Obama’s gun crackdown

January 17th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

US President is proposing a new assault weapons ban and mandatory background checks for all gun buyers in a bid to channel national outrage over the Newtown school massacre into the biggest gun-control push in generations.

Personally I have no problem with either of those measures. You don’t need assault weapons for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target practice or even self-defence.

Obama’s plan calls on Congress to renew the prohibition on assault weapons sales that expired in 2004, a requirement for criminal background checks on all gun purchases, including closing a loophole for gun show sales, and a new federal gun trafficking law – long sought by big-city mayors to keep out-of-state off their streets.

He also announced 23 steps he intended to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counsellors and “resource officers” in schools, and improved access to mental health services.

Again, none of this looks bad to me. However I would note that I doubt any of these measures would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

Tags: , ,

170 Responses to “Obama’s gun crackdown”

  1. Fentex (656 comments) says:

    However I would note that I doubt any of these measures would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

    Then it doesn’t seem to make much sense to agree with them if you think they won’t acheive that objective for which they are proposed.

    I think it’s pretty obvious that a restriction on availability of weapons like the AR15 used at Sandy Hook would certainly have mitigated the damage done if not preventing the incident through the lessened appeal of using such a weapon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    May not have stopped Sandy Hook true, but the culture needs to change and this is a first step. Not good enough to do nothing.

    And how can anyone disagree with background checks? You have background checks when applying for a loan, getting a mortgage and even when applying for a job but suddenly every one freaks the fuck out when they look into your background because you want to buy something designed purely to kill other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    I think the NRA will probably be most concerned that they will no longer be able to block the research.

    All sensible, but all will no doubt will be countered by fear mongering and misinformation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “All sensible, but all will no doubt will be countered by fear mongering and misinformation.”

    yeah just wait until Manolo, Fletch, Reid and Redbaiter get a whiff of this.
    “Tyranny! The Kenyan is taking our (their) guns! Socialism!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    @ Fentex, in your dreams, it will take many decades and then the nutters and the criminals will be the only ones owning such weapons. Google the facts on recent upsurge in sales of these weapons and just how many are out there in the good ole USofA.

    It is not about closing the door too late the door has been banging in the wind for years.

    Btw Columbine with 15 dead, arms employed, a carbine, an automatic 9mm pistol two 30 yo sawn off shotties and explosives, zip zero zilch “assault weapons” Big Ears is grandstanding about.

    Accept with gratitude we in NZ have the system in place that we have but be aware this nation has minimal knowledge what is out there and where they are at any given time, however we do have a half decent set up for the law abiding among us and a potentially sufficient response to the mental health facets with weapon possession law. Of course non of it applies to those who disregard our laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (3,522 comments) says:

    But isn’t the point of the gun laws in america is to arm the citizens in case the US govt turns ‘rogue’?

    Not sure the ’22′ is going to be too effective against machine guns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    The reality is no one really knows what will work. The true victory is in having the political capital to try different approaches to see what has any effect without having any and every proposal shouted down by the nut-jobs who fear the rise of Hitler. As Jon Stewart recently put it, we can’t try anything to deal with the very real 30,000 gun deaths each year because some people are scared of a potential fascist dictatorship emerging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “But isn’t the point of the gun laws in america is to arm the citizens in case the US govt turns ‘rogue’?”

    Not specifically

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    30,000 deaths a year? how many of those are shit bag gang bangers? 29,000?

    “All sensible, but all will no doubt will be countered by fear mongering and misinformation.”

    lol love that sort of argument. idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “we can’t try anything to deal with the very real 30,000 gun deaths each year because some people are scared of a potential fascist dictatorship emerging.”

    Like what happened in Australia when they tightened gun laws in light of the Port Arthur massacre….oh wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Seems like a reasonable step at a good time. Though going further to honoring current licences, subject to continued ‘fitness’ checks to hold them, but restricting all licences, numbers and types of weapons in the future may have greater impact. One of the Tainui stalwarts I think it was, recently had his licence revoked because of domestic problems, seems like good proactive policing to me. What we’ve seen in the States is a similarity between many of these offenders, off beat, problems at school etc with ready access to firearms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    dime (5,336) Says:
    January 17th, 2013 at 11:36 am

    30,000 deaths a year? how many of those are shit bag gang bangers? 29,000?

    Certainly ending the drug war would be most effective. Perhaps if conservatives are crazy about their guns they could support an alternative approach… of course instead they have to choose the most ridiculous alternative: video games and movies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    NRA on the Messiah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    It seems to be mostly young, weirdo teenagers (and the odd 20-something uni student) doing these lone-gunman style mass killings.

