REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Gun discussion do-over?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3261
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I've been absent from most of the gun discussions, but people on either end of the spectrum wind up feeding off implausibilities on one side and creating even more implausibilities on their own. Can we have a do-over?

But before you even decide to weigh in, you have to decide whether or not the level gun-deaths in the USA is a problem that MUST be solved.

Because, no matter what else I think, I know this for sure: unless we decide to change something… probably even several somethings… and change them in a meaningful way… the current level of gun violence will simply continue on as before. If you claim to want to “solve the problem” but are unwilling to consider meaningful and significant changes, that’s like saying “I want to lose weight but I won’t stop eating”. You either have to be willing to do what it takes to reduce gun deaths in America, or you consider gun deaths as acceptable collateral damage to whatever other interests you hold higher. You can’t have it both ways. The real world does not give you an infinite number of choices. You’re not dealing with the best of all possible worlds, you’re dealing with THIS one. So, are you willing to have your personal ox gored, whether that is "We need less guns?" or "We need more guns"?

-----------------------
 
The other thing I would like to cut out from discussion are “if-onlys”, “should-haves”, and “what-ifs”.

If only there  had been one cool-headed person with a gun...
What if this is the last weapon against total tyranny...?
What if everyone were packing...?

That kind of discussion reminds me of nothing more than rappy’s boogeymen: WHAT IF there is a ticking time-bomb?, WHAT IF Saddam really DID have WMD?   
 
I’m not interested in personal boogeymen, not even my own. Can we try and stick to facts as much as possible? So, in no particular order, here are what I consider to be salient facts:   
 
THE USA PER CAPITA GUN DEATH RATE IS STARTLINGLY HIGH  
El Salvador       50.36    
Jamaica           47.44    
Honduras          46.70    
Guatemala         38.52    
Swaziland         37.16    
Colombia          28.11    
Brazil            19.01    
Panama            12.92    
Mexico            11.14    
United States     10.2      
Philippines        9.46      
South Africa       9.41      


We share the high end of the list with the ass-end nations of the world???

Four more, then the next highest in the developed world is Canada ( 4.78), further down is Finland (3.64), Switzerland (3.5), France (3.00) and so on down the line through  New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (1.45), Germany (1.10), Australia (1.05),  all the way to the United Kingdom (0.25),  Japan (0.07) and Chile (0.06).
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_deat
h_rate

 
 
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS ARE RISKY
Trying to compare overall homicide rates, gun-deaths, and  gun-prevalence is difficult. China has a low homicide rate and a very low gun-prevalence. The USA is high on both. Our two nations "pin" the curve at both ends. But many nations are high on  gun prevalence and low on homicide rates. There are too many confounding variables on income inequality, cultural values, law enforcement, treatment of mental illness, drug legalization, civil rights and so forth to meaningfully compare nations.

The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns. That's like saying that in order to have a high auto accident rate, you must have society that is awash in cars. But having a high gun prevalence does not mean that you will necessarily have a high gun death. There are obviously other intervening factors at work. WHAT ARE THEY? Feel free to bring other studies to the board, but be prepared to discuss it in detail.
 
WITHIN THE USA, GUN PREVALENCE AND GUN DEATHS ARE STATISTICALLY LINKED
But one cannot say they are causally linked.
  
Quote:

The National Research Council of the National Academies in 2004 released a lengthy study of the available research on this issue, with the aim of finding whether a causal relationship existed. It didn’t find one, and it said that the available research itself was lacking. "In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide."


THE USA INCARCERATION RATE IS ALSO STARTLINGLY HIGH.
Quote:

The incarceration rate in the United States of America is the highest in the world. As of 2009[update], the incarceration rate was 743 per 100,000 of national population (0.743%).[2] In comparison, Russia had the second highest, at 577 per 100,000, Canada was 123rd in the world as 117 per 100,000, and China had 120 per 100,000.
Tossing people in jail hasn't seemed to either reduce our overall crime rate, our overall level of societal violence, or our gun-death rate.

GUNS NEITHER GUARANTEE NOR DESTROY CIVIL RIGHTS
There are nations with fewer guns which have more civil rights than we do, and nations with more guns which have fewer civil rights. If there are studies which show any specific correlation, please bring them to the board.


------------
This is a complicated topic for which there are no easy answers. But if we're prepared to have an opinion, shouldn't it be one which is well-researched and fully thought-out?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I do offer a solution, one that is low cost, immediately applicable, and hedges on the side of freedom while still having good potential to reduce bloodshed - it just gets ignored every time I post it.
Here: Again.
(REPOST)

Cribbed from THIS thread
(which is a good read in and of itself, about use of force, and goes into more detail on this solution)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52836
Quote:


Quote:
Mal4 -

CCW is the very basic Carry-Concealed-Weapon cert required to carry a concealed weapon, obviously.
And I firmly think that it would be a damn good idea to hold that level of training as a minimal standard for anyone who wishes to purchase one - alas that it's been proven (See Also: Jim March, Shall-Issue versus May-Issue) that the Government cannot be directly trusted with that decision, but I would firmly support offering indemnity from lawsuit to manufacturers and distributors in exchange for requiring such training as condition of a firearm purchase.

The cool thing is that it costs us nothing, the infrastructure is already there, instructors are inexpensive and ubiquitous, and the training itself is fairly standardized with allowances for the specific state the permit will be issued in.
It's a very sensible solution without adding more Government interference or stepping on anyones rights - although I have issues with revoking peoples right to bear arms for supposed "crimes" which prolly shouldn't be, but we can save that element of topic for later.

I do think the training is very important, for a fact I'd rather someone with the training but no weapon, than a weapon without the training - cause they'd be fully aware of problems like you mention and would very more likely act accordingly, although I think you have some misperception of the NRA and their stance on the matter, although for the record I dislike them as well simply because I feel they have failed to defend rights and become more self-serving than useful.


Worth noting I've brought it up many times, Google: Fireflyfans + Fremdfirma + Indemnity - and you will find quite a few examples.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Also, as an addendum to that, something which came to mind via reading those threads in combination with the one related to potential collateral damage...

Again, a Taser, while less-lethal (not NON-lethal, which is my real pet peeve on it's place in the use-of-force continuum) can lock someone up even FASTER than filling them with lead, and being, obviously, less-lethal, has a much lower potential for causing collateral damage.

