PDA

View Full Version : About the prohibition of fire weapons



RMorgan
16th December 2012, 16:51
Hi folks,

I want to talk with you about a very important subject, which is the prohibition of fire weapons.

I consider this important because I can see that it´s coming to you, my friends from the USA.

It´s just a matter of time until they take all your guns, in my opinion.

I live in Brazil. The regular citizen can´t have guns here. So I know what I´m talking about from experience.

Guns aren´t actually totally prohibited here, but the regulations and rules for buying a gun are so bureaucratic and expensive that it ends up being the same as prohibiting them.

If you want to carry a gun around here, you have to go through a series of tests and procedures, all very expensive (around 4.000 USD). Besides, you have to show evidence proving that your profession or another factor requires you to carry a gun as a life saving measure.

Basically, it means that the regular citizen will never have his request for carrying a gun approved. Only people who work in obviously dangerous professions can carry them eg; judges, politicians, prosecutors, police officers, etc...

If you just want the permission to have a legal gun on your home, without carrying it with you, you have to go through the same very expensive series of tests and procedures. You have to renew your license every three years, paying for the same procedures all over again.

Besides, you wouldn´t believe how expensive it is to buy the most basic .38 revolver and ammo here. (around 3.000 USD)

Oh, and every time you need to buy ammo, you have to get another special license ( and you can only buy a very limited amount of ammo).

Enough talking...Let´s look to some real data here, collected from an Unesco (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001399/139949por.pdf) paper:

(these tables are written in Portuguese, but you´ll understand them anyway)

This table is about the major causes of death in 2003 only. Gun related deaths only lost to brain and heart diseases, ranking on the third position:
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt7/rafaelmorgan2/3-1_zps681c5409.jpg

This table is about the number of deaths caused by gun shots among the young population, from 1979 to 2003
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt7/rafaelmorgan2/2-1_zps9e6d958a.jpg

This table is about the number of deaths caused by gun shots from 1979 to 2003:
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt7/rafaelmorgan2/1-2_zpsb6b0741a.jpg

So, obviously, fire weapon prohibition or excessive regulation doesn´t work.

It´s just like prohibiting drugs; It doesn´t work.

Anyone can buy illegal fire weapons here in the black market, just like pot. The difference is that if you´re caught with an illegal fire weapon, you´ll get arrested from 2 to 12 years.

It ends up that only criminals and cops have guns, since the regular citizen is afraid of going to jail for carrying an illegal weapon.

Despite the prohibition, in these 24 years (1979 to 2003), fire weapon related deaths have grown 461,8%, while the Brazilian population has grown only 51,8%. Do the math.

Gun prohibition will not solve the violence epidemics in the US. Period. Whenever someone tells you the contrary, ask them to back up their claims with real data; they wont succeed.

The best way to solve the violence problem is by increasing educational standards.

Cheers,

Raf.

sdv
16th December 2012, 17:31
Much of what you say is correct, but what if the murder rate depends on the culture of violence in a country rather than gun regulation? I live in a country where it is not easy to get a licence for a gun or to buy a gun or ammunition (I have never seen a shop anywhere that even sells the stuff), but there are more murders per 1000 people per year than in the USA. However, if guns were freely available here as in USA, I would not be alive and the entire country would have collapsed into factional warfare (which would have spread and destablised all the countries around us). A country with a culture of violence and aggression plus easy access to guns is a lethal recipe.

I don't see culture changing in America because in fact instead of peaceful evolution over the last almost 365 years, America has spread the violence and aggression of weapons of destruction across the globe, and Americans love their guns and shooting ranges and hunting (and consider it a right). How can you talk peace and democracy (the latter which is a myth anyway) and prosperity with a gun in your hand?

Americans are free to make their own choices and uphold their own culture, within the borders of that country, but I will always adamantly and fiercely oppose the proliferation of guns in my country (and salute the local police who continue to actively find and confiscate black market and stolen guns).

PS Apologies for generalisation, but the generalisation is the ruling culture and choice in the USA. I sympathise with those who are the minority and don't want to live in this kind of society.

RMorgan
16th December 2012, 17:41
Much of what you say is correct, but what if the murder rate depends on the culture of violence in a country rather than gun regulation? I live in a country where it is not easy to get a licence for a gun or to buy a gun or ammunition (I have never seen a shop anywhere that even sells the stuff), but there are more murders per 1000 people per year than in the USA. However, if guns were freely available here as in USA, I would not be alive and the entire country would have collapsed into factional warfare (which would have spread and destablised all the countries around us). A country with a culture of violence and aggression plus easy access to guns is a lethal recipe.

I don't see culture changing in America because in fact instead of peaceful evolution over the last almost 365 years, America has spread the violence and aggression of weapons of destruction across the globe, and Americans love their guns and shooting ranges and hunting (and consider it a right). How can you talk peace and democracy (the latter which is a myth anyway) and prosperity with a gun in your hand?

Americans are free to make their own choices and uphold their own culture, within the borders of that country, but I will always adamantly and fiercely oppose the proliferation of guns in my country (and salute the local police who continue to actively find and confiscate black market and stolen guns).

PS Apologies for generalisation, but the generalisation is the ruling culture and choice in the USA. I sympathise with those who are the minority and don't want to live in this kind of society.


I agree, my friend.

My point with this thread is not to defend the possession of fire arms, but to show that prohibiting them will not only be noneffective, but can make things even worse.

The criminals will always have access to guns, prohibited or not. There´s no way to effectively fight an eventual fire weapons black market in a country as huge as the US.

The root of the violence problem isn´t the fire weapons themselves, anyway.

As you said, it´s about culture, social equality, educational standards and many other variables.

Violence is just like a disease; You have to find and eliminate the cause, not the symptoms. Palliative measures don´t work.

Now, what´s really causing the increase of violence in the US is a much more complex subject...

Cheers,

Raf.

ghostrider
16th December 2012, 18:01
The real problem is guns sold illegally. Guns smuggled into the country by the CIA and the like. Military corporations smuggling weapons everywhere, criminals will always get access to Guns. If citizens can't own guns, and criminals have them , your power is in the hands of government/police. They already won't protect anyone except their bank accounts and where the money came from . This is just part of the agenda to get us down the road to slavery/depopulation. They can't proceed with their new world order till the public is un -armed . We will fight back , but the battles over before it starts if they have guns and we don't .

Lost Soul
16th December 2012, 18:06
The common thread in many of these incidents is that the culprit is on some sort of medically prescribed mood altering drug.

See this video testimony of Dr. Briggins at this Link (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/are-the-new-generation-of-anti-depressant-medications-contributing-to-school-shootings.html) It is the first one of the three videos at the link.

white wizard
16th December 2012, 18:26
They might go to great lengths to limit fire arms purchases, but anything

involving taking away peoples guns would set up a **** storm in the country so

big it would be a nightmare to do. The people of the United States are pretty

firm when it comes to there weapons and in my state they are getting ready to

pass the right to carry a gun just about anywhere. The government just

is not just gonna come up one day take away guns it would have to first fight

an uphill battle politically, which is obvious would never be won or face

a very pissed off armed public half of which would probably tell the police

to shove it before they handed over there guns and if people start dying

rather then giving up there guns, which will happen because a lot of gun

owners are nuts then your gonna see a major public backlash at the

government.

ghostrider
16th December 2012, 18:26
The common thread in many of these incidents is that the culprit is on some sort of medically prescribed mood altering drug.