    So probably they wouldn’t need to disarm every gun-totin’ redneck, NRA member or every wannabe gangster in south Central LA; just keeping the guns away from pimply misunderstood boys would be a good start… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    30,000 gun deaths, the majority of which are suicide, and performed with handguns…actual crimes with assault rifles are a tiny percentage…the “ban” won’t achieve anything, Ronald Reagan tried it…it didn’t work…and it won’t work.

    The other argument is there needs to be more gun free zones…yeah…good one…all of the mass killings have been in gun free zones…how did that ork out? The very thing designed by useless politicians to protect children in fact contributed to their deaths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So what you’re saying then Whale is there is nothing they can do.

    Oh wait – More Guns! Yeah, that isn’t working either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    The easiest way not to get shot in a mass killing is to stay away from shitty places.

    ya never hear of a mass shooting in a titty bar!

    yeah i stole that from doug stanhope but its true :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Grant Michael McKenna (1,152 comments) says:

    The use of the term “assault weapon”is misleading at best. There is no such category of firearm; as a term it is akin to saying “sniper rifle” whenever one sees a scope on a rifle. The inability to define the category of weapon meant by the term rendered it useless the last time they banned them; it will again.
    Mandatory background checks for all firearm purchasers are in the category of the blindingly obvious. The federal research ban is one of the worst examples of political interference in scientific research and it cannot go too soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    Would it be fair to say we have restrictive gun laws?

    We are about 1.5% of the US population?

    Im just thinking back to the mass shooting in aromoana.. how did that happen?

    1 mass shooting here = 65 or so in the US?

    im sure there have been other rampages in my life..

    what about aussie? port arthur? restrictive gun laws?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    What whale said about the 30,000 gun deaths figure. Most of those people will just jump of the nearest building.

    As for the ban on assault weapons, the last was was pretty much useless and there’s no reason why this one won’t be just the same. You can get a weapon with the same ability to fire the same bullets and because it looks slightly different, it’s legal. It’s just a PR stunt, because the last few mass shooters that made the news happened to use them while the vast majority of gun murders use small pistols with small magazines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Oh wait – More Guns! Yeah, that isn’t working either.

    Actually, it is. Just a few days ago, a school staff member with a gun stopped a guy from walking into a school with his. There a multiple examples of members of the public stopping shooters, multiple cases of shooters chosing “gun free” zones, and multiple cases of people who obeyed the gun free zones who would otherwise have been in a position to stop people being killed.

    This is why the NRA is winning the debate – because as much as people hate them, they actually have the facts on their side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Yet the rates of gun deaths continue to climb. More guns is working wonderfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Yet the rates of gun deaths continue to climb. More guns is working wonderfully.

    I challenge you to come up with some objective facts to back up your assertion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    The easiest way not to get shot in a mass killing is to stay away from shitty places.

    Like the Continental USA…? :-P

    Gun
    Gil Scott-Heron

    Brother Man nowadays living in the ghetto
    Where the danger’s sure enough real
    Well when he’s out late at night
    and if he’s got his head on right
    Well, I lay you 9 to 5 he’s walking with steel.

    Brother Man says he’s ‘fraid of gangsters
    Messing with people just for fun
    He don’t want to be next
    He got a family to protect
    So just last week he bought himself a gun.

    [Chorus:]
    Everybody got a pistol, everybody got a 45
    And the philosophy seem to be
    At least as near as I can see
    When other folks give up theirs, I’ll give up mine.

    This is a violent civilization
    If civilization’s where I am
    Every channel that I stop on
    Got a different kind of cop on
    Killing them by the million for Uncle Sam

    Saturday night just ain’t that special
    Yeah, I got the constitution on the run
    ‘Cause even though we’ve got the right
    To defend our home, to defend our life
    Got to understand to get it in hand about the guns

    [chorus & solo break]

    Saturday night just ain’t that special
    Freedom to be afraid is all you want
    Yes if you don’t want to be next
    You’ve got a family to protect
    9 out of 10, you’ve got a friend, you’ve got a gun.

    [chorus]

    Everybody got a pistol, this mostly be the NRA
    Yeah ’cause when it’s time to shine up
    You know damn well they’re gonna line up
    Everybody…

    And the philosophy seem to be
    At least as near as I can see
    When other folks give up theirs, I’ll give up mine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    2011: 32,1636
    2010: 31,6727
    2009: 31,347
    2008: 31,593
    2007: 31,224
    2006: 30,896
    2005: 30,694
    2004: 29,569
    2003: 30,136
    2002: 30,242
    2001: 29,573
    2000: 28,663
    1999: 28,874

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

    More guns is working wonderfully

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    To point out the problem with this another way: There is not much stopping us having an Aurora style shooting here either. The gun may have been styled as an assault weapon, but take away a few bits and it’s your standard hunting rifle that every farmer in this country has.

