Not in connecticut lol

I'm making a point to those who panic and say "gun violence is getting out of control and worse every day!" when in fact it has not increased at all and has in fact decreased in this decade and for most of the preceding decades.

Gun crime by the numbers tells a far different story than the media and politicians. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and about 13,000 were used to kill people last year. To take away the liberty of and to punish hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens and call it justice for these deaths is wrong. It benefits only two groups, politicians and criminals...er it only benefits one group.

Quote :

so clearly the problem is guns

Gun ownership at the time was extremely low compared to today. High powered weapons were mostly only affordable for criminal syndicates and the government. Local police had to buy their own weapons and could rarely afford anything more than a simple six-shot revolver. So I guess you could say the problem was the guns, but only that they were widely available to criminals and not to law-abiding citizens. The same problem comes as a result of banning guns, so if history repeats itself we can expect another record year of gun crime due to prohibition.

Another fun fact: ~40% of applications to buy a firearm in the US are denied because of criminal record or having been declared mentally unfit at some point.

Did you guys know the book titled "The Hunger Games" has approximately 20 people that die in it (many of them children), and it also takes place in Sandy Hook, Connecticut? And the author lives in the same town?

CONSPIRACYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

In fact I'm very surprised that Americans themselves are happy and they welcome new ideas like banning weapons and putting an armed officer to every school. With Obama trying so pass the gun resitriction, those massing shootings only support this idea in the public. Swiss families have at least one gun at home...

Not even US shitty police beats people to death and shoot them all the time, now they will be few steps of your children all the time. For their protection? Maybe. TSA is also supposed to be for your protection. Now a woman with her bottled breast milk can't get on a plane without having her milk radiated and is humiliated in front of others for minutes.

This has nothing to do with any conspiracy, those are facts.

Americans liking weapon ban: http://politicalticker.blogs.c ... n-restrictions/?hpt=hp_t2

Armed officers in schools (+ blaming video games): http://www.businessinsider.com ... k-school-shooting-2012-12

Brutal police everywhere...

Woman on the airport: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1h5Mvc3MM

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

There is near constant coverage of Israel and Palestine, though of course it's not as hyperbolic as the coverage of shootings like this. The conflict over there has been going on for more than 50 years. How are you surprised that a fresh new tragedy gets more coverage than a half-century-old undeclared war?

Actually the story that has been mooted for comparison in the UK press is the policy of drone strikes against civilians in Pakistan. Apparently 168 children dead so far. People who arrive at the scene of a drone strike to provide emergency assistance are also targeted. Funerals for the victims of drone strikes are also targeted.

There's not so much coverage of that in the western media. That's a lot more dead children, murdered by the US government.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Actually the story that has been mooted for comparison in the UK press is the policy of drone strikes against civilians in Pakistan. Apparently 168 children dead so far. People who arrive at the scene of a drone strike to provide emergency assistance are also targeted. Funerals for the victims of drone strikes are also targeted.

There's not so much coverage of that in the western media. That's a lot more dead children, murdered by the US government.

Drone strikes got quite a lot of coverage in the leadup to the Presidential election, actually. Not enough, though, I agree.

Quote from majod :

In fact I'm very surprised that Americans themselves are happy and they welcome new ideas like banning weapons and putting an armed officer to every school. With Obama trying so pass the gun resitriction, those massing shootings only support this idea in the public. Swiss families have at least one gun at home...

Not even US shitty police beats people to death and shoot them all the time, now they will be few steps of your children all the time. For their protection? Maybe. TSA is also supposed to be for your protection. Now a woman with her bottled breast milk can't get on a plane without having her milk radiated and is humiliated in front of others for minutes.

This has nothing to do with any conspiracy, those are facts.

Americans liking weapon ban: http://politicalticker.blogs.c ... n-restrictions/?hpt=hp_t2

Armed officers in schools (+ blaming video games): http://www.businessinsider.com ... k-school-shooting-2012-12

Brutal police everywhere...

Woman on the airport: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1h5Mvc3MM

Typically those in the USA who are for increased gun control are not those who are for guns in every classroom (something that was extremely ironically suggested by the NRA yesterday). Turning schools into bunkers is a completely retarded idea, and I can only think the NRA introduced it because they knew it would shift the conversation away from gun control.

Anyway, any sane person realizes that a complete eradication of guns is not only unfeasible but undesirable. Most of us only want the eradication of assault weapons and more thorough background checks/screenings on everything else. Along with easier access to mental health care, better gun education, and so on.

Anyway, for some perspective on mass shootings and the USA, I suggest you all check out this very informative piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... ngs-in-the-united-states/

Automatic weapons (or semi-auto with more than 6 shots prior to reload) should be heavily regulated even to the general public (including a gun ownership class). There's no real reason to get such a weapon to defend yourself even

Any semi-auto weapon should be denied to felons and the mentaly ill. Felons who have been clean for over 20 years out of jail should be permitted a muzzleloader though. I'm courious how many crimes have been commited with those

Quote from Cornys :

Any weapon should be denied to felons and the mentaly ill.

Fixed that for you.

It is already the case that felons and the mentally ill are limited in their access to guns but state laws vary. And as I said before assault weapons are the only type of weapons that can be used effectively against armored soldiers. I'm sure people in communites all around the world never thought they would be attacked by soldiers or targeted by their own government's military.

Things can change. The government will only go after gun owners to increase their own power. There are plenty of examples of governments first disarming and then subjugating or exterminating their citizens. With over 300,000,000 guns in the US it is unlikely to happen here, but that is the result of legislation made 200 years ago and exists in spite of what the government would prefer to exist as law today.

Quote from flymike91 :

It is already the case that felons and the mentally ill are limited in their access to guns but state laws vary. And as I said before assault weapons are the only type of weapons that can be used effectively against armored soldiers. I'm sure people in communites all around the world never thought they would be attacked by soldiers or targeted by their own government's military.

Things can change. The government will only go after gun owners to increase their own power. There are plenty of examples of governments first disarming and then subjugating or exterminating their citizens. With over 300,000,000 guns in the US it is unlikely to happen here, but that is the result of legislation made 200 years ago and exists in spite of what the government would prefer to exist as law today.

Can almost taste how badly you want this to actually happen.

100+ people in the U.S have died as a result of gun violence in the week following Sandy Hook.

http://huff.to/UjeKs8

Mass Shootings are tragic and grab the headlines but they shouldn't distract from the greater issue.

Why the fck would armored soldiers go after citizens, and why would you shoot them, you can't win that battle lol.
This messed up kid might've never done this shi* if there wasn't 20 weapons in his house.. reachable as a pack of milk.

I guess they don't talk about the Kosovo war in Serbia anymore.

@DWB I can't afford any of the weapons I'm talking about so I would be SOL. The US still provides the highest standard of living for the highest number of people in the world. I actually prefer it that way if you can believe that.

What the fck do you know about that, I don't know about that enough.. let alone you, stick to your own problems.

Quote :

let alone you, stick to your own problems

excellent point

I think i can comment on stupidity of guns being sold in Wallmart, it's a very simple situation while you had to google something like "argument against a serbian" and posted the first result..

I was simply astounded by you, a person who lives in a country that was ravaged by war turning and telling me that war is impossible.

Quote from flymike91 :

as I said before assault weapons are the only type of weapons that can be used effectively against armored soldiers.

And the government let you have those so you can be an effective militia and overthrow tyrannical rulers.

So I guess you're allowed to have jet fighters and tanks and stuff too? Or can they be defeated somehow by a bunch of fat dudes with goatees and assault rifles?

If tyranny became a real threat to the lives of US citizens, I think large portions of the military and police would turn against the federal government. That's just useless speculation of course.

And besides your argument is that because we don't have everything we should have nothing. It may be a regional difference of course, the best weapons available to citizens in the UK couldn't defend against one man mugging you in an ally.

Since you see US gun owners as fat and goatee'd, I guess I can share my mental image of defenseless Britons:

Quote from flymike91 :

And besides your argument is that because we don't have everything we should have nothing. It may be a regional difference of course, the best weapons available to citizens in the UK couldn't defend against one man mugging you in an ally.

Fortunately an 'ally' is someone who's on your side, so it would be two against one.

My point - apparently valid - is that if your argument is that automatic weapons are needed to give you power over your own government, they don't give you anywhere near enough power and you might as well not have them at all. Look how well the Taliban have been doing against the US military - you would have considerably less success because you don't have RPGs.

There's an old adage that applies here: "The first rule of a gun fight is to bring your gun."

The first rule of a gunfight is to not have one in the first place, IMO.