See this video testimony of Dr. Briggins at this Link (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/are-the-new-generation-of-anti-depressant-medications-contributing-to-school-shootings.html) It is the first one of the three videos at the link.

wonder how it reacts with electronic impulses , could be connected with mind control or emotion control. The public is alread desenseitized, I can't spell forgive me, I'm lazy today.

Tesseract
16th December 2012, 18:48
Some gun-control laws are a good idea, for example the prevention of convicted felons in the US from legally owning firearms. Both sides in this argument tend to over-represent the views of the other side to make them appear unreasonable [I am not referring to the OP here who made a reasonable post supported with data]. Many gun-control proponents do not advocate an effective absolute prohibition of firearms, but rather restrictions on certain kinds of firearms. For example they may wish to ban high velocity semi-automatic rifles equipped with high capacity magazines.

I agree with the sentiment that such legislation is basically a band-aid job that does not address the root cause. Violence of one kind or another is glorified, championed and encouraged everywhere in the US and other countries too, either blatantly or subtly. It's all around you. Films, television, law enforcement, bill boards, the speeches of politicians, the penal code, toy stores, sports, journalism, games of every kind, the military, the arms industry. And, tragically, it is self-perpetuated by each new generation that grows up embraced in this philosophy. And yet, the prevalence of domestic massacres in the US has roots that spread even further than this. That said, a mother-society that has violence fundamentally ingrained into its culture can expect that to result in an intensification of violent acts within the criminal subculture.

Cidersomerset
16th December 2012, 18:57
Interresting Article ......



The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world

Which countries in the world have the highest firearms murders - and the highest rates of gun ownership?
Click on a country to see how it compares - and use the dropdown menu to see the map in different ways
• Debate and download this data



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/10/6/1317904017228/Simon-Rogers-byline-pic-003.jpg
Simon Rogers
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 July 2012 13.00 BST



You will have to click on link below for map...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

================================================== ==



FIREARMS MURDERS AND CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP
Canada
9,950,000 civilian firearms - 30.8 for every 100 people
Ranked 13 in the world for civilian gun ownership

In the latest year, there were 173 homicides by firearm - 0.51 per 100,000 population. 32% of all homicides are by firearm

SOURCE: CTS, via the UNODC and the Small Arms Survey

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FIREARMS MURDERS AND CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP
United States
270,000,000 civilian firearms - 88.8 for every 100 people
Ranked 1 in the world for civilian gun ownership

In the latest year, there were 9,146 homicides by firearm - 2.97 per 100,000 population. 60% of all homicides are by firearm

SOURCE: CTS, via the UNODC and the Small Arms Survey

• Download this Fusion table


I've been on so many threads I cannot remember where I saw somebody
querying the difference between the US & Canada firearms statistics..
From neighbours with similar history and culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bit different than here....


FIREARMS MURDERS AND CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP
England and Wales
3,400,000 civilian firearms - 6.2 for every 100 people
Ranked 88 in the world for civilian gun ownership

In the latest year, there were 41 homicides by firearm - 0.07 per 100,000 population. 6.6% of all homicides are by firearm

SOURCE: CTS/NSO, via the UNODC and the Small Arms Survey

ceetee9
16th December 2012, 19:36
Every time we have one of these horrific occurrences we get the crowd who believes all of the country's ills can be legislated away. The simple-minded see the problem as the gun and that if we made guns illegal the problem would be solved. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.

We live in a culture that glorifies killing. We are inundated with TV shows, games, movies, books, news, etc. that depict violence, fighting and killing. We learn from an early age that if you don't get what you want it's ok to take it or kill whoever keeps you from getting what you want. Our own government does this all the time. We have religious people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life, yet they will send their sons and daughters off to kill people in another country, or even in their own country, if their government tells them those people are their enemies and are trying to kill them--and they'll do it without questioning a thing. Our government ensures we maintain a fearful and violent mentality by couching everything in terms of fighting and war. We fight the "war on drugs," "the war on terror," "the war on crime," "the war on cancer," etc.

If we're serious about wanting the killing to stop then we must acknowledge that the problem is with us, our culture and behavior and that it is we who must change.

modwiz
16th December 2012, 19:51
Every time we have one of these horrific occurrences we get the crowd who believes all of the country's ills can be legislated away. The simple-minded see the problem as the gun and that if we made guns illegal the problem would be solved. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.



Problem action solution. Those who propose banning guns are unaware of the real problem. Besides their own ignorance. These horror shows have many purposes. One is to bring down energy levels and distract us with useless babble. Another is to engender self defeating conversation about de-fanging a populace. Too bad speech isn't disabled when the emotional body gets too activated.

Rocky_Shorz
16th December 2012, 19:58
I was visiting a cabin up in Northern Minnesota when living there and one morning, woke to crashing and banging in the other room, on the floor in the corner sat a gun, which was loaded, checked out of curiosity the day before...

I opened the door slowly looking out to see what's up, and heard the breath before seeing the eyes of a grizzly...

Quickly trying to close the door but he decided to come in, like I could argue...

Stepped back and lowering the gun, the door swung open, I fired at his chest...

it looked down at the batch of fur and back up at me, I realized it was bird shot...

I yelled,

it roared...

then turned and walked away and left the cabin...

I tossed the gun over onto the bed chuckling, a lot of good it did...

Lost Soul
16th December 2012, 20:09
Dang Rocky Shorz - a 12 ga with birdshot against a Griz!? I'd want a magazine full of slugs and even that is no guaranteed that the Griz will go down.

Rocky_Shorz
16th December 2012, 20:34
worse yet, injure but not kill one and be in a 12x12 room when it happens...

that's when I decided to see if I was really protected by angels...

instead of playing dead, I acted like a Grizzly with Tude and screamed, leaning forward with no fear...

I was waiting to get batted across the room with its paw, but instead it Roared back, then lowered itself back to four legs and walked out...

I guess the owner knew it was better to surprise him to scare him off than to attempt to kill and really injure it...

ghostrider
16th December 2012, 23:21
maybe everyone should carry a stun gun ? knock em out , not kill em, when they wake say to them , what the heck were you thinking ?? straighten up or I'll stun you again.

chancy
16th December 2012, 23:38
Hello Everyone and Raf:
I like your points about Gun prohibition. I think that it works as perfectly as it was suppose too! In Canada we spent billions and billions on a gun registry just to find out that it was absolutely worthless. (It gave millions of beauracrats something to do)
We have had tight gun controls in place as long as I can remember. If you want to own a pistol you have to get a permit. If you want to transport it to the firing range you need a permit. If you want to bring it home from the firing range you need a permit.
With any guns you need a PAL to buy any type of gun whether for hunting or protection. You also need the PAL for buying ammunition.
Basically what happened was that the government got into the business of selling weapons and ammunition. The cost went up exponentially and now we are supposedly safer! This did not happen because of gun control. It happened because people were living better and had more opportunities to travel and enjoy life.
Gun prohibition does NOT WORK and it just makes for perfect conditions for underground selling of guns and ammunition at a huge price mark up.
Organized crime makes nothing but money on bringing cheap guns into the country and selling them for a much bigger profit that they could ever imagine.
It's a win win for government and organized crime. Everyone else just pays as is usual here.
Thanks for your points Raf on Gun prohibition.
chancy

