--- 3/3 ---
Some other stuff. (@general)

MAD magazine related comment.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.nl/2012/12/mad-magazine-reveals-unabridged-nra.html (mad-magazine-reveals-unabridged-nra)

You know the sad part is that this, though written by a humor magazine, is probably not at all far from the truth. In fact I would say that it is most likely spot on.

Can't help but feel the same about this.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/daily-gun-slaughter-in-u-s-obscured-by-newtown-rampage.html (daily-gun-slaughter-in-u-s-obscured-by-newtown-rampage)

Daily Toll
The dozen gun killings outside Newtown, which include shootings by police, represented a typical, even peaceful day, for a country that has more firearm homicides every week than Canada has in a year.

American civilians own some 270 million firearms, 89 for every 100 residents, more than any other nation, according to the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. There were an average of 85 gun deaths each day in 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including two accidents, 53 suicides and 30 homicides.

“The unrelenting death toll of gun violence in America is staggering,” said Benjamin Van Houten, managing attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco, which advocates more restrictive gun laws. “In addition to the terrible, devastating tragedies like Newtown, there are instances of gun violence that tear apart communities and families each day.”

Mmm. The Bloomberg site also had a article about the economic and emotional costs related to gun victims. But I could not find it again.

... And I'm sure more guns would eradicate those problems. If your ready to believe in it of course ...

 

What we probably need is everyone having access to nuclear weapons. THEN the world will be really safe.

 

Don't you think that after 14 pages it's time to stop talking about boomsticks and discuss something more festive?

I agree. Let's let it go; no minds are going to be changed.

 

I can quote outlandish false studies too. All the evidence gathered continues to show that guns in any situation make it more violent and more likely for someone to be shot or killed.

No, actually, that is exactly backwards. The majority media is putting that "spin filter" on everything to project that but it is absolutely false.

And if these are "outlandish false studies", I assume you will be posting links to "true studies" that have better data and support your statement?

Or just parrot the standard media hype.

If you actually do the research, you will see what I mean. Example:

http://gunowners.org/sk0701.htm

Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed

1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns.1 That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.2​

2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one's own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years.3 Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not4 kept in the victim's home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."​

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim's "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."5​

Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.





Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.



The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.




States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.



Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."




Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

 

should be at least one score in the tyrants column - the brits. and that one is worth a whole lot more than a single mark.

Actually theres lots of people who should be on the tyrants list because its not just tyrants its anyone wanting to hurt you or your famile gov or private.

 

Don't you think that after 14 pages it's time to stop talking about boomsticks and discuss something more festive? You guys will need a gun subforum soon...

Oh please give us a mantoy sub forum!!! Guns, cars, brewing beer and makin shine!!!! It would be so cool with the smart people we have here.

 

I agree. Let's let it go; no minds are going to be changed.

That's sad if true, but I suppose we live in a time when people prefer blissful ignorance to complicated reality.

 

So what do you guys think about the mother being honored as one of the victims? I read an article on the 26 victims and over and over thats every article said. But it seems to be a hot topic if the mom should be included and they should be talking about the 27 victims. Half the people in Sandy are mad at her for not forseeing the future. She was guilty of being stupid by not having a safe. But I think she was the 27th victim people are overlooking. She tried her best, her kid had head issues. He snapped and then some. But I don't think she was to blame.

 

Actually theres lots of people who should be on the tyrants list because its not just tyrants its anyone wanting to hurt you or your famile gov or private.

Tyrants and would be tyrants in our country were dealt a death blow when the supreme court affirmed that citizens do indeed have the right to arm themselves. This is absolutely counter to the opinion of Feinstein, Obama, and the entire gun control cadre who had postulated that the second amendment applies only to the right of states to keep an armed militia like the national guard. Make no mistake: their long term plan was and is to outlaw all private gun ownership.... but they can't for now. That's the reason Obama did not pursue any new gun control legislation in his first term.

The SCOTUS, for now, has locked the second amendment in stone and the most important assault on a key constitutional right was dropped dead in it's tracks. Tyrants wept, because as we see in China: large numbers of people can only be oppressed when they are kept unarmed and helpless.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration’s high-level gun-control task force, established Wednesday, will be navigating tricky legal terrain reshaped by Supreme Court conservatives.


Some state and local gun-control measures already have died over the past four and a half years, done in by the high court’s 2008 ruling that recognized expansive constitutional protections for firearm ownership. Similar Second Amendment restraints will limit the ambitions of the Obama gun task force and its Capitol Hill counterparts.


“The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a ruling last week.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/19/3149517/supreme-court-rulings-limit-options.html#storylink=cpy​

 

...
Or are you specifically saying NRA is not blaming any specific social groups of people. ...

Yes my comment was in regards to politically blaming any group of people (as the media tend to do).

Laying some of the blame on a cultural/social phenomenon like violent video games is obvious and may have some credibility. I think a violent video game might set off someone who is very unstable, but then they raised the same warning flags about violent movies in the past, and we could even make an argument against violent media reporting as a potential trigger to unstable people.

...
I'm not sure, but I don't think the NRA has proven yet that good guy's always win in a gun fight.

What's the alternative? To have no good and all bad? All the laws in the world only stop the good people from having the guns and power to defend themselves from the bad guys. Gun laws simply cannot remove ALL the guns from ALL the bad guys. The only result of gun bans is INCREASING the ratio of gun ownership of bad:good guys.

And all this fuss about "assault rifles" is stupid. His rifle fired one bullet each time he pulled the trigger. Absolute fact. So ANY modern gun like a handgun and most rifles does the same; 1 trigger pullk = 1 bullet fired.

So he could have walked in there with any handgun or lots of other types of rifle and still killed 26 kids in 10 minutes, really, he could have killed 2.6 kids a minute with an old bolt action rifle or even with the school fire axe!

Bigoted people who have metal issues against guns are PARTICULARY against military looking "assault rifles" but the cold hard facts are he could have done exactly the same 2.6kills a minute with just about any weapon. So only a retard would think banning ONE type of weapon would have stopped this!

The problem was not a weapon, but ONE monstrous man out of millions, totally determined to kill a lot of very helpless people.

And the solution is very correctly, not to remove one type of weapon or try to restrict that one in a million man, but instead to make those "very helpless people" much less helpless by providing a well trained armed protector.

Liek they do in banks! Banks are much safer and have less crime because there is an armed guard. You don't make banks safer by restricting public gun ownership!

 

Yep, I think I 'll close it for now. I think it's run its course and it was informative, at least for me. If any other mod has any objections, let me know.