Gun control in the US

December 16th, 2012 at 7:52 am by David Farrar

When ever there is a mass shooting in the US, there is inevitably a debate on the gun laws in the US. I find the level of ignorance in the debate inevitably high.

Personally I like living in a country where the level of firearm ownership and use is relatively low, and the level of gun related crime is also low.

If you want to debate gun control in the US, you need to understand three things.

  1. The second amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” does mean there are limits to gun control laws, but these limits are less than many realise.
  2. The federal government has little role in gun laws. Each state gets to set their own laws. This is the basis of how government was formed in the US.
  3. The level of firearm ownership in the US is so huge, that it is naive to think it could or would ever have levels of ownership down with countries in in Europe.

I say this not to defend US gun culture. I’m not a fan of . But if you don’t understand how a political system works, then calls for change are an (understandable) knee-jerk response.

Now taking the 2nd amendment issue first, this clearly places a limit on gun control laws. You can’t just ban private gun ownership. And there is no possibility the 2nd amendment will ever be taken out of the Bill of Rights. Now the 2nd amendment does refer to a well-regulated militia, but courts have ruled that this doesn’t mean that gun ownership is only allowed for members of militias (especially as there are none now), but was allowed for traditional purposes such as self-defence.

The 2nd amendments writers were partially inspired by the English Bill of Rights and the earlier common law.

In terms of the actual law, it is worth noting Connecticut has the 5th toughest gun laws of the 50 states. Specifically:

To buy a gun, Connecticut law requires residents apply for a local permit, typically with the town’s police chief, have their fingerprints taken and submit to a state and federal background check with a 14-day waiting period. To buy a handgun, residents also are required to take a gun safety course.

The state is also one of seven to have an assault weapons ban that specifically lists more than 35 semiautomatic and automatic weapons. It does not appear to cover the .223 caliber rifle used in Friday’s attack.

In terms of the culture, Americans recall that it is only through gun ownership that they won their independence from Britain. Now I agree 200 years on, they don’t need guns with individuals to overthrow a government. But the reality is that this cultural tradition is hugely strong in America, and you are never going to have the US with Europe or NZ style gun laws or levels of gun ownership. It is like wishing for the Easter Bunny.

That is not to say that there are not improvements that can and should be made to the gun laws, especially around automatic weapons. But don’t think for a moment that you will ever have a case where criminals in the US can’t get their hands on lethal firearms.

Tags: ,

143 Responses to “Gun control in the US”

  1. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    I would vote for prohibition in this area. I can see no justification for private ownership of firearms. In the hunting field the public benefit of pest control is negligible. Accidents alone involving firearms justify their removal from the general public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    When ever there is a mass shooting in the US, there is inevitably a debate on the gun laws in the US. I find the level of ignorance in the debate inevitably high.

    Personally I like living in a country where the level of firearm ownership and use is relatively low, and the level of gun related crime is also low.

    Actually we have one of the higher rates in the world. So much for the “level of ignorance” high ground you have assumed:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

    I can see no justification for private ownership of firearms.

    Ok that is fair enough. But why do you see justification for the government to have them ? Why to the millions killed by governments not bother you, but a few random deaths get you so stirred up? I can not see why that would be. I personally consider all deaths tragic, so I can not see your reasoning. Please explain…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. peterwn (3,304 comments) says:

    tvb – you would be pushing it uphill to seek firearms prohibition in NZ. Many Kiwis have guns for legitimate purposes especially in rural areas and there would be enough numbers to make a ban political suicide. Police do cancel licences where there is possibility of misuse eg those involved in domestic violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Michael (910 comments) says:

    What I can’t stand is 20 children have been killed and the first reaction of the anti-gun lobby is to politicise this by calling for more gun control – which may not have prevented this tragedy in the first place.

    Let’s wait until we have all the facts relevant to this situation before we jump to conclusion over how to prevent a repeat. And instead expend our resources on assisting the familes of those murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I know some of you like links, so compare these figures with the numbers killed by random nutters:

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

    http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

    http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

    We are talking tens of millions killed. Yet these are the “authorities” the anti gun lobby want us to hand our recreational firearms to ! On what basis can this be justified ? Every large scale killing and violation of human rights has been undertaken by those in political power. The worst offenders have invariably removed rights to private ownership of firearms. That is just a simple fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Kea,
    but if you live in NZ you will know that statistic is misleading.

    and the government uses guns so that it doesnt have to engage in knife fights when it needs to assert its authority over criminal gangs, to defend itself from external threats or to perform other similar essential functions for the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    “Let’s wait until we have all the facts relevant to this situation before we jump to conclusion over how to prevent a repeat. And instead expend our resources on assisting the familes of those murdered.”

    Here it is folks, the award for the dumbest post of the day goes to Michael.

    We have the facts Michael, another small penised gun freak goes berserk and kills innocent people. Meanwhile the gun loving inadequates try and shut down debate with stupid platitudes like “expending our resources on assisting the families”.

    You really want to suggest something that might work?…..get real and effective gun control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (11,796 comments) says:

    The gun ownership genie left the bottle a couple of hundred years ago & isn’t going to return, no matter how often the socialists stamp their feet & pretend otherwise. You could confiscate every registered firearm in NZ (or the USA) & the only thing you would accomplish is the creation of millions of defenseless victims.

    What does it take to open the minds of the advocates of big Mummy government looking over us, to the fact that criminals will manufacture or smuggle into the country whatever weapons they want. If they don’t obey laws protecting life or property why would anyone think that they would give a stuff about regulations covering firearms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Its very hard to get a deer to come to a BBQ at my house unless I use a gun.

    *Disclosure statement* I am bare foot, wearing camo and there may be banjo music somewhere in the background.
    Two out of three are actually true :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Kea,
    but if you live in NZ you will know that statistic is misleading.

    Scott1, I do live in NZ and I know a allot of firearms owners. I do not find it at all misleading. And neither does the NZ anti gun lobby, who would consider the real rates to be higher. What did you base your comment on?

    the government uses guns so that it doesnt have to engage in knife fights when it needs to assert its authority

    Did you check out the links I posted ? Clearly not. The millions killed by government were not the result of breaking up “knife fights”. Please do some reading, even today’s newspaper will do, to make my point.

    I am not suggesting this is the current situation in NZ. We do not have that level of unrest or conflict. But this discussion is not focused on NZ alone, prompted as it is by events in North America.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    “small penised gun freak”, “gun loving inadequates”, “People suck”, “Fucking dicks”

    The language of the gun control lobby. Because they “care about us”.