So perhaps we should rethink our tactics in regard to an active shooter scenario and invest in some related training for security and law enforcement personnel ?

I also wouldn't say no to the notion of civvies equipped with them, since the risk of being accidently hit by someone trying to stop a shooter is something I would find personally acceptable in the situation, although I would be rather annoyed at being zapped, oh yes.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem, do you have any statistics that this would actually work?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Just saw this and thought it belonged on this thread. Forgive me if it has been posted already.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_23
32088.html


Course, I got a rebuttal to this rebuttal, but I'm too lazy to write it out. I'll just summarize my view with this thought:

Guns are the great equalizer. Just make sure some men are not more equal than others.



-----

Don’t waste your life not making amazing things with equally amazing people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:37 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Frem, do you have any statistics that this would actually work?



Hello,

Out of curiosity. If someone proposes something new that hasn't been tried in a particular form before, does that thing get disqualified through lack of statistics?

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
 
THE USA PER CAPITA GUN DEATH RATE IS STARTLINGLY HIGH  
We share the high end of the list with the ass-end nations of the world???


I would like to address problems and solutions later, but have a couple of points to make about this data.

I would note that the U.S. figure of 10.2 deaths per 100,000 is significantly affected by suicide, which is around 60% of the total firearms-related deaths in the data quoted. The U.S. seems to have an inordinately high rate of such suicides, following only Montenegro. So while this is violence against self, and can hurt others, it is not direct violence against others.

Quote:

The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns.


Not so much. The countries at the really crazy high end of the gun homicide rate charts (South Africa(12.7 guns per 100 people), Columbia(5.9), Thailand (15.6), Guatemala(around 15)) generally have much lower gun ownership than the U.S.(88) Also much lower than countries like Germany and France (both around 30). I might also note that the countries at the high end of the gun homicide table are generally also at the high end of the non-gun homicide table.

Nationmaster.com has most of this data under their 'crime' category. I had to look up gun ownership in Columbia and Guatemala seperately.

Quote:

THE USA INCARCERATION RATE IS ALSO STARTLINGLY HIGH.



Unfortunately, much of this rate has nothing to do with violent crime, and too much to do with the "War on Drugs". Only 8% of Federal prisoners and 52% of State prisoners are in for violent crimes. Federal prosecutors rarely bring charges for firearms possession by a convicted felon.

Quote:

This is a complicated topic for which there are no easy answers. But if we're prepared to have an opinion, shouldn't it be one which is well-researched and fully thought-out?



I agree. However, one must be careful of making assumptions in either direction. It's easy for one to accept data that supports one's position without getting down in the weeds where a slight difference, like between 'death rate' and 'homicide rate' becomes more apparent. I have made assumptions on bad data in the past, and it's made me very wary of numbers that 'prove' anything, unless I go back to the original data and do my own analysis.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:15 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Not so much. The countries at the really crazy high end of the gun homicide rate charts (South Africa(12.7 guns per 100 people), Columbia(5.9), Thailand (15.6), Guatemala(around 15)) generally have much lower gun ownership than the U.S.(88) Also much lower than countries like Germany and France (both around 30). I might also note that the countries at the high end of the gun homicide table are generally also at the high end of the non-gun homicide table.



So we're suffering from a terminal case of batshit crazy. What else is new?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Re: Tasers

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/06/mossberg-taser-x12-shotg
un
/

Hello,

The techology exists, in case anyone wondered. And there's no reason this can't be used in any pistol shape capable of handling a 12 gauge cartridge. It would solve self-defense needs while being much less prone to the phenomenon of mass murder.

Couple this with a 5-10 megapixel camera that takes low-light, high def, high speed image sequences when you pull the trigger. On-board recordkeeping for review purposes.

--Anthony

ETA:
For Officers who need to subdue multiple opponents quickly, something like this:


For people who need a concealable weapon, something like this:


For people who want a sidearm with multiple shot capacity, something like this:

or this:





Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Okay.

Problems and solutions.

First, I'd note that violent crime, including murder, has been on the decline since 1991, with murder rates dropping from 9.8 per 100,000 to around 3.7. But it could obviously still be better.

Now, what are the fuelers of violence in the U.S.?

Looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the leading cause of murder is arguments(including brawls due to influence of booze or drugs), with 3,509 (61%) of 5,711 where a cause is listed (The cause of 6,953 murders is listed as "Other not specified" or "unknown" for a total of 12,664 murders in 2011).

Next is robbery and burglary with 826 (14%) combined, and then gang-related (adult and juvenile combined) with 673(12%), and drug-related at 390(7%). Nothing else with a stated cause gets out of double figures.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-th
e-u.s.-2011
/ tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

Can we agree on these numbers?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Frem, do you have any statistics that this would actually work?


Just off the top (quick google scan) pulls these results, although it's fairly well known that CCW holders have a lower crime rate than most folk.
(and in combination with the data provided by Policemisconduct.net - lower than Law Enforcement personnel in general, as well)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a
mp;address=118x240402

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255264
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/27/scare-story-about-carry-permit-holde
rs-s


Also, one quibble I have about statistics is considering perps shot dead in the process of committing a violent crime to be "victims of gun violence" just to bulk up the stats - that is disingenious, at best.

Anyhows, I do believe the training itself has a culling effect on those who might be dangerous due to obvious flakery or poor impulse control, as most instructors would boot them from the class.
Sure you might get the occasional jerk or morally challenged instructor but they don't last long as nobody will much tolerate it and in-extremis that's when regulation does kick in cause they can be de-certified.

I have an issue with licensing/regulating the weapons themselves cause again, proven beyond reasonable doubt the Gov cannot be trusted with that, but by operating at a slightly removed point by licensing the instructors (which does have the same potential for abuse via simply refusing to license any, and must be closely watched) it provides the necessary distance from the process that I believe the Second Amendment requires - bonus in that by using an existing infrastructure it also minimizes expense or resource investment.

Now, mind you, to open the process wider would mean a bump in those stats at least initially, which no matter how statistically negligable would be latched onto by fanatics who would rant and rave and scream and try to run up a media panic - but fact is statistically someone who has met that minimum standard of training is far, far LESS likely to commit a crime than even a Police Officer.
(and likely so even after any temporary rise due to widening the process, even.)

While not a perfect solution, this is still a useful and more important immediately APPLICABLE, compromise solution which both protects the rights of all involved, and stands a very real chance of reducing the problems folks are so bloody concerned about it - AND, it costs damn near nothing to TRY.

Lets us not get into goalpost moving or demanding perfect but impossible solutions though - this is something real-world viable, mind.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:40 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I would note that the U.S. figure of 10.2 deaths per 100,000 is significantly affected by suicide, which is around 60% of the total firearms-related deaths in the data quoted. The U.S. seems to have an inordinately high rate of such suicides, following only Montenegro. So while this is violence against self, and can hurt others, it is not direct violence against others.



Why should we not considar suicides by guns when we are talking about gun control issues?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:19 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns. That's like saying that in order to have a high auto accident rate, you must have society that is awash in cars. But having a high gun prevalence does not mean that you will necessarily have a high gun death. There are obviously other intervening factors at work. WHAT ARE THEY? Feel free to bring other studies to the board, but be prepared to discuss it in detail.


Well trying to limit a society from being awash with guns would seem like a logical starting point, while you start looking at some of the other, more complicated factors. But there seems to be an ideological blind spot regarding that in the US as limiting guns = tyranny to so many people. So I must live in a tyrnanny then. Obviously I am too stupid to realise that I am being oppressed.


I tried to write about what I saw some of the causes in another thread, but got such a bad reaction that I am almost reluctant to comment.

I will give voice to the fact that American popular culture is awash with violence. Ratings in the US are lower for violence than here, but way higher for sex or nudity. It seems a typical American film is where you can watch someone being hacked to pieces, but showing a penis (which half the population have) - VERBOTEN.

I read a history of American first settlement recently and was struck by how how the basis of your society is a pack of violent, warmongering, intolerant, religious fanatics. I acknowledge my society was settled by criminals and their guards, so I'm not judging - just observing.

As societies grow and become more complex, so more people become lost and disenfranchised. Groups splinter off. Infrastructure becomes difficult. Societies just get too big to be functional. When you have that happening, and a society awash with guns, I think you get what is happening, happening.

I think Frem mentioned how the homicide stats include people being gunned down in crimes, but I still think that is a symptom of your society. Guns make criminals bold and commit bolder crimes than if they did not own them. Home invasion is relatively rare here, although burglary rates are probably just as high. Because there are less guns around, most crims will wait until you are out.

Anyway more later.

Son's last day at primary school (elementary to you guys)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:27 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I would note that the U.S. figure of 10.2 deaths per 100,000 is significantly affected by suicide, which is around 60% of the total firearms-related deaths in the data quoted. The U.S. seems to have an inordinately high rate of such suicides, following only Montenegro. So while this is violence against self, and can hurt others, it is not direct violence against others.



Why should we not considar suicides by guns when we are talking about gun control issues?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359]

Hello,

Because a person's body belongs to them. To nourish, foster, or destroy. Suicide is not a gun problem. It is a people problem. A gun is just efficient and usually less painful than the alternatives.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
Quote:

The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns. That's like saying that in order to have a high auto accident rate, you must have society that is awash in cars. But having a high gun prevalence does not mean that you will necessarily have a high gun death. There are obviously other intervening factors at work. WHAT ARE THEY? Feel free to bring other studies to the board, but be prepared to discuss it in detail.


Well trying to limit a society from being awash with guns would seem like a logical starting point, while you start looking at some of the other, more complicated factors. But there seems to be an ideological blind spot regarding that in the US as limiting guns = tyranny to so many people. So I must live in a tyrnanny then. Obviously I am too stupid to realise that I am being oppressed.


I tried to write about what I saw some of the causes in another thread, but got such a bad reaction that I am almost reluctant to comment.

I will give voice to the fact that American popular culture is awash with violence. Ratings in the US are lower for violence than here, but way higher for sex or nudity. It seems a typical American film is where you can watch someone being hacked to pieces, but showing a penis (which half the population have) - VERBOTEN.

I read a history of American first settlement recently and was struck by how how the basis of your society is a pack of violent, warmongering, intolerant, religious fanatics. I acknowledge my society was settled by criminals and their guards, so I'm not judging - just observing.

As societies grow and become more complex, so more people become lost and disenfranchised. Groups splinter off. Infrastructure becomes difficult. Societies just get too big to be functional. When you have that happening, and a society awash with guns, I think you get what is happening, happening.

I think Frem mentioned how the homicide stats include people being gunned down in crimes, but I still think that is a symptom of your society. Guns make criminals bold and commit bolder crimes than if they did not own them. Home invasion is relatively rare here, although burglary rates are probably just as high. Because there are less guns around, most crims will wait until you are out.

Anyway more later.

Son's last day at primary school (elementary to you guys)



Hello,

I am prepared to discuss the use of less-lethal alternatives to firearms if we can talk about them being deployed by the citizenry and the constabulary equally.

Presumably, we can imagine that a society where people who are stopped by a weapon without frequently being maimed or killed by it is a preferable one. And if anyone threatens me or my family, I am happier in stopping them without having to commit homicide to do it.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:32 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Because a person's body belongs to them. To nourish, foster, or destroy. Suicide is not a gun problem. It is a people problem. A gun is just efficient and usually less painful than the alternatives.



I think people who are willing to kill themselves need help. If they don't have a gun, which is pretty instantaneous, they might stop while in the process of trying something else.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:37 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Suicide is not a gun problem. It is a people problem.


Also possibly a how much do you want to mutilate yourself first problem. Lotta people use less messy practices like overdose, but it's also more reversible, with a stomach pump. Or I mean there's a perfectly good winter outside too, and you'll also look bad when they find you, but on the other hand, it only hurts for a while then you fall asleep. It might not be satisfying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Because a person's body belongs to them. To nourish, foster, or destroy. Suicide is not a gun problem. It is a people problem. A gun is just efficient and usually less painful than the alternatives.



I think people who are willing to kill themselves need help. If they don't have a gun, which is pretty instantaneous, they might stop while in the process of trying something else.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359]


Hello,

I prefer that nobody kill themselves. I have often discouraged the practice. Only once did I ever invoke forcible intervention, and I don't think I will ever do that again. I think it is the worst violation I have ever committed upon another human being.

I do not begrudge people having efficient means of self-destruction. If guns ever were significantly abolished, I'd want people to be able to use their health care to access efficient and effective poisons through their physician. If they want help or counseling, that should be arrangable, too.

