Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws

[MaverickCowboy]

VIDEO
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/04/08/dcl.schneider.gun.control.cnn

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html


Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws

(CNN) -- From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country. But has there been an effect on public opinion?


Fewer people fave stricter gun control after recent shootings, including one in Binghamton, New York.

Yes, and in a surprising way.

Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

The gradual, long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990s to 2008 coincided with a decline in the murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to be influenced by politics, namely the Obama administration.

"If [President Obama] and the people in control of Congress right now could have what they want, they would heavily restrict or eliminate guns from this country," said Sean Healy, an attorney who has advocated on behalf of gun-owner rights. Watch why some people don't want stricter gun laws »

Or, Americans may have heard the new administration's take on assault weapons.

"There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstate the ban on the sale of assault weapons," said Attorney General Eric Holder in February.

In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "I, as a senator, supported measures to try and reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those."

Don't Miss
Chief: Gunman fired 98 shots in about a minute
Four cops dead after weekend shooting
Still, the decline in American favor for stricter gun laws doesn't mean people want to see restrictions lifted -- 46 percent want no change in the current law, while only 15 percent want gun laws that are less strict.

Nearly all the decline in support for stricter gun laws is from people who don't identify themselves as Democrats. Six in 10 Democrats still support stricter gun laws, but support has dropped 13 points among Republicans and 17 points among independents. Half of all independents supported stricter gun laws in 2007; now only a third of them do.



The poll, based on phone interviews with 1,023 U.S. adults from Friday through Sunday, were conducted after Friday's mass shooting in Binghamton, New York, where 13 people were killed at an immigrant services center.

On the issue of whether gun laws should be stricter, the poll contains a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The breakdown of opinions on that issue over party lines had a sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

[cone256]

I'm glad I live in Vermont where there are no gun laws other than a background check. There are no permits for anything. You can conceal carry, open carry, or whatever else you want. It's weird that Vermont has one of the lowest if not THE lowest gun crime rate in the country per capita

[millertime]

I'm glad I live in Vermont where there are no gun laws other than a background check. There are no permits for anything. You can conceal carry, open carry, or whatever else you want. It's weird that Vermont has one of the lowest if not THE lowest gun crime rate in the country per capita


That's because the cowards that commit gun crimes like those we have seen lately, only fire on those they feel won't fire back.

[Burntrubber87]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27598947/

Record gun sales, I guess people are getting scared and they should be..everyone who believe in our second amendment needs to do the whole write your congressman thing. I hate living in NY but at least we get to have compliant "assault weapons" unlike other states and the year long ATF registered pistol permit is ok, but no ccw..doesn't make sense. Thinking about moving to VT..hell I can see VT from my house.

[62ECHO]

I'm glad I live in Vermont where there are no gun laws other than a background check. There are no permits for anything. You can conceal carry, open carry, or whatever else you want. It's weird that Vermont has one of the lowest if not THE lowest gun crime rate in the country per capita

It's not weird. It makes the mopes think twice before they pull of some sh1t, If they know that the good guys are packing. I wish more states and people thought of it that way, crime would come down for sure.

[MaDuce]

It's not weird. It makes the mopes think twice before they pull of some sh1t, If they know that the good guys are packing. I wish more states and people thought of it that way, crime would come down for sure.

Always wondered how that policy goes with all the pot smoking hippie types you got up there. The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts is very strict on the other hand.

[Hollis]

It is easy to support something, if you know it would never pass.

[cone256]

Haha well you don't see too many of the pot smoking hippies carrying. It's all of us National Guardsmen and all the hunters up here that are carrying haha.

[cone256]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27598947/

Record gun sales, I guess people are getting scared and they should be..everyone who believe in our second amendment needs to do the whole write your congressman thing. I hate living in NY but at least we get to have compliant "assault weapons" unlike other states and the year long ATF registered pistol permit is ok, but no ccw..doesn't make sense. Thinking about moving to VT..hell I can see VT from my house.

Well I'm in Burlington, come on over we can do some shooting...

[Burntrubber87]

Well I'm in Burlington, come on over we can do some shooting...
Might have to take you up on that sometime! Im from Plattsburgh.

[cone256]

Might have to take you up on that sometime! Im from Plattsburgh.

Small world!

[bugkill]

I'm not the least bit worried about gun control. I think that every politician that sits in the White House fully understands that it would be political suicide to mess with the rights of gun owners. Yes, they will fight to have restrictions on automatic weapons and all of that, but that is as far as it will go.

Congress would actually be the ones to have to pass the legislation and I just do not see any of them doing anything about it.

[MostlyHarmless]

MA gun laws do everything they can to encourage a citizen not to purchase a firearm. Can't stop me though! Headed up to Kittery Maine last week and got myself a Mauser and a Remington 870 12g. Gotta love Maine, NH too. Can't wait till I make my way down to SC for college. Gun laws are great down there.

[deagle]

an honest citizen should be able to acquire a firearm for protection. and the right kinds, not the mentally ill like VT shooter or the guy who took out brave Pittsburgh officers. or maybe police should address real violent crime instead of scamming citizens for speeding tickets for revenue.

[Yarrick2]

It's weird that Vermont has one of the lowest if not THE lowest gun crime rate in the country per capita
It's not weird at all, the average crime rate in the "old west" was tiny in so far as muggings and robberies, part of the reason being the fact that an armed society is a polite society and the other being rather draconian laws where you were going to be hung for many crimes so you may as well have gone for broke.

[USMCRTop]

Dunno I look at practicalities- IIRC there are 250 million guns in the US- say there was a ban- whats the gummint gonna do, go door to door, house to house ??

[Netzach]

Statistics prove nothing, except the parameters they are set to measure. In a country that has a population in excess of 300 Million,
a telephone survey of 1,023 adults suggests there may be support for fewer gun controls. Gauging opinion based on an unsolicited
telephone call to just 1 person in 300,000 cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the national population. This survey
was conducted immediately after a gun related multiple murder which had already received much coverage in the media. However,
it is hardly definitive, or representative of the demographic. The survey, and the information that it delivers, are too imprecise to
justify claims on gun control, one way or the other. There is a post on a similar thread here at MPnet in which some knucklehead
seriously puts forward a theory that the recent surge in multiple gun homicides in America are public reaction/panic to a proposed
review of gun laws under the Obama administration. If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place,
perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or funeral services.

[MaverickCowboy]

Statistics prove nothing, except the parameters they are set to measure. In a country that has a population in excess of 300 Million,
a telephone survey of 1,023 adults suggests there may be support for fewer gun controls. Gauging opinion based on an unsolicited
telephone call to just 1 person in 300,000 cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the national population. This survey
was conducted immediately after a gun related multiple murder which had already received much coverage in the media. However,
it is hardly definitive, or representative of the demographic. The survey, and the information that it delivers, are too imprecise to
justify claims on gun control, one way or the other. There is a post on a similar thread here at MPnet in which some knucklehead
seriously puts forward a theory that the recent surge in multiple gun homicides in America are public reaction/panic to a proposed
review of gun laws under the Obama administration. If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place,
perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or funeral services.


so much wrong here.

[Netzach]

If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place, perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or
funeral services. To extend that point, the use of firearms is best placed into the hands of full time professionals - not into the hands of
civilian amateurs who may be susceptible to mental illness, and less able to control themselves than a loaded weapon - as witnessed on CCTV
when a deranged mother executed her son at a gun club before turning the gun on herself. It is a predictable pattern, there have been too
many multiple murders for this epidemic to be dismissed by feeble excuses about locking key parts of the constitution into the past. How
many more times will we have to read and hear about a rejected husband, or a disgruntled employee, taking the lives of innocent people.
Obamas’ position (pre-election) was clear on this issue. He was voted into the White House by a democratic process, therefore he has been
given a mandate (approved by the electorate) to address the issues of repeated gun crimes, in a way that will protect the interests of all
Americans, not just the private gun owners who prove the case, time and again, that bringing those parts of the constitution relating to guns
up to date, would do no harm. That is a decision that will be taken by a President empowered by the electorate last November. Get over it.

[MaverickCowboy]

If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place, perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or
funeral services. To extend that point, the use of firearms is best placed into the hands of full time professionals - not into the hands of
civilian amateurs who may susceptible to mental illness, and less able to control themselves than a loaded weapon - as witnessed on CCTV
when a deranged mother executed her son at a gun club before turning the gun on herself. It is a predictable pattern, there have been too
many multiple murders for this epidemic to be dismissed by feeble excuses about locking key parts of the constitution into the past. How
many more times will we have to read and hear about a rejected husband, or a disgruntled employee, taking the lives of normal people.
Obamas’ position (pre-election) was clear on this issue. He was voted into the White House by a democratic process, therefore he has been
given a mandate (approved by the electorate) to address the issues of repeated gun crimes, in a way that will protect the interests of all
Americans, not just the private gun owners who prove the case, time and again, that bringing those parts of the constitution relating to guns
up to date, would do no harm. That is a decision that will be taken by a President empowered by the electorate last November. Get over it.


1. Wrong, if guns were banned only the law abiding would not have them.
Murder is a crime you know. Using a gun in a crime is a crime. Manufacturing guns unlicensed and smuggling them is a crime. Firearms are used in self defense and deterring crime more often than they are used to commit them. Banning them would increase crime here. The states with the highest amount of ownership/concealed carry have low crime compared to states with prohibitive laws.

your logic is flawed.

2. That woman was barred from having any firearm. But the owner of the range failed to check her.

3. banning guns will never stop murder and funerals.
http://www.protectmystaff.co.uk/users/www.trevorgilbert.com/upload/knife%20attack.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/1428crystallake/bat1.jpg
http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/T_SHIRT_D/PATRIOTIC_POLITICAL/thumbnails/bigTED_KENNEDY_S_CAR_HAS_KILLE2.jpg

4. No. its called Bush fatigue. and NO it does not serve the intrests of all Americans.here. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/04/08/dcl.schneider.gun.control.cnn

as for bringing rulings on guns up to date.
The Supreme Court's decision
D.C. vs heller.

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

5. No. i wont get over it. i wont be forced into registration and confiscation into firearms i worked and paid for.

Your argument is invalid.

[Netzach]

^
You have modified that post so many time now I am beginning to lose count, either way, too much red ink on the page.

There are systemic failures when checks and balances needed to ensure that the wrong people are not permitted access to guns - continually
fail - and the cost can be measured in innocent lives lost. Even you concede that point when you try to explain that the woman who murdered
her son had in fact been barred from that same gun club after an attempted suicide on the premises. Efforts to improve legislation that would
prevent such incidents and ensure public safety, cannot be flawed logic. There are systemic failures - those failures are costing innocent lives.

[MaverickCowboy]

^
You have modified that post so many time now I am beginning to lose count, either way, too much red ink on the page.

There are systemic failures when checks and balances needed to ensure that the wrong people are not permitted access to guns - continually
fail - and the cost can be measured in innocent lives lost. Even you concede that point when you try to explain that the woman who murdered
her son had in fact been barred from that same gun club after an attempted suicide on the premises. Efforts to improve legislation that would
prevent such incidents and ensure public safety, cannot be flawed logic. There are systemic failures - those failures are costing innocent lives.

Human error cannot be legislated out of existence.

[Will Clark]

Statistics prove nothing, except the parameters they are set to measure. In a country that has a population in excess of 300 Million,
a telephone survey of 1,023 adults suggests there may be support for fewer gun controls. Gauging opinion based on an unsolicited
telephone call to just 1 person in 300,000 cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the national population. This survey
was conducted immediately after a gun related multiple murder which had already received much coverage in the media. However,
it is hardly definitive, or representative of the demographic. The survey, and the information that it delivers, are too imprecise to
justify claims on gun control, one way or the other. There is a post on a similar thread here at MPnet in which some knucklehead
seriously puts forward a theory that the recent surge in multiple gun homicides in America are public reaction/panic to a proposed
review of gun laws under the Obama administration. If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place,
perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or funeral services.

Wat? 1023 people is enough to gauge the opinion of the entire country within a couple percent. This isn't up for debate, it's a mathematical fact.

And you're right, no one is ever killed by any means other than a firearm. I'm glad we can join hands and blame those stupid objects, instead of human nature, which obviously doesn't have anything to do with this.

[MaverickCowboy]

Wat? 1023 people is enough to gauge the opinion of the entire country within a couple percent. This isn't up for debate, it's a mathematical fact.

And you're right, no one is ever killed by any means other than a firearm. I'm glad we can join hands and blame those stupid objects, instead of human nature, which obviously doesn't have anything to do with this.

THANK you. i was having an anurism.

atleast i hope that last bit is sarcasm...... people state that as fact now days..

[Will Clark]

If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place, perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or
funeral services. To extend that point, the use of firearms is best placed into the hands of full time professionals - not into the hands of
civilian amateurs who may be susceptible to mental illness, and less able to control themselves than a loaded weapon - as witnessed on CCTV
when a deranged mother executed her son at a gun club before turning the gun on herself. It is a predictable pattern, there have been too
many multiple murders for this epidemic to be dismissed by feeble excuses about locking key parts of the constitution into the past. How
many more times will we have to read and hear about a rejected husband, or a disgruntled employee, taking the lives of innocent people.
Obamas’ position (pre-election) was clear on this issue. He was voted into the White House by a democratic process, therefore he has been
given a mandate (approved by the electorate) to address the issues of repeated gun crimes, in a way that will protect the interests of all
Americans, not just the private gun owners who prove the case, time and again, that bringing those parts of the constitution relating to guns
up to date, would do no harm. That is a decision that will be taken by a President empowered by the electorate last November. Get over it.

These debates aren't necessary to anyone who is capable of rational thought AND that don't give into their bias. Take you for instance, you say that maybe funerals wouldn't be necessary if there were no firearms. This is obviously a ridiculous position to take, so why take it? Because you have no problem knowing you're wrong and continuing anyway.

Professionals are now incapable of murder, or safe from mental illness? And if psycho mom had stuck an axe in his face as he slept, would you be jumping on the bandwagon to outlaw axes? That would just be crazy wouldn't it. Face it, you have an irrational fear. Oh, and you'll never, ever stop hearing about the crazy husband, or ex-employee, or multiple murders. All these things occurred long before firearms, I'm not sure why you're shocked that they occur now.

Your opinion on Obama's "mandate" is equally ridiculous. His views on the subject were purposefully obscured, how many debates was the issue even brought up in? One? Do you understand how our political pendulum operates?

Do no harm? The FBI states that millions of times per year someone protects themselves with a firearm in the united states. I guess they don't count, no price is too great for your illusion of safety huh.

Get over what? He can't pass anything relating to the subject. 65 members of his own party in the house refused to do so. You must have forgotten that the president doesn't create law, congress does; and they've decided not to touch the issue with a 10 foot stick.




There are systemic failures when checks and balances needed to ensure that the wrong people are not permitted access to guns - continually
fail - and the cost can be measured in innocent lives lost. Even you concede that point when you try to explain that the woman who murdered
her son had in fact been barred from that same gun club after an attempted suicide on the premises. Efforts to improve legislation that would
prevent such incidents and ensure public safety, cannot be flawed logic. There are systemic failures - those failures are costing innocent lives.

The problem with people like you is that you somehow figure murder done with a gun is worse than murder by other means. You have this odd perception that once firearms are out of the picture, crazy people will no longer do crazy things. I don't care how many objects you ban, you're not going to stop a determined person. Think about a prison, the most controlled environment on earth; yet people still fashion and use weapons, still kill/rape/assault others.

So why don't you tell us, right now, if all firearms disappeared tomorrow how it would stop anyone from committing crimes?

[MaverickCowboy]

Well said clark.

[Netzach]

It would be interseting to make a comparison between gun related deaths in Canada, and the United States. Does anyone here who defends
the status quo on gun deaths have those particular statisitcs to hand. Am I reading this correctly - you claim that a telephone poll of 1,023
subjects is representative in a country of more than 300 million residents -that does not stand up to examination. Annual figures in the order
of 30,000 gun related deaths are not the measure of a particularly enlightened or civilised society. They are indicators of a dangerous addiction
that borders on an epidemic. One statistic that is guaranteed (unless there is change) the gun culture will continue to cause multiple shootings.

[MaverickCowboy]

It would be interseting to make a comparison between gun related deaths in Canada, and the United States. Does anyone here who defends
the status quo on gun deaths have those particular statisitcs to hand. Am I reading this correctly - you claim that a telephone poll of 1023
subjects is representative in a country of more than 300 million residents -that does not stand up to examination. Annual figures in the order
of 30,000 gun related deaths are not the measure of a particularly enlightened or civilised society. They are indicators of a dangerous addiction
that borders on an epidemic. One statistic that is guaranteed (unless there is change) the gun culture will continue to cause multiple shootings.

Canada has a population smaller than that of California and landmass larger than ours. We have alot more ghettos and gangs than they do. we have ALOT more immigrants than they do. we have alot more gun and drug smuggling than they do. they have COMPARABLE gun ownership to us. and they are debating getting rid of the firearm registry. counting that, aswell as their culture crime and firearm deaths will be different.

its like comparing apple to oranges, again. Invalid. We differ in too many things to compare gun crime.


also. GUN CULTURE does not equal shooting. Gun culture is not Thug culture. I am not a criminal. your talking out your ass.
your equating gun ownership with criminals and thats flat out wrong.



http://www.geocities.com/azperry2001/Lianna.JPG
http://www.raypcarter.com/images/Ray_CampPerry2000.jpg
http://www.arringtonaccuracy.com/images/CampPerryOhioArizonaJuniorTeam.jpg
http://www.arringtonaccuracy.com/images/campperry2008/vincentPacFleet2008_019.jpg
http://www.tonyrogers.com/images/2007_camp_perry/m1garand/IMG_3805_1200.jpg

please explain how "GUN" culture will continue multiple shootings?

[Netzach]

^
You should balance that photo stream with images of the Michigan militia, or similar organisations that make a mockery of the gun laws.
People are conditioned by their environment. If they’re programmed to accept a gun culture it will be hard to educate them otherwise.
There will always be criminal elements in society, unfortunately that is part of human nature, it is also a sign of human weaknesses
when people lack self control, or respect for the lives of others. The next time you quote another member ’Maverick’ - it might be
helpful if you could try to concentrate on what was written. To describe gun deaths as ‘human error’ is your wording, not mine.
These multiple gun murders follow a familiar pattern, and confirm that users should be subject to much more stringent regulation,
registration, and those who do not match the proper profile, should never be allowed access anywhere near a lethal weapon.

[cone256]

It's ok Maverick, the other guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The longer he talks the deeper the whole he digs, so I say let him go on and on that way we can all know just how uneducated he really is on this issue.

[MaverickCowboy]

^
You should balance that photo stream with images of the Michigan militia, or similar organisations that make a mockery of the gun laws.
People are conditioned by their environment. If they’re programmed to accept a gun culture it will be hard to educate them otherwise.
There will always be criminal elements in society, unfortunately that is part of human nature, it is also a sign of human weaknesses
when people lack self control, or respect for the lives of others. The next time you quote another member ’Maverick’ - it might be
helpful if you could try to concentrate on what was written. To describe gun deaths as ‘human error’ is your wording, not mine.
These multiple gun murders follow a familiar pattern, and confirm that users should be subject to much more stringent regulation,
registration, and those who do not match the proper profile, should never be allowed access anywhere near a lethal weapon.

If your suggesting the Michigan militia are made of criminals your completely wrong.

there is not such thing as "Gun deaths" only Murders accidents, etc.
the biggest in the string of murders was License, registered and passed all the strongest gun laws in NYC.
that did not prevent him from snapping.

you have no clue about the reality of gun ownership here. please shut up on the subject.

[MaverickCowboy]

It's ok Maverick, the other guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The longer he talks the deeper the whole he digs, so I say let him go on and on that way we can all know just how uneducated he really is on this issue.

I think my brain is bleeding.

[cone256]

I think my brain is bleeding.

It's ok there's no helping him understand REALITY, not his little dreamworld he is trying to create.

[MaverickCowboy]

It's ok there's no helping him understand REALITY, not his little dreamworld he is trying to create.

Is he even American?

[Netzach]

If your suggesting the Michigan militia are made of criminals your completely wrong.


Once again, you posted another misquote. To be precise, I suggested organisations like the Michigan militia make a mockery of the gun laws.
In response to 'Cone256' - my frame of reference is living in a community where private gun ownership is near impossible because it cannot be
justified. Consider the person who was caught in the crossfire of a gunfight during his visit to the USA, and developed an unhealthy interest in
handguns on his return to Europe. Attitudes here are different. He was eventually imprisoned for some violation on storage of ammunition, it
ruined his career, but it must be a decision that was taken before he had an opportunity to cause harm to himself or members of the public.
How soon will the next lone gunman (in America, where else) embarks on a shooting spree to execute as many innocent people as possible.

[MaverickCowboy]

Once again, you posted another misquote. To be precise, I suggested organisations like the Michigan militia make a mockery of the gun laws.
In response to 'Cone256' - my frame of reference is living in a community where private gun ownership is near impossible because it cannot be
justified. Consider the person who was caught in the crossfire of a gunfight during his visit to the USA, and developed an unhealthy interest in
handguns on his return to Europe. Attitudes here are different. He was eventually imprisoned for some violation on storage of ammunition, it
ruined his career, but it must be a decision that was taken before he had an opportunity to cause harm to himself or members of the public.
How soon will the next lone gunman (in America, where else) embarks on a shooting spree to execute as many innocent people as possible.


that is the dumbest fvcking reason i have ever heard. wow.
also, that frame of 'community' does not exist.
also your scenario is totally retarded.
Militias do not make a mockery of gun laws. they are following gun laws.

also. what about the lone gunman in Germany?

[cone256]

Once again, you posted another misquote. To be precise, I suggested organisations like the Michigan militia make a mockery of the gun laws.
In response to 'Cone256' - my frame of reference is living in a community where private gun ownership is near impossible because it cannot be
justified. Consider the person who was caught in the crossfire of a gunfight during his visit to the USA, and developed an unhealthy interest in
handguns on his return to Europe. Attitudes here are different. He was eventually imprisoned for some violation on storage of ammunition, it
ruined his career, but it must be a decision that was taken before he had an opportunity to cause harm to himself or members of the public.
How soon will the next lone gunman (in America, where else) embarks on a shooting spree to execute as many innocent people as possible.

Well gun ownership in my community is justified by the Constitution. Until such time as they reverse the Second Amendment, gun ownership is a right of every LAW-ABIDING citizen.

[cone256]

that is the dumbest fvcking reason i have ever heard. wow.
Militias do not make a mockery of gun laws. they are following gun laws.

also. what about the lone gunman in Germany?

Don't forget about the Greek gunman that just killed 3 college kids in Greece

[MaverickCowboy]

Don't forget about the Greek gunman that just killed 3 college kids in Greece

This guy is insane.

Even the Brady campaign makes more sense than him while i disagree. they just lie. but this guy believes in this bull****.

[cone256]

This guy is insane.

Even the Brady campaign makes more sense than him while i disagree. they just lie. but this guy believes in this bull****.

You'll have that sometimes I guess.

[MaverickCowboy]

You'll have that sometimes I guess.

Guns kill people.

Bad gun....bad.

How dare you make people break the law.

[cone256]

Guns kill people.

Bad gun....bad.

How dare you make people break the law.

I saw this on a bumber sticker and it needs repeating....

"Guns kill people like the spoon made Rosie O'Donnel fat."

[MaverickCowboy]

I saw this on a bumber sticker and it needs repeating....

"Guns kill people like the spoon made Rosie O'Donnel fat."

SAW THAT ONE TOO! awesomeness.

[Netzach]

^
Correction. The man who shot a girl in the face on Christmas Eve was insane. He was probably insane long before he planned and executed
the murder of that girl, his former wife, and her family, with a gun. More recently, there was a similar incident in Alabama, and the groups who
are most vocal on the subject of gun laws, remained silent. Those murders were committed by men who were desperate failures. Those murders
were committed by men who exploited the same right in law to own a gun that you want to defend. Somewhere else in this thread someone
mentioned that even prison populations manufacture weapons. That is the reason why they are behind bars, they are criminals. We have yet
to hear of an lone maverick who takes a school by storm with a knife, then murders 10-15 students before turning the knife on himself. But we
will (with a high degree of probability) have to read about a multiple shooting spree somewhere in America, and once again, the pro-gun lobby
will remain silent, until the coast is clear. What about Winnenden in Germany. That was discussed at some length by mostly European members
on the forum. It generated much debate, whereas the Alabama shootings which occurred a matter of hours earlier were barely mentioned.

[MaverickCowboy]

That shooter was law abiding until he *BECAME* insane.
the Alabama shooter was licensed. and Snapped.
I'm not going to give up my Right to own a gun because criminals exist.
your a fvcking retard if you believe that guns are the problem. they are tools. nothing more.
Got cry somewhere else about "guns" and your idealistic gunless society.


GTFO.

[Netzach]

^
That was about a 9.5 on the 'hair trigger' reaction scale 'Maverick'

We hope you are more proficient at handling a gun, than you are at
posting an embedded video. Here, fixed it for you.

http://www.youtube.com/v/-BZz4t7PZUM&hl=en&fs=1

[MaverickCowboy]

^
That was about a 9.5 on the 'hair trigger' reaction scale 'Maverick'

We hope you are more proficient at handling a gun, than you are at
posting an embedded video. Here, fixed it for you.

http://www.youtube.com/v/-BZz4t7PZUM&hl=en&fs=1


I'm and NRA instructor. Fvck off.

[Bia]

A lot of retards that shouldnt own a gun legally do own one and for many of the wrong reasons...

I grew up around weapons in a pretty normal setting in my opinion...... and for a brief time in my life took issue at the "endtimes apocolyptic nutjob hoarding 40,000 rounds of ammo and burying MREs on their property" gun nuts.... but had a change of heart recently...

There's over 320 million Americans.... we're in no danger of a massive polulation drop due to people squeezing a trigger.... Buy all you want... I'll take my chances.

[Hollis]

Part of this discussion is that it gets pretty emotional. Let's not get into flaming each other. I doubt any one here with strong opinions on the subject will reverse their opinion because of a short and quick post.

[cone256]

Part of this discussion is that it gets pretty emotional. Let's not get into flaming each other. I doubt any one here with strong opinions on the subject will reverse their opinion because of a short and quick post.


Not me I've changed. I'm turning in all my weapons today and joining the Brady campaign!



p-) Not in this lifetime!!!!!

[MaverickCowboy]

Not me I've changed. I'm turning in all my weapons today and joining the Brady campaign!



p-) Not in this lifetime!!!!!

i know a guy who did that. had about 15 rifles and 5,000 rounds of ammo. joined Brady.

[cone256]

i know a guy who did that. had about 15 rifles and 5,000 rounds of ammo. joined Brady.

Haha well I was only being extremely sarcastic, emphasis on the "extreme" lol

[Geezah]

If civilians were never permitted to own or operate firearms in the first place, perhaps it would not be necessary to have such debates, or
funeral services. To extend that point, the use of firearms is best placed into the hands of full time professionals

As they never snap?

What exactly is a full time professional other than a civilian in uniform?



- not into the hands of
civilian amateurs who may be susceptible to mental illness, and less able to control themselves than a loaded weapon

There are 80-90 million law abiding firearm owners in the US, and that would include those that are over 18 and 21.




- as witnessed on CCTV
when a deranged mother executed her son at a gun club before turning the gun on herself.

YOu're trying to justify one incident as a reason to disarm a nation of law abiding citizens?



It is a predictable pattern, there have been too
many multiple murders for this epidemic to be dismissed by feeble excuses about locking key parts of the constitution into the past.

How much have we changed since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper, have we evolved that much were their ideas about Freedom of Speech behind the times?



How
many more times will we have to read and hear about a rejected husband, or a disgruntled employee, taking the lives of innocent people.
Obamas’ position (pre-election) was clear on this issue. He was voted into the White House by a democratic process, therefore he has been
given a mandate (approved by the electorate) to address the issues of repeated gun crimes, in a way that will protect the interests of all
Americans, not just the private gun owners who prove the case, time and again, that bringing those parts of the constitution relating to guns
up to date, would do no harm.

Recent sales would show that not all those that elected Obama to Office agree with his views on firearms.

As far as bringing the Constitution up to date, have you even read any of it?




That is a decision that will be taken by a President empowered by the electorate last November. Get over it.

And we will get over it in 4yrs when hes out of Office after trying to pass laws that only affect the law abiding.

[Geezah]

With reference to your multiple quotes. Unfortunately I can’t respond because it has been communicated to me in no uncertain terms that it would be best to let go of this thread.

Then why send me a IM?

Let it go!



Nothing like a level playing field, and this is definitely not a level playing field,

While your arguement is based on emotions, ours is based on logic!



particularly when goaded by a user assigned the call sign 'Gun Nut'

Hey, I wear that badge with pride, I'm a little nutty about firearms and I had allot of catching up to do as I moved here from the UK 13yrs ago and had to work fast.



Whatever your agenda, take it somewhere else,

My agenda is to try and educate emotional anti-gunites like yourself.


you were late to the party.

I would say you were late to the party, as I've been here allot longer than yourself!

[cone256]

woot GO GEEZAH

[Netzach]

^
Okay, I'll bite. You were late for the party in terms of this thread, before the infractions were handed out. You're passionate about guns,
------------------------ - but I can't respect your point of view because nobody has so far made the case that bringing the AWB back
cannot be a step in the right direction. As an outsider (living outside the US) I am fascinated by this subject because to me it seems very
obvious that there is a problem with gun control. But it's your problem, and your constitution. Maybe there are people here in Europe who
would support a more liberal approach to gun ownership, but I think that is unlikely to happen. Just to balance this post even further in your
favour, I had a conversation with someone in London who is a frequent visitor to the States - he said the knowledge that practically anyone
may posses a gun actually had a deterrent effect. My concern is based more on the recent massacre in Saxony. When the right to be a
responsible gun owner is abused, and becomes an addiction. It was inappropriate for the father to introduce an extensive weapons collection
into the home environment, and it was too easy for his son to access those weapons which led to the deaths of so many innocent students.
It is bad form to post the contents of a Private Message onto an open forum 'Geezah' - some might consider that to be an unreliable quality.
If you are determined to carry this argument forward, there are currently three 'pro gun' related threads, started on the Political Rants Forum
in the last 24 hours by a NRA Instructor.

[Geezah]

^
Okay, I'll bite. You were late for the party in terms of this thread, before the infractions were handed out.

Yet your emotional arguement to ban firearms has not changed from all the other anti-gunites that have come and gone before you!



You're passionate about guns, I'm passionate about flying - but I can't respect your point of view because nobody has so far made the case that bringing the AWB back
cannot be a step in the right direction.

Please show me where the ASSault Weapon Ban actually did any good?

Please show me where people have been killed by drive by Bayonetings, or could have been blinded by the lack of a Flash Hider, or somehow a firearm is allot deadlier due to the presence of a pistol grip or folding/collapsible stock. Lets not forget the ability to take more than 10rnds, as the last 20 open up worm holes and suck innocent people in.

Show me where the ASSault Weapon Ban did anything that was good, or will you repeat the same old tired lines the Anti-Gunites come out with. Before it was for the children, now it is for Mexico,(but we better not go there).

THe ban did nothing but push prices up, it did not make anyone any safer, so please provide proof to prove us all wrong!?



As an outsider (living outside the US) I am fascinated by this subject because to me it seems very obvious that there is a problem with gun control. But it's your problem, and your constitution.

Then let it go!



Maybe there are people here in Europe who would support a more liberal approach to gun ownership, but I think that is unlikely to happen. Just to balance this post even further in your favour, I had a conversation with someone in London who is a frequent visitor to the States - he said the knowledge that practically anyone may posses a gun actually had a deterrent effect.

Please go into detail?




My concern is based more on the recent massacre in Saxony. When the right to be a
responsible gun owner is abused, and becomes an addiction. It was inappropriate for the father to introduce an extensive weapons collection into the home environment, and it was too easy for his son to access those weapons which led to the deaths of so many innocent students.

I have kids, and my son doesn't even bat an eyelid when I tuck my revolver into my pants under my shirt.
He knows that my firearms are behind a locked closet door and pretty sure he know there is a safe behind that door, but for him it is no big deal.
As he gets older I will introduce him to firearms and will make sure he is safe and responsible with them.



It is bad form to post the contents of a Private Message onto an open forum 'Geezah' - some might consider that to be an unreliable quality.

Sorry, do I know you?

I've never had an online conversation with you before and I would prefer not to be lectured by a newb.

Maybe you should think about how you send IMs before you try and dictate about an "unreliable quality"!



If you are determined to carry this argument forward, there are currently three 'pro gun' related threads, started on the Political Rants Forum in the last 24 hours by a NRA Instructor.

It all depends on you, provide facts to back up your arguement and everything should be dandy.

[Netzach]

I offered you good advice, take your arguments across to one of the other gun threads running in parallel with this one (all generated by
the same author) where you might find a more receptive audience. I would be more impressed if you had demonstrated some ability to
construct one or two paragraphs in your own words, rather than post multiple quotes from other members. You claim to be an educator,
good, try to educate our friend 'Maverick' on how to post an embedded video, and work your way up from there. For the record, I am not
anti-gun, I am however against the wrong kind of people having access to guns.

From this moment, anything you have to say on the subject, take it elsewhere. I will now be watching the back nine from Augusta.

[Will Clark]

It would be interseting to make a comparison between gun related deaths in Canada, and the United States. Does anyone here who defends
the status quo on gun deaths have those particular statisitcs to hand. Am I reading this correctly - you claim that a telephone poll of 1,023
subjects is representative in a country of more than 300 million residents -that does not stand up to examination. Annual figures in the order
of 30,000 gun related deaths are not the measure of a particularly enlightened or civilised society. They are indicators of a dangerous addiction
that borders on an epidemic. One statistic that is guaranteed (unless there is change) the gun culture will continue to cause multiple shootings.

It would be interesting to make a comparison between murder in Canada and murder in the US, you'll find that the united states is simply more violent. Does that surprise you? Did you actually believe that tools control the emotions of people?

Yeah, you're reading that correctly. 1023 people is a large enough sample to represent 300 million people to industry standards. Doesn't stand up to examination? It's not an opinion, it's math. There's no arguing this, if you don't believe me you can go search online for a sample size calculator. If you don't believe that then you can go find the equation and work it out for yourself.

30,000 gun related deaths? Do I need to point out that 17,000 of those were suicides? Why is it always gun related with you? So if they were done by means other than a gun they would somehow be civilized?

Firearms have zero to do with the rate of murders in the US, until you pound that through your skull you have no place trying lecturing about our high murder rate. Yeah, multiple shooting will happen, as opposed to multiple stabbings, or whatever the next most popular tool becomes. Why do you think you can change behavior by regulating objects?

[Netzach]

30,000 gun related deaths? Do I need to point out that 17,000 of those were suicides?


That is a worrying statistic. Of the 30,000 gun related deaths on average each year in the U.S.A. more than half are
suicides. What percentage of gun related deaths that were not caused by suicide, were the result of Legal intervention
in response to gun related Homicides, and necessary in order to prevent further loss of innocent lives, at the hands of a
lone gunman

[Will Clark]

That is a worrying statistic. Of the 30,000 gun related deaths on average each year in the U.S.A. more than half are
suicides. What percentage of gun related deaths that were not caused by suicide, were the result of Legal intervention
in response to gun related Homicides, and necessary in order to prevent further loss of innocent lives, at the hands of a
lone gunman

Not really; 17,000 suicides per year means that if you knew 1000 people from the time you were born until the time you died, 3 will decide to kill themselves. 3 out of 1000 in a span of several decades isn't very worrying.

Percentage of gun related deaths that aren't suicides? About 40%

How many gun related deaths were the result of legal intervention in response to gun related homicides, and necessary in order to prevent further loss of innocent lives, at the hands of a lone gunman...wat

You mean how many gunmen on a shooting spree are killed each year? 1 or 2?

What are we averaging in terms of people killed in a shooting spree per year, 40? Or 1 in 7.5 million. What can we do, in your opinion, to stop crazy people from carrying out such rare activities?

[Brasi]

Thats just it, you can't. Even without guns crazy people will find other way to commit mass murder, whether it be tampering with food products, altering medication amounts, driving vehicles into crowds, using knives, or even sabotage of public transportation.

You walk out of your house every day and you roll the dice...

[Netzach]

You mean how many gunmen on a shooting spree are killed each year?


Yes. These questions are based on figures correlated each year to record gun related deaths in the U.S.A. - not an average or probability
projected over one individual persons lifetime. I would add one further question, what percentage of gun related fatalities each year (USA)
were the result of an act of self defence.

[Geezah]

That is a worrying statistic. Of the 30,000 gun related deaths on average each year in the U.S.A. more than half are
suicides. What percentage of gun related deaths that were not caused by suicide, were the result of Legal intervention
in response to gun related Homicides, and necessary in order to prevent further loss of innocent lives, at the hands of a
lone gunman


Mortality
All suicides

Number of deaths: 32,637
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.0
Cause of death rank: 11

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 17,002
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.7

Suffocation suicides
Number of deaths: 7,248
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.4

Poisoning suicides
Number of deaths: 5,744
Deaths per 100,000 population: 1.9

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

While suicide is a terrible thing, if someone is determined to take their life, lack of a firearm will not make them think twice.

What is tragic is the amount of people that are killed each year due to traffic related incidents.


It’s especially important to watch out for children’s safety when they’re walking. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4,784881 pedestrians in the United States died from traffic-related injuries in 2006, and another 614,000 were non–fatally injured. Nearly one out of every five children ages 5 to 9 years who died in traffic were pedestrians. Child pedestrians are at higher risk for injuries than adults for several reasons:

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Pedestrian_Safety/walk_to_school.html

Should we not work on preventing deaths related to motor vechiles?

[Hollis]

Geezah on single vehicular deaths, some are believed to be suicide. There are other causes of deaths that can also conceal the victims original intent.

[Denisius]

As I see it, banning or restricting guns beyond a background check would be pointless. Guns are merely tools, that can be used for either self defense, or a crime but either way they are just that, tools. If you were to follow that mindset, you would have to go all the way and ban knives, axes, clubs, cars and any object that can be used to commit murder. A person who is determined enough will be able to commit a crime regardless of the availability of guns.

If you are going to ban guns, why not ban cars as well? If you care so much about the safety of other people, why not ban the cars who kill more people in the US and I'd imagine in most countries than guns.



In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group.

... Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/) In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm



There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.



http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

That's 41,821 deaths versus 1776 two thirds of which were suicide and drug related. So why not ban cars?

People killed other people even before Guns were invented, and will continue to do so even without the availability of guns.

[Geezah]

Geezah on single vehicular deaths, some are believed to be suicide. There are other causes of deaths that can also conceal the victims original intent.

Do they factor into that number of vehicular deaths each year? Basically walking out infront of a car?

[Brasi]

Geezah on single vehicular deaths, some are believed to be suicide. There are other causes of deaths that can also conceal the victims original intent.

This is true. As a former law enforcement officer we went through some basic traffic accident investigation training, and the instructor mentioned that on many fatal accidents he encountered, he spoke with family members of the deceased and they said the person was having problems (i.e. depression.. loss of job..divorce..etc) at the time.

If it looks like an accident then insurance will pay the death benefits, where if it is ruled a suicide then almost all insurance companies have clauses stating benefits will not be paid.

[Geezah]

OK, thanks for clearing that up......

[Hollis]

Do they factor into that number of vehicular deaths each year? Basically walking out infront of a car?


They can not tell the intent, if the person does not leave the "suicide note".

I am sure insurance companies would love to have that answer. On policies they don't have to pay out on self inflicted injuries/death. One can also look at self destructive behavior.

Again the anti-gun nuts seems focused only on the symptoms not the cause. "Fixing" the symptoms will never fix the causes. While we might argue that removing firearms from society might reduce deaths/injuries, the reason to cause those deaths/injuries would still exist.

Just like accidents, almost all can be prevented, regardless of the vehicle of the accident it is human error. While the focus is on the Gun in Gun violence, the focus should be on people.

As with all things that has become political, there are so many various factors from human weakness, human manipulation for person gains, etc this issue itself has grown almost unmanageable, IMHO. For each side in the issue there is almost a attitude that the only acceptable outcome is "all or nothing", no compromise, no what is really best for all, and a total disregard for the views of any one who does not 100% agree.

[Will Clark]

Yes. These questions are based on figures correlated each year to record gun related deaths in the U.S.A. - not an average or probability
projected over one individual persons lifetime. I would add one further question, what percentage of gun related fatalities each year (USA)
were the result of an act of self defence.

Absolute numbers mean nothing, they serve only to try and shock people. I used that new fangled math thingie and figured out how many people actually commit suicide over the course of their lifetime. I find that to be a much more relevant statistic.

I believe about 700 criminals were killed last year by someone protecting themselves, this represents about 0.0003% of defensive firearm usage in the US. Almost always the confrontation ends when the victim produces a firearm, most criminals value their life more than money.

[Netzach]

There is a distinction between those who defend gun control, and those who promote gun safety. The pro gun lobby are in denial every
time another legal gun owner causes the deaths of innocent people after yet another shooting spree. The victims will be blamed for not
using their right to defend themselves against such acts of random violence. The outcome in such incidents is the gunman responsible
for multiple homicides will usually commit suicide (with a gun) to escape the consequences of capture, imprisonment, and punishment
for their crimes. Suicide is a product of mental illness. What powers exist to permanently disarm (and monitor the medical records of)
gun collectors who have a history of diagnosis, and treatment, for psychiatric illnesses.

[Hollis]

There is a distinction between those who defend gun control, and those who promote gun safety. The pro gun lobby are in denial every
time another legal gun owner causes the deaths of innocent people after yet another shooting spree. The victims will be blamed for not
using their right to defend themselves against such acts of random violence. The outcome in such incidents is the gunman responsible
for multiple homicides will usually commit suicide (with a gun) to escape the consequences of capture, imprisonment, and punishment
for their crimes. Suicide is a product of mental illness. What powers exist to permanently disarm (and monitor the medical records of)
gun collectors who have a history of diagnosis, and treatment, for psychiatric illnesses.



Nice chuckle, Suicide is NOT a product of mental illness. BTW, Your also clueless on the gun lobby and what they have promoted, such as the NRA. They have compromised, even where some hard core gun nuts have accused the NRA of selling them out. In most case, the compromises have back fired.


You need to pick up a DSM-IVR or V and check it out.

[Geezah]

There is a distinction between those who defend gun control, and those who promote gun safety.

Very correct, the Gun Control Groups do not have a safety program similiar to the NRAs Eddie the Eagle program.


What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/graphics/k8w6732.jpg

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle®, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:


If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 21 million children -- in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated video (available on DVD or VHS), instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.

The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, we offer our program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.

The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

Brady Campaigns and VPCs idea seems to be ban them now, but another death involving a firearm works in favour of their agenda.




The pro gun lobby are in denial every time another legal gun owner causes the deaths of innocent people after yet another shooting spree. The victims will be blamed for not
using their right to defend themselves against such acts of random violence.

When are the innocent blamed for not defending themselves?

I know after Virginia Tech, there were students there that were calling out to be able to carry firearms concealed on campus.



The outcome in such incidents is the gunman responsible for multiple homicides will usually commit suicide (with a gun) to escape the consequences of capture, imprisonment, and punishment for their crimes. Suicide is a product of mental illness. What powers exist to permanently disarm (and monitor the medical records of) gun collectors who have a history of diagnosis, and treatment, for psychiatric illnesses.

After Virginia Tech, the law as I understand it was changed, so that when an instant background check is done after filling out Form 4473, any medical records relating to mental illness would be readily available to the FBI.

Could someone confirm if the instant background check is phoned into the FBI or ATF?

[Netzach]

Nice chuckle, Suicide is NOT a product of mental illness. BTW, Your also clueless on the gun lobby and what they have promoted, such as the NRA. They have compromised, even where some hard core gun nuts have accused the NRA of selling them out. In most case, the compromises have back fired.


You need to pick up a DSM-IVR or V and check it out.

It would be convenient to evade the issue by discrediting the other persons point of view as fanatical or clueless. You are wrong to use
that kind of vocabulary. One question that has not been adequately answered here is what motivates legal gun users to plan and execute
multiple homicides. These may be statistically rare events, but they seem to be a frequent occurrence in America. You suggest suicide is
not the product of mental illness. Dressing in combat gear to murder family members, work colleagues, even young children, is not the
product of someone who is in their right mind. So I ask the same question. What powers exist to monitor the medical health of gun users,
and if necessary, disarm them, if they are assessed to be a risk in the community.

[Hollis]

It would be convenient to evade the issue by discrediting the other persons point of view as fanatical or clueless. You are wrong to use
that kind of vocabulary. One question that has not been adequately answered here is what motivates legal gun users to plan and execute
multiple homicides. These may be statistically rare events, but they seem to be a frequent occurrence in America. You suggest suicide is
not the product of mental illness. Dressing in combat gear to murder family members, work colleagues, even young children, is not the
product of someone who is in their right mind. So I ask the same question. What powers exist to monitor the medical health of gun users,
and if necessary, disarm them, if they are assessed to be a risk in the community.


I gather you never read my post, your first sentence indicates that. Secondly you never read the DSM-IVR or 5.

I would advise you not to credit me with words I did not use.

[Netzach]

Your post was quoted in it's entirety, therefore you should receive the credit for your own words. I will re read what you have written Hollis,
also, credit to Geezah, I could not read his post due to 'blocking' but he has given a partial answer about background/medical checks. Is this
a compulsory reporting procedure? Would appreciate if you could provide a link please, to read that DSM-IVR or 5 in pdf format.

[Fargin]

These gun control threats move too ****ing fast or I'm too retarded. Spend a couple of hours yesterday on trying to wrap my head around it, trying to translate words and hide my complete lack of grammar. When I'm done the discussion has already move on.

Here's the short version.

You are inaccurate when you don't make a clear destinction between weapons and improviced weapons.

Knives are mostly classified as equipment.
Cars are classified as motor vehicles.
Guns are classified as weapons.
Non-lethal, less-lethal and non-deadly weapons are classified as weapons.
Nuclear missiles are classified as weapons of mass destriction.

Tools are classified by the design's intented purpose or by it's use. A weapon is a tool to apply force by direct contact, over range or by threat. Knives, cricket bats and cars can become weapons by use, but a gun is already a weapon by design.

You can't use knives and cars as an argument against gun control, while legislations ironically are heading the opposite way. In EU large knives are now automatically considered deadly weapons and requires permission or clear evidence of non-violent use. In US cars are also considered deadly weapons, when serious bodily injury is inflicted by an influenced driver. Upgrading certain items' classifications to weapon status, is an attempt to reduce unwanted delelopment in society.

[Hollis]

Your post was quoted in it's entirety, therefore you should receive the credit for your own words. I will re read what you have written Hollis,
also, credit to Geezah, I could not read his post due to 'blocking' but he has given a partial answer about background/medical checks. Is this
a compulsory reporting procedure? Would appreciate if you could provide a link please, to read that DSM-IVR or 5 in pdf format.


NO where did I say as you mentioned,
"It would be convenient to evade the issue by discrediting the other persons point of view as fanatical or clueless. You are wrong to use that kind of vocabulary."


Enjoy your rewards./

[Geezah]

Your post was quoted in it's entirety, therefore you should receive the credit for your own words. I will re read what you have written Hollis,
also, credit to Geezah, I could not read his post due to 'blocking' but he has given a partial answer about background/medical checks. Is this
a compulsory reporting procedure? Would appreciate if you could provide a link please, to read that DSM-IVR or 5 in pdf format.

What are you blocking my posts now?

The instant background check is always done at the time of purchasing a firearm through a dealer, even if the delaer is at a gun show.

Form 4473 is kept on file for life by the gun store/dealer but records of the background check to theFBI/ATF are disposed of after a certain amount of time.
I think it actually asks on the Form if you have ever been commited or have a history of mental health. I knwo it asks about criminal history and whether or not you have had a dishonorable discharge which would I guess be a strike against you purchasing a firearm.

[Bia]

You know... if everyone could just be happy with a 12ga pump for home protection... we could save a lot of breath.

Mossberg & dogs... we slept well.

:P

[wildcat]

There is a distinction between those who defend gun control, and those who promote gun safety. The pro gun lobby are in denial every
time another legal gun owner causes the deaths of innocent people after yet another shooting spree. The victims will be blamed for not
using their right to defend themselves against such acts of random violence. The outcome in such incidents is the gunman responsible
for multiple homicides will usually commit suicide (with a gun) to escape the consequences of capture, imprisonment, and punishment
for their crimes. Suicide is a product of mental illness. What powers exist to permanently disarm (and monitor the medical records of)
gun collectors who have a history of diagnosis, and treatment, for psychiatric illnesses.

to answer you,

first the pro gun lobby does not blame victims for this horrible crimes. As for the mentally ill, the NCIS which is used for back ground checks, now includes the mentally ill, this was a draft that got passed dec 07, with the NRA and some dems co writing the bill. If you are mentally ill then you can be added to the list if the following condition are met,

Court ordered (which includes psychiatric partition)
commited to mental insitution no voluntary

People have rights, and there needs to be due process, you just cannot add anybody.

Also if you are added to the NCIS the states or agency that put you on the list has to prepare a way for you to clear your name. This came about because Clinton added over 80,000 vets to the list with out due process, the new law always these vets to clear there name, and be removed from the list.

[wildcat]

You know... if everyone could just be happy with a 12ga pump for home protection... we could save a lot of breath.

Mossberg & dogs... we slept well.

:P
I want claymore mines too.

[Bia]

I want claymore mines too.
My dad was the kind of fellow that could use CSgas in place of Tabasco sauce... he always advocated a pepper spray with a Napalm additive.

[Hollis]

Cat, last talk that I have with the NRA only one veteran of the over 80,000 has managed to reverse the wrongful inclusion of the names to the NCIS system.


On a humorous note, we had claymore inspections in the bush. The C-4 would be used as heat tabs. Hot chow and Hot coffee was a luxury.

[wildcat]

Cat, last talk that I have with the NRA only one veteran of the over 80,000 has managed to reverse the wrongful inclusion of the names to the NCIS system.

that is a shame, but the burden fulls on the VA, and they have to make a way, according to how the law is written, they have to make a treatment plan that could get these people off the list, I scene at some point there will be a lawsuit to enforce this, the NRA was smart to put this in, it a great slap in the face to Sen. Schumer scumbag from NY.

[MaverickCowboy]

Is there a way to start a poll on this?

[Netzach]

^
Well at least the word 'Clueless' was correctly attributed to Hollis.

Where were we. The consequences of hair trigger personalities who over react - particularly when guns are involved. It is reasonable
to ask, what measures can be taken to prevent the kind of incidents which result in multiple homicides at the hand of a lone maverick
gunman. Putting the emphasis on educating school children to have an awareness that one day, a gunman might enter their classroom,
may be expecting too much. Controlling who has access to firearms in the first place would be a more realistic starting point. We’re all
clueless when it comes to finding an answer for the indiscriminate shooting spree’s which occur with depressing regularity, except for
the gun control fanatics, who defend to the death a section of the constitution that was written more than two centuries ago, at a time
when the land was still being settled. One recent example of such fanaticism was the male adult (living at home with his mother) who
became so overwhelmed by the propaganda campaign to enflame anti-Obama, right wing scare mongering (over a proposed review of the
gun laws) that he helped further his cause by wearing protective armour clothing, then murdered three law enforcement officers, with a
gun. What measures are in place to protect innocent people from such dangerous individuals at large in the community. Background FBI
check at the point of sale, may not necessarily reveal if a prospective gun owner matches the profile of someone who will prove unfit to
own a gun. Is there a requirement for gun owners to pass a full medical (including a psychological examination) at least every 12 months?
It might just prevent the need to educate young school children against the potential dangers which even adults find incomprehensible.
This thread was about a telephone poll which claimed the opinions of 1,023 people, could be representative for a population of 306 million.
There are somewhere in the order of 200 million people eligible to vote in the USA. The voter turnout last November was somewhere around
58%, with a similar percentage electing President Obama. That is a decisive mandate. Time to get behind it, and move forward, before the
administration really do lose patience, and jack prices so high that there will be no need to pass new legislation, or amend existing legislation,
because guns and ammo will be priced out of reach. That, or a total ban on guns, might cure the epidemic.

[MaverickCowboy]

^
Well at least the word 'Clueless' was correctly attributed to Hollis.

Where were we. The consequences of hair trigger personalities who over react - particularly when guns are involved. It is reasonable
to ask, what measures can be taken to prevent the kind of incidents which result in multiple homicides at the hand of a lone maverick
gunman. Putting the emphasis on educating school children to have an awareness that one day, a gunman might enter their classroom,
may be expecting too much. Controlling who has access to firearms in the first place would be a more realistic starting point. We’re all
clueless when it comes to finding an answer for the indiscriminate shooting spree’s which occur with depressing regularity, except for
the gun control fanatics, who defend to the death a section of the constitution that was written more than two centuries ago, at a time
when the land was still being settled. One recent example of such fanaticism was the male adult (living at home with his mother) who
became so overwhelmed by the propaganda campaign to enflame anti-Obama, right wing scare mongering (over a proposed review of the
gun laws) that he helped further his cause by wearing protective armour clothing, then murdered three law enforcement officers, with a
gun. What measures are in place to protect innocent people from such dangerous individuals at large in the community. Background FBI
check at the point of sale, may not necessarily reveal if a prospective gun owner matches the profile of someone who will prove unfit to
own a gun. Is there a requirement for gun owners to pass a full medical (including a psychological examination) at least every 12 months?
It might just prevent the need to educate young school children against the potential dangers which even adults find incomprehensible.
This thread was about a telephone poll which claimed the opinions of 1,023 people, could be representative for a population of 306 million.
There are somewhere in the order of 200 million people eligible to vote in the USA. The voter turnout last November was somewhere around
58%, with a similar percentage electing President Obama. That is a decisive mandate. Time to get behind it, and move forward, before the
administration really do lose patience, and jack prices so high that there will be no need to pass new legislation, or amend existing legislation,
because guns and ammo will be priced out of reach. That, or a total ban on guns, might cure the epidemic.


so your saying we should shut up and agree with everything the administration wants to do?