    Yeah right !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mark Thomson (84 comments) says:

    Worth noting that the guns used in the attack did not belong to the gunman… http://nyti.ms/Uwli35 They were owned by his mother, who was an avid gun collector. http://bit.ly/12fLUvn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    kea,
    either you are making an irrelevant comment or you are suggesting we can defend ourselves against a a government army determined to kill us and a million of our neighbours.. with a hand gun…. I doubt that will be much different from using a knife.

    anyway i think there is a flaw on how he does his maths. He includes people who died as an unintentional result of the policies of governments. If you do that then why not include people who die as unintended results of other decisions that are not government decisions?
    And i also note that the actions of mobs (armed i guess with the weapons you suggest they should have) are attributed to the government that may have supported them.

    So Im not sure what the lesson should be here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    kea,
    either you are making an irrelevant comment or you are suggesting we can defend ourselves against a a government army determined to kill us and a million of our neighbours.. with a hand gun…. I doubt that will be much different from using a knife.

    No I am not suggesting we need guns to protect us from the government army. That is not my point.

    I am talking about the level of risk to private citizens. We are far more likely to be killed by the authorities.

    I see your point about “unintentional result of the policies of governments” but you ignore my point. Far more people are deliberately killed by governments than by random social misfits with privately held guns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Kea,
    i know almost no gun owners in NZ because i guess i dont move in those circles. I am aware of course that every farmer probably has a gun. I know a limited number of people from the USA of which a high percentage have a gun.

    My point regarding the knife is that you want the government to have a “big gun” when it deals with, lets say, a criminal gang. it is important that the battle is not fair – if it was then it would be worth the criminals effort to make a fight, and then people get killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. BroadArrow (6 comments) says:

    As has been pointed out, New Zealand actually has very high rates of gun ownership by international standards. Lower, than the overall rates in the USA but still very high by international standards.

    We do have low rates of firearms deaths and those we do have are mostly crime related and suicides – both of which would still occur whatever gun control laws we have in place. The few deaths we have from accidents and non gang homicides are fairly few and much less than those from other weapons.

    We don’t have a significant problem with misuse of firearms by the licensed population and this is key to the debate. We have a system which licenses individuals (who Police must be satisfied are fit and proper people to keep a license) rather than individual firearms and it works well. Contrary to popular belief it is possible to own and shoot handguns and military style semi automatics in New Zealand (with additional endorsements on your licence) and a good number do. Again the focus is on licencing the individual rather than the firearm (although Police do record ownership transfers) and again it generally works well.

    To those who think that the few deaths we have from accidents – put aside criminal use of firearms by gangs because no law change is going to stop that as it’s already illegal – somehow justifies banning guns, I suggest you have a closer look at the stats and get a sense of proportion. The number of accidents is incredibly low. Far more deaths are caused by other commonly available weapons like knives, or dangerous items like cars. If preventing deaths by banning things is your thing then ban knives and cars first and then we can talk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    I can see no justification for private ownership of firearms.

    Apart from one’s right to self-defence. There is no shortage of stories on the internet about those who protected themselves and others from people younger and stronger than themselves, e.g

    http://www.americanretiredpersons.com/InsuranceServices/defengun.htm

    The right to gun ownership is simply a recognition of one’s right to self-defence. It’s just a question then of what constitutes an adequate weapon for this purpose; a hand-gun but not a machine gun for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Kea is making several errors in logic in comparing numbers of people killed by ‘random shooters’ with numbers of people killed ‘by governments’. Governments do not kill people: people kill people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    kea,
    Well – can I say that if I was in cambodia or nazi germany yes i would be far more concerned about the government than a random crazy person. I’m not sure what our strategy should be for preventing somwhere like that getting guns, it sounds impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Approx 300 million guns (1/3 are handguns) in legal ownership in USA. Even if guns were outlawed today and the civilian population told (forced at gunpoint!) to hand them in a huge proportion of the weapons would remain in circulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    If you think gun control is the answer then look at those who are advocating for it- the same old totalitarian one party state one ideology suspects who daily advocate everywhere they can for tyranny.

    The same old pseudo liberals who have for decades advocated for against faith and fidelity and morality. The same contemptible people who flood our culture with examples of amorality and violence and killing through our movie theatres and our televisions and our computers. The same people who have made fame a cult, and narcissism a virtue, and have given rise to expectations of celebrity status to every nut case loser out there.

    The same people who have attacked our culture for decades, and have got just about everything wrong, now have another of their “great” ideas. Gun control. Meanwhile, the Oklahoma bombing killed so many people, and so did the 9/11 attacks, and there have been other attacks on schools killing even more kids where bombs or other weapons were used. Europe has no lesser incident of gun murder than the US.

    The recent killing in the US movie theatre took place in the only venue in the area that posted signs warning that concealed weapons were not permitted. There were 7 theatres in the area and only one had such a sign, and it was the one the killer chose.

    In fact almost all modern day massacres have taken place in areas “liberals” have designated as “gun free zones”.

    So now, the morons among us, who have done so much to attack our civil society over the years, and had so many bad ideas, now want to take guns from us. In the same old knee jerk fashion, in the same old worship of their own church that is big government.

    In the past these kind of massacres, where the objective is fame at the expense of innocent lives, did not occur at anything like the frequency they have since liberals have become socially and politically ascendant.

    Think about that connection and where it suggests the real solution may lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Now I agree 200 years on, they don’t need guns with individuals to overthrow a government.

    Maybe they will.

    The DHS ordered 1.4 billion rounds (including banned hollow-point rounds) recently.
    That is enough for a 20 year war in Iraq!

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/why_does_homeland_security_need_14_billion_rounds_of_ammunition.html

    I think there is civil war coming – when Obama completely collapses the economy (a typical communist ploy).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Archer (215 comments) says:

    Kea: DPF said our gun ownership rate is “relateively low” in a post about gun ownership rate in the USA. Looking at the link you provided it appears the USA’s rate is 4 times that of ours (22 guns per 100 people here, 88 in the USA). I have to say I agree with DPF that we do have a relatively low rate compared to the USA, being it’s 75% lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    There is no cogent case for the ownership of automatic weapons and hand guns. I have no issue with the ownership of rifles and shotguns for hunting although have never owned guns myself. The US does not only have a problem with the number and type of weapons but when you listen to the arguments over there from the NRA et al it simply leaves you stunned at how people could be so patently stupid

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    “There is no cogent case for the ownership of automatic weapons and hand guns.”