    Maybe (maybe) the checks the police do here would stop a shooter getting such a weapon, but then he could simply do what the Sandy Hook guy did and steal them from someone he knows who’s got one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So scrubone – you are essentially saying nothing can be done.

    And are you saying that ‘numbers’ are subjective?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    US Population 1999 : 272,690,813
    Current Population : 311,591,917
    % increase 14.3% give or take

    Increase in gun deaths since 1990 – 11.3%

    contrarian – are you just another know it all, kiwi shit head, who thinks they know how every one else in the world should act/live?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    As DPF pointed out: it’s not going to make one bit of difference. It will only affect law-abiding citizens who aren’t likely to go amok with a gun anyway. It’s just like the smacking law in New Zealand that only restricted good law-abiding parents. Parents who beat their kids will STILL beat their kids. Likewise, those who want to use guns for criminal or illegal purposes will still do so.

    One of the main points is, is that Obama is forcing this through by Executive Order, bypassing Congress and the checks and balances that are at the heart of the Constitution. He’s acting like a dictator.

    It’s worth noting that the U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world making it first in the world for gun ownership, but despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Dime.

    no – I love guns. But the status quo is obviously fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    Right, TheContrarian. Nothing can be done unless you want to make all guns illegal and disarm the citizenry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Manolo, no one is taking guns or making them illegal.

    I don’t think an assault weapon ban will work either. But mandatory background checks is a no brainer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Cost of the new gun laws.

    President Obama and Vice President Biden revealed their proposed reforms intended to reduce firearms related violence.

    The proposal contains a mix of executive actions, regulations, and calls for Congress to act legislatively. The total package will cost at least $4.5 billion in new spending.

    Among the new spending the president proposed:

    •                $4 billion for the president’s proposal “to help keep 15,000 cops on the streets in cities and towns across the country.” (That is roughly $266,000 per police officer.)

    •                $20 million to “give states stronger incentives to make [relevant] data available [for background checks] … “$50 million for this purpose in FY2014”

    •                 “$14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.”

    •                “$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

    •                $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting System.

    •                $150 million to “put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job.”

    •                “$30 million of one-time grants to states to help their school districts develop and implement emergency management plans.”

    •                $50 million to help 8,000 schools “create safer and more nurturing school climates.”

    •                $15 million to “provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers.”

    •                $40 million for school districts to “work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to assure students with mental health issues or other behavioral issues are referred to the services they need.”

    •                $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”

    •                $25 million to “offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.”

    •                $50 million to “train social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.”

    The president’s proposals to ban high capacity magazines and “military-style assault weapons” will be costly to implement, if they are passed. Those costs are either unknown or haven’t been released.

    The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included the assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban (that expired in 2004), authorized the expenditure of $30.2 billion dollars, or about $45 billion in today’s dollars.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/least-45-billion-new-spending-gun-control_696120.html

    Like the U.S can really afford this, when it won’t really have any effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    “One of the main points is, is that Obama is forcing this through by Executive Order, bypassing Congress and the checks and balances that are at the heart of the Constitution. He’s acting like a dictator.”

    with the left rejoicing. they may change their tune when the next republican president does something they dont like…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    So scrubone – you are essentially saying nothing can be done.

    To people setting out to do mass shootings? Yes, very little can be done. So long as you have any guns, you’ll always have mass shootings, as they do all over the world.

    To lower the murder rate? No, there are quite a few things, including cracking down on small handguns.

    And are you saying that ‘numbers’ are subjective?

    I’m saying that I don’t trust data from a lobby group to be unbiased and unmanipluated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Manolo, no one is taking guns or making them illegal.

    More’s the pity! They have a serious problem that warrants drastic action IMHO.

    300,000 dead in a decade. I wonder if the insurrection the 2nd Amendment is supposedly guarding against would match that body count?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    He’s acting like a dictator.

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    Obamarama is grandstanding.

    The US media – the tone of which gets followed around the world including here in New Zealand – tries to make out the National Rifle Association is the ‘enemy’

    The thing is, the majority of Americans say (well, those I know, and none are members of the NRA), they have guns for their perceived self-protection. Gun sales went up after Sandy Hook.

    Americans might give up their guns if the criminals are disarmed. But that might not stop killings. For example, about 10 years ago most of the killings in Phoenix, Arizona, were by knife.

    A friend of mine – a court official – last year went to a hearing in an area that was dangerous. Not only did she have a pistol in her purse, but the the lawyers and even the judge were armed.

    As for the NRA’s TV ad that is attracting outrage… apart from in the media, it will probably strike a chord in the American people. If it’s all right for Sasha and Malia to be protected by men and women with guns, then why can’t it be all right for Peggy-Sue, Jose and so on to be protected by people with guns?

    Senate, House, and various state elections will be held next year. The Democrats will look at what is really, really important to them – votes – do the sums, and alter their views accordingly.

