Jim, at least get the numbers correct if you are going to use them.
6.1 per 100k of US gun deaths are suicides. 3.7 per 100k are homicide.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Jim, at least get the numbers correct if you are going to use them.
6.1 per 100k of US gun deaths are suicides. 3.7 per 100k are homicide.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're assuming that the only difference between the US and Japan/India is gun ownership. While that helps to make your point, it is either very naive or you've never been to either country. A cultural anthropologist once told me there is no "westernized" country more different culturally from the US than Japan. India doesn't have much in common with the US either. The differences in gun violence has more to do with cultural differences between the peoples of the countries in question. In other words, you could probably start selling guns in Japan and their crime rate/gun violence rate would remain the same. Their WWII behavior was jingoism, they didn't kill themselves with guns, they killed Chinese, Americans, etc.
Not a valid analogy at all.
Steve, your last sentence may answer your question about why mass shootings are growing in popularity. For some reason there are people who see this stuff on the news and find it inspirational.
I could not agree with you guys more when it comes to the mental health issues. We could create a thread just for that topic.
Many of you have made it clear over and over and over that banning weapons is not solution........ And you're probably right about that too. "People kill people"............. thats very helpful. Thank you. Its the same post made by the same 5 people on just about every page in this thread.
If our goal is to reduce the chances of mass shooting (key word "shooting") then it would make sense that the issue of gun control/reform may be at least a place to start. Sure, it is much easier to lay blame elsewhere but its not the right approach. Some people should not have access to weapons. How do we address this without restricting the rights of sane, responsible firearm enthusiasts? There are plenty of ways this can be done and people have already made some great suggestions.
I just want to know why this is such a tough subject for some of you? Do really think that nothing can be done and we should just accept these violent acts as part of pop culture?
Tom,
It's especially cool to be a self-righteous celebrity jumping on a bandwagen. Free publicity and keeps them in the public eye. Good career move. Most of those celebrities don't live in the "real USA", just an LA bubble.
Chris,
I don't think it's appropriate to just accept these acts nor do I think nothing should be done. I do agree with most of the others in this thread in that gun control will have zero effect on the prevalence of these acts. They will continue to rise regardless of any laws passed. The media, the government, and the American people would be better off trying to determine what the real reason for the rise in these cases is (especially in the face of falling gun violence in general). I would not be presumptuous enough to assume I've got it figured out. There are some in this thread who think they do have it figured out. That's very arrogant. I've yet to see a post linking to a medical/scientific study that has examined the rise in these violent acts and linked them to certain causes. Until the cause is better understood, solutions are nothing more than shots in the dark (pun intended). Those who think they "know" the cause or just think restricting gun ownership will do anything have nothing to back that up at all.
I do see a role for better background checks and some other precautions to keep those who shouldn't legally own a gun from getting one. I think the young woman who purchased the guns for the felon in NY who shot the firefighters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Let that be a lesson to those who take the law lightly.
For a reference point, I don't own a gun and I'm not a member of the NRA. Still, I would not seek to infringe on the 2nd amendment under any circumstances. It's a slippery slope when you start "modifying" the bill of rights. Our federal govt has already taken enough liberties with respect to it's role and what it feels entitled to control. It usually screws it up (prohibition? What the hell were they thinking!). If you allow too much change to any of the bill of rights, the rest (free speech anyone) is in jeopardy.
It's especially cool to be a self-righteous celebrity jumping on a bandwagen. Free publicity and keeps them in the public eye. Good career move. Most of those celebrities don't live in the "real USA", just an LA bubble.
Chris,
I don't think it's appropriate to just accept these acts nor do I think nothing should be done. I do agree with most of the others in this thread in that gun control will have zero effect on the prevalence of these acts. They will continue to rise regardless of any laws passed. The media, the government, and the American people would be better off trying to determine what the real reason for the rise in these cases is (especially in the face of falling gun violence in general). I would not be presumptuous enough to assume I've got it figured out. There are some in this thread who think they do have it figured out. That's very arrogant. I've yet to see a post linking to a medical/scientific study that has examined the rise in these violent acts and linked them to certain causes. Until the cause is better understood, solutions are nothing more than shots in the dark (pun intended). Those who think they "know" the cause or just think restricting gun ownership will do anything have nothing to back that up at all.
I do see a role for better background checks and some other precautions to keep those who shouldn't legally own a gun from getting one. I think the young woman who purchased the guns for the felon in NY who shot the firefighters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Let that be a lesson to those who take the law lightly.