    You reckon the Jews might have been saying that when Hitler, (who had ideas you Mark would clearly have agreed with), had them unarmed and holed up in their ghettos?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    That is not to say that there are not improvements that can and should be made to the gun laws, especially around automatic weapons

    Automatic weapons (ie hold down the trigger and empty the clip) are prohibited in the US save for those which were legal to have before the automatic weapon prohibition came into force. Those weapons are subject to strict legal regulation by the ATF (ie having to have written permission to transport it across state lines) and only one has been used in a crime (by an ex-cop so I’m told).

    Semi-automatic rifles (ie a shot reloads the weapon) are legal in the US and here, but not in Oz. Lanza had such a rifle in his car in the shotting but seems not to have used it. I’m dubious as to whether it would be worth while to ban them considering the British Army used to train its soldiers to fire twenty aimed shots a minute with bolt-action rifles (ie after firing a shot, you have you reload).

    Pistols are strictly controlled here but not so much in the states. Lanza was using two pistols during his atrocity. So-called automatic pistols are really sem-automatics while the only fully automatic pistol that I’ve ever heard of being used in a crime was a homemade one used by our own Antonie Dixon who used it to shoot somebody in the back. Homemade weapons also is a thriving cottage industry in the UK which I’ve seen touted as an example of a success of their gun control laws. I’m find this type of argument spurious myself – are clandestine meth labs are sign our drug control laws are a success?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Possession of automatic weapons and hand guns by private citizens is unnecessary for the effective exercise of the right to self defence. New Zealand has relatively sensible gun laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    The real threat is people like you in government mikey. That’s why we need guns. You would kill dissenters without turning a hair. As you have done so often in the past. It is you and your kind that provide the greatest need for citizens to be armed Mikey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The DHS ordered 1.4 billion rounds (including banned hollow-point rounds) recently.

    Hollowpoints are not banned. They have a legitimate use in law enforcement and are even used here. The one place where it is prohibited to use hollowpoints is on the battlefield on the grounds that it causes unnecessary suffering (owing to lack of ready medical attention).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    Accidental injury and death from firearms alone justify their prohibition. I see no public benefit in their private use. The may be an additional benefit from crime reduction but that effect would not be significant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Accidental injury and death from cars alone justify their prohibition.

    (You see what happens when you just look at one side of the argument?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    red,
    the NAZI encouraged gun ownership and it is likely jewish gun owenership was pretty high. but it did them no good at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    Well known Hollywood leftist Harry Belafonte said recently-

    “what fascinates me, is that the face of millions of Americans expressing their desire. The whole political establishment defining its game, that there should be this lingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama.

    And I don’t know what more they want. The only thing left for Barack Obama to do is to work like a third-world dictator and just put all of these guys in jail. You’re violating the American desire.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Accidental injury and death from firearms alone justify their prohibition.

    So when do we ban cars which kill and injure more people here?

    I see no public benefit in their private use.

    That you see no benefit is not evidence that there is no benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Possession of automatic weapons and hand guns by private citizens is unnecessary for the effective exercise of the right to self defence.

    Automatic weapons probably, but certainly not hand-guns. How is a weaker person supposed to defend themselves against a stronger one? The point of a gun is that it is an equaliser.

    Ignoring reality doesn’t make your argument any stronger you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. kowtow (8,755 comments) says:

    “History” is presented to citizens by deceitful governments (through the education system).

    It was the French navy that ensured the American rebels were able to overthrow their lawful government. The purpose was not liberty and freedom. The purpose was to seize the rest of the North American continent from Indians,and Spanish and French settlers. King George and his government in London had a soft spot for his other subjects in the colonies and certain radicals didn’t like that so sought to set up their own government.

    When you rebel against lawful authority you have to dress it up in finery in order to justify your actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    “the NAZI encouraged gun ownership and it is likely jewish gun owenership was pretty high.”

    What utter crap.

    The Jews were systematically disarmed by the Nazis.

    Before they were massacred by their government.

    Hitler was a gun grabber, just like you, and just like every totalitarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (4,198 comments) says:

    DPF..
    Good analysis, good comment.
    One point though…
    The UN (no doubt a reaction to the anonymous damage to their non-fine paying, illegally parked cars in New York :) ) has propisedan international treaty that would, in effect, ban ALL private gun/sale ownership. That is as likely in the US as having a Christmas barbecue outdoors in Minneapolis. The advocates are from the usual suspects – the group of “emerging” states.

    Miken..
    It is the people, niot the lAw, nor the guns. Agree.
    Automatic weapons cannot be legally sold in any US state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    Cars have enormous public benefit firearms have none. They are dangerous toys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,
    Do a google search.
    or have a look here
    http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

    I accept the jews were disarmed – in as far as you obviously dont let a prisoner take a gun to a concentration camp and they were shut out of all sorts of activities including the gun manufacture industry. But up until the point at which he was going to send you to the concentration camp – Hitler was very much a gun giver not a grabber.

    Im not sure what you could be resting the “gun grabber” accusation on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    normally not a reliable site to use as a link but in this case i think appropriate…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    Spare us the Hitler crap. Surely our democracy does not depend on widespread firearm use. Rather it presents a threat to national security.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership

    http://jpfo.org/

    And while you’re there, look up “Death By Gun Control” “Death By Gun Control”.

    Every major genocide of the 20th Century was preceded by gun confiscation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Cars have enormous public benefit firearms have none

    So what was the point of “alone” in your original statement? As it stands, you were saying that even if there was some public benefit to having firearms, it wouldn’t matter. So why is it legitimate for you to say that to prohibit guns, the carnage they cause is a sufficient reason regardless of any public benefit whereas with cars, public benefit must be used in order to offset their carnage in order to justify their continued use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Redbaiter (9,558 comments) says:

    “Spare us the Hitler crap.”

    Why, when you and your ilk appear to be the manifestation of the same old same old big government totalitarian force all over again?

    Its just a matter of time before you try the same old strategies you did last century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    On the subject of totalitarianism, it is a historical fact that in the US gun control was intended to prevent blacks from protecting themselves from murderous racial violence.
    And indeed, the Supreme Court’s most recent deliberations on the subject came down in support of a poor 76-year old black man’s right to carry a gun to protect himself in the violent neighbourhood that he has to live in. Perhaps the middle-class white lefties who oppose gun ownership would like to trade places with him (disarmed, of course)? I mean, if they can’t see a “cogent case” for gun ownership then they should have no qualms.

    What’s that Mark? You just shit yourself? Sorry to hear that.

    And Condoleezza Rice has recalled hearing the blast of a black church being blown up and seeing “the small coffins” of the dead children. And she remembers how her father – armed with a shotgun – stood guard with others to keep out the KKK.

