US Gun Massacres: Groundhog Day? (READ MOD WARNING)

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Americans just love guns. As I said before in an earlier post its a culture thing.

I think you are basing your viewpoint on stereotypical generalizations… akin to me saying the Irish are all drunks. Neither are true, and doesn’t help in any meaningful discussion does it? Although I agree some Americans love their guns and some Irish are drunks, but neither are a true representation of the population as a whole.

They regularly go to firing ranges and like to collect guns as a hobby or pastime.

Another stereotypical generalization. I live in an area with a population approaching 850,000, and a hunting culture. We have one public firing range to support the area (although another is in the process of being built that also will allow for shotgun practice, which the other doesn’t). The last few times I was there I would estimate the number of patrons was under 5 on average. (But I must admit that I do collect WWII weaponry from the major countries in the conflict.)

When their right to do so is threatened in some way they throw out the usual lines

We need guns for self defence.
Its in our constitution to bear arms.
Video games and violent movies are to blame for massacres.
Bad people will always do bad things.

All true, except that I would argue mental illness being a much bigger factor than video games.

They need to wise up. There are cetain types of weapons an ordinary person should never have access to.

I agree. We are not allowed to own automatic weapons or explosives.

From what I have read Australia used to allow the general public to purchase semi-automatic weapons but after a number of massacres they banned them. The massacres stopped.

　
But since Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, in which owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, didn’t they soon experience countrywide homicides up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%; armed robberies up 45%, and in the Australian state of Victoria, didn’t gun homicides climb 300%. Also the 25 years before the gun bans, wasn’t crime in Australia dropping steadily?

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Jesus, must be terrible to go through one's life so petrified by fear. Seems that people who are terrified of everything, mythical home invaders, mythical terrorists, mythical bloody disease outbreaks, a mythical hell, will lie on their death beds having never experienced the joy of true freedom and not knowing or being able to control what happens in life.

No better way to express this than to spread scare-mongering stories about mythical martial law claims, mythical conspiracies, mythical propaganda stories about thousands of US troops sneaking into Iraq, and so on and so forth

At least people who (over)arm themselves against burglaries face a possible threat as opposed to the extreme right who face an imaginary threat

Raphael

Amerika wrote: »

But since Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, in which owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, didn’t they soon experience countrywide homicides up 3.2%...

Cut off the rest of your post as I don't have figures for ir, but from the same palce as I used earlier:


Homicides in general and by firearms have declined since those laws passed in '96

Overheal

Promising. Over that long a spell its hard to say what other social factors contribute as well. Note however that the % of firearm homicide seems to be about the same every year compared to the year's overall rate of homicide; not precisely correlating year over year but, you can see it in the overall trend.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Don’t rightly know, but I have read:
38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion.
60% of all reported rapes occur during a home invasion.
Over 2.7 Million Burglaries were reported to law enforcement agencies (from 1994 from what I could find), with 2 out of 3 being residential. And 67% of all burglaries involved forcible entry.

Let's just go with these figures for now.
Well they don't really tell us much.

For starters the 67% forcible entries figure is a laugh. So 2 out of 3 break-ins were......well, break-ins. The burglar had to break a window or pry open a door to gain access. No sh!t!! Which means 1 in 3 didn't involve forcible entry. In other words the premises were left unlocked.

Now I'd like to know where you got your figures from because they are nonsense (but hey, never allow nonsense statistics prevent one from tabling a nonsense argument).

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics a suprisingly small amount of rapes occur outdoors.....just 3.5%....but that's irrelevant.

31% occur in the perpetrators home.....generally meaning the victim went willingly and KNEW the perpetrator.

10% occur in a home shared by victim and perpetrator.
7.5% occur at parties
7.5% occur in vehicles
2.2% occur in bars.

27% (NOT 60%) occur in the victim's home.

Now since 70% of rape victims know their attacker then of the 27% of rapes that occur in the victim's home 20 out of that 27 knew the person. So we can assume that the victim probably (50/50) let the rapist in. Chances are it's too late then to go fumbling upstairs in the wardrobe for your gun when you're pinned to the kitchen floor. Perpetrator would probably know if you had a gun anyway and where it was kept and would most likely use it on you.

So of the 7% of rapes (by a stranger) that occur in the victim's home I think we can probably assume that 50% were given access (perpetrator was posing as a repairman or something) and 50% were not.

So.....a whopping 3.5% of rapes occur during a home "invasion".

Not your farcical 60%. Your figures are bullsh!t.

I'm not going to waste my time on the rest of them. But if you're going to use illusions to back up your argument for owning a gun in the face of a practically non-existent threat there's no point in presenting you with logic and rationale.
And yes....arming yourself in preparation for these non-eventualities IS fear.

