Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

Gun Reform


 
116 replies to this topic

#1 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:38 PM

I almost feel like in other outlets of my life this policy point has been talked out and beat to death, but I felt like it might be useful or worthwhile to archive some of the better points of discussion, statistics, observations, reports, etc. on the topic.

I suspect that in many ways this "discussion" has been neatly divided into two camps as efficiently and cleanly as climate change.... either you acknowledge a problem that warrants consideration of solutions, or you cling to the idea that things are just fine the way they are and any attempt at change or solutions would be "more trouble than it is worth"  or "tyranny!" depending on the emotional attachment you have to a certain sort of inanimate object. Surely there must also be a third party constituting a middle ground of gun owners who ARE actually responsible and mature enough to admit the shortcomings of our gun policy and embrace policy changes that reinforce their position and reputation as RESPONSIBLE people who own guns, and can see the sense in laws that better protect everybody, not just people who want guns.

Although the Obama administration has promised quick and meaningful action, it also think it is going to be imperative that the American public sound off in support of gun reform in an unmistakable way to incite Congress to WORK toward solutions, not obstruct them... if that is in fact what the majority of us support and want.

So, post items relevant to the debate. Feel free to share your views, and please by all means don't just share them with us on the forum, share them with your elected officials.

#2 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

Gun shows commonly ban loaded guns from the premises, which is kind of ironic in light of the "more guns in more places makes everyone safer" argument.  Gun Appreciation Day ended up being somewhat of a PR debacle for the Gun Right's camp, when 5 people were injured at gun shows to mark the occasion: http://thinkprogress...preciation-day/

Irresponsible drinking activities more common among gun owners:  http://www.ucdmc.ucd...prevention/5416

Jon Stewart does some crack reporting on the existing legislative barriers to gun research and regulation, intentionally crafted by the NRA and other gun interests:  http://www.dailykos....rrent-gun-laws#

Related reporting by Mother Jones on why there is limited "evidence" to rely on in the gun debate:  http://www.motherjon...wheres-evidence

#3 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

WTH?  NRA in Arizona attempts to block the destruction of guns surrendered to community gun buy back program. This kind of thing REALLY makes me question both their sanity and their motives:   http://www.npr.org/2...destroying-guns

Ye old, Swiss Gun comparison, which is often cited by gun rights advocates relies on a very superficial examination of their gun policy. Their policies actually much better meet the character of our 2nd Amendment than our own laws do, since nearly all males at the age of 18 have mandatory service in their military (militia). They also have a very different social culture... nationalized healthcare, much stronger sense of civic duty and genuine national pride... rather than the American tendency towards self-involvement and the prevalence toward asserting one's own rights, needs, and desires regardless of their effect on other people. All their weapons sales undergo background check and registration, ammo is for the most part inventoried and stored by the government. The number of people carrying guns who are NOT in the military or formerly served in the military as a proportion of the population is pretty small.

http://world.time.co...ure-that-works/

http://csgv2.blogspo...witzerland.html

#4 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

-In 2003, 231 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional firearm-related injuries; more than 50 percent of these injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization.

-In 2002, 60 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.

-Unintentional shootings account for nearly 20 percent of all firearm-related fatalities among children ages 14 and under, compared with 3 percent for the entire U.S. population.

-The total annual cost of unintentional firearm-related deaths and injuries among children ages 14 and under is almost $675 million.

-In 2003, nearly 8,300 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional non-powder gun-related injuries (e.g., BB guns, pellet guns).

-The unintentional firearm injury death rate among children ages 14 and under in the United States is nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

-Most unintentional firearm-related deaths among children occur in or around the home; 50 percent at the home of the victim, and 40 percent at the home of a friend or relative.

-The presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of unintentional firearm-related death among children (especially if the firearm is loaded and kept unlocked).

-Most unintentional firearm-related child deaths involve guns that were loaded and accessible, and occur when children play with the gun.

-Up to one-half of firearm owners keep their firearms loaded and ready for use some of the time.

-Most unintentional shootings among children occur in the late afternoon, on the weekend, and during summer months when children are most likely to be unsupervised.

-Rural areas have higher incidences of unintentional firearm-related injuries, as well as higher rates of firearm ownership.

-Approximately 3.3 million children in the US live in households with firearms that are, at times, kept loaded and unlocked.

-Boys are more likely to suffer unintentional firearm-injuries or die from an unintentional shooting than girls. More than 85 percent of children ages 14 and under who die from unintentional shootings are boys.

-African-American children, ages 14 and under, are twice as likely to die from an unintentional shooting than Caucasian children.

-Children living in the South are three times more likely to die from unintentional shootings than children living in the Northeast.

-As many as 75-80 percent of first and second graders know where their parents' gun is kept.

-Some 3 year olds are strong enough to pull the trigger of many handguns.

http://www.childrens...pageS905P0.html

Some statistics specific to having a gun in your home. (Evidence shows higher risk of homicide, suicide):  http://www.huppi.com...-kellermann.htm

#5 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:01 PM

For those people like myself who believe in the second amendment right I would like to point out that at that time firearms where limited to one shot pistols and flintlock rifles which could only fire one shot and then had to be reloaded, a task which required 20 to 30 seconds for each shot.  My point is that the founding fathers never imagined a weapon that fired multiple rounds a second or carried multiple bullets like the 30 or more round clips.

The belief that a person should be able to own a weapon that is designed first and foremost for military use should not be available to the public, no one needs to shoot a deer 3 to 5 times in a second.  no person needs a semi automatic weapon for personal defense.  So to all those who a screaming the second amendment should allow these weapons, I says no it does not it allowed 1 shot weapons.

I fully believe that your rights end at the end of my nose, the greater good of humanity does not allow me to drink and drive, cry fire in a theater, or invade a home, so why should anyone be allowed to own a weapon that is purely for military use as with assault weapons.

As a past member of the NRA I am appalled by their stance on these weapons.  I can only hope that level headed ness will prevail. Fire arms must be regulated for all the reasons detailed by tigerlilly.

#6 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 100 posts 9 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

Quote

I fully believe that your rights end at the end of my nose, the greater good of humanity does not allow me to drink and drive, cry fire in a theater, or invade a home, so why should anyone be allowed to own a weapon that is purely for military use as with assault weapons.

I love it! Well put. And this next bit is sheer genius!

Quote

My point is that the founding fathers never imagined a weapon that fired multiple rounds a second or carried multiple bullets like the 30 or more round clips.
I take it you're American, having been a member of the NRA? Well, this might come as a bit of a shock, but Australia is having a slow motion debate in our culture about whether or not to adopt a Bill of Rights. And many 'rights activists' who are on the forefront of legislation to protect human rights are against having a once-for-all time BILL to protect them! They think we should leave our rights where they currently are, protected by the laws of our Australian Parliament.

Check this out and then get back to me.
http://eclipsenow.wo...m/human-rights/

It's all about the blind spots of one generation attempting to write legislation that can cope with the changing technologies of the future. We cannot today, just as the founding fathers could not imagine automatic rifles firing 30 rounds before needing to reload. It's a little off the main topic, but has ENORMOUS implications for Australian society should we ever get a Constitutionally limiting BILL!

#7 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:43 AM

I accidentally gave a negative when my intention was to give a positive and it will not let me change it, would someone please give a positive rating to cancel out my mistake. So sorry Tigerlilly I agree 100% with all you wrote.

#8 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:05 AM

The reporting to a national data base; whether it's felons or the mentally ill is woefully inadequate.
Joe Biden spoke to this fact at his meeting with the mayors.
He also spoke to the fact that weapons recovered from crime scenes were often purchased
in another state; that's why a national data base should be updated and accurate.

http://www.c-span.or...rs/10737437338/

Background checks do us no good if everyone is not in the system. On-line purchases and gun shows
do not have strong enough standards. Felons, drug runners/cartels and other "bad guys" in general can
easily skirt the regulations and buy weapons that way.
That has to change.

Banning assault type weapons will be an uphill battle, but the large capacity clips must be addressed.
The manufacturers and sellers will put up a strong fight; including wal-mart that sells a lot of those items.
http://www.thenation...weapon-america#


One of the main things that needs to be addressed and attitudes changed is mental illness. It should be talked
about as easily as diabetes or a broken bone.

We still hide it under the rug as shameful.
No one chooses to be mentally ill, and often it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. It's time to remove
those stigma's from our mindset's; but also, if people are diagnosed with certain conditions, they should not
be allowed to purchase weapons.

#9 Dustoffer

Dustoffer

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 471 posts 91 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:50 AM

Tiger Lily: "I suspect that in many ways this "discussion" has been neatly divided into two camps as efficiently and cleanly as climate change.... either you acknowledge a problem that warrants consideration of solutions, or you cling to the idea that things are just fine the way they are and any attempt at change or solutions would be "more trouble than it is worth"  or "tyranny!""
It is ridiculous to compare the two.   The founding fathers meant for the populace to be armed as well as the military so that, in the event of a tyrannical government, we could have another revolution, or do "the Tom Jefferson thing".
I know what it is like to get shot at day in and day out unarmed.  That is what Dustoff was---unarmed medical evacuation.  According to the Geneva Convention, we were not supposed to be fired upon, yet had the highest helicopter loss rate of the RVN war.
No more.  I will not allow myself to be helpless against criminals or out of control officials.
I would like to have a quad 20mm but could not afford to shoot it, and it is illegal.  
The first school mass murder, and still largest, was a bomber in 1927.  In Russia there was the moslem attack on a school.  There is the argument that schools should be protected, along with other places of large numbers people gathering.  People talk about banning over 10 round magazines and "military style" semi-auto weapons, and making sure every gun owner is trained.   Mandatory gun registration, then what??  I am deep green living on solar power, with an Earthship, hybrid  vehicle and the biggest thing, one child only.   I am a decorated veteran, too, and have studied overpopulation since 1967.   I am also a CCW permit holder and NRA member.
The nutty things happening in the world are partially from the effects of over-crowding and pollution.   The number per capita of depressive, and anxiety illnesses has skyrocketed.  Hostility, drug use, and over-all criminality has increased.  These are part of a little known thing called the human overcrowding syndrome.  With PC for many years, even PHD psychologists have most often not heard of it.  Then there are the mental effects of mercury pollution in the global biosphere, lead pollution---both causing mental and nerve defects, mainly to learning.   There is the effect of CO concentrations of increased hostility, too, especially in traffic jams.  Which all leads back to overpopulation.
It is a rotten thing that those people killed at Sandy Hook were replaced in less than 6 minutes by immigrants to this already grossly overpopulated country.
While I do not agree with all of the NRA positions, I do not want to be made a criminal overnight by some stupid laws that affect over a quarter of the population of law abiding gun owners, yet will not be obeyed by the criminal and terrorist elements in our population.  I do believe that it takes a good guy with a gun to take out a bad guy with a gun.  When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.  I think it is a good idea to have CCW trained and permit holding people of unknown amounts in schools, around them, and in malls and around them, sports and concert/movie venues, in addition to picture taking cell phones to record criminality, even on the part of police.
Population reduction, along with massive emissions reduction are necessary to save our biosphere and bring back harmony in human relations with the biosphere and each other.  Religions should be replaced with the spirituality of the Utes or similar quasi-religious positive ecological beliefs.  When people reach a state of sustainability and spiritual change to maintain it, then guns will no longer be necessary for security.  No more jets, tanks, or nuclear bombs.  No more kill cults or crowding miseries.  No more increasing heat, and depleting resources.   It is unfortunate that time is not now.

#10 yoder

yoder

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:51 AM

I grew up around hunting and guns.  I owned my first shotguns and rifles at 11 or 12 (can't remember exactly, it was a long time ago).  I had my small arms badge (not such a big deal) and my marksman as well in the Air Force.  I've owned hunting shotguns, rifles and handguns.  Personal hand guns in the home for personal defense are understandable, even though you will most likely kill yourself or a family member than any intruder.

Having semi-automatic and automatic weapons pass from person to person without any oversight is not American, not logical, not safe, not mature, not reasonable and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment.  The NRA began as an organization that represented the sportsman, but now is just a facilitator for the US weapons industry.  Their views are no longer based in reality as they even see simple conversation as un-American.

The NRA has become more dangerous than any mass murderer because they wrap themselves in the flag to defend people who stockpile weapons to use in the Zombie Apocalypse or for the next Democratic President, whichever comes first.
People are not the problem here, the NRA as an organization is the problem.

Owning a weapon or weapons is not at issue and people should not allow the NRA to say it is.  It's our duty as Americans not to let logical, mature and reasoned discussion get drown out by the NRA's shrieking and wailing.  Each time a Dem gets elected, weapon sales skyrocket.  Who's the winner there?  Hmm, you'd almost think the US weapon manufactureres want a Dem in the White House.  It's good for the bottom line and they have a boogeyman to throw in front of the people.

#11 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:41 AM

As for the 2nd Amendment, I have a hard time believing the founders could have ever imagined the extent to which warfare and the capability of our weaponry has changed. Remember, when they fought the Revolutionary War it was still standard military procedure to line up in formation and march across an open field of combat toward your opponents who did the same. The inaccuracy and inefficiency of their firearms was what allowed that tactic to prevail long into the age of guns.

I honestly do not suspect that the forefathers could envision a weapon that could shoot 100 rounds in less than a minute at the simple pull of the trigger.

And in light of the fact that our military has fighter jets, bombers, missiles, rocket launchers, tanks, unmanned drones, submarines, and nuclear weapons ... I think the idea that CITIZENS have a RIGHT to assault style rifles and high capacity magazines seems like a farce of an argument. Surely most Americans can agree that they don't want other American citizens to have the right to a missile silo or a rocket launcher, or a nuclear bomb (just so long as they can afford one), and the polling suggests the majority of us feel similarly about assault rifles.

I think it is also important to note the role of the "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment. Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were crafted after what was considered a failure of the Articles of the Confederacy to sufficiently govern and address the needs of a fledgling nation. In regards to the militia, the founders were still very cognizant of the role civilians played in the revolution, and still had the stinging memory of the reluctance on the part of many states to call up their militias to the cause. The founders clearly intended for some regulation and standards to be applied to the militia, and by extension to the right of the people to bear arms for the purpose of serving in the militia.  Now that we have an oversized standing army, navy (along with the Marines), and air force it seems that the core issue of defending a "free state" falls to the organized military.

I also have to question the wisdom of the "citizen vs. miltary" arms race Dustoffer's perspective would give rise to. It's bad enough that our country alone has enough nuclear warheads to blow up the world several times over, and our insistence on having this capability has driven other sovereign nations to attempt to match our strength. To extend that arms race mentality to American society in relation to our OWN military is just asking for trouble, when clearly a lot of people in this country already have firearms in their possession far outscoring their maturity, responsibility, and sensibility  (Sandy Hook Hoax videos, being just one example of why I really do not feel comfortable giving more firepower to people who seem so willing and cooperative to being deluded).

#12 Tom Butler

Tom Butler

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:55 AM

Let's change the dialogue from "Right to own and carry guns" to "mediation of armament." My quality of life has degraded a lot in recent years as I become more aware that people driving cars around me on the road or walking about in the mall are increasingly likely to be carrying a gun. More and more it is legal to carry a concealed one and that makes me hesitant to do some of the things we expect of good citizens such as stopping a person from harassing another citizen.

I grew up spending a lot of time in the woods. Did you know that around 1,000 people are accidentally shot by hunters each year? (http://animalrights....ingAccident.htm). When I was a kid, a young man got out of his car to relieve himself and a rifle bullet fell out of the sky and killed. As a Scout, we were not allowed in the woods for any hunting season. If cows were not safe from those "flat landers," certainly were would not be safe.

Thanks to the NRA, the dialogue now is based on the assumption that, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The idea is that there is no way of actually banning guns because there are just too many of them. Another is, "Guns don't kill people; people do." That is logically the same as saying "Cars don't kill people; people do." If we accepted that logic, then we would never have improved the safety of cars.

The Second Amendment says nothing about protecting unarmed citizens from armed citizens, so perhaps there should be a Second Amendment, Article One: Citizens have the right to know when another citizen is armed and if there are arms nearby.
This could lead to laws such as:
  • Right to carry is okay, but the person must keep the weapon visible at all times.
  • Buildings with weapons in them must prominently display a sign indicating that there are weapons inside and the type.
  • A gun remediation tax can be levied against guns and ammunition to help pay for hospital, therapy and counseling for gunshot victims as well as the cost of policing gun rights.
  • Bullets cannot travel more than 1000 feet or penetrate more than a half-inch in plywood.
  • Hollow-point ammunition would not be allowed but a hunter would be given a permit to purchase a few (5?) long-rang hollow-point pullets with the purchase of a hunting license. (Return unused ammunition and/or spent cartridges after the season?)
  • Because so many people are shot in hunting accidents, clearly marked land would be set aside for hunting from which citizens without a hunting license would be banned fore their own safety.
To paraphrase an old saying, eliminating guns begins with the first gun destroyed. The belief that there are just too many of them to do that is NRA propaganda that has frozen our society from action. Let us be candid. Gun dealers are no different than those villainous arms dealers selling guns to rebels in the jungle. Guns are only good for killing. Handguns are only good for killing people. The need to have and carry a handgun is born of fear. And the worst kind of person to have around with such killing power is a fearful person.

This is the 21st Century and things have changed a little since the Revolutionary War.

#13 Dustoffer

Dustoffer

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 471 posts 91 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

My perspective of the historical reasons for the very important 2nd Amendment will not start some civilian/military arms race.  Civilians are already prohibited from having automatic assault weapons without a very expensive permit.  It is not possible for a semi-auto even with 30 round magazines to fire 100 shots in a minute.  The confusion between real assault automatic weapons and civilian semi-automatic weapons is purely from ignorance.   Personally, I really like Thomas Jefferson, founding father, third President, inventor---"When the Government fears the people there is Liberty, When the people fear the Government there is tyranny."
Something to ponder;  "Here's a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information." --columnist Doug Giles
Of course, the ecologist in me says we certainly didn't need all the people born in the 20th Century over the long term sustainable level reached early in that century.   I understand that over-compassion and over-tolerance have also been a negative ecological trait.    Yet I would rather people have liberty and education, than tyranny and ignorance.

#14 Tom Butler

Tom Butler

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:43 AM

Do you really think having personal guns would protect you from the US government? That is a little like "going to your "safe place" in your mind while the bear eats you.

The only revolutions that have succeeded have been at the good graces of other countries supplying arms and support to the rebels. Unless gun owners plan on a full-blown revolution (I hear a lot of them threatening such and I am sure Russia would arm them--so much for their respect for the constitution and rule of law) the only real protection is the rule of law and organized politics.

#15 tigerlily78

tigerlily78

    Activist

  • Global Moderator
  • 250 posts 71 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

Without wasting too much of my afternoon, I will just say that at the very least the "Germany" argument is a false one. the regime before Hitler was actually responsible for widespread gun restrictions, Hitler actually targeted gun prohibition for Jews and other minority groups, while excluding members of his party from existing regulations.  (Note that this same false evidence was going around in 2000, and here we are yet again:  http://www.straightd...n-gun-ownership )

That is not a good parallel for US Gun policy, since no one is proposing we exclude some people from regulation (for example, the public is in FAVOR or making everyone subject to background checks) or seeking to institute narrow scope gun regulation that targets a specific race or class of people for something unrelated to their behaviors.

And for every "if only they had guns" argument, I think you can make the same number of "if only they hadn't had guns" argument. True enough that people have been exploiting and victimizing other people for nearly all of human history, but I am a whole lot less troubled by the idea that some random person could lose their temper and stab me or hit me in the head with a hammer, as I am they could lose their temper and shoot me from across the room without really even having to put much thought or effort into it.

The statistics regarding the benefit vs. the elevated risks of owning a gun make a pretty clear point about just how much a gun contributes to personal safety, and how it actually undermines personal safety across a number of variables and scenarios.

I think it's also important to remember the leg up we have on the people of the 1770's in regards to the dissemination of information... The pen is mightier than the sword so to speak. To think we need the same armament as our military is absurd, and if in fact we should ever let ourselves be in a position to have to physically fight against our own military, then we have certainly failed in our responsibilities and duties as citizens to allow such a thing to happen... what really gives me pause is the general ignorance and apathy of many gun owners toward the political sphere in all issues beyond the 2nd Amendment. I can't really find much faith or credence to their enthusiasm for "taking up arms against tyranny", when they come across as relatively uninformed and uninterested in the political process, and that their apparent threshold for the things that constitute "tyanny" is so weak (ie. instituting universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes).

#16 yoder

yoder

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:58 PM

There is always a different perspective.  The question is, should we as a country allow ourselves to be distracted by perspectives that are not based on present reality, but on 200 year old reality.

#17 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 100 posts 9 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:59 PM

View PostDustoffer, on 21 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

It is ridiculous to compare the two.   The founding fathers meant for the populace to be armed as well as the military so that, in the event of a tyrannical government, we could have another revolution, or do "the Tom Jefferson thing".

You're talking about being as well armed as the Federal Government of America. How many nukes do you pack? :tongue:

#18 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 100 posts 9 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

View PostDustoffer, on 21 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I am deep green living on solar power, with an Earthship, hybrid  vehicle and the biggest thing, one child only.  

The nutty things happening in the world are partially from the effects of over-crowding and pollution.   The number per capita of depressive, and anxiety illnesses has skyrocketed.  Hostility, drug use, and over-all criminality has increased.  These are part of a little known thing called the human overcrowding syndrome.  With PC for many years, even PHD psychologists have most often not heard of it.  Then there are the mental effects of mercury pollution in the global biosphere, lead pollution---both causing mental and nerve defects, mainly to learning.   There is the effect of CO concentrations of increased hostility, too, especially in traffic jams.  Which all leads back to overpopulation.
Sorry mate, I marked you down for your comment about having 'another revolution' when the American Federal government are armed with nukes, but having read the rest of your post there's a lot I admire. You actually live in an Earthship? That's awesome! And you've been studying overpopulation since the year I was born!

So I marked 'up' a later post you made to try to balance my earlier Ying with some Yang. I still disagree with your stance on guns. Being Australian, I've seen the enormous difference tough gun laws can have. We had a massacre a decade ago, and our government introduced a massive gun buy-back scheme and made whole categories of firearms illegal. We now have an internationally verified rate of fire-arm homicide one ninth** of yours, which brings our overall homicide rate (by any means) down to about one quarter of yours. I did some time in the Australian army, and respect rifles. I just think there are other ways to interpret your 2nd amendment, as in a well armed local police force could help balance the powers of the Feds.


** Here's that data.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compiles international statistics on murders by firearm. This is not suicides but homicides.
2011 Global Study on Homicide – Homicides by firearm statistics data
Here are the American firearm homicides per 100,000 from 2003 to 2010.
3.8  3.6  3.8  3.9  3.8  3.6  3.3  3.2

Here are Australia’s firearm homicides per 100,000 from 2000 to 2010 respectively.
0.3  0.3  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.1  0.2  0.2  0.1  0.1
We have gun control laws: they don’t. Go figure!
Also note that this bloats their overall homicide rate out, by all categories, to the general rule that you are about 4 times more likely to be murdered in America than in Australia. Without guns, their murder rate would be down near 1 per 100,000, roughly at ours.


http://eclipsenow.wo...f-data-says-it/

#19 Phil

Phil

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 944 posts 142 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:45 PM

Sorry but this whole thread is bogus.  It starts out basically by laying out all the liberal talking points as reasonable, therefore any other view is unreasonable.  Is that a debate or a stake in the ground?

I'm with Dustoffer on this one.  It is quite clear what the founding fathers meant by the 2nd amendment if one reads all the correspondence.  It was for individual protection from anyone, including government.  Believe me, I have informed ALL of my relevent politicians of my views.

Everyone I know owns weapons and most have AR-15's, they are nice rifles.  I'll probably pick one up after the dust settles.  I feel quite safe where I live.  I also have a conceal carry permit as does everyone I know.  People who feel unsafe because we are walking around armed are basically calling the FBI liars.  You are safer from violent crime and gun deaths now than you have ever been thanks to us.

A lot of the confusion is caused by anti gun people are ranting about guns without the slightest clue what they are talking about.  An AR is a civilian weapon, not military.  The military version is the M-16 and is fully automatic.  The AR is semi auto, just like the Glock pistol or the venerable 1911.  A 30-06 deer rifle or shotgun will do far more damage. Here is a link comparing the AR 223 round to a 30-06 round, which do you think will do more damage?

http://www.firearmst...-picture-79682/

So you want to ban AR's but not deer rifles or shotguns?  Does that really make sense?  Hand guns are responsible for 98+% of gun deaths and you want to ban "assault weapons"?  Banning assault weapons will do nothing to reduce gun deaths. it's clear the agenda is banning, then "tracing", then registering, then confiscation.

What seems to upset gun grabers is the look of the weapon, not it's killing power.  If you knew anything about weapons you would laugh your a$$ off at the definition of an assault weapon, (a term that is totally made up by gun grabbers).  How does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly?  How does a flash supressor?  A folding stock?  A bayonette mount?  It's all so silly.

What seems to be lost is the fact that as gun ownership has exploded, violent crimes have steadily decreased, more guns DO equal less crime.

I'd say nothing has to be done with gun reform except enforcing the laws already on the books.  Nothing proposed by Obama will save one life except allowing guns in schools as the NRA suggested.  Virtually every mass shooting has occured where guns are banned.  Doesn't that tell  you something????

The last assault weapons ban was useless, it did nothing but make them more desirable.  All the "loop hole" closings will also do nothing.  The problem is only law abiding citizens obey laws, criminals do not.  All those laws will do is limit our rights, not the "rights" of crooks.

#20 Eclipse

Eclipse

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 100 posts 9 rep

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:10 PM

Phil,
if you're an American you are 9 times more likely to be shot than I am as an Australian. These are statistics born out across hundreds of millions of people. The maths doesn't lie. Your gun laws and gun culture allow guns to abound. Ours do not. Go figure.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users