    Because there’s not always a policeman around, and sometimes when they are they’re on the side of the thugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    Homophobia is also cultural but that’s changing.

    Just because something is cultural does not make it right or mean it should continue in perpetuity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Cars have enormous public benefit firearms have none. They are dangerous toys.

    Many of the countries that have severely restricted private firearm use, also restricted private vehicles. The communist block countries are a recent example. North Korea is a current one.

    I will let readers research for themselves how those governments have treated their people.

    Some of the anti gun folk seem to think there was no murder before private ownership of guns. They seem to think things were once more peaceful. History records otherwise, as do events in those places where private guns are banned, by the armed state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Cars have enormous public benefit firearms have none

    No. Cars have enormous private benefit. As do hand-guns (why on earth do you think people buy them if that’s not the case?) Benefit for people like the 76-year old black man in the bad neighbourhood that I just mentioned. His name is Otis McDonald. Does he seem like a nut to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    In the hunting field the public benefit of pest control is negligible.

    Hunting does not equal pest control. It is a recreational activity. Just like scuba diving, boating, mountain climbing, caving, flying, horse riding, car racing, rugby.

    Do you have any actual evidence to support the proposition that firearms are not are useful and occassionally essential tool in pest control?

    Accidents alone involving firearms justify their removal from the general public.

    What is it about firearms accidents in particular that a warrants a ban relative to other recreational and commercial activities that cause death and injury?

    You need to distinguish between the responsible use of firearms and the irresponsible use of firearms. The reality is that it is the user that does the damage. Incidents that attract headlines here reflect actions of people that were not sufficiently responsible to own them in the first place. Our licensing process is pathetic.

    Some might reject the licensing regime as mummy state. Although such people enjoy the protection that society affords through regulating food safety, the licensing of medical and health practitioners, driver licensing, vehicle safety regulation, the licensing of recreational and commercial pilots, certification of aircraft, to name but a few examples, they might even reject those interventions as mummy state. If so and if they are indeed committed to a life of thrills and spills, they always have the option to relocate to Afganistan, the Congo, Gaza or Zimbabwe where they can enjoy a carefree diet relying upon dysentry for weight control and doze off at night cuddling an AK47 safe in the knowledge that the RPG under the bed is good to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    I can’t speak from a statistics POV. I failed stats twice. I speak from the point of view as a mum in the US who has two elementary aged school children.
    Hurricanes and earthquakes kill more people than guns do. And maybe there is a way to stop Crazies, sorry, ‘mental health patients’ from getting access to guns, maybe not. It would take a society who was willing to call a spade a spade and not care about hurting the feelings of a few nutters.
    If you ban gun ownership -and as DF says, it’s never gunna happen- those ‘socialist utopia’, types who dream of only the govt having guns with which to rule, terrorise or manipulate the population – forget it.
    But if you did ban guns outright, you’d disempower civil society and disarm the largest army that can be called on to fight for the benefit of the population at large without a political agenda.
    The army of Civil Society fights only for the three founding principles of all laws. To protect youth, protect property and protect the mass scale destruction of human life in the name of religion and culture. An armed government mainly has it’s own preservation at the core of it’s modus operaandi and that is why the politicizing of these tragedies is so repugnant. Unless you think China is a model of freedom.
    BTW – New Zealand is not as safe as you think it is. From personal experience, in the five years I lived in Johnsonville there were three homicides in 800m of my house. That’s in the nice part of dirty old Jville.
    One of the murderers confessed to a mate of mine. She went to the Police, they let him go and he walked onto a train-track.
    Moral of the story:
    You can’t ban guns and you can’t ban Crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Correct Monique and so in NZ guns are not banned and crazies like Redbaiter and Kea are not locked up (yet).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    redbaiter,
    The JPFO is really streaching a point here. While it is true that countries take actions in relation to restricting guns they also take actions that proliferate them. to use two obvious examples the chinese and the nazi both liberalized the previous positions in regards to guns the chinese by effectively arming hte pesants (as communists do) and the nazi by removing very restrictive pre nazi laws. to then complain about the laws they replaced those strategies with is to not accuratly reflect the scenario.
    I suspect that is true in regard to almost all the cases they give.

    Another inteeresting factor here is that a lot of these gun laws are targeted. ie the tutsi are encouraged not to have weapons – the hutu are encouraged to get them.

    For the nazi example also notethat the law they refer to occured in 1938 – and yet at this stage the jews had almot no rights left – ie they were stripped of almost every other right BEFORE gun ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. flipper (4,198 comments) says:

    Heh folks.
    The US is a country belonging to its citzens. Their history (please, no more slave subjugation/firearms crap), culture, their laws, embody (?) their mutual responsibility is to every US citizen.
    But bear this in mind: we are talking about a nation of some 400 million people (NZ is about one third of greater Los Angeles). There is a generally law abiding country to its north. There is Mexico to the south. “Fast and furious” etc. was never directed at Canada.

    Yesterday was tragic for the victims, their parents, relatives, and friends. On a population basis, Grey’s Aramoana massacre was worse, but that is NOT any sort of justification.

    One final point: Obama can say what he likes (he will, of course, without consulting NZ’ers), but the POTUS cannot alter the US Constitution, nor interfere with States’ rights. End of debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Spare us the Hitler crap.

    Why, because German fascism was a common link between the Bush family and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (aka Windsor)?

    Surely our democracy does not depend on widespread firearm use.

    At the end of the day police actions enforcing democratic policy are backed up with guns.

    Rather it presents a threat to national security.

    More accurately a threat to state security. The primary role of the state is threat mitigation, and this role is undermined when the public does the job itself. The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence as present in English common law was a source for the second ammendment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Fuck off mikenmild. Expressing an anti socialist pro-gun opinion is not the same as murdering a classroom full of kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    crazies like Redbaiter and Kea are not locked up (yet).

    The socialist advocates locking up people who disagree with his violence-based statist fantasies, and at the same time wonders why people might want to arm themselves to protect their liberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Sorry Monqiue, wat. I should have turned irony font on.
    Het nice to see Ugly’s out with another conspiracy theory. This time the ol’ Bushes, Windsors and the Nazis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Damn, where is the edit??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Many of the countries that have severely restricted private firearm use, also restricted private vehicles. The communist block countries are a recent example. North Korea is a current one.

    lol, first the come for your firearms, next they come for your cars!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Can we PLEASE get the edit button back, David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    mm, more name calling I see. How about engaging the debate, rather than lashing out at people with personal attacks ?