But having a logical discussion with gun proponents is futile because the majority of them view the world through the lens of what happens in movies rather than with any regard to facts. And when presented WITH facts they resort to what-iffery...again attributed to scenes or scenarios in movies.

asherbassad

Overheal wrote: »

Promising. Over that long a spell its hard to say what other social factors contribute as well. Note however that the % of firearm homicide seems to be about the same every year compared to the year's overall rate of homicide; not precisely correlating year over year but, you can see it in the overall trend.

That the gun homicide remained the same is very telling. It didn't generally decrease but what's very important is that it didn't increase. And this is the biggest fear of pro-gun people (outside of their irrational fear of being killed in their beds). It's clear that their entire argument is based on utter falsehoods.

Give everyone a gun and there'll be no crime.

Ban guns and gun deaths will sky-rocket.

Their argument is a farce.

clairefontaine

The pro gun people are somewhat fascinating. Always ready to call on the Constitution and personal liberties are quite happy to start turning the US into the fourth reich.

1. armed guards in schools

2. a national register of the mentally ill

3. The farcical attempt to deport Piers Morgan.

That is not my idea of letting freedom and liberty ring.

fly_agaric

1. armed guards in schools

Corporate welfare for gun makers/private security (how many schools in the US??)

2. a national register of the mentally ill

More corporate welfare for likes of Oracle, IBM, M$, big consulting companies etc...

it's sad...corruption of politics by money seems to be so bad that even with tragedies like a school shooting first response of lobbyists is how can I spin this to get political system to crap out a few more golden eggs for those who put bread on my table....

clairefontaine

fly_agaric wrote: »

Corporate welfare for gun makers/private security (how many schools in the US??)



More corporate welfare for likes of Oracle, IBM, M$, big consulting companies etc...

it's sad...corruption of politics by money seems to be so bad that even with tragedies like a school shooting first response of lobbyists is how can I spin this to get political system to crap out a few more golden eggs for those who put bread on my table....

It already happens. NY a liberal state already subsidises Bushmaster. http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/28/gun-hating-new-york-pols-paid-6-million

It looks like everytime a tragedy happens, government is ready to step in and exploit it with more rules and regulations.

And this is just crazy....

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/28/boy-not-making-bombs-arrested-for-having

clairefontaine

Two points.

1. Guns are not the cause. Guns facilitate the cause.

2. Rights are not absolute. You lose that right to bear arms at the the TSA gates for example, just as child pornography is not protected under Freedom of Speech.

CollardGreens

Post #111 says it all for me. Thank you, if I can figure out how to "like" a post on this site then that one would get it.

So many things I can say but will just get to a point.

In America our Constitution gives us the right to guns. If more good people had guns then there would be more dead bad people. I am trained and armed legally. No, I'm not military nor police. I believe in the militia, much more than our government because our government is now bought by the highest bidder ~ they are crooks. The government works for the people in America, not the other way around as they (gov) have seemed to forget this.

Yes it is horrible about the children, it is also horrible that obama is not crying for the 100's of children that are killed by drive by's in big cities. I believe he is using this to his advantage, the Sandy hooks school shooting. A bunch of rich white kids get shot and it's a big deal, however when so many black children get shot in the projects nobody hears about it. It all goes back to money and power/control.

America wouldn't have ever became America without guns and the militia.

The government has no right to tell me what kind of guns I can have, a single bolt or revolver can kill someone just as dead as a semi.

We are the militia, we are former/current military and mom's and dad's and son's and daughters. We are Amerians, and like our forefathers, we are not backing down.

I respect everyone's opinion are rights and realize that each country has their own laws that must be respected. If you don't care for the American Constitution then America would be an uncomfortable place for you to live.

Have a sparklie day!

Manic Moran

The government has no right to tell me what kind of guns I can have, a single bolt or revolver can kill someone just as dead as a semi.

I'd modify that a bit. It is generally accepted that they do have that right. You may have the privilige of a Title II weapon, but the right to it is not universally acknowledged.

The question is over where the line is beyond which the government cannot prohibit. We know that revolvers and semi-automatic pistols are definitely in the 'government cannot stop you from having one' category. The jury is officially out on semi-auto rifles, even evil black ones (Though I believe the government will be found unable prohibit ownership of those either).

CollardGreens

Yes Manic Moran, I do stand corrected ~ you are right in that a title II (i.e. Machine guns, short or sawed-off shotguns >18 1/2", grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles) are not legal.

I do hope you are also right about the evil black ones, it seems like another executive order is in the making.

I do think some laws need to be passed, but different ones than talked about. One not mentioned is as simple as a gun safe in homes with guns. IMO they should be required. Gun owners IMO should also be required to take classes just like drivers need classes. There is so much more to a gun than the bullet and the trigger. Of course someone that has mental issues in a home should never have access to any type of gun or knife, hammer, crowbar, chain saw or anything that could be used for harm to others.

.50 cal Barrett is a fun one to shoot and I do not believe one would follow under a Title II.

Thank you for bringing the correction to my attention as I do not like to mislead anyone.

Manic Moran

One not mentioned is as simple as a gun safe in homes with guns. IMO they should be required

It may be possible to require that any home with a gun have a safe, but I doubt it due to cost. (You can't place a financial burden on the exercise of a right, it's unConstitutional). Gun locks/trigger locks may be mandated as there is a much smaller cost associated with it, about $10 per weapon. It is mandated here in California, for example. Effectively a $10 tax on every handgun I buy.

However, it is not possible to mandate that they be used as this would violate the ruling in DC vs Heller.

Jonny7

Manic Moran wrote: »

It may be possible to require that any home with a gun have a safe, but I doubt it due to cost. (You can't place a financial burden on the exercise of a right, it's unConstitutional). Gun locks/trigger locks may be mandated as there is a much smaller cost associated with it, about $10 per weapon. It is mandated here in California, for example. Effectively a $10 tax on every handgun I buy.

However, it is not possible to mandate that they be used as this would violate the ruling in DC vs Heller.

Just a bit of random curiousity Manic how many guns do you own?

clairefontaine

Manic Moran wrote: »

It may be possible to require that any home with a gun have a safe, but I doubt it due to cost. (You can't place a financial burden on the exercise of a right, it's unConstitutional). Gun locks/trigger locks may be mandated as there is a much smaller cost associated with it, about $10 per weapon. It is mandated here in California, for example. Effectively a $10 tax on every handgun I buy.

However, it is not possible to mandate that they be used as this would violate the ruling in DC vs Heller.

They place financial burdens on what they feel like. Look at tax on clothing, yet you will get arrested for indecent exposure if you go outside naked, hell topless if you are a woman.

The right to bear arms [do arms specifically mean guns by the way? or is it a more elastic term?] should come with a provision that I have a right to know the ammunition stockpiles of my neighbours within a certain radius. Meaning, it should be public, like marriage or property records.

rockonollie

Shooting in California yesterday will most likely help the argument against high capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons.

Kid only got off 3 shots before the rest of the students had cleared the classroom.....only one person suffering a direct hit.

Black Swan

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just a bit of random curiousity Manic how many guns do you own?

MOD COMMENT:
Please do not ask personal questions in a post. Focus on the topic, not the person.

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD COMMENT:
Some of these comments are beginning to get a bit personal, as well as going off-topic. Please focus on the thread topic, and not each other.

CollardGreens

@ Rockonollie,
Wasn't the CA shooter using a Shotgun? I believe it was, which is why I'm hoping it gets a lot of attention here so they will quit going after the guns the Sandy Hooks mental guy used.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think it was a .12G, you can get a .12G that can hold 3-4 rounds if it's bolt action.

CA has some of the strictest laws in the States regarding guns as did the Sandy Hooks area. More proof IMO that stricter gun laws make it easy for criminals to take advantage of places they will not get shot back at.

Again......to stop bad guys with guns you need good guys with guns! I'm for hiring retired police in schools and better background checks like the NRA is suggesting to the V.P.

Manic Moran

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just a bit of random curiousity Manic how many guns do you own?

There are eight firearms in my house. One is my wife's. There are a few more on my shopping list.

Why do you ask?

Kid only got off 3 shots before the rest of the students had cleared the classroom.....only one person suffering a direct hit.

According to police reports, a neighbor saw the Taft suspect walking to school with the shotgun on Thursday and called 911. The student entered the school from a side door around 9 a.m. Once he entered, he walked into his classroom on the second floor of the school’s physical sciences building. He spoke to a student, and fired a number of times at him, but struck him just once in the chest area. He turned toward another student, called him by name, and fired, but missed. He then began randomly firing at other students who were running out of the classroom or towards a storage closet.

Seems to me he was just a lousy shot. Certainly more than three rounds in that description.

NTM

clairefontaine

Here is an interesting article from Slate about gun control and the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" debate. What is interesting about it, are the various polls it includes and discusses around what people think should happen. It seems a popular opinion to have more background checks for criminality and for mental health. It doesn't specifyy what kind of criminality nor what kind of mental health issues should be on the no no list.

What is somewhat frustrating for me here, is that this is a response to Lanza. Lanza had no history of criminality nor did he have a mental illness, or at least a diagnosed mental illness. Some glibly have called him a psychopath, but he did not have such a diagnosis, and even if he did psychopathy is not a mental illness, it is a personality disorder that is quite complicated to diagnose and has no medical status whatsoever. No background check or mental illness check would have stopped this tragedy, particularly because they were his mother's guns.

What is also questionable is that if the 2nd ammendment is a right, and seen as a right, then why should the mentally ill [which includes a range of things from mild depression to to bi polar to you name it] have their 2nd ammendment rights removed if there is no criminality in their backgrounds? They have done nothing wrong and yet their rights are automatically removed? Is this not constitutionally problematic? Ah yes... all men are created equal...except if you are bi polar or have depression? At that point, it ceases to be a right and becomes a discretionary privaledge.

And if I were a gun owner I would not want the NRA speaking for me. They are embarrassingly stupid at times and just make gun owners look bad.

I think I have come to the conclusion that these tragedies cannot be stopped, they are just an inevitable outcome of a lot of different factors at work.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/01/guns_don_t_kill_people_people_kill_people_so_keep_dangerous_people_away.html

rockonollie

CollardGreens wrote: »

@ Rockonollie,
Wasn't the CA shooter using a Shotgun? I believe it was, which is why I'm hoping it gets a lot of attention here so they will quit going after the guns the Sandy Hooks mental guy used.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think it was a .12G, you can get a .12G that can hold 3-4 rounds if it's bolt action.

CA has some of the strictest laws in the States regarding guns as did the Sandy Hooks area. More proof IMO that stricter gun laws make it easy for criminals to take advantage of places they will not get shot back at.

Again......to stop bad guys with guns you need good guys with guns! I'm for hiring retired police in schools and better background checks like the NRA is suggesting to the V.P.

Yes it was a shotgun.....which is my point......if he had an assault style rifle how different would the outcome have been, seeing as he only managed to get off 3 shots before the students got out of the classroom.

rockonollie

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are eight firearms in my house. One is my wife's. There are a few more on my shopping list.

Why do you ask?




According to police reports, a neighbor saw the Taft suspect walking to school with the shotgun on Thursday and called 911. The student entered the school from a side door around 9 a.m. Once he entered, he walked into his classroom on the second floor of the school’s physical sciences building. He spoke to a student, and fired a number of times at him, but struck him just once in the chest area. He turned toward another student, called him by name, and fired, but missed. He then began randomly firing at other students who were running out of the classroom or towards a storage closet.

Seems to me he was just a lousy shot. Certainly more than three rounds in that description.

NTM

Then there's conflicting police reports;

From the Kern County Sherriff -

"The 16-year-old boy had just wounded a classmate he claimed had bullied him, fired two more rounds at students fleeing their first-period science class, then faced teacher Ryan Heber."

"Recounting the suspect's words, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said the confrontation was enough of a distraction to give 28 students time to escape their classroom Thursday at Taft High School. "

rockonollie

CollardGreens wrote: »

@ Rockonollie,
Again......to stop bad guys with guns you need good guys with guns! I'm for hiring retired police in schools and better background checks like the NRA is suggesting to the V.P.

You'd be surprised how many schools do have armed police officers on site.......Taft high school has one.

CollardGreens

As of what I'm hearing now, nothing much will be done with the guns here in the States. Money talks, and they had the amounts ($) of pro gun lobbiest against the anti gun folks and it's no contest. Maybe a national data base background check but I'm guessing nothing more than that.

Isn't it time for another vacation for our president, the congress and senate now anyway? (sarcasm intended)

clairefontaine

CollardGreens wrote: »

As of what I'm hearing now, nothing much will be done with the guns here in the States. Money talks, and they had the amounts ($) of pro gun lobbiest against the anti gun folks and it's no contest. Maybe a national data base background check but I'm guessing nothing more than that.

Isn't it time for another vacation for our president, the congress and senate now anyway? (sarcasm intended)

It's no surprise really.

Background checks? Lanza was denied permission to have a gun, he got them from his mother who was not denied having them. Plus you can get them on the web without a background check.

But in the haste for looking for something to blame, they will never get to the bottom of why every once in a while a young man goes nuts with a gun. And all the other worthwhile explorations get buried under the gun debate.

Lanza was not a convicted criminal.

He did not have a diagnosed mental illness.

He had a background check and was denied a gun license.

So from what I can see.... the public were barking up all the wrong trees when they were busy pointing fingers.

Be like Nutella

this is mental...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html

and if you do't believe the daily mail and I wouldn't blame ya : )
here's the actual site

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

"...Every III Arms firearm will tell the world where you stand... ready to go to the Green, because your heart pumps the blood of the original III Patriots..."

You really despair for these people.

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

this is mental...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html

and if you do't believe the daily mail and I wouldn't blame ya : )
here's the actual site

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

"...Every III Arms firearm will tell the world where you stand... ready to go to the Green, because your heart pumps the blood of the original III Patriots..."

You really despair for these people.

Well, I think they're a little extreme, but as long as they keep to themselves and break no laws, more power to them

Be like Nutella

more power to them?

very, very hopefully not


Their worldview is dangerous. Their necessity to own large amounts of very powerful needless firearms verges on insane. Their message is dangerous and spreading it further is even more dangerous.

Do you think that an increasing number 'Citadel' type large walled armed communities running their own cop op arms factories is a way to go for a reasonable society?

Or do you merely hope they don't get into trouble, do anyone harm and keep to themselves as you say? I certainly do.

CollardGreens

It's such a shame it has come to this, but I like the idea in todays America. Never would have tought it growing up that we would need places like this.

Wonder if it's like what Glen Becks trying to do in Texas? (and please don't make this about him, I'm trying to keep to the OP).

I think places like the one in the link would be safe as far as school shootings go. I also think (IMO) that if the ten commandments and God were not taken out of schools then we wouldn't be having all the trouble we are having.

Americas government keeps "rewarding" unwed girls financially for having more babies then they (i.e. government & mothers) put the children into a school system so the government can raise them as they wish. People like Adam Lanza is what they are producing ~ the "duh" factor.

Be like Nutella

well ok lets play nice and not come down on poor ould Glen... ahem... for the moment : )... but interesting about what you said.. will have to google that for the laugh

As far as the Citadel guys go... well... look at it this way - I've read the blog by the founder (or one of them) and holy mother of jaysus he's... be nice now.... a bit extreme.

Think Survivalist Cult meets Scientology meets a Mormon compound meets 'Red State' meets Westboro Baptists meets Glen Beck meets everybody you've ever seen on those fantastic Doomsdayer/Prepper programs on great channels like the History Channel and Discovery and you're almost there..... except give them an entire gun factory and let them enclose themselves in a defensible castle. Makes perfect sense to want these communities.

clairefontaine

It sometimes appears like America is having its own internal arms race. At the end of the frontier where are you going to aim your guns but at each other.

Now the NYPD is condsidering its own drones.
http://rt.com/usa/news/new-york-uav-drone-828/

CollardGreens

@ Nutella

I'm going to have to disagree with you, this is exactly what we need in every state. I'd live in one in a minute if it were in my state.

If it were not for the socialist tyranny we are having I don't think it would have ever come to this (obama and congress, I'm not pointing to any one group, they all are to blame). I know ppl right now that can't afford the gas to get to a store to purchase food or the money to buy the food. People are suffering here and desperate.

Be like Nutella

CollardGreens wrote: »

@ Nutella

I'm going to have to disagree with you, this is exactly what we need in every state. I'd live in one in a minute if it were in my state.

If it were not for the socialist tyranny we are having I don't think it would have ever come to this (obama and congress, I'm not pointing to any one group, they all are to blame). I know ppl right now that can't afford the gas to get to a store to purchase food or the money to buy the food. People are suffering here and desperate.

I know there is much under-reported and completely needless and preventable poverty in the US, by faaaaar the richest nation on the planet. And that is truly sad seeing as your government spends more on its military in a week than would be required to avoid all of that hunger and pay for all of that gas for a year. I do feel for those who feel completely lost in the US and live close to poverty and then turn on their TV to see so much opulence and a gridlocked hateful political process which seems to serve only those at the top of the wealth pyramid.

But arming yourself behind a castle wall or thoughts of forming a giant revolutionary posse and marching on Washington is not helpful nor realistic on any level at all and the fact of the matter is that more sane people need to enter politics in your country (not just from political dynasties entrenched in either party) and bring sense into the system again but that is going to take time! In the meantime it takes votes and debate and intelligent informed uproar and a media who will report in a reasonable and balanced fashion on the crap that has you where you are and for people and leaders to cop the fuk on and wake up to the extreme unrealistic viewpoints which put people in castles in Idaho with AR-15's and 5000 rounds of Ammo in the first place.

Treat the causes not scream about the symptoms.

Gun Culture is the cause. Extremism of patriotism is the cause. Racism. Violence acceptance in society. Roots of Unemployment. Drug Education. Sex Education. Family planning. Acceptance of atheism. Acceptance of Islam and Catholicism as a way of life. Sexual equality. Equality in everything... race... sex... where you're from. Immigration reform.... all of this is how you improve your lives and your country and it's up to you to choose parties and people who act towards these goals in the most reasonable and honest fashion. It's all fuked up right now but it won't always be THIS fuked up. Back in the commie huntin days of McCarthy things got nuts too and at various times different drivers forced people to the right and left such as the Cold War or Vietnam and the bloodshed of the 60's.

American exceptional-ism is a ridiculous concept. American's are only as great as they act - together. Talking about shooting commie democrats and talk of hating everyone who disagrees with your political position in general does not make America great. This is all the cost of 'Freedom' of which you have more in the US than most places on earth. In the US it's easier to spend, to make, to lead, to rise, to fall, to speak to shoot each other - freedom comin out all yol asses.... but with all that freedom and with all the different views and peoples in your society comes a massive and communal responsibility... and it goes a little something like this;

Treat people with the same respect you would have them treat you...

in school, politics, on TV and in business... that's it. That's all it ever was. But thew world ain't perfect and some people get so rich and others so poor and a governments job for millenia has been to impose order as per a set of previously agreed rules. And if that order can be reasonably maintained then the rules don't change. But, for instance, as guns became capable of shooting 10 rounds out of a mag in 3 seconds without reloading then the angry guy who could previously kill 3 people in a mall with his single shot rifle can now kill 25 kids in a classroom in 13 seconds. When things like that happen more frequently than society 'can accept' than the rules I mentioned have to change. Simple as that. And you vote for those that change those rules so you constantly have a say... local elections... congress....senate races... presidents... all of them are voted on by 150 million of you.
Those with power want to retain it, those without want more... and those interests fight each other politically and out of that fight comes your way of life. 100,000 people fighting for different interests and yet you all talk so much about a ONE IDEAL - A SUPER-PATRIOTISM... that doesn't exist... until you make it exist.... and that is only achieved through compromise... in every area of life... to earn the right to live and prosper together in such an extraordinarily successful country which has showed time and time again it can continue to improve and prosper more and more but suffers set backs which usually are accompanied by entrenched positions and grid locks in Washington. But every one of these mega fights makes your country stronger - like a tree in the wind becomes stronger as it grows through the challenges of the wind and HAS to grow and change or it will break like a brittle glass. Yol need to chill the fuk out and read a book rather than shout ignorant racist and religious based hate at each other under YouTube vids. The HATIN has to stop - and then this GREAT country you go on about so bloody often may actually appear before your eyes!

clairefontaine

Nutella,

Ok on this thread you are complaining about the gun culture and how much the US spends on the military and in another one you want America to go into Syria? These things cost a lot of money! America is powerful because its military is strong. Europe can spend its money on its social welfare state because of America and because of America it doesn't have to build up its military and can spend money on various social protections and healthcare systems. Let the roles reverse. Let Europe spend all the money on the military while US does some social protection for its people. See how you like dem apples. Once America is taken down, the world is vulnerable and I think you know that, its enemies certainly do.

America is an exceptional country, and you wont know it till you tried it and Americans wont know it either until they live elsewhere. It's also an experiment and a young nation too, all opportunity, no guarantees.

Compromise doesn't work, it just makes everyone unhappy. Collaboration where all parties are happy is what you want. The economy is tanked. It tanked since 911. I dont care what people say about how Bush improved it, it still sucked back then, and hasn't stopped sucking since 911.

CollardGreens

Claire, love your post ~ I still don't have a "like" button, not sure how many post I need to get one of those.

Nutella, you talk about all the money we spend in military. I for one wish we would spend MORE on our military. What we need to stop doing is giving money to other countries that want to kill us. not sure who is the idiot that decided to do that but we are giving billions to countries in the middle east that produce oil we buy. pure stupidity. We give millions to people to STOP growing food right here in the States, we give millions to women for having babies out of wedlock which only encourages them to get pregnant again (yes, I did say that before) and we give millions to the poor that spend it on drugs. I for one think the welfare recipients should be drug tested, after all the people who work are!

We should stop the giving to countries that already have money, bring our military home and let them police their own country - our borders AND SCHOOLS would be much better off with the military here in the states.

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Or do you merely hope they don't get into trouble, do anyone harm and keep to themselves as you say? I certainly do.

If people are doing what they like, what they feel is important to them, and don't interfere with anyone else's life liberty and pursuit of happiness whilst maintaining within the laws, why shouldn't they follow their own goals?

NTM

clairefontaine

CollardGreens wrote: »

Claire, love your post ~ I still don't have a "like" button, not sure how many post I need to get one of those.

Nutella, you talk about all the money we spend in military. I for one wish we would spend MORE on our military. What we need to stop doing is giving money to other countries that want to kill us. not sure who is the idiot that decided to do that but we are giving billions to countries in the middle east that produce oil we buy. pure stupidity. We give millions to people to STOP growing food right here in the States, we give millions to women for having babies out of wedlock which only encourages them to get pregnant again (yes, I did say that before) and we give millions to the poor that spend it on drugs. I for one think the welfare recipients should be drug tested, after all the people who work are!

We should stop the giving to countries that already have money, bring our military home and let them police their own country - our borders AND SCHOOLS would be much better off with the military here in the states.

They should stop spending money on the military and on foreign countries and keep it in house. They do not have a post WW2 economy any more. It should be spend on infrastructure and schools and not on wars all over the ME. How does that benefit the US? And yes on the mothers having kids out of wedlock. Conservatives should support the latter. If you want a pro life nation, then support the women raising the kids, otherwise there options look pretty dim.

And with the way things are going, they may have to keep their military to use against their own people, because it does look like a domestic arms race, and they never do much but escalate. I say that half tongue and cheek, but when I read about the NYPD even considering drones, I can hear the right to bear arms people saying "well if the cops can have them....."

Be like Nutella

Manic Moran wrote: »

If people are doing what they like, what they feel is important to them, and don't interfere with anyone else's life liberty and pursuit of happiness whilst maintaining within the laws, why shouldn't they follow their own goals?

NTM

actually you're right people should do what they want as long as they don't cause any harm to others etc.. what I feel though is that groups who form based on extreme grounds (and I know the Citadel is one of those groups having read some of the posts from the founder) can then develop into a whole other animal. Like cults and clubs or all sorts which become dangerous holders of vast amounts of weaponry and get raided by the ATF in some massive gun fight type of thing.

7000 familes who believe what the founder of the Citadel believes all armed to the fukin teeth held up in a castle of sorts ain't what ya want happenin... there's too much potential for sh1t going sideways and ending in tears man... clearly... but on the other hand if its JUST the founders who are extremely extreme in their extremity : ) and everyone else just likes the look of the place and buys a house there.. then as you say more power to them.... but clearly any critical thinking person can see that an extreme foundation which CAN VERY EASILY AND EVEN INTENDS TO create an 'extreme' community which then owns and operates a bespoke assault rifle factory form within a castle 'of sorts' is a bleeding obvious recipe for ludicrously mental disaster and bloodshed that any movie script writer would foam at the mouth over... hell I could write the script right now...

Extreme old guy starts idea
gets momentum on the net
blog, posts, hateful extremity anti-government propaganda
meetings
collecting money
treating it like a movement, a cause
with a defined set of ideals (like a cult)
sets up community
says there'll be no leader (as such...)
but there will be of course
produces thousands and thousands of assault rifles
trains like some kind of 'well trained militia'... or whatever Article 2 says
and badabing it's primed to go off with the slightest 'perceived' government 'intimidation'
and now you have a stand off between a well supplied extreme militia of a few thousand armed men women and kids and grannies
all dug in for 6 months
til a gun goes off and bing!
bloodshed!

something like that....

CollardGreens

Claire we must build up or military forces, without them we are defenseless. We (Americans) probably need to cut out a lot of spending in the military and make better choices (like getting out of Afghanistan) but to just cut it would be insane.

As far as the women that are having children and getting more money, I'm sure not many will like my suggestion but cut the pay! If after that they can't afford them the children need to be put up for adoption. I heard a girl talking about using her mother as a foster parent and it was a scam so she and the mother could make lots of money. This has got to stop. (OK, getting OT here, sry).

What we both agree on is bringing the armed services home to the States. Many women from Mexico are swimming over here (I kid you not) in their 8th-9th month pregnant just to have their child here and we are supporting that child the rest of it's life (and some wonder why we are going broke). The military needs to be on the borders. School shootings are happening near the border by bullets flying over from Mexico with the drug fights. School gangs are on the rise, the Mexican drug lords are putting the kids in danger with the Mexican gangs and that is going into all states. You almost can't get a job here in a lot of fields unless you speak spanish, that flipping makes me and many others peed off, in America we speak english as our language.....least it use to be that way until we got a bunch of crooks running things.

rockonollie

CollardGreens wrote: »

I for one wish we would spend MORE on our military.

I'm fine with military spending......but they don't need to increase spending.....they need to be wiser with what they spend on, like an article i read last week about how they are still ordering and paying for the assembly of tanks that are obsolete and will never be used.

Manic Moran

rockonollie wrote: »

I'm fine with military spending......but they don't need to increase spending.....they need to be wiser with what they spend on, like an article i read last week about how they are still ordering and paying for the assembly of tanks that are obsolete and will never be used.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

Even the Army doesn't want them.

However, there are two caveats.
Firstly, they aren't obsolete, they're still fairly much on the sharp edge. They are, however, surplus to requirements as the Army doesn't think it needs 8,800 M1s any more. The ones which are currently planned and budgeted for are enough.

The other one is valid enough, and it's the long-term point of view: The US only has one tank manufacturing facility, in Lima OH. If it gets shut down in a short-term attempt to save $3bn, the long term costs could be significantly greater when they do decide to start building tanks again five years from now: Starting from the ground up with hiring tank builders, there will be a loss of institutional knowledge. There are two possible approaches to stop this. One is to just keep the factory building them out, you get a lower unit cost for modern tanks, some of which could then be sold or given away (See sales to Australia and Iraq). The other, as typified by the Japanese approach, is to have a very slow rate of production. This results in incredibly expensive individual tanks, (Almost twice as much in dollar value per unit for Type 90 vs M1A1 of the same era) but prevents too many from being built so fewer are sitting around in storage.

Unlike the C-17 stupidity (Congress ordered USAF to buy more C-17s it didn't want, even though Lockheed wasn't about to close the plant as they were busy enough with other orders), I'm inclined to side with the politicians on this one. The Army is trying to rob Peter in the future to pay Paul now.

Overheal

Im studying to be a Mechanical Engineer with an eye on those fields; I don't see the logic in buying tanks to keep the lights on. Surely it would make more sense to just obey basic economic principles and have these engineers work on something a little more cutting edge. As you say, the Japanese approach and slowing production should, by the principle at least, result in better build quality along with time to make iterative improvements. But if you don't need it don't buy it, and if you can't sell it don't make it. People started buying fewer desktops, companies developed better laptops. The market shifted to tablets, and in turn you now have laptops that are basically tablets now. Similarly you would think that war machine production and development would just continue to shift in direction, rather than just keep churning out an existing model you don't need because you might decide to build something new later.

rockonollie

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/oregon-sheriff-gun-laws/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

One of several public officials making threats before any ban even happens.

I'm in awe of the amount of public figures that either don't understand, or choose not to understand the constitution.......without even getting into the actual wording of the 2nd amendment pertaining to the reason for owning a firearm......it definitely doesn't guarantee unlimited ownership of any type of weapon.......IF the government was to introduce a military style rifle ban....it is not infringing on constitutional rights, US citizens will still have the right to own a firearm, just not that type.......where was this pro-constitution stance when RPG and other large firearms were banned?

CollardGreens

Second Admendment:

"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."


Where is the part that says what kind I can own? My state is free, and I find this a necessary right. As an American I don't find it anybodies business what kind of gun I own. Nothing mentioned about any bombs. "Arms" are just that, fire-arms.

What I even find more interesting is all the ppl from other countries that are so wrapped up in the fact that we do have this right. With due respect, it's none of their business. Hey, I came here to learn about Ireland because I had family visit to play golf on your golf courses, nothing to do with guns. I heard Ireland was absolutely beautiful (and had good beer) so I was considering visiting to enjoy the beauty, nothing more nothing less. This has been an eye opener visiting this site!

rockonollie

CollardGreens wrote: »

Where is the part that says what kind I can own?

Where is the part that says you can own anything you like?......being part of a "well regulated militia" also would mean that it is somebody's business to know what firearm you own.

CollardGreens wrote: »

What I even find more interesting is all the ppl from other countries that are so wrapped up in the fact that we do have this right.

You should look at the location of the posters before you make a statement like that.

CollardGreens

Ok Rocknollie, what does militia have to do with it making it anybodies business? Are you aware of the militias that are forming in America? Obviously not but there are many in your state! Again, re-read the 2nd amendment. Nobodies business.

As far as the "other countries" I was not referring to "Ohio" as another country. I really didn't feel the need to list the countries that are not America.:rolleyes: (did I really have to explain this?!)

I have friends in Canada and Australia, and again.....many in other countries are all wrapped up in this gun control in America. If they don't like it then they don't have to come here. If you were born here (in America) then you don't have to have a gun or you can if you want too. The constitution was here before the both of us were born, and there are a lot of things ppl that are born here don't like but it is what it is. Accept it and move on....btw, beautiful day here in the Carolinas!

clairefontaine

Its interesting the regulation is focusing on the rifles when its handguns that seem to be the problem. Is this Obama's middle finger to the red states? Arent they more rifle owners than the handgun owners of Chicago?

MrMister

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its interesting the regulation is focusing on the rifles when its handguns that seem to be the problem. Is this Obama's middle finger to the red states? Arent they more rifle owners than the handgun owners of Chicago?

Just ban bullets or at least make them far more expensive. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a right to bullets

Witcher

MrMister wrote: »

Just ban bullets or at least make them far more expensive. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a right to bullets

That has been trotted out before as a solution...it's a non runner.