US 'Legitimate Gun Owners' told to Leave NRA,

True. The beliefs of the NRA are based on the beliefs of nuts like Wayne LaPierre, not typical gun owners. I can understand the side that says assault weapons should be allowed and I understand the side that wants them banned. However, I refuse to listen to people like Mr. LaPierre rant on like a madman about how teachers should walk around grade schools with a gun strapped to them. If these crazies got their way people would be walking around the streets with their fingers on the trigger of an AK-47.
It is the responsibility of the common sense gun owner to rise up and strike down the NRA's crazy beliefs. Sorry if that is unfair but it's the way it has to be. If common sense gun owners would choose to come forward with the same tenacity as the NRA and debate gun rights in an intelligent way, we'll have a better shot at creating common sense gun laws that lower the amount of US violence while upholding the 2nd amendment.

 

Look it up...I realize the Home office changed their system of recording such stats every year for a decade after they did the gun grab before they settled on the system they have now, If you go to the metropolitan police site and simply look up reported crimes, all will become clear.

 

Why is a gun rights advocate a "nut" or "crazy"? What is the problem with armed security protecting defenseless children? The NRA supports basic gun safety, so people would not be walking around with their "finger on the trigger". What is the problem with military STYLE weapons? They are actually less powerful than the average hunting rifle. And why can people not take the second amendment in the context in which it was written? At the time the average military rifle was the same as those used for hunting.

If you disagree with me feel free to tell me what I was wrong about and why. I am here to better understand those people that disagree with me.

 

Gun should be strictly controlled. Let us see New Town, CT tragedy, in Dec. 2012. That gunman's mother had multiple guns. Why allow his mother had so many guns? Gun is not toy.

 

lol... Maybe we define things differently. Someone who commits a shooting is generally considered a criminal.

 

Try reading the link within my link.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf

 

I'm sure people thought the same way about drugs. It hasn't been very successful, has it?

By the way, I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian (on social issues, anyway).

Unlike social liberals, I don't believe that government is the solution to everything. I also don't believe that the actions of the few can be used to justify restricting the rest of society.

I know how much people like yourself fear guns, but to me, it's just as illogical as conservatives who fear drugs.

What I fear is when other people use their own fears to restrict my life when I haven't done anything wrong. If I want a rifle, why should I be restricted from having one if I never kill anyone with one?

By the same token, if I want to smoke a joint, why should the government prevent me from doing so?

 

They're called facts. If you don't like them, don't read them.

 

Good post Serfin. Bans never work for religion, alcohol, drugs, sex, or weapons. Or rock`n roll.

 

I love the hysterics.

 

Oh dear, well if that were the case we should definitely be seeing gun violence and crime go up everywhere that introduces gun-control in every other civilised First World nation, right? Oh no! It appears crime has gone down, gun crime has dropped staggeringly.

Strangely enough the UK is no different.

Homicide has gone down in the last 10 years. Gun-crime has gone down significantly, so much so that you gun-nuts had to include airsoft and immitation gun statistics just so it wouldn't look like it was working. Englands problems have nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with it's crime, which would exist regardless of firearms. Mysteriously enough that if the UK had increased firearms, gangs would have readily available access to them on top of the increased crime, something that didn't change when guns were there.

But it's typical gun-nut logic that thinks one nation, which has a huge amount of problems unrelated to firearms, having high crime somehow (magically) refutes every other civilised nation in the world in which gun-control irrefutably works.

Worse still is the gun-nut logic that somehow crime relates in any way to mass shootings due to readily available firearms, a huge increase in accidental deaths and injuries due to firearms and a large amount of suicides related to firearms (which strangely enough people don't tend to do because most other outs are more painful or complicated).

Perhaps you can clammer on and on about how "hurr UK" refutes to rule. But it doesn't change reality. Nor does complaining about "liberal myths" changes facts, logic and evidence over romanticised gun utopias.

And for the fourth time, you idiots need to stop using Switzerland as an example of no gun-control.

Switzerland has an INCREDIBLE amount of gun-control. Gun-control that would scare even the most "liberal" gun-nut.

If anything, Switzerland is THE example of what a well regulated militia is meant to be. In fact, as long as you nuts adhered to strict regulations and firearm safety Switzerland requires of it's firearm users, nobody would have a problem if you chose to interpret 'well regulated milita' and followed the Switzerland model in protecting your nation.

But you refuse to. You'll use Switzerland, a nation of incredible gun control, as an example where unregulated access to firearms works instead of gun-control while simultaneously using the UK's crime rate as an example of gun-control failing, despite it being surrounded by nations where gun-control has overwhelmingly worked. It would be hilarious if your deliberate ignorance and lobbying didn't help the Sandy Hook shooter have easy access to firearms from his fellow gun-nut mother.

 

I never meant that all gun rights advocates are nuts and crazies, I apologize if that's what it came across as. In my opinion there are both nuts & reasonable people on the pro-gun side, and nuts and reasonable people on the gun control side. Obviously not all NRA members are crazy or bad people, but not all of them agree with the NRA leader either.

The "finger on the trigger comment" wasn't meant to be taken literally, as in they promote people walking around with their fingers physically on the triggers. If the NRA teaches gun safety then good for them. That's a good thing. I disagree with the NRA's politics, not every move they make.