    Just look at the language used by the anti gun lobby on this site, to see how they really think of people.

    Most firearms owners I have known are decent, polite people with a calm temperament. They are usually down to earth, read allot and like nature. My wife always used to comment how nice my “gun friends” were, compared to those with other interests. I think she would have found mm a bit creepy, but there again, he even scares me !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    And to spell it out for wat. I do not advocate locking Reddy up – I am generally against the imprisonment of minors. Once he is an adult and he is acutually in a position to act out his violent fantasies then there might well be a case made for restraint consistent with the demonstrated level of threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    eszett +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. flipper (4,198 comments) says:

    A final few further thoughts:

    1. Crims and psychos will always find a means of killing, whether it be by guns, knives, arrows, clubs or drugs. Banning these (or anything) is a political action that is reactive. It does not solve/resolve problems. NZ is nio diufferent.

    2. At present there is a somewhat unhealthy desire on the part of US “law enforcement” to entend their technological “weapons” in the “fight against Crime”, to the use of unmanned drones. But military useof drones makes the next level of use obvious, does it not?

    3. No congressional Representative will risk his/her (two yearly) re-election by taking anything other than a political stance. That will vary, district by district.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    lol, first the come for your firearms, next they come for your cars!

    I do not actually find the deaths of millions and the oppression of millions more, all over Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Asia, by central government, much of a laughing matter. Once again we get some insight into the nature of those who only want governments to have guns. Keep posting, your a great help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    No, Kea, the laughing matter at hand is the idiocy of your posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    eszett +2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @mikenmild: Consiracy theory is just a another name for politically inconvenient facts.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Consiracy theory is just a another name for politically inconvenient facts.

    @UglyTruth,

    Sure is! When the facts are inconvenient, some people invent conspiracies for their own political purposes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    lol, first the come for your firearms, next they come for your cars!

    All done by legal slight of hand. In a legal sense, people are not persons, guns are not firearms, and cars are not vehicles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. TM (99 comments) says:

    It is crazy talk to say you need guns to protect yourself from NZ government totalitarian control. If you told the police that when applying for your licence, you would probably get a black cross beside your name. And it’s delusions like that that get police officers shot because they’re “out to get me”. As a licence holder and someone who knows at least a few dozen firearms owners, none of them go around spouting stuff about the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government.

    It is equally crazy to advocate the banning of firearms. Firearms ownership is about the responsible use of a necessary tool. 99.9% of the time they are used responsibly, and control measures are necessary to try to reduce irresponsible use. I actually think further control could be looked at both in the US and here (eg. licencing firearms as well as people, interviews with other people who have access to the gun cabinet), as every time this stuff happens, the cry to ban firearms comes out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    When the facts are inconvenient, some people invent conspiracies for their own political purposes

    For example, the Lavon Affair and Operation Northwoods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    No, Kea, the laughing matter at hand is the idiocy of your posts.

    Yet another personal attack.

    How about a few examples to back up your statement? Give us some figures that show governments kill less people than lone gunmen.

    Give us a few links that show there are no mass murders in countries that ban private firearms ?

    I have provided links to support my view, but any news source will reveal the truth of my position. Most of the killing going on around the world is done by the “authorities” not individual crazed gunmen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Most of the killing going on around the world is done by the “authorities” not individual crazed gunmen.

    Indeed. It naturally follows then, that there is no need to worry about individual crazed gunmen. Or drunk drivers. Or amphetamine use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is crazy talk to say you need guns to protect yourself from NZ government totalitarian control.

    Was it crazy when Blackstone wrote about it in the context of English common law?

    “…when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

    http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/blackstone.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    thedavincimode, how do you work out that conclusion? Please explain the reasoning.

    Many on here are suggesting we give all the guns to the authorities/government. The biggest killers, by far, globaly. That is like giving the worst drunk drivers free booze and permission to drive when drunk. Or give mass murderers lots of guns & ammo, with no restrictions on who they shoot.

    That is what “naturally follows”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    If Kea cannot see the false equivalency inherent in his comparison of gun control with mass murders perpretrated by authoritarian governments, I would suggest he needs to reflect on logic for a little while.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    “ There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws…” – Ayn Rand

    Try selling food in a supermarket without ‘unit pricing’ – even though the government spends a billion a year on mental arithmetic education!

    You will pay severe fines for failing to comply with ‘orderly society’.

    The commies are here. The commies are trying to rule us all. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. noskire (842 comments) says:

    I don’t think for a minute there is an easy solution to these recurring tragedies in the USA, but from the FBI and Gallup graphs in the link below regarding gun ownership and the relevant violent crime rate, you would have to conclude there is a correlation, wouldn’t you?

    http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @noskire: Correlation is not causation. Identifying the cause of the tragedy involves knowing what was going in in Adam Lanza’s head immediately prior to the event. The MSM has conflicting reports about an altercation between Lanza and school staff, an so far there’s no word from Lanza’s psychologist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Kea (1,135) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:57 am

    No, Kea, the laughing matter at hand is the idiocy of your posts.

    Yet another personal attack.

    How about a few examples to back up your statement?

    Personal attack? I called your argument idiotic and not you an idiot.
    But never mind.

    I believe mikenmild pointed it already out for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    “…..That is what “naturally follows”…..”

    Not according to Ryan! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. noskire (842 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth I don’t want to get into a calc/stats debate – I was making an observation that the correlation could be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship. If you think that’s flawed, then OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    TM. I’ve stood between the interests of criminals and the police as a member of civil society. Neither of these groups have your best interests at heart. You are sandwiched between these layers and at the mercy of either if not enough members of civil society are also equipped. This is demonstrated by the Wikipedia link above where low private gun ownership is common in the most corrupt countries. No the NZ government isn’t totalitarian but we’re not so far removed from our more violent past. 200 years isn’t a long time by any measure. And you only have to return to some NZ townships to experience life where civil society is squeezed thin and criminals and police are at an uneasy impasse. Think Wairoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    The TV script:

    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/lanza-bloomberg-obama-guns-psychiatric-meds-and-mass-hypnosis-in-newtown-connecticut/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Gun control in NZ & Australia works very well – and it is very similar to the US model.

    Norway showed us that it is all about the PLANNING!

    Didn’t that nutter just stand on a rock for an hour or two picking people off ‘one-by-one’?

    What about that kid up in the tower at a US university back in the 70’s?

    What about the girls?……that chick that didn’t like mondays….but did like yellow raincoats because she could see all the blood?

    It’s not about gun control but parenting! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    When things like this happen, people should forget about the tragedy, we all know it’s tragic, but that’s not the main point. The main point is who was the shooter. How come they did what they did.

    By looking at the facts in the event we see important and relevant elements that contribute to the puzzle of why “they” did it.

    For example, in Port Arthur, we see Bryant, despite being who he was with his history, display amazing prowess, performing to Special Forces standards.

    Just after noon on 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots. Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head, all fired by the unknown marksman from his right hip. This staggering display of marksman- ship was blamed on left-handed and intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, whose shooting experience extended to popping off cans in the bush, and had no military training of any kind.

    I’m not suggesting in this case that shooter wasn’t the one who killed himself in the school, what I’m saying is look behind the media bullshit and focus on the things those idiots don’t mention. That’s where you’ll find the truth. For another example, think about how come the Denver shooter being a science geek, was able to wire his flat with deadly traps in such a way that it kept out the authorities for two days? Where did he learn to do that? From the internet? Yeah right. That’s what you need to look for, and personally in this case, the obvious place to start is with this boy’s doctor, as that link above suggests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Mike Huckabee has the real answer:

    ‘”We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools,” Huckabee said on Fox News, discussing the murder spree that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, CT that morning. “Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”

    Apparently his magic pixie declined to stop children being butchered because it was pissed at not being worshipped in schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    Of course Obama went to Harvard so this study is just another part of the plot to disarm the US population before herding the people into FEMA re-education camps.

    /

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    “The deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927.”

    In the end there were 38 children dead at the school, two teachers and four other adults.

    A school board official, enraged at a tax increase to fund school construction, quietly planted explosives in Bath Township Elementary. Then, the day he was finally ready, he set off an inferno. When crowds rushed in to rescue the children, he drove up his shrapnel-filled car and detonated it, too, killing more people, including himself. And then, something we’d find very strange happened.

    Nothing.

    No cameras were placed at the front of schools. No school guards started making visitors show identification. No Zero Tolerance laws were passed, nor were background checks required of PTA volunteers—all precautions that many American schools instituted in the wake of the Columbine shootings, in 1999. Americans in 1928—and for the next several generations —continued to send their kids to school without any of these measures. They didn’t even drive them there. How did they maintain the kind of confidence my own knees and heart don’t feel as I write this?

    They had a distance that has disappeared. A distance that helped them keep the rarity and unpredictability of the tragedy in perspective, granting them parental peace.

    “In 1928, the odds are that if people in this country read about this tragedy, they read it several days later, in place that was hard to get to,” explains Art Markman, author of “Smart Thinking” (Perigee Books, 2012). “You couldn’t hop on a plane and be there in an hour. Michigan? If you were living in South Carolina, it would be a three-day drive. It’s almost another country. You’d think, ‘Those crazy people in Michigan,’ same as if a school blows up in one of the breakaway Republics.”

    Time and space create distance. But today, those have compressed to zero. The Connecticut shooting comes into our homes–even our hands–instantly, no matter where we live. We see the shattered parents in real time. The President can barely maintain composure. This sorrow isn’t far away, it’s local for every single one of us.

    And of course it brings up Columbine. Two horrors, separated by years and miles, are now fused into one. It feels like terrible things are happening to our children all the time, everywhere. Nowhere is safe.

    As a result, I expect we will now demand precautions on top of precautions. More guards. More security cameras. More supervision. We will fear more for our kids and let go of them even more reluctantly. Every time we wonder if they can be safe beyond our arms, these shootings will swim into focus.

    Will this new layer of fear and security make our children any safer? Probably not, but for a reassuring reason: A tragedy like this is so rare, our kids are already safe. Not perfectly safe. No one ever is. But safe.

    That’s a truth the folks in 1928 America understood. We just don’t feel that way now.

    Not when there’s no distance between us and the parents in Newtown.

    http://qz.com/37069/the-deadliest-school-massacre-in-us-history-was-in-1927-why-its-aftermath-matters-now/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Wat Dabney#

    “….Apparently his magic pixie declined to stop children being butchered because it was pissed at not being worshipped in schools….”

    Fuck you’re an immature idiot.

    That is not at all what Huckabee means.

    Just look at what NZ teacers, educationalists and child phsycologists say – ‘parents are failing to set boundries for their children’

    That is just code for ‘parents are failing to install morals and values into their children’ – which is what Huckabee was suggesting – SOME CHRISTIAN LIVING DOES NOT HURT ANY CHILD!

    Moral relativity CANNOT be installed into adolesents without a ‘moral framework’ because adolesents don’t have life experiance. Christian living is a ‘moral framework’ that is BENIGN – it is therefor suited to adolesents!

    Or are you saying Watty that NZ should get ready for mass shootings by christian school children? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Wat dabble#

    “…..No cameras were placed at the front of schools. No school guards started making visitors show identification. No Zero Tolerance laws were passed, nor were background checks required of PTA volunteers—all precautions that many American schools instituted in the wake of the Columbine shootings, in 1999. Americans in 1928—and for the next several generations —continued to send their kids to school without any of these measures. They didn’t even drive them there. How did they maintain the kind of confidence my own knees and heart don’t feel as I write this?….”

    Faith……you fucken idiot! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    the loons in the USA need their automatic weapons to protect themselves in case of invasion by UN forces

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    the loons in the USA need their automatic weapons to protect themselves in case of invasion by UN forces

    If the loons want weapons, then should the sane be prevented from having them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Kea is probably correct –

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Dear Media,

    What is the matter with you sick cunts? We know the facts of the matter, we are all shocked and horrified by what happened.

    WHY DO YOU KEEP PUTTING UP PHOTOS OF THE KIDS THAT WERE MURDERED? You, Sydney Morning Herald website, you have a “Gallery of the Slain”. Its just disgusting; you dont deserve any place in society.

    How the FUCK does that constitute news? What does it achieve?

    You are all so fucking irrelevant and I for one will be happy letting you know, no I dont want fries with that, in the near future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Random Punter (77 comments) says:

    “Kea (1,139) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:39 am
    mm, more name calling I see. How about engaging the debate, rather than lashing out at people with personal attacks?

    Really? Can this be the same “Kea” who, just a couple of days ago, was calling those who had the temerity to disagree with him about the Australian prank calls such choice names as “miserable little prick”, “self-righteous wanker”, and “vile and humorless little freak”?

    I think we should be told.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    Bloody facts.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

    RESULTS:

    The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Random Punter, anything at all to say about the issue at hand?

    How about being the brave one and answering my questions or addressing my central point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Kimble +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    But cha, you could look up any sort of ‘facts’ on the internet, couldn’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    cha, thanks for trying to help (at least as far as your limited intellect allows) but we can all cut and paste selected “facts” to support any position we want to take.

    Btw, what is your real reason for wanting guns taken away from the citizens?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    cha#

    “….The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher….”

    That’s misleading-

    It’s ‘poor black on poor black’ that makes up the majority of all those statistics. Most are drugged out of their heads at the time they kill, which then means that their poverty is a far lessor factor as to why they kill. It also means that JUST giving them more money would just be an increase in their drug taking, leading of course to more killings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    But cha, you could look up any sort of ‘facts’ on the internet, couldn’t you?

    mikenmild, my internet connection is running a little slow. Would you mind pulling up the number of civilians killed by the US government in the past year ? (you may leave out the ones they “claim” were not civilians)

    Just for comparison, and to keep things balanced and fair, the number of people killed by lone gunmen during the same period in the US ?

    Thanks mate. cha seems a bit busy to help out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    I don’t think it is your internet connection that runs a bit slow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    You really are a dishonest and nasty piece of work mm.

    Not one single point engaged, just personal attacks.

    It shows me you know your wrong. You are not revealing your true reasons for opposing private firearm ownership. You are certainly like most anti gun people, very arrogant with a huge ego and an inflated view of your own importance. Firearms scare you, because anyone can pop you off with the pull of a trigger. That does not sit well with your type, especially when it is combined with your dark and miserable view of your fellow man. You actually fear being shot.

    Those of us a little more down to earth, and with a healthy few of other people and society, do not fear being shot by gun owners. Get some help little man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    1. I am more honest than Kea. There, I said so therefore it must be true.
    2. Kea misses points when they are more subtle than direct personal attacks.
    3. Kea assumed that I oppose private firearm ownership, although I don’t. among his many logical errors, he assumes that criticism of US gun laws is an attack on private ownership of firearms and that writing off his ludicrous claims about ‘government’ versus ‘private’ killings is a personal attack.
    4. I don’t know what ‘a healthy few’ is – perhaps Kea and his parents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    mm, it is a bit hard to know what you think, when all you do is attack the person and not the argument.

    Are you a school teacher by any chance? That would explain everything. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    I am not a school teacher. I am a free man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Yeah Milko who’s actually scared of NRA members – last I heard from the police ‘we are to be afraid of drug dealers & gang members’ the ones with the illegal guns.

    Oh……now it’s our fucken fault….they’re our guns.

    Fine, the police can now fight the other half of the War on Drugs….by putting police drug dogs out in public to get rid of the ‘demand side’ of the drug equation……no drug empires to protect, then there is no need to steal guns!

    The police have guns and tasers and they are responsable -according to you- -and according to the police- so are the NRA members!

    Us gun owners have property to protect -our beloved guns- so we DO abide by the law.

    We get to keep our guns! Goodnight Milko! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    Milko……The police work by public sentiment – and law abiding gun owners get listened to!

    You civilian public servant metrosexuals have been bossed about by so many feminist females that you have lost all manly reasoning about the responsability of the ‘brotherhood’…..! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    2.The United States federal government has little role in gun laws. Each state gets to set their own laws. This is the basis of how government was formed in the US.

    Except for

    1. drugs, Colorado and another state are trying to make marijuana legal – the federal government has already made threats as to medicinal marijuana supply in other states.

    2. Roe v Wade?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Was unfortunate enough to catch TV3 news showing the BBC report about the issue of gun control after this massacre. Apparently it’s as trite as politicians having to fight “the powerful gun lobby.”

    That’s it.

    No clue or suggestion that there might be powerful issues of history, liberty and trade-offs here; that people could disagree.

    No. It’s just a matter of the people on one side and a “powerful gun lobby” on the other.

    You’d think the murder of 20 young children would warrant some proper interest in the subject; something more that teenage scribblings. You’d be wrong.

    Well done TV3; well done indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Lol – I pity all the fools in this thread trying to engage and have a conversation with the “Kea” troll creature. Sooner or later you will figure out it’s futile.

    As a service in the public good, here’s a step-by-step guide for how to make it go away, even if you’re computer illiterate like me:

    1 – Get the Remove It Permanently Firefox add-on. (Free.)

    2 – Get the Kiwiblog comments script for Remove It Permanently from the following url:
    http://ripwiki.pbworks.com/f/kiwiblogcomment.rip

    3 – open the .rip file with notepad, make the following changes (in Bold) and save. Note the curved parentheses are actually greater than / less than signs in the .rip script but those don’t appear properly here if pasted into this forum comments system.

    (Config version=”1.0″)
    (Page name=”Kiwiblog comment filter” url=”http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/*” enabled=”true”)
    (XPath comment=”without link”)//li[cite[contains(.,‘Kea’)]](/XPath)
    (XPath comment=”with link”)//li[cite[a[contains(.,‘Kea’)]]]</XPath)
    (/Page)
    (/Config)

    4 – Go into the settings for the Remove It Permanently add-on, "import" this edited .rip file from wherever you've saved it.

    5 – Peace! Blissful peace. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Oh and the U.S. gun enthusiast lobby are correct in saying that a gun does no harm until someone pulls the trigger. I think they like steering the conversation onto this trite, callous and cowardly diversion because it’s unpalatable to consider that by its very nature a gun is nothing but a cheap device that makes it far, far easier for even a small, physically weak person with modest funds to kill a lot of people very quickly and efficiently with minimal physical effort, compared to any other tool or invention out there.

    But what fight are the gun people winning here, really? Maybe private gun ownership HAS already prevented the rise of some domestic tyranny in the USA, as the gun lobby insists? Who can say? But we can see that that certainly comes at a hell of a price, and the payments seem to be getting made in bigger and bigger instalments lately.

    And the 2nd amendment probably made a lot of sense in 1791, but the gun fetishists who spout the 2nd amendment now are masturbating themselves hard and they MUST know it.

    These people have watched every video that’s on YouTube showing Apache gunship helicopters and B-52 bombers blowing shit up, and they love that stuff. So they can’t seriously believe they could actually oppose a corrupt political insurrection that had the backing of their military. And yet they trumpet the 2nd amendment every time one of these tragedies occurs. Wankers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Harriet (5,120 comments) says:

    RRM has just outed himself as someone who supports taking away the property, the rights, the responsabilities and another freedom from well behaved citizens who have and will follow current laws!

    Communist! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Good to see RRM is still missing me. He mentions me most days, even with his RIP thingy. He is clearly a lonely and isolated man. Not surprising when he thinks “People Suck”

    Rather a complicated looking process that RIP thing. Most of just just scroll down the page :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Harriet, I am getting worried about RRM. He needs some intervention before he hurts someone. I would help, but he has blocked those of us who have tried to assist him.

    I mean listen to this !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    the gun fetishists who spout the 2nd amendment now are masturbating themselves hard …. These people have watched every video that’s on YouTube showing Apache gunship helicopters and B-52 bombers blowing shit up, and they love that stuff…. People suck…..Wankers.

    Disturbing stuff indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. tarrant (35 comments) says:

    “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    When a 20yo man walks into a primary school and shoots 20 5-6yo’s, America has far more to worry about than banning guns. First and foremost they have a culture issue, and one hell of a mental health problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    and one hell of a mental health problem.

    Perhaps, perhaps not.

    “It takes a certain degree of clear-headedness to plan and execute a crime like this,” said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston, who has written several books on mass murder and school violence.

    […]

    Such well-planned attacks are rare and not meant to make a statement, Fox said. “They basically want revenge,” he said. “Contrary to the common misperception that these guys suddenly snap and go berserk, these are well-planned executions.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    cha, are we to now think, you consider murdering a bunch of defenseless kids, a clear headed and sane thing to do ?

    I see you have got that cut n paste thing figured out. Do you have any suggestions yourself ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Or we could wait until a diagnosis emerges of this fellow…Good point though cha; not every mass murderer is automatically insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    Do you have any suggestions yourself ?

    For a semi-literate cretin like you, inert gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    cha
    +1. The stupid, it hurts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    No, they’re not M and the rush by some to dismiss the criminality as a mental health issue speaks to the bankruptcy of those making the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    cha, are we to now think, you consider murdering a bunch of defenseless kids, a clear headed and sane thing to do ?

    I think only a twisted mind could warp the very logical, rational proposition quoted by cha into meaning what you claimed, kea.

    Perhaps you should toodle off to the Bain thread, where I suspect you belong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    bhudson
    +1. At least we can agree about Kea!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    That’s it boys, keep up the personal attacks. We now have a whole thread of nothing but vile insults and personal attacks from you all. Not one of you nasty little men have answered a single question or addressed a point raised.

    cha
    +1. The stupid, it hurts. and from cha it’s self: For a semi-literate cretin like you, inert gas.

    I will ignore cha’s suggestion I would be better off dead .

    It is not the first time such things have been said by the people who claim only the government should have guns. Readers can now see how much they really value human life.

    Lets move onto intelligence, since they won’t engage the real issues. I know cha gets off on quoting other people, so here is my gift to him. This is about the killer:

    “He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius.”

    http://news.msn.com/us/conn-gunman-recalled-as-intelligent-but-remote

    How about the batman killer, was he “stupid” ?

    the suspect shooter had been an exceptional student who was able to cope easily with complicated science.
    Describing his grasp of complex methodology as “impressive, compared to other undergraduates I worked with before”, Hongxia Wang said he was a “smart guy and quick learner” who exhibited no signs of a troubled mind.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9416850/Batman-cinema-shooting-James-Holmes-is-nice-easy-going-guy-says-uncle.html

    So maybe cha is right after all. People who do these things are normal clear headed people, just like cha told us at 6:53 pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    cha is right more often that Kea might imagine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (7,279 comments) says:

    Oh, it’s one of those saaaaane mass gun murders of kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    I’m sure we could come up with a list of mass murderers who were defined, legally, as sane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Yeah mm, cha is a smart guy and so are you. You both also have a lot of anger inside you. Just like the killers. Get a cup of tea and just read some of the filth written by your supporters on this thread.

    In fact, having a high IQ and being a social misfit (as you are mm) are bigger predictors than a belief in private gun ownership.

    http://dead-silence.org/?p=260

    Your are not very nice people and have no integrity at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Oh, it’s one of those saaaaane mass gun murders of kids.

    Yes. That is what cha thinks.

    He wants US citizens to hand their guns to these people:

    Beaten and sodomized: European human rights court finds CIA guilty of torture

    http://rt.com/news/cia-torture-eu-citizen-048/

    Those are the people who cha thinks should be the ONLY ones to have guns. Because they are the authorities. Fuck me ! ( or in cha’s case, beat and sodomise me, before killing me with inert gas)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    Kea
    I’ve pretty much given up on you, but please write ‘you’re’ when you mean ‘you are’, as it makes your comments harder to follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Thanks mike and I hope things come right for you soon. I can not pretend to know what it is like, but you have my support. If more people cared, we would have less of these events and you guys would get the early interventions you need.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. mikenmild (11,699 comments) says:

    At least you care, Kea. There is hope that you may not yet turn into a Reddy fanboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Thanks mm.

    Don’t let the nurse catch you blogging this late on a week night :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    So the automatic response by some Americans to pull out their guns to solve their problems is perfectly sane and reasonable to cha, MM et el. Fuck me side ways. Mental health comes in a lot of forms gents, it’s not just in the realm of the gibbering droolers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Left Right and Centre (2,994 comments) says:

    There’s a lot of things that suck shit on planet earth…. and someone being able to shoot you in the head is up there.

    Guns are fucking scary. I would say I was anti-guns. It’s only been since this latest shoot-em-up that I’ve taken another look at the issue…. and now the NRA gun nuts are starting to look less and less nutty to me… at least in the American context.

    I can’t help but rationalise Sandy Hook by thinking… with or without guns, which option left them better or worse off?

    They can’t have been *worse off* having weapons and being able to fire back and even it up a bit, surely?

    So… where does that leave schools? Teachers that carry loaded guns and are fully trained in their use and safety. And regularly hit the range to keep the skills up.

    The vogue for today’s shooter is to wear body armour. What’s the answer there? At least one or all guns pack armour piercing bullets?

    What else? All the children wearing bullet proof vests?

    A gun free school is a wonderfully soft target for an evil headcase to pick on. Same as Virginia Tech was.

    Anyone heard of the Trolley Square shooting? If you haven’t, it might be because the shooter had his attention diverted by an off-duty armed cop who returned fire at him with a handgun… followed shortly by responding officers. Game over for killing people. This shooter didn’t follow the usual script and the local SWAT team shot the arsehole dead. So… ‘only’ five innocent victims thanks to someone being able to fire back.

    Aurora shooting…. the cinema was the only one of seven local complexes that did not allow concealed weapons. The high IQ mass-murderer knows he’s shooting unarmed defenceless victims. Seeing a pattern here?

    Holy shit… next I’ll be anti-abortion and God fearing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Ronin (1 comment) says:

    Here is an interesting link:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote