The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

In 2009, NRA lobbyists got a legislation to allow Carry in National Parks added onto the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. It was signed into law by President Obama. A three year old girl from Idaho was the first child to have died as a consequence of this law.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...kesman-al-nash

Dying from a gunshot is a violent way to go. We in the U.S. live in violent times. Our intentional gun-related homicide rate in 2010 was 2.97 per 100000 persons. The CDC doesn't have more recent statistics because NRA lobbyists pressed the passage of laws that forbid the CDC from researching gun violence in the U.S. We can only presume the NRA is afraid of the truth. The NRA also backed legislation to exempt firearms from product protection laws. If one child dies because of a faulty crib design, the crib is taken off the market. If 20 first and second graders, or a child in Yellowstone or any of the children mentioned in http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share , nothing happens. Even blind people have the right to concealed carry some places in the U.S. You can't make this shit up! Thank you NRA.

The 2012 intentional homicide rate in England was 0.07 per 100 000 persons. But golly-gee England and the U.S. are apples and oranges. You can't compare them. Sure you can. Here's how. If you visit England the chances that you'll die of an intentionally fired gunshot wound is 0.07 out of 100 000. In the U.S. your chances of getting killed by an intentionally fired bullet is 42 times higher. ( http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hip-world-list )

Just because our homicide rate went down a bit over the last couple of decades doesn't mean guns aren't a problem. People (including children) are injured, maimed or killed everyday in the U.S. by firearms. Gun accidents are a tangible problem as are suicides by gun.

Yet we have gun enthusiasts claiming simultaneously the U.S. is not violent, guns aren't a problem and we need to carry guns on our persons at all times (even in National Parks, on playgrounds and in schools) because we have to protect ourselves from violent persons carrying guns. See the problem?

Don't take your gun to town, son, leave your gun at home. Put a trigger lock on it, and lock in a cabinet. Better yet, just get rid of thing, it only increases the chance that you or a family member will be killed by it.

Johnny Cash - Dont Take Your Guns To Town - YouTube

Don't forget that the NRA also lobbied to allow people on the terrorist watch list the right to purchase and own a gun whether that person should have been on the list or not is another thing. But if we are in 'a war on terror' why would we want to allow our so called 'enemies' the right to own a firearm?

Also Mr. La Pierre said that at Sandy Hook there should have been a good guy with a gun, then at the Navy Yard he said there were not enough good guys with guns. Mr. La Pierre's answers for all of these gun deaths is the same more guns, but that always comes after someone dies, why cant we prevent the shooting? What is his answer to that? Not to mention that the Navy Yard shooter killed at least one security guard and took his weapon, was he not a good guy? So would Mr. La Pierre what to go to his family and tell them he is a criminal and had he been a better person he could have stopped the shooter?

Let us also not forget that there was an armed guard at Columbine and that did not stop anything. I have also heard of stories from schools that do have armed guards about how they sometimes forget to lock the safes, or they just forget it in the restroom or wherever.

People say that we should not compare the US with other countries, until we do. We compare ourselves with them all the time by saying that we have more 'freedoms' then other countries, but lets just leave out the bad stuff shall we. Because in 'Merica WERE #1, except in education, healthcare, freedom of the press, and other things that are either rights every person should have regardless of race, gender, or nationality, or things people say is our "'Merican 'freedom'".

How many more have to die before we do something to prevent it from happening again? If Sandy Hook is not it then I don't want to know what it will take to stop the killing.

We as a country say we defeated the Nazis because they were killing millions, we invaded Iraq because they were killing their own people and we almost went to war with Syria because they are killing their own people. Who is going to intervene to stop us from killing each other. I understand that those situations were done by the government against the people, but in this country the NRA has bought the government so they are just as much killing us a we are ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

In 2009, NRA lobbyists got a legislation to allow Carry in National Parks added onto the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. It was signed into law by President Obama. A three year old girl from Idaho was the first child to have died as a consequence of this law.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...kesman-al-nash

Dying from a gunshot is a violent way to go. We in the U.S. live in violent times. Our intentional gun-related homicide rate in 2010 was 2.97 per 100000 persons. The CDC doesn't have more recent statistics because NRA lobbyists pressed the passage of laws that forbid the CDC from researching gun violence in the U.S. We can only presume the NRA is afraid of the truth. The NRA also backed legislation to exempt firearms from product protection laws. If one child dies because of a faulty crib design, the crib is taken off the market. If 20 first and second graders, or a child in Yellowstone or any of the children mentioned in http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share , nothing happens. Even blind people have the right to concealed carry some places in the U.S. You can't make this shit up! Thank you NRA.