    I think, too, that we should be clear about what an ‘assault weapon’ is: it is a fully automatic weapon, not a single-shot semi-automatic; in other words, you have to squeeze the trigger each time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Oh look, you quoted “Gun Deaths” which are in fact going up.

    But gun murders (acording to *your* source) have beeng falling since 2006 and pretty much following the murder rate in it’s long term downward trend.

    Which means that an increasing number of people are comitting suicide and finding a gun the most convenient way to to it. That’s a suicide problem, not a gun problem.

    Murders Gun Deaths Gun Murders
    1995 21,606
    1996 19,645
    1997 18,208
    1998 14,276 —– 9,257
    1999 16,889 28,874 10,828
    2000 16,765 28,663 10,801
    2001 20,308 29,573 11,348
    2002 17,638 30,242 11,829
    2003 17,732 30,136 11,920
    2004 17,357 29,569 11,624
    2005 18,124 30,694 12,352
    2006 18,573 30,896 12,791
    2007 18,361 31,224 12,632
    2008 17,826 31,593 12,179
    2009 16,799 31,347 11,493
    2010 16,259 31,672 11,078
    2011 15,953 32,163 11,101

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    TheContrarian, I’m in full agreement with you on background checks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Obama has also just passed a law to give himself secret service protection for life….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    TheContrarian, I’m in full agreement with you on background checks.

    As am I.

    But here’s the problem: too much of the “anti-gun” talk is about “high magazine clips”, “assault rifle bans” and “gun deaths”. As a result, the anti-gun lobby’s biggest problem is itself, because it has no crediblity with people who actually are familiar with what the other side is saying.

    If they got their stuff together they could actually make a contribution, and I suggest they hurry up and do exactly that. Because at the moment, the average jo is just wondering how they can be so stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. dime (8,751 comments) says:

    “300,000 dead in a decade. I wonder if the insurrection the 2nd Amendment is supposedly guarding against would match that body count?”

    govts killed 250 million of their own last century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    dime beat me to it.

    And the 2nd ammendment is preparing for, not defending against an insurrection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kleva Kiwi (267 comments) says:

    Another hilarious proposition. Band aid solutions to bleeding arteries. Guns don’t kill people, the idiots using the guns do. Targeting a tiny minority of owners in this situation is a knee jerk reaction from an administration that has no real answers to the problem.

    It is not the lawful owners of such weapons that are committing crimes with firearms. They need to target the real problem and that being illegal firearms and who they licence. Banning automatic weapons would not have stopped this tragedy. The ****** who did this would have just resorted to obtaining a similar weapon from elsewhere.

    I wouldn’t expect many people in this part of the world to understand but American culture looks at firearms differently to what we do. they see a need and a right to carry where we live in a society that has almost no need for such views. Think ourselves lucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Banning automatic weapons would not have stopped this tragedy.

    Probably because they’re already banned years back. ;)

    Which is another idiot thing the anti-guy lot go on about – calling for a ban of guns that are already illegal and never used crime now, even mass shootings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    You missed the bit where those who were in office before January 1, 1997 receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime and the new order includes GW Bush.

    http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/01/former-president-george-w-bush-to-receive-lifetime-secret-service-protection/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Gun Deaths are not as much as 11,000. That number has been proved to be false, after Piers Morgan had quoted it.

    . During his exchange with Jones, the CNN host alleged that Great Britain only had 35 gun-related murders in 2011 compared to 11,000 that unfolded in the U.S. during that same timeframe. Swann, though, debunked this claim, delving deeply into crime statistics to make better sense of the numbers.

    “There were 12,664 homicides in the U.S. Of those 8,583 were caused by firearms,” he explained in a video posted on WXIX-TV’s web site. “But of those, 400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement — 260 justifiable homicide by private citizens.”

    Swann noted that those like Morgan who seek greater gun control measures lose their argument when they claim that “fewer guns equals less crime.” To make this point, he explored the crime rates in Great Britain, the U.S. and other nations around the globe.

    “The U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world…[making it] first in the world for gun ownership,” said Swann. “[The] U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.”

    In exploring the United Kingdom’s numbers (Great Britain is part of the UK), some of Morgan’s arguments again seem to falter, as Swann notes that the UK has the second-highest overall crime rate in the European Union (EU); the EU has also named Britain the most violent country in the union.

    “In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people,” Swann noted, showcasing that fewer guns is certainly not indicative of a lower crime rate (the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents).

    So, those stats are wrong, as well as the “more guns = more murders” narrative.

    Video –

    http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8153082

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    If it’s all right for Sasha and Malia to be protected by men and women with guns, then why can’t it be all right for Peggy-Sue, Jose and so on to be protected by people with guns?

    Why indeed.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/texas-college-gop-leader-obama-assassination-tempting/

    http://www.examiner.com/article/california-politician-advocates-assassination-of-obama-and-family

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/people-on-twitter-who-are-thinking-about-killing-t

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    So it looks like Romney was right and Fiat is likely to build Jeeps in China.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-fiat-chrysler-idUSBRE90C06F20130113

    Well, well, well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_long_gun_homicides

    This is (one presumes) the problem that would be fixed by a assault rifle ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Fletch – interesting article but what does it have to do with gun control?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    what does it have to do with gun control?

    Everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    RRM, nothing. Just something I saw whilst browsing this morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. KevinH (1,128 comments) says:

    DPF said:
    “Again, none of this looks bad to me. However I would note that I doubt any of these measures would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.”

    The measures proposed by President Obama would restrict access to military style weapons and high capacity bullet clips as well as tighter access and criminal background checks. These measures I believe will have an impact on future mass murderers who will find it just that little bit more difficult to forefill their narcissistic fantasies, and could have prevented the last mass shooting if the laws were in place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Putting a new slant on Obama’s speech about saving children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    KevinH I doubt it though.

    Just look at the mass shooting at Fort Hood – a military post in Texas. Military posts obviously have the strictest laws around guns and safety and usage than anywhere else, but still a shooting occurred there. I guess that’s why Obama left it out of his little list of tragic multiple shootings – it doesn’t fit with the narrative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    KevinH: People will simply switch to non-”millitary style” guns and smaller clips. Neither of those things will make the slightest difference to the ability of people to walk into a group of unarmed people and start shooting.

    I suspect that the reason people use such weapons is that they look cooler. There’s no difference in their ability to shoot bullets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    Yes Fletch, require that each one occur with a gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    For those who are following that it’s gun suicides that are the big growth in the US, compare these two charts:

    US suicde rate on the upward.
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_suicide_any_method
    NZ suicide on the downward (slightly)
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/128/rate_of_suicide_any_method

    And guess what? We’re now the same. That’s right, until recently the US had significantly less suicides than us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    cha, he has a good point. It’d be a different story if the person had to get their hands dirty instead of leaving it up to someone else behind closed doors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. JC (838 comments) says:

    Jon Stewart’s 30,000 is wrong because it includes murders *and* suicides, and if you don’t think thats important remember that NZ suicide rates 15-24 is 26.7/100,000 (1st in world) compared to US 13.7.
    Suicides 25-34 NZ (2nd in world) 25.1 (US 15.3)
    Suicides 35-44 US 15.3, NZ 14.8.

    (Taken from Nationmaster).

    So our more strict laws and much lower firearm ownership doesn’t stop us from topping the world in suicide rates.

    And yes, the 2nd Amendment is as much about citizens defending themselves from a tyrannical State as hunting and target shooting. Obama’s 23 edicts are not covered by the 2nd Amendment and he’s bypassed the only institutions (House and Senate) that should legally make such amendments.. and he’s not being tyrannical on a basic US human right?

    Now sure.. to some NZ eyes what he’s proposing is sensible in some parts, but he’s gone out of his way to demonise the Republicans in the House over this, also the NRA, rural USA and bypassing two recent Supreme Court judgments reaffirming the current 2nd Amendment provisions.. he isn’t serious about this, he’s simply playing politics and making sure that not too many people are thinking about the upcoming debt ceiling fight and that 16.4 trillion debt.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Just to be clear, but there is no actual category of firearm known as an ‘assault weapon’. What is meant by that term can mean different things to different people. It does not refer to an assault rifle, which is a soldier’s weapon that is able to fire on fully automatic or in burst mode.

    Private possession of fully automatic firearms has been illegal in the USA since, I understand, the 1930s.

    What is generally meant by ‘assault weapon’ is a gun that is able to fire in semi-automatic mode, with one shot per trigger pull and then an automatic reloading of a bullet into the chamber. The term can also include rifles that have a pistol grip, and guns that have a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. That latter can include quite a number of pistols, so the term ‘assault weapon’ is pretty broad.

    I would note that the calibre of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shootings was .223, which is not that far removed from the very common .22 calibre rifles.

    In reality the term is a sop to people who want to do something and think that by calling a semi-automatic weapon an ‘assault weapon’ that it will make everything better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    So our more strict laws and much lower firearm ownership doesn’t stop us from topping the world in suicide rates.

    I’m not sure how our laws are more strict. The AR-15, which most people seem to think is an assault weapon, requires a simple firearms license to have here. If it has fancy attachments, such as a pistol grip or a folding stock, then it becomes a Military Style Semi-Automatic which requires a stricter licence but is not in and of it a prohibited weapon. In the US during the assault weapons ban, such weapons were illegal.

    As things stand, the assault weapons ban reminds me of titanic deckchair regulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    Private possession of fully automatic firearms has been illegal in the USA since, I understand, the 1930s.

    heavily regulated (ATF bugs your phone style regulations) and you can’t buy any brand-new fully automatics since the 1980s. However there’s only been two homicides using a full automatic and one of those was a cop. I daresay that if a fully automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting, the death toll will be lower than it would have been because the firing mode encourages the killer to spray to gay abandon rather than aim before pulling the trigger.

    What is generally meant by ‘assault weapon’ is a gun that is able to fire in semi-automatic mode, with one shot per trigger pull and then an automatic reloading of a bullet into the chamber.

    What the US law said was slightly different. An assault weapon had to be a semi rfile with two or more of the following: pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lugs, scope and grenade launcher attachment. The number of people killed via grenades (which are banned) or bayonetted in mass killings is a big fat zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Grant Michael McKenna (1,152 comments) says:

    TripeWryter says “I think, too, that we should be clear about what an ‘assault weapon’ is: it is a fully automatic weapon, not a single-shot semi-automatic; in other words, you have to squeeze the trigger each time.” No. Making up- or misunderstanding- definitions is of no use to understanding the debate. TW, it is possible you have a typo, but your definition is contradictory. “Automatic” means that the firearm will continue to fire so long as the trigger is pressed and there is ammunition in the magazine. A semi-automatic firearm is one in which every step short of firing the next round is done automatically; the trigger must be released and then re-pulled for it to fire.

    I [and many others] argue that the term “assault weapons” is a neologism coined for propaganda purposes. In the US firearms capable of fully automatic fire are highly regulated, and have been so for many, many years. An assault rifle is capable of selecting between different modes of fire- usually fully automatic, burst, and semi-automatic, and is basically very difficult for private ownership. Civilian versions of assault rifles- such as the Armalite 15 [AR-15], of which the M-16 is the military version- do not have the ability to fire fully automatic.

    President Obama’s regulations that he has proposed will extend those regulations to more categories of firearms.

    Assault rifles typically use an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Intermediate cartridges are more powerful than pistol cartridges, but less powerful than “battle rifle” cartridges ["battle rifle" is a term which is itself isn't very clearly defined, but basically is a rifle which is capable of accurate fire over far greater distances than an assault rifle].

    Edit: I think that JC has it right. It is posturing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    JC: and this is the problem with the US anti-gun lobby.

    It’s not about less violent crime or less suicides. It’s about fewer of them being from guns.

    I for one thing that’s focusing on the wrong problem!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    Now…about that defence against tyranny….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Civilian versions of assault rifles- such as the Armalite 15 [AR-15], of which the M-16 is the military version- do not have the ability to fire fully automatic.

    Not only that, but they actually are used for hunting. The AR-15 is actually (I read the other day) very, very handy as a hunting rifle as when the deer season is over you can change the caliber to a .22 for example and use a cheaper bullet for your target pratice.

    But if they’re banned they’ll just change the design slightly and give it a new name. As someone above said, all it’ll acomplish is the rearrangement of some deck chairs. But it sounds good and it can be used to hit Obama’s political enemies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    FE Smith:

    the calibre of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shootings was .223, which is not that far removed from the very common .22 calibre rifles.

    There’s a vast difference between the two apart from similar bullet diameters (.224 versus .222 inches).

    .223 bullet weight 40-90 grains, case length 45 mm, velocity 840-1140 m/s energy 1524-1753 J
    .22 bullet weight 32-40 grains, case length 15.6 mm, velocity 330-500 m/s, energy 141-259 J

    The .223 is capable of a much bigger mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    The .223 round is roughly the 5.56 round used by militaries all around the world since the 60s (M16, for example).

    A .22 round is a sufficient killer against people and a few animals, too.

    Recently I watched a home-killer despatch 400kg of steer with a single .22 shot between the eyes. It was dead before it hit the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    PG,

    The .223 Remington is one of the most common rifle cartridges in use in the United States, being widely used in two types of rifles: (1) varmint rifles, most of which are bolt action and commonly have 1-in-12 rifling twist suitable for bullets between 38 to 55 grains (2.5 to 3.6 g), and (2) semi-automatic rifles

    My intent was to show commonality, with a comparison to what is a commonly understood round in NZ. 

    EDIT: Hey, the edit function is back!!! Tripe, +1 for your comment, although the military 5.56 is slightly different, it isn’t much. Given what I have seen some of my family members do with a .22, I wouldn’t want to argue the difference with them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    cha, that was probably quite believable 12 years ago.

    But it’s refuted by one word: Taliban

    Fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    Grant Michael McKenna:

    You were correct to correct my poorly constructed sentence. It should have read: ‘…we should be clear about what an ‘assault weapon’ is: it is a fully automatic weapon, not a single-shot semi-automatic; in other words, it fires round after round while the trigger is held down until the magazine is empty. With a semi-automatic you have to squeeze the trigger each time.

    I shall now go away and flagellate myself in remorse.

    Neologism or not, ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ have been around since I was a boy, often used when mentioning the AK47.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Feanor (39 comments) says:

    “So, those stats are wrong, as well as the “more guns = more murders” narrative.”

    Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that America has far more gun violence than any other developed country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I am all for an “assault weapon” ban, just as soon as the military and police hand in theirs.

    Can someone tell me how many innocent people have been killed by Obama’s forces since taking office ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Who are “Obama’s forces”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that America has far more gun violence than any other developed country.

    Are you interested in reducing gun violence, or reducing violence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Who are “Obama’s forces”?

    If you do not know the answer to that, I suggest you reserve any comment on this topic.

    He is the Commander and Chief of the most powerful and aggressive military force on the planet. You can add to that a well armed police force.

    He announced he is sending forces into 35 African countries this year, launched hundreds of Drone attacks, then preaches about gun control. Just look at how many countries he has taken military action against. He is a typical lefty hypocrite. Open your eyes Contrarian !

    I find some of the comments above absurd. The number of guns a person owns is not any indicator of their risk, should they lose it. You can only shoot one gun at a time. Also the type of gun makes little difference. Assault rifles make it a little easier, but just as many would probably have died, if he were using a single shot rifle and taking careful aim. It is pretty clear to me that most of the comments above come from people who know very little about firearms. It is not like on the telly folks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    It’s fair to question the US enthusiasm for armed conflict internationally, the country has an attitude problem with use of lethal force. But…

    Also the type of gun makes little difference. Assault rifles make it a little easier, but just as many would probably have died, if he were using a single shot rifle and taking careful aim.

    It is pretty clear to me that most of the comments above come from people who know very little about firearms.

    It is clear to me that the above comment displays little practical knowledge of the use of firearms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    The type of firearm can make a huge difference. Rifle versus shotgun versus handgun/pistol. Calibre. Means of loading. Size of magazine. Number of barrels.

    Accuracy, speed of reloading and potential damage are all greatly affected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    Knee jerk and political posturing – Rulers want a disarmed passive citizenary so as to extend their control over serfs.

    Every time bad shit happens they seize their opportunity and the sheep wanting a quiet life for now surrender a little more unaware that eventually they get their throats cut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

     From Powerlineblog:

    a “military-style assault rifle” is not one with military capabilities, i.e. an automatic weapon–illegal for civilian use since the 1930s–but rather is one that looks vaguely scary to the ill-informed.

    He means ‘assault weapon’, as an assault rifle is actually an effectively scary item in the wrong hands, but the point is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Rifle versus shotgun

    Yes, as demonstrated in this video, the shotgun is potentially far more devastating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Couple of things:

    According to Republican Insider, Obama actually lost out on this. He was going for a complete ban but he had to back off because of the backlash from States and his speech had to be revised at the last minute:

    Like me you were probably watching the president’s gun control speech today.  Was told this morning the presentation today was a revised version that was completed just last night after a bunch of back and forth between the White House and Senate leaders.  Guessing that would be Harry Reid mostly.  Last week the president was ready to go all in on the executive order scenario.  Confiscation was going to be in play.  Then the backlash came and it forced Obama to back off.  He didn’t want to but after Reid said it was a no go, and the NRA was preparing to go to war with the White House, the president was given a revised script and that is what we heard this morning.    You could tell too.  Obama stumbled over the words more than usual.  He didn’t have the time to prep the script like he normally does.  Probably fuming he was forced to read the new version also. 

    This time WE WON and OBAMA LOST.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/01/16/republican-insider-obama-livid-over-gun-rights-backlash/

    Also, it looks like Paul Rand will introduce a Bill to nullify Obama’s Executive Action –

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will propose legislation early next week to “nullify” President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns, the congressman announced on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday.

    Paul told host Sean Hannity that Obama’s executive orders are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

    “Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers,” Paul said. “They didn’t want to let the president become a king…In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation.”

    “There are several of the executive orders that appear as if he is writing new law. That cannot happen…The court struck Clinton down for trying this.”

    Paul also said it concerning that Obama seems to be developing some sort of a “king complex.”

    Talking Points Memo has reviewed a one-page summary of Paul’s proposed legislation, titled “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.” TPM has more:

    “We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.

    Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.

    To read the one-page summary of the proposed bill, click LINK

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/sen-rand-paul-will-introduce-legislation-to-nullify-obamas-executive-orders-on-guns/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    It is clear to me that the above comment displays little practical knowledge of the use of firearms.