Youniverse
17th December 2012, 04:29
What interests me about this whole discussion is how often in the U.S., as soon as someone mentions they're going to take meaningful action to prevent gun-related crimes, you get a hoard of people bring up the dreaded GUN CONTROL LAWS. As if the very thought of taking away their beloved guns is a blasphemy. I'm with you guys that say many gun control laws are inneffective at curbing gun crimes, but look at those reactions! My my my. They tell you where peoples' hearts and minds are at don't they? Listen, IMHO, only one thing is going to stop these kinds of disgusting tragedies, cultural transformation through spiritual transformation. I've lived in Canada my whole life(with a short stint in Australia), and so I've kept a close eye on the unfolding epidemic down south. So yes of course the kind of shift or transformation that's often talked about on different forums here fits right in with the kind of solution needed in the U.S. and the world for that matter. Enter enough unprecedented variables into the equation(telepathy being one) and yes the problem will go away all by itself. Again, IMHO, this is probably the only way these calamties end.

By the way, regarding the so-called "right to bear arms," this is an archaic sort of right that only holds people back in their evolution. We gotta get way past that sort of idea. Too many Americans are too sensitive to changing anything in the Constitution. For me, I have no problem whatsoever in anything being changed in my country's Constitution. What is a constitution anyways? It's simply an agreement by those representing the people at large. And we know majority agreements change over pretty much every issue, given enough time.

You know, seriously though, I see prohibition of fire arms as simply a good start to addressing the epidemic. Start from there and evolve into more sophisticated measures. Regardless of whether it fixes or even slows down the problem, it sends a statement out to the public of what we stand for. Love or fear?

Youniverse
17th December 2012, 04:39
Hello Everyone and Raf:
I like your points about Gun prohibition. I think that it works as perfectly as it was suppose too! In Canada we spent billions and billions on a gun registry just to find out that it was absolutely worthless. (It gave millions of beauracrats something to do)
We have had tight gun controls in place as long as I can remember. If you want to own a pistol you have to get a permit. If you want to transport it to the firing range you need a permit. If you want to bring it home from the firing range you need a permit.
With any guns you need a PAL to buy any type of gun whether for hunting or protection. You also need the PAL for buying ammunition.
Basically what happened was that the government got into the business of selling weapons and ammunition. The cost went up exponentially and now we are supposedly safer! This did not happen because of gun control. It happened because people were living better and had more opportunities to travel and enjoy life.
Gun prohibition does NOT WORK and it just makes for perfect conditions for underground selling of guns and ammunition at a huge price mark up.
Organized crime makes nothing but money on bringing cheap guns into the country and selling them for a much bigger profit that they could ever imagine.
It's a win win for government and organized crime. Everyone else just pays as is usual here.
Thanks for your points Raf on Gun prohibition.
chancy

Mhmm yes. But how many gun-related crimes happen in Canada per year? The gun registry was a result of the cultural collective's consensus on guns, not the cause of it. The law can in some cases reflect the majority views of a nation. I personally don't care how ineffective gun laws are(though of course I wish they were effective), I like the message they're sending. Think about the babies in Newtown, Conn. that are no longer with us, rather than "how scared I am that somebody might threaten me with a gun."

Sammy
17th December 2012, 04:43
Every time we have one of these horrific occurrences we get the crowd who believes all of the country's ills can be legislated away. The simple-minded see the problem as the gun and that if we made guns illegal the problem would be solved. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.

We live in a culture that glorifies killing. We are inundated with TV shows, games, movies, books, news, etc. that depict violence, fighting and killing. We learn from an early age that if you don't get what you want it's ok to take it or kill whoever keeps you from getting what you want. Our own government does this all the time. We have religious people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life, yet they will send their sons and daughters off to kill people in another country, or even in their own country, if their government tells them those people are their enemies and are trying to kill them--and they'll do it without questioning a thing. Our government ensures we maintain a fearful and violent mentality by couching everything in terms of fighting and war. We fight the "war on drugs," "the war on terror," "the war on crime," "the war on cancer," etc.

If we're serious about wanting the killing to stop then we must acknowledge that the problem is with us, our culture and behavior and that it is we who must change.

I think the problem is both

Youniverse
17th December 2012, 05:08
Every time we have one of these horrific occurrences we get the crowd who believes all of the country's ills can be legislated away. The simple-minded see the problem as the gun and that if we made guns illegal the problem would be solved. The problem is the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.

We live in a culture that glorifies killing. We are inundated with TV shows, games, movies, books, news, etc. that depict violence, fighting and killing. We learn from an early age that if you don't get what you want it's ok to take it or kill whoever keeps you from getting what you want. Our own government does this all the time. We have religious people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life, yet they will send their sons and daughters off to kill people in another country, or even in their own country, if their government tells them those people are their enemies and are trying to kill them--and they'll do it without questioning a thing. Our government ensures we maintain a fearful and violent mentality by couching everything in terms of fighting and war. We fight the "war on drugs," "the war on terror," "the war on crime," "the war on cancer," etc.

If we're serious about wanting the killing to stop then we must acknowledge that the problem is with us, our culture and behavior and that it is we who must change.

I think the problem is both

Well said! Your point reminds me of Eckhart Tolle.

chancy
17th December 2012, 06:40
Hello Everyone and Raf:
I like your points about Gun prohibition. I think that it works as perfectly as it was suppose too! In Canada we spent billions and billions on a gun registry just to find out that it was absolutely worthless. (It gave millions of beauracrats something to do)
We have had tight gun controls in place as long as I can remember. If you want to own a pistol you have to get a permit. If you want to transport it to the firing range you need a permit. If you want to bring it home from the firing range you need a permit.
With any guns you need a PAL to buy any type of gun whether for hunting or protection. You also need the PAL for buying ammunition.
Basically what happened was that the government got into the business of selling weapons and ammunition. The cost went up exponentially and now we are supposedly safer! This did not happen because of gun control. It happened because people were living better and had more opportunities to travel and enjoy life.
Gun prohibition does NOT WORK and it just makes for perfect conditions for underground selling of guns and ammunition at a huge price mark up.
Organized crime makes nothing but money on bringing cheap guns into the country and selling them for a much bigger profit that they could ever imagine.
It's a win win for government and organized crime. Everyone else just pays as is usual here.
Thanks for your points Raf on Gun prohibition.
chancy

Mhmm yes. But how many gun-related crimes happen in Canada per year? The gun registry was a result of the cultural collective's consensus on guns, not the cause of it. The law can in some cases reflect the majority views of a nation. I personally don't care how ineffective gun laws are(though of course I wish they were effective), I like the message they're sending. Think about the babies in Newtown, Conn. that are no longer with us, rather than "how scared I am that somebody might threaten me with a gun."

