Bitcoin Forum

With so many mass shootings here in America and abroad, many are quick to say banning of certain firearms is the right way to approach this issue. Though where you find heavy control on firearms you find higher levels of stabbings, death by hammers and clubbings.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

Then when you look deep into the mass shootings you often find these active shooters were on, or got off shortly ago psychoactive synthetic pharmaceutical drugs.

http://www.ssristories.org/

http://www.sott.net/article/279716-Nearly-every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-weapons

Funny how the media almost never makes those correlations.

IMO: These pharmaceuticals affect peoples brains much more than what we currently understand with science, and society thinks we can help the sick by just prescribing them these new drugs (created in the last 50 years.) But then wonder why people lose their mind.

Anything the government cannot control is a problem for them. I tend to agree, it's a cultural problem - our culture is a big promoter of violence we find it everywhere tv, movies, games, music etc - but always in a positive sense. The gun violence also happens in the government (police) level, so we cannot simply separate them and say "the people owning guns are the problem".

The correlation with the pharmaceuticals has been known more than a year, but it still does not get talked about.  Obviously, it is a narrative that conflicts with the desired narrative of the Left.  

Sooner or later there will be a major lawsuit against these pharmaceutical companies for not coming clean about the possible effects of using their products.

This is something I've noticed doctors have been trying to point out, something pushed these guys over the edge and the mixture of being hopped up on drugs and not being treated right would do that to anyone nevermind people who have mental problems to begin with. Good luck ever getting anyone in America to admit that though, they conveniently ignore the fact that Canada and Switzerland have just about as many guns as the Americans do but you very rarely if at all hear about people going on a rampage with them.

In fact, minus the compulsory national service, I think that the Swiss way is the way to go, if you want to go and buy a gun or have a rifle, you've got to do some kind of proper training first, these 'accidents' I've seen people list as a blame against firearms are caused by people doing things I would never do with a firearm and I don't even own one or know how to take it apart properly!

I wonder what percentage of their population are subscribed psych drugs, compared to America.

I agree with you on training, to get a hunting license here in the US you have to take a hunters safety course, with that comes proper gun handling. The teachers state in that course that most hunting accidents are due to people that have never taken the course, though they may be promoting their classes. But have a point that proper gun handling can really cut down on accidents.


I think that did happen with some statin drugs. Not soo much psych drugs...


isnt it ironic that the people that are suppose to protect and serve, are the ones with unregulated violence in many cases.

That is a pretty enlightened view point from someone I would traditionally disagree with. As a libertarian I am pro gun but I can also see the value of proper instruction in the use and storage of firearms. I would not advocate mandating it at the federal level, but states and municipalities can certainly invoke such requirements. 

Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, & It’s NOT Weapons
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/#axzz3ANs9LxgU



Could Prescription Meds Result in Gun Confiscation?
http://www.livescience.com/28617-prescription-meds-gun-control.html


Obama VA Is Trolling Veteran Community For Gun Owners

Dear Veteran:

The James E. Van Zandt VA Medial Center is extending the opportunity to request free gun locks to the Veterans we serve. We are providing this opportunity because, as your partner in health care, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe. We selected you for this mailing to Veterans simply because you have an upcoming appointment at our facility.

If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock. As a Veteran, you already know about the importance of firearm safety. We encourage you to talk about gun safety with family members, loved ones, and close friends.

If you would like up to four free gun locks for personal use, please indicate how many you would like on the enclosed postcard, include your name and address, and return the postcard. When we receive your request we will mail the requested number of gun lock to the address you provide.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/obama-va-trolling-veteran-community-for-gun-owners/

This is a good thread.

If I gave you a gun would you shoot your family with it? I'm guessing very, very few would do that. So why do we think preventing law abiding citizens from carrying a gun will stop the violence? Now if someone said yes to my question, and would indeed shoot his family because he is mentally ill or a violent psychopath; why would we think that making a rule is going to stop him?

Our gun laws make no sense. They assume that good people will turn bad if they have a gun and that bad people will obey rules. In my experience this could not be more wrong.

Also where there are heavy controls on firearms, you see criminals with PISTOLS commiting the most gun offenses that injure and kill people. Baseball bats are also regularly used as well as knives. For the most part so called "assault rifles" are not used almost ever in any gun shootings. Infact, using those types of rounds of ammunition to kill someone is not as effective as a pistol is. Hollow point bullets are designed to expand like a pancake insdie of someone. "assault rifles" us bullets that penetrate people and go through them making a small hole. If you really wanted to commit mass murder, using a glock 9mm with a 100 round drum would be way more effective and easier to maneuver with than using an "assault rifle".

I agree with this title.
Compare USA with Canada, for example.
In Canada there is no ''gun culture'' like in USA.
Result: Less violence and crime than in USA.
In USA people are ''brainwashed'' that they must have guns in order to protect themselves.
In reality is other way around, more violence, more crime and very unsafe living for average people.
Guns are not the part of solution but part of the problem.
So, something must be changed in USA before situation become worst.
USA need culture of ''peace'' not violence.