You belong to you. And no one else.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
Quote:

The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns. That's like saying that in order to have a high auto accident rate, you must have society that is awash in cars. But having a high gun prevalence does not mean that you will necessarily have a high gun death. There are obviously other intervening factors at work. WHAT ARE THEY? Feel free to bring other studies to the board, but be prepared to discuss it in detail.


Well trying to limit a society from being awash with guns would seem like a logical starting point, while you start looking at some of the other, more complicated factors.



I see SignyM changed her post during or after my response to this comment, but the facts still indicate that her assertion that high rates of gun ownership are necessary for high rates of firearms murders might not be correct.

Here it is again.

"Not so much. The countries at the really crazy high end of the gun homicide rate charts (South Africa(12.7 guns per 100 people), Columbia(5.9), Thailand (15.6), Guatemala(around 15)) generally have much lower gun ownership than the U.S.(88) Also much lower than countries like Germany and France (both around 30). I might also note that the countries at the high end of the gun homicide table are generally also at the high end of the non-gun homicide table."

Now I haven't sat down with Excel and charted out gun ownership vs. gun murder by country from the data on Nationmaster, but just looking at the two charts, correlation between the two figures seems doutful.



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I am prepared to discuss the use of less-lethal alternatives to firearms if we can talk about them being deployed by the citizenry and the constabulary equally.

Presumably, we can imagine that a society where people who are stopped by a weapon without frequently being maimed or killed by it is a preferable one. And if anyone threatens me or my family, I am happier in stopping them without having to commit homicide to do it.




It's a chicken and egg discussion isn't it? I don't think its appropriate for police to be armed to the teeth and the citizens disarmed, I agree. If there were less weapons around, there would be less need for police to be armed. But how do you achieve either of those things?

There has been a lot of talk about confiscation of weapons. I can tell you what happened here for anyone that is interested in how things might work elsewhere.

From wiki

"Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles."


As you can see, we have bans on weapons that would not be acceptable to most US citizens, but it gives you an idea of how it could be done, if there was a will.

I've said before, I have a preference for unarmed police that are not aggressive in style, but I do see the need for SWAT style teams in cases of terrorism, or crimes involving arms. I think you'd have to think about how this would happen so that criminals are not more heavily armed than police.

If

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

I do see the need for SWAT style teams in cases of terrorism, or crimes involving arms. I think you'd have to think about how this would happen so that criminals are not more heavily armed than police.


Hello,

The gamut of less-lethal weapons is staggering... and currently the best of them are difficult for civilians to obtain.

The FBI deals with terrorism, but even so, I wonder why they'd need to use firearms against people except under the rarest of circumstances. If they did need to use firearms, why not the same variety of firearms deemed appropriate to the citizenry? A deer rifle or shotgun slug will stop a terrorist very ably when stun grenades, flash devices, tasers, chemical deterrents, and rubber bullets fail.

SWAT teams would similarly have all these tools at their disposal. If we really want a less violent society, then we need to question all of our misguided notions about violence. The most important thing we must set aside is the idea that you have to kill someone in order to stop them.

Even the most heavily armed and armored assailants of U.S. history are susceptible to the gamut of less-lethal munitions. Barring that, they'd be susceptible to hunting tools that are allowed in the hands of hunters even under strict weapons controls.

If gun control is something to be seriously considered in this country, then we need to realize that dangerous criminals don't have to be out-gunned in a continuously escalating arms race of more and more destructive lead-slingers. It's possible to use alternative tactics and tools to achieve the same goal of subdual, with a greater level of safety for the society we aim to protect.

The only reason these tools aren't widely distributed, amply marketed, and fully researched is because it's cheaper and easier to cave out someone's skull than to try anything else. Recently, I learned about a vehicle in my country being shot over a hundred times by a gaggle of police officers trying to stop it. That's ludicrous. We have the technology needed to stop cars.

If a better way is really desired, we must stop thinking in old-fashioned terms. It's time to apply Judo to the concept of violence. There is more than one way to meet force. Even an opponent of superior size and strength can be nullified without having to be matched.

--Anthony



Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The gamut of less-lethal weapons is staggering... and currently the best of them are difficult for civilians to obtain.



??? I don't know what this means.

Quote:

The FBI deals with terrorism, but even so, I wonder why they'd need to use firearms against people except under the rarest of circumstances. If they did need to use firearms, why not the same variety of firearms deemed appropriate to the citizenry? A deer rifle or shotgun slug will stop a terrorist very ably when stun grenades, flash devices, tasers, chemical deterrents, and rubber bullets fail.

SWAT teams would similarly have all these tools at their disposal. If we really want a less violent society, then we need to question all of our misguided notions about violence. The most important thing we must set aside is the idea that you have to kill someone in order to stop them.

Even the most heavily armed and armored assailants of U.S. history are susceptible to the gamut of less-lethal munitions. Barring that, they'd be susceptible to hunting tools that are allowed in the hands of hunters even under strict weapons controls.

If gun control is something to be seriously considered in this country, then we need to realize that dangerous criminals don't have to be out-gunned in a continuously escalating arms race of more and more destructive lead-slingers. It's possible to use alternative tactics and tools to achieve the same goal of subdual, with a greater level of safety for the society we aim to protect.

The only reason these tools aren't widely distributed, amply marketed, and fully researched is because it's cheaper and easier to cave out someone's skull than to try anything else. Recently, I learned about a vehicle in my country being shot over a hundred times by a gaggle of police officers trying to stop it. That's ludicrous. We have the technology needed to stop cars.

If a better way is really desired, we must stop thinking in old-fashioned terms. It's time to apply Judo to the concept of violence. There is more than one way to meet force. Even an opponent of superior size and strength can be nullified without having to be matched.





Oh I pretty much agree with all of what you say, only I'd suggest you might consider the need for similarily armed, not necessarily outgunned. I can think of circumstances where you would need an armed force, a little for the same reasons you outlined re the military needing to be in a different catagory because of the forces they face. In many parts of the world criminal elements are armed and organised on military lines. They are, in effect, waging war.

But I agree that non violent or less violent tactics can be learnt and used in many, many situations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:18 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

??? I don't know what this means.


Hello,

For instance, that advanced 12 gauge taser isn't sold to civilian markets, even though I'd rather use that to defend my home than 00 Buckshot.

Quote:

I can think of circumstances where you would need an armed force, a little for the same reasons you outlined re the military needing to be in a different catagory because of the forces they face. In many parts of the world criminal elements are armed and organised on military lines. They are, in effect, waging war.


