Active guntard shooting people at Canadian War Memorial building in Otawa, Canada!

This is going to be kinda embarrassing when it turns out to be (yet another) Muslimtard.

Muzzie eh? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is going to be kinda embarrassing when it
> turns out to be (yet another) Muslimtard.

About 90% of these don't turn out to be some terrorist. They end up being some white male who went postal with a gun.

How much do you want to bet the guy is white?

Dune coon, If it was a white guy they would've said so by now.

Wait, you mean in a country where owning a handgun is very difficult with such strict gun laws and regulations on the types of gun a crazy person was able to possess one?
Say it's not so.
He should've just got a shotgun like Joe Biden.

Witness said shooter is a middle aged man...? I know what that means..other than white.

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait, you mean in a country where owning a handgun
> is very difficult with such strict gun laws and
> regulations on the types of gun a crazy person was
> able to possess one?
> Say it's not so.
> He should've just got a shotgun like Joe Biden.


Do you know just how stupid you sound?

Impossible.

Canada has strict gun control.

Ottawa police confirmed first shooter is dead and muslim. Wouldn't surprise me if Canada closed its border from the US because of all these terrorists Hussein Obama has put here.

bad reporting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Impossible.
>
> Canada has strict gun control.

and a very serious Muslim problem.

Get a job Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libs hate America. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wait, you mean in a country where owning a
> handgun
> > is very difficult with such strict gun laws and
> > regulations on the types of gun a crazy person
> was
> > able to possess one?
> > Say it's not so.
> > He should've just got a shotgun like Joe Biden.
>
>
> Do you know just how stupid you sound?

Which part of my factual and truthful post do you find stupid? Or is it just that all truth and facts to a lib is automatically defined as stupid because it is not what your TV tells you to believe?

Was the dead soldier carrying a weapon?

More than 1 shooter. I'm watching a live feed.

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=68596&playlistId=1.2065440&binId=1.1164511&playlistPageNum=1

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get a job Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > libs hate America. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wait, you mean in a country where owning a
> > handgun
> > > is very difficult with such strict gun laws
> and
> > > regulations on the types of gun a crazy
> person
> > was
> > > able to possess one?
> > > Say it's not so.
> > > He should've just got a shotgun like Joe
> Biden.
> >
> >
> > Do you know just how stupid you sound?
>
> Which part of my factual and truthful post do you
> find stupid? Or is it just that all truth and
> facts to a lib is automatically defined as stupid
> because it is not what your TV tells you to
> believe?

What was the purpose of the post?
So are you saying that there should be no gun laws because somewhere sometime those laws may be broken?

Pointless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libs hate America. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Get a job Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Wait, you mean in a country where owning a
> > > handgun
> > > > is very difficult with such strict gun laws
> > and
> > > > regulations on the types of gun a crazy
> > person
> > > was
> > > > able to possess one?
> > > > Say it's not so.
> > > > He should've just got a shotgun like Joe
> > Biden.
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know just how stupid you sound?
> >
> > Which part of my factual and truthful post do
> you
> > find stupid? Or is it just that all truth and
> > facts to a lib is automatically defined as
> stupid
> > because it is not what your TV tells you to
> > believe?
>
> What was the purpose of the post?
> So are you saying that there should be no gun laws
> because somewhere sometime those laws may be
> broken?


I think he was trying to make the point that you can make a billion gun laws and the bad guys still won't obey them.

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait, you mean in a country where owning a handgun
> is very difficult with such strict gun laws and
> regulations on the types of gun a crazy person was
> able to possess one?
> Say it's not so.
> He should've just got a shotgun like Joe Biden.


Why can't I bring a gun into a session of congress?

jhsdfgsjfk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pointless Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > libs hate America. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Get a job Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Wait, you mean in a country where owning
> a
> > > > handgun
> > > > > is very difficult with such strict gun
> laws
> > > and
> > > > > regulations on the types of gun a crazy
> > > person
> > > > was
> > > > > able to possess one?
> > > > > Say it's not so.
> > > > > He should've just got a shotgun like Joe
> > > Biden.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you know just how stupid you sound?
> > >
> > > Which part of my factual and truthful post do
> > you
> > > find stupid? Or is it just that all truth and
> > > facts to a lib is automatically defined as
> > stupid
> > > because it is not what your TV tells you to
> > > believe?
> >
> > What was the purpose of the post?
> > So are you saying that there should be no gun
> laws
> > because somewhere sometime those laws may be
> > broken?
>
>
> I think he was trying to make the point that you
> can make a billion gun laws and the bad guys still
> won't obey them.


So that would apply to all laws, why have any?

Maybe they have less gun deaths because they have tougher laws?

Side note to this story, young girl shot by the Talban will become a Canadian today,they also wanted to cut off the Prime Minister's head.

It's too bad they don't have teabaggers up in Canada. These tea party guntards would've defended Canada's freedom.

Sounds like a coordinated terror attack. Unless it was in the US then Obobo would call it workplace violence.

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ottawa police confirmed first shooter is dead and
> muslim. Wouldn't surprise me if Canada closed its
> border from the US because of all these terrorists
> Hussein Obama has put here.

"Libs hate America" is full of shit as usual.

Just goes to show what animals shit eating dune coon muslims are.

No laws Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jhsdfgsjfk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pointless Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Get a job Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Wait, you mean in a country where
> owning
> > a
> > > > > handgun
> > > > > > is very difficult with such strict gun
> > laws
> > > > and
> > > > > > regulations on the types of gun a crazy
> > > > person
> > > > > was
> > > > > > able to possess one?
> > > > > > Say it's not so.
> > > > > > He should've just got a shotgun like
> Joe
> > > > Biden.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know just how stupid you sound?
> > > >
> > > > Which part of my factual and truthful post
> do
> > > you
> > > > find stupid? Or is it just that all truth
> and
> > > > facts to a lib is automatically defined as
> > > stupid
> > > > because it is not what your TV tells you to
> > > > believe?
> > >
> > > What was the purpose of the post?
> > > So are you saying that there should be no gun
> > laws
> > > because somewhere sometime those laws may be
> > > broken?
> >
> >
> > I think he was trying to make the point that
> you
> > can make a billion gun laws and the bad guys
> still
> > won't obey them.
>
>
> So that would apply to all laws, why have any?
>
> Maybe they have less gun deaths because they have
> tougher laws?


They don't so much related to any laws.

Most "gun deaths" in the US are suicides (about 2/3). About the same ratio in Canada.

They have less gun suicides (3.3/100,000 versus 7.2/100,000 in the US), but a higher suicide rate (12.2 vs 11.5). The just substitute hanging for shooting themselves and use long guns instead of handguns. That's the largest difference in the rates of overall firearms-related deaths.

Of the remaining 1/3, the majority of firearms deaths are criminally related and correlate more to levels of criminal activity (gangs, drugs, etc.) than to gun laws (since criminals don't really care about gun laws). What primarily drives that are the numbers of urban locations and population concentrations where such things tend to happen at much higher rates. We have a lot more, so we have more gun crime. Do the analysis taking that into account and we're basically the same as Canada or better even with tons more guns.

Accidental shootings are somewhat higher in the US but are a trivial number in both cases and amount more to random events with little to no correlation to gun laws.

Canadian authorities are questioning Barack Ebola's role in the shooting.

US Officials are now saying they do not believe the gunman had any connections to islamic terrorist groups. Aka.... He's some crazy white dude.

KnxVd Wrote:
> They don't so much related to any laws.
>
> Most "gun deaths" in the US are suicides (about
> 2/3). About the same ratio in Canada.
>
> They have less gun suicides (3.3/100,000 versus
> 7.2/100,000 in the US), but a higher suicide rate
> (12.2 vs 11.5). The just substitute hanging for
> shooting themselves and use long guns instead of
> handguns. That's the largest difference in the
> rates of overall firearms-related deaths.
>
> Of the remaining 1/3, the majority of firearms
> deaths are criminally related and correlate more
> to levels of criminal activity (gangs, drugs,
> etc.) than to gun laws (since criminals don't
> really care about gun laws). What primarily
> drives that are the numbers of urban locations and
> population concentrations where such things tend
> to happen at much higher rates. We have a lot
> more, so we have more gun crime. Do the analysis
> taking that into account and we're basically the
> same as Canada or better even with tons more guns.
>
>
> Accidental shootings are somewhat higher in the US
> but are a trivial number in both cases and amount
> more to random events with little to no
> correlation to gun laws.


One of the best posts I've seen on the subject of the correlation betwen gun laws and deaths-by-gun.

I'm not motivated enough myself, but this post should be copied into every thread that raises the issue of the correlation between guns and violence.

KnxVd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No laws Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jhsdfgsjfk Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pointless Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Get a job Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > libs hate America. Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > Wait, you mean in a country where
> > owning
> > > a
> > > > > > handgun
> > > > > > > is very difficult with such strict
> gun
> > > laws
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > regulations on the types of gun a
> crazy
> > > > > person
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > able to possess one?
> > > > > > > Say it's not so.
> > > > > > > He should've just got a shotgun like
> > Joe
> > > > > Biden.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you know just how stupid you sound?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which part of my factual and truthful
> post
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > find stupid? Or is it just that all truth
> > and
> > > > > facts to a lib is automatically defined
> as
> > > > stupid
> > > > > because it is not what your TV tells you
> to
> > > > > believe?
> > > >
> > > > What was the purpose of the post?
> > > > So are you saying that there should be no
> gun
> > > laws
> > > > because somewhere sometime those laws may
> be
> > > > broken?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think he was trying to make the point that
> > you
> > > can make a billion gun laws and the bad guys
> > still
> > > won't obey them.
> >
> >
> > So that would apply to all laws, why have any?
> >
> > Maybe they have less gun deaths because they
> have
> > tougher laws?
>
>
> They don't so much related to any laws.
>
> Most "gun deaths" in the US are suicides (about
> 2/3). About the same ratio in Canada.
>
> They have less gun suicides (3.3/100,000 versus
> 7.2/100,000 in the US), but a higher suicide rate
> (12.2 vs 11.5). The just substitute hanging for
> shooting themselves and use long guns instead of
> handguns. That's the largest difference in the
> rates of overall firearms-related deaths.
>
> Of the remaining 1/3, the majority of firearms
> deaths are criminally related and correlate more
> to levels of criminal activity (gangs, drugs,
> etc.) than to gun laws (since criminals don't
> really care about gun laws). What primarily
> drives that are the numbers of urban locations and
> population concentrations where such things tend
> to happen at much higher rates. We have a lot
> more, so we have more gun crime. Do the analysis
> taking that into account and we're basically the
> same as Canada or better even with tons more guns.
>
>
> Accidental shootings are somewhat higher in the US
> but are a trivial number in both cases and amount
> more to random events with little to no
> correlation to gun laws.


Source?

NORAD on high alert.

Still no determination on one shooter or multiple shooters.

It's a black flag operation to take away Canadians' Second Amendment rights.

Since guns don't kill people, I wonder how this guy could have pulled this off without a gun.

Just Asking a Question Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since guns don't kill people, I wonder how this
> guy could have pulled this off without a gun.

A knife, because knives can kill multiple people from over 25 yards away. They're just as deadly.

Me First, Fuck Everyone Else Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just Asking a Question Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since guns don't kill people, I wonder how this
> > guy could have pulled this off without a gun.
>
> A knife, because knives can kill multiple people
> from over 25 yards away. They're just as deadly.


O e knife can kill multiple people from 25 yards?
Cool - how?

The innocent gun was highjacked by a Dune Coon, not the guns fault.

Me First, Fuck Everyone Else Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just Asking a Question Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since guns don't kill people, I wonder how this
> > guy could have pulled this off without a gun.
>
> A knife, because knives can kill multiple people
> from over 25 yards away. They're just as deadly.

You got that right. These are fancy but a steak knife can be just as deadly.

http://www.eagleshack.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=424&products_id=11750

Rambo.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> O e knife can kill multiple people from 25 yards?
> Cool - how?

I'm not sure, but I don't believe Obozo's liberal anti-gun propaganda that knives have to be at close range to be effective. You just have to repeat to yourself "he could've done the same with a knife" over and over again, and it starts to make sense.

Source Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Source?


For which?

Canadian suicide rates, method, and international comparisons are here:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html

For firearms homicide rates you can look at any number of CDC stats which show that what drive our numbers higher are epidemic rates among young black males aged 14-24. Somewhere in the range of 6X that of non-Hispanic whites. Along with FBI reporting for where firearms murders happen. The bulk of the difference is in young urban black males shooting each other. For the same reasons that you see the same everywhere else in the world that you have higher rates of gang-, drug, and other organized criminal activity.

CDC also has stats for unintentional firearms deaths. It's about 600/year. Far below many other common causes of accidental death. You have a higher lifetime probability of dying in a fire (1 in 1,235), riding a bike (1 in 4,147) or in a plane accident (1 in 5,862) than being accidentally shot (1 in 5,981). Much, much lower than the more common causes such as in a car, by a fall, riding motorcycle, etc.

From the National Safety Council's annual report (size of boxes indicating relative odds):

FAUX NEWS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libs hate America. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ottawa police confirmed first shooter is dead
> and
> > muslim. Wouldn't surprise me if Canada closed
> its
> > border from the US because of all these
> terrorists
> > Hussein Obama has put here.
>
> "Libs hate America" is full of shit as usual.


Yep, I post facts and libs say I'm full of shit.

"The attack came a day after a 25-year-old Muslim convert was shot dead by police after he killed a Canadian solider and injured a second near Montreal."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ottawa-shooting-shocking-first-video-gunman-inside-parliament-1471319

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, I post facts and libs say I'm full of shit.

He's meant you're full of shit when you said that he's a confirmed Muslim. He most likely is, but it's not confirmed.

Looks like Canadian soldiers are being targeted by sand niggers and Islamic converts

TORONTO – In Quebec on Monday, two Canadian soldiers were hit by a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau, a 25-year-old Canadian who, “converted to Islam recently and called himself Ahmad Rouleau.” One of the soldiers died, as did Courture-Rouleau when he was shot by police upon apprehension after allegedly brandishing a large knife. Police speculated that the incident was deliberate, alleging the driver waited for two hours before hitting the soldiers, one of whom was wearing a uniform. The incident took place in the parking lot of a shopping mall 30 miles southeast of Montreal, “a few kilometres from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the military academy operated by the Department of National Defence.”

Just this morning all of the perps were peaceful, moderate Muslims as we are always told. In fact, there are many more out there right now. Think about that.

Wheres the CNN NEWS ALERT GUY? He should tell the guntards that he was wrong and he is sorry...again

Ottawa police confirm more than one gunman.

CBC-libs but don't lie likeMSNBC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ottawa police confirm more than one gunman.

Thanks, Mr. Two Hours Ago

jksdherj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CBC-libs but don't lie likeMSNBC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ottawa police confirm more than one gunman.
>
> Thanks, Mr. Two Hours Ago


Was not confirmed by police two hours ago.

MMVWm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Source Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Source?
>
>
> For which?
>
> Canadian suicide rates, method, and international
> comparisons are here:
> http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp
> /wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html
>
> For firearms homicide rates you can look at any
> number of CDC stats which show that what drive our
> numbers higher are epidemic rates among young
> black males aged 14-24. Somewhere in the range of
> 6X that of non-Hispanic whites. Along with FBI
> reporting for where firearms murders happen. The
> bulk of the difference is in young urban black
> males shooting each other. For the same reasons
> that you see the same everywhere else in the world
> that you have higher rates of gang-, drug, and
> other organized criminal activity.
>
> CDC also has stats for unintentional firearms
> deaths. It's about 600/year. Far below many
> other common causes of accidental death. You have
> a higher lifetime probability of dying in a fire
> (1 in 1,235), riding a bike (1 in 4,147) or in a
> plane accident (1 in 5,862) than being
> accidentally shot (1 in 5,981). Much, much lower
> than the more common causes such as in a car, by a
> fall, riding motorcycle, etc.
>
> From the National Safety Council's annual report
> (size of boxes indicating relative odds):
>
> src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E-QOnTGFX_o/S_DDXja
> JibI/AAAAAAAAJyI/w6BVk6F8in0/s640/odds.jpg">


So if it was harder to get guns wouldn't gun deaths go down?
We stiffened drunk driving laws and deaths went down, as I remember

And I believe people should be able to own guns

Live briefing going on. It sucks that they will not say anything about the gunman who was shot and killed. If it were a white guy, they would have said so. It was a nig or sand nig...either way, you know it was an Islamic terrorist. The officials are not saying this because they don't want to cause a panic to have 2 terrorist attacks within 3 days.

I got here to see what might have happened in this shooting. What I found is people making rude and disparaging remarks (not all) rather than what people know about it or even a constructive discussion on why things like this happen.

From the book: You Are Not So Smart.

Because you never experience anything other than the output of your mind. Everything that’s ever happened to you has happened inside your skull.

I have read a fair amount about why these type of conversations many times devolve into hate filled rants and comments. The conclusions of this research in my skull is that some people have nothing of relevance to offer to the discussion and want to drag everyone else into the uninspiring hole that is the life they lead.

You can actually learn something from good discussions whether you initially agree or not... try it sometime.

Funny how "Libs Hate America" starts new threads when he is getting bitch slapped in the current thread. Go figure.

I got that but Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So if it was harder to get guns wouldn't gun
> deaths go down?
> We stiffened drunk driving laws and deaths went
> down, as I remember
>
> And I believe people should be able to own guns


Not sure they're really comparable circumstances.

For the first category, gun suicides, they might go down by a small percentage but for the most part, as shown in the Canadian suicide stats, suicide has more to do with suicide than guns. People just substitute another method. Japan has virtually no guns but has one of if not the highest suicide rates depending on year.

In the case of the second category, gun homicides, the large majority are based on criminal activity and illegal guns so gun laws or some public information campaign isn't going to change that much. Lots of countries with complete bans on private firearms have far greater firearm murder rates than ours.

Accidents might change to some small degree but again they're a tiny number to begin with. Safety campaigns do seem to help that. More so than any gun laws would since most are by definition random events and the guns involved are legally owned to begin with.

Drunk driving fatality stats are a lot like gun stats in that you can make them say whatever you want. Drunk driving fatalities have fallen greatly but that tracks more with overall motor vehicle fatalities (i.e., safer cars). The percentage of alcohol-related deaths hasn't changed nearly as much (only about 8% - 10%). That is, there's less likely to be a motor vehicle fatality, but where there are the chance that it involves alcohol still is very high. That hasn't changed much since the early 90s. It's been around +30% since then versus +40% percent previously.

islamists kill people Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Live briefing going on. It sucks that they will
> not say anything about the gunman who was shot and
> killed. If it were a white guy, they would have
> said so. It was a nig or sand nig...either way,
> you know it was an Islamic terrorist. The
> officials are not saying this because they don't
> want to cause a panic to have 2 terrorist attacks
> within 3 days.


Worst news conference ever. Why bother if you're not going to provide any info.

islamists kill people Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Live briefing going on. It sucks that they will
> not say anything about the gunman who was shot and
> killed. If it were a white guy, they would have
> said so. It was a nig or sand nig...either way,
> you know it was an Islamic terrorist. The
> officials are not saying this because they don't
> want to cause a panic to have 2 terrorist attacks
> within 3 days.

Or admit that there may be flaws in their aggressive pursuit of a balkanized multicultural, multiethnic nation.

Insh'allah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or admit that there may be flaws in their
> aggressive pursuit of a balkanized multicultural,
> multiethnic nation.

As was being discussed in another thread, there's only one kind of person that has a problem with our multicultural, secular society: racist and/or religious conservative extremists. Five bucks says you're one of them.

CNN News Alert! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Active guntard shooting people at Canadian War
> Memorial building in Otawa, Canada!
Attachments:

This is just my opinion of course, but I don't think most people want guns banned. I think what many people want is just some common sense about guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too many people being shot for silly arguments. My mother has a gun she feels she needs for protection and I respect her right to feel that way.

I just don't see why responsible people who want guns think they would need a gun that can shoot a hundred bullets in a very short period. For those who hunt, I would think it would take the sportsman element out of the experience. For those who think there are hordes of people who are going to attack their home where a gun of that magnitude might do some good are probably just a bit paranoid.

Take it for what it is worth, it is just an opinion.

Witnesses said the soldier was gunned down by a man dressed all in black with a scarf over his face. They said the gunman then entered Parliament, where dozens of shots rang out.

Do you think it was a-

A. White guy
B. Arab guy
C. Spanish guy
D. Nig nog
E. Asian guy

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is just my opinion of course, but I don't
> think most people want guns banned. I think what
> many people want is just some common sense about
> guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too many
> people being shot for silly arguments. My mother
> has a gun she feels she needs for protection and I
> respect her right to feel that way.
>
> I just don't see why responsible people who want
> guns think they would need a gun that can shoot a
> hundred bullets in a very short period. For those
> who hunt, I would think it would take the
> sportsman element out of the experience. For
> those who think there are hordes of people who are
> going to attack their home where a gun of that
> magnitude might do some good are probably just a
> bit paranoid.
>
> Take it for what it is worth, it is just an
> opinion.


Virtually any semi-automatic gun can shoot "hundreds of bullets" in a short period of time. Very few "assault weapons" are used in mass shootings or other crimes. It's mostly handguns, many of which can shoot "hundreds of bullets" in a short period of time. But the same ability so shoot 5 or 10 bullets in a more practical amount of time is what makes them effective weapons to begin with.

Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to address the main sources of gun crime and death. Magazine bans do nothing. The vast majority of gun laws do nothing. They are paper "solutions" that are done because they are easy and make people think that they've done something to address the problem. If you really want to deal with gun deaths, then addressing alcohol and substance abuse and metal illness among mostly middle aged white guys is required to address suicides deaths since there's a greater correlation than there is to guns. Addressing social issues, gang and drug crime, among urban black youth is required to address the biggest part of the murder rate. And again accidental shootings have little to do with gun laws, "assault weapons" or other things like high-capacity "clips." You could ban all of them and it would have little to no effect beyond making you feel like you've done something to solve the problem.

lets guess the race! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Witnesses said the soldier was gunned down by a
> man dressed all in black with a scarf over his
> face. They said the gunman then entered
> Parliament, where dozens of shots rang out.
>
> Do you think it was a-
>
> A. White guy
> B. Arab guy
> C. Spanish guy
> D. Nig nog
> E. Asian guy

Don't forget:

F. Disgruntled Inuit.

Actually, it wouldn't be the first time an Inuit targeted the Canadian government.

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is just my opinion of course, but I don't
> think most people want guns banned. I think what
> many people want is just some common sense about
> guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too many
> people being shot for silly arguments. My mother
> has a gun she feels she needs for protection and I
> respect her right to feel that way.
>
> I just don't see why responsible people who want
> guns think they would need a gun that can shoot a
> hundred bullets in a very short period. For those
> who hunt, I would think it would take the
> sportsman element out of the experience. For
> those who think there are hordes of people who are
> going to attack their home where a gun of that
> magnitude might do some good are probably just a
> bit paranoid.
>
> Take it for what it is worth, it is just an
> opinion.


Good post. You are entitled to your opinion. The issue is not whether someone "needs" to have a semi-automatic weapon. The right to have arms is protected under the Constitution. You don't "need" sodas, candy bars, or even a car. True, those things don't kill immediately or aren't intended to kill. Generally, I agree with you. There ARE common sense laws out there and they should be enforced. I own guns, the scary ones too. But I obtained them legally. It's not too much to ask to enforce laws requiring others obtain guns legally, and also to very very harshly punish those who obtain them illegally or who use them for illegal activities.

dhukn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Virtually any semi-automatic gun can shoot
> "hundreds of bullets" in a short period of time.
> Very few "assault weapons" are used in mass
> shootings or other crimes. It's mostly handguns,
> many of which can shoot "hundreds of bullets" in a
> short period of time. But the same ability so
> shoot 5 or 10 bullets in a more practical amount
> of time is what makes them effective weapons to
> begin with.
>
> Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to address
> the main sources of gun crime and death. Magazine
> bans do nothing. The vast majority of gun laws do
> nothing. They are paper "solutions" that are done
> because they are easy and make people think that
> they've done something to address the problem. If
> you really want to deal with gun deaths, then
> addressing alcohol and substance abuse and metal
> illness among mostly middle aged white guys is
> required to address suicides deaths since there's
> a greater correlation than there is to guns.
> Addressing social issues, gang and drug crime,
> among urban black youth is required to address the
> biggest part of the murder rate. And again
> accidental shootings have little to do with gun
> laws, "assault weapons" or other things like
> high-capacity "clips." You could ban all of them
> and it would have little to no effect beyond
> making you feel like you've done something to
> solve the problem.


For the uninformed out there, an "assault rifle" is a fully-automatic weapon that fires more than one round with one pull of the trigger. They can cost upwards of $25,000.

The AR-15 people use is not an assault weapon. It is a high-powered .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle. AR does not mean Assault Rifle. AR is a designation from the original developer of the rifle and stands for Armalite Rifle.
.

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is just my opinion of course, but I don't
> think most people want guns banned. I think what
> many people want is just some common sense about
> guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too many
> people being shot for silly arguments. My mother
> has a gun she feels she needs for protection and I
> respect her right to feel that way.
>
> I just don't see why responsible people who want
> guns think they would need a gun that can shoot a
> hundred bullets in a very short period. For those
> who hunt, I would think it would take the
> sportsman element out of the experience. For
> those who think there are hordes of people who are
> going to attack their home where a gun of that
> magnitude might do some good are probably just a
> bit paranoid.
>
> Take it for what it is worth, it is just an
> opinion.


Of course, however people being what they are it will never happen...the common sense issue. That being said the only option left is tough laws. People don't even employ common sense by not driving drunk.

khdftwefyu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dhukn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Virtually any semi-automatic gun can shoot
> > "hundreds of bullets" in a short period of time.
>
> > Very few "assault weapons" are used in mass
> > shootings or other crimes. It's mostly
> handguns,
> > many of which can shoot "hundreds of bullets" in
> a
> > short period of time. But the same ability so
> > shoot 5 or 10 bullets in a more practical
> amount
> > of time is what makes them effective weapons to
> > begin with.
> >
> > Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to
> address
> > the main sources of gun crime and death.
> Magazine
> > bans do nothing. The vast majority of gun laws
> do
> > nothing. They are paper "solutions" that are
> done
> > because they are easy and make people think
> that
> > they've done something to address the problem.
> If
> > you really want to deal with gun deaths, then
> > addressing alcohol and substance abuse and
> metal
> > illness among mostly middle aged white guys is
> > required to address suicides deaths since
> there's
> > a greater correlation than there is to guns.
> > Addressing social issues, gang and drug crime,
> > among urban black youth is required to address
> the
> > biggest part of the murder rate. And again
> > accidental shootings have little to do with gun
> > laws, "assault weapons" or other things like
> > high-capacity "clips." You could ban all of
> them
> > and it would have little to no effect beyond
> > making you feel like you've done something to
> > solve the problem.
>
>
> For the uninformed out there, an "assault rifle"
> is a fully-automatic weapon that fires more than
> one round with one pull of the trigger. They can
> cost upwards of $25,000.
>
> The AR-15 people use is not an assault weapon. It
> is a high-powered .223 caliber semi-automatic
> rifle. AR does not mean Assault Rifle. AR is a
> designation from the original developer of the
> rifle and stands for Armalite Rifle.
> .


It is a civilian version of the M16 soldier rifle, one of the deadliest rifles ever
built.

It can be modified to fully automatic by any 4th grader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Zjs44WvVA

EvDdu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is a civilian version of the M16 soldier rifle,
> one of the deadliest rifles ever
> built.
>
> It can be modified to fully automatic by any 4th
> grader
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Zjs44WvVA


I guess you didn't watch your clip to the end huh?

No, it can't really as any kind of functional weapon. You need a specific sear and trigger assembly machined in a very specific way. Even possessing the parts without the proper authorization is a Federal crime with serious time involved. And it doesn't even really buy you much which is why nobody with any sense would even bother to do it. Otherwise, you might be able to make a piece of shit that would be completely unreliable and impractical as a real weapon.

Canada, they need to adopt an 2nd amendment and stop that queen law stuff.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

Here is a pic of the shooter:



You can decide what influenced him....

A white guy? Can't be? I thought I "Libs Hate America" said he was a black Muslim.

Libs Saved America Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A white guy? Can't be? I thought I "Libs Hate
> America" said he was a black Muslim.

Yeah, a 'white' guy of Algeria heritage wearing a Kafia in a picture which was posted by ISIS' Twitter account.

lulz

Libs Saved America Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A white guy? Can't be? I thought I "Libs Hate
> America" said he was a black Muslim.


Algerian descent is white? He is alleged to be a Muslim.

dhukn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is just my opinion of course, but I don't
> > think most people want guns banned. I think
> what
> > many people want is just some common sense
> about
> > guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too
> many
> > people being shot for silly arguments. My
> mother
> > has a gun she feels she needs for protection and
> I
> > respect her right to feel that way.
> >
> > I just don't see why responsible people who
> want
> > guns think they would need a gun that can shoot
> a
> > hundred bullets in a very short period. For
> those
> > who hunt, I would think it would take the
> > sportsman element out of the experience. For
> > those who think there are hordes of people who
> are
> > going to attack their home where a gun of that
> > magnitude might do some good are probably just
> a
> > bit paranoid.
> >
> > Take it for what it is worth, it is just an
> > opinion.
>
>
> Virtually any semi-automatic gun can shoot
> "hundreds of bullets" in a short period of time.
> Very few "assault weapons" are used in mass
> shootings or other crimes. It's mostly handguns,
> many of which can shoot "hundreds of bullets" in a
> short period of time. But the same ability so
> shoot 5 or 10 bullets in a more practical amount
> of time is what makes them effective weapons to
> begin with.
>
> Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to address
> the main sources of gun crime and death. Magazine
> bans do nothing. The vast majority of gun laws do
> nothing. They are paper "solutions" that are done
> because they are easy and make people think that
> they've done something to address the problem. If
> you really want to deal with gun deaths, then
> addressing alcohol and substance abuse and metal
> illness among mostly middle aged white guys is
> required to address suicides deaths since there's
> a greater correlation than there is to guns.
> Addressing social issues, gang and drug crime,
> among urban black youth is required to address the
> biggest part of the murder rate. And again
> accidental shootings have little to do with gun
> laws, "assault weapons" or other things like
> high-capacity "clips." You could ban all of them
> and it would have little to no effect beyond
> making you feel like you've done something to
> solve the problem.


The 25 deadliest mass shootings all occurred before the assault weapon ban (3) and after it's expiration (22)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

Factcheck.org which does almost everything it can to avoid taking sides on this issue in one paragraph under the title "Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?"

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Please note equipped with "large capacity magazines".

None of the statistical manipulation provided to muddy the situation matters to me. Crime and deaths go up and down for a number of reasons on both sides of the argument. What matters to me is that assault weapons and large magazines create havoc in deadly shooting incidents. Those are the facts regardless of whether someone wants to throw around statistics on unrelated issues.

What I would like to see stopped is the ability to destroy many families lives because someone is mentally disturbed or feels disenfranchised. It may not stop them from doing some harm with a weapon, but it would stop wholesale murder in a single incident.

So, if you wish to show me something on this one issue only, I will be willing to look at the facts you wish to present. Don't muddy the waters with other things.

jkhdfgsdfj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is just my opinion of course, but I don't
> > think most people want guns banned. I think
> what
> > many people want is just some common sense
> about
> > guns. Way too many mass shootings, way too
> many
> > people being shot for silly arguments. My
> mother
> > has a gun she feels she needs for protection and
> I
> > respect her right to feel that way.
> >
> > I just don't see why responsible people who
> want
> > guns think they would need a gun that can shoot
> a
> > hundred bullets in a very short period. For
> those
> > who hunt, I would think it would take the
> > sportsman element out of the experience. For
> > those who think there are hordes of people who
> are
> > going to attack their home where a gun of that
> > magnitude might do some good are probably just
> a
> > bit paranoid.
> >
> > Take it for what it is worth, it is just an
> > opinion.
>
>
> Good post. You are entitled to your opinion. The
> issue is not whether someone "needs" to have a
> semi-automatic weapon. The right to have arms is
> protected under the Constitution. You don't "need"
> sodas, candy bars, or even a car. True, those
> things don't kill immediately or aren't intended
> to kill. Generally, I agree with you. There ARE
> common sense laws out there and they should be
> enforced. I own guns, the scary ones too. But I
> obtained them legally. It's not too much to ask to
> enforce laws requiring others obtain guns legally,
> and also to very very harshly punish those who
> obtain them illegally or who use them for illegal
> activities.


Thank you for the well reasoned comment. I too think it would be worthwhile to make sure these "scary" weapons were legally obtained. I think it would be a good first step in gathering statistics as to whether that would help stop wholesale murder... particularly those lovely children at Sandy Hook. I know that was a legal gun taken by an unstable son, but still it would be worth seeing if it would make a difference. Gun show loopholes, on line sales, etc. My mother would have no problem passing a background check, neither would I, but I prefer large loving dogs that would lay down their lives for you not because they are trained, but because you love them and they love you. I never have any trouble sleeping because I know no intruder could get in unannounced. But that is just me...

All that aside and even agreeing with parts of what you said, the one problem I have the second amendment argument which says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Two things... it was necessary because there was no standing army at the time. The original ruling on this by the Supreme Court was:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

Then in 2008 and 2010 this Supreme Court in essence overturned that decision. However, this Supreme Court not only gave us legal bribery of our government through Citizen United, it has consistently sided with Corporations over people. Again, IMHO, this is one of the worst Supreme Courts ever. I have a lot of issues with this court... in general people don't count anymore only money.

Regardless of all this, if we really want responsible gun ownership, a good compromise might be that anyone who owns such a dangerous weapon (please I don't want to get in to a debate about what is automatic, semi automatic, etc.) that is either on it's face or can be modified to deliver death at a horrific pace should be willing to register those things and if they are ever used because of transfer of the item or them not being safely stored in something like a gun safe and are used to hurt many many families, they should be held responsible.

I think if a person feels a necessity to have something dangerous they should be willing to weigh the pros and cons and decide if it is worth it to themselves. I do that very thing by having my little pack of dogs that are capable of doing great harm and if my babies were to hurt someone, I AM held responsible.

jkhdfgsdfj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good post. You are entitled to your opinion.

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the well reasoned comment.


^ WTF is this shit? What's happening to my FFXU?

nice rag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a pic of the shooter:
>
> src=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0k-rqUCMAAGQAJ.jp
> g:large>
>
> You can decide what influenced him....

The gun this guy is holding is a lever action, not an "assault rifle".
I've seen this pic other places but no link to the shooter included.

Not In The FFXU Spirit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jkhdfgsdfj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good post. You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank you for the well reasoned comment.
>
>
> ^ WTF is this shit? What's happening to my FFXU?


Not everyone thinks that being reasonable is a flaw. It is true I know very little about this particular site and perhaps I don't belong here if what you are intimating is that this is a place to scream, swear or demean others. Some people like to use forums to find reasonable ways of addressing problems in the society as a whole. You can learn from reasoned arguments, particularly from people who have a different view than you and are willing explain them to me so I can see if they are sound. That is just my way of learning and broadening my understanding of what people think and why. I respect people with a reasoned point of view.

I am very sorry if I offended you by not being angry and amigdala driven.

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not In The FFXU Spirit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jkhdfgsdfj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Good post. You are entitled to your opinion.
> >
> > Uninspired Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thank you for the well reasoned comment.
> >
> >
> > ^ WTF is this shit? What's happening to my
> FFXU?
>
>
> Not everyone thinks that being reasonable is a
> flaw. It is true I know very little about this
> particular site and perhaps I don't belong here if
> what you are intimating is that this is a place to
> scream, swear or demean others. Some people like
> to use forums to find reasonable ways of
> addressing problems in the society as a whole.
> You can learn from reasoned arguments,
> particularly from people who have a different view
> than you and are willing explain them to me so I
> can see if they are sound. That is just my way of
> learning and broadening my understanding of what
> people think and why. I respect people with a
> reasoned point of view.
>
> I am very sorry if I offended you by not being
> angry and amigdala driven.


Ok this nice stuff is getting out of control.

Im good with this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not In The FFXU Spirit Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > jkhdfgsdfj Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Good post. You are entitled to your
> opinion.
> > >
> > > Uninspired Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Thank you for the well reasoned comment.
> > >
> > >
> > > ^ WTF is this shit? What's happening to my
> > FFXU?
> >
> >
> > Not everyone thinks that being reasonable is a
> > flaw. It is true I know very little about this
> > particular site and perhaps I don't belong here
> if
> > what you are intimating is that this is a place
> to
> > scream, swear or demean others. Some people
> like
> > to use forums to find reasonable ways of
> > addressing problems in the society as a whole.
> > You can learn from reasoned arguments,
> > particularly from people who have a different
> view
> > than you and are willing explain them to me so
> I
> > can see if they are sound. That is just my way
> of
> > learning and broadening my understanding of
> what
> > people think and why. I respect people with a
> > reasoned point of view.
> >
> > I am very sorry if I offended you by not being
> > angry and amigdala driven.
>
>
> Ok this nice stuff is getting out of control.


Apparently I misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I guess when I read

The overwhelming majority of visitors use this site strictly as a resource and never contribute new content. There is nothing wrong with this but I must impress upon you that there is only as much information available on the internet as you add to it. I implore you to please not be shy about posting in these forums. There is no matter too trivial as long as it's relevant.

I thought I could contribute... I guess I did not realize being "nice" means you are "out of control" or "WTF" was a prerequisite in adding to information.

Sorry... oh sorry for saying sorry... #@!%##@!... is that better?

This is a side issue to the discussion on this thread, but if I may be allowed to indulge a not entirely irrelevant pet peeve of mine..


Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...this Supreme Court not only gave us legal bribery
> of our government through Citizen United, it has
> consistently sided with Corporations over people.
> Again, IMHO, this is one of the worst Supreme
> Courts ever. I have a lot of issues with this
> court... in general people don't count anymore
> only money.


The life tenure rule for judges of the Supreme Court (and other federal judges) was put in place as a "check" against the politicization of the judiciary.

We should recognize that this check has not worked. The Supreme Court is highly politicized, and arguably has been so from the beginning.

One solution to the problem of a politicized judiciary is to replace life tenure with (1) an initial 9-year term, (2) renewable at the end of 9 years by the then-sitting President for an additional 9 years. The maximum term of judicial office would then be 18 years, rather than life.

The same rule would be applied to all members of the federal judiciary who currently have life tenure.

This solution would balance judicial independence with a workable democratic check on a judiciary which currently lacks all democratic accountability.

How would this system work in practice?

Consider the case of Justice Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in August 1986 by Pres Reagan. His initial 9-year term would have ended in 1995, when Bill Clinton was president. Thus, although Scalia had been appointed by a Republican president, the decision whether to renew his tenure for an additional 9 years would have been in the hands of a Democratic president.

A version of this argument is advanced here: http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/senior-associate-justice-john-paul-law-essays.php

And at much greater length here (pdf file): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Calabresi_Lindgren.pdf

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The 25 deadliest mass shootings all occurred
> before the assault weapon ban (3) and after it's
> expiration (22)
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass
> -shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/


This is ridiculous but worth addressing on that basis just to show how so and how such things typically are cherry-picked and manipulated to "prove" points within this argument. There are too many ways to shred this but just hitting some of the more significant:

First, it's comparing what are relatively rare, random events to begin with over one 10-year period against a +50-year period outside of it. It also leaves off some at the early end and skews what's defined as mass shootings.

Second, it's not even true as you've defined it. Columbine and the Atlanta shootings as examples both were within the time frame of the ban.

Third, the ban did not remove any of the weapons or magazines which existed prior to. It simply prohibited manufacture of any new. You still could buy "pre-ban" products of which there were literally 100s of millions available. About the only thing that it really did at a practical level was to drive up the prices of pre-ban products.

Fourth, it doesn't consider that such weapons weren't even used in the vast majority of cases and where "assault weapons" were present, they weren't the primary weapons employed to actually kill people, e.g., in the Holmes and Sandy Hook cases they jammed very early on and other weapons were used.

Fifth, it doesn't consider that people can and do simply substitute some other weapons which are equally deadly, e.g., the Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun.

Sixth, a number of those listed happened in places where there are State bans/restrictions on such weapons independent of the Federal ban.

I could go on and on...


>
> Factcheck.org which does almost everything it can
> to avoid taking sides on this issue in one
> paragraph under the title "Did the 1994 Assault
> Weapons Ban Work?"
>
> The final report concluded the ban’s success in
> reducing crimes committed with banned guns was
> “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons
> declined. However, that decline was “offset
> throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or
> rising use of other guns equipped with
> [large-capacity magazines].”


Yes, "mixed" as in there's no real evidence that it actually did anything. There are so few events involving "assault weapons" before, during, and after that it amounts to statistical noise. There are more events involving high-capacity magazines primarily because semi-automatic handguns have largely replaced revolvers. It has little to nothing to do the the actual magazine capacity itself.


>
> Please note equipped with "large capacity
> magazines".
>
> None of the statistical manipulation provided to
> muddy the situation matters to me. Crime and
> deaths go up and down for a number of reasons on
> both sides of the argument. What matters to me is
> that assault weapons and large magazines create
> havoc in deadly shooting incidents. Those are the
> facts regardless of whether someone wants to throw
> around statistics on unrelated issues.
>
> What I would like to see stopped is the ability to
> destroy many families lives because someone is
> mentally disturbed or feels disenfranchised. It
> may not stop them from doing some harm with a
> weapon, but it would stop wholesale murder in a
> single incident.

How so? Apparently it wouldn't necessarily because, as demonstrated by your own case, people are perfectly capable of killing lots of other people without the products that you want to ban.


>
> So, if you wish to show me something on this one
> issue only, I will be willing to look at the facts
> you wish to present. Don't muddy the waters with
> other things.


It's not muddying the waters, it's addressing the actual root causes for gun-related crimes and death. Which is required to understand who and what's actually involved and happening versus lumping things like suicide, criminal activity, and and accidents all together to make the numbers look higher and not making proper distinctions when then applying such numbers to related arguments around gun control.

Uninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> either on it's face or can be modified to deliver
> death at a horrific pace


Still haven't actually watched the video that you posted huh?

re Supreme Court Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a side issue to the discussion on this
> thread, but if I may be allowed to indulge a not
> entirely irrelevant pet peeve of mine..
>
>
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...this Supreme Court not only gave us legal
> bribery
> > of our government through Citizen United, it
> has
> > consistently sided with Corporations over
> people.
> > Again, IMHO, this is one of the worst Supreme
> > Courts ever. I have a lot of issues with this
> > court... in general people don't count anymore
> > only money.
>
>
> The life tenure rule for judges of the Supreme
> Court (and other federal judges) was put in place
> as a "check" against the politicization of the
> judiciary.
>
> We should recognize that this check has not
> worked. The Supreme Court is highly politicized,
> and arguably has been so from the beginning.
>
> One solution to the problem of a politicized
> judiciary is to replace life tenure with (1) an
> initial 9-year term, (2) renewable at the end of 9
> years by the then-sitting President for an
> additional 9 years. The maximum term of judicial
> office would then be 18 years, rather than life.
>
>
> The same rule would be applied to all members of
> the federal judiciary who currently have life
> tenure.
>
> This solution would balance judicial independence
> with a workable democratic check on a judiciary
> which currently lacks all democratic
> accountability.
>
> How would this system work in practice?
>
> Consider the case of Justice Scalia, who was
> appointed to the Supreme Court in August 1986 by
> Pres Reagan. His initial 9-year term would have
> ended in 1995, when Bill Clinton was president.
> Thus, although Scalia had been appointed by a
> Republican president, the decision whether to
> renew his tenure for an additional 9 years would
> have been in the hands of a Democratic president.
>
> A version of this argument is advanced here:
> http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essay
> s/senior-associate-justice-john-paul-law-essays.ph
> p
>
> And at much greater length here (pdf file):
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol2
> 9_No3_Calabresi_Lindgren.pdf


Thanks for the links. I took them down and when I have some time I plan to read them. That is why I occasionally go to forums to see if anyone has anything useful to offer. You did and I appreciate that.

P.S. My pet peeve as well and the relevance to it was the discussion on guns and the second amendment which lead to the original decision and the basic overturn by this court. That is how it got in the discussion.

GmyyE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The 25 deadliest mass shootings all occurred
> > before the assault weapon ban (3) and after
> it's
> > expiration (22)
> >
> >
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass
>
> > -shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
>
>
> This is ridiculous but worth addressing on that
> basis just to show how so and how such things
> typically are cherry-picked and manipulated to
> "prove" points within this argument. There are
> too many ways to shred this but just hitting some
> of the more significant:
>
> First, it's comparing what are relatively rare,
> random events to begin with over one 10-year
> period against a +50-year period outside of it.
> It also leaves off some at the early end and skews
> what's defined as mass shootings.
>
> Second, it's not even true as you've defined it.
> Columbine and the Atlanta shootings as examples
> both were within the time frame of the ban.
>
> Third, the ban did not remove any of the weapons
> or magazines which existed prior to. It simply
> prohibited manufacture of any new. You still
> could buy "pre-ban" products of which there were
> literally 100s of millions available. About the
> only thing that it really did at a practical level
> was to drive up the prices of pre-ban products.
>
> Fourth, it doesn't consider that such weapons
> weren't even used in the vast majority of cases
> and where "assault weapons" were present, they
> weren't the primary weapons employed to actually
> kill people, e.g., in the Holmes and Sandy Hook
> cases they jammed very early on and other weapons
> were used.
>
> Fifth, it doesn't consider that people can and do
> simply substitute some other weapons which are
> equally deadly, e.g., the Navy Yard shooter used a
> shotgun.
>
> Sixth, a number of those listed happened in places
> where there are State bans/restrictions on such
> weapons independent of the Federal ban.
>
> I could go on and on...
>
>
> >
> > Factcheck.org which does almost everything it
> can
> > to avoid taking sides on this issue in one
> > paragraph under the title "Did the 1994 Assault
> > Weapons Ban Work?"
> >
> > The final report concluded the ban’s success
> in
> > reducing crimes committed with banned guns was
> > “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault
> weapons
> > declined. However, that decline was “offset
> > throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or
> > rising use of other guns equipped with
> > [large-capacity magazines].”
>
>
> Yes, "mixed" as in there's no real evidence that
> it actually did anything. There are so few events
> involving "assault weapons" before, during, and
> after that it amounts to statistical noise. There
> are more events involving high-capacity magazines
> primarily because semi-automatic handguns have
> largely replaced revolvers. It has little to
> nothing to do the the actual magazine capacity
> itself.
>
>
> >
> > Please note equipped with "large capacity
> > magazines".
> >
> > None of the statistical manipulation provided
> to
> > muddy the situation matters to me. Crime and
> > deaths go up and down for a number of reasons
> on
> > both sides of the argument. What matters to me
> is
> > that assault weapons and large magazines create
> > havoc in deadly shooting incidents. Those are
> the
> > facts regardless of whether someone wants to
> throw
> > around statistics on unrelated issues.
> >
> > What I would like to see stopped is the ability
> to
> > destroy many families lives because someone is
> > mentally disturbed or feels disenfranchised.
> It
> > may not stop them from doing some harm with a
> > weapon, but it would stop wholesale murder in a
> > single incident.
>
> How so? Apparently it wouldn't necessarily
> because, as demonstrated by your own case, people
> are perfectly capable of killing lots of other
> people without the products that you want to ban.
>
>
>
> >
> > So, if you wish to show me something on this
> one
> > issue only, I will be willing to look at the
> facts
> > you wish to present. Don't muddy the waters
> with
> > other things.
>
>
> It's not muddying the waters, it's addressing the
> actual root causes for gun-related crimes and
> death. Which is required to understand who and
> what's actually involved and happening versus
> lumping things like suicide, criminal activity,
> and and accidents all together to make the numbers
> look higher and not making proper distinctions
> when then applying such numbers to related
> arguments around gun control.


I don't have time right now to get into more details, but you are muddying the waters on my original question, looking for someone who has something other to say than Ugh Ugh... you can't really say or you are cherry picking.

Here is a couple of things that should dispel most of what you are asserting.

These are middle of the road sources, not World Net Daily or Breitbart or NRA or some such nonsense and I did not include anything from sources like MSNBC or similar. These are news sources that don't get 100% right (I know of none that does), but are usually pretty correct when it is not an opinion piece.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

This is over the last 30 years and has a nice graph showing a timeline from 1984 to Mid 2014 - about 40 mass shootings. Even though you cannot get away from violence completely in any period, you can see visually what has happened since the ban expired and the ever increasing rate of violence in the area of mass killings. If you want to get off the point that I asked... have you noticed how many companies are asking that all these people coming into restaurants and stores bearing these type of weapons I am talking about are banning them themselves. They scare families and keep people from frequenting their establishments. I do not remember such things happening until the NRA started this campaign that does not even want terrorist suspects to be banned from owning guns. All this rhetoric has emboldened a lot of bullies to intimate people with a different point of view rather than looking for solutions both sides could live with.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/

This one has charted the guns used in mass shootings over the last 30 years and it is interesting if facts are truly what you are looking for rather than just wanting to banter about how much I don't know.

A relevant piece is - the guns that have been used in mass shootings are 22 shotguns, 23 revolvers, 29 rifles, & 77 semiautomatic handguns. Obviously, more than one can used in a given incident.

I beg to differ that I am skewing anything because I am backing it up with what I have read by middle of the road news sources. Personally, I want a compromise. I don't want to take away anyone's joy of hunting or feeling of protection by owning guns. As I suggested in an above post... If you want to own very dangerous things like this, you should register them and be responsible for them. Just like I am responsible if my dog bites someone. Responsible people who want these type of mass killing capable items should be responsible. If they don't lock them up in a safe and someone other than themselves get a hold of them and kills lot of people they should be responsible. My dogs are registered, my cars are registered, why should you get away with irresponsible ownership of a deadly weapon just because it is what you want when a lot of us think it is a bad idea to have willy nilly ownership of something that can do great harm? You want these things... own up to it and be a (I assume) man and take responsibility just the way I do when I decide to own a dog capable of hurting people or my car which is capable of running over someone.

I wasn't looking for an argument, I was looking for someone to give me another point of view that had merit. That is not what you provided. I am not even that vested in this other than I think it is wrong and should be addressed by people who know a lot more than I. But whenever I read about this stuff, it always sounds the same to me... urban death, suicides, crime, blah blah blah. What about the damn mass shootings? The are not urban death wink wink (according to people who respond like you have), the are not crime, and even if it ends in suicide it can hardly be categorized in the same way as a regular suicide. And since we have totally left the main question, what is with these IMO jerks who run around with big scary weapons in family friendly business. What is wrong with those people? Perhaps you have some insights on what insecurities someone has that they have to go around scaring people and acting all tough? It is not tough... it is just sad.

mxDpX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > either on it's face or can be modified to
> deliver
> > death at a horrific pace
>
>
> Still haven't actually watched the video that you
> posted huh?


I don't think I posted a video... perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else.