The 2012 intentional homicide rate in England was 0.07 per 100 000 persons. But golly-gee England and the U.S. are apples and oranges. You can't compare them. Sure you can. Here's how. If you visit England the chances that you'll die of an intentionally fired gunshot wound is 0.07 out of 100 000. In the U.S. your chances of getting killed by an intentionally fired bullet is 42 times higher. ( http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hip-world-list )

Just because our homicide rate went down a bit over the last couple of decades doesn't mean guns aren't a problem. People (including children) are injured, maimed or killed everyday in the U.S. by firearms. Gun accidents are a tangible problem as are suicides by gun.

Yet we have gun enthusiasts claiming simultaneously the U.S. is not violent, guns aren't a problem and we need to carry guns on our persons at all times (even in National Parks, on playgrounds and in schools) because we have to protect ourselves from violent persons carrying guns. See the problem?

Don't take your gun to town, son, leave your gun at home. Put a trigger lock on it, and lock in a cabinet. Better yet, just get rid of thing, it only increases the chance that you or a family member will be killed by it.

Johnny Cash - Dont Take Your Guns To Town - YouTube

---

Our homicide rate didn't drop by a bit. In the last two decades, our rate has dropped by more than 50%. You ever though why suicides have gone up in the last decade? But, it is the gun fault!

You mentioned that our gun-related homicide rate in 2010 was 2.97 per 100000 persons. You do realize that you are in fraction territory with that rate? You are more likely to get a STD than be murdered by a firearm in 2010. I guess if you are worried about that fraction of a percent, you don't step outside and live in a bubble.

By the way, you do know the story of Carey McWilliams? I got the feeling that you have no clue. He got his first CCW license in 2001. Currently, he has two CCW licenses (one for Utah and another for North Dakota). He can carry in other states too because of reciprocity.

I forgot to mention that Carey is legally blind. But But, Iowa is giving licenses to blind people. Keep up with the times. It has been going on for more than a decade.

Quote:

---

I guess if you are worried about that fraction of a percent, you don't step outside and live in a bubble.

---

Your point is that 20 school children is only 0.02% of 100 000 persons. It's perfectly safe out there. So why do you insist on concealed carry? Is it because of all the other idiots who are secretly carrying too? We have 42 times the intended gun homicides that England has, 42 X.

Quote:

---

Iowa is giving licenses to blind people.Keep up with the times. It has been going on for more than a decade.

---

And that's a good thing?! You can't make this shit up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Your point is that 20 school children is only 0.02% of 100 000 persons. It's perfectly safe out there. So why do you insist on concealed carry? Is it because of all the other idiots who are secretly carrying too? We have 42 times the intended gun homicides that England has, 42 X.

And that's a good thing?! You can't make this shit up!

---

Concealed carry is a right that can be exercised. Some people exercise the right but most don't exercise the right. Then again, most people don't exercise all their rights. 42X..the horror. I can't wait until you push for the United States to mimic Great Britain's transportation ways. Road fatalities in the US is 12.3 per 100,000 vs. Great Britain's road fatalities is 2.75 per 100,000. Less personal car usage with more public transportation and walking!!!!! It is for the children..of course.

Some blurb about Iowa and the world is coming to the end. However, the practice has been going on for more than a decade without much fan fair. Oh, I forgot that gun control is a popular subject now. Next, you are going to tell me that a man has walked on the moon before!!!!! :yayo:

Quote:

---

It is for the children

---

Indeed it is. Twenty first and second graders lying dead in pools of their own blood. Shot to death. Thank you NRA. 20 is only 0.02% of 100 000. Tell that to the parents, brothers and sisters of the dead.

When did our Country Become Dirty Harry? - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Our homicide rate didn't drop by a bit. In the last two decades, our rate has dropped by more than 50%. You ever though why suicides have gone up in the last decade? But, it is the gun fault!

