It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#98182 Jan 23, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA collects money but does not have an elective structure.
The NRA appoints pro gun failed politicians to it.s board for Networking purposes.
Donators to the NRA have no say in the NRA Policy Statements.
Must check if the NRA is even legitimate enough to qualify for Tax Deductable contributions.
The NRA represents 1.2% of the people. Fcuk them.
Donators have no say? They stop making donations when not satisfied.

I don't think donations are tax deductable unless you donate to one of their off shoot foundations like the Civil Rights Defense fund.

I have to admit, politicians going to work for corporations and organizations they helped while in office is a problem. That's a bi-product of a powerful central controlling government. A federal power grab. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#98183 Jan 23, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
If George Harrison had a gun he wouldn't been stabbed 40 times by a home intruder.
Not quite 40....7. But the point is still valid.

“" BITE ME "”

Since: Dec 10

Olney township

#98184 Jan 23, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
* Regrettably ANOTHER DISCLAIMER *
Posts #98030 and #98031 above are a conspicuous exercise in Spamming. The expression repeated in slab-form is:
"HEY BEADY!!(and sock puppets, of course)"
It happens to be plagiarized from the Index title of a thread I started recently.
Spamming of it here seems an attempt to draw adverse attention to myself, insinuating that I am in fact the Spammer here.
I am not. NONE of the Spamming here is by me.
More likely it is posted by beady himself.
That could explain why beady has been so keen to draw attention to this Spamming with a post of his, here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T6...
and here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T6...
wanting to see a reaction. Well, this is that reaction.
Beady has a long history of spreading his "battle-of-the-moment " intrusively across multiple threads, as is seen again here.
It bis very much his 'MO'.
Before another clown drops the "WGAFF" bomb, some of us have had long experience with this particular troll, enough to preempt escalation where potential exists.
In that context I again emphatically dissociate myself from his antics here.
lol

"Preempt escalation where potential exists"?

Get over yourself.

You're correct...

WGAFF

“" BITE ME "”

Since: Dec 10

Olney township

#98185 Jan 23, 2013
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
SO it stands to reson, that they knew exactly what they were doing for that time, AND for the future.
They were wise enough to build a mechanism into our Constitution to reflect and effect the potential change our country would endure.

Nothing more, nothing less.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#98187 Jan 23, 2013
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
Get over yourself.
After you, sir.:)
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#98191 Jan 23, 2013
The Case for Gun Control
This issue isn't about our rights, it isn't about our history, and it isn't about a way of life. Our hunting, shooting and self-defense are literally secondary concerns here. We need to talk about the critical inability or failure of our government to prevent violent crime. What we're trying right now isn't working. We have exceptionally high gun ownership rates in this country. We have stellar law enforcement, a powerful and talented FBI, and the most powerful military in the world: combined expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the name of keeping our citizens safe – and they fail time after time. Why not give law enforcement and the FBI as much info as possible on the status and movement of guns? Which a national data base will provide.

Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Followed by Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893,“the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

Over the past few decades, crime has been declining, except in one category – the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly except easier access to guns? I know, reading some of these off-the-wall posts on this form, when confronted with this blindingly obvious connection, otherwise intelligent people close their minds. Most of our gun-a-holics are denouncing any effort to control guns, with your standard NRA talking points with a rather tragic view of life, which is that ... however meticulously you draft whatever statute you wind up passing, the world is going to remain a broken place and things like gun death or car crashes are going to happen. Now, I don't recall any of you responding to the 9/11 attacks--or any other law-and-order issue for that matter--with the "things happen no matter what" sentiment.

I don't believe we should ban guns. But the current situation is untenable. We simply cannot forge ahead without a reasonable legal framework to try and prevent criminals and killers from acquiring weapons. Will that prevent some innocent, good-hearted individuals with crazy-eyes from getting the guns they love? I'm sure it will. The legislation will be controversial, difficult to define, and will only be somewhat effective, like any other law, but to demand complete effectiveness or nothing – that is unreasonable.

The Second Amendment establishes our right as citizens to bear arms. But the very first sentence of the Constitution places the burden on the Federal Government to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the citizens of these United States.

That sentence is the core of a document that has been amended many times since its original drafting to ensure that the government can effectively deliver on that first promise. Laws and policies that stand in the way of our government effectively securing that promise of tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty for its citizens betray the government's core purpose.

“" BITE ME "”

Since: Dec 10

Olney township

#98192 Jan 23, 2013
Spocko wrote:
The Case for Gun Control
This issue isn't about our rights, it isn't about our history, and it isn't about a way of life. Our hunting, shooting and self-defense are literally secondary concerns here. We need to talk about the critical inability or failure of our government to prevent violent crime. What we're trying right now isn't working. We have exceptionally high gun ownership rates in this country. We have stellar law enforcement, a powerful and talented FBI, and the most powerful military in the world: combined expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the name of keeping our citizens safe – and they fail time after time. Why not give law enforcement and the FBI as much info as possible on the status and movement of guns? Which a national data base will provide.
Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Followed by Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893,“the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."
Over the past few decades, crime has been declining, except in one category – the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly except easier access to guns? I know, reading some of these off-the-wall posts on this form, when confronted with this blindingly obvious connection, otherwise intelligent people close their minds. Most of our gun-a-holics are denouncing any effort to control guns, with your standard NRA talking points with a rather tragic view of life, which is that ... however meticulously you draft whatever statute you wind up passing, the world is going to remain a broken place and things like gun death or car crashes are going to happen. Now, I don't recall any of you responding to the 9/11 attacks--or any other law-and-order issue for that matter--with the "things happen no matter what" sentiment.
I don't believe we should ban guns. But the current situation is untenable. We simply cannot forge ahead without a reasonable legal framework to try and prevent criminals and killers from acquiring weapons. Will that prevent some innocent, good-hearted individuals with crazy-eyes from getting the guns they love? I'm sure it will. The legislation will be controversial, difficult to define, and will only be somewhat effective, like any other law, but to demand complete effectiveness or nothing – that is unreasonable.
The Second Amendment establishes our right as citizens to bear arms. But the very first sentence of the Constitution places the burden on the Federal Government to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the citizens of these United States.
That sentence is the core of a document that has been amended many times since its original drafting to ensure that the government can effectively deliver on that first promise. Laws and policies that stand in the way of our government effectively securing that promise of tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty for its citizens betray the government's core purpose.
A thoughtfully composed post, Spocko.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#98193 Jan 23, 2013
Spocko wrote:
The Case for Gun Control
This issue isn't about our rights, it isn't about our history, and it isn't about a way of life. Our hunting, shooting and self-defense are literally secondary concerns here. We need to talk about the critical inability or failure of our government to prevent violent crime. What we're trying right now isn't working. We have exceptionally high gun ownership rates in this country. We have stellar law enforcement, a powerful and talented FBI, and the most powerful military in the world: combined expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the name of keeping our citizens safe – and they fail time after time. Why not give law enforcement and the FBI as much info as possible on the status and movement of guns? Which a national data base will provide.
Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Followed by Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893,“the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."
Over the past few decades, crime has been declining, except in one category – the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly except easier access to guns? I know, reading some of these off-the-wall posts on this form, when confronted with this blindingly obvious connection, otherwise intelligent people close their minds. Most of our gun-a-holics are denouncing any effort to control guns, with your standard NRA talking points with a rather tragic view of life, which is that ... however meticulously you draft whatever statute you wind up passing, the world is going to remain a broken place and things like gun death or car crashes are going to happen. Now, I don't recall any of you responding to the 9/11 attacks--or any other law-and-order issue for that matter--with the "things happen no matter what" sentiment.
I don't believe we should ban guns. But the current situation is untenable. We simply cannot forge ahead without a reasonable legal framework to try and prevent criminals and killers from acquiring weapons. Will that prevent some innocent, good-hearted individuals with crazy-eyes from getting the guns they love? I'm sure it will. The legislation will be controversial, difficult to define, and will only be somewhat effective, like any other law, but to demand complete effectiveness or nothing – that is unreasonable.
The Second Amendment establishes our right as citizens to bear arms. But the very first sentence of the Constitution places the burden on the Federal Government to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the citizens of these United States.
That sentence is the core of a document that has been amended many times since its original drafting to ensure that the government can effectively deliver on that first promise. Laws and policies that stand in the way of our government effectively securing that promise of tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty for its citizens betray the government's core purpose.
I see you mentioned the states regulated the use of firearms. Some day the left will see the difference between the federal government and the states or the people.

Would a rancher on the Mexican border need a little more fire power than a liquor store clerk in the north east?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#98194 Jan 23, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you mentioned the states regulated the use of firearms. Some day the left will see the difference between the federal government and the states or the people.
Would a rancher on the Mexican border need a little more fire power than a liquor store clerk in the north east?
Probably!
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#98195 Jan 23, 2013
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't compare the Australian school environment with that of the USA but what concerns me is the possibility of innocent bystanders being injured/killed by gunfire - I am not opposed to gun ownership by the way, but it would concern me if students were permitted to carry guns into a school environment.
"I am not opposed to gun ownership by the way, but it would concern me if students were permitted to carry guns into a school environment."

All children are different, and I'm quite sure that you're aware of that matter.
Some are raised in environments which would raise more than a few eyebrows, and others yet are raised by the most discerning of parents.
From that place, I tend to agree with your assessment, but only to a point.
Older students however, should be afforded their right to self-defense. How much older? Starting at 12 years of age.
If they may successfully demonstrate how to properly handle firearms, as well as knowledge of the law regarding their use, then I see no reason to deny them.
Once one begins attending college/university, they should not be in any way denied, regardless.
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#98196 Jan 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Go find a tank to stand in front of.
I would have suggested that he find that place on the ground where a bomb or missile is about to strike!
;-)
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#98197 Jan 23, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably!
What's the difference between a farmer living near a dangerous border, or a store clerk facing several robbers with guns and knives?

“" BITE ME "”

Since: Dec 10

Olney township

#98198 Jan 23, 2013
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
"I am not opposed to gun ownership by the way, but it would concern me if students were permitted to carry guns into a school environment."
All children are different, and I'm quite sure that you're aware of that matter.
Some are raised in environments which would raise more than a few eyebrows, and others yet are raised by the most discerning of parents.
From that place, I tend to agree with your assessment, but only to a point.
Older students however, should be afforded their right to self-defense. How much older? Starting at 12 years of age.
If they may successfully demonstrate how to properly handle firearms, as well as knowledge of the law regarding their use, then I see no reason to deny them.
Once one begins attending college/university, they should not be in any way denied, regardless.
A place of learning, regardless of advancement or age of the student body. Should be devoid of weapons.

Of any kind.

Period.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#98199 Jan 23, 2013
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
A place of learning, regardless of advancement or age of the student body. Should be devoid of weapons.
Of any kind.
Period.
If that is all they were, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, the govt has also turned them into successful mass murder locations through the creation of Gun-Free Zones. You know....places were nutjobs hell-bent on taking as many lives as possible can do so because they know they will not be met with any kind of violent response, at least for a little while.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#98200 Jan 23, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably!
That would be the reason for a state to regulate use. A law prohibiting the interstate transportation of illegal guns already exists using the commerce clause. Why isn't that law enforced? An ATF trace easily tracks the gun to its origin and subsequent purchaser.

“" BITE ME "”

Since: Dec 10

Olney township

#98201 Jan 23, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is all they were, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, the govt has also turned them into successful mass murder locations through the creation of Gun-Free Zones. You know....places were nutjobs hell-bent on taking as many lives as possible can do so because they know they will not be met with any kind of violent response, at least for a little while.
Right out of the playbooks, typical.

You've seen too many movies and events don't unfold within the lines of reality as you wish they did.

ANYONE, but a hardened trained killer will turn turtle at the first sign of a weapon being discharged in public. It's a physiological reaction, even with combat soldiers.

Cut the Billy-Bad-Ass bullshit.

The only reason the absence of an object may be noticeable in one place, is because they've become so perversely overly abundant everywhere else.

Thanks in no small part, to people...

Like you.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#98202 Jan 23, 2013
THE DIVERSIONARY TACTICS OF THE GUN LOBBY

By the time President Obama formally unveiled his suite of executive actions and new legislation to aggressively fight gun violence, the NRA and its allies were already on the attack with a familiar gun lobby refrain: The nation doesn't need any new gun laws, just better enforcement of laws that already exist.
It's a fraudulent argument, but it has been used effectively again and again over the past 20 years to help block meaningful gun reforms. This time, in the rare opening for change that has followed the massacre in Newtown, Conn., no one should fall for it. The argument that the existing laws would be sufficient if only the officials in charge did their job and enforced the mproperly is nothing more than a clever diversion. Beyond ignoring deadly loopholes - many inserted at the NRA's insistence - this poses a false choice between strong laws and strong enforcement. Why should one preclude the other? America needs both.

D.S.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#98203 Jan 23, 2013
It is true that the Justice Department should prosecute more people who lie or deliberately provide inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background checks. Studies show that those who lie are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase. Mr. Obama is trying to correct this with a presidential memorandum encouraging "supplemental efforts" by the U.S. attorneys around the country to prosecute felons who lie to evade the background check.
This sort of common-sense strategy has long been recommended by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group co-founded by Mayor Bloomberg of New York.

D.S.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#98205 Jan 23, 2013
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
ANYONE, but a hardened trained killer will turn turtle at the first sign of a weapon being discharged in public. It's a physiological reaction, even with combat soldiers.
Yeah...it's called duck and cover. And then those who have been trained to respond to such attacks will attempt to engage the threat and eliminate it. Quit projecting your own weaknesses onto others simply because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to carry out the second part of that reaction.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#98206 Jan 23, 2013
Further details of the NRA's anti-enforcement efforts were revealed by Dennis Henigan, a former vp of the Brady Campaign, a leading gun-control group, in his 2009 book "Lethal Logic." It recounts how the NRA campaigned in the 1980's to weaken the 1968 Gun Control Act that President Lyndon Johnson pushed through after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. The result was the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986, a misnamed law that has made it difficult to investigate and prosecute gun trafficking to this day. For example, it protects unscrupulous gun dealers by prohibiting ATF agents from making more than one unannounced inspection a year. It also makes it hard to revoke their licenses. Those and other damaging provisions from the 1986 law should be tossed out as part of the new, still only hazily defined anti-trafficking measure Mr. Obama has pledged to fight for.
KEEPING GUNS OUT OF THE WRONG HANDS HAS NEVER BEEN A GUN LOBBY PRIORITY. IT'S PRIORITY HAS BEEN WEAK ENFORCEMENTS OF WEAK LAWS.

D.S.7529

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why are arabs so racist against non arabs? (Jun '13) 10 hr Meow101 22
How to get Quality Weed / Hashes & Meds in Pert... Jan 14 Jesse 4
How to get Quality Weed / Hashes & Meds in Melb... Jan 14 Jesse 6
News Entertainment- 'Crocodile Hunter' Widow Settles... (May '08) Jan 11 Ricky Richmond 6
News Newton-John to Walk the Great Wall of China for... (Mar '08) Jan 11 Romel Esmail Moore 2
News Would-be Australian Santa imprisoned for child ... (Dec '06) Jan 11 Romel Esmail Moore 17
News The roller-coaster and the rhino can co-exist (Apr '08) Jan 11 Romel Esmail Moore 6
More from around the web