More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

Lorenzzo wrote:To someone familiar with weaponry it's obvious your opinions exceed your knowledge to the point that responding to you was a waste of time. Since you don't understand what you're talking about you aren't able to understand the specifics of what happened, the nature of the weapon and why what the shooter did may not have been possible without an assault style weapon. So your opinions are ignorant.

Not understanding leads to no solution because in your simplistic terms means completely eliminating the problem or doing nothing I guess. At this point I agree with Yaz.

Lorenzo, we are simply having a debate. I haven't seen evidence yet indicating that it was the assault rifle that made the difference in all of this or that a normal semi-auto rifle could not have done the exact same thing. My only point is that we shouldn't react and try to implement change that has nothing to do with what happened.

If the point is to try to keep this type of thing from happening again, don't we need to do a little more than ban a semi-auto assault rifle? Really?

FamousDavis wrote:

edgey wrote:I went to my 6 year old daughters nativity today (she was Mary) and throughout it I could not stop thinking about those poor little children and their familys.

Only at the end did i reflect on this. At no point did I ever have to worry that some psychopath armed better than me when I was a soldier may burst in and start shooting those children. It wasnt the lack of psycho's in the UK that made me feel safe (we have LOTS of them). It was the fact that we have as a nation removed our psycho's means of access to weapons of mass murder.

If anyone believes that the occasional mass murder of 5 year old children in their school is an acceptable consequence of the right to bear arms hey ho. Thank God we in the UK decided it is not

Nobody is saying that of course. But, if you are going to implement change then it has to be effective and based on what actually occurred. Our country is famous for taking action simply because we feel like we've got to do something, even if it's completely unrelated to what really happened. 9/11 and the 2nd Iraq war are a perfect example. We should have killed all the Saudis responsible for the attacks and taken over their oil. But, we couldn't do that so we had to find something else to do.

In this case, the action is to ban all types of guns. All of them. Having a gun in your possession is a felony with 10 years and no parole.

Those who own guns will argue that it was an assualt rifle that did it. Self interest at its best.

In fact I would propose something more radical

A system of gun ownership licencing and compulsory security.

You can own some guns in the UK. Shotguns remain fairly easy to obtain via a licence. We have banned high capacity versions but over and under/side by side and semi auto 3 shots are available. Ownership for sporting purposes and vermin control are the onlt acceptable reason for ownership and some form of security is required. You have to undergo a fairly thorough background check.

Bolt action rifles are allowed on a seperate licence and the grounds for issue are far tighter. Hunting (proof of land to hunt on required) and target shooting (proof of gun club membership reqd) are the only reasons allowed. Very tight security requirements and very thorough vetting process.

No handguns no semi auto weapons of any description. Self defence is NEVER a reason for granting a licence

When Derick Bird went on a recent killing spree in the UK he used a 12 guage and a .22 bolt action rifle. What he did was to ensure he used a car to keep moving and allowed him to target individuals before fleeing. His weaponry would have made it difficult to have gone to a school and commited mass murder due to the need to constanlty reload and the consequent risk of being over powered.

To a ceetain extent guns are a necessary evil, particulrly for vermin control. I would certainly like a more thorough check on the mental health of anyone applying for a gun licence in the UK and I think it will happen soon.

Why couldnt such a system work in the USA (other then the obvious 2nd Amendment issues)?

I just signed a petition to ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and institute comprehensive gun control laws.

12pierogi wrote:I just signed a petition to ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and institute comprehensive gun control laws.

Link please. I'd like to be on board. TIA

Playa Hata wrote:

12pierogi wrote:I just signed a petition to ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and institute comprehensive gun control laws.

Link please. I'd like to be on board. TIA

NY Daily news petition assault ban.

Sorry I suck at certain things like links to pages.

edgey wrote:

FamousDavis wrote:

edgey wrote:I went to my 6 year old daughters nativity today (she was Mary) and throughout it I could not stop thinking about those poor little children and their familys.

Only at the end did i reflect on this. At no point did I ever have to worry that some psychopath armed better than me when I was a soldier may burst in and start shooting those children. It wasnt the lack of psycho's in the UK that made me feel safe (we have LOTS of them). It was the fact that we have as a nation removed our psycho's means of access to weapons of mass murder.