You mentioned that our gun-related homicide rate in 2010 was 2.97 per 100000 persons. You do realize that you are in fraction territory with that rate? You are more likely to get a STD than be murdered by a firearm in 2010. I guess if you are worried about that fraction of a percent, you don't step outside and live in a bubble.

By the way, you do know the story of Carey McWilliams? I got the feeling that you have no clue. He got his first CCW license in 2001. Currently, he has two CCW licenses (one for Utah and another for North Dakota). He can carry in other states too because of reciprocity.

I forgot to mention that Carey is legally blind. But But, Iowa is giving licenses to blind people. Keep up with the times. It has been going on for more than a decade.

---

I don't think those are comparable stats. I mean, how people engage in sex with another person, during a given year? I'm attaching a poster, that was probably posted here before. The thinks listed here make better comparisons.

Two killed and two injured in a Nevada school shooting today. The shooter (a student) turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. Of course it wasn't the gun's fault. It had every right to be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Two killed and two injured in a Nevada school shooting today. The shooter (a student) turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. Of course it wasn't the gun's fault. It had every right to be there.

---

Over/Under for the next big shooting?

While the LA police were giving a demonstration at an elementary school a child pulls the trigger on AK-15 that was mounted on one of their motorcycles. Three children suffered shrapnel injuries. The weapon had several fail-safes that all seemed to have failed. Police are puzzled and have removed the mounted AK-15's from their other cycles until they figure out what went wrong. If only teachers had guns, this might have been prevented.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...arges-20662317

what fast approaching gun ban? Time and speed are very flexible concepts.

Then we have this. Thankfully major damage was averted...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ested/3176435/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

While the LA police were giving a demonstration at an elementary school a child pulls the trigger on AK-15 that was mounted on one of their motorcycles. Three children suffered shrapnel injuries. The weapon had several fail-safes that all seemed to have failed. Police are puzzled and have removed the mounted AK-15's from their other cycles until they figure out what went wrong. If only teachers had guns, this might have been prevented.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...arges-20662317

---

Didn't you get the memo? Law enforcement officers are the only ones professional enough to handle a firearm..:dancing:

What is a safety switch? I can guarantee that the officer didn't have the safety on. He probably thought he was being super awesome with the rifle having a round in the chamber with the safety off.

No, you can't. The safety may not have been functioning. But what the fuck is anyone doing bringing loaded AR-15's to a public school in the first place?!

Maybe every school should have its own Tank. America, it's time. No, not a fish tank.

What about flamethrowers?

They are retiring most of these. Why not place them on school properties, to insure safety? No middle school-er could to stand up to their big guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Didn't you get the memo? Law enforcement officers are the only ones professional enough to handle a firearm..:dancing:

---

Riiiight. Because responsible, law-abiding civilian gun owners never experience accidental discharges.

It appears you've missed the point again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Riiiight. Because responsible, law-abiding civilian gun owners never experience accidental discharges.

It appears you've missed the point again.

---

I think he was being sarcastic. Changing the subject, with all the firearms in private hands, do you think a foreign army could come here and take over? The answer is no. So why do we need the world's largest government arsenal? The answer seems to be to exert power over other nations. And that power benefits large money interests, more than anyone else. It has very little to do with defense. But lots of people did not consider this, when the case for invading Iraq was put out.

I recently changed my Homeowner's Policy,.... A loaded shotgun by your bed, and an Attack Dog might do well to protect you from Intruders, but they also increase your annual Insurance Payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I recently changed my Homeowner's Policy,.... A loaded shotgun by your bed, and an Attack Dog might do well to protect you from Intruders, but they also increase your annual Insurance Payment.

---

LOL. Interesting to hear. Insurance companies, whatever one may think of them, tend not to be stupid. You mean they don't think your gun and dog will stave off a potential arsonist? Clearly their actuaries have not spoken to Lapierre.

Termites? Use a glock
Flooding? a .45
Roving arsonists? a Desert Eagle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Riiiight. Because responsible, law-abiding civilian gun owners never experience accidental discharges.

It appears you've missed the point again.

---

Please try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

No, you can't. The safety may not have been functioning. But what the fuck is anyone doing bringing loaded AR-15's to a public school in the first place?!

