Hardly rates being a news story these days...

Report: At least four dead, up to 30 people shot at temple near Milwaukee; possible child hostages (http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/report-up-to-people-shot-at-temple-near-milwaukee-possible/article_ddfa7b8e-df19-11e1-8b30-001a4bcf887a.html?comment_form=true)

Looks like the shooter (one they know of for sure) was taken down by the first Officer on the scene. The Officer took fire and is in the hospital with injuries. The shooter is down though.

Media has been told to stay away and not broadcast any images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5FT3IGXtAk&feature=player_detailpage

Reports are confused regarding the number of shooters, etc.

Waiting for more clarity regarding this.

So the target was a Jewish Temple. Who would do such a thing? Nazis? Muslims? We'll see, won't we?

No, Sikh temple. Not anything to do with the Jews.

Bet none of you heard about this either.

RV PARK KILLINGS: 'Witness shooter' recounts shootout with gunman who killed two in Early | News - Home (http://www.ktxs.com/news/RV-PARK-KILLINGS-Witness-shooter-recounts-shootout-with-gunman-who-killed-two-in-Early/-/14769632/15933066/-/30wo2o/-/index.html)

Shooter who aided officer gives his account of Peach House RV Park incident - YouTube

In that case, c-p, if it weren't a firearm it definitely would have been something else. We see that sort of thing around the world on a regular basis.

Didn't have the facts, yet. Just assumed 'Temple' meant Jewish.

Lived in a town, Yuba City, California, for a while, that was about 15% Sikh. God how they hated Muslims!

Used to enjoy spinning them up about it when I filled up at their gas stations.

"They're building a new Mosque over the ridge to Napa", I'd say. The response was always a rant of heated invective. Given Sikh history at the frontline of Islam, I understood.

As an aside, the more Sikhs you have in your community, the better off you are. They are a superb culture and raise marvelous children.

Well, some reports are saying that one of the attackers, if there are more than one, is "white, heavy built, 30's" so that could open up all sorts of possibilities to the motive behind this.

Best wait for more info, methinks.

Bet none of you heard about this either

And I bet you never heard about this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183988/Merseyside-shooting-Four-teenagers-treated-gun-shot-wounds.html)one either, Con.

God how they hated Muslims!

Oddly enough, to the uneducated, Sikh's are often mistaken for Muslim.

That may explain some of it.

Indeed, 11fan, or it may have nothing to do with anything like that.

Best wait until things cool down a bit, as I said, it's a bit fluid at the moment.

it may have nothing to do with anything like that.

Indeed Hellsbrink.

That may explain some of it.

I was directing my comment towards BandAide's observation as opposed to today's tragedy.

Ahh, sorry. Easy to get that one wrong, if you think about it.

But I think it's safe to say the reasons for the hatred run FAR deeper than that

"The officer was shot multiple times. He has been transported to a local hospital and is expected to survive. The shooter was put down."

Not sure if that last sentence means the same in American English as it does in the UK?

Sikh's are often mistaken for Muslim

True. But they are as far from Muslim as you can get on this green Earth.

Ask a Sikh and he will warn you profusely about the danger Islam poses.

Not sure if that last sentence means the same in American English as it does in the UK?


As in putting down a mad dog? Yes it does, however, I don't know just how that term was used in context. Where did that quote come from? I didn't see it in the link on the original post.

Looks like the shooter (one they know of for sure) was taken down by the first Officer on the scene.
From the link in the opening post:-
The suspected shooter later died in an exchange of gunfire with police.

A report is claiming only one gunman.

He and his possible motive has not been identified.

Well goodness....Vic Stacy is a genuine Hero. Case in point of why an Armed Citizen, properly trained and experienced in handling firearms, while legally owning and having a firearm close to hand can save lives. Yet another proof of why our Second Amendment needs to be protected from over zealous Progressives and Ban the Gun Nutcases!

A 165 yard shot with a handgun and get a hit.....is pretty darn good shooting!

If he got three more....he is a real sharp shooter!

The old Gentleman sure seems very low key about it all.

Disarming good folks like Mr. Stacy is the exact wrong way of going about reducing gun crime. Disarming the crooks and thugs is the right way.

As in putting down a mad dog? Yes it does, however, I don't know just how that term was used in context. Where did that quote come from? I didn't see it in the link on the original post.

The quote was there, I copied and pasted it verbatim from the article at the time. It looks like the article has subsequently been amended as the story develops.

The DT is running the story with the same quote....

Gunman killed by police after killing 6 worshippers at Sikh temple - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9454236/Gunman-killed-by-police-after-killing-6-worshippers-at-Sikh-temple.html)

In these cases....perhaps the outcome should be the same in both situations!

You have to admit it sure simplfies things by the Killer getting whacked by the Good Guys....no incarceration, no Public Defender expense, no fancy trial, no expensive appeals, no long term imprisonment, and no cost attendant to a formal execution.

Just a few dollar worth of bullets, a body bag, quick autopsy, and a cremation and paupers burial if the Next Of Kin don't want the body.

Case Closed by Smith and Wesson!

G-CPTN,

My original comments....
Looks like the shooter (one they know of for sure) was taken down by the first Officer on the scene. The Officer took fire and is in the hospital with injuries. The shooter is down though.
....were based on a live news feed that was going on. It was a local Police Chief who stated that the first responder on the scene was the one who took out the shooter, quite possibly after being shot himself.

As for this quote, that could be taken singular or plural. "Later" is relative.

The suspected shooter later died in an exchange of gunfire with police.

Didn't know if that required clarification or not, nevertheless, there it is.

Either way, the shooter died of lead poisoning.

The quote was there, I copied and pasted it verbatim from the article at the time. It looks like the article has subsequently been amended as the story develops.

Happens all the time actually. They just don't have the Edit Fairy like we do here.

No problem at all. He was exercising his second amendment right (as mis-interpreted by nutjobs).

The quote was there, I copied and pasted it verbatim from the article at the time. It looks like the article has subsequently been amended as the story develops.


Okay, thanks I see it in the second link you posted. So I'd say it was most likely not originally written in the sense that you and I took it, as putting down mad dog. But an editor saw it and changed the wording.

That's my guess.

Most likely in ended up a case of suicide by cop.

Just like recent Aurora massacre , newspapers are reporting that this one was also carried out by a white terrorist . :ugh:

Do you think the Media would call a person of color a Terrorist? Remember Obama has decreed there shall be no mention of a War on Terror or anything derogatory about Islam, Islamists, or the New Black Panther Party....so the media has to dig to find something to hype!

More folks got murdered in Chicago this weekend probably but that is usually done by Street Gangs.....do you ever hear about those killings?

Rahmbo wants Chick-fil-a out of Chicago because it does not share Chicago Values....but only asks the street thugs to leave the children out of the line of fire.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel Appeals To Chicago's Gangster's Values (DETAILS) | Global Grind (http://globalgrind.com/news/chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-appeals-chicagos-gangsters-values-details#ixzz20JT8r1iW)

That is some great logic for you!

During the night hours of July 21st....and early morning hours of July 22nd....Chicago had 22 people shot....3 Dead....19 wounded.....and bragged that only 49 murders happened during July.

Great place that Chicago!


Tracking homicides in Chicago - Tracking homicides in Chicago | RedeyeChicago.com (http://homicides.redeyechicago.com)

When there's a shooting at a Sikh temple in India, they go whole hog. "Operation Blue Star" in Amritsar, 1984".

SASless What are you on .....and.....on about ??

You are trying to justify one wrong while giving examples of another wrong :=

The thread is about temple shootings and no doubt that guy who did it is a terrorist ... move on now .

cresta10

The thread is about temple shootings and no doubt that guy who did it is a
terrorist ... move on now .


The thread title led me to believe it was about Milwaukee.

The thread is about temple shootings and no doubt that guy who did it is a terrorist ... move on now .

No, the thread is about a shooting which just happened to occur in a Sikh temple, and since the police and FBI have not actually stated anything along the lines that it WAS "terrorism" of any kind, then your claim about the guy "who did it" is just speculation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has taken over the investigation, John Edwards, chief of the Oak Creek Police Department, said in a televised briefing.
“While the FBI is investigating whether this matter might be an act of domestic terrorism, no motive has been determined at this time,” Teresa Carlson, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Milwaukee office, said in a prepared statement.


Read more: Sikh Temple Shooting in U.S. Probed as (http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Sikh-Temple-Shooting-in-U-S-Probed-as-3765055.php#ixzz22lADHBc9)

And, as SASless pointed out, why no bruhaha over the multiple killings in Chicago in one night, the shotgun attack on teenagers in Liverpool at the weekend or the report that C-P posted where the bad guy was taken out by an armed civilian?

This is about one shooting incident of many....actually about a very small but sad shooting.

Immediately upon the report of a "White" guy shooting some Indians....the media lept to the conclusion based upon nothing to support that....that it was Domestic Terrorism event.

They did that with Phoenix and again in Aurora....as the DHS under Big Sis have labelled just about every group of white boys down to the Boy Scouts potential right wing terrorists.

She did so without any justification.... and included returning Veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq amongst that grouping.

My point is simple....the thread said courtesy of Milwaukee....suggesting there is something about that City that caused the shooting.

Chicago has horrible gun violence as does Washington DC our Nations Capital....but the Media ignores that as it indicts their agenda. When an upstanding citizen uses a legally owned and carried firearm to protect themselves or others....those stories get ignored.

For crapsakes....the Democrat Mayor of Chicago asked the thugs to find ways to leave innocent young children out of their street war! That is how sad the situation is....never mind law and order, never mind getting aggressive combatting the direct causes of the violence, never mind handcuffing the Police so as to make it impossible for them to seek out and deal with the Thugs.....we have a war on our streets that is creating TERROR in our cities....and the State Run Media ignores it! The government is failing to combat the Terrorists....and now we see all sorts of hype about this shooting in Milwaukee!

That is my point.....and I shall not move on as some of you request.

We are discussing the shooting of good people by a bad person. The issue is not limited to this one incident. There is a huge problem with people being killed and wounded by guns. The Progressives want to disarm the innocent law abiding people and make them defenseless against the violent thugs who target the weak. They shall use this event just like all the others to push that agenda and we will hear the same out of way too many of you here.

If we are going to discuss the Milwaukee shooting....let's stick to the facts shall we.

It may be a domestic terrorism event if the evidence is found that there was some political motive to the shooting. It might even get tagged a "Hate Crime" if there was no political motive but is found the Shooter did not like Sikh's and had indicated he did it because of a dislike for them as a group. More likely we shall find he was a guy who went off the track and picked the Sikhs more as a target of opportunity.

It matters not one whit why he did the shooting....the loss of life and injuries is a tragedy, but is only a part of the problem we are confronted with in this country due to our path down the road of Political Correctness, Multi-culturalism, abdication of traditional values, and the neutering of our law enforcement agencies. When Chicago has more people killed in one night and many more wounded than the shooting in Milwaukee....we have to put it into perspective. Sadly....it was no big deal in the scheme of gun violence in this country.

Motive hypothesis: shooter came home one day and found the missus in a vigorous shagging session with a Sikh neighbor. He decided "to kill them all" as a result.

Would that be a hate crime, or a crime of passion? :p

More likely we shall find he was a guy who went off the track and picked the Sikhs more as a target of opportunity.

Or, of course, he is one of the many in various countries who think Sikhs are "Muslim" because of the beard and the turban (never underestimate the capabilities of "stupid", as seen in the UK on a regular basis up to the point where a paediatrician had an attack on his property because some knucklescraper saw "paed" on the sign and thought it meant "paedophile").

Or, of course, he could have been one of those who converted to Islam and had been "brainwashed" by others into thinking Sikhs were somehow the "enemy".

Or, of course, he's maybe had some sort of bad experience with a Sikh (business deal rip off, etc) which has pushed him over the edge to the point where they are all part of some sort of "conspiracy".

Or, or, or........ The list could be endless


I see reports have changed from the assailant carrying two handguns to him using a full automatic (according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sikh-temple-shooter-was-military-veteran-who-lived-nearby/2012/08/06/648d8134-dfbd-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html) who use the term "sprayed AUTOMATIC-WEAPON fire), so I guess people can shut up about "second amendment rights" as full autos are BANNED in Wisconsin.

The assailant has also been named by CBS. No other information available as yet.

The truth hurt, ExXB?

After all, nobody has made one comment on the shooting of some teenagers in Bootle on Saturday night.

Why not? Why should this one be somehow "more important" than all the other daily shootings around the world?

Bringing in more reports, it seems that the assailant has had at least one felony conviction in the past and his house in North Carolina was foreclosed on with him being the subject of a default notice by Wells Fargo. Seems he may have been having "girlfriend troubles" too and only moved to his current apartment 2 weeks ago.

I think a lot of you are confused about what constitutes "news". It seems pretty obvious to me the the situation outlined in Chicago with a daily toll of gang-related gun casualties is hardly "news" - by definition it can't be if it happens every day. On the other hand it's pretty obvious that a mass killing (if six can be considered a mass-killing) in a Sikh temple, whoever the perpetrator, is an unusual occurrence and therefore "news" No-one is saying that the deaths are more or less tragic in the two different scenarios - just that some are more newsworthy.

We have the same situation in the UK where railway fatalities are now so unusual that a single fatal rail accident will top the news headlines for weeks, whilst the daily toll of deaths on the roads goes unremarked.

That's journalism, like it or loathe it.

And there be the problem, TTN, for if it is hardly "news" (how much coverage did the shootings in Bootle on Saturday get?) then it gets brushed under the carpet, it gets ignored and people start to think that all is "happy" in their corner of the world, they don't turn round and start asking WHY these things are so common.

If people ignore it, this cancer on our societies will not go away, it will only grow further. And by the time people take notice and go "ENOUGH", it will be far too late.

this cancer on our societies will not go away, it will only grow further


Indeed. Why, only today someone actually threw a bottle on to the track at the Olympics.

And he regretted sitting next to a Dutch Judoka.

But that incident got more coverage than the shooting in Bootle.........

“While the FBI is investigating whether this matter might be an act of domestic terrorism, no motive has been determined at this time,” Teresa Carlson, Special Agent in Charge with the agency’s Milwaukee division, said in a statement Sunday night.

The guy was discharged from the US Army for "Less Than Honorable" service.

Now how much you want to bet the Army knew this guy had problems and rather than deal with the situation....they booted him out into the civilian world without any notice to civilian authorities!

I saw the Navy and Marine Corps do this time after time....just so they could say we do not have those kinds of problems. We used to say the guy got a Big Chicken Dinner and a ticket home. (BCD= Bad Conduct Discharge).

If so...that is another bunch of murders we can chalk up to the Government.

The guy was discharged from the US Army for "Less Than Honorable" service.

Not quite. According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/06/authorities-search-for-motive-in-deadly-shooting-at-wisconsin-sikh-temple/) he got a discharged "under honorable conditions", which is "less than" an "Honorable Discharge" but not a "Dishonorable Discharge". Seems sources are saying that the reasons were "patterns of misconduct", like being drunk on duty and so forth, but nothing that would be a Big Chicken Dinner. His trial and conviction in 94, with a 90 day suspended sentence, for "criminal mischief" would have contributed to that.

Also, how in hell's name would the Army have any knowledge that someone would do something like this FOURTEEN YEARS after his discharge?

Didn't have the facts, yet. Just assumed 'Temple' meant Jewish.

Lived in a town, Yuba City, California, for a while, that was about 15% Sikh. God how they hated Muslims!

Used to enjoy spinning them up about it when I filled up at their gas stations.

"They're building a new Mosque over the ridge to Napa", I'd say. The response was always a rant of heated invective. Given Sikh history at the frontline of Islam, I understood.

As an aside, the more Sikhs you have in your community, the better off you are. They are a superb culture and raise marvelous children.


Yep, I'll drink to that. I have a lot of time for Sikhs. They just get on with it without demanding their rights to be different.

We booted Wife Beaters....Child Molesters....usually if there were no criminal cases to be made for some reason. When it came to members of extremist groups (we had both Black and White problem children) and they got booted administratively) but except for a few unofficial back channel contacts did these folks never get reported to their local police by the DOD.

The DOD cannot read a crystal ball for sure....but they could at least find a way to relay a PCI (Person of Continuing Interest) Report to the local law enforcement authorities. At least then the local Police could be aware of that individual being present in their community.

Gee....in Detroit....another shooting....with numerous wounded but fortunately no one killed!

Woman opens fire on crowd leaving Detroit Princess riverboat; police search for suspect | City of Detroit | Detroit Free Press | freep.com (http://www.freep.com/article/20120806/NEWS01/120806018/Woman-opens-fire-Detroit-Princess-riverboat-police-search-suspect)

Perfect! :D

Yep, I'll drink to that. I have a lot of time for Sikhs.


and hindus too.

The comedian Chris Rock offered a solution to America's gun crisis : charge $100 per unit of ammunition.

It might just work.

It might just work.

It will work to where the criminal element will still have plenty of ammunition, while law biding citizens will not be able to afford ammo.

But don't worry about it, Obama has already thought about that.

Just one more 'feel good' incredibly stupid idea.

The comedian Chris Rock offered a solution to America's gun crisis : charge $100 per unit of ammunition.

I'll put up the $100 bucks. :hmm:

There is no gun crisis. There are plenty of firearms.

The crisis is in the attitudes of (far too many??, a subjective number) people who come to the conclusion that the gat is where it's at.

Sorry, folks, that's a bit of street speak, so that it responds to Chris Rock's presumptions in kind ...

Gunman in Wisconsin Sikh temple attack 'Army veteran' - United States - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20120805-gunmen-attack-sikh-temple-wisconsin)


" Page was a “frustrated neo-Nazi” who led a racist white supremacist band, the Southern Poverty Law Center said Monday. Page told a white supremacist website in an interview in 2010 that he had been part of the white power music scene since 2000, when he left his native Colorado and started the band, End Apathy, in 2005, the civil rights organization said. "

I have a simple solution...one that uses existing laws and Police Staffing, current Federal staffing.

Since ICE has next to nothing to do with the Executive Orders Obama has issued re Illegal Aliens....why not devote those idle assets to investigating violation of Federal Gun Laws by anyone using a Firearm in the commission of a Violent crime. Start with Gangs, Drug Dealers, and Extremist groups (of all colors)....and take them to Federal Court....when convicted send them to Gitmo for a minimum 30 year stay.

Just saying!

Just let the fools kill each other!


Caco

SASless

I have a simple solution...one that uses existing laws and Police Staffing, current Federal staffing.

Since ICE has next to nothing to do with the Executive Orders Obama has issued re Illegal Aliens....why not devote those idle assets to investigating violation of Federal Gun Laws by anyone using a Firearm in the commission of a Violent crime. Start with Gangs, Drug Dealers, and Extremist groups (of all colors)....and take them to Federal Court....when convicted send them to Gitmo for a minimum 30 year stay.



Enforce existing laws? There's far too much logic, pragmatism, and chance for success in your solution. Plus, think of the paperwork.

Just what does the NRA have to do with it? Besides standing up for law abiding citizens and the Second Amendment Rights of those Citizens?

Being British I am quite confident you do not have the ability to fully grasp the difference in the basic difference between your form of government and ours.

You retain the Royalty....and have a limited amount of personal freedom as and do not have a written document that has a the sole function of limiting the government's power and which places the Citizenry at the top of the Totem Pole.

Do you elect all of your representatives to Parliament or are some seats still handed down by mere birth? I admit to not knowing as it really doesn't matter to me as I am not a British Subject.

Or am I mistaken somehow?

"Just what does the NRA have to do with it? Besides standing up for law abiding citizens and the Second Amendment Rights of those Citizens?"

:ok:


Cacophonix
What is wrong with owning a firearm ?
We are not fools, just enjoy different tools than you.

"why not devote those idle assets to investigating violation of Federal Gun Laws by anyone using a Firearm in the commission of a Violent crime. Start with ........

................ those involved with the Fast and Furious debacle.

They can't seem to or don't want to convict the AG and others
even though what they did was legally questionable - and caused
the death of a LEO.

TZ

I would take anything that the Southern Poverty Law Center says with an extremely large pinch of salt, especially as the website for the band that the assailant was in never once mentioned doing anything violent.

When the police/FBI say the things being said now, then I'll believe it. But when an organisation whose sole raison d'etre is to find racists on every street corner (as long as they are WHITE racists, of course) says something like that based on rumour and "reading between the lines" then I tend to ignore them.

The comedian Chris Rock offered a solution to America's gun crisis : charge $100 per unit of ammunition.

There is a big difference between a comedian, and a clown.

Charge that money and ammo will go to the top of every thief's tick list. I'd bet they would even start targeting cops to get what is strapped to their belts.

Don't you just love the NRA?

Why, YES I DO!

The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.

The English Bill of Rights emerged from a period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects. The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[14] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.

In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed.


The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.

Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the British government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm. In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court recently decided).


Long quote but explains the difference in thinking between the British and Americans. We see gun ownership as being an Individual Right....and the British see it as something to be decided by Parliament. There lies the gulf that has to be crossed before we understand the other's thinking.

Great thing Freedom...where all Government is seen to be subservient to the Will of the People....each and everyone of them. Now if we could just get back to that notion in reality.

The comedian Chris Rock offered a solution to America's gun crisis : charge $100 per unit of ammunition.

Since the criminal classes would hardly buy their ammunition legally, I fail to see how that would have any effect


Things are getting confusing now. Seems that the local DA is saying that he bought his 9mm handgun legally (doesn't say when) but, according to what I see, as of 2006 the Wisconsin firearms law says that anyone with a felony record cannot legally possess any firearm. Another report says he was issued with 5 "permit to buy" certificates in North Carolina in 2008 but NC state law has restrictions on those with records as well (surprisingly, NC are keeping quiet on this and refusing to release the details on how he was able to get permission to buy firearms, especially when asked who signed the paper stating that the assailant was "of good moral character"). Also, the earlier reports of an automatic firearm have disappeared too.

Guess it'll all come out soon, the fog will clear once they figure out when to tell the full story.

Guess it'll all come out soon, the fog will clear once they figure out when to tell the full story.


By chance do you actually mean the "Truth"?

I shall not be holding my breath waiting for either the FBI or the State Run Media to that.

I shall not be holding my breath waiting for either the FBI or the State Run Media to that.

He probably bought them in Mexico...

Oh wait.

By chance do you actually mean the "Truth"?

I shall not be holding my breath waiting for either the FBI or the State Run Media to that.

Why do you think I never used the "T" word?

If you want, we'll use the phrase "the story they want us to believe"........

So now we have the mans identity and some background on him , what do we label him then ?

Fanatic , Terrorist , Chirstian Fundamentalist or just a mentally disturbed guy next door ? :rolleyes:

All 5, once the press dig up something else.................

One wonders what Political Party he was. If he was one, that will hit the Press. If the other, not a peep.

just sayin

add:

.....Neo Nazi, distraught ex-boyfriend, failed musician, tattoo afficionado, a bad son.....

... bald, you forgot bald.

And no doubt they'll blame it on "penally challenged" as well.

I shall not be holding my breath waiting for either the FBI or the State Run Media to that.


State Run Media, SASless? I thought we over this side of the pond were the ones groaning under the state's yoke. I know nothing of the US press, I believe there is something called Fox news, beyond that I am ignorant. Are you saying you dont have a free press?

Except for Fox News, Washington Times, and one or two other lesser known outlets.....Nope....it is all bought and paid for by the Democrats and Liberals.

Free Press went the way of the Buffalo after Watergate....now every Journalism Major in the country is dead set on overthrowing a sitting President who is anything shy of a self avowed Communist. They have certainly turned a very blind eye to the current holder of the office.

Imagine what the coverage would look like if they were just impartial.....well even slightly less dedicated to propping this guy up.

As Bernie Goldberg said yesterday or so...."The American Media is the most loyal base Obama has!"

Every credible study done shows a very distinct and proveable Bias towards the Liberal Agenda and a plain hostility to anything Republican or Conservative (yes...Toto....the Republican Party is not conservative!).


Media Bias - BernardGoldberg.com (http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/category/columns/media-bias/)

... bald, you forgot bald.


Indeed he was. I'm starting to think if we called in the expert Root-diggers they might chalk this up to being a case of low self-esteem. But hey, I'm no expert, I just figured he was an old-fashioned dirtbag and murdering bastard.

Ya see, PD, that shows you cannot be an expert since you say it as it is, you don't call a "spade" a "manual excavation device", whereas an expert is one who gets paid to think up new and clever reasons for why some dirtbag becomes a murderous bastard.

Albeit maybe too quickly. I see the other dirtbag, in AZ, pleaded guilty to avoid the needle.

HB

Ya see, PD, that shows you cannot be an expert since you say it as it is, you
don't call a "spade" a "manual excavation device", whereas an expert is one who gets paid to think up new and clever reasons for why some dirtbag becomes a murderous bastard.


Hey, you just said I wasn't capable of something in front of the probably 58 million people who read or will read this thread. That could hurt my self-esteem. Hang on, I better check that....

Well Ok, everyone around me is safe because I registered no lowering as measured by my Esteem Meter 3000-6. I wonder if I have no emotion or something because I feel fine. Probably only an expert could tell me why.

It continues to baffle me as to why the press, our universities and lower schools, our unions who rely on successful companies to deliver their wages, all tilt heavily left.

The press and acadame are smart people. Don't they perceive the sorry empirical results of the ideology they champion when placed in power? Isn't there anyone in those institutions who can conjure the reality that Reagan's economics fostered the high watermark so far of this republic and express their epiphany through the institutions they populate?

When I converted from McGovern Democrat to Reagan Republican it was based on facing facts and adjusting my outlook. It was 1977, when it dawned on me what a disaster Jimmy Carter was for the country. Why can't today's educated elements do the same?

I don't think, as a government or a nation, we want to admit we need to alter our judgement or change our firmly entrenched stance--error or not. We've become a nation of Them vs Us.

I pose that we question ourselves from time to time. Because if we can't take a honest look here, how do we ever expect others to?

I waited a couple of days to post my opinion about this recent shooting. I've needed to read and reflect. No doubt, I am gutted for the Sikhs. A truly wonderful, peaceful, hard working culture that I am proud to stand with and they are everywhere here in Seattle. I grieve with them.

The part I struggle with is the increase of mentally unstable individuals who have access to semi-automatic guns. I stand behind a nation with a right to have guns, but I am beginning to question why the hell that should include semi-automatic weapons. Certainly, as a private person, we can defend against a single foe with a hand gun or shot gun. I have come to the realization that I am not opposed to limiting certain forms of guns and ammunition, that make such mass killing too easy for the mentally unstable.

If we're truly honest with ourselves, the forefathers of our Constitution never envisioned a future where it would get inflicted on innocents in this manner. Should we not look within ourselves to make some changes? Really? Are hand guns and shot guns not enough for the personal individual who passes all requirements?

What would that really do for us as a nation....but perhaps demonstrate that we can look within and make concessions. Would it truly be wrong to do so?

The thing is, CoF, how do you weed out the "mentally unstable"?

As we know, countries which have super-strict firearms laws, including doctors' statements saying that the person applying for a permit is "of sound mind" still have their spree killers. And, of course, stopping them getting a firearm legally does not stop them getting one illegally and/or using other methods to achieve their aims.

I mean, as said in the Aurora thread, you could have a psych test that says you are "fit" and then go loony tunes 2 hours later, so how would you be able to stop a loon from getting a weapon?

That sounds good in theory.

I would suggest that when we exhaust every other alternative to curb violence in our society by addressing the root cause of the problem....that being a society that encourages violence by not punishing the violent, not identifying the violent early on, not removing the violent from access to other people....then I would consider having a debate on the implement that is used by the violent.

We have ample laws in existence that if properly enforced....and Judicial action taken....would go a very long way to curbing the violent in our society.

I absolutely do not care to disarm the innocent no matter how good the intention. I absolutely do want to disarm the deranged, the violent, and those intent upon terroristic acts of any kind.

The key is not disarming the law abiding citizens but disarming the guilty.

Ask yourself how aggressive the Seattle Police are in using "Stop and Frisk" procedures? Have we as a society taken a position that such tactics are racial profiling, abuses of people's rights, or part of a Police State culture.....or do we see it as a very valid and effective method to find illegally owned, carried, and concealed weapons?

If a Police Officer stops a vehicle....must he have to wait for an actual violation of a traffic law before stopping that vehicle or should he be able to stop a car load of known Gang members merely because he recognizes them as being known Criminals.....known to be involved in Drug Dealing, Extortion, and violent crimes in the past?

No....disarming the Public is the last step in the process....not the first or early step.

I agree we have to stop and consider the situation but lets focus upon the finger on the trigger....not the gun. There are millions upon millions of guns and tens of millions of gun owners who do not violate any law or commit any violent act using the type firearms you seek to ban.

I have investigated a fair number of shootings, stabbings, and other sorts of assaults and killings....and know too well the cost of such events but I see the perpetrator as being the problem not the weapon.

I actually endorse the carrying of firearms by Citizens....done so in compliance with the pertinent laws and only after a background check, training, and certification by the State.

I most assuredly embrace the empirical data that confirms crime rates go down where Citizens go armed. Robbers, Rapists, Muggers, and Burglar's do not want to get hurt themselves and when there exists a significant risk they might just encounter someone that is armed.....they go elsewhere to seek their prey.

I would guess there are about 300 Million guns in this country.....and when you can absolutely guarantee me that no one would have a firearm of the kind you wish to do away with....then I will gladly give mine up. Until then....I will maintain my Concealed Weapons Permit, carry my weapon as I see fit, and go about my travels without fearing needing a gun and not having one.

I began carrying a gun for a living in 1967.....never used it outside armed combat in wartime....but have stopped an armed robbery on one occasion (other than on duty as a law enforcement agent)....and that only required me telling a couple of Navajo Indians they had erred by bringing a knife to a gunfight and that we were about to play Cowboy and Indians just like in the movies.

Yes....it was one of the semi-automatic's that you are concerned about.

That incident proves my point....there are evil people in this World....and a gun can be used to protect ourselves from that evil just as the same gun can be used to commit an evil act.

The difference is the finger on the trigger.


There is a great video out there somewhere....I posted it at one time....shows a young woman walking down a city alley taking a shortcut....she gets grabbed by a guy and is dragged out of sight into a side alley. The alley lights up with several flashes of bright light coincidental to the sound of gunshots. Your heart breaks....until the Woman steps out of the side alley putting her gun back into her purse and walking off on down the alley. A great video!

Seen elsewhere....


Gun control is the belief that a woman found in an alley bound, beaten, raped, and murdered is morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker received his fatal wounds.

C'mon guys! Did you read my words? You're taking fragments and reacting with sweeping generalizations.

When would psych test make sense? Not proposing this!

Curb violence? You have got to be kidding.

Does the difference between gun ownership and the need for semi-automatic have any differentiation or is everything just "guns or no guns" that you read in my post?

If a Police Officer stops a vehicle....must he have to wait for an actual violation of a traffic law before stopping that vehicle or should he be able to stop a car load of known Gang members merely because he recognizes them as being known Criminals.....known to be involved in Drug Dealing, Extortion, and violent crimes in the past?

No....disarming the Public is the last step in the process....not the first or early step.

Sasless, my friend..... we should not stop a vehicle, because there 'might'be gang related criminals. Why even ask this as a retort? Your argument about identifying and removing those that might be a danger is about as unrealistic as identifying pedophiles at birth. Why is the notion of curbing the type of semi-automatic guns so readily accessible , not an option for you? Who said anything about disarming the public? I merely suggested that some semi-arms be a bit more restricted.

Seriously....why should the average individual need such a firearm to begin with? Answer that for me.

SASless
"I most assuredly embrace the empirical data that confirms crime rates go down where Citizens go armed. Robbers, Rapists, Muggers, and Burglar's do not want to get hurt themselves and when there exists a significant risk they might just encounter someone that is armed.....they go elsewhere to seek their prey."

Well said:ok:


CityofFlight
"Why is the notion of curbing the type of semi-automatic guns so readily accessible , not an option for you? Who said anything about disarming the public? I merely suggested that some semi-arms be a bit more restricted."

Restricting access to Semi Autos is disarming the public in one way.

And as has been amply demonstrated, crims will get and use whatever firearm they can get hold of, regardless of what it is - semi auto, revolver, cap gun, shot gun, you name it.

In any case, the horse has already bolted in the USm you have no hope of getting back any or enough firearms to even make a dent.


And as for "Seriously....why should the average individual need such a firearm to begin with? Answer that for me."

I'm an average individual, I want to own one, I want to shoot one, I want to carry one for SD and I want to shoot one at Targets and in competitions.
Is that enough reasons ?

IIRC S. Milwaukee has the highest murder rate in the US.

One point that no-one appears to have mentioned so far is that when the "guilty" are apprehended and get into the court system, there appear to be a whole class of people who make their living out of getting them back out of the same court system without paying the price for their crimes.:ugh:

Should we be addressing that issue first, then when we do catch the criminals they can be dealt with effectively?

So , deal with the lawyers first.:E

If we're truly honest with ourselves, the forefathers of our Constitution never envisioned a future where it would get inflicted on innocents in this manner. Should we not look within ourselves to make some changes? Really? Are hand guns and shot guns not enough for the personal individual who passes all requirements?

What would that really do for us as a nation....but perhaps demonstrate that we can look within and make concessions. Would it truly be wrong to do so?


Can only agree with this thoughtful post! Concessions are the mark of civilization.

Who needs a bazooka when an air rifle will do?

Caco

CoF....There is a thing called the Second Amendment which has that awkward wording about "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.".

The danger of some seeking to talk the Second Amendment out of existence is they risk other Rights being talked away with....say the 1st and 4th.

Your premise falls squarely into that trap.....perhaps for good intent but still it runs afoul of one of our freedoms.

With freedom comes responsibility and I guess a certain amount of liability or risk.

YOur solution does not guarantee any cure for the problem as others and I have pointed out....for various reasons ranging from there just being too many guns and the certainty the nutcases and criminals shall always find a way to obtain such a weapon. They until recently could have gotten one from the very people who are in business to stop them from getting them (our lovely ATF.) There is an example of the government providing Automatic weapons to Drug Cartels.

So....if anyone is being unrealistic it is you in putting forward such a solution as you have.

Your rebuttal of my offer of increased Police attention and focus on the very sorts of people that commit the bulk of these murders and shootings is case in point of what is wrong with society today.

Every time you see some gang graffiti (tagging) there is your sign there are violent street gangs in your neighborhood. Unless dealt with effectively....and by the mere presence of the tagging, it becomes apparant that we are not dealing effectively with the problem....you are going to have violence in your own neighborhood.

The guvmint tels us all about a their War on Drugs....hundreds of Billions of Dollars spent so far....and yes....Drugs are still common in our schools and streets. They have failed miserably in combatting Gangs....Gangs that were generally limited to Los Angeles have now grown throughout the country and more than a few have ties to the violent drug cartels in Mexico.

The majority of murders today are Gang Related. If we removed the Gang murders and domestic killings by folks that know/live with one another....we find the kinds of killings you wish to prevent are very few.

That does not mean you are wrong for seeking a solution.....I just think you are offering up an idea that does not warrant implementation for a lot of reasons.

Just how would you implement your idea? How many folks like me would just stick a center finger into the air if told to hurry down to my nearest Police Station and turn in all my semi-automatic weapons or face criminal charges? Would you want to be the Police Officer that was tasked to go fetch these guns from People who really....really....do not care to surrender them to the government? Do you think that resistance might be the very reason we need such things to begin with? Do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the People to be comparably armed to that of the Government? In the old days the local gentry had the same kinds of guns the government provided the Army....why does that not hold today?

If automatic weapons are such threats.....when was the last time you read of a mass killing in Switzerland where darn near every household has one of the things? Why are we killing one another here....and the Swiss are not?

I would encourage you to seek the answer to the why....rather than the how.


Caco....compromise is not the mark of civilization....but it can certainly be the downfall of civilization. You come from a society that can possess a weapon only at the mere whim of Parliament. Your country has effectively been disarmed by that very Parliament and yet you still have a very significant gun violence problem. I would suggest your compromise over guns proves the fallacy of the premise put forth by CoF.

Please don't run this bit about Americans being uncivilized by us again.....you folks in the UK just do not understand or do not care to try to understand the difference in our concept individual freedom where the government is limited by our Constitution not the People or States. Course expecting you to actually grasp that notion is about as wasted as expecting someone to ignore a Wet Paint sign.

I would encourage you to seek the answer to the why....rather than the how


Does a sane man fiddle around wondering why a pyschotic did what he did before making it a tad more difficult to do what he did! Nope the sane man puts that disturbed fellah in a little white jacket and removes all harmful toys first before he then decides as to why what occurred, occurred and how it might be possible to "treat" the cause and not the symptom.

This guy was on the mental radar screen yet he had the "freedom" to legally obtain the means to rob the innocent of their right to freely be alive.

Not against the freedom to bear arms but do think a balance is needed and CoF's post sounded that balance well.

Caco

IIRC S. Milwaukee has the highest murder rate in the US.

Nope, as seen in http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/492381-finally-found-somewhere-bad-detroit.html to start with.

Also, The Most Dangerous Cities in America - 24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/2012/06/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2/2/) starts the list from 10 downwards regarding the USA's most dangerous cities, leading to St. Louis, Detroit and Flint being 3,2,1 respectively, and add this (http://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/01/chicago-has-highest-murder-rate-in-the-u-s.html) regarding Chicago as well as here (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/01/us/new-orleans-murder/index.html) for Nawlins.

Milwaukee don't come close, and is 76th in the "top 100" (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/) most dangerous cities in the US, and the murder rate is, well (http://www.city-data.com/city/South-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html)......

Actually Chicago is worse than......Kabul!


Chicago Homicide Rate Worse Than Kabul, Up To 200 Police Assigned To High-Profile Wedding (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html)

Our illustrious FBI....maintains a central crime reporting index called the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for each year.

The majority, but not all, police agencies report crime data to the FBI which then tabulates the data into an annual report.

One must read carefully what is put out by the FBI....and recall the data can sometimes be skewed particularly when relating to property crime. Whole studies have been done pointing out the errors that can work their way into the FBI's report.

One example...if a local Police Chief is looking to expand his staffing....any damage to a house or business property finds itself be classified a Break-in or Burglary instead of a Damage to Property....the reverse happens if he is wanting to keep his job by showing how effective his officers are....and Break-ins or attempted break-ins (where property is not reportd stolen at the time of the initial report) and are then classified as Damage to Property.

Also....the other fluke is no matter the number of crimes or the number of victims involved in an incident....only one crime shall be reported....so in the case of a kidnapping, rape, robbery, murder, and arson......only the murder catagory gets an entry....not the others.


All that being said....for year 2010.....the FBI break down of Homicides by perpetrator. These numbers must be factored by the Ethnic break down of the total population of the country as a whole to fully grasp the import of the numbers shown.


FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 3 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls)

From 2010 Federal Census Data.....

Race Distribution
The overwhelming majority (97 percent) of the total U.S. population reported only one race in 2010. This group totaled 299.7 million. Of these, the largest group reported white alone (223.6 million), accounting for 72 percent of all people living in the United States. The black or African-American population totaled 38.9 million and represented 13 percent of the total population.

This guy was on the mental radar screen yet he had the "freedom" to legally obtain the means to rob the innocent of their right to freely be alive.

When was he on the "mental radar"? As more emerges, we see some minor offences due to alcohol but nothing that would have barred him from getting a firearm in Wisconsin (his ex, however, is a different matter). They won't say who signed the paper saying he "was of good character" in North Carolina, when he obtained permission to buy a firearm there, but, overall, I'm seeing NOTHING that says that this guy appeared on any record as having any sort of "mental problems" or that anyone even suspected he did (yeah, we know something was screwed up now but hindsight didn't exactly work when he acquired the weapon). After all, there still hasn't been anything official on that subject from the Police or FBI regarding that or anything else like motive, so how can you sit there and say he showed up on any "mental radar"?

More info from AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIdqr91DbzTaebGJUzS5YVi8CoHw?docId=4ade5917b4034eb48ef4466a85f2bf18)

When was he on the "mental radar"?

Try reading some of the hate sites where he was posting and tell me that some of the "opinions" that are posted there don't bring the mental stability of the posters into question.

He was a known extremist who had been "let go from the army" due to instability (some of it alcohol related) and was clearly on the law's risk register (the Feds do monitor those sites you know).

Nuff said.

Caco

Ah Caco.....your Liberal mindset is coming out....just because you consider him a nut case for what he said....American law does not. Your opinion re his mental fitness matters not. You have to recall the great benefit to the Insane and Society our fluffy feel good types have done the Mental Health services with their law suits and changes to the law that has turned out all but the very most violent people from the mental institutions. Note the dramatic rise in Homeless persons as a result of that.

You folks cannot have it both ways....if you force these folks out of surpervision by the Mental Health Services then don't come crying when bad things happen. Involuntary committments used to be a routine Police procedure that has since been thwarted by changes in the law. Another of those compromises that sound good but do harm.

He had been reported to a Police Officer by a Psychologist/Psychiartist approximately one week before the shooting. Why that information had not been processed is one of the questions to be answered. The report had gone to a Street Cop....and not directly to a higher level in the chain it is reported.

So someone apparently had tried to report his problematic behavior.

In response to post no. 88, SASless, although eloquently expressed, the sentiment can essentially be distilled as "I am not prepared to compromise my right to bear arms, even if there were a possibility that compromising such right (for example, by restricting the use of semi-automatic weapons) could actually result in lowering the number of murders perpetrated by people legally in possession of firearms". (I would even take that a step further and suggest you would hold the same view even if it were proven that the death toll could be reduced by taking such a step).

Now you may say the majority of murders are committed with illegally held guns, you may say a determined murderer will find other ways, you may say that it's your constitutional right and should not be interfered with (for whatever reason), but it seems to me your stance is that you are prepared to accept some murders as the price of your right to bear arms.

I suspect that view is shared by other posters on this thread as well. In which case, why not come out and say it? It would give clearer parameters for debate, IMHO.

On the other hand, Octopussy, what is your evidence that depriving law-abiding citizens of an effective means of defence would NOT increase the numbers of those citizens killed or maimed by those holding illegal weapons?

Put it another way. How many murders with legally-held weapons are there in the US, and what percentage increase in murders with illegally-held weapons would it take to completely wipe out any gains were there to be no legal guns?

If automatic weapons are such threats.....when was the last time you read of a mass killing in Switzerland where darn near every household has one of the things? Why are we killing one another here....and the Swiss are not?


SASless, every Monday there are usually a few reports of killings - nearly always within the family, from small villages with alcohol involved- in different parts of the country.

Remember reading a report once about why the rifles (SIG ? ) weren't used more in criminal attacks like bank-raids and the conclusion was that they were too big and heavy.

This is a very good discussion, and I appreciate the civility shown so far by those on both sides of the issue.

CofF, I give your opinions a lot of cred, as you know, but I think you're on the wrong track on this topic.

I bought a semiautomatic pistol because that is what I had trained on in the military, although the air force used 9mm semis while I picked a .45, mostly for stopping power but also for a wider array of pistols to choose from. I knew the basic construction and mechanics when I bought my Kimber, and I wanted reliability and build quality, and the Kimber fit well in my hand. As a semi was what I was used to, that's what I chose.

Semiauto only means you can fire a shot every time you pull the trigger. A revolver will do the same, but it is classified as double action - the hammer goes back before it can go forward. Operationally the difference is minute and not worthy of driving the debate. Semi vs. Auto is another discussion where there is more nuanced meat for debate.

The important thing is, I want to be armed to have a fair chance, or even an advantage against the person who would attack me, whether out on the streets or in my home. I don't have an aggressive bone in my body and generally wish all people, especially Republicans, well. I'm convinced, based on documented data, violent crime would decrease if all law-abiding people armed and trained to defend themselves.

I have a dog who will alert me if our home is being intruded upon. I need five seconds to go from deep sleep to ready to fire. I worry about my wife when I'm gone, and have thought about equipping her with a less complicated and more intuitive revolver. Would you be happier, CofF, if we relied on non-automated revolvers to protect ourselves from the evil abroad in our vicinity? I don't think it makes much difference.

Try reading some of the hate sites where he was posting and tell me that some of the "opinions" that are posted there don't bring the mental stability of the posters into question.

He was a known extremist who had been "let go from the army" due to instability (some of it alcohol related) and was clearly on the law's risk register (the Feds do monitor those sites you know).

Nuff said.

Caco

No, caco, that is just YOUR opinion.

He was checked out by the Feds over his links to the bands we know of, but they saw there was NO REASON TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER.

Give us a link saying he had been "let go from the army" due to instability, when his discharge was a General Discharge under HONORABLE CONDITIONS (Guess what, that means he wasn't as "unstable" as you are trying to claim).

Give us links to his actual posts on these websites as well. I know you can't because NO DETAILS ON WHICH SITES HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY POLICE/FBI, and since they are the ones with access to his computer(s), etc, they would know more than you do.

So, in other words, you are talking through your bunghole and have decided what was going through this guy's head, why he did it, etc and you know his mental state from just reading reports in the press which give no details whatsoever as the Police/FBI have not actually released the details of anything they have "found" yet and even state they have no idea over the "why" as of this moment.

Octo....your reading comprehension skills are pretty good. That is exactly what I said.....almost.

I am not about to surrender any of my Constitutional Rights to accomodate a Fool's Errand which I consider attempting to remove all semi-automatic weapons from the United States to be. Firstly, I see it as being illegal....and a government confiscation of private property that is plainly un-Constitutional. I fail to see how such an action can be justified by the goals of the effort.

An example I would use is the fact we still sell alcohol in this country and we have about 40,000 traffic deaths each year due to alcohol related accidents. We go after drunk drivers....not cars or Beer Bottles. Perhaps we should do away with six packs, half cases, and full cases of Beer Containers and save a few lives that way. That is the logic that is being offered re doing away with semi-automatic weapons.

You will also notice there is no discussion of Automatic weapons being made. Why is that? Is it that there have been absolutely no incidents of a legally owned, licensed, and taxed Machine gun every being used in the commission of a crime such as we are talking about. So if Machine guns are so dangerous...why are we not destroying all of them? Granted there are folks that would love to do away with every single firearm....for political reasons alone. That does scare me.

I clearly stated I believed that along with Freedom comes Responsibility and Liability.

In a perfect world....my freedom ends where your nose begins....as it should.

But, we do not live in that perfect world do we?

There are plenty of folks who only see others as prey.

What separates the vast majority of us from them....is a gun.... too many of the times we encounter them.

I prefer to be the one holding the gun when that happens or at the very least a gun when the other sort has one of his own.

If bringing a knife to a gun fight is bad strategy....bringing just your Wedding
Tackle to a gun fight is certainly far worse is it not?

Again....let's keep it dirt simple. When you can absolutely without any doubt or risk of failure....completely guarantee me the thugs shall never ever have a weapon of any kind.....then yes....i might be willing to listen to you talk about me disarming. Until then....we really have nothing to discuss.

I prefer to die a Wolf.....not a Sheep.

If we are only going to "lower" the numbers as you propose....that is still a losing proposition for all concerned....every single one of us. Except the violent thugs who are still murdering the innocent and unarmed.

Why should I give up my rights under the law for a half measure....I fail to see the usefulness of the return on what it costs. More lives will be saved by honest folks having those guns than will be saved by removing them from society all together as we are still not disarming the killers.

I can take a standard pump action shotgun....which is absolutely acceptable to the Ban the Gun folks....and make it sound like a semi-automatic darn near by doing a thing called combat loading and there is nothing any more lethal than a shotgun at close quarters. I was trained in that technique at all the FBI firing range at Quantico in Virginia of all places. Give me a hand bag of loose shot gun shells and a standard Remington 870 pump action shotgun (standard equipment for most Police Departments) and I can inflict far more damage than ever with an M-16 or AK-47.

Wounds caused by Shot Guns shooting Buck Shot are far more deadly than a single bullet wound by an Assault rifle as some of the single round hits by the rifle are non-lethal. If you get hit from 9 to 12 .38 caliber sized Buckshot....your chances of it being fatal leap drastically.

Drop back to using a hand gun....and mortality drops lethality drops further.

I shall continue to exercise my Second Amendment Rights to the fullest extent of the Law thank you.

SAS

Augment that stability with some kind of intelligence!

Damn it.

Caco

Seriously....why should the average individual need such a firearm to begin with? Answer that for me.

CofF you're stepping over into the "anti" crowd when you say things like this. Need has nothing to do with it. It is the right of every individual to have one and the Governemnt , or anyone else, "shall not infringe". There is no requirement to provide the reason to "need". A simple desire to own is enough.

There there Caco....slipping back into the fatal trap again are you?

Why can you not help yourself from being rude and crass when you disagree with something!

You ever had to make a choice about taking a human being's life.....when confronted with that person being in the process of threatening to do just that by sticking a large ugly knife into a ten year old child's throat he had taken hostage?

There is real world out here that isn't all Port and Cigars.

I have little patience listening to folks discussing theory when it is just an abstract concept to them. It is a much different conversation when it is real, the blood and gore might be your own or someone you are charged with protecting.

The law, department policy, and societal values all sound so easy and clear cut until it is you that has to make the decision to pull the trigger and live with the results of your decision one way or the other.

Stick to debate and skip the insults.

[ quote] SASless

Please don't run this bit about Americans being uncivilized by us again.....you folks in the UK just do not understand or do not care to try to understand the difference in our concept individual freedom where the government is limited by our Constitution not the People or States. Course expecting you to actually grasp that notion is about as wasted as expecting someone to ignore a Wet Paint sign.

:D:D:D:D

A better case for citizens to legally own firearms would be difficult to find.....

Prison Planet.com » Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World (http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world.html)

Every weekend you see the military returning home on the railways, with their assault rifle, no one thinks anything of it.

And one does always feel safe in Switzerland.

Please don't run this bit about Americans being uncivilized by us again.....you folks in the UK just do not understand or do not care to try to understand the difference in our concept individual freedom where the government is limited by our Constitution not the People or States. Course expecting you to actually grasp that notion is about as wasted as expecting someone to ignore a Wet Paint sign.




Man we have fought from all parts of the world and all I can say is shame on you!

You have lost the moral imperative!

Caco

If you have a country of roughly 360 million folk who are pretty much entitled to own as many guns as they they like then it's pretty much a no brainer that a fair percentage of said folk will use those guns to kill their fellow man/ woman on an hourly basis for one reason or another.

If you have a country of roughly 60 odd million folk who are effectively not allowed to own guns then again it's pretty much a no brainer that very few folk will use guns to kill their fellow man/woman.

SFFP

But in the majority of cases in both, the people who are committing gun crime
are crims who get hold of firearms anyway, not the LAFO (Law Abiding Firearm owners).

Taking guns away from LAFO hasn't decreased gun crime in the UK, in fact it increased and the same applies to most other countries as well.

Thats it.....onto the ignore list!

" Taking guns away from LAFO hasn't decreased gun crime in the UK, in fact it increased and the same applies to most other countries as well. "

The Poms ( masters at distorting facts to suit their own agenda ....) live in a fantasy world, ignoring the fact that one is twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK, than in the USA.

Why is the UK's violent crime rate almost 10x higher than the US? - Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x171267)

It seems it's actually higher than twice......

no brainer that a fair percentage of said folk

Huh, recheck your facts, as it is not a fair percentage of said folks, but in fact a very, very small percentage of people that legally own guns that commit crimes.

Which still doesn't change the fact that you have a better chance of being a victim of a violent crime in England that in the US.

So get off that high horse you think you are ridding.

I am 65 years old, I worked for ten years in a Federal Law Enforcment Agency and I have never, repeat never heard a shot fired in anger*, or for any other reason than target practice and/or hunting.


* At least not in the United States.

TZ

I am afraid I live in a country where the Gov't believe the same things as the UK Gov't and distorts the facts.

In the last few years (10 ?), we have had the big boys of the criminal underworld in a war where they have been knocking each other off. It was all going along nicely until two were knocked off at a kids Sunday football match.

Then the cops set up a task force to sort it all out, in the mean time they just kept shooting each other.

And not one of them had a gun licence or a legally held firearm yet the Gov't decides they need to take them from the LAFO.


con-pilot
Well said :ok:

con-pilot
Well said

Thank you, some here cannot separate Hollywood fiction in movies and TV, coupled with Pub talk from reality. Shame really.

500N, a friend in Oz said that the only difference between the crims and some of the cops is their dress ( and cars )

Is he right , or......?

Agree.

"very, very small percentage of people that legally own guns that commit crimes."

and if I may add

"a very high proportion of crimes involving guns is committed by a very few who are generally crims and who use illegal firearms"

And if you take firearms away from people, they will use knives.


Re being able to own / carry a pistol, crims just do not like to go up against people who they know might be armed or shoot back (ie where their is a high percentage of licence to own or carry).

What gets me is it's not brain surgery, it's basic common sense and physchology and applies to crims as well as terrorists. In it's absolute rawrest form, every man and his dog knew that after the Iranian embassy siege of 1982, that is what a terrorist would be up against if they tried something like that in the UK.

.

TZ
No, not now.

In the past yes but that was like the old days in the Military
where the Pl Sgt or WO needed to knock some sense into a soldier
who wouldn't listen (and sometimes a junior officer !!!), sometimes
a whack over the hed achieved the result as was shown in one of
the other threads in the Mil forum.

The old school coppers were hard core (as were the crims)
and they all knew where they stood. Now, it's all in favour
of the crims.

I honestly believe that the old school cops (and a few others)
didn't mind the criminal underworld knocking each other off.

It was reported low key in the media but it wasn't until like number 15 or so - out of 35+ (where they did it in public with kids around) that the Police said
enough is enough.

More info here if you want to read it
Melbourne gangland killings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_gangland_killings)

Chronology of Melbourne's gangland war - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-19/chronology-of-melbournes-gangland-war/401850)

One thing our gun-averse Brit friends fail to mention is that with no guns around, how does Darwin's work get done? How do you clear out the riff-raff if they can't shoot each other?

Anyone got any stats on the number of convictions of NRA members for gun crimes? I have no data but I'd bet it is very close to zero. We (NRA) are the backbone and hope for America, I think.

"One thing our gun-averse Brit friends fail to mention is that with no guns around, how does Darwin's work get done? How do you clear out the riff-raff if they can't shoot each other?"


Darwin awards were suspended in the UK !!!:O

All potential Darwin award candidates merge and create the riots
like they had a year or two ago.
.

our concept individual freedom where the government is limited by our Constitution not the People or States.

The original reason for the 2nd amendment right to bear firearms was, I believe, to defend against tyrranical governments. The servants of which are shown in this video.

Police Brutality - WAKE UP FAT SHEEP AMERICA!!! - YouTube

Must have been some real dirtbags to have annoyed the cops so much.

In all my life I've never witnessed an act of unwarranted police brutality.

I have wondered, however, at the restraint law enforcement people show day after day standing between me and the lawless. The good cops out there are saints if you ask me.

BA....I have seen lots of Police Brutality....and when it was really uncalled for we sorted out the guy ourselves and in the rare case referred the guy to Internal Affairs.

Now there is Brutality and there is Brutality.

Treat some folks with courtesy, respect, and restraint and they will hurt you!

Some are going to fight you no matter what you say, think, or do....those you can identify from a mile off if you know what you are doing.

There is another group that will kill you graveyard dead if you do not tweak to them first. They are the dangerous ones because they come across a sweetness and love until they have an advantage on you....then like a landmine they go off.

When a Street Cop we used only that force demanded by the situation but if we turned it on....someone got hurt....that was the plan. Cooperate and you got treated like a Gentleman....resist and you got your arms twisted and your fingers bent a bit...but upon cooperating you would at least be treated firmly but not with any great force. Fight...assault an officer....and you got your ass kicked well and properly. This was before the days of Pepper Spray and Tazer's.....and long before society really got their knickers in a twist over some Thug getting some of the same medicine he had been dishing out to others.

In those occasions where a Cop got shot.....well just say I worked with some very hard men in that Department. Cooperation was linked to longevity and those that were anything but pacifists regretted not taking up the path of peace and love.

I worked a very tough area....at one time I had a beat area that was seven city blocks long by two city blocks wide....and stayed busy with everything from Murder, Rape, Robbery, shootings, stabbings, arson, kidnapping, and loitering.

We had drug dealing, needles and bindle trash all over the area, whore houses, Piccolo Houses, buyers of stolen goods, shop lifting rings...all in those 14 city blocks. I caught the same two armed robbers twice in two weeks on that beat....after they robbed the same store a second time. That is the beat where I had to confront the mentally ill guy holding a ten year old hostage with a knife to his neck one Sunday morning.

There are some evil people in this world and I think half of them lived on that one Beat. We had calls for "Man with a Gun" almost daily...some drunk or high on heroin and shooting the ornaments off their neighbors Christmas Tree. Yet....we never had an Officer hurt or did we shoot any one inn well over a year despite all that violence and goings on.

Two Beats up the street in an old mill town....we had eleven officer involved shootings in three months....we lacked one week where we did not have to use firearms in that beat. Must be the NASCAR race was on that week and drew everyone out of town.

Realty and Liberals concept of Reality are so...so....different.

Bless you, SASless.

We could use thousands more like you.

What the man said! :ok::ok:

+ 1 to the two posts above :ok:

Some folks just don't get it....



How to get your ass kicked by police - YouTube

Today's news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/police-face-corruption-probe/4188098). I make no comment.

Always a few bad apples, doesn't mean you tar the
whole lot with the same brush.

TZ350,

I had a look at that link. A lot of incorrect data there.

My feelings are as follows: -

1/ It is extremely difficult to compare crime statistics for different countries as the data gathered meets different requirements.

2/ The culture of a country has a large part to play in the statistics. For instance, in the UK there is an ethos that criminals do not really get punished for crimes. The USA tends to be a lot harsher on criminals (or so it would appear to me). The UK population is the most monitored population in the world. This has done nothing to reduce crime or increase safety. What it does do is to allow Government and Big Business know what we do and when.

3/ I feel that the USA possibly goes to far in the way it manages ownership of firearms. Having said that I believe that the UK goes way to far the other way. The UK laws do not prevent those who wish to illegaly possess firearms from doing so. The UK law does make it near impossible for those who wish to legally own firearms from doing so. To me this is absolutely crazy. I personally would like to own a Lee Enfield No. 4 for use on a range. It appears to be nearly impossible to get a licence to own one though.

4/ The UK would be a better place if criminals were actually punished properly. I do not see incarceration in a UK prison as being a deterrent. The US seem to get carried away with whom they incarcerate (e.g. Christopher Tappin).

To conclude I believe that the UK and the USA are two extremes in how firearms law is implemented, and I would prefer it if both were somewhere in the middle.

While we're at it, can we please refrain from tarring all Brits with the "US-hating, anti-gun" brush?

I, for one, used to own handguns and would again under a less repressive system.

A better case for citizens to legally own firearms would be difficult to find.....

Prison Planet.com » Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World (http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world.html)

Every weekend you see the military returning home on the railways, with their assault rifle, no one thinks anything of it.

And one does always feel safe in Switzerland.

Sadly not true.

Statistics on gun fatalities show Switzerland to be high on the list. Statistics are kept by the cantonal authorities, not by the federal ones. It's disingenuous to suggest this means that statistics are 'not kept'. They are and they are shameful.

Fatalities are often from suicide and killing of one's family members, often more than one at a time - using Army issued weapons. Use in the prevention of crime is unheard of. We also have indiscriminate shootings such as the Zug Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre) where 14 people were killed in the Cantonal Parliament.

The Swiss militia is much as described, but with many mistakes in the details. However recently restrictions have been placed on guns being kept at home. In the Canton of Geneva this is now forbidden.

"men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard". What utter rubbish. Show's how little effort was made to research this story. In fact is there a US National Guard? I thought that was a responsibility of the States.

Regretfully I don't always feel safe in Switzerland. Try hanging around any rail station on a Friday night. You will see the reality there.

No this article is wrong, sadly.

ExXB,

I was surprised when I was introduced to the actual statistics in Switzerland a number of years ago.

It is a shame that people are still quoting innacurate statistics.

The statistics are readily available for Switzerland and most other countries, although in some countries they are not reliable. However, I would think that in the USA, Switzerland and Australia they are of comparable reliability.

For the most recent data available, the rates of murder by firearms per 100,000 population are: Australia 0.29, Switzerland 0.97, USA 2.13. To say that the rate of firearms murder in Switzerland is negligible isn't disingenuous, it's a downright lie.

Source of statistics:Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

To say that the rate of firearms murder in Switzerland is negligible isn't disingenuous, it's a downright lie.

As are, I suspect, many of the so called statistics posted (on both sides) in this thread. Problem with the Tinternet - you can say something is so, even if it isn't, and a plethora of posters will quote you to prove their point.

:ugh:

.


via Hydromet;

For the most recent data available, the rates of murder by firearms per 100,000 population are: Australia 0.29, Switzerland 0.97, USA 2.13. To say that the rate of firearms murder in Switzerland is negligible isn't disingenuous, it's a downright lie...


Heh, and the prize for having the biggest tool fixation goes too.....:hmm:



Via United Nations office on drugs and Crime. Murder rate per 100, 000

Australia, 1 - 100K
UK 1.2 - 100K
Switzerland 0.7 - 100K

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate)





.

The point being made was not that Switzerland is free of gun related homicides but is blessed by a very low rate especially compared to my country which has a severe problem.... 2.13 per 100,000 is not good.

The single stat alone means very little beyond showing an average rate for the entire country.

When you get into the details that make up that Data Point....there is good and bad news.

If you live in the countryside it is someone who loves you that does you in... which bad. It rarely happens which is good. news.

If you are young, Black or Hispanic, live in the inner city it will be another Street Gang member that kills you which to some is good news. That it is the leading cause of death amongst that part of the population....is also good news to some. That is happens very frequently is also good news to some.

If you happen to killed while the above is happening in the city streets...as an innocent bystander or as a victim of one of the gang's many violent crimes....that is distinctly bad news. That it is happening more and more...that is really bad news.

To understand Homicide rates and the methods used....one has to delve into other issues that explain how and why these things happen. That can lead to a whole debate all to its own.

Before we can decide how to improve the situation we first have to admit then identify the problem. Getting that part right is the key to solving the problem.

It is not a simple solution because it is not a simple problem. Anyone that thinks it is simple....is Simple.