If anyone believes that the occasional mass murder of 5 year old children in their school is an acceptable consequence of the right to bear arms hey ho. Thank God we in the UK decided it is not

Nobody is saying that of course. But, if you are going to implement change then it has to be effective and based on what actually occurred. Our country is famous for taking action simply because we feel like we've got to do something, even if it's completely unrelated to what really happened. 9/11 and the 2nd Iraq war are a perfect example. We should have killed all the Saudis responsible for the attacks and taken over their oil. But, we couldn't do that so we had to find something else to do.

In this case, the action is to ban all types of guns. All of them. Having a gun in your possession is a felony with 10 years and no parole.

Those who own guns will argue that it was an assualt rifle that did it. Self interest at its best.

In fact I would propose something more radical

A system of gun ownership licencing and compulsory security.

You can own some guns in the UK. Shotguns remain fairly easy to obtain via a licence. We have banned high capacity versions but over and under/side by side and semi auto 3 shots are available. Ownership for sporting purposes and vermin control are the onlt acceptable reason for ownership and some form of security is required. You have to undergo a fairly thorough background check.

Bolt action rifles are allowed on a seperate licence and the grounds for issue are far tighter. Hunting (proof of land to hunt on required) and target shooting (proof of gun club membership reqd) are the only reasons allowed. Very tight security requirements and very thorough vetting process.

No handguns no semi auto weapons of any description. Self defence is NEVER a reason for granting a licence

When Derick Bird went on a recent killing spree in the UK he used a 12 guage and a .22 bolt action rifle. What he did was to ensure he used a car to keep moving and allowed him to target individuals before fleeing. His weaponry would have made it difficult to have gone to a school and commited mass murder due to the need to constanlty reload and the consequent risk of being over powered.

To a ceetain extent guns are a necessary evil, particulrly for vermin control. I would certainly like a more thorough check on the mental health of anyone applying for a gun licence in the UK and I think it will happen soon.

Why couldnt such a system work in the USA (other then the obvious 2nd Amendment issues)?

Definitely need one of these to protect myself and my family...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

I know of several guys around who have those Barrett 50's. They have to go way out into the country to fire them. One of those 50 rounds will obliterate a vehicle's engine block at a mile and a half. I think they paid a bit less than eight grand for theirs a couple of years ago but for what they paid, I could get me a great vintage Gibson guitar and old Fender tube amp. I wouldn't worry about any civilians with these pulling off Adam Lanza-type escapades since each .50 cal round costs more that a brand new Pro V1 at MSRP.

FamousDavis wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:To someone familiar with weaponry it's obvious your opinions exceed your knowledge to the point that responding to you was a waste of time. Since you don't understand what you're talking about you aren't able to understand the specifics of what happened, the nature of the weapon and why what the shooter did may not have been possible without an assault style weapon. So your opinions are ignorant.

Not understanding leads to no solution because in your simplistic terms means completely eliminating the problem or doing nothing I guess. At this point I agree with Yaz.

Lorenzo, we are simply having a debate. I haven't seen evidence yet indicating that it was the assault rifle that made the difference in all of this or that a normal semi-auto rifle could not have done the exact same thing. My only point is that we shouldn't react and try to implement change that has nothing to do with what happened.

If the point is to try to keep this type of thing from happening again, don't we need to do a little more than ban a semi-auto assault rifle? Really?

I think I mentioned before I volunteer to help teens who have been so abused they've been gathered to live in a controlled environment in a program that has a lot of success turning lives like theirs around. I'm not looking for a pat on the back, I've been given much luck, the least I can do is give a little back. But I admit to being unprepared for the stories I hear about what some of them have been through. This week it seems as though whatever trust they may have gained for adults has been lost. That unfortunately disqualifies me from being the usual Lorenzo in a discussion like this.

edgey wrote:

FamousDavis wrote:

edgey wrote:I went to my 6 year old daughters nativity today (she was Mary) and throughout it I could not stop thinking about those poor little children and their familys.

Only at the end did i reflect on this. At no point did I ever have to worry that some psychopath armed better than me when I was a soldier may burst in and start shooting those children. It wasnt the lack of psycho's in the UK that made me feel safe (we have LOTS of them). It was the fact that we have as a nation removed our psycho's means of access to weapons of mass murder.

If anyone believes that the occasional mass murder of 5 year old children in their school is an acceptable consequence of the right to bear arms hey ho. Thank God we in the UK decided it is not

Nobody is saying that of course. But, if you are going to implement change then it has to be effective and based on what actually occurred. Our country is famous for taking action simply because we feel like we've got to do something, even if it's completely unrelated to what really happened. 9/11 and the 2nd Iraq war are a perfect example. We should have killed all the Saudis responsible for the attacks and taken over their oil. But, we couldn't do that so we had to find something else to do.

In this case, the action is to ban all types of guns. All of them. Having a gun in your possession is a felony with 10 years and no parole.

Those who own guns will argue that it was an assualt rifle that did it. Self interest at its best.

In fact I would propose something more radical

A system of gun ownership licencing and compulsory security.

You can own some guns in the UK. Shotguns remain fairly easy to obtain via a licence. We have banned high capacity versions but over and under/side by side and semi auto 3 shots are available. Ownership for sporting purposes and vermin control are the onlt acceptable reason for ownership and some form of security is required. You have to undergo a fairly thorough background check.

Bolt action rifles are allowed on a seperate licence and the grounds for issue are far tighter. Hunting (proof of land to hunt on required) and target shooting (proof of gun club membership reqd) are the only reasons allowed. Very tight security requirements and very thorough vetting process.

No handguns no semi auto weapons of any description. Self defence is NEVER a reason for granting a licence

When Derick Bird went on a recent killing spree in the UK he used a 12 guage and a .22 bolt action rifle. What he did was to ensure he used a car to keep moving and allowed him to target individuals before fleeing. His weaponry would have made it difficult to have gone to a school and commited mass murder due to the need to constanlty reload and the consequent risk of being over powered.

To a ceetain extent guns are a necessary evil, particulrly for vermin control. I would certainly like a more thorough check on the mental health of anyone applying for a gun licence in the UK and I think it will happen soon.

Why couldnt such a system work in the USA (other then the obvious 2nd Amendment issues)?

Having never been a gun owner myself I'm not very familiar with NZ law but I imagine it is pretty similar to the UK laws you describe.

Slightly off topic a new weapon that is surprisingly slipping through the loopholes is the new gas powered air guns. When I was a kid I had an air gun that fired one .177 cal pellet then you had to crank the entire barrel and reload 1 single pellet at a time. Not a lot of opportunity for mass murder there. Consequently air guns have never required a licence. But a year or two ago an under cover policeman was caught snooping around some gang/drug house and they chased him down the street and shot and killed him with a semi-automatic .22 cal gas powered rifle. These modern weapons look like replica military assault weapons but because they are not 'firearms' they do not require licensing. As somebody mentioned, sometimes technology overtakes the law that was drafted appropriately for the threat at the time but clearly the laws around even 'air' guns needs tightening.

Mostly German wrote:I know of several guys around who have those Barrett 50's. They have to go way out into the country to fire them. One of those 50 rounds will obliterate a vehicle's engine block at a mile and a half. I think they paid a bit less than eight grand for theirs a couple of years ago but for what they paid, I could get me a great vintage Gibson guitar and old Fender tube amp. I wouldn't worry about any civilians with these pulling off Adam Lanza-type escapades since each .50 cal round costs more that a brand new Pro V1 at MSRP.

Exactly. With the exception of a few ex military professionals, there is no need for a civilian to own this gun. It's made for one reason.

Lorenzzo wrote:

FamousDavis wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:To someone familiar with weaponry it's obvious your opinions exceed your knowledge to the point that responding to you was a waste of time. Since you don't understand what you're talking about you aren't able to understand the specifics of what happened, the nature of the weapon and why what the shooter did may not have been possible without an assault style weapon. So your opinions are ignorant.

Not understanding leads to no solution because in your simplistic terms means completely eliminating the problem or doing nothing I guess. At this point I agree with Yaz.

Lorenzo, we are simply having a debate. I haven't seen evidence yet indicating that it was the assault rifle that made the difference in all of this or that a normal semi-auto rifle could not have done the exact same thing. My only point is that we shouldn't react and try to implement change that has nothing to do with what happened.

If the point is to try to keep this type of thing from happening again, don't we need to do a little more than ban a semi-auto assault rifle? Really?

I think I mentioned before I volunteer to help teens who have been so abused they've been gathered to live in a controlled environment in a program that has a lot of success turning lives like theirs around. I'm not looking for a pat on the back, I've been given much luck, the least I can do is give a little back. But I admit to being unprepared for the stories I hear about what some of them have been through. This week it seems as though whatever trust they may have gained for adults has been lost. That unfortunately disqualifies me from being the usual Lorenzo in a discussion like this.

I hear you. I can be a ass at times. I should probably do some research before I start talking nonsense. My bad.

Kiwigolfer wrote:

edgey wrote:

FamousDavis wrote:

edgey wrote:I went to my 6 year old daughters nativity today (she was Mary) and throughout it I could not stop thinking about those poor little children and their familys.

Only at the end did i reflect on this. At no point did I ever have to worry that some psychopath armed better than me when I was a soldier may burst in and start shooting those children. It wasnt the lack of psycho's in the UK that made me feel safe (we have LOTS of them). It was the fact that we have as a nation removed our psycho's means of access to weapons of mass murder.

If anyone believes that the occasional mass murder of 5 year old children in their school is an acceptable consequence of the right to bear arms hey ho. Thank God we in the UK decided it is not

Nobody is saying that of course. But, if you are going to implement change then it has to be effective and based on what actually occurred. Our country is famous for taking action simply because we feel like we've got to do something, even if it's completely unrelated to what really happened. 9/11 and the 2nd Iraq war are a perfect example. We should have killed all the Saudis responsible for the attacks and taken over their oil. But, we couldn't do that so we had to find something else to do.

In this case, the action is to ban all types of guns. All of them. Having a gun in your possession is a felony with 10 years and no parole.

Those who own guns will argue that it was an assualt rifle that did it. Self interest at its best.

In fact I would propose something more radical

A system of gun ownership licencing and compulsory security.

You can own some guns in the UK. Shotguns remain fairly easy to obtain via a licence. We have banned high capacity versions but over and under/side by side and semi auto 3 shots are available. Ownership for sporting purposes and vermin control are the onlt acceptable reason for ownership and some form of security is required. You have to undergo a fairly thorough background check.

Bolt action rifles are allowed on a seperate licence and the grounds for issue are far tighter. Hunting (proof of land to hunt on required) and target shooting (proof of gun club membership reqd) are the only reasons allowed. Very tight security requirements and very thorough vetting process.

No handguns no semi auto weapons of any description. Self defence is NEVER a reason for granting a licence

When Derick Bird went on a recent killing spree in the UK he used a 12 guage and a .22 bolt action rifle. What he did was to ensure he used a car to keep moving and allowed him to target individuals before fleeing. His weaponry would have made it difficult to have gone to a school and commited mass murder due to the need to constanlty reload and the consequent risk of being over powered.

To a ceetain extent guns are a necessary evil, particulrly for vermin control. I would certainly like a more thorough check on the mental health of anyone applying for a gun licence in the UK and I think it will happen soon.

Why couldnt such a system work in the USA (other then the obvious 2nd Amendment issues)?

Having never been a gun owner myself I'm not very familiar with NZ law but I imagine it is pretty similar to the UK laws you describe.

Slightly off topic a new weapon that is surprisingly slipping through the loopholes is the new gas powered air guns. When I was a kid I had an air gun that fired one .177 cal pellet then you had to crank the entire barrel and reload 1 single pellet at a time. Not a lot of opportunity for mass murder there. Consequently air guns have never required a licence. But a year or two ago an under cover policeman was caught snooping around some gang/drug house and they chased him down the street and shot and killed him with a semi-automatic .22 cal gas powered rifle. These modern weapons look like replica military assault weapons but because they are not 'firearms' they do not require licensing. As somebody mentioned, sometimes technology overtakes the law that was drafted appropriately for the threat at the time but clearly the laws around even 'air' guns needs tightening.

I think that the .22 gas powered weapon you mention is actually powered by compressed air. The rifle has an attached air tank that is charged from either a compressor directly or a larger air tank. These weapons are highly sophisticated and quite expensive in the larger calibers....say $2,500-$4,000 for a .22. With a full shot of air, the projectile's muzzle velocity is close to that of one fired by gunpowder. The benefit of the compressed air gun is that it is very quiet.

FYI - A thread on MTBR on gun control and the mass murders was shut down is about 48 hours. There's a reason there is nothing but hugs and kisses over there.

Poe4soul wrote:FYI - A thread on MTBR on gun control and the mass murders was shut down is about 48 hours. There's a reason there is nothing but hugs and kisses over there.

There panties get in a wad kind of easily. Might be the estrogen levels. I suggest Prozac.

I'm glad FD started everyone this place. Salute FD

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

Violent crime rate? How about fatalities? People survive stab wounds all the time. Twenty-seven DEAD. 27. Twenty-seven. 27. DEAD. They probably would have chosen to take their chances with a lunatic wielding a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a crowbar. Or a samurai sword. Or a chainsaw. Or just about anything less effective at killing people than a semi-automatic firearm with a large magazine capacity. I'm pretty sure most people would prefer that the violence they could potentially experience in daily life be more survivable than gunshot wounds.

I read stuff like this and I wonder what motivation people must have to possess such an agenda, and how they can justify it while being able to look at themselves in the mirror every day. You already have it the way you want it. This is your gun-toting utopia. Nobody seems to be fighting for looser gun regulations, it's always "Don't TAKE AWAY my rights." so this happened on YOUR WATCH under YOUR RULES. Twenty-seven fatalities - most of them children, it's not hard to see that something is clearly wrong if the rules are lax enough for things like this to happen. The rest of society seems to think it's time to revise the rules - provided that the implemented revisions indeed have the desired effect of reducing the number of casualties when a disturbed individual decides to go on a killing rampage.

You probably have a jar of Bic pens on your desk - and a Bic pen can be a fatal weapon when applied appropriately, yet we never hear of mass murders being committed with Bic pens. Imagine the outrage if Bic pens were banned because of their potential to inflict harm.

I get where you're coming from. I'm a responsible gun owner myself. But there has to be a limit. You can't solve the problem entirely by banning guns with magazine capacities over 5 rounds. You can't solve the problem by banning certain caliber weapons from the public (the 50mm Barrett). But it HELPS. Add some more restrictions on who can own which firearms and for which reasons and it helps some more. Spend a little more gov't money on helping individuals who are mentally unstable. Give them the medical treatment they require w/o bankrupting their family, and maybe they'll get the care they need and a few less of them will shoot up movie theaters and elementary schools. It HELPS. Spend a little more gov't money on education, and maybe they'll learn enough not to buy in to the "prepper" mentality Lanza's mother subscribed to, maybe they'll learn how to be good, rational skeptics and not panic whenever a shadow seems to loom over them. It HELPS.

There is no single-faceted solution to this growing problem. It will require a combination of efforts to really affect any change, and that's what people are asking for in the aftermath of this tragedy. Nobody wants to take away your guns, they just want to implement a system of checks and balances that provides them with the assurance that you can be TRUSTED with your guns. Submitting to such a system would only further the credibility of deserving gun owners - so how is it a bad thing if it serves to weed out the bad apples while strengthening your position? I'm left scratching my head over the fact that so many people don't understand this.

In Canada - being a gun owner doesn't mean "I'm better than you because I'm allowed to have a weapon that could KILL you", it means "I'm better than you because I'm ALLOWED to have a weapon that could kill you". Authority vs Responsibility. I'm firmly in the Responsibility camp. IMO, you *think* you're in the Responsibility camp, but your opinions and actions place you firmly in the Authority camp. You need to come to understand that's not a sound foundation for championing second amendment rights. Once you do, you'll realize that change is necessary, and you'll still have your guns. The only difference is that the psychopaths won't be able to inflict harm to the degree that they are able to now. Unless you're a closet raging psychopath, the hardest this will hit you is a few monetary fees - and the knowledge that your grandchildren have a better chance of not being murdered by semi-automatic weapons solely designed for killing humans while learning math at school.

PLEASE, drop the partisan schtick and think about this rationally Dave - I'm pleading. I know you're a really good guy, a really smart guy, and truly have the best intentions at heart. But you need to open your eyes and your mind on this subject. I have faith in you - that's all I can really say. Coming from me, that statement alone should speak volumes.

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

As a gun owner most of my life, and a conceal carry permit holder for 2 decades, I don't have a bit of problem banning assault style military weapons with large magazines. It will probably bleed over to the banning of large capacity magazines in general being banned as well, and way stricter laws on obtaining permits.
People are sick and tired about assault weapons being used on our children, and in movie theatres, and on interstates, and in McDonalds, or a shopping mall.

Poe4soul wrote:

Exactly. With the exception of a few ex military professionals, there is no need for a civilian to own this gun. It's made for one reason.

No civilian got killed in Singapore that I know of, it's unlawful for them to carry a gun... END OF DISCUSSION

Pky6471 wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Exactly. With the exception of a few ex military professionals, there is no need for a civilian to own this gun. It's made for one reason.

No civilian got killed in Singapore that I know of, it's unlawful for them to carry a gun... END OF DISCUSSION

Isn't it illegal to have chewing gum in singapore also?

jt1135 wrote:

Pky6471 wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Exactly. With the exception of a few ex military professionals, there is no need for a civilian to own this gun. It's made for one reason.

No civilian got killed in Singapore that I know of, it's unlawful for them to carry a gun... END OF DISCUSSION

Isn't it illegal to have chewing gum in singapore also?

It's been over 42 years since I've been in Singapore but gum was illegal then and I assume it still its. We were stationed there for two weeks as the senior U.S. military unit and I roamed a good bit of that city/state. Never been in a more controlled and safe urban environment. The authorities took a real dim view of and had severe penalties for all sorts of things including drug use so we figured out that the best way to get high in the town was to eat hash instead of smoking it. Oh, and the fish and chips severed by the natives at the docks was the best in the world.

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

I'll.take someone clawing and scratching me over being shot. There wasn't a single mention of guns in that article. So we also assume that some could have escalated to gun us it was here in the us. Pretty weak argument by you dave. I expected much better.

jt1135 wrote:

Pky6471 wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Exactly. With the exception of a few ex military professionals, there is no need for a civilian to own this gun. It's made for one reason.

No civilian got killed in Singapore that I know of, it's unlawful for them to carry a gun... END OF DISCUSSION

Isn't it illegal to have chewing gum in singapore also?

Not anymore, except those gums made of condoms and imported from USA

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

I'll.take someone clawing and scratching me over being shot. There wasn't a single mention of guns in that article. So we also assume that some could have escalated to gun us it was here in the us. Pretty weak argument by you dave. I expected much better.

Though I don't personally believe we need guns all over the place, I realize that there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with a ban on auto/semi auto and huge magazines. Keep your handguns, shot guns, and bolt action rifles. If that little punk had anything other than a semi auto with a huge magazine, he would have been subdued. He still would have killed some kids, but those teachers and admins had no chance, even though they valiantly tried.

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

I'll.take someone clawing and scratching me over being shot. There wasn't a single mention of guns in that article. So we also assume that some could have escalated to gun us it was here in the us. Pretty weak argument by you dave. I expected much better.

Sorry to disappoint you Poe. The article is about a country with a gun ban, the UK. Logically, there wouldn't be a lot of gun crime there. The point of my posting the article is to remind people that guns aren't
the only kind of crime that makes victims, that murder is not ONLY done with guns, and in the end, the gun is the only thing that makes a little old lady equal to a big strong young man. Everyone has the right not to be assaulted in violent crime. Most people don't have the ABILITY to do anything about it, except for shooting the guy. Self defense is a right, just like being alive is a right. When people are made legally unable to defend themselves, i.e. with handgun bans, violent crime soars, as it has in the UK. The world is a buffet when you're a mugger and little old ladies don't have guns.

Big Dave wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

I'll.take someone clawing and scratching me over being shot. There wasn't a single mention of guns in that article. So we also assume that some could have escalated to gun us it was here in the us. Pretty weak argument by you dave. I expected much better.

Sorry to disappoint you Poe. The article is about a country with a gun ban, the UK. Logically, there wouldn't be a lot of gun crime there. The point of my posting the article is to remind people that guns aren't
the only kind of crime that makes victims, that murder is not ONLY done with guns, and in the end, the gun is the only thing that makes a little old lady equal to a big strong young man. Everyone has the right not to be assaulted in violent crime. Most people don't have the ABILITY to do anything about it, except for shooting the guy. Self defense is a right, just like being alive is a right. When people are made legally unable to defend themselves, i.e. with handgun bans, violent crime soars, as it has in the UK. The world is a buffet when you're a mugger and little old ladies don't have guns.

Dave, to be fair, even the NRA is toning down this kind of garbage right now.