Granted, but the circumstances for this are vanishingly small. Even well-armed or armored individuals are susceptible to many less-lethal arms. When very rarely required, such could be handled by a specially armed and trained team of FBI agents rather than ordinary constabulary (for whom such things are not normally in their jurisdiction anyway.)

You and I would probably never see such a group of Federal agents outside of a movie theater or police drama on television. If these rare specialists suddenly became prevalent, it would be a sure sign that things had gone to hell in a handbasket.

And if we ever stopped our destructive war on drugs, the incidents where such military equipped criminals are encountered will be reduced even further. Prohibition seems to breed criminals with military armaments. Real military armaments, not this semiautomatic stuff.

--Anthony








Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Hello,

For instance, that advanced 12 gauge taser isn't sold to civilian markets, even though I'd rather use that to defend my home than 00 Buckshot.


Okay, don't know where that fits in to this discussion, but I probably lack concentration at this time of year,

Quote:


Granted, but the circumstances for this are vanishingly small. Even well-armed or armored individuals are susceptible to many less-lethal arms. When very rarely required, such could be handled by a specially armed and trained team of FBI agents rather than ordinary constabulary (for whom such things are not normally in their jurisdiction anyway.)

You and I would probably never see such a group of Federal agents outside of a movie theater or police drama on television. If these rare specialists suddenly became prevalent, it would be a sure sign that things had gone to hell in a handbasket.



Right, again agree with you here. But isn't this sort of counter to the arguments that people use as to why they possess weapons?

I've always contended that I don't need a gun to protect myself or my family. That may be because I live in an area that isn't particularly rife with crime (and certainly not gun crime) but because there are other effective measures I can take. ie owning a lovely doggie with a mean bark. There are many measures I can take to make my property safe from burglars. Nothing of value in my home anyway, frankly except for a few mementos of my mothers, the rest of it is insured anyway.

So if there are ways in which police can manage dangerous situations with training, then surely there are for civilians as well.

Quote:

And if we ever stopped our destructive war on drugs, the incidents where such military equipped criminals are encountered will be reduced even further. Prohibition seems to breed criminals with military armaments. Real military armaments, not this semiautomatic stuff.

--Anthony



Again, agreed. Many things can be done to assist the current situation. Some would be easier to achieve than others.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:14 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Right, again agree with you here. But isn't this sort of counter to the arguments that people use as to why they possess weapons?


Hello,

I don't know anybody who owns weapons because they like the idea of killing people. Such persons probably exist, but I don't know any, so there must not be many of them.

People own weapons to defend themselves. To keep bad things from happening. To engage in a sport (I'd be happy to fire rubber bullets or paint slugs at my paper targets and tin cans.) I can protect my rights as easily with an electolaser as with a handgun. Anybody who says they own a weapon because they hope to kill someone someday is nuts.

Quote:


So if there are ways in which police can manage dangerous situations with training, then surely there are for civilians as well.



Absolutely. But for those times when weapons are useful, it is frustrating to find that the best and most sophisticated less-lethal choices are unavailable to civilians. I would be happy to defend my home from robbers using a shotgun loaded with taser shells. I do not need or want to kill them.

Unfortunately, right now the best taser technology is unavailable to me. Why should this be? What defective logic led to the decision that I should have lead slugs but not taser shells? It boggles.

--Anthony





Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:25 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If a better way is really desired, we must stop thinking in old-fashioned terms. It's time to apply Judo to the concept of violence. There is more than one way to meet force. Even an opponent of superior size and strength can be nullified without having to be matched.



So... why are you demanding that you have a right to be armed equal to the arms of the "constabulary"? Maybe I've misread your posts, but it seems an awful lot like you are unwilling to give up any arms that the police can have, so that you will be able to fight them if necessary. I am pretty sure that you have stated as much, several times.

My argument to you, that I haven't been able to make because it's been a hella busy week, is that this is a violence-based mentality that must be let go of if we are to move to a higher, more peaceful and more safe way of living.

From what you said here, it would appear that you and I agree. Does this mean that you are willing to go of your right to mass murdering devices, and stick with the less lethal type? Does this mean that you trust the defense of your freedoms to the non-violent means which the Constitution of our great country makes possible?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I don't know anybody who owns weapons because they like the idea of killing people. Such persons probably exist, but I don't know any, so there must not be many of them.

People own weapons to defend themselves. To keep bad things from happening. To engage in a sport (I'd be happy to fire rubber bullets or paint slugs at my paper targets and tin cans.) I can protect my rights as easily with an electolaser as with a handgun. Anybody who says they own a weapon because they hope to kill someone someday is nuts.


That wasn't my meaning.

I am struggling with the contradictions in your arguments. Maybe I am not understanding.

You say that police do not need equal or greater firearms to combat firearm crime. That there are other ways of diffusing a situation, of managing force without force.
To quote:

"If a better way is really desired, we must stop thinking in old-fashioned terms. It's time to apply Judo to the concept of violence. There is more than one way to meet force. Even an opponent of superior size and strength can be nullified without having to be matched. "

And I agree.

And then you say:

"People own weapons to defend themselves. To keep bad things from happening. "

But surely that counters your argument that force need not be met with force. Can you see how I am confused.


Quote:

Unfortunately, right now the best taser technology is unavailable to me. Why should this be? What defective logic led to the decision that I should have lead slugs but not taser shells? It boggles.


It certainly does boggle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:02 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

So... why are you demanding that you have a right to be armed equal to the arms of the "constabulary"?


Hello,

That's the wrong question. The correct question is, why does the constabulary have a desire to murder the citizenry? Why do they need devices whose only practical purpose, according to their detractors, is to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time?

What I do not want is to surrender my weapons and then be left at the mercy of over 500,000 people who are equipped to murder me, or even become a souce of weapons that others will use to murder me. Most particularly because I do not have access to the full variety of less lethal weapons I would need to counter them.

Quote:

Maybe I've misread your posts, but it seems an awful lot like you are unwilling to give up any arms that the police can have, so that you will be able to fight them if necessary. I am pretty sure that you have stated as much, several times.


Without traditional firearms, I do not have the tools counter individuals armed with weapons of mass slaughter. The prospect is daunting enough already without disarming. With such less-lethal tools, neither I nor the police would ever need to resort to slaughter to accomplish the goal of defense against aggression. Such weapons would no longer need to be in circulation. People in malls and theaters and schools wouldn't need to worry about some wackjob snuffing out a dozen or more human lives. Citizens wouldn't have to worry about being killed by policemen, either, which is a serious concern amongst some parts of the population.