Hello Everyone and Youniverse:
I have to say that "Guns don't kill people! People use guns to kill people." The gun registry in Canada came about because of the shooting spree Montreal at the university in the 90's. No one had a say to the gun registry! I don't know anyone that did have a say. If you do please tell me who because I don't know any of them? Our government did their finest tricks with the gun registry and told us that Canadians had spoken that the gun registry was wanted by ALL Canadians. ( The registry was only going to cost at the most 1.5 - 2 million dollars. Not the billions that went into a failure) I don't know anyone who wanted a long gun registry because it was only honest people that were mostly hunters who were penalized for their love of the outdoors and hunting.
Hand guns have been legislated for as long as I can remember but people are still getting hand guns in Canada. All the laws have done is make guns more valuable therefore creating a huge blackmarket.
As far as the tragic situation in Conn. this is a kid that had problems and made a very, very tragic mistake that will hurt the people involved and the rest of society for many, many years to come. This cannot be a sign that guns are bad. The only thing that was bad was the kid was not thinking when he pulled the trigger without thinking of the consequences of his actions and the lives that were instantly changed forever.
We have the laws on the books to keep criminals at bay. We do not need more laws layered over more laws to do the very thing the laws that are in place are doing as we speak.
We need less government and more common sense to abound in Canada.
Have a great day!
chancy

RMorgan
17th December 2012, 14:03
What interests me about this whole discussion is how often in the U.S., as soon as someone mentions they're going to take meaningful action to prevent gun-related crimes, you get a hoard of people bring up the dreaded GUN CONTROL LAWS. As if the very thought of taking away their beloved guns is a blasphemy. I'm with you guys that say many gun control laws are inneffective at curbing gun crimes, but look at those reactions! My my my. They tell you where peoples' hearts and minds are at don't they? Listen, IMHO, only one thing is going to stop these kinds of disgusting tragedies, cultural transformation through spiritual transformation. I've lived in Canada my whole life(with a short stint in Australia), and so I've kept a close eye on the unfolding epidemic down south. So yes of course the kind of shift or transformation that's often talked about on different forums here fits right in with the kind of solution needed in the U.S. and the world for that matter. Enter enough unprecedented variables into the equation(telepathy being one) and yes the problem will go away all by itself. Again, IMHO, this is probably the only way these calamties end.

By the way, regarding the so-called "right to bear arms," this is an archaic sort of right that only holds people back in their evolution. We gotta get way past that sort of idea. Too many Americans are too sensitive to changing anything in the Constitution. For me, I have no problem whatsoever in anything being changed in my country's Constitution. What is a constitution anyways? It's simply an agreement by those representing the people at large. And we know majority agreements change over pretty much every issue, given enough time.

You know, seriously though, I see prohibition of fire arms as simply a good start to addressing the epidemic. Start from there and evolve into more sophisticated measures. Regardless of whether it fixes or even slows down the problem, it sends a statement out to the public of what we stand for. Love or fear?

Hi my friend,

Well, I believe the gun control issue is more critical in the US than anywhere else in the world.

I might be wrong, but I sense an agenda behind it...You know, they have the NDAA, all those FEMA camps around the country...

Not that I care about the US, since with all due respect, I believe it´s much more of a corporation than a sovereign country nowadays.

Anyway, I don´t care about any country itself; I care about people, and since the US "government" is probably the most tyrannic and imperialistic government in the world, I believe their high guns per capta rate has an important role in stopping their government from definitively enslaving their population.

Also, I believe it´s a tremendous hypocrisy, I mean, taking the guns from the honest citizens, while they have the most armed (and violent) military forces in the world.

If the US government wants to give a big step towards peace, they´d better start by setting an example destroying all their weapons of mass destruction first and then removing their military from all foreign countries. Only if they do that they´ll have the moral authority to ask their citizens to give up their guns.

Anyway, ideally, I believe in a world without any kind of weapons, but then, absolutely no individual or institutions should have weapons at all. Whenever one side has weapons and the other doesn´t there will be the possibility of ruling by force.

Just my two cents anyway.

Cheers,

Raf.

ceetee9
17th December 2012, 19:49
Hello Everyone and Raf:
It's a win win for government and organized crime.
chancyAren't they the same thing? ;)

ceetee9
17th December 2012, 19:57
We need less government and more common sense to abound in Canada.
chancyYes indeed--and in every country in the world.

Zelig
17th December 2012, 20:13
Are you sure it was a grizzly? Minnesota is a little outside of its normal range.


I was visiting a cabin up in Northern Minnesota when living there and one morning, woke to crashing and banging in the other room, on the floor in the corner sat a gun, which was loaded, checked out of curiosity the day before...

I opened the door slowly looking out to see what's up, and heard the breath before seeing the eyes of a grizzly...

Quickly trying to close the door but he decided to come in, like I could argue...

Stepped back and lowering the gun, the door swung open, I fired at his chest...

it looked down at the batch of fur and back up at me, I realized it was bird shot...

I yelled,

it roared...

then turned and walked away and left the cabin...

I tossed the gun over onto the bed chuckling, a lot of good it did...

13th Warrior
17th December 2012, 20:17
I was visiting a cabin up in Northern Minnesota when living there and one morning, woke to crashing and banging in the other room, on the floor in the corner sat a gun, which was loaded, checked out of curiosity the day before...

I opened the door slowly looking out to see what's up, and heard the breath before seeing the eyes of a grizzly...

Quickly trying to close the door but he decided to come in, like I could argue...

Stepped back and lowering the gun, the door swung open, I fired at his chest...

it looked down at the batch of fur and back up at me, I realized it was bird shot...

I yelled,

it roared...

then turned and walked away and left the cabin...

I tossed the gun over onto the bed chuckling, a lot of good it did...

Grizz in Minnesota???

Did the shot gun have a lamp shade at the muzzle?

OBJ-MpPBDug

Rocky_Shorz
17th December 2012, 20:29
Are you sure it was a grizzly? Minnesota is a little outside of its normal range.


I was visiting a cabin up in Northern Minnesota when living there and one morning, woke to crashing and banging in the other room, on the floor in the corner sat a gun, which was loaded, checked out of curiosity the day before...

I opened the door slowly looking out to see what's up, and heard the breath before seeing the eyes of a grizzly...

Quickly trying to close the door but he decided to come in, like I could argue...

Stepped back and lowering the gun, the door swung open, I fired at his chest...

it looked down at the batch of fur and back up at me, I realized it was bird shot...

I yelled,

it roared...

then turned and walked away and left the cabin...

I tossed the gun over onto the bed chuckling, a lot of good it did...

the Cabin was up in the boundry waters, black bears are easy, this sucker stood up and head hit the ceiling, that pissed him off too...

Rocky_Shorz
17th December 2012, 20:32
lol, no lamp shade...

love that movie... John Candy was always great at getting into trouble...



I was visiting a cabin up in Northern Minnesota when living there and one morning, woke to crashing and banging in the other room, on the floor in the corner sat a gun, which was loaded, checked out of curiosity the day before...

I opened the door slowly looking out to see what's up, and heard the breath before seeing the eyes of a grizzly...

Quickly trying to close the door but he decided to come in, like I could argue...

Stepped back and lowering the gun, the door swung open, I fired at his chest...

it looked down at the batch of fur and back up at me, I realized it was bird shot...

I yelled,

it roared...

then turned and walked away and left the cabin...

I tossed the gun over onto the bed chuckling, a lot of good it did...

Grizz in Minnesota???

Did the shot gun have a lamp shade at the muzzle?