South Africa 31.8 per 100000. Govt is doing its utmost to disarm the law abiding while pretty much ignoring the criminal element. The restrictive firearms legislation is aimed at those who respect the law while totally missing the point re the illegally held weapons, often rented out by the day by corrupt cops to criminals wishing to hijack cars and trucks, murder someone or rob banks and homes. Another loaded question is what exactly happened to a number of arms caches the current regime refused to hand in?

The point being made was not that Switzerland is free of gun related homicides but is blessed by a very low rate

You didn't read my post. Switzerland has a very high rate of gun related homicides, almost all of which are with army-issued weapons. Only Albania, in Europe, has a higher rate. Too many guns means too many deaths.

May be different in your country, but I don't see that. However I won't bore the rest of the PPrune community any more with my views. You aren't going to change them, just like I won't change yours.

Too many guns means too many deaths.


That pretty much hits the nail on the head :D

Yep, the U.S. must being doing it all wrong:

U.S. violent crime down for 5th year in 2011: FBI | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-usa-crime-stats-idUSBRE85A1JZ20120611)

for those too lazy to click, an excerpt re murders:

The FBI did not provide a specific count for the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters, but said the 2011 figure declined by 1.9 percent from the 14,748 recorded across the country in 2010. That would put the number of murders at the lowest since 1968, when 13,800 were committed, according to FBI records.

U.S. population in 1968: 200 million - 13,800 murders

U.S. population in 2011: 300+ million - < 13,800 murders

And of course that's with 40 more years worth of guns (millions?) being manufactured, sold, and in the hands of us wacky, gunlinging Americans.

It has been shown in multiple studies that jurisdictions with higher levels of legal gun ownership consistently have lower rates of all crime categories. And jurisdictions with the tightest gun control have the highest rates of crime.

I think the best chance for a solution is to hold in prison for a very long time those who are convicted of using a weapon while committing a crime.

It has been shown in multiple studies that jurisdictions with higher levels of legal gun ownership consistently have lower rates of all crime categories. And jurisdictions with the tightest gun control have the highest rates of crime.
Sources please?

PD....you must quit confusing the argument by using facts!

My dozen or so guns combined have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.....and have crossed far more bridges in their time.

Hydro.....there are numerous studies published on that topic.

It is a proven fact...proven empirically....that upon passage of Concealed Carry Laws....violent crime rates dramatically decrease. The same studies show that legally carried handguns do not increase shooting deaths due to accidental discharge or mis-use by the Licensed gun owner.

There is one very interesting study about Rape Prevention that I try to dig up for you....it is an eye opener.

I think the best chance for a solution is to hold in prison for a very long time those who are convicted of using a weapon while committing a crime.

Nope, using a firearm whilst carrying out criminal activity should have one penalty. A "life" sentence.

And that "life" should be around 72 hours to ensure that the paperwork is in order before the needles go in.

Start doing that and you'll see the amount of criminals using firearms to terrify others drop like a Branson Balloon.

I found this fairly comprehensive article, published with citations for its conclusions and assertions.

Gun Control (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

Thanks for asking, Hydromet. I learned a few new things reading the entire article.

And of course that's with 40 more years worth of guns (millions?) being manufactured, sold, and in the hands of us wacky, gunlinging Americans.

Stats and even more stats :ok:

Over 9,000 Murders by Gun in US; 39 in UK | Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html)

Forget all the bolleaux rhetoric and JUST take a look at the figures. I have absolutely no idea of how accurate they really are and I have no axe to grind with regards to the subsequent opinions it's just the numbers that jump out at me.

You'll get no argument from me that ours is a hideously violent society. That's a big reason why I'm armed myself.

As mentioned before, many of these murders are bad people killing other bad people, doing the job our courts aren't.

What the comparison to UK numbers can't show is how many murders there would be if the people were disarmed.

Or how many less murders there would be in the UK if people were armed, or the criminals knew that people could be armed. Just think of the children. If it saves just one life...

Ours is a violent society....no doubt.

There have been many studies that hoped to explain why that is so.

None have been able to adequately explain the problem in my view.

That being said.....I know no one that has been murdered, wounded in a shooting, who has been a victim of Rape or Armed Robbery, or who has been assaulted. I do know people who have been the victim of property crimes but only a few.

So....it really falls down to where you live, where you hang out, who you hang out with, and how much you prepare and protect yourself by being aware of your surroundings and maintaining a good Situational Awareness.

That being said....I maintain a Concealed Weapons Permit and carry a firearm when I must venture into what I consider risky areas or situations. I practice with the weapons I carry so i am proficient in the use of them and ensure they are in good condition and will function reliably if I ever do have to use them.

I did display a weapon on one occasion when two Navajo Indians sought to relieve me of my watch, wallet, and car. So I can vouch that having a gun can sometimes work very much in your favor.

Personally, I think we are far to lenient on violent criminals. I favor mandatory 30 year sentences for anyone using a firearm or any other weapon in the commission of a crime such as Robbery, Assault, or Homicide. If it is a premeditated murder....I am all for the Death Penalty...and it being Mandatory.

The sad commentary is we take way too long to carry out the Executions of Killers....and we make it too nice, neat, and comfortable. If society is to kill a citizen it should be a bit repugnant lest we get too fond of it. I also believe it should be done in public like the old days.

If we are to stay a violent society then we should deal with the violent in a violent way. There should be a real down side to anyone using violence unlike now where even a Life Sentence is really something like 12 years in Prison after all the Good Time and other time cutting policies are applied. I just do not see how we can trade a human life for the killer spending only 12 years in prison. Something is wrong with that equation.

Or how many less murders there would be in the UK if people were armed, or the criminals knew that people could be armed. Just think of the children. If it saves just one life...

Sorry but if you expand that notion to include how many arguments in the home or neighbourhood would end up in someone simply taking a gun to sort the problem then the lives you think might be saved are cancelled out in spades :=

Stats and even more stats

Over 9,000 Murders by Gun in US; 39 in UK | Informed Comment

Forget all the bolleaux rhetoric and JUST take a look at the figures. I have absolutely no idea of how accurate they really are and I have no axe to grind with regards to the subsequent opinions it's just the numbers that jump out at me.

let's start off with the basics here.

A Left-Wing "Blog" is hardly an unbiased source, especially since the figures he quotes for the US in 2009 are actually LOWER than they were 11 years earlier. I wonder why he doesn't mention that? Of course, he would have had more joy comparing similar years, where a drop in the numbers was shown by both countries (year on year in the US since a "high" in 2006) instead of pointing out that there was an INCREASE in UK gun related homicides between 07 and 08, same as he neglected to tell us of the INCREASE in "other" (i.e. not suicide or murder, but "accidental") deaths by firearm in the UK between 08 and 09 where the rate more than DOUBLED. But, hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your rantings over something you don't truly understand, or we'll start on knife crime and the UK record on that.


And what percentage of these murders are by LEGALLY held firearms? I can lay a nice bet that over 98% of the UK figure is by ILLEGALLY held weapons, and that over 80% of the US figure is by ILLEGALLY held weapons. So how will any sort of "gun control" cut the death rate when those who want the firearms will get them, as seen in the UK, and the corresponding rate of killings will rise, as seen in the UK, as well as the corresponding rate of injuries rising (as seen in, guess).


So please don't talk about things you only see through your red glasses, the UK is proof that strict gun control does NOT work, as seen by the rise in the criminal use of firearms after the "ban" was enacted. In the first year after the ban, crimes where firearms were used more than DOUBLED. The year up to April 2002 saw a 35% rise over the previous year, with a 46% rise in the use of handguns in crime, and was the FOURTH year in a row where the levels of firearms being used in the committing of a crime ROSE and took levels to the highest for almost a decade.

So, just looking at that one paragraph above, explain how the strict UK gun laws "worked". The simple answer is that they didn't, and still don't. So tell us all how doing the same to the US will mean that the amount of people being shot will miraculously disappear.........

Sorry but if you expand that notion to include how many arguments in the home or neighbourhood would end up in someone simply taking a gun to sort the problem then the lives you think might be saved are cancelled out in spades :=

There is plenty of evidence that supports the concept of less stringent gun laws* = less crime.

The myth of domestic violence escalating with availability of firearms is not sustainable. Domestic violence remains at the same level with or without firearms. Only the method changes, not the result, sadly.




* I was going to say "liberal", but that just didn't sound right:p

Using your own figures, 1,600 people were killed in the USA by legally held firearms per annum. Clearly we should have far more legally held firearms.

Using your own figures, 1,600 people were killed in the USA by legally held firearms per annum. Clearly we should have far more legally held firearms.

How many of those were criminals killed by a law abiding citizen with his legally owned firearm?

You tell me. With sources. And sources to back your previous statements.

I am asking. I don't know. This fellow, OTOH has a lot of answers:

John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott)

More Guns, Less Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime)

The Lott and Mustard study is an excellent bit of research....proven by all of the personal attacks made on the Researchers by the Anti-Gun Lobby. They failed to challenge the method and conclusions so reverted to the standard "destroy" the individual that disagrees with you attitude.


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Using your own figures, 1,600 people were killed in the USA by legally held firearms per annum. Clearly we should have far more legally held firearms.

What figures would that be, perthsaint? And where did WingSlinger post them?

Or are you too wrapped up in using your "new" alias (joined 4 years ago, 0 posts, suddenly appear after someone else's "argument" gets destroyed.... Seen it all before) to realise what you are saying?

So, come on, tell us all where you got that "1600 people" from.

With sources, give us the links to show that there were 1600 homicides using firearms in the US EVERY YEAR. Go on, do it. I want to see where you get that figure from.

And, at the same time, explain the logic in you trying to preach to another country when a THIRD of all violent incidents in Edinburgh, where your location allegedly is, involve the use of knives, where the level of Rape has risen 40% in one year, a 16% rise in street robberies, etc. Make sure your own nose is clean before you start lecturing others, especially on subjects like this

The figures are yours hellsbrink. 9000 murders by gun, you estimate 80% by illegally held gun. So, 20% of 9,000 is actually 1,800. My apologies for the understatement.

Oh, and just for the avoidance of doubt, as this is a public forum I'll comment on what I like when I like.

Aah, so you now say that my "bet", comparing a GUESSED percentage of killings by firearm in the UK and US using LEGALLY HELD firearms, bearing in mind that the rises I was talking about came AFTER the kneejerk UK firearms BAN, which was used to show how super-dooper-strict gun control legislation DOES NOT WORK is somehow a FACT and you actually wanted ME and not WingSlinger to provide stats on something that was never said to be fact?

Frikking excellent. Do yourself a favour and go back to what you used to be called before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.

SASless,

You have raised something a few times now. Hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions, which might appear daft. Other people may be able to help as well.

You have mentioned that you are entitled to carry a concealed weapon;

what defines a concealed weapon?
How do you become entitled to carry a concealed weapon?
What limitations are there on being able to carry a concealed weapon?
What training do you have to undergo to be able to carry a concealed weapon? Could you carry a M72 LAW as a concealed weapon, or would that be going too far?
What proof do you carry to say you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon?
When are you entitled to use a concealed weapon?
Can visitors to the USA obtain a licence to carry a concealed weapon?

I did say they might appear to be daft.

Many years ago, in a similar thread, a PPRuNer from SEA commented that the first thing visitors from UK asked to do was to go to a firing range.

I guess they are not all antis, even if they cannot understand our philosophy regarding the 2nd.

Ah, you're guessing, hellsbrink. Maybe try to do some research, acquire credibility, think things through before contributing to discussions in future?

Your stats on Edinburgh's rapes and knife-crime - more fantasies?

let's start off with the basics here.


So, just looking at that one paragraph above, explain how the strict UK gun laws "worked".

Ercule,

Basics......I said ignore all the rhetoric bolleaux and look at nothing more than the numbers.

Looking at nothing more than the numbers it's hard to argue how the UK gun was have not worked. I care not a flying f@<hidden>, in the same way that others across the pond argue about how many how many bad guys kill each other I really really don't and trying to muddy the waters with bloody knife/cricket bat/four iron/rolling pin crime is just daft

Like the circular smoking row, which within a half dozen posts some feckin idiot introduces the effect of desiel emissions as being way more dangerous than niccottene this discussion turns the same circle every time :ugh:

hval,

The law varies from State to State and in some cases City to City.

Some States have reciprocity agreements that allow a citizen of one state to exercise the privileges of a licensed CCW permit as if the holders permit was issued in the other state.

Training and other standards vary slightly as well.

The short answer to if a foreigner can obtain the CCW Permit would require review of the state law where you want to carry the gun. Generally, that would not be permitted.

CCW Permits pertain to Hand Guns or other weapons (rifles, shotguns) carried concealed from plain sight. Sorry...no machine guns, bazookas, anti-tank guns). Some states allow open carry....that is strap on yer six shooter in your John Wayne holster and go to town shopping. Some states are "must issue" a couple do not even require a CCW (Alaska being one), where most states are "may issue" states.

In North Carolina...one can carry a concealed weapon on your own property, home or business without a permit....but not anywhere else without the permit. Where you can go with a concealed weapon is also very restricted....and varies from State to State.

There are no simple...straight forward answers to your questions due to the various state laws being similar but different.

My CCW looks just like my Drivers License pretty much....photo, permit number, expiration date and I must have it in my possession whenever having a gun with me. If stopped by a Police Officer...the first thing out of my mouth after rendering a polite greeting of the day is to inform him I have a CCW and also have a weapon(s) in my possession. Even omitting to tell him is a violation of the law....despite being legal to have the weapon.

The basic rule on using the weapon is only for self defense of myself...or others in the face of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Some states do not require a Citizen to retreat....some do...and if one is smart...the only time you would use the weapon would be in an absolutely extreme situation where it would easily be explained as the very last resort.

My attitude is just that....the only time someone will ever know I have the gun is when it comes out and goes BANG! Unless I am in fear of getting really hurt or killed...there will be a way to deescalate the situation by backing off, running away, or escaping by some means. If required....I will use the gun for what it is built for....taking aggression out of violent people.

For your reference.....

Concealed Weapons or Firearm Program - Division of Licensing, FDACS (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html)


NCDPS - Concealed Carry Permits (http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/index2.cfm?a=000003,000014,000935,000942#)

Actually, perthsaint, you be wrong. YOU are the one who decided that my clearly stated "bet" was somehow fact, I never made that claim.



Oh, and the Edinburgh stats came direct from the Police in their annual "crime stats" report. Unlike you, I don't indulge in fantasies like claiming that a figure that was CLEARLY never claimed to be a "fact" is somehow one that could be used to twist an argument, NEVER lied when taking a figure for ONE year and claimed it was somehow a "per annum" figure, DIDN'T miscalculate a figure (that was clearly never claimed to be a fact) in my rush to try and "prove a point" and certainly NEVER tried to claim that something that was clearly never claimed to be fact was one and then tried to use that to discredit someone since my own argument had failed.

And since you couldn't even remember who you were replying to, in your hurry to login and fire one off, you cannot mention anyone else's "credibility". Any you had was lost the second you started on WingSlinger because you were in too much of a hurry to rabidly type a message you couldn't even read the name of the person who posted a reply to similar drivel to yours a mere two posts before you appeared and started on WingSlinger. And you have the nerve to tell anyone else to

Maybe try to do some research, acquire credibility, think things through before contributing to discussions in future

when you couldn't even READ THE DAMNED NAME OF THE POSTER YOU WERE REPLYING TO a mere two posts earlier!!!

Hells, he was on a roll man, just like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour.

FACTS! He don' need no stinkin' facts. :p

con-pilot

"he was on a roll man, just like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour."

I like that :ok::O




One thing when discussing firearms, crime, regulation, ownership et al which is something I do daily / weekly and have done for years, the "other side" really do tend to distort the facts more than the gun owners side who tend to be a bit more level headed.

While on the subject - oppose the UN wherever you can in most things
they do as they are the worst anti gun people out there.
.

Ercule,

Basics......I said ignore all the rhetoric bolleaux and look at nothing more than the numbers.

Looking at nothing more than the numbers it's hard to argue how the UK gun was have not worked. I care not a flying f@<hidden>, in the same way that others across the pond argue about how many how many bad guys kill each other I really really don't and trying to muddy the waters with bloody knife/cricket bat/four iron/rolling pin crime is just daft

Like the circular smoking row, which within a half dozen posts some feckin idiot introduces the effect of desiel emissions as being way more dangerous than niccottene this discussion turns the same circle every time

So, I see you have returned to your usual "insult" form of argument, as usual, right at the start of your reply. Nice to see nothing has changed there.

And it's nice to see that you don't actually "care" about the discussion but merely wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to agree with YOU whilst ignoring everything to do with the actual "numbers". "Ban Guns, damn what real life is like, I don't like them" is hardly an argument, you just like stirring things up.

Nice to see you were in so much of a hurry to post, you decided that "Gibberish" was more important than English.

Maybe you should go back to Barbie, it's safer for you than playing on a computer.

So, I see you have returned to your usual "insult" form of argument, as usual, right at the start of your reply. Nice to see nothing has changed there.

Maybe you should go back to Barbie, it's safer for you than playing on a computer.

Oh Ercule,

How you make me giggle.

38 years military service, a standard outload whilst in NI was a 9mm plus an SA 80 plus a GPMG(M60 for those across the water) and over 2 years flying over the border areas there was enough to make me as grey as I am.

In Iraq or Afghanistan no GPMG because my role had changed but still 9mm and rifle.

Barbie, my little Belgian waffle, there are few posters on here who have walked the walk and there are a few who have done nowt more than played PS3 :ok:

I like that

Thank you, not mine however. I stole it from 'Animal House', de movie.

Nice one, hellsbrink, you accuse someone of using an "insult" form of arguement then suggest they go and play with their Barbie. What it must be like being such an intellectual giant.

Thank you, not mine however. I stole it from 'Animal House', de movie.

Belushi was as funny as a funny thing in that movie and when he made that speech.......

Although I still think the guy measuring up the Deans office doorway before starting the chainsaw is one of the funniest things I think I have ever seen :D

I'm out of this one now for a while,
thanks for a good discussion :ok:

Oh Ercule,

How you make me giggle.

38 years military service, a standard outload whilst in NI was a 9mm plus an SA 80 plus a GPMG(M60 for those across the water) and over 2 years flying over the border areas there was enough to make me as grey as I am.

In Iraq or Afghanistan no GPMG because my role had changed but still 9mm and rifle.

Barbie, my little Belgian waffle, there are few posters on here who have walked the walk and there are a few who have done nowt more than played PS3

Then you should buy an xbox for some variation, shouldn't you.

I fail to see what any of your above post has to do with the point at hand, what I said to you, how the super-strict kneejerk gun control laws in the UK have done diddly to combat the use of firearms in all sorts of criminal activity. But you don't give a monkey's tooter about little things like that, it means you have to actually look at what happens in the world instead of just getting on your soapbox.

(Anyway, been a while since we traded insults. You been keeping ok?)

Although I still think the guy measuring up the Deans office doorway before starting the chainsaw is one of the funniest things I think I have ever seen

The "Ladder Scene" was a classic too.

Shame John was taken from us so early.

Thank SASless,

No machine guns! Piffle.

Why do people make reading the laws so complex? Same problem here in the UK. By the time you have referred to section 790.591 and section 316.193 and...and.... you have a million windows open.

Personally, I am not against people owning weapons. I am unable to say whether more people in the UK are killed from small arms than the USA (% population) as most of the data is bollocks, and both sides (USA and UK) just quote what ever agrees with their own beliefs. I have yet to see any accurate data that is not politically biased in some way or another.

One thing, when it comes to politics even the Conservatives in the UK tend to be more left wing than the left wing Americans. It is interesting to see the differences in culture coming in to play when it comes in to weapons ownership.

The "Ladder Scene" was a classic too.

Shame John was taken from us so early.

That movie has so many great memories for both Mrs L and I as it was the focal point of the Rugby Club at RAF Bruggen where we were social members in 81-84. Between Animal House and the Blues Brothers those were such memorable times.

Finished with the RAF in early June and Mrs L and I are touring Europe in our Motorhome. Done the south of France, Beziers to Italy, down the west coast of Italy To Sorrento and then a ferry from Bari to Dubrovik. Now just west of Split at a place called Trogir before heading to Slovenia, Budapest, Prague then home in mid September.

Let's keep jousting as it is fun :E

Why do people make reading the laws so complex? Same problem here in the UK. By the time you have referred to section 790.591 and section 316.193 and...and.... you have a million windows open.

Personally, I am not against people owning weapons. I am unable to say whether more people in the UK are killed from small arms than the USA (% population) as most of the data is bollocks, and both sides (USA and UK) just quote what ever agrees with their own beliefs. I have yet to see any accurate data that is not politically biased in some way or another.

One thing, when it comes to politics even the Conservatives in the UK tend to be more left wing than the left wing Americans. It is interesting to see the differences in culture coming in to play when it comes in to weapons ownership.

More are killed by firearms in the US compared to the UK, there is no question about that and that has never been denied. But, conversely, more people are victims of knife crime in the UK than in the US (as a % of the population). Proper, official, unbiased stats are out there, and these are what I refer to, the "political" stuff gets ignored.

The proportion of LEGALLY held firearms used in killings in the US is something that is hard to find, I've been able to find "estimates", and even if you find a figure it doesn't necessarily differentiate between those where it is "self defence" and "cold blooded murder". Once I get them, since they must be out there somewhere, they will be posted. Going by reports, I would say that my "guesstimate" earlier saying "80%" of killings being the result of the use of illegally held firearms is maybe a tad conservative, it's probably higher. Also, the figures out there do like to include "suicide" as a firearm death, which is up there with one place on a road in the UK which had a speed camera installed as they counted people topping themselves by jumping off a bridge onto the road as a "road death". These numbers have to be kept separate as someone who gets so far down as to try that sort of thing is VERY likely to use another method if a firearm is not available.

Nobody has ever denied that legally held weapons have been used in killings. In many of these you will also find that, if the gun wasn't there, something else would have been used to do the same thing (think a knife instead of a gun when someone has an extremely heated argument with the missus, as an example, or a woman killing her violent husband/partner after a long period of abuse). So getting the actual figures of murder using illegal and legal weapons is very hard to do, but one is determined!

Let's keep jousting as it is fun

Indeed, it is. And since it keeps others entertained as well, who am I to deny them their pleasure.

And if you get near to Anvers on the way home let me know so beerskis can be arranged, Douche. :p

I would like to think that anybody here would be willing to come down to Lavender Hill Cape Town (where armed gang warfare has killed 45 people in the last 90 days) and to talk to the moms and all and tell them that it wasn't arms that killed their loved ones!

Less guns fellahs and more civilised good guys!

Caco

Ah, but that's where your "Less guns fellahs and more civilised good guys!", although a noble idea, falls apart as you clearly state that (my highlighting)

armed gang warfare has killed 45 people in the last 90 days

How do you propose taking the weapons from the CRIMINAL element, instead of merely disarming the law-abiding part of society whilst leaving the gangs to carry on regardless?

Actually it was the other moms' loved ones that killed them.

Caco

How many of those killed were gang members and how many "innocents".


If they want to shoot it out, they should round up all the gangs, stick them in a huge building and let them go for it. The likelyhood is you will have maybe one or two left which is when you send in the police to respond to a shooting call to finish them off. Problem solved, gangs gone, self inflicted happiness.:ok:

Yeah fellah! :(

My last experience of this was a young girl who took 6 (yes six bullets) for her sins and survived!

Caco

Caco

How do YOU propose to disarm the "gangs"?

Personally, well, my views are known. And the "Last Man Standing" concept of 500N has been mentioned before too. But that still doesn't disarm those with illegally held firearms who use them without giving a single microgram of crap about bystanders.

You want to cure that "problem", tell us how to get the weapons out of the hands of the gangs as well as making sure that a corrupt police force actually enforces the law instead of helping the gangs by "renting out" weapons.

We "hit" Terrorists outside the country....why not here at home too?

If Military Recruiters are required to photograph all potential recruits Tattoo's to determine if they have any Gang Related Tats...thus making them ineligible to enlist....why not do the same when these guys get arrested....except instead of barring them from something....iet it add their name to the Hit List! On Obama's non-golfing days...few as they are....he could do the check mark thing on that list as he does the Terrorist hit list.

Guys

I know where you are coming from but it ain't all about arms (with respect to Andre who pointed out that we couldn't shoot the shits in back)... (though we wanted to ....)

Caco

Caco

Why not. They do to others.

You will never disarm the gangs, hence my last man standing solution.

Take the guns off them, they will re arm. And you will never get rid of guns
from society so not an option.

Best get rid of them, word will soon get around that their is a line in the sand.

In regards to last man standing, by capitalising on their own "survival of the fittest", you are using their own sense of survival to get rid of themselves, saving you from having to do it (except maybe the clean up).
.

[quote] 500N

Darwin awards were suspended in the UK !!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

All potential Darwin award candidates merge and create the riots
like they had a year or two ago.

:D:D:D

And given state aid to breed !! :yuk:

Came across this yesterday. It puts a whole new meaning to being a bounty hunter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html

Moynihan is dead, and so are his ideas.

cavortingcheetah
Doesn't take into account that individuals can make / produce their own ammunition at home by the thousands and plenty of places to buy or obtain components other than excess brass from the range.


Wing Slinger
Good to hear his ideas are dead.

Chris Rock might well have the solution to the gun crisis.

We need bullet control, since it's way too late for gun control.

Just make a bullet cost $5000.

Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube

If Military Recruiters are required to photograph all potential recruits Tattoo's to determine if they have any Gang Related Tats...thus making them ineligible to enlist....why not do the same when these guys get arrested....except instead of barring them from something....iet it add their name to the Hit List! On Obama's non-golfing days...few as they are....he could do the check mark thing on that list as he does the Terrorist hit list.

Good point

More Americans were murdered last year at home than anywhere overseas but then the US sends its military and spies overseas to kill lots of other people because they somehow threaten US lives...............

You know reading the above statement you end up with one of those banging heads on the wall moments.

You know reading the above statement you end up with one of those banging heads on the wall moments.

No, your posts usually lead to that. :rolleyes:

pprune fishing for is way....way....too easy nowadays!:E

Some topics are tailor made for it....and the least bit of bait lightly cast upon the tramquil waters brings a big ol' sucker up from the bottom in a heck of a big splash with the least of delay or effort!:O

pprune fishing for is way....way....too easy nowadays!:E

Some topics are tailor made for it....and the least bit of bait lightly cast upon the tramquil waters brings a big ol' sucker up from the bottom in a heck of a big splash with the least of delay or effort!:O

Ain't that the truth, mention the need for gun control in any shape or format and the same whoppers seem to rush to chow down on that hook every single time :p

Same as mentioning tobacco and seeing how quickly the antis come rushing in with their "I don't like it so it should be banned, and those who smoke should be flogged daily with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire until they see the error of their ways. Everyone should do as I want and damn what they think", sffp.. ;)

Same as mentioning tobacco and seeing how quickly the antis come rushing in with their "I don't like it so it should be banned, and those who smoke should be flogged daily with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire until they see the error of their ways. Everyone should do as I want and damn what they think


The goal and M.O. of neo-Puritans is to try and change the behavior of those engaged in non-threatening activities they don't personally approve of by pretending those activities are threatening them in the same manner a committed Socialist pretends those same behaviors are a danger or harmful to that nebulous concept they call "society", which they claim to be the guardians of.

First they marginalize, then attempt to regulate and criminalize. For them it's far easier to create a new class of "criminal" than to go after actual criminals.

No, your posts usually lead to that.

Given you living in OKIE .................how is your Uncledad.

Same as mentioning tobacco and seeing how quickly the antis come rushing in with their "I don't like it so it should be banned, and those who smoke should be flogged daily with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire until they see the error of their ways. Everyone should do as I want and damn what they think", sffp.. ;)

Could not agree more, those sanctimonious feckers that seek to ban something simply based on their own blinkered view on things bring absolutely nothing to the debate and can be simply laughed out of most discussions because of their narrow indeed views.

Now those folk who join a debate and seek to find harmony and a live and let live approach to the problems being discussed, now they truly are the enlightened folk :ok:

SFP.....yes....absolutely correct....to a point. The call for Gun Control is as predictable as can be. Any shooting that makes it into the News...acts like the combination of a Full Moon, receipt of Welfare Checks, and inclement weather trapping people inside their homes.....the Loonies make themselves known.

They bring the same old warped thinking...the same old cliches....the same old false statistics....and bags of emotion, sarcasm, and wrong headed thinking to the debate once they are reminded of the fallacies of their arguments.

You will notice this thread is just like life itself.

We are talking about anything but the shooting in Aurora.

The media have moved on to new topics....as has this thread.

One thing is a constant however.....the Media and other Ban the Gun folks cling to sensationalism, false accusations, innuendo, and insult to get noticed.

I do wish the Anti-gun crowd would just once rationally look for solutions to the problem by addressing the root cause of the violence but do so in a real world, honestly impartial way, leaving their agenda out of it.

But then I understand that shall never happen....as Liberals just are not capable of that kind of thing. To them....it is all about pushing their preconceived and wrong-headed ideas upon others.....not solving problems.

Pity the Democrats didn't take the Moynihan Report seriously. Instead, they doubled-down on failed government programs, destroying what is left of the inner city nuclear family.

The result: rampant poverty and crime. The predictable solution: more government control.

And so it continues....

Given you living in OKIE .................how is your Uncledad.


Aaah, isn't that cute, you're trying to be insulting. I'll give you a 2, on a fourth grade level scoring system.

Try again when you grow up, I might be dead from old age by that time mind you. But I'll wait as long as I can. :p

Said a lot more about himself than he did about you, C-P.

Seems a Village is missing its Idiot!:rolleyes:

Aaah, isn't that cute, you're trying to be insulting. I'll give you a 2, on a fourth grade level scoring system.

Try again when you grow up, I might be dead from old age by that time mind you. But I'll wait as long as I can.

Thankfully I wasn't educated in the US education system as your fourth grade........thats the level required of your politicians isn't it.

One day they may even teach you geography...................... Saudi citizens bring down WTC and bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq and bend over for the Saudi's.

thats the level required of your politicians isn't it.



Don't know, can't speak for Obama, the rest of our President do have substantiated university educations. :p

One day they may even teach you geography

Oh my, more, not so clever, little meaningless insults. Do try better, letting down your side old boy.

Now this,

Saudi citizens bring down WTC and bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq and bend over for the Saudi's.

Really does not make any sense, at least not to a normal person.

The Saudis bombed Afghanistan and invaded Iraq to bend over for themselves? Really, I didn't know that.

Oh, one more thing before you go take your medicine that you have obviously forgotten about, this thread is about a shooting in Milwaukee. Not about geography and Saudi Arabia bombing Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Oh wait, I understand now, you think that Milwaukee is in the Middle East, well no wonder you are so confused.

I'd suggest you buy a map old boy, save yourself from all this embarrassment.

Don't know, can't speak for Obama, the rest of our President do have substantiated university educations.

That's funny

You mean like George "Cheerleader" Bush at Harvard...................yeah right.

Fraid if you using him as an advert for US Uni's then it falls a bit flat.................

Bush went to Yale and Harvard.

As for adverts for US Uni's (your phrasing), this will do fine, thanks:

Top 400 - The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2011-2012 (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html)

Bush at Harvard...................yeah right.


Now, now, just because you could never qualify to attend Harvard, no need to insult those better of you that can.

Must say, that you do seem to be rather very jealous of your betters, with all the attempted insults and all.

Maybe you'll get over it some day, there's always hope I suppose. :p

Oh, have you found to your satisfaction that Milwaukee is not in the Middle East yet?

"That's funny
You mean like George "Cheerleader" Bush at Harvard...................yeah right.
Fraid if you using him as an advert for US Uni's then it falls a bit flat.................


Racedo
I have never seen someone shoot down their own argument as quickly as you :D:D:D

Well done:ok:

Had lunch with my brother who is a confirmed "gun nut", er, I mean owner. More ammo and the bigger the calibre the better for him (in many other ways he is quite seriously intelligently sane).

Was laughing with him and then he pointed out these ammo merchants...

Introducing Zombie Max

Sh*t (Sh*@<hidden>), you can't be too careful!

Zombie Max - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc (http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax/)

You never know when you might have to deal with

Shaun Of The Dead (2004) Full movie HD - YouTube

Caco

Just how concerned is Obama about the Murder rate in Chicago....his "hometown"?

Think he cares about "Black on Black" violence?

Think he cares about corruption....Free Speech?

You wonder why the United States has such a problem with violent crime?

This is the Progressive Democrat attitude.....personified by the sitting President (until January 20th anyway!)!

Obama: 'Chicago Is an Example of What Makes This Country Great' | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-chicago-example-what-makes-country-great_649896.html)

Now, now, just because you could never qualify to attend Harvard, no need to insult those better of you that can.


The idea of Dubya being the better of anybody is laughable.

Dubya's qualifications to attend Harvard came in the form of what daddy wanted his drunken son to do..........and greenbacks helped.

Sure, sure, you bet buddy, what ever you think. Just now got back in from the Pub have you?

Oh, have you found to your satisfaction that Milwaukee is not in the Middle East yet?

Having spent time there I would agree.

However point stands..................kill an American outside US borders its war from US Govt, allow 13,000 to be killed (2010 stats) within its borders and look what happens, well pretty much nothing as yearly stats prove. basis.

Sure, sure, you bet buddy, what ever you think. Just now got back in from the Pub have you?


Nope

Have you put down the Moonshine yet ?

(Might as well as go for all the stereotypes when I am at it :E)

Just how concerned is Obama about the Murder rate in Chicago....his "hometown"?


About as much concerned as any politician is, that is until it becomes a media story or it happens to someone distantly connected to him or his sponsors.

He is a politician..

racedo

I am not his greatest fan but the guy went to Yale, then Harvard
as well as being a USAF Commissioned pilot (even though his
scores were supposed to be low).

It wouldn't worry me how much money his father had, to do all
four he had to have something going for him as someone would
have blocked him if he didn't.

Unless the US Air Force had pay for commissions and let
just anybody fly their jets which I find hard to believe.

I am not his greatest fan but the guy went to Yale, then Harvard
as well as being a USAF Commissioned pilot (even though his
scores were supposed to be low).

It wouldn't worry me how much money his father had, to do all
four he had to have something going for him as someone would
have blocked him if he didn't.


Check the incumbents grades in Colombia.................oh wait they are hidden like someone elses past.

Figured Dubya had connections with his Dads old "firm", think Obama's mum had as well strange as it may seem.

racedo

Thankfully I wasn't educated in the US education system as your fourth grade........thats the level required of your politicians isn't it.

One day they may even teach you geography...................... Saudi citizens bring down WTC and bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq and bend over for the Saudi's.


With your knack to butcher sentence structure and mis-punctuate the English language, your attempts to insult someone else's education system would be far more effective if you simply claimed to be one of its products.

Starting a sentence with "With"..................nuff said

Should really quite when I'm losing this bad but God loves a trier.......occasionally:rolleyes:

Starting a sentence with "With"..................nuff said


With all due respect, you're wrong, but don't kid yourself about how much respect I think you're due.

Pukindog

PM sent in 2 minutes.

A "must" read is "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

Don't get hung up on the plot....but do take time to digest the history of gun control in the United States......as it is very informative.

The factual telling of the chronology of events is a telling narrative on how the sometimes good intentions of government can go sadly astray....and then compounded by misfeasance and malfeasance of politicians and bureaucrats can go horribly wrong.


"UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" BY JOHN ROSS (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400388/posts)

With all due respect, you're wrong, but don't kid yourself about how much respect I think you're due.

Without any due respect I really don't care.

The factual telling of the chronology of events is a telling narrative on how the sometimes good intentions of government can go sadly astray....and then compounded by misfeasance and malfeasance of politicians and bureaucrats can go horribly wrong.


When young I though gun control was good a idea but then I believed Governments told the truth and acted honorably to its citizens and others.

Now with the benefit and access to information its easy to see that Governments of what ever hue and colour act with a specific interest.............their own and the pursuit and holding onto power.

Surprisingly its not guns that Governments are afraid of most, its information.

If citizens find out what the Government is really doing, in their names, then the Raison D'Etre of the Govt can become weakened very quickly. If citizens decide those in elected and unelected office no longer represent them, it not only undermines what those in power have but it also potentially removes them.

Its no great surprise that Governments want to censor the internet because controlling current media empires is easy. What is difficult is controlling what someone in another country finds out and posts for everyone to see.

. Its no great surprise that Governments want to censor the internet because controlling current media empires is easy...

Er, who is controlling who? So far Murdock and his cronies are the only ones that have been caught. Do you really think they are the only ones.

Er, who is controlling who? So far Murdock and his cronies are the only ones that have been caught. Do you really think they are the only ones.

Berlusconi in Italy springs to mind rather easily..........

Govt need the print and broadcast media as much as they need them............ a mutual parasitic relationship

If US President was republican then Murdoch wouldn't be getting investigated.... Govt of the day want to minimise impact of Fox News.

Al Jazeera in mid east never runs stories criticising its owners and funders.

BBC World service is funded by UK Foreign Office.

Kinda getting away from thread title.

Milwaukee just got left in the dust.....




South African police say they were forced to fire on striking miners, killing 34 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9481814/South-African-police-say-they-were-forced-to-fire-on-striking-miners-killing-34.html)

Here's a heartwarmer:

Gunpowder and Lead | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/gunpowder-and-lead.php)

Now that's my kind of woman!