For a reference point, I don't own a gun and I'm not a member of the NRA. Still, I would not seek to infringe on the 2nd amendment under any circumstances. It's a slippery slope when you start "modifying" the bill of rights. Our federal govt has already taken enough liberties with respect to it's role and what it feels entitled to control. It usually screws it up (prohibition? What the hell were they thinking!). If you allow too much change to any of the bill of rights, the rest (free speech anyone) is in jeopardy.
Pat
Supporter
You are certainly free to reread my posts. I think several of us have been making the point that there is a scientific correlation in all of these mass shootings. (Hint: The perpetrators are all deranged.) So I guess that makes me arrogant... So be it. But if you need a study to accept that:
A meta-analysis of 204 studies of psychosis as a risk factor for violence reported that “compared with individuals with no mental disorders, people with psychosis seem to be at a substantially elevated risk for violence.” Psychosis “was significantly associated with a 49%–68% increase in the odds of violence.”
Douglas KS, Guy LS, Hart SD. Psychosis as a risk factor for violence to others: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 2009;135:679–706.
Below is the study I referenced earlier for your reading pleasure as to the media impact on shooters. Also are some interesting facts you are certainly free to research and dispute.
http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-11.pdf
As far as research data on gun ownership and crime, as noted earlier, overall violent crime is down in spite of increased lawful gun ownership.
FBI — Violent Crime
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: Areas with the most stringent gun laws also have the highest violence.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home. So apparently the fear of an armed encounter is a strong deterrent to home crime. Here’s a study.
Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns
Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
I also referenced research on the effect of certain psychometric drug on violent behavior.
Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.
Fact: At least fourteen school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.)
Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring is most certainly higher.
I was in the Army for thirty years. I've had my fill of hunting, hiking, camping, helicopter rides, parachuting and yes guns. I don’t care for them at all. Perhaps that's why I prefer cars and sailing these days. Until two years ago, I never wanted a gun in my home but I now own one (that has never even been loaded, much less fired) simply to assert my right to do so. There is a significant group of gun control supporters that have the only goal of banning all private ownership of firearms. This final rationale is rooted in the belief that the average U.S. citizen cannot be trusted on a variety of issues and especially gun ownership. Furthermore, this group does not believe the average citizen is smart enough to be responsible for themselves. Thus, only the government and a select few elitists of political influence should have a right to self-defense. (See earlier post on media hyprocacy) This is where I personally have drawn the line.
Do I have all the answers??? - Of course not. But I have a high degree of certainty that taking homicidal maniacs off the streets would leave the country safer than passing unenforceable laws that would only affect law abiding citizens. Given the numbers of felons that commit weapons crimes, it is readily apparent that current laws are not being enforced.
I am equally certain that if every parent were to actively involve themselves in their children’s activities online viewing, social interactions, schoolwork and gaming and intercedes before the kid goes off the rails (versus turning him into an over-medicated zombie simply to ease their parenting) we would see better success at preventing horrors such as the most recent school shooting than having the government passing ineffectual laws to hunt down weapons with bayonet lugs and other such “offensive characteristics”.
If gun control happens, these will be the only people with guns, and then you better find a place to hide.
America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 31, 2012 @ 12:50 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Chicago’s murder rate has hit that magic 500 number. Baltimore’s murder rate has passed 200. In Philly, it’s up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it’s approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it’s almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it’s over 500. In St. Louis it’s 113 and 130 in Oakland. It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham.
Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.
Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven’t even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, matches the murder rate for Japan and is higher than the murder rates for Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the homicide rate for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.
But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. If New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.
Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.
St. Louis has a murder rate just a little lower than Belize. Baltimore has a worse murder rate than South Africa and Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle which is agonizing over its 26 murders. That’s about the same number of murders as East St. Louis which has only 27,000 people to Seattle’s 620,000.
So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.
Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.
If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.
Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.
But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.
There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.
America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Our murder rate now largely consists of criminals killing criminals.
As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”
America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.
Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.
We do not need to have a conversation about the NRA. We need to have a conversation about Chicago.
America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 31, 2012 @ 12:50 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Chicago’s murder rate has hit that magic 500 number. Baltimore’s murder rate has passed 200. In Philly, it’s up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it’s approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it’s almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it’s over 500. In St. Louis it’s 113 and 130 in Oakland. It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham.
Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.
Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven’t even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, matches the murder rate for Japan and is higher than the murder rates for Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the homicide rate for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.
But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. If New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.
Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.
St. Louis has a murder rate just a little lower than Belize. Baltimore has a worse murder rate than South Africa and Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle which is agonizing over its 26 murders. That’s about the same number of murders as East St. Louis which has only 27,000 people to Seattle’s 620,000.
So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.
Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.
If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.
Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.
But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.
There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.
America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Our murder rate now largely consists of criminals killing criminals.
As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”
America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.
Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.
We do not need to have a conversation about the NRA. We need to have a conversation about Chicago.
Tom,
That is a really terrible, partisan article. Thats the crazy talk we need to do away with. Basically the approach is take a problem, any problem, and find a way to blame it on Obama. So our cities are starting to resemble those of third world countries? We are not there yet, but if we continue to let the gap widen between the rich and poor it will not be long. Poverty and lack of opportunity is the real issue here. And never, during the Bush years, did we make any poor decisions that have led to these current conditions? The economy was well on its way to tanking well before Obama's first term. Maybe if the Bush administration was more focused on our own country instead of trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, we would not be where we are now.
That is a really terrible, partisan article. Thats the crazy talk we need to do away with. Basically the approach is take a problem, any problem, and find a way to blame it on Obama. So our cities are starting to resemble those of third world countries? We are not there yet, but if we continue to let the gap widen between the rich and poor it will not be long. Poverty and lack of opportunity is the real issue here. And never, during the Bush years, did we make any poor decisions that have led to these current conditions? The economy was well on its way to tanking well before Obama's first term. Maybe if the Bush administration was more focused on our own country instead of trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, we would not be where we are now.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Pravda to Americans: never give up your guns
Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth.
Americans never give up your guns
By Stanislav Mishin
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. (GWP)
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Stanislav Mishin
Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth.
Americans never give up your guns
By Stanislav Mishin
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. (GWP)
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Stanislav Mishin
Trust me, I know how everyone feels about a weapons ban. If we take that off the table, is there any reform or new legislation that you would support?
Would you accept more responsibility for the firearms you own or be open to a more restrictive process to purchase a firearm? You can still have the weapons, but it would be more a hassle to obtain and would come with extra liability.
The reason I think some changes like this may be necessary is because it seems like there are way too many weapons being stolen, borrowed, and ending up in the wrong hands. If you can't care of your firearms properly, unarmed citizens are going to start restricting your "rights".
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ"]Report: Republicans to Blame For Gun Deaths[/ame]
Would you accept more responsibility for the firearms you own or be open to a more restrictive process to purchase a firearm? You can still have the weapons, but it would be more a hassle to obtain and would come with extra liability.
The reason I think some changes like this may be necessary is because it seems like there are way too many weapons being stolen, borrowed, and ending up in the wrong hands. If you can't care of your firearms properly, unarmed citizens are going to start restricting your "rights".
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ"]Report: Republicans to Blame For Gun Deaths[/ame]
Chris, The part of the article that was of interest to me was the amount of gang violence, that's not crazy talk, that's happening. Gun control won't affect gangs in any way, it will make them stronger. Where did that article blame Obama?
Chris,
Again I ask: How the devil will further restricting/regulating/controlling and infringing on law abiding people's access to guns change a darn thing with regard to what criminals and loons do with guns? Seriously, sir, what will that accomplish???
We already have "gun-free zone" laws that say NOBODY can pack ANY kind of gun in this-or-that place, do we not? How much MORE "restrictive" can any gun law get? I would argue it can't. And yet what good have gun-free zone laws been with regard to preventing gun crimes in gun-free zones?? I'd say they haven't worked worth a darn. Now, if a law that absolutely FORBIDS everything from "A" to "Z" with regard to guns has totally & completely failed 100% in stopping crooks & loons from doing what they do, I'd say more l-a-w-s aimed at law abiding people aren't going to prevent crooks and loons from continuing to do what they do.
If you want more gun laws, how about passing a federal law that says anyone committing any criminal offence while in possession of a firearm (whether he displays or uses it or not) automatically goes to prison for 20 years ON TOP OF whatever sentence he may get for the primary crime? How about a federal law that says anyone who intentionally and illegally kills someone with a gun (or any lethal weapon for that matter) automatically gets the death penalty upon conviction? 'And someone who purposely injures someone with a gun (or other lethal weapon) gets an automatic 10 years on top of the assault sentence? At least THEN the people who are actually g-u-i-l-t-y of gun crimes are the one's being slapped around. 'Work for you?
I also take issue with your position that someone whose gun(s) get stolen should somehow pay a price for that! What part of "s-t-o-l-e-n" is creating the issue? How is it the gun owner's fault that HE was a crime victim? Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say the guy's guns should have been secured in a vault or whatever. Well, often they were! But, even if they weren't I'd still say, "Bull pucky". There's nothing more useless than a locked up gun in a home defense situation. People in this country have the right to be able to defend themselves...and they can't DO that if their guns are locked up 24/7, can they. A citizen of this country has the right to stash a gun or two here or there in his home for easy access. (What is one to do when/if a dirt bag breaks into one's house? Yell, "TIME OUT while I go get my gun out of my gun safe!!!"? Oh, yeah...that'll work.)
Maybe I'm just naive...
Anyway, a very healthy, happy, and prosperous New Year to you and yours, sir.
Again I ask: How the devil will further restricting/regulating/controlling and infringing on law abiding people's access to guns change a darn thing with regard to what criminals and loons do with guns? Seriously, sir, what will that accomplish???
We already have "gun-free zone" laws that say NOBODY can pack ANY kind of gun in this-or-that place, do we not? How much MORE "restrictive" can any gun law get? I would argue it can't. And yet what good have gun-free zone laws been with regard to preventing gun crimes in gun-free zones?? I'd say they haven't worked worth a darn. Now, if a law that absolutely FORBIDS everything from "A" to "Z" with regard to guns has totally & completely failed 100% in stopping crooks & loons from doing what they do, I'd say more l-a-w-s aimed at law abiding people aren't going to prevent crooks and loons from continuing to do what they do.
If you want more gun laws, how about passing a federal law that says anyone committing any criminal offence while in possession of a firearm (whether he displays or uses it or not) automatically goes to prison for 20 years ON TOP OF whatever sentence he may get for the primary crime? How about a federal law that says anyone who intentionally and illegally kills someone with a gun (or any lethal weapon for that matter) automatically gets the death penalty upon conviction? 'And someone who purposely injures someone with a gun (or other lethal weapon) gets an automatic 10 years on top of the assault sentence? At least THEN the people who are actually g-u-i-l-t-y of gun crimes are the one's being slapped around. 'Work for you?
I also take issue with your position that someone whose gun(s) get stolen should somehow pay a price for that! What part of "s-t-o-l-e-n" is creating the issue? How is it the gun owner's fault that HE was a crime victim? Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say the guy's guns should have been secured in a vault or whatever. Well, often they were! But, even if they weren't I'd still say, "Bull pucky". There's nothing more useless than a locked up gun in a home defense situation. People in this country have the right to be able to defend themselves...and they can't DO that if their guns are locked up 24/7, can they. A citizen of this country has the right to stash a gun or two here or there in his home for easy access. (What is one to do when/if a dirt bag breaks into one's house? Yell, "TIME OUT while I go get my gun out of my gun safe!!!"? Oh, yeah...that'll work.)
Maybe I'm just naive...
Anyway, a very healthy, happy, and prosperous New Year to you and yours, sir.
Last edited:
That was similar to what I pointed out to Jim when he produced "skewed" data that made it seem there was no reduction in violent/gun crime.
marc
Lifetime Supporter
The Brady bill was a knee jerk creation then, and we are doomed to repeat history with the level of intelligence at the command level again. Pointing fingers at Benghazi, our leaders just point fingers but are others safe because of it? When elected politicians don't act properly what are they; pretty people with no intelligence.
We got O'care by "pass it and see whats in the bill. Our government is F'd up. Can you get away with spending more than you take in year after year.
Laws are there. passing more doesn't solve the problem. It just confuses it more.
I say again, Get tough on crime and stop worrying about the legal owners. It cost per inmate 60K a year of tax payer money. Guess where I want to cut costs.
Capital Punishment in a Public, Graphic, "cruel and heartless" way. You murder, you get caught, you die. Simple enough?
Stop being a bunch of sniveling, poor inmate, PC, and pathetic pansy's. We care more for the criminal than the victims.
Cops do your jobs and get these thugs, drugs and bugs off our a$$, and the Courts do your job and we will live much more peacefully. Not afraid that we have to conceal carry.
We got O'care by "pass it and see whats in the bill. Our government is F'd up. Can you get away with spending more than you take in year after year.
Laws are there. passing more doesn't solve the problem. It just confuses it more.
I say again, Get tough on crime and stop worrying about the legal owners. It cost per inmate 60K a year of tax payer money. Guess where I want to cut costs.
Capital Punishment in a Public, Graphic, "cruel and heartless" way. You murder, you get caught, you die. Simple enough?
Stop being a bunch of sniveling, poor inmate, PC, and pathetic pansy's. We care more for the criminal than the victims.
Cops do your jobs and get these thugs, drugs and bugs off our a$$, and the Courts do your job and we will live much more peacefully. Not afraid that we have to conceal carry.
Actually Al I've seen lots of interesting points on this thread, yes I understand we're not gonna save the world but what the hell....I see no harm in letting some thoughts fly.
Last edited:
Hey Tom
That article was a little strange. I know you were trying to show how severe the gang violence problem is and thats a good point.
There were a few parts of the article that made it obvious that the author was a nut job.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine.
It was these parts of the article that connected the high rates of homicides with democratic voters that I took offense to. There is always a large concentration of democrats in urban areas. This does not mean they are more prone to killing eachother than Republicans. I do not think these gang members are too concerned with American politics. There was no reason to include all those political references in that article except to lay blame with Obama's "homicidal" base.
That article was a little strange. I know you were trying to show how severe the gang violence problem is and thats a good point.
There were a few parts of the article that made it obvious that the author was a nut job.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine.
It was these parts of the article that connected the high rates of homicides with democratic voters that I took offense to. There is always a large concentration of democrats in urban areas. This does not mean they are more prone to killing eachother than Republicans. I do not think these gang members are too concerned with American politics. There was no reason to include all those political references in that article except to lay blame with Obama's "homicidal" base.
Hi Larry
Happy New Year to you as well!
I do not think we should take away access to firearms entirely or create "gun free zones" I do not have a problem with you having weapons in your home, car, or concealed somewhere on your hot body. There are already so many weapons in circulation and I do not see how a ban would address that issue. Yes, I do think some types of weapons and ammunition should not be in the hands of the general public. This is just my personal opinion though, and understand that everyone does not feel this way.
I think we can still make progress without some kind of widespread ban or aggressive legislation. Maybe we just need more education and training programs for gun owners. It must feel terrible to know that one of your weapons was involved in one of these mass shootings. Who would not want to some extra take steps to avoid this? Maybe there are too many loaded firearms just sitting in around in some closet barely hidden by the tux from your wedding. I understand having access to a weapon for protection does not make sense if it is locked away with no ammo. If you live in a place like Newtown, what are you so scared of? Get a big dog, some pepper spray, take some Tae Bo classes, get an alarm system, or let your bitchy wife confront an intruder. What if you do shoot someone in self defense? That might not be a happy ending. You may be wishing you shot yourself instead after you get hit with a civil suit.
As a far as crime and punishment goes, who knows? I am not adverse to capital punishment but we can't kill everyone. Spending tons of taxpayer dollars to house and feed all these inmates is not a great solution either. We just have to hope that in a better economy, with more opportunity, we can keep more people on the straight and narrow. Stiffer penalties will do nothing to stop someone who is that crazy anyway. We have to focus on prevention and you can not deter some of these individuals with the fear of incarceration.
Happy New Year to you as well!
I do not think we should take away access to firearms entirely or create "gun free zones" I do not have a problem with you having weapons in your home, car, or concealed somewhere on your hot body. There are already so many weapons in circulation and I do not see how a ban would address that issue. Yes, I do think some types of weapons and ammunition should not be in the hands of the general public. This is just my personal opinion though, and understand that everyone does not feel this way.
I think we can still make progress without some kind of widespread ban or aggressive legislation. Maybe we just need more education and training programs for gun owners. It must feel terrible to know that one of your weapons was involved in one of these mass shootings. Who would not want to some extra take steps to avoid this? Maybe there are too many loaded firearms just sitting in around in some closet barely hidden by the tux from your wedding. I understand having access to a weapon for protection does not make sense if it is locked away with no ammo. If you live in a place like Newtown, what are you so scared of? Get a big dog, some pepper spray, take some Tae Bo classes, get an alarm system, or let your bitchy wife confront an intruder. What if you do shoot someone in self defense? That might not be a happy ending. You may be wishing you shot yourself instead after you get hit with a civil suit.
As a far as crime and punishment goes, who knows? I am not adverse to capital punishment but we can't kill everyone. Spending tons of taxpayer dollars to house and feed all these inmates is not a great solution either. We just have to hope that in a better economy, with more opportunity, we can keep more people on the straight and narrow. Stiffer penalties will do nothing to stop someone who is that crazy anyway. We have to focus on prevention and you can not deter some of these individuals with the fear of incarceration.
Last edited:
This has been one of the most reasoned debates on a contentious issue ever seen on GT40s Paddock (apart from predictable off-piste remarks from the usual suspects), and I personally have learned far more from this thread than reading an entire library full of news clippings, blogs and "expert" opinions.