Quote:

From what you said here, it would appear that you and I agree. Does this mean that you are willing to go of your right to mass murdering devices, and stick with the less lethal type? Does this mean that you trust the defense of your freedoms to the non-violent means which the Constitution of our great country makes possible?


This is precisely the scenario I am trying to propose. The Military keeps out of civilian affairs. The constabulary and the civilians get effective less-lethal deterrents. And THEN you can buy all these tools of 'mass murder' from me and recycle them into windmills. I'll use the proceeds to buy taser pistols and shotguns and the corresponding less-lethal ammunition. Everyone who needs to defend themselves will be better able to do so without the natural aversion to killing folk that most normal people have.

If the general constabulary ever re-equips for murder, or the military is used to suppress the population, it will be a clear sign that peaceful democratic processes have failed. A canary in the coal mine that everyone can see and respond to. It's actually a better and easier way for the average citizen to notice when things have gone south.

We can thus keep our right to bear arms for defense against tyrannies great and small while reducing gun murder by leaps and bounds.

--Anthony



Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:12 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

But surely that counters your argument that force need not be met with force. Can you see how I am confused.


Hello,

Yes, you misunderstand me. A Judo practitioner, for instance, uses force. But he does not necessarily use the exact same force as his opponent. He uses leverage and twists and other maneuvers. He may counter a punch with a push, a violent swing with a grasp and twist of the wrist. An enraged charge with a shoulder and a toss.

Similarly, if some guy is running around with an assault rifle, you may not need identical force to best him. You still need force, but it doesn't have to be in the form of an equal or greater assault rifle.

You may tase him, smash him with baton shells, stun him with grenades, shoot him with an electrolaser, dazzle him with lights, secure him with a net-gun, etc. All of these could be effective less-lethal stopping methods. They become especially effective in the hands of organized teams of operatives, which police ARE.

Even if lethal force was deemed absolutely necessary, a police sniper can take out such a person with the same weapon we might allow the deer or bear hunter to use. ESPECIALLY when he acts as part of a team (as police do) and ESPECIALLY if combined arms are presented, such as stun grenades or dazzling devices coupled with the carefully aimed, singular lethal blow.

Using a measured force against a brute force. And nobody needs to be worried about mass-murder.

--Anthony



Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Right, so I dont think we are disagreeing. I wouldn't want any special force armed with anything more than a sniper. That was what I was suggesting. Limited arms for general police - personally would prefer they (and you) limited weapons to things like tasers or capsicum spray and batons.

I personally like the British model, which is limited arms for police, much more so than here - which never makes sense to me.

"In order to allow armed officers to respond rapidly to an incident, most forces have patrolling Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs). ARVs were modelled on the Instant Response Cars introduced by the West Yorkshire Police in 1976, and were first introduced in London in 1991, with 132 armed deployments being made that year."

I think British police get better training in the use of non lethal force.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

I personally like the British model, which is limited arms for police, much more so than here - which never makes sense to me.


Hello,

The British model is good with two caveats.

1) I believe that even their limited use of lethal force could be further reduced. Knowledge of an armed assailant is not in itself enough of a reason to bring in the killers. A robust selection of nonlethal options may allow for effective nonlethal responses to lethal threats.

2) The citizenry have no practical tools of defense whatsoever.

So I am basically proposing the British model with an accommodation for second amendment rights.

The arms that the people keep and bear can be mostly a variety of effective less lethal weapons, rather than firearms.

Hunters could retain bolt-action/lever-action rifles suitable to their craft.

Sports shooters could possibly enjoy simple revolver style handguns or limited capacity target pistols and have marker ammunition available to them should they like to fire at some targets or tin cans.

Firearm equipped police, when RARELY required, could use the full gamut of nonlethal weapons in addition to hunting rifles/shotguns and revolvers. In most cases, I suspect tasers and stunning devices will subdue the lethally armed adversary without need for lethal response.

People fearful of tyrannical government will feel secure knowing that their constabulary is so limited.

People fearful of weapons of mass murder will feel secure knowing that nobody has such things. Not ordinary civilians. Not half-a-million police officers.

People fearful of robbers and rapists will be able to defend themselves against attack.

I think this solution would solve virtually everyone's problems.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Brits have less restrictions than we do.

"Except for Northern Ireland, fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) and self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons of calibre larger than .22 rimfire are totally banned, pistols are limited to .22 calibre in short barrel, while calibres up to .357 magnum are allowed in long barrel pistols (of total length at least 60 cm).[17] All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with good reason, which may include target shooting, hunting, and historic and black powder weapons, but not self-defence. Shotgun possession and use is controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A firearms certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ft·lbf for rifles, and 6 ft·lbf for pistols). Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearms Certificate."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

People fearful of tyrannical government will feel secure knowing that their constabulary is so limited.

People fearful of weapons of mass murder will feel secure knowing that nobody has such things. Not ordinary civilians. Not half-a-million police officers.

People fearful of robbers and rapists will be able to defend themselves against attack.




Seeing as most tyrannical governments use their military against their own citizens, I think you'd need to have a look at the force provided to your own army to feel really secure.

Again, don't own weapons. Don't fear robbers and rapists. So much of this thinking is fear based, I don't understand it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:01 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Brits have less restrictions than we do.


Hello,

You both share an inhibition for the carrying of weapons for the purpose of defense, which is a non-valid reason to have a weapon out there.

I am not ready to make that leap to defenselessness.

http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm

Quote:

29th December 2008 - New Knife Crime Statistics have today been released by the Conservative Party
As reported on UK National TV News Channels The Conservative Party have today released new details of fatal stabbing statistics based on information apparently obtained from the police in England and Wales under the Freedom of Information Act.

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year!



This is not 5 knife attacks each week. This is 5 people dying from knife attacks each week. The number of attacks themselves, knives or otherwise, are... copious.

Not having weapons for defense is a bridge too far for me to cross. But I will not insist that my weapons be designed to kill.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:05 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Seeing as most tyrannical governments use their military against their own citizens, I think you'd need to have a look at the force provided to your own army to feel really secure.


Hello,

Yes, it is a supreme leap of faith I am making.

However, I am comforting myself with the knowledge that seeing the military deployed against the people or seeing the constabulary re-armed to commit slaughter would be a signal for immediate rebellion.

This could actually enhance prospects for a rebellion, because people would not need to dicker and lie to themselves about what was happening. It would be pretty damned clear right from the get-go. The rebellion could jump off in earnest and possibly put a stop to things before they become too terrible.

Essentially, I am trading one slim chance for another, in the hopes that a terrible and interminable insurrection can be traded for an immediate and effective uprising.

--Anthony




Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:13 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Brits have less restrictions than we do.


Hello,

You both share an inhibition for the carrying of weapons for the purpose of defense, which is a non-valid reason to have a weapon out there.

I am not ready to make that leap to defenselessness.



First, you overreach as you always do. No one here is saying that there should be absolutely *no* weapons of self-defense. I am all for a handy six-shooter which is not a semi-automatic fast-firing weapon of mass murder.

By refusing to see that distinction, Anthony, by refusing to let go of such things as were use to slaughter children last week, you are thinking in old-fashioned terms. You are living in fear, in a way that helps no one and clearly hurts more than a few.

I quote you: "If a better way is really desired, we must stop thinking in old-fashioned terms."

I hope you can overcome your fear Anthony. If someone like you can't do it, if enough of our society is weighed down by this dependence on violence, then we are indeed still stuck in the dark ages. Violence will continue to rule, as long as we see no other other way.

May you someday be enlightened. Violence and threat of violence leads only to continuing the old ways. I am sad to see that you're part of it, and I'm sadder still at the post you made above, of the lip service you pay to "finding new ways" when you are clearly too afraid to make such a step yourself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:16 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Brits have less restrictions than we do.


Hello,

You both share an inhibition for the carrying of weapons for the purpose of defense, which is a non-valid reason to have a weapon out there.

I am not ready to make that leap to defenselessness.

http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm

Quote:

29th December 2008 - New Knife Crime Statistics have today been released by the Conservative Party
As reported on UK National TV News Channels The Conservative Party have today released new details of fatal stabbing statistics based on information apparently obtained from the police in England and Wales under the Freedom of Information Act.

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year!



This is not 5 knife attacks each week. This is 5 people dying from knife attacks each week. The number of attacks themselves, knives or otherwise, are... copious.

Not having weapons for defense is a bridge too far for me to cross. But I will not insist that my weapons be designed to kill.




Anthony, you don't make sense when you post the statistics regarding knife attacks. You have made eloquent arguments that force for defence need not be of equal force used in attack. You have said this is why police do not need to have equal or greater force to defend against others with guns. You and I agree with this.

You have said that you agree with less lethal weapons and police having less arms. That is what the UK has. Whether you state they are for defense or because they look pretty is neither here nor there. You may possess firearms of varying different types.

Are you now saying that knife attacks could only be avoided by people carrying weapons of greater force ie guns? Because your whole argument falls down if that is the case.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:19 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
However, I am comforting myself with the knowledge that seeing the military deployed against the people or seeing the constabulary re-armed to commit slaughter would be a signal for immediate rebellion.

I believe this as well. But I don't think that a bunch of semi-automatics like the ones that reasonable gun control would outlaw would make a damn bit of difference in such a situation. The govt has plenty of firepower to wipe us all out. We the people would not win through firepower. We would win the way that the Egyptians did, but with a more stable outcome because we have a history and habit of democracy.

But this is completely hypothetical. I think that history and habit of democracy would come before any serious deployment of the US military against we the people.

Again, I guess I have more faith in my country than you do. Even though I do strongly dislike parts of it, I have faith that the basic structure of the US is sound, and that the means to peaceful change is there.

It's sad that you don't have this faith. I guess life must be scary for you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:24 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Are you now saying that knife attacks could only be avoided by people carrying weapons of greater force ie guns? Because your whole argument falls down if that is the case.


Hello,

You misunderstand me.

I can not find any legal self-defense weapon in the UK. Carrying any weapon at all for defense purposes appears to be prohibited. Not a gun, not a knife, not a club, not a taser, not anything that I can identify.

It is something that has troubled me about the UK for some time, because there seems to be plenty of violence but no means of legally defending yourself with a carried deterrent. The idea of defensive weapons seems to be non-existent.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:27 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
However, I am comforting myself with the knowledge that seeing the military deployed against the people or seeing the constabulary re-armed to commit slaughter would be a signal for immediate rebellion.

I believe this as well. But I don't think that a bunch of semi-automatics like the ones that reasonable gun control would outlaw would make a damn bit of difference in such a situation. The govt has plenty of firepower to wipe us all out. We the people would not win through firepower. We would win the way that the Egyptians did, but with a more stable outcome because we have a history and habit of democracy.

But this is completely hypothetical. I think that history and habit of democracy would come before any serious deployment of the US military against we the people.

Again, I guess I have more faith in my country than you do. Even though I do strongly dislike parts of it, I have faith that the basic structure of the US is sound, and that the means to peaceful change is there.

It's sad that you don't have this faith. I guess life must be scary for you.




Hello,

However scary my life is (or has been), I am proposing a path to a better world.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:30 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

However scary my life is (or has been), I am proposing a path to a better world.


By trying your hardest to be as heavily armed as the police? We can see how well that has worked.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:37 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

However scary my life is (or has been), I am proposing a path to a better world.


By trying your hardest to be as heavily armed as the police? We can see how well that has worked.



Hello,

I don't understand your difficulty. My proposed solution would solve the problem of mass-murder that we are trying to solve.

You seem to want police to deploy prohibited weapons for no reason I can identify.

Aren't they dangerous? Prone to misuse? Prone to theft and subsequent misapplication?

So I'm proposing to get rid of them. Actually and honestly rid of them.

And you give me the shakey head dissapointed face.

I'm not sure what you want.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
First, you overreach as you always do. No one here is saying that there should be absolutely *no* weapons of self-defense. I am all for a handy six-shooter which is not a semi-automatic fast-firing weapon of mass murder.



How do you reach someone when you realize thay have no idea?

Anyone who spends a little time training can fire and reload a revolver almost as fast as a semi-auto pistol. Someone practiced with a double-barrel shotgun could probably get off 40-60 rounds a minute.

The number of Firearms murders in the U.S. in 2011 was 8583. The number of firearms in the U.S. in 2011 was around 275,000,000. so the murder rate was 0.00003 per firearm. Aggravated assault with firearms (all the 'shoot at' crimes), total 138,336, or .0005 per gun. Seems kind of Draconic to punish the folks who own the .99997 folks whose guns aren't involve in a murder, or the .9995 percent whose aren't involved in assault.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Seems kind of Draconic to punish the folks who own the .99997 folks whose guns aren't involve in a murder, or the .9995 percent whose aren't involved in assault.



So Geeze, are you with the 99% club? Firearms as well as economics? We arm because we feel oppressed? But we vote mostly war mongers in? THIS is my boggle. As if we have been somehow duped into buying weapons that will never make us safe to profit someone.
Nevermind- silly conspiracy thought...

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Drones

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA



*holds up one finger*

Allow me to point out here that once again the modest proposal I suggested above has been ignored, then drowned out by folks talking at each other.
As usual.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Frem,

People are shaking their head at me for proposing that all such weapons can go away.

I don't think your modest suggestion about safety training even registers on the radar, even though it preserves rights, costs nothing, and has statistical validity.

--Anthony




Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

You misunderstand me.

I can not find any legal self-defense weapon in the UK. Carrying any weapon at all for defense purposes appears to be prohibited. Not a gun, not a knife, not a club, not a taser, not anything that I can identify.

It is something that has troubled me about the UK for some time, because there seems to be plenty of violence but no means of legally defending yourself with a carried deterrent. The idea of defensive weapons seems to be non-existent.



Not everyone sees the need to use weapons as a form of self defence. Not everyone sees the need to be armed to protect themselves from violence. As I have said before, I've travelled in a lot of places, sometimes alone, but never felt the need to be armed.

Arming oneself as you go about your everyday life seems to be something quite particular to Americans. Would you feel the need to carry a weapon in your car? On public transport? Do you take weapons into restaurants, movies, if you are walking in the park?

While I can maybe kind of get my head around having a weapon in your house, I can't get my head around carrying one around with you. Is life really that dangerous, or is it perceived threat, I wonder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:43 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Frem,

I think the problem with your proposal (actually I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with it), anyway, the problem is that it does nothing to satisfy anyone's need for control. This entire debate is about controlling the uncontrollable. It's about making A FEELING (helplessness) go away.

Anything which folk who want their feelings to go away end up doing is gonna be as reactionary and as ill-advised and ill-starred as our war in Iraq in reaction to 9/11. It's like going on a three week brender when your girlfriend dumps you. It's gonna be overkill and ultimately ineffectual as hell, creating “unforeseen” new problems by the truck load.

As long as the focus is on the magic juju fetish (aka: the gun) nothing of any value will be accomplished in this debate.

Similar to 9/11, the massacre in Sandy Hook is still a uniquely destructive atrocity. Generalizing from a unique act of evil like that will only make everything we see look more evil. To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Going after guns as the culprit for this terrible violation is no different than going after Muslims as the “cause” of terrorism.

Bottom line: laws do not create social change. Social change creates the context craven lawmakers need to feel comfortable changing the law. Until a critical mass of citizens actually want a peaceful nation (do most of us even have a clue what that would even look like?), we will never have peace.


HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Not everyone sees the need to use weapons as a form of self defence. Not everyone sees the need to be armed to protect themselves from violence. As I have said before, I've travelled in a lot of places, sometimes alone, but never felt the need to be armed.

Arming oneself as you go about your everyday life seems to be something quite particular to Americans. Would you feel the need to carry a weapon in your car? On public transport? Do you take weapons into restaurants, movies, if you are walking in the park?

While I can maybe kind of get my head around having a weapon in your house, I can't get my head around carrying one around with you. Is life really that dangerous, or is it perceived threat, I wonder.



Hello,

I don't think anyone is proposing that people be forced to carry weapons for self defense. Just that they be allowed to if they feel the need.

I myself can't remember carrying this past year. But there was a time I felt the need and I did and I was glad for the option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minut
es-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html


Sometimes people do experience danger outside their homes. Even in civilized nations.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:22 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Hello,

I don't think anyone is proposing that people be forced to carry weapons for self defense. Just that they be allowed to if they feel the need.

I myself can't remember carrying this past year. But there was a time I felt the need and I did and I was glad for the option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minut
es-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html


Sometimes people do experience danger outside their homes. Even in civilized nations.





Yep bad stuff happens all over. I'm not sure if the Daily Mail is the most rational source of information, it is true, there is violence in most places in the world at one time or another. Here as well.

This discussion keeps coming back to whether you manage force with equal force, or you encourage a society that manages it different. Places with bans on carrying weapons are attempting the latter. I know that is never going to work in the US, but that is the philosophy. You don't have less violence in a society by having more armed people. Conversely, you don't rid a society of violence all together just because there are fewer guns in circulation or because people are less armed.

I always find it interesting to look at statistics around violence. I think people assume that your attacker will be a criminal and a stranger. The stats don't bear that out at all. Most homicides in this country, by far and away are committed by someone known to the victim. For females, overwhelmingly it is their partner or former partner. With assault stats, two thirds will know their assailant.

So it seems to me that the desire to be armed, just like the desire to prevent tyranny kind of misses the point when it comes down to what most people experience on a day to day basis.

Edited to add: You bring up Judo and that is interesting to me. Martial arts were developed at least in part due to a ban on weapons - so that people had to learn other ways of self defence. Weapons are not always necessary or useful.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore.....
Fri, November 28, 2014 04:43 - 106 posts
The Irrelevance of (our) Opinion
Fri, November 28, 2014 03:00 - 23 posts
Benghazi - The Shocking Truth!
Fri, November 28, 2014 02:48 - 28 posts
Ferguson
Fri, November 28, 2014 02:38 - 89 posts
Hands up of everyone who thinks Bill Cosby raped his way through his career??
Thu, November 27, 2014 23:28 - 66 posts
Australia: The Forgotten Coup
Thu, November 27, 2014 16:30 - 4 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Thu, November 27, 2014 16:03 - 757 posts
Ukraine: Closer and closer to major-powers war
Thu, November 27, 2014 15:19 - 6 posts
I'll be leaving now
Thu, November 27, 2014 14:39 - 3 posts
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Thu, November 27, 2014 09:46 - 545 posts
Deletion of Obamacare Truth is reversed.
Wed, November 26, 2014 21:47 - 19 posts
TV and football.
Wed, November 26, 2014 21:42 - 14 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS