13 Dead, 20 Wounded...

[RumTumTugger]

Historical precedent.

you really want to say that when history is rife with governments going further when they get what they want regard this issue does 1930's - 40s Germany ring a bell?

You've sidestepped the issue though - Sam isn't calling for changes to any other amendment, and there is no reason to think further changes would occur. You're building a strawman argument on an unwarranted assumption.

he did not side step it.

[Roy]

Historical precedent.

you really want to say that when history is rife with governments going further when they get what they want regard this issue does 1930's - 40s Germany ring a bell?

Yes, I really want to say that. The repeal of the 18th amendment was not followed by further repeals.

P.S. Godwin's law. Thread over.

[firstfloor]

Then why does Obama boast that he NEEDS to politicize it?

He probably means that he wants the American public to be engaged with the problem.

Incidents like these are a cultural phenomenon. If that is what people are willing to tolerate there is not a law that will prevent it. Politicians can help focus attention on the issue but people have to be willing to change and then take charge of the situation.

In some cultures, anger is expressed by throwing shoes. In the USA you do it by firing bullets from a gun. But you can easily see the imbalance because anger is temporary while the damage caused by guns is permanent. So, the question is, why does your culture teach kids to express their anger in that way? Look at the advertising, the movies and television and think about how that is influencing your children. Think about the fantasy of guns, power, sex versus the reality of fear, incarceration, physical injury and death.

[lilpixieofterror]

Please use my proper name, it's just basic politeness.

Sorry, politeness is reserved for people who deserve it and you do not. Unless of course you'll:

1. Stop saying or implying that your political opponents are stupid, evil, corrupt, etc for disagreeing with you.
2. That you'll recant from your belief that it is acceptable to murder 3 month old babies.

Until I see these things happen, you'll be treated with every bit of disrespect that you deserve.

The overall correlation is pretty clear.

Yeah, the correlation is that you're an even bigger idiot than I first thought. Take a look sweety and it turns out that the amount of guns and not the 'gun control laws' is the primary reason for higher cases of gun related death. Your own stats and links back up that conclusion or did you not notice that New Hampshire has a lower total gun ownership vs Alaska; despite gun control laws being roughly equivalent to each other? In fact, if you bother to think vs assume you're automatically right, you'd spot this. Want an example? Ok, California and Texas have a large amount of car related deaths, in the US. In fact, a little over 20% of all car deaths, in the US, occur in California and Texas. If we follow your logic, there's a problem with drivers in California and Texas. In reality, the reason for the higher amounts of car related deaths is because California and Texas has a higher population and more miles driven vs other states. This naturally leads to a higher rate of car deaths vs other states, where the population is smaller and the amount of driving is less. In fact, California actually has the safest drivers because it is among the lowest per capita death rates, of any state and has the lowest death rates per mile driven. So what you actually need to show is that gun control laws are responsible for the lower death rates and not the fact more guns per population = higher chances of gun related death. Are guns inherently dangerous? Of course, but so is driving and many other activities. If you believe otherwise; what laws can you give credit to lower cases of gun related death because your chart seems to clearly show it has to do with the amount of guns vs the laws in place.

[lilpixieofterror]

Because three different things increase total gun deaths:
- Higher rates of gun ownership / ease of obtaining guns
- Urban rather than rural environments
- High gang violence

Indiana has only one of those three. Chicago has all three.

Often there are multiple factors that together explain the prevalence of a phenomena. Gun laws aren't the only factor in gun deaths. But they are a factor. The data shows clearly that in general more stringent gun laws decrease the number of gun deaths.

So what gun control laws will prevent gang members (who commit most of the violence in US cities) from obtaining and using firearms? Go ahead dimbulb, give precise details of how this will work.

[lilpixieofterror]

So despite the fact that violent crime involving firearms has been sharply dropping while the number of firearms in the country has drastically risen you want to rip up the Bill of Rights. Good to know.

The vast majority of criminologists who have studied the firearms-crime issue openly reject attempts at simple comparisons of violent crime rates among different countries in that it is incredibly difficult to draw any valid conclusions due to vast differences in each nation's collection of crime data, not to mention their cultural, economic, racial and political differences. These differences are almost always ignored by those supporting tougher gun control measures.

The one exception that I'm aware of is the political science researcher David Kopel, who in his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (named 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology) actually has tried to evaluate the different gun control laws and their effects on crime in a number of countries. The conclusion:

Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.

He noted that 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. For instance, in Israel and Switzerland, where licenses to own firearms are available on demand to every law-abiding adult and there are widespread rates of gun ownership, they have crime rates comparable to or lower than countries with stringent gun-control laws.

Even one of the most vocal advocates for tougher gun laws, Dr. Arthur Kellermann, acknowledges this fact saying that these two countries "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."

Further, many of the firearms in these countries are full automatic military weapons and while they have fewer firearms per capita than the U.S. IIRC both countries have higher rates of individual ownership since American figures are skewed by persons owning several weapons which is less common in those countries.

Sam doesn't like reality, but there is always what liberals end up saying when it is something they approve of:

If you don't like guns, don't own one.

This logic works for abortion, why not guns?

[lilpixieofterror]

Let's not fetishize: the argument for current gun ownership and against stricter regulation should be made on the merits, not on appeal to authority. I could just as easily argue, on authority, that no Christian should be putting his potential self-preservation above the lives of others, even his persecutor. I doubt many people would take kindly to being accused of "wanting to rip up the Gospel", though.

Go ahead Sam, name a regulation that would prevent these things from happening. Besides, I put the lives of innocent people above the lives of those who live a life that is about committing violence against others. Besides, as liberals love to say about abortion, if you don't like guns, don't own one or does that logic only apply to abortion or issues you personally approve of?

[lilpixieofterror]

The online version is still reporting data from 2007:

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)

That's nice.

[Cow Poke]

He probably means that he wants the American public to be engaged with the problem.

No, he wants the American public to agree with him no matter what, because he has a phone and a pen.

Incidents like these are a cultural phenomenon. If that is what people are willing to tolerate there is not a law that will prevent it. Politicians can help focus attention on the issue but people have to be willing to change and then take charge of the situation.

Rather than run at the problem with the assumption that it's a "guns are too available" mentality, it would be better to see what's really causing this.

In some cultures, anger is expressed by throwing shoes. In the USA you do it by firing bullets from a gun.

Outside of my Police career, I have never fired a bullet in anger.

But you can easily see the imbalance because anger is temporary while the damage caused by guns is permanent. So, the question is, why does your culture teach kids to express their anger in that way? Look at the advertising, the movies and television and think about how that is influencing your children. Think about the fantasy of guns, power, sex versus the reality of fear, incarceration, physical injury and death.

So, let's look at the ROOT of the problem, not simply the way it is manifested.

[lilpixieofterror]

He probably means that he wants the American public to be engaged with the problem.

Nah, he wants to circumvent laws he personally disapproves of.

Incidents like these are a cultural phenomenon. If that is what people are willing to tolerate there is not a law that will prevent it. Politicians can help focus attention on the issue but people have to be willing to change and then take charge of the situation.

Incidents like these happen because evil people exist in the world and will continue to exist and will continue to find ways to hurt other people, no matter how against the law it actually is. Murder is already illegal and clearly making murder illegal does not prevent shooters from murdering people, so what sort of nonsense is it to claim that making guns illegal = people will no longer find ways to kill others?

In some cultures, anger is expressed by throwing shoes. In the USA you do it by firing bullets from a gun.

Hummm, I've never fired a gun angry, in my entire life. Got anymore generalities you care to throw out there that don't match up to reality?

But you can easily see the imbalance because anger is temporary while the damage caused by guns is permanent. So, the question is, why does your culture teach kids to express their anger in that way? Look at the advertising, the movies and television and think about how that is influencing your children. Think about the fantasy of guns, power, sex versus the reality of fear, incarceration, physical injury and death.

Considering that most people are not murders, in the US. It doesn't. As usual though, what we see is an atheist trying to act as though society is to blame for the evils of humanity vs humans are to blame for the evils of humanity. Many people watch violence on TV or play violent video games; most people, who watch or play these things, do not end up engaging in mass murder. Clearly, the problem must sit somewhere else.

[firstfloor]

So, let's look at the ROOT of the problem, not simply the way it is manifested.

[klaus54]

Baloney.

Guns also amplify protection for the weak and those who live in dangerous neighborhoods.

What do you mean "against nature"? The evolutionary advantage that humans have is a big cerebral cortex which (in fewer and fewer) people allows for protection and adaptation to the environment. Humans are naturally weak and slow compared with similar size mammals. Projectile weapons are necessary for protection from predators, human or non-human mammal.

It's a hoot to see an atheist write "therefore against God".

What? Are you now a natural theologian?



P.S. While you're regaling us with your godly wisdom, please explain how draconian gun laws would stop mass shootings and inner-city gangsta murders?

[Cow Poke]

Whenever you say something like that, I know the manure spreader is about to malfunction and fling the whole load all at once.

As we both know, guns are a tool for amplifying violence so that even the weak are made strong. This is their fundamental attraction and their fundamental sin because they are against nature and therefore against God.

Yup, that's a stinkin mess.

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile, Russia attacks Iran! (OK, accidentally crashes some missiles in Iran, aimed at Syria)

Washington (CNN)A number of cruise missiles launched from a Russian ship and aimed at targets in Syria have crashed in Iran, two U.S. officials told CNN Thursday.

Monitoring by U.S. military and intelligence assets has concluded that at least four missiles crashed as they flew over Iran.

The U.S. believes, based on intelligence reports of damage assessments, that some buildings were damaged and civilians may have been hurt.

It's unclear where in Iran the missiles landed. The Russian ships have been positioned in the south Caspian Sea, meaning the likely flight path for missiles into Syria would cross over both Iran and Iraq.

The Russians have been firing a relatively new cruise missile called "Kaliber," using it for the first time in combat.

If civilians were hurt or killed, will Russia be charged with war crimes?

(and, it sounds like the Russians might need to re Kalibrate Kaliber )

[seanD]

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/10...as-the-target/

And then to add salt to the wound...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ms...spital-n445736

So, while US military is busy bombing hospitals and then covering up the evidence in the aftermath, Russia is supposedly putting on a clinic in Syria against ISIS. US Pentagon response to Russia's Syrian campaign? Drop 50 tons of ammo in the middle of Syria hoping that it goes to the so-called "moderate" al-qaeda linked rebels

Hoorah!