“Mass shooting” are not as frequent as the media plays them to be.

My Recent Posts

The reality is “mass shooting” are not as frequent as the media plays them to be. Their agenda is to see guns removed from society as if by doing so those will end.

 

Interestingly, you never hear about violence control, only gun control!

 

Who can be so stupid as to think that even if there were some magic potion to make all guns disappear, violence would disappear along with them? Are we so stupid as to think that gun use causes violence rather than the other way around? Violence uses guns, not the other way around!

 

Eliminating guns will only shift violent action more toward ramming cars or filling milk jugs with gasoline or knifings or more postal bombs. You go back in history before guns were invented, millions of people were being killed. The weapons of choice were numerous such as but not limited to knives, bow and arrows, spears, clubs, rocks, fist, fire, etc.

 

We surely won’t stop people killing people via gun control. The only way to resolve mass murder is to investigate the reasons behind it.

 

Why a young man upset over being jilted by a girl would resort to any violent solution is the issue, not firearms. Was it his immersion in violent video games? Was it that society no longer teaches basic Judeo-Christian moral tenets? Was it that television and Hollywood have indoctrinated us into believing that violence is cool and an appropriate response to being dishonored? Was it because no fatherly figure was in the home? Was it because he was high on drugs or drug dealer protecting his turf?

 

The entire concept of eliminating guns is nonsense. Even if the Second Amendment were removed and all guns were outlawed, who could be so stupid as to think that all guns could be taken off the streets? Urban gangs across the country are in illegal possession of thousands of guns. Their guns are already illegal—they are not going to turn them in because of another new law forbidding them to have them.

 

How dumb can we be to think that more laws will help reduce violence–the societal issue of violence itself should be on trial, not law-abiding citizens who are the only ones who would follow more laws.  A severe lesson would be learned if all guns miraculously disappeared for 90 days, demonstrating how much violence would increase rather than decrease.

 

The only reason that violence is as low as it is that half the population in America can defend themselves. If no one could, then those who are evil will take advantage and become far more violent.

 

It’s long past time for us to stop believing the mainstream media and start addressing the issue of “gun violence” rationally. Just because others with passion and money like Michael Bloomberg or Alliance for Gun Responsibility say something is so, doesn’t turn uproar into fact.

 

Comments

Ryan Messano Added Jan 9, 2019 - 7:37pm
Great article, as usual, Marty. 
63% of all gun violence is due to suicide, so how in the world is taking guns away going to stop people from offing themselves?  There are simply too many ways to do it.
 
Further, every last mass shooting since Columbine, has been due to 1 or more of the following 3 factors, as I have mentioned before:
1) Porn use
2) Islam
3) Psychotropic drugs. 
 
By banning the first and third, and monitoring and educating the 2nd, we can nearly eliminate mass shootings. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 9, 2019 - 9:55pm
Ryan:
 
Just like people who commit murder, people who want to commit suicide will turn to a new killing tool if guns were ever banned. When people have the will to do something, they will always find a way to do it.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 10, 2019 - 5:54am
Another great article, Marty.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, this idea that we can prevent violence by "making it difficult" is one of the most absurd concepts I have ever heard.  It is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature and evil intent.
 
Again at the risk of repeating myself, remove firearms from the equation, someone determined to do evil may very likely find an even deadlier method to commit their atrocities.  The idea that removing one method will  cause them to be discouraged and just abandon the goal of killing people on a mass scale is ridiculous.  People don't just go on a mass killing because they have the method with which to do so.  It is a moral choice that has already been made before the weapon is even chosen.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 6:04am
After we ban all the guns, we will have to ban all of the knives ... and of course acid ... and then we will have to ban the baseball bats ... oh ... and rope and belts ... because, people may hang themselves with those ... you know what though ... maybe our dear leaders could just lock us all away in government issued safe houses and keep us safe from all of the dangers mother nature and travel and commerce present to the average person ... all hail big brother! Long may it reign supreme over us mere plebes. 
Dino Manalis Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:31am
 Mass shootings are too frequent and should be minimized with adequate security!
Marty Koval Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:36am
Ward:
 
After we ban all the weapons, the killings will continue because of the harden hearts of people. People will resort back to the early days when they used their feet, fist, elbows, rocks and clubs to kill. The only foolproof solution to stop killings is to ban mankind.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:38am
Hahahahahahaha I am guessing you did not read the entire comment? 
Marty Koval Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:44am
Ward:
 
I did and when I saw the term big brother, I knew right away that was the problem and not the solution.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:10am
That was called being facetious. Though our point would be the same. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:31am
I like to take an empirical approach to these discussions in order to bypass uniformed opinions.
 
The death by violence rate in the USA is about 4.5 times as high per capita as the rate in the UK.   This is from all methods of dispensing death, including guns.  (Death by shooting is a very small number in the UK).  
 
So you have to ask yourself what is different between the two countries.   If you believe that gun legislation has nothing to do with the difference, then you need to seek for alternative explanations.
 
I read in Scientific American that some 70% of privately held guns in the USA are owned by 3% of the population.  The typical member of this 3% tends to be white, relatively poorly educated, suffering from "racial anxiety" , feels his job is under threat and is generally anxious about his place in the world.    Whether it is a good idea that such a person should have free access to death dealing machinery is something that I would question as it would seem to me likely to lead to a higher overall death rate.
 
I know that some claim that the prevalence of guns reduces lethal violence.  In this case you need to seek for an even stronger force to explain the higher death rate.
 
So I guess the question is that, if it is not guns which cause the higher rate of violent death in America, then what is it?
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:36am
I think that in order to answer Ryan, I would say that the key thing about guns is that they are very effective.   Sit yourself down, make yourself comfortable, point and pull the trigger. 
 
Without a gun you have to go outside and shiver on a window ledge.... face to face with mortality... running the risk of being talked down by so do gooder and maybe, even if you did jump, actually surviving the experience.
 
Guns are just so much better at killing people, including the user, than other options available.   If you are killing other people, you can kill so many more, so very much more quickly, than you can with a baseball bat.   And you don't have to get close enough to actually see them as human beings like you...  It's just like playing Doom...
Dave Volek Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:36am
Eliminating guns is nonsense. They are a good hobby for many people.
 
But there need to be some rules, and a good rule is having a license to own and shoot a gun.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:44am
And for the person making them in their machine shop? 
 
Guns have been largely outlawed here for a long time ... but what do you want? I can get them from machine shops all day long if I want or need them. Oddly enough, very rarely any mass shootings here, other than political and social unrest that is more revolutionary in nature, and even that is somewhat limited. 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:24pm
We have guns here in Canada, as many of us like to hunt, go to shooting ranges, and collect antique guns. The thing is though, we dont have the amount of gun violence we see in the United States, and I think education, and ease of access both play a major role when considering those high rates.
 
Is it not time to implement laws that register the guns (through a registry), issue permits based on gun knowledge and safety courses, force all gun owners to buy gun cabinets and lockers, and finally get a doctor's report that the owner is mentally fit to own a weapon?
Ken Added Jan 10, 2019 - 5:54pm
Ward - Britain is actually making a move toward banning knives.
 
the crazy thing is - every country that has banned guns has seen a rize in violent crimes.  gun control nuts will say "Gun violence/crime has gone down in every country where guns have been taken away".  Well Duh!  of course it has, but other weapons become the weapon of choice.  Upon banning guns in Britain, Baseball bats became the #1 seller.   I didn't see a bunch of little league teams suddenly start up in Manchester!
 
All but 2 mass killings since 1950 have happened in gun-free zones.  The obvious answer is the exact opposite of what the gun grabbers want - If you want to stop mass shootings, stop limiting where people can take their firearms.
 
Anyone ever heard of a mass shooting at a g un show?  I didn't think so.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 10, 2019 - 6:23pm
We have guns here in the UK too.   No problem to get one for hunting as long as you can show you will look after it responsibly.   If you want a handgun, you have to keep it at the club.   No-one feels a need for one for "home security"
 
Britain is not making moves towards banning guns.   I think I would know about it since I live here.    However you can be asked to explain you reason for carrying anything in suspicious circumstances e.g. if you carried a bottle of drain cleaner into a night club.   Many things can be weapons in the right context.
 
Guns, of course, are only ever weapons.  Their one function is to kill somebody or something.
 
However you still come back to the basic fact that the USA, with its greater number of guns, has the higher rate of violent death.   So if, as some claim, guns make the place safer, then there must be some other unique factor about the USA that works to make it much more dangerous.   I would be interested to hear theories about what that might be.
 
However we do know from experiences in other parts of the world that action on gun regulations e.g. in the UK after the Dunblane mass shooting and in Australia after the Tasmanian incident, have been followed by reductions in both gun related and overall violent death.
 
OK it's not absolute proof but empirical evidence from other parts of the world combined with the inability to identify any other factor that could explain high rates of violent death, does seem to pretty powerfully lead you to the conclusion that lax gun regulation does indeed cost lives.
 
It is, of course, a separate discussion as to whether you feel having the freedom to own a killing machine of your own is worth the societal cost of the current death toll.   Freedom of the individual versus the freedoms of the many etc etc.
Marty Koval Added Jan 10, 2019 - 7:20pm
Interesting point to consider about gun deaths. Both in Canada and the USA, approximately two thirds of the gun deaths are suicides. Even if all guns were banned in both countries, these people would still commit suicide. They would use their automobile, and pipe the exhaust into the cabin and die via aasphyxiation. People who want to commit suicide will always find a way.
 
Of the remaining gun deaths, the vast majority are done by gangs. Since these gangs are protecting their illegal trade zones, even if all guns were eliminated, they would will find alternative tools/weapons to eliminate their competition. People who want to kill will always find a way.
 
Killing of people by other people get all the attention. In reality the focus should be place on the people who are killing themselves.
Ken Added Jan 10, 2019 - 7:57pm
However you still come back to the basic fact that the USA, with its greater number of guns, has the higher rate of violent death.
 
You aren't comparing apples to apples.  Not all areas in the US are equal.  Take out the 6 cities with the strictest gun control legislation (Chicago, NYC, LA, New Orleans, Washington DC, Detroit) and we are in the top 5 per capita least violent crimes.  Even including those cities we still rank well.
 
However we do know from experiences in other parts of the world that action on gun regulations e.g. in the UK after the Dunblane mass shooting and in Australia after the Tasmanian incident, have been followed by reductions in both gun related and overall violent deaths.
 
That's false.  Of course when guns are confiscated gun related will go down, but in both Britain and Australia violent crime overall and deaths in general have spiked up since regulating guns.  So much so that Australia has rescinded the law and is now allowing people to buy guns and defend themselves again - and what happened? Violent crime quickly dropped.  I have posted the graphs showing this in both countries here multiple times
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:30am
Just not true Ken.  Quite the reverse except for a recent rise in knife crime in London.
 
The fact is that violent death rates in the USA are at about 4.5 per hundred thousand population and at about 0.85 here in the UK.  Overall for the last few years the trend has been gently downwards.   Unfortunately the Brexit situation, and the xenophobic demons unleashed by it, has caused a small rise.   But nothing like the rates of violence across the US.   Hence my point, if you persist in arguing that guns reduce violence in the USA, then there must be some massive force acting in the other direction.
 
I must also correct you on you use of language.  You talk of guns being "confiscated" in the UK.   That never happened.   You are simply required to register them and look after them properly.  Or, in the case of handguns, keep them only at the shooting club.
 
Of course anyone found with an unregistered gun and no good explanation is locked up.   This is why professional criminals hardly ever use guns... it makes it too easy to lock them away.
 
I don't think that your statements about Australia are correct either but I would need an Australian to comment because I have no direct experience or insight.
 
 
From an anecdotal point of view, I have witnessed violence, three times involving guns, in the USA on four occasions yet, in 60 years of living here, never in the UK.   I don't deliberately walk the mean streets when I visit America or at home.  My American experiences of violence came in relative touristy areas:  San Diego, Las Vegas, Boston and New Orleans.   One was a policemen using a gun to face someone down (doesn't happen here... regular police do not carry guns), one was a case of car rage when a gun was pulled, one was someone, clearly with bad intent trying to break into my room and one a person waving a gun around after an accident.
 
From direct experience I would say that guns are particularly dangerous for a number of reasons.  these include the fact that they allow difficult situations to escalate rapidly.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 11, 2019 - 4:02am
All these mass shootings involve people closely connected to the CIA. The Boston Bombing and Sandy Hook were faked. The Vegas shooting was probably a fake too. When you look at these things closely, stuff just doesn't add up. The Sandy Hook kids are alive and doing well. Most involve crisis actors and not real shootings. Its been that way throughout history. Aristotle explains that terrorism is an act of governments because they are the only ones that benefit.
  The things that I believe make sense and add up. These mass shootings don't.
Phoenix Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:14pm
People not from the US should be very careful talking about the US, because there is not "gun violence" "all across" the country. Seriously, stop. You're ignorant. 
 
Also, you don't "sit down" and "fire away". You're ignorant about guns. They don't work like that. They have recoil. You need ear protection. 
 
Also, a gun's only purpose is not to kill. You're ignorant about guns. Look up "plinking". Look up "target practice". Look up the Olympics for freak's sake. 
 
About crime stats -- listen to Ken and get educated. The violence in America spikes because of big cities. Look up "Chiraq". 
 
Oh, your takedown of the rural poor whites demonstrates your complete ignorance of crime in America. Go look at the stats. Crime does not occur in large numbers in rural areas or even suburbs (outside of drug/gang problems which do occur occasionally). Oh crikey, it's the Klan! LOL. 
 
The last thing that America needs is people from a socialist failure to tell us how to handle problems that the treasure-hunting media likes to blow up as though they are common, when they are far from common. 
 
Also, look up the relationship of antidepressants to mass shooters. And you don't even want to ask me about Parkland, do you? Come on, man. Your ignorance is not an effective debate tactic. 
 
 
 
 
Phoenix Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:15pm
That was to Robin. Ack. I forgot to address the comment.
opher goodwin Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:34pm
There have been 307 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018.
11,004 Gun Murders in US vs. 26 (equiv. 130) in England Annually
The stats speak for themselves. The US is a very violent place. Arming nutters, druggies, gangs and mentally disturbed people is simply stupid.
opher goodwin Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:35pm
Doug - no there weren't fake and no the Jews weren't behind it.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 11, 2019 - 1:08pm
Phoenix:  I never said that there was gun violence "all across" the USA.  I just quoted totals.
 
Is your usual habit to call someone ignorant at first acquaintance?  Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the USA is so dangerous?  Perhaps some Americans are simply more rude and aggressive than other countries.  It could explain the difference in violent death rates.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:01pm
@ Phoenix
 
Pardon me but are you saying you see no problem(s) what so ever with current state of affairs when it comes to gun's access?
 
Or are there improvements you would love to see?
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:15pm
Should we register machine shops? Three D printers? Where does it stop?
 
What happens when being male is deemed to be a mental illness? Or when even a non-existent complainant can be used to justify the attack on someone's liberties? 
 
Think it cannot happen? It already is. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:49pm
Ward Tipton:
 
The liberals in America have one key objective, which is to have full control over the people. Thereby allowing them to transform the country into their so called utopia of immoral behavior, open borders, high taxes, big government and government is the solution to all problems. The only way they can achieve this objective is to demonize both the first and second amendments of the constitution.
 
You have seen their efforts accelerating in the last decade via political correctness (restricting free speech) and trying to control or ban guns via state and federal legislation. The first and second amendments are the pillars that hold our society from falling into tyranny.
 
Do not be fooled by their intentions. Their intentions are more dangerous to America than terrorist or invading armies.
Luther Wu Added Jan 11, 2019 - 4:59pm
opher said: "There have been 307 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018.
11,004 Gun Murders in US vs. 26 (equiv. 130) in England Annually
The stats speak for themselves. The US is a very violent place. Arming nutters, druggies, gangs and mentally disturbed people is simply stupid."
     _____
Your statement about "11,004 Gun Murders" is not true.
That statistic includes all deaths of individuals killed by police, or armed citizens, protecting themselves.
That isn't the only skewed statistic you posted.
 
"Arming nutters, druggies, gangs and mentally disturbed people is simply stupid."     _____
We don't arm those people, they arm themselves. They do so against laws already written. Criminals do that sort of thing, you know. The highest murder rates in the US are all in Democratic Party controlled states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws. Gun murders in just four gun- restricted US cities account for 25% of all gun murders in the US.
Meanwhile in the rest of the nation, where ordinary citizens can own guns, they use those guns to protect themselves, over 2 million times a year!
The last thing we need in the US, is some Socialist gun- grabber coming to these shores and telling us we need to disarm, so that our nation can be more like his. We still have our 1st Amendment rights, which we protect with our 2nd Amendment rights, of which, you have neither.
 
 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:19pm
Sorry chaps, in the middle of running the Wassail  (street party with 450 performers here in little old England).   So can't continue to debate with you.   But would still be interested to learn how you explain the 5:1 difference in violent death in the USA if it is not down to guns.
 
Waes Hael  (Be whole, be healthy..... a greeting we give at this time of year).   Wassail all over the town!
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:20pm
Who is telling you to disarm Luther?   Certainly not me.   Just quoting the stats.  You do what you like.  It's your country.  Fine by me if you want to make it easy to kill each other.  
Luther Wu Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:25pm
The stats quoted are not true.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:19pm
Ha Ha, when Islam takes over England, you're going to be learning how to wail, Robin.  Wassail.  LOL.  You are a joke.  You liberals are destroying a once great nation. 
 
Liberals never understand, 63% of all gun deaths are from suicide.  They prolly want to ban guns because they are the ones committing the most suicides.  Want to protect themselves. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:44pm
The United States is very different to the other countries of the world. It is a nation of diversities; it is the multi-ethnic society within numerous ethnic groups of African, Asian, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Indians and other people of different backgrounds living here which constitute the America. The America by the sociologists is considered to be the melting pot where the vast ethnic diversity is combining and assimilating to become the Americans.
 
Race and Ethnicity composition is:
42.5 % - White, non Latino
28.3% - Latino
22.8% - African American
4.0% - Asian
2.4% Other
 
With this race and ethnicity diversity, it brings society, cultural, religious and morality differences. Most of the time it provides positive effects and other times dividedness. When dividedness occurs, there is a tendency for pride, anger and violence to spring up, leading to deadly violence.
 
This can be why, along with the gang issues that the United States has a high gun death ratio.
 
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:00pm
There have been 307 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018.
11,004 Gun Murders in US vs. 26 (equiv. 130)
 
Sigh another Opher lie.  Don't you ever get tired of looking stupid?  Apparently not.  Take a stat from the farthest left wing site you can find and spread it.
 
This is why you are a fake scientist with no credibility.  You don't even look at that stat critically and say "is it really that bad"?  How about "what goes into that stat"?  How about "What is being defined as a mass shooting? 
 
Through November there were 12
 
On top of that, you give  a false equivalency when you say x gun murders in US vs Y gun murders in UK.  and you know it.   You are, as always, entirely disingenuous.
 
I don't know how you live with yourself knowing how much you lie simply to support your ideological viewpoint.  Maybe you should be just a bit reflective and say to yourself "If I have to constantly fudge the truth and distort the facts to make my ideological case, maybe there is something wrong with my ideological view".
 
But you are such a dishonest broker, you will never do that will you?   You will just jump back in to the next gun article and throw out your same false facts, or the next socialism article and talk about how great it is, or the next "benevolent world government" and actually try and convince people you seriously think that is even possible.  And the beat goes on....
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:31am
Robin,
 
"Fine by me if you want to make it easy to kill each other."
 
Who came up with this ridiculous talking point, anyway?  I seriously see it on literally every article involving guns.  It's absurd.  People don't just commit murder because it is "easy" and they aren't deterred from it by making it "difficult."  If your logic is that people only kill people when it is easy, then why were people killing each other since the beginning of time, long before firearms were invented and before it was supposedly "easy"?
 
Good grief.  I can't think of a more lazy analysis of why people commit murder.
 
People kill each other because of a multitude of human emotions.  Hatred, lust, envy, anger, etc.   If people killed each other simply because it is "easy", then with my safe full of firearms, my neighborhood should be a bloodbath.  Nobody just says, "Gee, I have this firearm, I think I'll go kill some people just because I can."
 
 
opher goodwin Added Jan 12, 2019 - 7:44am
Luther - stats are based on the same things for both countries. The comparison is pertinent. 
Of course you arm these people - you make it easy for them to buy guns. You make it legal.
It seems to me that you do not accept any responsibility for the atrocities being carried out with guns.
Guns obviously do not make people safer. The stats clearly show that.
Arming nutcases with assault rifles is certain to backfire.
opher goodwin Added Jan 12, 2019 - 7:45am
Paul - disturbed people should not have access to weapons that can kill many people easily. If they can't get the guns they cannot go on killing sprees. It's not hard to understand.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 7:56am
And according to the American Psychiatry Association if you are a male, you are now exhibiting symptoms of a mental disorder. Are we to ban all males from owning firearms now? But what if they self identify as a female cat? Or dog? Or Pony? 
Marty Koval Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:36am
Opher:
 
Based on your opinion that disturbed people should not have access to weapons, then you need to broaden your weapons list to: Automobiles, trucks, knives, forks, explosives, clubs, rocks, spears, arrows, poison, fist, feet, etc. If you do not include all other potential weapons, then you are showing your bias against guns.
 
If you eliminated all guns from this world, killings will continue as it has for thousands of years. Mankind is evil, and when he wants to do harm or kill, he will find a way to do it. The government, yourself or I cannot completely stop this evilness and its desire to maim and kill.
 
Violent crimes are committed by people, who do not have the skills to manage their anger. This can include all people. I have see over the years people who are sane and not considered disturbed, get so angry for a very short time where they could possible harm or kill someone.
 
The gun is just a tool, it does not discharge by itself. It is the evil person who kills. These killings will continued until the end times.
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:57am
"If you do not include all other potential weapons, then you are showing your bias against guns."
 
You forgot baseball bats ... and he does not want to ban guns, he just wants the government that nobody can trust, to be the only one that is trusted with the means to kill people quickly and efficiently ... because it has always worked out so well in the past for unarmed populations. You will I hope, pardon me if I do not share his faith in government being the only one with all the guns. 
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 9:49am
Opher:
 
"Paul - disturbed people should not have access to weapons that can kill many people easily. If they can't get the guns they cannot go on killing sprees. It's not hard to understand."
 
What is apparently hard for you to understand is that people CAN go on killing sprees without firearms.  You are either extremely naive or just refuse to accept that violent killing sprees can and are committed by other methods.
 
Ward,
 
"...and he does not want to ban guns, he just wants the government that nobody can trust, to be the only one that is trusted with the means to kill people quickly and efficiently ... because it has always worked out so well in the past for unarmed populations. You will I hope, pardon me if I do not share his faith in government being the only one with all the guns."
 
Fantastic point.  What is the deal with people who have such blind faith in the government?  In order to support gun control, one must take the position that those who are controlling the guns are morally superior to those with the guns whom they are controlling.  I too, will need to ask for pardoning if I simply can't accept that the government is comprised of morally superior individuals to We the People.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 11:24am
I would like to pose a serious question if I may: why do we not see shooting sprees in other large countries like China, Russia, and India? Why does it happen, quite a lot, in the United States?
 
A side point, I haven't heard of massacres or killing sprees using baseball bats or knives, at least not that offen where the results are catastrophic.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 11:51am
Hussain,
 
Why is it that you only seem to be concerned with "shooting sprees"?  I find it interesting that you should mention Russia in your list.  Their homicide rate is well over double that of ours despite the absence of "shooting sprees."  How would you reconcile that exactly?
 
It is incomprehensible to me that people would be concerned with only killings using firearms.  Dead is dead, no matter how it is committed.  It is intellectually dishonest to only talk about "gun deaths."  When we look at ALL homicides, the gun control narrative falls apart very quickly.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 12:02pm
I will have to look up the Russian homicide rate and break it down, to get a more refined picture; the reason why I focused on shooting sprees is because its mass murder.
 
I'm of the opinion that I would like to sit in a movie theater enjoying my popcorn without the threat of some wounded soul walking in with a semiautomatic pointed my way.
 
This is why I advocate for stronger controls of gun access, something I mentioned above but never addressed.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 12:33pm
Why would you need to break it down, exactly?  It is really that important to you HOW someone is murdered?   Why not ask WHY for once?
Marty Koval Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:04pm
Hussain -The Canadian
 
On a regular occurrence throughout the world, you see 'improvised explosive devices and big trucks being the weapon of choice to kill many people.  
 
In many countries including America, it is illegal to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives without a license. Even though it is illegal, it does not stop the evil person who wants to make and use an IUD. Since big trucks are becoming a choice weapon for mass destruction and death, should big trucks be banned?
 
Where there is evil, evil will always find a way to injure and kill people. Governments, politicians and the ill informed people always blame the weapon of choice for the deaths. The blame false solely on the person or persons who caused the deaths.
 
if you do not go to the root cause of the problem, the problem will never go away. The root cause is the harden heart's of people. That is where the discussion needs to go. How to rid people of their harden hearts?
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:19pm
@ Paul
 
Rational people look at data to analyze it and break it down - I think one person being robbed at night is extremely different from a gunman walking into a mall with a semiautomatic, right?
 
@ Marty
 
Bombs are not being sold legally in the open, at bomb shops, private sales between people, and at bomb shows.
 
Besides if you believe human beings to be evil, why would I want you to buy and own guns?
Jim Stoner Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:32pm
Hear, here, Robin!   I bless your taking on the gun nuts; their ammosexual philosophy is harmful and should be opposed as vigorously as they espouse it. 
 
It is absurd to argue, as Marty's title does, that "mass shootings are not as frequent as the media plays them to be".  They are exactly as frequent as reported in the media; a mass shooting is always going to be news, and there will always be the debate about what to do about them, as even one a year is too many.  I hope the answer will not always be, "do nothing," as it has been for a decade or more., while the historical incidence and the record numbers of deaths in them continues to grow. 
 
I for one do not accept that easy access to guns, particularly those designed for killing humans in large numbers, is not part of the problem.   
 
The subject of the article is not suicide prevention; that's completely off-topic. 
 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:39pm
Ward,  I would not ban 3-D printers or machine shops.  I would legislate the bounds of their legal activity.  Making or distributing guns without a license to do so should be a Federal felony (I don't know; it probably is already) in the US, just as making a bomb or chemical/biological weapon would be a crime.   I don't know where you are; you don't need to tell me.  
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 2:00pm
 Hussain,
 
"I think one person being robbed at night is extremely different from a gunman walking into a mall with a semiautomatic, right?"
 
Why are you talking about robbery?  Isn't the subject homicides?  You gun control advocates have an amazing ability to move the goal post and deflect when presented with facts and logic.
 
Jim Stoner,
 
"I for one do not accept that easy access to guns, particularly those designed for killing humans in large numbers, is not part of the problem." 
 
Of course you don't.  You can't be reasoned out of a position into which you did not reason yourself.
 
Jim Stoner,
 
"I bless your taking on the gun nuts; their ammosexual philosophy is harmful and should be opposed as vigorously as they espouse it."
 
When all else fails, label people and attack their character.  It really adds to your credibility.
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 2:07pm
Why is making a firearm without a license a crime in your book? I see absolutely no laws preventing me from creating or owning firearms I have made. Are there new laws I am not aware of perhaps? 
 
Have you looked at the number of mass murders with vehicles using the same standards as guns? 
 
Can we look at the number of people killed each year by government agents with firearms? Including perhaps, Dan Shaver, an innocent swatting victim? 63 rounds to the wrong type of vehicle? 16 rounds into a sleeping man during a warrantless search? None of which were prosecuted or penalized personally and all of which would have easily resulted in a conviction had a civilian committed the same crime. (Mind you, these do not include government sanctioned actions such as the Bonus Army, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Tianenmen <sp> Square or a thousand other instances where the government has actively pursued relatively innocent civilians. 
 
A CCW carrier is by necessity, among the most law-abiding members of society, yet you would deny them of their rights to defend themselves based on the actions of others who are criminals? All this while justifying the state being the only one "allowed" to defend themselves?
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:51pm
@Paul,
 
To clarify, robbery is not the operative word in my example, I'm trying to explain that a knife or a hand gun has limited damage in one go, while military grade weapons are able to, and do, murder a large amount of people easily.
 
Let's get to the heart of the matter because we've been dancing around this issue for two days and my feet are beginning to hurt. What's the problem with the following:
 
1) registering guns, all guns to their owners, a long with the bullets
 
2) create a federal registry
 
3) make it mandatory to take gun safety courses along with an exam, both written and demonstrative
 
4) all owners buying home cabinets or lockers for their guns
 
This is exactly what we have in Canada, a country with millions of guns, and no mass shootings- what's wrong with the above proposal?
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:52pm
@ Ward
 
You have a car license, and your car is registered, no?
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:54pm
I do not have a car, so no. I do not have an identity, so neither do I have a license. That part gets complicated however. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:55pm
In reference to the point it seems you are trying to get at, search Montana firearms made and staying in Montana. What I make in my own home, for my own personal use, and that I do not take off my property, does not need to be registered or licensed ... any more than farm vehicles including trucks and tractors that are only operated on the farm. 
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:56pm
Hussain,
 
How do any of those measures prevent someone from intentionally misusing a firearm?   Laws cannot prevent immoral actions.  You can keep dancing, because that statement is an irrefutable fact.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 4:04pm
Hussain,
 
"This is exactly what we have in Canada, a country with millions of guns, and no mass shootings."
 
Why do you insist on making false statements?
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-shooting-factbox/factbox-canadas-biggest-mass-shootings-in-recent-history-idUSKBN1KV2BO
 
More proof that gun control proponents rely on lies, cherry picked "statistics", and misinformation to push your agenda.  If you had a credible argument, you wouldn't feel the need to state things that aren't true.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 4:41pm
@ Ward
 
Even so Ward, why are you so resistant to registry?
 
@ Paul
 
I can't click on your link on my phone Paul , what's the name of the article?
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 4:46pm
"Even so Ward, why are you so resistant to registry?"
 
Russia 1917, China 1948, France ... 40 or 41? ... New York newspaper 2015 or 16 was it when they printed names, addresses and other information of gun owners in the paper. 
 
Historical precedent?
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 4:51pm
"Canada's Biggest Mass Shootings in Recent History."
~Reuter's
 
"Even so Ward, why are you so resistant to registry?"
 
I'm not Ward, but here is why gun owners are resistant to registry in three steps:
 
1) Register the firearms so the government knows who has them.
2) Pass legislation outlawing the possession of certain types of firearms.
3) Since the government knows exactly who has what, they can prosecute people for non-compliance.
 
Rinse and repeat as often as necessary until virtually all types of firearms are illegal to possess.
 
If there is no registry, there is no way to enforce these Unconstitutional laws.   They know it, we know it, everybody knows it.  
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:01pm
Are you saying if Amaerican society collapses, you want to be ready?
Paul Sanders Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:03pm
Hussain,
 
"Are you saying if Amaerican society collapses, you want to be ready?"
 
Not sure where you got that from any of my posts, assuming you are responding to me.  Is this an attempt to put words in my mouth and paint me as some kind of extremist?
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:14pm
No Paul that was for Ward.
 
I'm still reading the article you posted Paul.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:14pm
Actually I believe it is an attempt to put words in my mouth. As I clearly noted, I base my actions on the law where you failed in that argument, and on historical precedent. 
 
Why Hussain, are you so intent on infringing on that which "shall not be infringed"? Especially that since you know nothing about the gun crimes there, they do not exist in your world. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:24pm
Hussain -The Canadian
 
Current law in America bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the current president’s plan would change that. Making a gun registry is a bad move and the vast majority of gun owners would be against this proposal.
 
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which was enacted in 1993, created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). On its website, the FBI says that “more than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.” The vast majority of those subject to background checks pass, and the records generated by those NICS checks are ultimately destroyed, as required by law and explained by the FBI in a fact sheet on the law.
 
 The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. That’s because section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining “any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system,” and it prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check.
 
As any student of history knows, gun control figures prominently in the designs of totalitarian states. These features recur:
 
Centralization of the police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on citizens;
National identification cards for all citizens.
Civilian disarmament via gun registration, and licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms.
Once this mechanism of oppression is firmly in place, persecution and elimination of political opponents follow, and every social, political, and economic policy the Total State desires can be implemented. This has happened in National Socialist states like Nazi Germany, fascist states like Italy under Mussolini, and communist powers such as the former Soviet Union (and its satellites behind the Iron Curtain) and Red China.
 
Americans, and now Canadians, have pointed out that rather than helping track criminals and their guns as claimed, registration of firearms is dangerous to the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and as we shall see, counterproductive with respect to criminals.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:28pm
Ok Paul I read the article, and I searched up some of those shootings; have you actually looked at the amount of people killed? The kind of weapon used? Or are you saying because these massacres happen, so we can't stop it a 100% so no laws are necessary?
 
Also so what if military grade weapons are banned? What do you need them for?
 
Also I have a sniper and a rifle, both registered with the RCMP and the federal government. I can go out now and buy a hand gun and an auto rifle, then register them with the government,  I dont feel like I'm being persecuted, it's for my, and my neighbor's, safety.
 
So I still dont understand your resistance. 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:33pm
@ Ward
 
For god's sake dont assume, I'm a gun owner too, the difference between us, I dont mind registering my weapons, idont fear my government. I also think it's a ridiculous idea to allow military weapons to be accessible to civilians.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:36pm
I hope you feed your sniper ... and at least let them out from time to time. How do you register one however? Wouldn't that be akin to enslavement? Last I heard, that was illegal no? 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:52pm
Not at all Ward, you can buy snipers, hand guns, hunting and auto rifles, shot guns- Google "canadian firearms shop", it'llshow you all the firearms that are legal in Canada.
 
Before I do my safety and gun ownership courses, I do a background check, once I pass, I do the courses, then the written exam. Then we do a "demonstration course" where we get trained on using, cleaning, and putting away the weapons. I get a ownership license, it gets registered. Then I can walk into any gun shop and buy what I need. The gun's serial number is registered under my license number. That's it.
 
I do feed her, there is a really nice family owned gun range I go to. I lik guns a lot, I look at owning them as a badge of honor, to protect my neighbor's and my country if need be, or even come to your aid if something happens to you guys in the states, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and for me that's military grade weapons.
 
I won't lie I'd love to use them though lool.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:55pm
Assume: 
as·sume

/əˈso͞om/

verb
verb: assume; 3rd person present: assumes; past tense: assumed; past participle: assumed; gerund or present participle: assuming




1.


suppose to be the case, without proof.








 
Infringe:
in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/

verb
 










act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"












Let me put this together for you. It has already been determined as a matter of law, that vehicles and firearms that remain on the property are not subject to registration, licensing and/or restriction. It has already been shown to you that it is illegal for the government to create and/or maintain a database of lawful gun owners ... yet you seek to determine why I am not willing to do something that is not lawfully required, and would force at least one party to be in violation of the law? 
 
That would be textbook infringement, not only on my personal rights, but on the law. It is not an assumption when it is the entire basis for your argument. 
 
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:55pm
PS Apologies for the formatting, it was a copy and paste job from Google, not from my lawbooks. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:08pm
In regards to my objections to the "evaluations" for owning a firearm, until a few years ago, being a homosexual was deemed to be a mental disorder, should homosexuals be denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm? The APA has recently determined that "traditional masculinity" is potentially harmful and threatening ... is this next to be deemed to be a mental disorder? A forty something year old man now self-identifies as a six year old child and in accordance with Canadian law, you now must bow to their delusion, even though in his own words, he has done this to avoid "dealing with reality" ... and pre-pubescent boys are now prancing around in gay bars with adult males ogling them and we are told that this is acceptable behavior when only a few short years ago it would have been labeled as child abuse or at least child endangerment. You would have these same people to judge whether you were stable or not when their evaluation is subject to whatever personal feelings they hold and very subjective standards, not based in any small part on whether or not they like you? I would seriously consider being subjected to such "subjective" and "soft" sciences to be far more than a mere infringement. We now have "Red Flag Laws" wherein a man was recently killed by the cops because supposedly, a relative called up and said he was crazy ... why did they think they were crazy? Because they believed in their God given (or natural) right to defend themselves and being elderly, felt the best means to do this was through the ownership of firearms ... I would ask him what he thinks but he is dead now because of a "concerned relative" ... yes, the police killed him to protect him from himself. We see/saw in the war on drugs, numerous occasions where a "supposed" (if they ever existed at all) confidential informant was "in fear for their life" and was unable to come forward, allowing for persons to be prosecuted without ever being able to even address, much less confront their accuser in a court of law, and there is no reason to believe that such actions will not take place now in the war against our natural rights. 
 
I could also get into the far too many cases where government agents have killed innocent people and never been held to account for their actions, in cases where if a citizen had committed such atrocities they would easily have been convicted, but that would require another article length response. 
 
I am glad you trust your government and I hope you are correct. I certainly hope that there is never any invasion or radical takeover of our governments but ... again, historical precedent and the law are both on my side. 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:15pm
Well thank you for the breakdown, I wasnt saying go register right now, I just wanted to know why not support similar laws to Canada's, and you guys are so resistant to the idea of registry I wanted to know why, because I think it's a really good responsible idea.
 
I personally could not live with myself if I supported and allowed easy access to weapons, I also dont see my own government as an adversary that I need protection from, it's my government, it represents me. I'm getting the impression you dont have the same view toward yours.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:30pm
I hope Autumn will note that we have been cross posting and not ding me too hard for multiple comments ... but in regards to the sake of God ... "When I sent you (on training missions) without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything? . . . But now . . . he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one . . . For the things concerning Me have an end."
 
In regards to military weapons, it depends on what you mean by military weapons. If you are referring to full auto ... we called that spray and pray and even in active duty scenarios, I never had occasion to use full auto ... I always preferred the three round burst or semi-auto as it was more of a controlled fire. Viable needs? Thirty or forty coyotes marking across my property on a moonless night, seeking out my livestock ... hard to see much less to hit with only three rounds or even only five or eight. Thirty rounds lets me get their attention in a hurry, and generally to route them around my livestock and make their way to my neighbor and theirs. 
 
In American English a sniper is a military/paramilitary marksman who operates to maintain effective visual contact with and engage enemy targets from concealed positions or at distances exceeding the target's detection capabilities. I believe what you are referring to would be sniper rifles or firearms for the purpose of sniping? 
 
I had a thousand meter range on my homestead. We generally used open sites but I was never adverse to good optics when I could afford them. 
 
PPS Sorry about the multiple posts Autumn!
Jim Stoner Added Jan 13, 2019 - 1:01am
Marty:  In many countries including America, it is illegal to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives without a license. Even though it is illegal, it does not stop the evil person who wants to make and use an IUD. 
 
I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to the manufacture and use of an IUD without a license.  I am opposed to making, using, or selling an IED, or a rifle, handgun, or explosive without a license.    Look it up, please. 
 
Our national infatuation with guns is a sickness; those who are infected never seem to realize it.  It is generally futile to argue with them about it; they must be defeated, and it's coming.   It's coming because the experience of publicly witnessing the downside of our madness, for those without the full indoctrination of gun-loving culture, is gradually converting large segments of people, especially the young people who will inherit this nation, that something must change.   It's not just a matter of more reasonable gun legislation, though that will help.  It's about changing the culture of violence, with gun worship a big part of it. 
 
This is what Marty wanted to address in his lead:  that the media exposure of these mass shooter incidents is changing minds, and he doesn't like it. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 2:29am
" I am opposed to making, using, or selling an IED, or a rifle, handgun, or explosive without a license. "
 
Regardless of what you may or may not be opposed to, it is still very legal for me to make firearms on my property and keep them on my property. Oddly, I have to get a federal fuel license to make home made hooch but not to make a rifle or pistol. Like any farm implement, it need not be registered or licensed if it never leaves the farm.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 2:30am
Gee. Wait til they discover flame throwers are legal and many people have those on their farms as well ... in that case we generally call them weed burners, but again, no license or registration required, even if someone may be "opposed" to it personally. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 13, 2019 - 8:44am
Jim Stoner:
 
I am a true advocate of freedom of speech for all people and businesses. All of these sources have the free will to communicate what is on their minds and hearts.
 
When I see people or businesses with a hidden agenda to promote or demonize certain subjects or rights, I will call them out on this practice. Most informed people know that the media is dominated by very liberal people who have an outright hate for guns. They want to always blame the gun, instead of the deranged or evil person who used the gun.
 
There are many people who are killed annually in auto accidents because the driver was impaired due to alcohol or drugs. You will note that the media never demonizes that the automobile or truck killed the person. They will say the person was impaired because of drug or alcohol use.
 
The hypocrisy of a large segment of the media is sickening and at times would be considered evil due to the lies and deception.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 9:23am
"You will note that the media never demonizes that the automobile or truck killed the person."
 
Actually, I do remember a time, probably in the mid nineties perhaps? When the evil SUV was always being blamed for the actions of their drivers. It was the same principle however, to brainwash the people into associating that with something evil, despite the fact that in and of itself, it was quite benign. 
Paul Sanders Added Jan 13, 2019 - 9:29am
Ward,
 
"It was the same principle however, to brainwash the people into associating that with something evil, despite the fact that in and of itself, it was quite benign."
 
Pretty pathetic that people can allow themselves to be brainwashed by such tactics when it only requires logic and common sense to understand that evil does not exist in objects, only people.
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 10:00am
Thus the need for continued public indoctrination centers ... I mean educational institutions ... and while home schooling is equally vilified. 
opher goodwin Added Jan 13, 2019 - 11:45am
Marty/Paul - As I keep saying - armed with a knife, fist or baseball bat it is exceeding hard to kill people. Armed with a gun - particularly an automatic assault rifle it is easy.
I can just imagine the US Army going into battle armed with baseball bats or knives against an army armed with assault rifles. They'd be massacred.
You argument does not make sense.
As for poisons, bows and arrows and knives. I would limit them as well. 
I'm not sure you can do much about cars. They can be lethal but they are not a weapon. They are a means of transport. I wouldn't want disturbed people driving them either.
 
Marty Koval Added Jan 13, 2019 - 11:50am
Paul:
 
It is very obvious today that many people do not posses common sense and logic. It is observed in the way they talk, think and act. These people believe they know all the answers from their emotions, instead of from facts.
Marty Koval Added Jan 13, 2019 - 12:01pm
opher goodwin:
 
Cars and trucks have been used as weapons for decades. France has experience carnage from Big trucks being used to mow down dozens of people. Thorough out the world, bombs have been planted inside cars and trucks that are always placed in areas of many people. Thereby resulting in many deaths and serious injuries.
 
Do we blame the car and truck's for the deaths? Or the evil person who came up with this deadly concoction?
 
Paul Sanders Added Jan 13, 2019 - 12:03pm
Opher, 
 
As I keep saying, you are extremely narrow minded.  Someone intent on doing evil is not going to limit themselves to a knife or baseball bat just because you remove firearms from the equation.  They will figure out even deadlier methods.
 
I find it interesting that you state it would be "difficult" to kill people with knives and then turn around in your next to last paragraph and proclaim that we should limit knives as well.  You can't even follow your own argument.  As I said before, you gun control advocates cannot be reasoned out of a position into which you did not reason yourselves.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 13, 2019 - 12:07pm
Marty,
 
"Do we blame the car and truck's for the deaths? Or the evil person who came up with this deadly concoction?"
 
We can keep asking that question until we are blue in the face, but you will NEVER get an answer to it from those who promote gun control.  They simply refuse to accept the facts and take ownership of the double standard in their position.  ONLY when a gun is used to commit murder will they blame the decision to commit murder on "easy access" to the method with which to do it.  It's asinine.
Kara Wood Added Jan 13, 2019 - 9:52pm
Do we blame the car or truck?  Of course not.  But we realize that they can be dangerous.  So people have to be a certain age to use them.  They have to take a test to demonstrate that they understand the laws and safety rules and that they can demonstrate their safe usage.  They must have a license.  Their vehicles must be registered and on file with the state and must pass perodic inspections.  They must carry insurance.  There are places where they are not allowed to go, speed limits, and other road safety regulations
 
If you're going to use the car/truck argument, then you should at least acknowledge that there are laws that users must follow.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 10:06pm
"So people have to be a certain age to use them.  They have to take a test to demonstrate that they understand the laws and safety rules and that they can demonstrate their safe usage.  They must have a license.  Their vehicles must be registered and on file with the state and must pass perodic inspections.  They must carry insurance.  There are places where they are not allowed to go, speed limits, and other road safety regulations"
 
Not when they never leave the property of the owner. This has been settled in many a court case. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 13, 2019 - 10:18pm
Kara Wood:
 
The most recent data from the Insurance Research Council (IRC) estimates that approximately a little over 14 percent of the driving population is uninsured.
 
According to an AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study, “18.2% of fatal crashes involved a driver who was unlicensed or invalidly licensed; these crashes resulted in the deaths of 21,049 people.”
 
Looks like mandatory requirement for insurance and a valid license is not a very effective means to assure people will obey the law. There 222 million drivers in the USA, which means there are 30.8 million and 40.4 million people being uninsured and driving without a valid license.
 
Looks to me that we need to have more stringent controls on drivers of vehicle.
 
Kara Wood Added Jan 13, 2019 - 10:57pm
"Not when they never leave the property of the owner. This has been settled in many a court case. "  -  OK.  So gun owners should only have to be licensed and have their guns registered if they plan to take them off their property.
 
"Looks to me that we need to have more stringent controls on drivers of vehicle."  -  Good point.  We need more stringent controls on dangerous objects.
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 11:11pm
"Good point.  We need more stringent controls on dangerous objects."
 
Or perhaps just more dependable enforcement of existing laws?
 
Why do we need to give more control to what are generally, by and large narcissistic sociopaths very skilled at winning popularity contests more control over our lives? 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 14, 2019 - 1:24am
Marty,  It is of course the person, not the gun, who is at fault.  I believe that anyone who would kill another, except in self-defense,  or in the lawful service of their country, has a mental problem.  Therefore it is axiomatic that mental health be one of the prerequisites for purchase of certain weapons, while with others, I would urge the presumption they will not be used for lawful purposes, as there are none, and they pose an unacceptable safety risk.
 
I also think that, in normal circumstances, the need for security in public society outweighs the presumed right to carry weapons.   The less guns are present in society, the less chance that minor public disputes turn into deadly affairs.  The medieval age is over, or should be. 
 
I support the rights of responsible gun-owners to own guns, for the most part, but I don't consider it improper if others may challenge those rights.  I contend that the Second Amendment largely related to people participating in militias, the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard; any other interpretation is revisionist by a Supreme Court of temporary duration. 
 
Ward, I didn't say that it was illegal for you to make weapons in your garage.  (I think you doth protest too much.)  I said it should be illegal to do so, at least in the US and its territories and possessions.  
Jim Stoner Added Jan 14, 2019 - 1:35am
Marty,  I support totally that all car drivers must be insured--even though it benefits the insurance companies to insist on it. 
 
The counterpart to that is that insurance must cover all legal drivers.  I heard from a friend an astounding story of an accident she had--totally not her fault--and she was dropped, and that a second  (no-fault) accident would make her uninsurable. No assigned-risk pool!  Not just that, but it means the insurance is practically unusable to make a claim. 
 
If that has anything to do with mass shootings....if we really thought unauthorized use of autos to cause public attacks was causing sufficient casualties, we would require improved security to start them, and the car manufacturers would put them in.  Apparently not a risk we are concerned about, or rather, that cars have this other purpose, which is much more significant. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 4:01am
Of course any object needs a person to wield it in order to cause harm.
 
However, in marketing we always used to say that when you buy a drill, you are not buying a drill, you are buying the means to make holes.   So, when you buy a gun, you are buying the means to kill someone.  (Of course if you are buying a hunting rifle or shotgun you can say that they have another purpose... context being everything)
 
You first have to ask about the mental state of someone who wants to have that potential (Study published in Scientific American suggests that it is often because the gun owner is seeking to compensate for feelings of insecurity about his job, role versus women, sexuality or race anxiety.    Obviously these motivations are not owned up to...  This study focussed on those owning multiple weapons).  
 
I would almost suggest that the very act of wanting a gun should psychologically disqualify you from having one.   (I would say that wanting to be a politician should disqualify you from being one too....)
 
Now if people are really scared and think that they need a gun to protect themselves... that is a really sad state of affairs and something needs to be done to address the issue.   It is not good to live in a state of fear.   It stops you from interacting with your neighbours and destroys community spirit... generally makes you unhappy.  
 
I am pretty sure that the fear of violence is much worse than the real risk of being subjected to it would warrant.   Never in my 60 plus years have I actually experienced violence in my own country of the UK.   I suspect that most Americans can say the same.   Perhaps the media needs to take responsibility and dial back the hysteria regarding violence.
 
If you delve deeper into the actual figures you find reasons to feel more secure.  Here, in the UK, there is a rate of violent death of about 0.85 per 100,000 of the population.   Just to put this into context this relates to about 550 deaths from violence whilst some 1,700 people died from road accidents.
 
The figures go on to tell you that of these 550 deaths, some 85% were caused by someone known to the victim.   So if you are not involved in gangs or criminal activity and you are not part of a violently inclined family, your chance of dying from violence is actually less than 0.2 per hundred thousand.
 
Your chance of dying in a road traffic accident in contrast is about 3 per hundred thousand... 18 times more.
 
Now I don't have the figures for the USA, I know that overall violent death is about five times higher, but I imagine that the same logic will hold.  Most people are actually worrying about nothing when they worry about violence from outside of the family.  So probably when you bring a gun into the home it is more likely to be a source of harm to your family than it is to be a defence.  
 
I think you are probably more likely to use it to kill yourself than ever to kill a burglar...   And there is always the danger that your child or grandchild might one day pick it up to play with it...
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:39am
Robin,
 
"I would almost suggest that the very act of wanting a gun should psychologically disqualify you from having one."
 
WOW.  Just wow.  What is it with some people?
 
SMH
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:45am
Dunno Paul.   I have no idea why they feel the need for a gun
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:49am
But the Scientific American article shows some correlation with anxieties about job security, sexual role, status and race.   It points out that 70% of weapons are owned by 3% of the population.   This 3% tends to be white, less well educated and subject to the anxieties noted above.
 
Personally I would not want to live next door to one of the 3%.   It would probably make me want to have a gun, or flamethrower, for personal defence....   Maybe an attack dog.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:50am
We don't have a Bill of Needs.  I have firearms because I can and because I enjoy the recreation and entertainment they provide.  You nor anyone else has the right to dictate to me what I "need."
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:51am
Some issues of concern first:
 
"Therefore it is axiomatic that mental health be one of the prerequisites for purchase of certain weapons, while with others, I would urge the presumption they will not be used for lawful purposes, as there are none, and they pose an unacceptable safety risk."
 
"You first have to ask about the mental state of someone who wants to have that potential (Study published in Scientific American suggests that it is often because the gun owner is seeking to compensate for feelings of insecurity about his job, role versus women, sexuality or race anxiety."
 
Homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness in previous times, should they be denied their natural rights? 
 
"Traditional Masculinity" is now slipping into the realm of a "Mental Disorder" ... should traditional males be denied their natural right? 
 
In accordance with what Red Breasted Robin has pointed out, virtually anyone who wanted to own a firearm would be exhibiting symptoms of personal insecurity ... a mental disorder ... in such a scenario, merely desiring to own a firearm is cause to deny the ability to own a firearm. (This was also the excuse used by the "concerned relative" that got a man killed in Maryland with the red flag laws in place there) 
 
The DSM and its creators and big pharma have openly admitted to creating new "Mental Disorders" merely for the sake of retaining patents on medications ... which kill roughly one hundred and twenty thousand people per year by the way, and that is only the cases wherein they are properly prescribed and ingested ... so how are we to trust those when they have admitted to cooking the books for profit as it were? 
 
Psychologists and Psychiatrists tend to have very high suicide rates, and there are studies that indicate that the root cause for this is that many of the people getting into these fields are themselves troubled in some way, and seeking to neatly quantify and classify their own individual idiosyncrasies and quirks so they can feel normal. Their "diagnoses" will inevitably stem from not just their training, but their personal feelings regarding an individual ... if they do not like you, so sorry, but you have no ability to engage in your natural rights ... 
 
All of these are very subjective opinions and directly influence or even restrict and prevent the rights of others and is a very dangerous path to tread. 
 
Jim Stoner ... I believe I mentioned in a previous comment your "being in support of" and noted that your personal support or lack thereof is inconsequential to the legality. Perhaps you missed it or perhaps I worded it poorly. Apologies if I did not word it clearly. 
 
Red Robin, I am curious if you have looked also at the violent crime rates, including home invasions, rape and other crimes against humanity in Britain? I think you will discover these are substantially higher per capita than they are in the US. Furthermore, even with gun crime rates so high in the US, have you looked at any of the studies which point out where this crime is taking place? Generally in large urban population centers where there are very strict gun laws in place and the vast majority of the population is unarmed ... and then contrasted this with more rural settings where gun ownership is much higher and violent crime rates are substantially lower?
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:57am
"But the Scientific American article shows some correlation with anxieties about job security, sexual role, status and race."
 
"This 3% tends to be white, less well educated and subject to the anxieties noted above."
 
Bull.  Nothing like profiling and stereotyping, is there?
 
"Personally I would not want to live next door to one of the 3%.   It would probably make me want to have a gun, or flamethrower, for personal defence....   Maybe an attack dog."
 
Oh, the irony.  This is a standard response with just about everyone with your position.  You accuse others of being fearful and then turn right around and express your own fears and anxieties.  Gun phobia is a very real phenomena.  We gun owners react to those of you who attempt to impose your will on us because you want to "feel safe", while simultaneously accusing us of owning guns for the same reason when we have provided no evidence for you to falsely accuse us of such motives.  The difference is, you TELL us you are afraid of people with guns.
 
 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:59am
Fine Paul.  If you want the means to kill someone, you have it.  Your country, your rules.  Just don't want to live next door to you.
 
I would suggest, however , that your stated task motivations for wanting one are different from your non task motivations.  Usually we do not admit the non task motivation to ourselves because often it comes from the side of ourselves that we are not proud of.  So we create a task motivation that we feel will put us in a good light in the outside world.   Some of us even believe that our task motivations are the real reason we do something.
 
As a marketing man I have long known that this is just not true.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 8:14am
Robin,
 
"Fine Paul.  If you want the means to kill someone, you have it.  Your country, your rules.  Just don't want to live next door to you."
 
There are plenty of other "means to kill someone" without firearms.  But, thanks for acknowledging your own fear of others while accusing them of the same motives with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
 
"I would suggest, however , that your stated task motivations for wanting one are different from your non task motivations.  Usually we do not admit the non task motivation to ourselves because often it comes from the side of ourselves that we are not proud of.  So we create a task motivation that we feel will put us in a good light in the outside world.   Some of us even believe that our task motivations are the real reason we do something."
 
This is a recurring theme among those who take your position.  You are convinced you know exactly why others do what they do when it comes to owning firearms.  Are you clairvoyant?  Quite frankly, your arrogance and presumption are repugnant.  Nobody has the right to judge the motives of others without evidence.  That is exactly what you are doing.  And, as I have pointed out, your hypocrisy is stunning.  You have told me exactly what your motivation is for being opposed to others having firearms... the very thing you are accusing us of... Fear!
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 8:19am
To be fair ... which like fear, is nothing but a four letter word starting with F ... I believe he is projecting not only his fear but also his personal insecurities on people who feel compelled to defend themselves in the most efficient manner, feed their own families and otherwise utilize firearms as the mere tools that they are. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 9:46am
Yes Paul.   There are plenty of other ways to kill someone than with a gun.  True.
 
But a gun is specifically designed to make killing someone as quick, convenient and easy as possible.  It also has only that one use.  Hence you can have only one reason for wanting one... to be able to kill someone should the desire to do so come to you one day.
 
If I was living next to you one day who knows when you might suddenly have that desire overcome you.  The next time I am obviously successful whilst you are feeling down?  The next time that a girlfriend dumps you?  The next time a black guy gets the promotion that you thought was yours at work?
 
I am not opposed to you having firearms in your own country.  However I do think that you are part of the problem.   Many more people die in America than elsewhere from violence and the only factor that is significantly different seems to be the prevalence and attitude to firearms.  Basically you worship them.  They are holy to you.  The holy "Second Amendment" etc.   All bullshit designed to hide the basic motivations from yourselves.   I can tell you that it does not fool the rest of us one little bit.
 
Personally I think that you should be allowed to have guns.   However if you do have guns, and you are not prepared to be trained, examined and licenced in their use, then you should not be allowed to live near normal decent people.   Neither should you be allowed within gunshot range of a school or any other public place. 
 
Personally I would make you wear a badge at all times that would warn decent normal people of your attitude to firearms so that they can exercise appropriate care when meeting you.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 9:49am
Yes Ward.  Gun toting people scare the shit out of me.  That's because I am a normal sane person who is not living in the wild west....
Steel Breeze Added Jan 14, 2019 - 9:59am
as a 'gun nut' one my favorite conversations was with a couple who are close friends and 'anti-gun'.....i asked, for the sake of discussion what if the 'unthinkable' was to happen and there was a collapse of social order for whatever reason, what would you do?
"We're coming to your house."
Steel Breeze Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:19am
hah....that comment cracked me up.........so someone who fears guns is gonna 'make' someone with a gun do something......think i'd enjoy watching that.....
Luther Wu Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:20am
Red Robin said: "Personally I would make you wear a badge at all times that would warn decent normal people of your attitude to firearms so that they can exercise appropriate care when meeting you."
     _____
You Socialists have done that before.
Remember the Yellow Stars of David?
(Oh, but... those were National Socialists.)
 
It's always the same mindset. That's what makes you what you are.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:29am
Yep.  The kind of rhetoric being used here just re-enforces the view that those who want guns should be kept away from decent folks.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:31am
So Steel Breeze, your task motivation is that you want a gun to protect yourself in the event of a collapse of civilisation.  Have you taken other steps to protect yourself in that event such as digging up your front lawn to plant potatoes?
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:32am
Yep Luther.   You would be the first one that I would call on.  The peddlers of violence, and the means to mete out violence, should always be shunned by decent folks
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:33am
The National Socialists were the ones claiming to "make the Fatherland great again".  They should have been stopped at the ballot box.  That is the lesson of history... not that everyone should be armed.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:35am
So, if I were you, I would be taking steps now to try and remove Trump.   He is the one whipping up the mob by saying he will "make the USA great again".   But I don't recommend that you head down to the White House with your gun in your hand.  I don't think you will get very far...
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:44am
Robin,
 
"But a gun is specifically designed to make killing someone as quick, convenient and easy as possible.  It also has only that one use. 
Hence you can have only one reason for wanting one... to be able to kill someone should the desire to do so come to you one day."
 
Such ignorance is astounding.  In your narrow-minded thinking, people can't have the motivation to own firearms for the sole purpose of recreation, entertainment, competition, or collecting?  To your point, a firearm is designed to fire a projectile.  Attempting to assign a moral character to it is laughable.
 
"Hence you can have only one reason for wanting one... to be able to kill someone should the desire to do so come to you one day."
 
 
More ignorance.  You think someone just wakes up some morning and decides they have the "desire to kill" someone?  Dear lord.
 
As I have stated repeatedly, you gun control advocates have a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature.  
 
This is another recurring theme of gun control advocates.  They believe that everyone is just like them and can't control their passions or emotions.  As evidenced by your statement:
 
"If I was living next to you one day who knows when you might suddenly have that desire overcome you.  The next time I am obviously successful whilst you are feeling down?  The next time that a girlfriend dumps you?  The next time a black guy gets the promotion that you thought was yours at work?"
 
The concepts of morals and self control clearly elude you.
 
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:48am
Robin,
 
"Yes Ward.  Gun toting people scare the shit out of me."
 
And there you have it.  Proof positive of what I said.  You want to impose your will on others because you have an irrational fear.  There is help for your phobia.  Instead of seeking it, you choose rather to vilify others who "scare you."  You, my friend, have your own psychological issues with which to deal.
Steel Breeze Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:51am
amen!!
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:52am
"But a gun is specifically designed to make killing someone as quick, convenient and easy as possible.  It also has only that one use."
 
Incorrect. A firearm is a tool, and serves to feed my family, protect my livestock and even to defend my family. Defense is certainly an important purpose of that tool as well. I find it odd however, that you advocate government enforcement which requires firearms, yet would deny law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. How many innocent people has government killed when they were the only ones with firearms? Do you see, looking at these figures why some of us believe historical precedent to be an added reason for owning those tools? Do you think the people in France or Poland or in Russia or in China ever thought it could happen there? 
 
"If I was living next to you one day who knows when you might suddenly have that desire overcome you."
 
And the next time some yank cuts you off driving on the wrong side of the road like an idiot, you may very well decide to run him and/or others off the road in revenge. So? Should we ban you from owning a vehicle? Might? Could? May want? Shaky legal ground, even in the Crown Court I would imagine. 
 
"The kind of rhetoric being used here just re-enforces the view that those who want guns should be kept away from decent folks."
 
Such as the criminal attacking a family in a home invasion? Attempting to rape a woman? Those kinds of decent people? 
 
"Have you taken other steps to protect yourself in that event such as digging up your front lawn to plant potatoes?"
 
With the exception of a full scale invasion if the US government ... the only ones over there that you apparently trust with guns ... gets their bloody war with China and Russia, yes, I am fully prepared. I have vegetable growth (and lots of cacao) in front and back yards, raising my own livestock finally once again ... though I am not so well prepared in terms of power yet ... still have to rebuild that aspect of our life here ... but working on it. 
 
"They should have been stopped at the ballot box."
 
You mean like Brexit? At least until there are enough do-overs to get the desired results you mean? 
 
"So, if I were you, I would be taking steps now to try and remove Trump."
 
So we replace one narcissistic sociopath with a different flavor of narcissistic sociopath to what end? Who would you have us replace him with? Nigel Farage? Amber Rudd perhaps? She apparently is now ready to try to jail people for watching "Far Right Propaganda" such as that put out by ... who? People like Trump? 
 
"But I don't recommend that you head down to the White House with your gun in your hand.  I don't think you will get very far..."
 
No, nobody would. Why? Because they have people with firearms to DEFEND the White House, not to go out and randomly murder people ... though they have seemingly engaged in that tactic on occasion as well ... but despite the multiple unjustified homicides committed by cops, they are the only ones we should trust? Again, historical precedent may lead some reasonable people to different conclusions than those you have drawn. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:53am
It is not irrational to be wary of someone who wants to own the means to deal out violent death
Paul Sanders Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:56am
You have deep rooted issues, Robin.  VERY deep.
Steel Breeze Added Jan 14, 2019 - 11:04am
there's really nothing wrong with believing in "Wonderland"....but if Alice had a AR-15.....woulda been a much shorter story....
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 11:14am
OK Ward:   I am just working through your Task Motivations here to see if I can understand how your mind is working:
 
You use a gun to feed your family... so presumably you don't go to the supermarket but live out in the woods?   I am amazed that the hunter gatherer lifestyle actually allows you access to the Internet
 
In the UK the law enforcers do not have guns.  Neither should they.
 
As I have said earlier.  Such disasters are better headed off at the ballot box... that is why you need to act on Trump now before things get seriously out of hand.   Having guns doesn't really help you if you are mesmerised by propaganda....
 
Yes, if you drive a car you need to be trained, tested, licensed and re-tested every so often.  If anyone suspects you of being an addict or of unsound mental state, you can and should be stopped from driving.   Same should be true for anyone who has a gun
 
Criminals attacking people in home invasions is not something we really worry about here... very rare event.   Why not simply thump someone who is attempting rape.   No need to kill him/her.   Police here are trained to de-escalate tension in confrontations.   This is why they do not carry guns.  Fewer people die at the hands of the police as a consequence.
 
Good for you on the vegetable growing.   Guess you will not be needing that car soon...  The rest of us with lives to lead and jobs to do can't do quite the same I'm afraid...
 
Yep the Brexit affair is an omnishambles.   Breaking of electoral rules.  Possibility of foreign interference.  Not revealing the full facts etc etc.  A real mess.  I think that the reset button should be pressed and the whole thing run again with a more sober analysis of the facts of the situation.  It's not this country's finest hour, that is for sure.  I know several people who voted to leave who now wish that they had not and think they should have a chance to express their views again now that more of the facts are known.   Is it undemocratic to hold the vote again now that more is known?  I guess you could argue either way.   But it is an issue that should be decided through argument and debate... not by heading into Downing Street with an assault rifle.
 
I kind of have sympathy with your comment about Trump.  It's a bit like owning guns in some ways.   If you want to be a politician you are probably just the very person who should not be allowed to be one.   It should be public service... a duty... not a way to boost your ego and enhance your personal wealth.
 
Yes.  Police should not be routinely armed.  They are there to preserve the peace... not to create death and destruction.  The modern world being what it is, on occasions you may get terrorists or criminals who use weapons.   So you do need a force to oppose them.   However, in a well ordered society, these occasions are rare and limited in scale.   So you only need a relatively small and highly trained team which can be rapidly deployed.  This is what we have in the UK.   It is worth noting that most policemen here do not want to be armed as they believe it makes their job harder.. as well as making them less safe.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 11:54am
"You use a gun to feed your family... so presumably you don't go to the supermarket but live out in the woods?   I am amazed that the hunter gatherer lifestyle actually allows you access to the Internet"
 
Satellite and cellular signal ... we call it modern technology here. It works amazingly well. 
 
"In the UK the law enforcers do not have guns.  Neither should they."
 
Yes, they do, they are just not the ones out on routine patrol. They have plenty of armed response forces ... including the ability to use the military in civilian areas should such an option become necessary. 
 
"Criminals attacking people in home invasions is not something we really worry about here... very rare event.   Why not simply thump someone who is attempting rape."
 
I do not know where you are getting your statistics, but according to those that I have seen from your government, the US government and even Interpol, they do not tally up the same as what you present. Why not just thump someone? Gang raping is not an uncommon occurrence, especially during the home invasions perpetrated by more than one person. A firearm gives me the ability to engage multiple attackers should I be forced into such a position. 
 
"The rest of us with lives to lead and jobs to do can't do quite the same I'm afraid..." 
 
Some of us make a living using that aforementioned "modern technology" called the internet ... amazing stuff ... really. Albeit I am not making nearly as much money now as I was when I quit doing that to resume my global humanitarian efforts five years back or so ... still suffering from that but it was necessary ... and hopefully beneficial. We will see what we will see soon I hope. 
 
"Possibility of foreign interference."
 
A practice undertaken by the US, Russia, China and the UK and likely other nations as well ... again, the only people whom you would presumably trust with firearms ... despite historical evidence that these madmen have killed tens of millions of unarmed civilians in addition to meddling in our everyday lives. Government is responsible for more death and destruction than religion is. 
 
"It should be public service... a duty... not a way to boost your ego and enhance your personal wealth."
 
And not the people we should trust to be the only ones to have people with guns enforcing edicts which are law merely because these same people say so. Unfortunately, we are about as likely to stop the politicians from usurping and abusing power as we are to stop the criminal element from committing crimes ... thus again ... historical evidence that maybe, an armed, law-abiding population is not such a bad thing. 
 
"The modern world being what it is, on occasions you may get terrorists or criminals who use weapons.   So you do need a force to oppose them. "
 
A force with guns ... and if there had already been a good guy with a gun on the scene during the commission of the crime, it could have been prevented ... back to could have should have. 
 
As far as the wild west ... it is a product of pulp fiction authors and "reporters" of the time ... the city with the most gun deaths lost six people in a single year ... and half of them were killed at the OK Corral which you may be familiar with ... ironically enough, because they refused to follow the city laws on firearms restrictions. 
 
"As I have said earlier.  Such disasters are better headed off at the ballot box... that is why you need to act on Trump now before things get seriously out of hand.   Having guns doesn't really help you if you are mesmerized by propaganda...."
 
As was noted, this is merely an inconvenience for government apparently, as if they do not get the results they want, they just ignore them or overturn them (Prop 208 in California) or have a do-over in hopes of getting the results they want ... Brexit. 
 
Propaganda? I do not own a television set, do not trust the mainstream press ... the biggest problem I have is that I am so cynical ... but then again, the problem with being cynical as I have noted before, is not being incorrect as this always results in a pleasant surprise ... but being correct so frequently. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 11:58am
I think it was Proposition 208 ... seems it was back in the early nineties ... the government decided that people did not truly understand the ballot initiative so merely overturned the popular vote despite the people having voted to pass it. Oddly enough it was on human rights and equal rights and was worded almost exactly the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... but the state deemed it to be racist to exclude race and sexist to exclude sex. 
Luther Wu Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:00pm
Robin the Red said: "Yep Luther.   You would be the first one that I would call on.  The peddlers of violence, and the means to mete out violence, should always be shunned by decent folks "
     ______
Yes, I would be one of the first that your ilk would pursue.
Not for the reason that you lied about, that I was a "peddler of violence". There is nothing within my words from which you could  make that claim in honesty.
No, the reason you and your fellow statist totalitarians would come for me first, is because I see you for what you are and that is the greatest danger to you, that you be exposed.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:12pm
OK Luther.  Maybe you are a peddler of violence, but you are clearly a supporter of gun ownership... of the widespread potential to wreak deadly violence.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:13pm
Ward:   Obviously you and I live in different worlds.  I have never had to deal with even a lone attacker... let alone multiple ones.
 
Perhaps you go the whole hog and get yourself a tank just in case...
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:14pm
Interestingly enough a guy near me actually does own a couple of tanks.   He doesn't say that they are for home defence though... 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:18pm
I think that we are now starting to repeat ourselves so I will duck out now.   I'll look back every now and then to see if anyone has said anything original that might lead to an interesting debate.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:30pm
In our second war from independence from your Sovereign Crown, there are actually numerous records of citizens, most notably in my research given the nature of the work I was doing at the time, was a black business owner and landowner who provided a great many of the cannon for the defense of Baltimore and Fort McHenry ... we picked up one of your old drinking songs there and changed the words a bit LOL 
 
I am going to go out on a limb here and suppose that those cannon were not for personal self defense or home defense. I have had numerous occasions to face multiple attackers, both in military service and civilian life. I lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods in my life, as I have never been overly ambitious in regards to storing up vast amounts of wealth ... and was not always blessed with the means to make a living from home, meaning my homesteading was only part time ... and the rest of the time, struggling to save as much money as I could to build it up ... which meant living in poor, rundown neighborhoods. 
 
As for the tanks, I can get all the firearms I need from Numrich Arms and rebuild them to my specs or those specs laid out from my customers ... or could when I lived in the States. Tanks are known to leak oil which is against my personal liking. Also, we used to call the Tankers at Knox DATs ... or Dumb Arsed Tankers ... "My tank will take a direct hit from a 188 and still be fully operational ... never mind that anyone inside when it hit would be oatmeal mush. I was always a bullet magnet it seemed, but tanks are even bigger bullet magnets. No thank you. Just not my style. 
 
I would give you a Constitutional argument against the ban on fully automatic weapons, but even in active duty scenarios, I never encountered the need for fully automatic fire ... even if providing cover, I like to retain some control over shot placement. In a heated situation, there are plenty of points of light to aim at ... muzzle discharges if you will. 
 
Did I mention that yes, not only am I trained in the use of firearms, but also experienced in their use? Not that it makes any difference but ... experience goes a lot further than training when it comes to real world scenarios. A "potential to wreak deadly violence"? Perhaps ... but one who acted only on the commands of the government that people (wrongfully) believe should be the only ones to possess firearms or who acted in self defense or in the defense of innocent civilians outside of military service. 
 
How is that ban on kitchen knives and acid going in the UK? After all, if violent crime rates are so low, that really should not be necessary should it? I mean, maybe you can just "thump" the attackers? 
 
Not hacking on you really, but ... your arguments seem largely circular in some regards, though I do appreciate your civility and thoughtful social intercourse. 
Luther Wu Added Jan 14, 2019 - 12:33pm


Robin the Red said: "OK Luther.... you are clearly a supporter of gun ownership... of the widespread potential to wreak deadly violence."
     _____
And there we have it, the thought police.
Robin, you expose the true nature of your beliefs, with every post.


 
 
 
 

Recent Articles by Writers Marty Koval follows.