OBJ-MpPBDug

it looked like a 20 gauge it kicked me back and I felt that in the shoulder for a while, but it just brushed the fur on the bear outward part bird shot part wind from the blast...

ever had one of those... Oh shhit moments... that was one of mine...

janus
17th December 2012, 21:08
How about "Just Facts" about gun control? http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Statistics from "Just Facts":


* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]



* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]



* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]



* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]



* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]



* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]


From http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/gun-ownership-up-crime-down.html

"Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.4"


From: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

"UPDATE Correction: The data on the UK is from 2003 and it is not new as prviously written however, newer data from 2009 shows gun violence in the UK has increased by 89 percent in the past decade, making the 35 percent figure insufficient."


WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf


I could go on and on...but don't take my word for it...do your own research.

modwiz
17th December 2012, 21:19
They might go to great lengths to limit fire arms purchases, but anything

involving taking away peoples guns would set up a **** storm in the country so

big it would be a nightmare to do. The people of the United States are pretty

firm when it comes to there weapons and in my state they are getting ready to

pass the right to carry a gun just about anywhere. The government just

is not just gonna come up one day take away guns it would have to first fight

an uphill battle politically, which is obvious would never be won or face

a very pissed off armed public half of which would probably tell the police

to shove it before they handed over there guns and if people start dying

rather then giving up there guns, which will happen because a lot of gun

owners are nuts then your gonna see a major public backlash at the

government.

You almost made sense here. Fail!

modwiz
17th December 2012, 21:24
Some gun-control laws are a good idea, for example the prevention of convicted felons in the US from legally owning firearms. Both sides in this argument tend to over-represent the views of the other side to make them appear unreasonable [I am not referring to the OP here who made a reasonable post supported with data]. Many gun-control proponents do not advocate an effective absolute prohibition of firearms, but rather restrictions on certain kinds of firearms. For example they may wish to ban high velocity semi-automatic rifles equipped with high capacity magazines.

I agree with the sentiment that such legislation is basically a band-aid job that does not address the root cause. Violence of one kind or another is glorified, championed and encouraged everywhere in the US and other countries too, either blatantly or subtly. It's all around you. Films, television, law enforcement, bill boards, the speeches of politicians, the penal code, toy stores, sports, journalism, games of every kind, the military, the arms industry. And, tragically, it is self-perpetuated by each new generation that grows up embraced in this philosophy. And yet, the prevalence of domestic massacres in the US has roots that spread even further than this. That said, a mother-society that has violence fundamentally ingrained into its culture can expect that to result in an intensification of violent acts within the criminal subculture.

Felon is a legal term. The same types who want us disarmed make the laws that create non-violent felons. Criminals where there was no crime. Some of this thread is like reading a Yahoo comments section. :twitch:

modwiz
17th December 2012, 21:32
Hello Everyone and Raf:
It's a win win for government and organized crime.
chancyAren't they the same thing? ;)

Yes. Government is the most organized crime. They work the same way. Italian mafia actually had some code of honor. Governments have none. I picked the Italian mafia because some countries have mafias that are viciously psychotic.

Rocky_Shorz
17th December 2012, 22:45
from what I'm hearing, regulation on pawn shops, garage sales, car trunks etc is where the big holes are where people buy guns without registration or background checks.

people that know they will fail a background check, go to places that make it easy.

Mormon church newspaper, 6800 listings for guns...

now assault rifles, bought through legal channels, have those who bought the guns recorded...

those would be the ones the government will go after and the others that will most likely be used won't be found...

this is an advertisement in Maxim...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-VOClRCAAAa5vp.jpg:large

Youniverse
18th December 2012, 01:56
Hello Everyone and Raf:
I like your points about Gun prohibition. I think that it works as perfectly as it was suppose too! In Canada we spent billions and billions on a gun registry just to find out that it was absolutely worthless. (It gave millions of beauracrats something to do)
We have had tight gun controls in place as long as I can remember. If you want to own a pistol you have to get a permit. If you want to transport it to the firing range you need a permit. If you want to bring it home from the firing range you need a permit.
With any guns you need a PAL to buy any type of gun whether for hunting or protection. You also need the PAL for buying ammunition.
Basically what happened was that the government got into the business of selling weapons and ammunition. The cost went up exponentially and now we are supposedly safer! This did not happen because of gun control. It happened because people were living better and had more opportunities to travel and enjoy life.
Gun prohibition does NOT WORK and it just makes for perfect conditions for underground selling of guns and ammunition at a huge price mark up.
Organized crime makes nothing but money on bringing cheap guns into the country and selling them for a much bigger profit that they could ever imagine.
It's a win win for government and organized crime. Everyone else just pays as is usual here.
Thanks for your points Raf on Gun prohibition.
chancy

Mhmm yes. But how many gun-related crimes happen in Canada per year? The gun registry was a result of the cultural collective's consensus on guns, not the cause of it. The law can in some cases reflect the majority views of a nation. I personally don't care how ineffective gun laws are(though of course I wish they were effective), I like the message they're sending. Think about the babies in Newtown, Conn. that are no longer with us, rather than "how scared I am that somebody might threaten me with a gun."

Hello Everyone and Youniverse:
I have to say that "Guns don't kill people! People use guns to kill people." The gun registry in Canada came about because of the shooting spree Montreal at the university in the 90's. No one had a say to the gun registry! I don't know anyone that did have a say. If you do please tell me who because I don't know any of them? Our government did their finest tricks with the gun registry and told us that Canadians had spoken that the gun registry was wanted by ALL Canadians. ( The registry was only going to cost at the most 1.5 - 2 million dollars. Not the billions that went into a failure) I don't know anyone who wanted a long gun registry because it was only honest people that were mostly hunters who were penalized for their love of the outdoors and hunting.
Hand guns have been legislated for as long as I can remember but people are still getting hand guns in Canada. All the laws have done is make guns more valuable therefore creating a huge blackmarket.
As far as the tragic situation in Conn. this is a kid that had problems and made a very, very tragic mistake that will hurt the people involved and the rest of society for many, many years to come. This cannot be a sign that guns are bad. The only thing that was bad was the kid was not thinking when he pulled the trigger without thinking of the consequences of his actions and the lives that were instantly changed forever.
We have the laws on the books to keep criminals at bay. We do not need more laws layered over more laws to do the very thing the laws that are in place are doing as we speak.
We need less government and more common sense to abound in Canada.
Have a great day!
chancy

Hi! I respect your opinions. I have heard that argument, "guns don't kill people...", so many times and it makes some sense of course, no doubt. But I've also heard another sensible argument that if you give a crazy person a knife, he may kill one or two people before being stopped. Give that same person an AR 15 and he can kill dozens of people before being stopped. As I'm sure you understand, my main point was the meaning or gesture behind gun control is what's important. Not very many people would say gun control laws are the main solution. There has to be a whole lot more! You and I are the solution in progress right NOW my friend. I'm proud of every single person in this community because of the "good vibes" they send out to the world, which is transforming the world. You and I are a big part of the reason why the aftermath of this recent shooting feels different somehow, people are waking up!

white wizard
18th December 2012, 02:02
They might go to great lengths to limit fire arms purchases, but anything

involving taking away peoples guns would set up a **** storm in the country so

big it would be a nightmare to do. The people of the United States are pretty

firm when it comes to there weapons and in my state they are getting ready to

pass the right to carry a gun just about anywhere. The government just

is not just gonna come up one day take away guns it would have to first fight

an uphill battle politically, which is obvious would never be won or face

a very pissed off armed public half of which would probably tell the police

to shove it before they handed over there guns and if people start dying

rather then giving up there guns, which will happen because a lot of gun

owners are nuts then your gonna see a major public backlash at the

government.

You almost made sense here. Fail!

hey mowdiz you fail at life k old cook ;)

eva08
18th December 2012, 08:47
IMHO the entire gun prohibition is a way to pave Agenda 21 disown property, take over the land and planet, another coup -or the tail end of the current one. Why would gun control be necessary in the first place? In order to control gun violence and the mindless shootings going on in several locations. Why are the shooters so crazily shooting? I was listening to a radio show about parents of children who are computer geniuses, they watch and play video games and act the same way - ok, when genius, then switch to aggressive threatening and dangerous personality.

If we consider that everyone and each of us have an unalienable right to the land and home due to our birthright on this planet (according to Alex Collier), then this right is in direct opposition to the agenda 21 plans.
America is one of the most armed nations in the world. And it really seems to me a genius way to remove the weapons by creating "dangerous kids" who cannot be trusted, who are programmed into violence with TV and video games and therefore it is quite logic that all weapons need to be removed since these mind controlled kids are so unpredictable and violent.
Once the nation is unarmed, it is very easy to send in the drones and take over or shoot.
Sounds like a plan to me.

On the other hand, in order to counteract gun violence, in my opinion the very first thing is to turn off TV and disallow violent games. In my childhood, my parents did not allow me to watch Disney cartoons, they considered Disney too violent and they did not want me to be brought up in a violent American mindset like that.

On the other hand - video games could also be about high ethics and integrity, love thy neighbor, help, gratitude, high morals, high productivity and the many other virtues. Are there any? I really do not know, but I never heard of any.

Just sharing my thoughts on the radio comments about the shootings and gun control.

Fred Steeves
18th December 2012, 11:16
So let me see if I've got this straight here. Homeland Security recently purchased something like 1.4 billion rounds of hollow point rounds, local police are rapidly becoming militarized, the U.S. is by far the world's largest arms supplier, and it steps on any country that doesn't do her bidding. Sounds like just the kind of people I want confiscating my self protection, for my own protection of course. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/doh.gif

Is there maybe a little something wrong with this picture?

Rocky_Shorz
18th December 2012, 20:54
well if all of you really want to know why...

what better way to get weapon manufacturers back on their feet than ringing the bell and yelling Last Call!!!

millions of guns are flying off the shelves right now, these are some of the only products Walmart carries not made in China...

Buy American, Guns are all we make... ;)

this is QE4

bet the bankers love knowing how many guns are around to keep them safer...

Eram
18th December 2012, 23:11
NRA Reacts to School Shooting: "Prepared to Offer Meaningful Contributions"


The National Rifle Association America has released the following statement - its first since Friday's shootings that left 20 children and six women dead at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut:

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters - and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

"The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, D.C., area on Friday, December 21."


source (http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=391212)

Youniverse
18th December 2012, 23:43
In 1996 Australia banned all semi-automatic weapons. In the previous 18 years there were 13 mass shootings. Since 1996, NONE. The U.K. is another example of a Nation whose strict gun control laws have dramatically dropped mass shootings. You guys want examples, there's two right there. Did any of you watch Piers Morgan last night? He made some great points I thought. So the gun lover guy here interviews says that Australia and U.K. are different cultures so they don't apply. Which countries' examples would apply? Maybe ones like Australia, Canada, U.K., New Zealand, etc. whose cultures are the most similar to the U.S. And sorry guys, I get the paranoi you display about the U.S. gov't confiscating guns but that doesn't cut it. Do you think they're getting ready to turn their army on their own citizens now? Come on. If you're about peace and love, then you're about getting rid of guns as fast as possible, period.

Paul
19th December 2012, 00:51
In 1996 Australia banned all semi-automatic weapons. In the previous 18 years there were 13 mass shootings. Since 1996, NONE. The U.K. is another example of a Nation whose strict gun control laws have dramatically dropped mass shootings. You guys want examples, there's two right there. Did any of you watch Piers Morgan last night? He made some great points I thought. So the gun lover guy here interviews says that Australia and U.K. are different cultures so they don't apply. Which countries' examples would apply? Maybe ones like Australia, Canada, U.K., New Zealand, etc. whose cultures are the most similar to the U.S. And sorry guys, I get the paranoi you display about the U.S. gov't confiscating guns but that doesn't cut it. Do you think they're getting ready to turn their army on their own citizens now? Come on. If you're about peace and love, then you're about getting rid of guns as fast as possible, period.

The "peace and love" sarcasm, and the "paranoia" labeling don't help the quality of this discussion. Please.

As for statistics, such as stating 18 mass shootings before 1996, but none after, ... perhaps ... but it can be useful to have references, since we know both sides of this acrimonious debate pump out statistics that the other side finds bogus. Further, even if you statistic is accurate, there may also be a different explanation. Perhaps after the stringent gun laws that were enacted following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the bastards in power no longer needed to run such sinister and deadly massacre operations in order to disarm Australians.

In any case, I choose not to hand over my power of self defense from unreasonable and excessive force to the US government. That would make about as much sense as a flock of sheep asking a troop of foxes to be their guardians.

Paul
19th December 2012, 01:00
In 1996 Australia banned all semi-automatic weapons. In the previous 18 years there were 13 mass shootings. Since 1996, NONE. As for statistics, such as stating 18 mass shootings before 1996, but none after, ... perhaps ... but it can be useful to have references, since we know both sides of this acrimonious debate pump out statistics that the other side finds bogus.
Here is a decent reference, perhaps even the primary reference, for the statistic you provided: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/):



Results

In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid‐firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
The above was in an article published in www.injuryprevention.com, by authors affiliated with the School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Lost Soul
19th December 2012, 01:21
The Second Amendment wasn't included in the Bill of Rights so that Elmer Fudd could hunt the wascally wabbit. It reserves in the hands of the people the means to fight a tyranny. End of argument.

panopticon
19th December 2012, 01:47
Interesting graph from the Australian Institute of Criminology on firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 & 2001:

http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi269-1.gif
Source (http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html).

It shows quite well that the introduction of gun control legislation had a major effect on firearms being used in suicides, though not dramatically outside of the decline that was already occurring.
Also the 1996 spike in homicides is the result of the Martin Bryant (http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html) case.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Youniverse
19th December 2012, 02:39
In 1996 Australia banned all semi-automatic weapons. In the previous 18 years there were 13 mass shootings. Since 1996, NONE. The U.K. is another example of a Nation whose strict gun control laws have dramatically dropped mass shootings. You guys want examples, there's two right there. Did any of you watch Piers Morgan last night? He made some great points I thought. So the gun lover guy here interviews says that Australia and U.K. are different cultures so they don't apply. Which countries' examples would apply? Maybe ones like Australia, Canada, U.K., New Zealand, etc. whose cultures are the most similar to the U.S. And sorry guys, I get the paranoi you display about the U.S. gov't confiscating guns but that doesn't cut it. Do you think they're getting ready to turn their army on their own citizens now? Come on. If you're about peace and love, then you're about getting rid of guns as fast as possible, period.

The "peace and love" sarcasm, and the "paranoia" labeling don't help the quality of this discussion. Please.

As for statistics, such as stating 18 mass shootings before 1996, but none after, ... perhaps ... but it can be useful to have references, since we know both sides of this acrimonious debate pump out statistics that the other side finds bogus. Further, even if you statistic is accurate, there may also be a different explanation. Perhaps after the stringent gun laws that were enacted following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the bastards in power no longer needed to run such sinister and deadly massacre operations in order to disarm Australians.

In any case, I choose not to hand over my power of self defense from unreasonable and excessive force to the US government. That would make about as much sense as a flock of sheep asking a troop of foxes to be their guardians.

Ya well I'll never apologize about talking about peace and love anywhere, anytime. If you're happy carrying a gun around or owning a gun keep doing it. Not here to criticize anyone, just making observations. And yes, there have been many signs, if you will, of paranoia, not only in the U.S., but around the world, especially since 9-11. Acknowledgement and acceptance are the beginning of the solution to a problem. But I may be way off base here. Maybe everyone walking around with guns like it's the old west is a sure sign of stability and trust in your neighbours. 300 million guns in the U.S.?

Paul
19th December 2012, 03:24
Ya well I'll never apologize about talking about peace and love anywhere, anytime. If you're happy carrying a gun around or owning a gun keep doing it. Not here to criticize anyone ...
Coulda' fooled me :).

Youniverse
19th December 2012, 04:39
Ya well I'll never apologize about talking about peace and love anywhere, anytime. If you're happy carrying a gun around or owning a gun keep doing it. Not here to criticize anyone ...
Coulda' fooled me :).

That was not my intention my friend. My apologies if I sounded unkind. My aim was to shed light on issues to help speed up healing. If you felt offended, perhaps you should look deeply into that to SEE the real reason for it? At any rate, once again, my apologies if I was too harsh. I am passionate about all people being safe and feeling safe, so sometimes I get a little impatient when another tragedy strikes.

enfoldedblue
19th December 2012, 05:14
hmmm I'm really curious about this debate. It does seem as though situations have been manipulated in order to change gun laws. However, I truly question the motive behind it. The idea that the PTB want to disarm the people so they can dominate seems pointless really when one considers the weaponry and technology they have at their disposal. I imagine the weapons available to the masses would be virtually useless against drones, robots and chemical/biological weapons etc. To me it would seem that the PTB would love for people to have guns and lot's of them, because they would know that they will only be used on one another. Personally a motive that makes more sense to me is that they want to incite civil unrest so that so that they can ennact a martial law type senario. And who better to become the new terrorists...on home turf...people who stockpile guns.

Anyway either way it certainly seems to be an effective means of dividing people.

Paul
19th December 2012, 06:09
The idea that the PTB want to disarm the people so they can dominate seems pointless really when one considers the weaponry and technology they have at their disposal. I imagine the weapons available to the masses would be virtually useless against drones, robots and chemical/biological weapons etc. To me it would seem that the PTB would love for people to have guns and lot's of them, because they would know that they will only be used on one another. Personally a motive that makes more sense to me is that they want to incite civil unrest so that so that they can ennact a martial law type senario. And who better to become the new terrorists...on home turf...people who stockpile guns.

Anyway either way it certainly seems to be an effective means of dividing people.

Well said.

The Bastards in Power (BiP's) get ordinary people depending on the Federal government for yet another item: security from massacres.

They get most ordinary people submitting to further Federal government control: only the Feds and their trusted agents have guns, everyone else turns theirs in or goes through an obnoxious bureaucratic process to prove they need a gun in accordance with Fed mandated criteria.

They single out the rebels and free thinkers: for whatever persecution or imprisonment suits the Feds.

They divide the rebels and free thinkers (aka terrorists) from the submissive (aka good citizens).

What's not to like ? :)

The BiP's have been able to keep any territory under the heal of the US military's boot with its enormous fire power advantage, however the BiP's know they can't control a people's will that way. A seething, angry, shell shocked, tyrannized population is fit for only relatively menial tasks that be imposed by brute force.

So I agree that the BiP's aren't taking guns from American's so they can invade safely like they have done so many other nations whose governments were less compliant. The US Federal government has been quite compliant, for a long time. The BiP's don't need a "regime change" in Washington, DC. Rather the BiP's seek a more compliant US work force, permanently in debt to the financial institutions and permanently dependent on the US Federal government for the necessities of life.

The BiP's remain at serious risk of becoming the HB's (the Has Been's.)

Youniverse
19th December 2012, 19:32
The idea that the PTB want to disarm the people so they can dominate seems pointless really when one considers the weaponry and technology they have at their disposal. I imagine the weapons available to the masses would be virtually useless against drones, robots and chemical/biological weapons etc. To me it would seem that the PTB would love for people to have guns and lot's of them, because they would know that they will only be used on one another. Personally a motive that makes more sense to me is that they want to incite civil unrest so that so that they can ennact a martial law type senario. And who better to become the new terrorists...on home turf...people who stockpile guns.

Anyway either way it certainly seems to be an effective means of dividing people.

Well said.

The Bastards in Power (BiP's) get ordinary people depending on the Federal government for yet another item: security from massacres.

They get most ordinary people submitting to further Federal government control: only the Feds and their trusted agents have guns, everyone else turns theirs in or goes through an obnoxious bureaucratic process to prove they need a gun in accordance with Fed mandated criteria.

They single out the rebels and free thinkers: for whatever persecution or imprisonment suits the Feds.

They divide the rebels and free thinkers (aka terrorists) from the submissive (aka good citizens).

What's not to like ? :)

The BiP's have been able to keep any territory under the heal of the US military's boot with its enormous fire power advantage, however the BiP's know they can't control a people's will that way. A seething, angry, shell shocked, tyrannized population is fit for only relatively menial tasks that be imposed by brute force.

So I agree that the BiP's aren't taking guns from American's so they can invade safely like they have done so many other nations whose governments were less compliant. The US Federal government has been quite compliant, for a long time. The BiP's don't need a "regime change" in Washington, DC. Rather the BiP's seek a more compliant US work force, permanently in debt to the financial institutions and permanently dependent on the US Federal government for the necessities of life.

The BiP's remain at serious risk of becoming the HB's (the Has Been's.)

Is this really the kind of energy you want to focus on and transmit heading into the shift? You're free to of course. I wouldn't reccomend it, IMHO, but suit yourself. Ultimately nothing is ever right or wrong. It's only what serves you best. But don't take it from me. There may be a few wise souls lingering around, like Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, and so on, that have dissaproved of fighting fire with fire.

Paul
19th December 2012, 23:14
The Bastards in Power (BiP's) get ordinary people depending on the Federal government for yet another item: security from massacres.
...Rather the BiP's seek a more compliant US work force, permanently in debt to the financial institutions and permanently dependent on the US Federal government for the necessities of life.

Is this really the kind of energy you want to focus on and transmit heading into the shift? ... There may be a few wise souls lingering around, like Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, and so on, that have disapproved of fighting fire with fire.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I wasn't aware that I was saying how to fight this fire. I thought I was just painting a small word picture of a flame or two of the fire.

Personally, I'm fighting this fire by helping to administer a useful web forum (this one) where we discuss this and much else, learning from and supporting each other, and coordinating various activities. I also tend to the health and well being, in various ways, of myself and those about me, and continue my own studies.

panopticon
20th December 2012, 10:41
G'day All,

I came across an interesting paper that investigates the occurrence of firearm relates mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand over the last 30 years.
The authors posit that the lack of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 has little to do with the legislative control measures (placed on type of firearm available).

Their conclusion was that there is a stronger relationship to high unemployment rates/low economic prosperity in the times of high mass killings and a reversal of this when the economy is going well (ie there are no mass killings).

An interesting thing that I got from this paper was that while there had been no mass shooting events in Australia since 1997, there had only been one mass killing event (not gun related). This is something of a statistical anomaly.


A related observation is that in Australia, in the period 1989 - 1997, there were 13 mass murder incidents; 7 did not involve firearms (Mouzos, 2000). The NHMP indicates that from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2004, there were no homicides involving four or more victims (i.e., no mass murders by any method over that period). From July 31 2004 - June 30 2007 (the most recent year of data available), one mass homicide incident occurred. Given that firearms have historically accounted for less than half of all mass murders, it is fair to suggest that if all other factors were held constant, non-firearm mass murders would be expected to continue to occur post-1996... Potentially, therefore, mass murder in Australia may have become less frequent from the late 1990’s onwards, irrespective of method.


Here's the paper for those who might be interested:

http://www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

Source: McPhedran, Samara and Jeanine Baker (2011). 'Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence', Justice Policy Journal 2011 8(1)
http://www.cjcj.org/jpj/2011/05/justice/policy/journal
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Hervé
20th December 2012, 10:57
Although the following is coming from "Before It's News," the study seems to be legit:

Essential Gun Charts And Facts No Matter Which Side Of Firearms Control You Support (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:12

(Before It's News) (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
The guiding gun control legislation in the United States is the Gun Control Act 1968 (this is Federal legislation only: each US state and territory enacts its own gun law) The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000. The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people
The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553(3 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)) firearms. Police in the United States are reported to have 897,400(4) (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html) firearms.

World’s Highest 25: Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
http://www.gunpolicy.org//images/gpo/charts/1306297968FC_World_s_Highest_25___Rate_of_Civilian _Firearm_Possession_per_100_Population.PNG
Credit: GunPolicy.org

World’s Highest 25: Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
http://www.gunpolicy.org//images/gpo/charts/1306297044FC_World___s_Highest_25___Rate_of_Gun_Ho micide_per_100_000_People.PNG
Credit: GunPolicy.org

High Income Countries: Rate of Unintentional Gun Death per 100,000 People

http://www.gunpolicy.org//images/gpo/charts/1306300275FC_High_Income_Countries___Rate_of_Unint entional_Gun_Death_per_100_000_People.PNG
Credit: GunPolicy.org

High Income Countries: Rate of Gun Suicide per 100,000 People

http://www.gunpolicy.org//images/gpo/charts/1306300275FC_High_Income_Countries___Rate_of_Unint entional_Gun_Death_per_100_000_People.PNG
Credit: GunPolicy.org

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 9,146 7 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)
2008: 9,484 10 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)7 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659 7 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)
2002: 9,369 11 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259 6 (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6078389722268452220)
1998: 9,257

Credit: GunPolicy.org

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2009: 2.98 5 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html) 7 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.3 7 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
2002: 3.25 11 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.97 6 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07 12 (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/essential-gun-charts-and-facts-no-matter-which-side-of-firearms-control-you-support-2476996.html)

Credit: GunPolicy.org

Table 1.3: Ranking of world’s small arms producers [by sales]

1) Major producers: China, Russia, United States;

2) Medium producers: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Kingdom;

3) Small producers: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yugoslavia;

4) Unassessed producers (Inadequate information currently available to permit ranking): Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

Source cited: Appendix 1.1



The Small Arms Survey 2012: Moving Targets looks at what is changing, and not changing, in relation to armed violence and small arms proliferation. Chapters on firearm homicide in Latin America and the Caribbean, drug violence in selected Latin American countries, and non-lethal violence worldwide illustrate that security is a moving target; armed violence continues to undermine security and well-being around the world. The goal of curbing small arms proliferation, embodied in the UN Programme of Action, appears similarly elusive. Chapters on illicit small arms in war zones, trade transparency, Somali piracy, and the 2011 UN Meeting of Governmental Experts highlight some of the successes and challenges in this area. Country studies examine Kazakhstan and Somaliland. The final installment of the authorized transfers project looks at the total value of exports and imports globally, including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, and parts and accessories.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2012.html

panopticon
20th December 2012, 11:39
What an interesting study Amzer Zo.

I would have thought from all the hype that the homicide rate would have had the US out in front.
Thanks.

EsmaEverheart
20th December 2012, 17:15
As an American, I have to honestyly say that I don't know how the government can take away all the guns. Too many guns are bought from private owners in parking lots or at gun shows. How can the government know who has what gun with it like that? The only way they could find all the guns is if they went from house to house and searched every one like schools do with stundents lockers. The same with searching every car and property. I suppose if they banned the sale of all ammo it could put a stop to some gun violence.

My husband is from Scotland and he and I have this discussion every time there is a gun violence on the news. He never even seen a gun until he came here and saw my guns. lol He says that it is against the law to even have ammo in the UK.

Tarka the Duck
20th December 2012, 17:38
One can't help but wonder, had there been less stringent gun control laws in China, whether this incident 6 days ago would have been much worse:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html


22 children and elderly woman stabbed outside primary school by Chinese knifeman.
No fatalities.
No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010.
Tight controls mean that gun crimes are rare in China and make knives and sometimes explosives the weapons used in mass attacks.

Camilo
20th December 2012, 17:42
CARLOS SANTANA ON CONNECTICUT SHOOTING:

We are a violent country; that is our history & our present. It is internalized in all of us. We kill for money, for power, for influence & for attention. I say "we" because I am a taxpayer & my money supports wars abroad as well as mass incarceration at home. Time to stop acting surprised when Americans kill children on our own lands; we do it abroad in the name of "anti terrorism" "foreign aid"
& "democracy" everyday. On every continent. Indigenous children are most often the ones under attack, simply because their existence challenges America's reign of superiority. Until our culture learns to value human life over currency & power, this will be our reality.

True, a country built on dehumanization is likely to perpetuate cycles of violence. There is hope though, because culture is not set in stone! We are subject to it, but we also shape it. Banning weapons is not culture shaping, it is just law. Shaping culture starts with how we educate our youth on how to place value on community & our place in Mother Nature. & we must speak truthfully about our history. Do not lose hope, fam. Let's get educated on this issue of violence...

Even at home, we criminalize our youth before they even know how to read, destining them for a future in prison or 6 feet under. Do you value all life the same? Do you think things have no value except as commodity? Do you think children whose parents don't like America's policies of violence deserve to die? Let's change what we teach our future generations so that they don't have to wake up everyday in the middle of multiple wars. All it takes is a willingness to change how we treat each other & how we perceive ourselves. Life is too beautiful to keep robbing children of their futures. Peace.