Almost every sentence is wrong except the bolded section.

I was joking with a friend a while back, the only real use of a pistol is to take some rifles away from their owners.

Most of this is untrue.  There is no "gun culture " in the USA.  There are many different cultures in the USA and areas, some places guns are useful and increase safety, some they are unnecessary.

Another part of this is the question, I believe unanswered, as to whether someone with mental illness controlled by psychoactive medical, who would be inclined to go on a rampage if taken off the medication, would similarly go on a rampage if he did not have guns available, and what the differences would be.

Correlation is not Caucasian.

Those killers might kill whether they take drug or not.

i disagree. there are crazies in america, and they are often the ones who do the public shooting, but there's also a gun culture problem.. only in america do we have this many gun nuts and gun-related deaths. guns are rooted in american culture.

people from other westernized countries have lots of their own mentally unstable people, so why don't they have as many mass shootings?

The US has a very high proportion of prescribed meds when compared to the majority of western nations. I believe there is a good correlation between prescribed meds and gun violence.

As to why the general US public require assualt weapons in urban environments, or even for farming, is beyond me. In Australia, assault weapons & semi-automatics are banned. If you want to go hunting (Kangaroo, Deer, Goat, Water Buffallo or even Crocodiles) then you have access to bolt action rifles which means you need to be a well trained shot not some hill billy that sprays and prays.

So I come back to the US issue being one of culture, the desire to have fully automatic assault weapons and destabalising psychotropic drugs being over prescribed resulting in people whom loose the plot and have access to military grade weapons.

First, the US public does not "require assault weapons."  As you note, hunting activities are quite well served by bolt action rifles.  There are no hunters who spray and pray, as game scatters quickly.  There is only time for one shot, in my experience.

The exceptions to this would be what we consider dangerous animals, like wild pigs.  These come at you and come after you, and you had better have some serious firepower.  Large caliber pistol, eg, Dirty Harry's gun, comes to mind.  And this is essentially a self defense problem, not hunting per se.

Very few people in the US desire "fully automatic assault weapons".  Semi automatic, such as the Glock in handhelds, and modern rifles, are likely what you meant to say.  There are to my knowledge no cases of "fully automatic" weapons being used in crime in the USA, unless you literally go back to the 1920-1930s prohibition era, "Machine Gun Kelly", etc.

There are several aspects of this which could be split apart using statistical techniques and causation could I think be established.

Not so sure about Caucasian....

Because they take care of them far better, never thought I'd be defending our own fucking health care system LOL!

There is a 100% correlation between "gun free zones" and sucessful mass murders. "According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual."

Infringe the most important human right (self-defense), sane innocents bleed.

For some reason though, the phrase has came to refer to use of guns.  Obviously, explosives and other means accomplish the same ends, and are fundamentally indiscriminate.

i agree. i envy japanese culture

Yes, and everyone should be forced to take spelling, speech, and debate lessons before exercising their 1st Amendment rights is allowed.  /sarc

The populations of Canada and Switzerland are tiny and culturally homogenous compared to the vast, diverse USA.

While the Swiss are a free people (and kept that way by their respect for the right to armed self-defense) they are a very small country nestled high in the mountains.  Canadians are not a free people, being property owned by The Crown and The City.  Like other Euros, they are free-riders on the security services and ensuing stability provided by those nasty gun-loving American brutes.  Neither place make for a valid comparison to the USA.

It's a damn shame our Aussie cousins were so easily cowed by one tragedy into giving up a Right enshrined in common law since before Magna Carta.  Reclaiming that Right will not be free or easy.  There will be a heavy price to pay...   :-\

I don't have a problem with encouragement of training in firearms, for a variety of reasons.  Both for men and women and children of both sexes.  Could be taught in high school, for example.  

For example, Glocks are very popular, but do not have an external safety.  This means an ignorant person can easily pick one up and put his finger inside the trigger guard, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The issue that I see is that the Left in the US encourages fear about firearms, and encourages ignorance about them.  This is doubly dangerous.  

I do have a problem with the idea that as part of buying a gun, someone should be forced to go through some training course.  We already have such courses for people who wish concealed carry.  There are simply too many diverse uses and reasons for purchasing firearms to make training integral to the purchase.

There is something to the pharmaceutical thing I believe. Anecdotally I once took a popular anti-depression medication marketed for smoking cessation. I did quit smoking for a while but it also did some really weird things to my mind. I remember at one point thinking that suicide "just made sense" in a strange way. I stopped taking the medication immediately. I have never been a depressive or suicidal type. I can't imagine what effect these drugs might have on a less stable mind.

The veteran trolling is just twisted. What do we think the odds are about a list of names and addresses being compiled of anyone that requests a trigger lock?

Indeed.

