Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[maxpower]

Sure, you can't compare the ~12,000 gun related criminal acts per year to causes of NATURAL death. Meanwhile, cigarettes kill ~45,000 NON-SMOKERS, (ie: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SMOKE BUT ARE CONSTANTLY EXPOSED TO THE RETARDS WHO DO such as children whose parents smoke around them constantly, among others like the elderly) who end up dying from NOT ONCE SMOKING A CIGARETTE!

Now compare the ~45,000 non-smokers who died (in essence were murdered by those who smoked around them) versus, the ~12,000 violent deaths caused by gun murders. The other ~20,000 gun deaths caused by suicides and accidents, which in that case would be comparable with the people who DO SMOKE INTENTIONALLY and die every year (~443,000 dead annually) from this "suicidal/accidental" inhalation of death.

Now, if all you retards would stop ignoring this simple argument for the sake of your personal anti-gun hippie fuck agendas and note that CIGARETTES KILL MORE NON-SMOKERS ANNUALLY THAN EVERY GUN RELATED DEATH IN AMERICA ANNUALLY.

And laws have been enacted to put health warnings on cigarettes, limit their sales, and keep people from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

[kittyKaiti]

And laws have been enacted to put health warnings on cigarettes, limit their sales, and keep people from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

As if that has stopped the ~45,000 people annually from dying from second hand smoke. As if any laws regulating cigarettes actually stops children and youths from gaining access to them and smoking them anyway. As if any forms of prohibition have EVER worked in this nation without inducing a WAVE of black market and Mafia style criminal activity and illegal trafficking and higher rates of violence and crime. Ban all the guns you want but remember what the alcohol prohibition did. A black market for it was formed, run by violent and murderous mobsters. The banning of these guns will only take them from the law abiding citizens and the only people able to access them will be the criminals who will utilize these black markets to access them and then use them against said now disarmed law abiding citizens and the police and government regardless.

[Prospero]

"anti-gun hippie fuck agendas"

Yep - of course. rational argument. Thanks KittyKaiti. So eloquent....

[giovanni_hotel]

No one is talking about a BAN on firearms, but unfortunately that's all you gun lovers ever hear in these convos.

It's about enacting common sense restrictions on gun sales and ammo. No person realistically needs a 30+ round magazine clip. Buying a gun shouldn't be easier than obtaining a driver's license.

But it's cool.
The more I read, the more I'm finding out the NRA has become so militant pro-gun because of their 'relationship' with firearms manufacturers. The NRA's agenda IMO isn't about the 2nd Amendment and ALL about freaking out all the bubbas into purchasing vast quantities of firearms they don't realistically need.

There was a segment on MSNBC about how gun sales have dropped historically as more people move to urban areas and firearms manufacturers stumbled upon the idea, with the help of the NRA, to regularly scare the shit out of gun owners that politicians were trying to take away their guns.

Look at all the rhetoric and demagoguing directed at Pres. Obama and his 'secret agenda' to ban ALL privately owned guns. Never mind that Obama signed two gun control bills into law that reduce restrictions on gun owners,(allowing them to carry guns in checked baggage on Amtrak and allowing gun owners to take loaded firearms into national parks.)

WHen in doubt, follow the money.

[GroobySteven]

Ya, and all many of us Yanks hear is a bunch of brits trying to tell us how to live. How'd that work out the first time?

Have a pint and cool off..

Makes a change from a bunch of Yanks trying to tell the rest of the world how to live ... and failing time after time.

It worked out pretty well for us for the most part, if you must know. We live in a country which has a relatively low violence rate, not many gun deaths with a democracy that mostly works without the use of lobbyists. We also managed to get rid of most of the religious nutters by chasing them off to foreign lands - which is why gay marriage, pro/anti-abortion and the teaching of Darwin in schools is almost a non-issue.

Oh, AND we can get a pint in the pub at 18. So you can go and fight for your country, own an assault rifle in your country but you can't walk into the neighbourhood bar and order a beer? But that's another story about a country which basis it's laws on out of date historical papers, religious fervour and a cowboy culture.

[Stavros]

Nice "facts".. might one ask which year your stats are from?

Figure 2.3 Countries ranked by violent death rate per 100,000 population, 2004-09

Source: GBAV 2011 database

Figure 2.3(detail) Countries with average annual violent death rates of more than 30 per 100,000 population, 2004-09

Source: GBAV 2011 database

Lets stick to "real" facts...

It also a fact that the Global Burden of Armed Violence Index, in its own words states:
data on conflict and non-conflict deaths are assembled separately. The GBAV methodology therefore established two different datasets: one on intentional homicides (to cover non-conflict death) and one on direct conflict deaths

For this reason you will note that the tables copied by Faldur do not include the following countries:

1. Afghanistan
2. Algeria
3. Burundi
4. Central African Republic
5. Chad
6. Colombia
7. Côte d’Ivoire
8. Democratic Republic of the Congo
9. Ethiopia
10. Georgia
11. India
12. Indonesia
13. Iraq
14. Kenya
15. Lebanon
16. Myanmar
17. Nepal
18. Nigeria
19. Pakistan
20. Palestine
21. Philippines
22. Russian Federation
23. Somalia
24. Sri Lanka
25. Sudan
26. Thailand
27. Turkey
28. Uganda
29. Yemen
(GBAV 2011, Methodological Annexe)

The study also notes:
Lethal violence is strongly associated with negative development outcomes and is accompanied by low levels of
overall MDG achievement.
The higher the level of lethal violence recorded in a country, the larger its gap with respect to other countries in
terms of development.
A reduction in a country’s incidence of lethal violence corresponds with improved MDG performance across most
indicators.
High rates of intentional homicide are accompanied by significantly higher levels of extreme poverty and hunger (MDG 1),
lower primary education enrolment (MDG 2), and higher infant mortality and adolescent birth rates (MDGs 4 and 5).
Countries that report proportionately lower levels of income inequality and unemployment exhibit comparatively
lower levels of homicide.
States that feature lower levels of human development and income almost always report high and very high levels of
lethal violence.
Monitoring of armed violence should be integrated into routine MDG progress assessments and there is a need for
more investments in national data gathering capacities and observatories.
(Ch 5: More armed violence, less development).


I will leave it to you Americans to argue over the rising numbers of people leaving school barely able to read and write, the numbers living on food stamps because they are so poor; and the correlation of these social problems with homicides. The point being that you might want to assess the impact of firearms on the US population in the context of the USA, where 46 million people live below the poverty line -a line established by the US that is.

The full report, including a special report on Violence against Women, is here:
http://www.genevadeclaration.org/mea...ence-2011.html

[Stavros]

IDK when you look at historical examples, in nearly every case, a well motivated domestic insurgent force will wear down and defeat an occupying force. To quote Ho Chi Minh, "We will loose ten for every one of you that we kill. And it is you who will tire first."

According to our Founding Fathers, the militia is the people. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the Second Ammendment only mentions the militia (which is different than the National Army) while giving the people the right to firearm ownership.

If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been
most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.
– George Washington, September 1776

When you refer to the militia as 'the people' you are perverting historical fact for present-day purposes. In the Revolutionary War it would be better to think of the militias harassing the British in the countryside like guerilla bands, as well as being, as Washington indicated, an essential addition to the Continental Army (and not just because some of these militias fought with the CA at, for example, the Battle of Bunker Hill). If you think of the brave stand taken by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, bear in mind that they had been formed in the mid-17th century and that they were selected mostly young men who were then armd for the purposes of defence. Most definitely NOT 'the people' in its broadest sense:

Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.
(http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
or the book John Shy, A People Numerous & Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence, University of Michigan Press, 1990).

The 'armed militia' referred to in the 2nd Amendment were the armed militia that existed before the American Revolution; these were the 'guarantors' of local security that existed before the creation of police forces and the armed forces of the US, and continued to exist after the disbandmen of the Continental Army after the end of the revolutionary war.

Once again, 'the people' referred to are those selected to fight in an armed militia, not every Tom, Dick, Harry -and Jane.

[Stavros]

But that's another story about a country which basis it's laws on out of date historical papers, religious fervour and a cowboy culture.

I agree with most of what you say Seanchai, except that the Constitution, far from being out of date, is a living document that continues to play a crucial role in the development of law. Because of its values and principles, it is the reference point and justification for many issues -the controversy is over the interpretation of what the intentions of the authors of the Constitution were then, with realities today. That is also why American politics continues to fascinate an outside like me.

[yodajazz]

No one is talking about a BAN on firearms, but unfortunately that's all you gun lovers ever hear in these convos.

It's about enacting common sense restrictions on gun sales and ammo. No person realistically needs a 30+ round magazine clip. Buying a gun shouldn't be easier than obtaining a driver's license.

But it's cool.
The more I read, the more I'm finding out the NRA has become so militant pro-gun because of their 'relationship' with firearms manufacturers. The NRA's agenda IMO isn't about the 2nd Amendment and ALL about freaking out all the bubbas into purchasing vast quantities of firearms they don't realistically need.

There was a segment on MSNBC about how gun sales have dropped historically as more people move to urban areas and firearms manufacturers stumbled upon the idea, with the help of the NRA, to regularly scare the shit out of gun owners that politicians were trying to take away their guns.

Look at all the rhetoric and demagoguing directed at Pres. Obama and his 'secret agenda' to ban ALL privately owned guns. Never mind that Obama signed two gun control bills into law that reduce restrictions on gun owners,(allowing them to carry guns in checked baggage on Amtrak and allowing gun owners to take loaded firearms into national parks.)

WHen in doubt, follow the money.

Good points here! Fear allows certain people to make money. Despite a 200+ year legacy of democracy, we live in fear that a dictatorship may try to take us over. Iran, which doesnt have nukes or a delivery system might attack us, despite our 65+ year head start. That's fear based thinking. I never believed that Saddam Hussein was a treat to us, especially considering how many guns Americans own. But they used fear, to convince Americans that he needed to be taken down. Some people have made a lot of money, so your right.

[GroobySteven]

Not a fan of the Daily Mail but this is a good re-cap of everything and designed of course to pull at your heart for the senseless loss of these people's lives caused by ONE NUTCASE and the ability for him to access MULTIPLE ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS. Shame on those who support the purchase of these types of guns. You are fools buying into paranoia and the industries that create it, to profit from you. Shame on you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-massacre.html