---

If the safety isn't working, the fault is with the officer for not checking if he has a defective rifle. Sort of like an officer carrying a firearm on his hip? Most police vehicles have a shotgun or an ar in the trunk. The motorbike was the vehicle for the officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

What about flamethrowers?

---

Legal in some states and illegal in other states. There is no federal law criminalizing the possession of a flamethrower.

You yourself assumed the safety was working. You offered your guarantee :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

While the LA police were giving a demonstration at an elementary school a child pulls the trigger on AK-15 that was mounted on one of their motorcycles. Three children suffered shrapnel injuries. The weapon had several fail-safes that all seemed to have failed. Police are puzzled and have removed the mounted AK-15's from their other cycles until they figure out what went wrong. If only teachers had guns, this might have been prevented.

---

It's rather unfair if we don't issue guns to the kids as well. Teachers can be a threat to kids. So let everyone be armed (concealed of course, and no limit on the firepower) - let half the country want to hark back to some golden age of capturing the West, lynching, racial hatred (don't forget commies, and anyone else with different views), put God in there some where (well, my God and not yours!), a belief that we can screw the Earth and all its resources - let 'em fight it out. Please just let the rest of us get on with our lives and our civilization.

Just a thought

Or build these. It seems to be what you want. "Fast Approaching" - no way. Each generation will grow up in a society that believes guns and their use is normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Please try again.

---

OK. Please do try to make an effort at comprehension this time.

Firearms are dangerous. Whether the weapon is in the hands of a trained law-enforcement professional, or a toddler, or a highly experienced civilian enthusiast, or a deeply disturbed adolescent.

As we've seen from this regrettable story in LA, the countless other stories of accidental discharges, the steady drumbeat of active-shooter stories, the decimation of two generations of African-American men, and now this timely data showing that U.S. hospitals admit 7,500 children for gunshot wounds every year, being in close proximity to a firearm increases the likelihood that you will be injured or killed.

Again, and to the chagrin of the NRA's marketing campaign, it does not matter who is holding the firearm. Being near a firearm makes it more likely that you will be injured or killed by a firearm. It is simply an epidemiological fact. Arthur Kellerman been demonstrating this fact for 20 years now, for anyone wishing to have an evidence-based discussion.

Interesting that you completely blew by buttslingers point regarding his homeowners insurance. Insurance companies have no interest in spin, they just want to maximize profits. Actuarial tables are completely non-partisan. Insurers are simply looking at clear data showing showing that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that they will have to pay out a policy.

Because firearms are dangerous. Period.

Here's a link to Dr. Kellermans 1993 study

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

and (in blue) a brief snippet therefrom...(boldface italics are mine)...

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.



Conclusions

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Do any of you gun owners have a pair of these? For the gun, I mean...


http://images.dangerousminds.net/upl...z222obrgbr.jpg

http://images.dangerousminds.net/upl...oin2o4fn42.jpg

http://www.newser.com/story/176812/t...pals-yard.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

OK. Please do try to make an effort at comprehension this time.

Firearms are dangerous. Whether the weapon is in the hands of a trained law-enforcement professional, or a toddler, or a highly experienced civilian enthusiast, or a deeply disturbed adolescent.

As we've seen from this regrettable story in LA, the countless other stories of accidental discharges, the steady drumbeat of active-shooter stories, the decimation of two generations of African-American men, and now this timely data showing that U.S. hospitals admit 7,500 children for gunshot wounds every year, being in close proximity to a firearm increases the likelihood that you will be injured or killed.

Again, and to the chagrin of the NRA's marketing campaign, it does not matter who is holding the firearm. Being near a firearm makes it more likely that you will be injured or killed by a firearm. It is simply an epidemiological fact. Arthur Kellerman been demonstrating this fact for 20 years now, for anyone wishing to have an evidence-based discussion.

Interesting that you completely blew by buttslingers point regarding his homeowners insurance. Insurance companies have no interest in spin, they just want to maximize profits. Actuarial tables are completely non-partisan. Insurers are simply looking at clear data showing showing that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that they will have to pay out a policy.

Because firearms are dangerous. Period.

---

Where did I say firearms aren't dangerous? Your comprehension and lack of firearm history is lacking. Have you ever watched the video of the BAFTE agent shooting himself in the leg after claiming that he was the only professional one to handle a firearm? It was a very popular video for years. My comment was a quip. Ultimately, in the AR-15 discharge case, it was the officer fault for the gun to discharge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Where did I say firearms aren't dangerous?