In term of gun ownership, Switzerland has a higher percentage of citizen owning gun than American. Yet you don't hear people getting killed on the street as often as American.

Yes, true.
People in USA feel insecure, and understand that they should protect themselves, their families etc.
In Europe, people don't keep guns because they want to protect themselves or feel insecurity (at least most of them).
People like guns because of hunting, or they inherited it from parents or, like in Switzerland, it's mandatory for everybody who was in Swiss army.
 

And Switzerland isn't right next to Mexico.  Any more brilliant comparisons?

I agree with the firs part of your statement. It is most often the mentally ill that carry out rampage shootings. The problem with the second part of the argument is... "who is a gun nut"? Someone who like guns and has guns as a hobby? Then I guess I am one.

Do people in the "gun culture" do the shootings? No. We go to the shooting range and shoot paper circles all day. As a member of a quite serious gun club I know that the people there are extremely safety conscious and careful with their weapons. In fact, in gun culture you show your credibility by being a tyrant about the rules. Rampage shooters are not gun nuts, nor do they have any connection to gun culture, they are simply nuts.

Additionally, most shootings in the U.S. are shootings by known criminals and the victims are known criminals. This has always been the case. (excluding the civil war). If we actually enforced the gun laws we have now, and put people away for possessing illegal weapons much could be done to stop the majority of gun violence. But we don't. Often the gun part gets plea bargained away. 

None of this is a growing concern. Violent crime is at historic lows in the U.S. Even the most dangerous cities are much more safe than a generation ago. Of course, those most violent cities also have the most restrictive gun laws.  So if you want safety from gun violence, your best bet is to live where there are almost no shootings and everyone has a gun.

This is quite likely true because "gun nuts" of which I also would be one all have a palpable fear of the dangers of all parts of guns.  Often times learned the hard way.

I also agree with this. Most of the mass murders/public shootings are carried out by people who have some kind of mental illness who should not be around guns. I am not exactly sure how to solve this issue without stepping on many citizens' rights.

It is interesting that the places in the US that have the highest rates of gun related crimes and violence are places that have strict gun laws. I would speculate that criminals commit these crimes knowing that there will not be a citizen around with a gun to stop his crime.

You know I sincerely do appreciate people from other parts of the world talking knowingly about how they don't need guns to feel safe and how they think somewhat condescendingly that they are better than Americans in this respect.  Transplant some of these guys to south Texas, Arizona or Chicago let's see how rapidly their attitudes change.  

There is no question for me that if a criminal or a nut job worried that some of the people in that restaurant, theater or whatever might be doing concealed carry, he would not do his evil deed.  Not at that place and time.   He is looking for an easy, safe for him hit.  

Most police departments in the US support concealed carry, and are straightforward about it's benefits to the society at large.  

If we have scientific or practical knowledge or guess work that the psychoactive drugs accelerate dangerous behavior including shootings, this needs to be seriously investigated.  It cannot be allowed to be ignored because of lobby and vested interests of psychiatrists (pill pushers, basically) and the pharmaceutical industries.  This is likely what we are beginning to face - serious money interests that would deflect issues with their products by agitating the anti-gun bandwagon.

That's pretty sorry, but that's the way it is.

On the other hand if as a society we accept that psychoactive drugs have great benefits for society and some 0.1 or 0.001% of users go wacko on them, so be it.  But for reasons of discussion, let me note that these rather odd cases of psychotic and delusional behavior, mass murders, do not seem to occur with heroin, crack, speed, marihuana, hashish, or other drugs taken for reasons of addiction or pleasure and for which we imprison people.

The gun control agenda is something to appease the masses after a tragedy occurs.

Nobody ever looks deeper at why the kid decided to shoot up a school, mall, or movie theater.

The bully culture breed from "exceptionalism".

I personally am not a fan of guns, live by the sword die by the sword. If you want to hunt use a bow and arrow more of a sport. But if you want the citizens to disarm, first disarm the state esp the industrial military complex.

Japan , Murder rate 0.3/100k total victims 442.
And this is a country where there is heavy gun control.

I think that the problem is not really with the guns but with the low IQ of the monkeys playing with them.

Ya, but Japan has the 9th highest suicide rate, with the other top 1-9 being societies that highly restrict guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide

Serenity NOW, Insanity LATER?

Suicide rates for the US is 12 while Japanese is 24.
Murder rate in Japan is 0.3 while in US is 4.8

And better kill yourself in the basement than going nuts with a gun in a crowd.

So: In USA, 16.8 die from murder and suicide per 100,000
      In Japan, 28.8 from murder and suicide per 100,000

I think we're doin' OK statistically.


"And better kill yourself in the basement than going nuts with a gun in a crowd."
I can agree with that.

Way to miss the point of the OP as well as skipping over pretty much every post after. Confirmation bias much?

