.
In other words, people are largely pro-gun control—it’s
the politicians who aren’t.
Most Massacres Utilize Legal Weapons
Between 1982 and 2012, the US had roughly sixty-two mass
shootings. That’s an astonishing number—but it’s not
what I’m driving at. Instead, this research by Mother
Jones (scroll down halfway) shows that, of those sixty-two
shootings, forty-nine were perpetrated using legal weapons.

And guess what? Half of all mass shooters used assault
weapons or high-capacity magazines—meaning that a few
sensible restrictions could have saved a heck-load of lives.
While someone really determined to pull off a massacre could
do it using a handgun, shotgun or even a musket if they had
to, they’d be pretty unlikely to kill anywhere near as
many people as they would with, say, an AR-15 assault rifle.
So putting controls on the assault rifle has to be a good
thing, right?
Banning Them Saves Lives
Unlike Congress, the Australian Parliament likes action. In
1996, a mass shooter killed thirty-five people in Port
Arthur in a massacre so pointlessly depressing I’m not
going to mention a single other detail. Two weeks later, the
conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, launched perhaps
the most aggressive clamp-down on gun ownership in history.

Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were
destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought
in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a
fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while
non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words,
people didn’t switch to machetes or poison so much as they
stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well,
Australia’s gone all the way from eleven a decade
(1986-96) to zero.
The Second Amendment
No other passage in the US Constitution is as hotly debated
as the Second Amendment. In full, this controversial
sentence reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.”
Although most people focus on the “bear arms” part, the
real key word is “militia.” The thing is, in 1791,
no-one really knew if this whole “Union” thing was going
to work out. Many of the States distrusted each other, and
everyone distrusted big government. The possibility of
invasion was frighteningly real, and the Second Amendment
was put in place to make sure that a citizen’s militia
could defend the principles of the constitution.
What the Second Amendment didn’t do was grant any drunken
asshole the right to stagger into a gun shop and buy an
assault rifle without a single background check. In 1939,
the Supreme Court even ruled that:
“The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with
the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.”
By 2008, they’d extended that to cover self-defense in the
home—something else that doesn’t require a high-capacity
magazine and the ability to kill everything within a three
block radius. But that’s all they’d extended it to:
there’s no constitutional “right” to carry a concealed
weapon, no “right” to use armor-piercing bullets—just
the right to defend yourself against intruders. And as
Stephen King famously said: “if you can’t kill an
intruder with ten rounds, you need to go back to the
shooting range.”
Assault Weapons Aren’t “Sport”
Let’s be frank: very few of those who support gun control
guys want an absolute, total ban on weapons. Personally, I
think that if someone wants to buy a rifle and go hunting in
the weekend, it’s their business and has nothing to do
with me. Equally, if you simply feel safer knowing that you
have a shotgun in the house to defend your kids, fair
But there’s no conceivable reason to own an AR-15, a pump
action shotgun, armor-piercing bullets or a high-capacity
magazine. Firing a semi-auto at a piece of cardboard is no
more “sport” than using a bazooka to play pool is
“leisure.” It simply appeals to the fraction of the
population who dream of re-enacting Scarface’s last stand,
every time they get a letter from the IRS.
We Have Too Many Already
I mentioned in the lead in that the United States has more
guns per capita than Yemen—but that doesn’t even begin
to describe our love of guns. According to data published in
the the Guardian, gun ownership in the US is literally the
highest in the world. Not in the “developed world,” or
the West; in the whole world. That makes Americans more
heavily armed than Russians, Pakistanis and people from
Afghanistan .
Even Latin American countries overrun by drug cartels, with
murder rates comparable to war zones—such as Colombia,
Mexico, and Guatemala—have fewer guns per capita. Even
literal war zones, like Somalia and D.R. Congo, have less
heavy weaponry. When you feel more inclined to arm yourself
than guys who live in a failed nation state where the
average life expectancy is less than fifty years, it might
be time to think about slowing down.
Arming Everyone Won’t Help
Of course, we could just as easily go in the opposite
direction. If everyone was armed, no mass shooter would
stand a chance, right? Not exactly. When Mother Jones
crunched the numbers, they found that successful
interventions by armed civilians had occurred in only 1.6
percent of all mass shootings since 1980. In other words, it
happened a single time in thirty years.
In two other cases, armed civilians managed to subdue a
killer after the shooting had already happened, which you
could argue is still a good thing. But plenty of
less-fortunate people who tried to get involved have only
wound up adding to the casualty list. In 2005, for example,
Brendan McKown and Mark Wilson both tried separately to
confront an armed shooter. McKown was blasted into a coma,
while Wilson was instantly killed.
The trouble is, you might be an ace down the range—but
when you’re in the middle of utter carnage, it’s another
thing altogether. That’s why one of the few possibly
successful interventions—at the end of the 2002
Appalachian School of Law shooting—came from an ex-cop.
Training makes a hell of a difference.
Assault Weapons Won’t Save You
The last big myth about owning enough firepower to rival
Pablo Escobar is that it’ll protect you when the
government comes. It won’t. A psychopathic Federal
Government would have the entire US Army at its disposal,
along with enough firepower to destroy the planet several
times over. The best anyone making a “last stand” could
hope for is to get out alive, instead of re-enacting the
finale of the Waco Siege.
All that security assault weapons and their ilk might offer
anyone is security of mind—which honestly doesn’t seem
worth it, stacked up against everything else on this list.

Jun 23, 2015 01:35:49   #
PeterS wrote:
How did the president misspeak? What he said was that it didn't happen in other advanced countries which is correct, it doesn't. Now the question begged is why? Why is the United States on the level of a Mexico instead of a very liberal and godless Europe? And since we all know your only purpose is to somehow blame all of this on liberals then why isn't Europe ripe with violence like in the US?
Not surprising that you would believe a lie rather than think for yourself.

Let's see, how about a small sample of mass killings in "other advanced countries."

July 22, 2011: Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 in Norway in twin attacks: a bombing in downtown Oslo and a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. The self-styled anti-Muslim militant admitted both attacks.

April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland.

January 7, 2015: Islamists murdered 12 people in Paris during the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself.

Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself.

Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead.

Jun 23, 2015 03:03:38   #
righty Loc: Tenn
Hmmm, maybe this is why they refuse to acknowledge

Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.