---

Well, you've been arguing for several weeks now that the answer to gun violence is more guns. If you're finally ready to acknowledge that firearms are dangerous regardless of who wields them, then you've rendered your prior argument nonsensical. The way to reduce violence is to commit more acts of violence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Your comprehension and lack of firearm history is lacking.

---

LOL

Meanwhile the violence continues as a shooter kills a TSA worker at LAX and injures others

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ng-others?lite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Well, you've been arguing for several weeks now that the answer to gun violence is more guns. If you're finally ready to acknowledge that firearms are dangerous regardless of who wields them, then you've rendered your prior argument nonsensical. The way to reduce violence is to commit more acts of violence?

---

What are you talking about you? I have never claimed that they aren't dangerous. I have called them a tool but I haven't said they aren't dangerous. Your whole post is nonsensical. I haven't called for mandatory firearm ownership to combat gun violence. I have favored responsible ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. For example, self-defense from bodily harm or hunting. :confused:

Quote:

---

I have favored responsible ownership of firearms for lawful purposes.

---

So you favored legislation that attempted to limit the sale of firearms to only responsible buyers? You favored legislation that sought to require background checks and eliminate loopholes? Or have you spoken against laws that encourage responsible gun ownership? :shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So you favored legislation that attempted to limit the sale of firearms to only responsible buyers? You favored legislation that sought to require background checks and eliminate loopholes? Or have you spoken against laws that encourage responsible gun ownership? :shrug

---

+ Legislation requiring trigger locks when not in use? Legislation requiring guns be locked in safes when not in use? These always seemed like reasonable laws that every proponent of responsible gun ownership would be behind.

So while browsing Twitter this evening, this happened in New Jersey. SMDH...

http://rt.com/usa/new-jersey-mall-shooting-218/

At 2:30 in the morning nineteen year old Renisha McBride (who worked at Ford Motor Company) needed help. Her car was in a ditch and her cell phone battery was dead. So she walked up onto the porch of the nearest house and knocked on the door. No answer. Giving up, she turned to leave when a load of buckshot blasted through her head and killed her on the spot. A neighbor, speaking for the shooter said he was scared and that he thought the girl was going to break in.

Apparently some American’s believe the castle doctrine gives them a double O license to indiscriminately kill (or discriminately depending on your definition). I’m sure the shooter thinks of himself as a responsible gun owner. If this quiveringly fearful, responsible gun owner had only thought to call 911. After all, that’s all Renisha wanted. Before you’re allowed to own a gun, you should first prove you own a functioning brain.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/0...-neighborhood/

^^^So awful. Heartbreaking, awful, senseless, stupid, and obscene. Unless more facts come to light (I don't expect them to, but we are all obviously held to drawing conclusions only from what we read), that has to be murder. Shooting someone seeking help after phone and car trouble?

Thank you for sharing that Trish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

At 2:30 in the morning nineteen year old Renisha McBride (who worked at Ford Motor Company) needed help. Her car was in a ditch and her cell phone battery was dead. So she walked up onto the porch of the nearest house and knocked on the door. No answer. Giving up, she turned to leave when a load of buckshot blasted through her head and killed her on the spot. A neighbor, speaking for the shooter said he was scared and that he thought the girl was going to break in.

Apparently some American’s believe the castle doctrine gives them a double O license to indiscriminately kill (or discriminately depending on your definition). I’m sure the shooter thinks of himself as a responsible gun owner. If this quiveringly fearful, responsible gun owner had only thought to call 911. After all, that’s all Renisha wanted. Before you’re allowed to own a gun, you should first prove you own a functioning brain.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/0...-neighborhood/

---

I saw this article online, and immediately thought about posting it here. To me, at this moment, it's about people living in a spirit of fear. There is a well known Bible passage which reads; "God did not give us the spirit of fear, but of a sound mind." In this case, a sound mind would have been to consider possibilities, before using deadly force. I can't help but reflect on how Jesus, used the the example of helping a stranger, under stress, as the example of a godly person, in his story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Than there is "love thy neighbor, as thyself". We have been sold this bill of goods called fear. It is not a good thing.