Okay, for an example: say you were going to shoot up a place. You could either take a gun that has a little less power, but holds a lot of ammunition and can get off many rounds quickly. Or a hunting rifle that packs more of a punch per shot but can only hold 1 or a few bullets and takes much more time to reload. I know if I was in that place I'd hope you would bring the hunting rifle because my chances of survival greatly increase. (and to anyone reading this I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting the person I'm talking to would commit any act like this. It is just an example to express my point)

True about the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. But that's the thing, isn't it? Guns didn't varry much back then. There was no assault rifles or anything of that nature. So obviously they didn't have that in mind when writing the amendment. Now on the other hand, I don't go with the crowd that says the 2nd amendment should only protect hunting rights. The 2nd amendment obviously wasn't written for that. Because back then if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat!

Don't get the idea that I'm a big anti-gun liberal. Guns are the one issue I'm more to the middle on. I think people have the right to protect themselves, and I wouldn't arm them with a single shot rifle to do so. I in no way agree with a handgun ban. I don't even agree completely with the assault weapons ban, but it's something I'm considering. What we need to do is pass sensible laws that prevent gun violence. Background checks, mental evaluations for the more dangerous weapons, closing the gun show loophole, stuff like that.

The NRA said that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. That's true. But what is even better is to prevent the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place.

 

Then you find articles like this. To be fair, different countries use different measurements so sometimes it is not exactly apples to apples.


UK is violent crime capital of Europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

 

Ok, you obviously did not get the point. How many of the shooters who have gone on massacres had previous serious criminal records?

 

And of course the problem with that is that laws passed to do such a thing as keep guns out of the hands of criminals are just a benchmark for opportunity for the criminal. Look at David Gregory that waved a 30 round magazine on TV while interviewing LaPierre. Of course he is not a criminal but according to DC law he is since it is illegal to even possess one in DC. The law makes criminals of law abiding citizens for just owning something they will never use in a crime.

Another thing about the "assault weapons". That is a made up term that was used during the last "Assault Weapons Ban" and is now used as a pejorative for the most popular long rifle in America. Using the same inference, the rifles used during the revolution were "Assault Rifles" even more so because there was no difference between a rifle a civilian used and one the military used. Today's "Assault Weapon" are different than what the military uses (Which are Assault Rifles) in physical operation but are based on an action that has been around since before WWI and what almost all modern civilian pistols and rifles use. If anything, the 2nd Amendment means to allow civilians to own and operate the same small arms any opposing military may use for defense of the nation.

Like you said in essence, you wouldn't bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Same with the defense of one's own territory. The modern military has in no way made civilian defense obsolete. The same can be said of the defense against domestic enemies. A criminal is an enemy of society because they have broken the social contract and as such, have to be fought on an equal footing.

 

Most, if not all, have commonality. The ideological like the Ft Hood shooter, the psychotic like Loughner, or the socially disconnected like Lanza and they choose "gun free zones" to do their damage.

 

Maybe they're just emulating the big boys- defenceless Fallujah, Gaza etc. That's the sort of carnage which affects the weak minded, more so than shoot-em-ups or Hollywood. It's REAL slaughter of thousands, government-sponsored and government acclaimed. Mass-killers get medals for it, promotion too. How's a civilian social misfit supposed to differentiate ? A personal perspective.

 

“Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill all and you are a God.”

― Jean Rostand

 

He was being sardonic. He never meant the NRA dumbkins of the world to literally base their philosophy and profit margins on it .

 

Yes, and the facts, despite your statistical efforts to minimise this, are that since the 90's, there have been eight of these mass shooting incidents.

Indeed, there have been ten in total, in your recorded history. All of them since the end of WW2, and eight since the 90's. Does that not say something, to you? Do you not find that, at least, revealing of something? You can torture your stats to get them to tell you anything you wish, but if you are interested in solutions, you would consider what I have written.

 

Zxereus,
I caught that as well. It means that Mr. Hart is nothing more than a puppet for the "No-Gun" Leftists in this country. After all of J. Edgar Hoover did to thwart Black folks' rise to any type of power in this country, the Left has taken over and want to leave the entire population vulnerable to what they helped to create, THE CRIMINAL CLASSES OF AMERICA. Moreover, those of them who really believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE,seem to have forgotten that no one is FORCING them to buy weapons.

Yes, I used FREEDOM OF CHOICE when it comes to owning firearms because it is absolutely true. No one has ever forced me to purchase a weapon, nor will they ever. This question should be asked of the Leftists/Progressives when they claim that abortion, homosexual recognition, etc are freedoms. I ask them, what about the FREEDOM OF CHOICE of those who wish to own firearms? Does not their FREEDOM OF CHOICE matter?
I sincerely believe that ti has nothing to do with "gun control" and everything to do with controlling the population(s) of this nation.
As an aside, if you ask a firearms expert about "gun control", he or she will tell you that you should always have control of your gun. . .YUK YUK *smile*

 

Australia banned private gun ownership in 1996 and crime rates have risen since then.

 

I have to say, that it was actually a pleasure reading the cited post Hoosier8! BRAVO/HUAH!

 

Why let hsterics have a say in what she could buy? After all, its a fundamental right...

 

Not true at all. Look at how many innocent men, women and children have been killed in Los Angeles only because of gang violence and shootings. Take a gander at people being killed by criminals in Chicago, NYC, Newburgh NY, Newark NJ and elsewhere.Criminals kill anyone who is in the way of them obtaining what they have their minds set upon obtaining.