Lol, as much as I love guns (I do), consider the source of this learned article:

http://s27.postimg.org/h6yregof7/Capture.jpg

Let me give you a catchier title: "Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years EVAR Shares One Thing In Common, &: It’s NOT Weapons

i disagree. there are crazies in america, and they are often the ones who do the public shooting, but there's also a gun culture problem.. only in america do we have this many gun nuts and gun-related deaths. guns are rooted in american culture.

people from other westernized countries have lots of their own mentally unstable people, so why don't they have as many mass shootings?

ONE answer is the method of handling of mentally unstable people.  If a country put them in institutions, they would not be out running around on the streets.  And they would not be capable of killing, on the day in which they did not take their medicines.

In reality, there is no statistical relationship between areas with strong "gun culture" and the percentage of murders due to firearms.

http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2010/12/13/some-interesting-statistics-on-murders-committed-with-guns-by-state/

The USA has a way different way of handling their drug problem and decided to wage a war on it..  Do you think that has anything to do with the gun culture..?

Actually, I think something was artificially created in this thread called "gun culture", then after it was created, all the "gun deaths" were capable of being blamed on "gun culture".

The argument is thus falsified, as the premise does not stand.

Europe and Asia have a different way of handling their war problem.  When Euros and Asians get into one of their frequent bloody conflicts, they simply wait around suffering terribly until the Americans show up to put everything right and rebuild their warlike countries.

Obviously Asia and Europe have a war culture problem, so they handle that by waging war on guns.

Maybe next time, we'll just stay home with our nasty American guns and let them all be turned into slaves and/or fertilizer by the Germans and Japanese.   :D

Lool, tell me more about the (recently) peaceful gun-free Asians and industrious civilized Euros.  And I'll remind you how they got that way...   ::)

Kids were raised without parental guidance and care. We are only seeing the consequences of the welfare system to support single parental family.

I dont understand why you need to own a rifle if you arent a hunter.

I could understand a 9mm Semi automatic pistol in the drawer next to your bed if a home invasion should ever happen..
But the need for having rifles, smgs, and other weapons is just insanity.

12.000+ people gets shot in the US alone by fire arms.
That is insanely high..

Why cant you just put down the weapons and be like other nations..?

You cant own any kind of firearms in EU. Only if you have a hunting license, and a specific license for your hunting weapon..
Any person in the US can get a gun in less than 2 hours.

Good question.  First, as anyone who has been in the military will tell you, a rifle is the basic weapon.  A pistol has certain advantages, but even at short distances, rifles rule.  Second, pistols are quite difficult to hold properly and to use without training.  Third, in the US, the AR15 rifle style has actually became a preferred hunting weapon.  

That's all very much simplified and summarized, keep in mind.

Having said the above, we know that the "black rifle" - the AR15 - had it's initial surge in consumer popularity after the Clinton ban on "assault rifles".   And we know that each time Obama has tried to do something to promote bans, AR15/ammo/pistol sales surged.  It's gotten to the point to where gun stores say Obama is their best salesman.

You see, when you say "Why cant you just put down the weapons and be like other nations..?"....

What happens here is that people don't believe the politician who encourages them in that direction, and they do the exact opposite.  There are, by the way, a huge number of liberal Democrats with lots of guns.  It's not just conservative thinkers. 

It's weird to me that people always make an exception for owning a gun as long as you are using it to kill animals. I target shoot. If I duct tape a bunny to the target, would that make it ok?
As for the people who get shot each year, you do realize those are criminals doing the shooting. And the victims are normally other criminals. This is an argument for having guns, right?
Lastly, your assertion that "Any person in the US can get a gun in less than 2 hours." is incorrect. There are many, many restrictions on firearms in the U.S. I bought a pistol last week and it took about a week to do the process of background checks and shipping to a FFL. It also involved a handfull of government agencies.

+1 I'm not a republican. But I am an American and we don't believe in an armed state ruling an unarmed populace. The state is subservient to our will and we must be able to fight it if necessary. That sounds dramatic, but one need look no further than the news to see why we like it that way. 

That's incorrect, there is no common EU gun law. In Sweden for example there are three different kinds of gun licenses. Hunting, target shooting and protection. License for protection being the hardest to get, and hunting the easiest, although target shooting license for a shotgun, i.e. skeet shooting, is not hard to get. I have seven different firearms, three for hunting and the rest for target shooting, ranging from one "assault weapon" (FN FNC/Ak 5) to a Glock 22 with an additional 9 mm barrel and a revolver cal 22 lr for plinking. There are also the possibility to buy a gun manufactured before 1890 and not made for "unit cartridges".(Problably not the right word in english, but it has to be the percussion kind if you know what i mean). These guns  require no license at all and are just as deadly.

The Texas rule on that is mft before 1895, which generally means cartridges, but black powder loads in those cartridges.    And, correct, these are "not firearms."

OK this is my understanding about reasons why so many average Americans using guns as means for self-protection, not for hunting or sport. I shared this opinion based on my experience while living in USA but you may know better. Please share your opinion.
 

Out of pure curiosity for how long have you been living in the US?
Cause checking your posts you sure haven't been born there and you haven't spent too much time in the states either.

I have to correct myself, I forgot the fourth license category, collecting.

That 12k includes violent criminals getting killed in self-defense.

Nope, the 170 million "gun control" victims in the 20th century (average of 17 million per year) is insanely high.

Raise your hand if your in favor of gun control.  ;D

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Adolf-Hitler-Gun-Control.jpg

I mention this because a lot of people around the world have some mistaken ideas about the average US guy and guns.

The 2nd amendment in the US really is about taking down the government if need be.  LOL...  or the right of the citizens to forcibly, if need be, resist bad things by the government.....

I'm of the opinion that's "a good thing".  Might vary by country and area and history, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

IMHO:  Iraq and places like that, where terrorists run amok, everyone should be ARMED.

Taking down the government?
That's what elections are for.
But obviously many people here don't believe in democracy.
You think you can win an armed fight against the majority of the people?

fyp

No.  And yes, that's what elections are for.

I'm just noting what the actual intent of the 2nd amendment is.  You can say  it's crazy, or that it isn't relevant today.  Whatever.  Doesn't matter what you think, really.

The statistics on gun deaths in Europe are not really different than in the U.S. We do have a lot of shootings every year, but in Europe the whole continent kills each other off every once and a while. Mostly unarmed people are rounded up and executed in the millions. That is supposed to be a better system? It would could not happen that way here.

Well, they won't try that on the Swiss, either.

Odd (not REALLY) how Europeans would like to talk us into disarming the citizens of the US.  But they never say that about the Swiss.

Yeah. And the Swiss seem to always avoid the wars. When I was in Croatia during the civil war the Serbs were slaughtering the Croats. Once the guns arrived for the Croats the fighting ground to a near halt.  It is more dangerous when only one side is armed, IMO.

Yep.

It's just not fair, an armed robber should have to worry about the homeowner having assault rifles.

Elections are for the government to count the votes in favor of the worst possible evil. Electoral fraud is the rule, not the exception.

The second amendment is so that you (the majority) can take down a corrupt government, i.e. a government that does no longer adhere to the constitution. Not for a small minority to stage a coup d'etat.

We could argue the details, yes.  But the main and important point is that the right to own weapons in the USA is not related to a right to target shooting, or a right to hunt animals.

It is a right to own weapons for defense of oneself, one's family, and one's society, up to and including against a government which has turned gangster.  And this right is not subjugated or limited by any stated democratic process such as "elections."

Actually the main and important point is that it is a right in the USA and a privilege in most other countries.

It depends on the country but in a lot of western countries the voting turnout is so low that the Democracy isn't actually representing the people at all.

Just as with freedom of speech, armed self-defense is a right of all people everywhere, regardless of whether the local authorities protect it or violate it.

Few countries have enshrined that right in law to the extent of the 2nd Amendment.  That's a shame; where government fears its citizens liberty exists, where citizens fear their government, the opposite.

But if the people doesn't want to vote, then that is also a part of the democracy, not voting is a kind of voting in it self, a way to say I don't care or I'm happy as it is.

I agree that it is a natural right, but I'm afraid the courts don't obey by those laws.

And interestingly, now with Bitcoin the question arises whether fiat currency is a right of the State, or may it be a privilege.

And whether the people have a right to their own currency, or is it just a privilege.

This may prove to be equally important as the 1st and 2nd Amendments in it's effects on nations across the world.

We want to see our votes counted and the worst possible evil to NOT "win" whenever it counts. Only one of these actually happens, so why should we waste our time on a discarded vote?

"There are three and only three ways to reform our Congressional legislation, familiarly called, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box". -Stephen Decatur Miller

We are at the jury box stage right now. If the courts refuse to obey the law and SCOTUS rules to the effect of "there is no right to self-defense, so disarmament and subsequent genocide is absolutely legal", then there will be a full-blown civil war in the U.S. again, but between the tyrannical, undemocratically unelected tyrants, and we the people.

Interesting point.

And on the gun issue: The coming 3D printers will make it very easy for anyone anywhere to manufacture a gun, in the future it might be the ammo that is restricted instead.

But who knows, the 3D printer might just be the first step towards a Star Trek like replicator, and then you can just order some Earl Grey, hot, and a box of 9mm parabellum.

At some point someone will invent ammo that can be 3D printed. And as long as that technological leap will be made, I hope the inventor can also make the 3D printed bullets render people unconscious Star Trek style, but never be able to kill them.

Well, or equally likely, alternative means of high energy projectile launching.

I'd personally like a 3d printed hypervelocity railgun pistol that shot sewing needles.   For a rifle, a compressed air operated 800 foot per second beer can launcher would do nicely.  Not talking empty cans here...

Same. https://i.imgur.com/Wbu2ARJ.jpg

   
 
   +1
 -and we are losing the culture of finding solutions to the problems   
   
       
   

Just asking why...


Why do you need a AR15 rifle in your home?
Why is it you need a Automatic pistol or smg?

Lose the fucking weapons and be like the rest of the world..
Gun freaks...

Be like the rest of the world? With an average of 17 million dead annually in genocides of disarmed innocents throughout the 20th Century?
NO THANK AND FUCK YOU, genocide freaks...

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, UK, France, Spain and any other fucking country in europe does not have anywhere near the same dead rate % as the US has because you gun freaks cant just keep your weapons in the housr for safety instead of massshootings or psychos that go crazy in public.

Get some knowledge you dumbass and see who has the highest death rates when it comes to violence.

You can in no way defend yourself against a man with a gun in his hand.
He can shoot you at any distance so you cant run from him.

Bold faced liar. You can't be shot with a gun "at any distance".

Welcome to my ignore list.

That is just absurd..

If I stand 10 feet away from you and have to run away from you, then my chance if survival is insanely small.. Because you have a gun that you can fire at me.

If you had a knife or Baseball bat then I would be able to defend myself, or run from you..

A comment like that is just retarded.. Denial is the problem gun nuts have..

From a gun you can defend yourself or run from them? Don't be fucking stupid, you'll either get shot in the back or a person will get shot in the face if you try and take them on melee, granted there's a chance to fight back if you go in full force but it's not advisable nevermind the fact that you're arguing hypotheticals from an ignorant position.

That's the main problem I have with this whole gun control 'debate' it's purely argued from hypotheticals very rarely do I see some actual maths or real logic go into it, people arguing for gun control conveniently forget what the army use to 'keep us safe' as they constantly tout and I haven't even gone into police response times yet versus what would actually happen.

2011: 11,101
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Gun Homicides in the us the past years. All criminal.

That is insanely high if you look at any other first world country.
The numbers are against you.

Drop the fucking weapons and stop being so afraid of everything that moves.

NON Fatal gun injuries:

2012: 81,396
2011: 73,883
2010: 73,505
2009: 66,769
2008: 78,622
2007: 69,863
2006: 71,417
2005: 69,825
2004: 64,389
2003: 65,834
2002: 58,841
2001: 63,012


Looks to me like its rising..

It's not about being afraid of everything, nevermind the fact that despite the way you guys act gun owners are right in that criminals aren't going to give a shit about gun bans you have to deal with the fact that the police response times are too high and that's even in the well developed cities where they're funded properly, in places like Detroit where the government has simply given up and said you're on your own are you seriously suggesting people just give up their guns? You don't live in the real world, the irony of this is the politicians who advocate gun control are the ones who have the most armed guards and the biggest weapons available.

So say you do manage to even call the police to begin with, what are you going to do? Ask the assailant nicely to wait for two minutes while the police come and arrest them? No they're going to still beat the crap out of you and then run or they'll just take their chance and run for it just like that with it devolving into a police chase if you're lucky. I haven't even gotten into the actual state of the policing itself, in the UK we had a guy recently that gun control advocates like to forget about that went on a rampage with a shotgun and the police simply threw their hands up when questioned about it saying that the two officers that were following him couldn't do anything because they weren't armed.

You are also not taking into account for the fact that while I'm for gun ownership I'm for disciplined gun ownership, I don't want some untrained drunkards carrying weapons around I want people even the army would fear crossing because of how well trained they are, that would cut the accidents down, but you can't do anything about people wanting to kill each other, that takes a lot more than a simple gun law.

I think a version of what the swiss do where people receive military training in their weaponry is the best way to cut down accidents but the problem of the psychotic murderers in your country is something genuinely to do with America itself rather than guns, especially when we're talking about the pharmaceutical industry who pump your children with drugs.

We gots a speciation problem.

So pulling out a gun in just the answer to every kind of crime in the US?

In Denmark criminals have guns.. The population does not.. Have you ever heard of a kitchen knife or a baseball bat?

Why does everything have to be solved with a gun?

I'm British by the way and the fact that you seem to think kitchen knives and baseball bats are going to do anything is ridiculous lol I also love how you dodged my point about police response times and psychiatric drugs.

fyi: We have one of the strictest gun control legislations out there, in Manchester it is apparently incredibly easy to get guns if you're a criminal

Did work the last time...

2 men was trying to get in.. I woke up.. Grabbed a bat.. When they finaly got the door kicked in, I hit the first one in the head so he passed out..

The second one tried to come in after that, and I hit him twice before he saw me.


Fuck guns...

Use a bat.

Yeah, what if they had guns?

First one had.. He just did not have a chance to point it at me before he was passed out by my bat.

Second one did not have a gun.

Im talking about US specificly..

I dont know much about the UK laws about guns.
But there is no where near the amount of people in % that dies from firearms like the US.. I know that.

That's because in other parts of the world we don't use unnecessary amounts of drugs on people claiming they have mental problems.

You cant tell me that every single kill from the 10k+ a year that dies in the US is a psycho on drugs.

If you want to own a gun.. A 9mm pistol then you should have military training to be able to own it.

There is no reason to own a rifle if you arent a hunter.

gg in that case but honestly you got lucky taking him by surprise, I don't advocate the killing of people when they're surrendering or running away by any means don't get me wrong, I think doing that makes you a murderer, but the fact is the last thing you want is to be facing an armed gang with absolutely nothing on you if you have the option of not doing so.

Also, if there's no reason to own a gun, why do the military and police carry them? It's that simple, also, I'm going to go and gather evidence now that proves my theory about mass killings.

Edit: Holy shit, that was easy - http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/ - That's 34 cases I have found in 5 seconds where the mass murderers were either on drugs or had stopped taking them, either way that could have easily been the cause, this is something people like you like to ignore quite a bit.

But mass murders arent killing 10k+ people a year..
And yea, most mass killlings are from people with psyko problems.

But im talking about the "normal" people who pulls out a gun, and fires. Not a desturbed person that runs into a school with a rifle and kills children.

That's life, if you don't take responsibility for your actions then the police are going to do the shooting for you, the same goes for the army and as we've seen they tend to royally fuck things up just as badly as any of us could because they're only human, I personally would much rather take responsibility for my own actions defending myself and know I did my best than push all the blame and responsibility on somebody else. In all seriousness as I've said before, if you're dealing with someone who's unarmed or just armed with a melee weapon this is why you learn some kind of close quarters/unarmed fighting so you know how to handle yourself without resorting to a gun or you learn the points where a person won't be killed easily if you shoot them so they just get put in hospital.

I would rather see the US without weapons.. Or with the military training  required for having a 9mm.

Dont see a need for a rifle. You arent going to snipe the intruder from your stairs to the front door..

Going by your logic, why do the military and police need rifles to use them on their own citizens then?

When has a MP5 or M4A1 been used to fire directly on a inocent US citizen?

What point are you trying to make?  That more guns in the mix would have prevented these killings from being done?  Don't get me wrong, I love guns, and I would have been one happy little 7th grader if I they let me turn my locker into an armory, but I doubt I would have cut down the number of senseless gun deaths.  Just being honest here.

...Of course, it could be argued that life is too safe to begin with, and the alternative to controlling population growth with guns is even less acceptable (like floods, famine or pestilence), but that's a different argument...

No my point is it's the drugs that are making the main difference, America is such a different country in general to the ones that people keep comparing them to.

10k+ people arent being killed by people on drugs.. That is just bullshit..
Some kill because they are jealous.. Some kill from insanity moments that can happen to all people no matter how healthy you are.

And there is so many other reasons.. Drug addicts are not the only reason..

Yes, economic for one, that's another reason people like to ignore, things are really shit now and so people start getting desperate and angry and I'm not talking about drugs specifically but mental problems, part of which are definitely caused by drug overdoes and a corrupt psychiatric system.

Yes, rifles have been used on innocents.  probably most famous example is Kent State killings.

Many others, though.  Example, those associated with "no knock raids" where the police picked the wrong house.

Also a case where a cop on the street shot a man that was misbehaving with an M16.

Just a little correction here, since you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Shooting a pistol or revolver (I guess that's what you mean by "a 9 mm" (There are plenty of 9 mm submachine guns)) is very hard, it's hard to hit even at a short distance especially if you are in a situation where you are stressed out. A rifle is much better for accurate shooting in a stressed situation.

You are correct beyond correct.  When the drug has been correlated with virtually all of these mass murders, then any rational person would have to start asking questions about the drugs.

Instead we are talking to liberals about differences between rifles and pistols.  Totally ridiculous.

[Starting with] one out of five American adults is using psychiatric drugs, and assuming that psychoactive drugs neither increase nor decrease the propensity towards gun violence, one out of five gun related crimes would be committed under the influence of psychoactive drugs.  Simple statistics.  

Deregulating guns is unlikely to DEcrease the number of guns in the "wrong" (irresponsible, drug-addled) hands.  So...  What point are you trying to make?
It seems self-evident to me that when no one has access to guns, the crazies, being a subset of everyone, would be left without also.  No more crazies with guns.  If AK-74s are sold in the isle next to Ramen Pride, I'd hazard a guess that crazies would find it easier to keep their personal arsenals stocked, and one should expect more school shooting deaths.  Unless, of course, we start sticking banana clips instead of bananas in little Becky's lunch box and strapping an AK to her back, so'z she could defend herself.

Or are you saying that access to psychiatric drugs must be limited so'z you can leave some brass down at the range?
Still confused...

How about actually citing where you got that information from instead of just being lazy with your arguments? Also what? I have been constantly stating that the mental state of Americans is the cause of all these killings ( particularly the mass killings ) and frankly it's pretty fucking evident whenever you see Americans discussing something in a thread here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

To these numbers you have to add all homeguard guns being kept in private homes, especially in the nordic countries.

How about you adhere to the same strictures you try to impose on others?  The 1/5 statistic was obtained thusly:  Enter "percentage of americans using psychiatric drugs" in google.  Scroll down to first hit that offers a number.  Voila!

http://s3.postimg.org/macc97uoj/Capture.jpg

Your turn :)

P.S:  How you managed to get "American" from "AK-74" is beyond me...

Holy shit! That's actually the first time I've seen somebody post a fraction used in a politically leaned article that actually has a significant amount of backing and proper evidence behind it with a significant amount of people and data involved!

No really, I'm actually glad :D You shouldn't have picked fox news but I can find better articles on this elsewhere. < been extremely pissed off with the way people use fractions and percentages in their arguments lately

In that case, you're right, it looks like the amount of psychiatric drugs used in your average person is lower, I still maintain that when it comes to the mass shootings which most people cite it's a main cause though but I'll look for more evidence.

Certainly psycho killers are a very rare phenomena. Most gun deaths are perpetrated by sane criminals, and mostly to kill other professional criminals. However, I do not see the logic in your idea about who should be able to own a gun. Why should military training be part of the equation? Such training is training to locate and kill the enemy without the burden of laws or thinking. The military trains you to shoot to kill as soon as you see the right shape silhouette. After WW2 the training was perfected until they could get about 80% of soldiers to instinctively shoot before the gravity of their actions sets in. (up from the normal %20). Such training is wholly inappropriate for civilian defense an police work. A better idea would be a required de-programing for anyone who has had military training.

I also don't get why you make an exception for hunting? Why do I have to kill something or be a trained professional killer before I can own a gun?

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss151/arriemoller/BvbongCIMAEOgMd_zps13c51725.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/arriemoller/media/BvbongCIMAEOgMd_zps13c51725.jpg.html)

Win! :P

Fun with numbers you kids might'a missed:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg/750px-World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg.png

We Americans are doing fine, thanks.
For every 100 Americans--not just able-bodied adults but everybody--the aforementioned lunatics on meds, incontinent octogenarians, waddled babes--we gots moar than 75 privately-owned nugs.
We ain't got nottin' to be 'shamed of, we's undisputed champeens!
NOWHERES ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH has moar per-capita guns than here, in my land of the free, home of the brave.  No one even comes close.  Nosir.  If ya got a hankerin' to do some killin', odds are better than not you gots yous a gun to do it with, and dat's a na'ch'ral fact!

Thanks for your concern tho, Lethn and Arriemoller, I think we got it from here!
(Which gun-deprived, God-forsaken, culturally barren backwaters do you gents hail from?)

Game of the year is GTA5, people enjoy this kind of fun ;D

Why this proves it.

Us Amerikkans have fewer bangs of gun violence PER GUN than anywhere else on the Playnet.

I saw a video of some dude in China slashing random people with two meat cleavers.

Since they couldn't shoot him two guys had to run in and tackle him while he was distracted.

Insanity.

"It is morally superior to be butchered alive than successfully defend against that butcher with your firearm, in violation of criminal safety laws."

Sadly this is the truth  :'(

The funny thing is the proliferation of firearms is only going to increase in the coming years, thanks to the individualization of the means of production in the form of 3D Printers, CNC Mills, and Sintering Machines. Technology is on the side of the individual, technology only seeks to create a leverage effect to the labor of the individual, in the end true power(monopoly on force) will lay in the hands of individuals, not governments.

Do you have any idea how contradictory your Subject is?
"We do not have a gun culture problem, we have a culture problem"

A gun culture problem IS a culture problem!

And we will not sort that by letting our youth glorify guns on television, in their video games, in their music, and in the media, with all those mass shootings.

I think we have a mental health issue disguised as a gun violence issue.

We have a government problem. The few places in the U.S. that require everyday folks to wear a gun, have the safest neighborhoods around.

:)

There are no places that "require" the citizens to "wear" guns, they just acknowledge the citizens' constitutional right to bear arms, without any government infringement. Gun control is a direct impediment on our Second Amendment. In Switzerland, every one in two citizens bears a firearm, and it has the lowest crime rate in the world.

Open carry does reduce crime.

And, it almost forces you to get to know your neighbors. When you have a strong neighborhood alliance, even if it is informal, you have REAL strength.

:)

Amen to that!

However, this won't work if there is a minority excluded from the neighborhood watch.

Okay, it's the head of house required to own a gun: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/georgia-gun-requirement/.

:)

Fuck freedom of expression!

Interestingly enough, on the chart of countries with the most well-armed population, we're the only country to have school shootings on such a regular basis

That'll happen when you make it illegal for all sane law-abiding teachers and staff to effectively defend the children they are entrusted to (human shield is NOT effective defense), leave multiple points in school perimeters unguarded and easy as butter to slip through.

It makes no sense to disarm teachers. We are so misunderstood about gun control.