    Pete George, LOL :) I have forgotten more than your every going to learn, but do carry on…

    As an aside, I find people who are anti gun tend to have a grossly inflated view of their own importance. To the extent I can generally predict a persons view of firearms by their personality. I guess they don’t like guns, because they remind them that they are mere mortals and nothing special.

    If you want to stop mass killings, then look at the people and the cultural factors, not at the guns. It is obvious, but clearly not obvious enough for some, so the killings will go on, guns or no guns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    If you want to stop mass killings, then look at the people and the cultural factors, not at the guns.

    This is a good point.  Powerlineblog adds to it with the suggestion that the media stop reporting mass killings in such a way as to give the killer notoriety, which may be a large element in embarking on such killing sprees in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    there’s only been two homicides using a full automatic and one of those was a cop.

    So that is 50% of all homicides using a full auto are committed by cops losing the plot. Wow, that is big problem, if we use anti gun lobby reasoning. (which I do not)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. kiwi in america (2,335 comments) says:

    More knee jerk politicising that will do nothing to reduce mass killings. Time to inject some facts into this debate:

    FACT – more Americans are killed each year with knives, blunt instruments and with people’s bare hands than with ‘assault’ rifles. Why aren’t they banning knives and blunt instruments.

    FACT – Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the US including a ban on the very weapon that the murderer used. Banning weapons that kill never stops criminals from obtaining illegal weapons.

    FACT – Norway has some of the world’s strictest gun laws but they never stopped Anders Breivik’s murderous rampage.

    FACT – Britain tightened the noose on all types of weapons ownership including handguns after decades since WW2 with quite widesrpead gun ownership. Result: massive rise in violent crime including gun related crime.

    FACT – The two US cities with the highest murder rate: Chicago and Washington DC – both have total firearms bans including NZ style ban on handguns. Washington DC’s murder rate before the handguns ban was about 180 per year now 20 years later it is over 400.

    FACT – Sandy Hook school was a gun free zone. Name one school/college in America where mass killings have taken place where staff with a CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit were permitted by state law and school district policy to carry on school premises – you can’t because there isn’t one. All the mass murders on school/college campuses were in states not allowing CCW or schools that were gun free zones. Mass murderers aren’t stupid – they will target a school where they know they have all the time it takes for the police to arrive to carry out their perverse plans.

    FACT – the US (and most 1st world countries) mainstream media are not interested in publishing stories about how armed citizens prevented mass shootings because they shot or threatened to shoot the gunman – it doesn’t fit their anti gun agenda. Because law enforcement agencies don’t keep statistics on murders averted often a myriad of Columbines or Sandy Hooks are averted because someone on site had a weapon and dealt to the issue. Because David forces any more than 2 links into moderation I am linking to this blog site but please note that in this link are dozens of links to local media websites (newspaper, local TV stations and college papers) in the US that DO report about these averted tragedies – http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

    FACT – criminals get around any weapons bans and so do the mentally deranged.

    What will work to curb this sort of gun violence:
    * You have to make it harder for mentally ill people to be released into the community but the left here won’t allow such infringements of their rights and so after so many law suits, states are forced to release some that should never be released. I’m all in favour of criminal background checks and perhaps some way can be found to extend the restrictions beyond those with a criminal background to those with a history of mental health but then what mental health problems go on the danger list and what stay off?
    *CNN interviewed a forensic psychiatrist who has treated mass killers. His solution – persuade the media to stop glorifying mass killings, never show the killers picture or go over his life history, restrict coverage to local media and stop all the obsessive coverage – it’s the glory and the fame that these nutters seek so starve them of the oxygen of publicity.
    * Allow school staff to carry concealed weapons – in states that allow registered concealed carry permit holders in schools, mass killings on schools don’t or rarely happen – someone on the grounds with a gun gets to the killer way way quicker than the fastest police force can and they can deal to the threat. I know it sounds counterintuitive but it works.

    The likelihood of practical laws like this emanating from Congress or the Obama Administration or a voluntary code of ethics from the mainstream media – nil. But those are the changes that will actually make a difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    F.E.Smith The anti gun lobby love to make fun of it, but it is true. People kill people, not guns. It is not some trite catch phrase, it is a fact. The anti gun lobby know that too and have no answer to it, so they just make fun of it.

    In places with no guns, mass killings still occur. In fact, if I wanted to kill lots of innocent people, I could think of far more effective means. We need to control crazy, not guns. Of course that is easier said than done as the reasons behind it are complex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Kea:

    I find people who are anti gun tend to have a grossly inflated view of their own importance. To the extent I can generally predict a persons view of firearms by their personality

    LOL :) I have forgotten more than your every going to learn, but do carry on…

    Why don’t youncarry on. Any more sweeping statements and any attempts at diagnosis by your perception of blog personality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    kiwi in america, This is a firearms debate. Facts are off topic. What counts is emotion and how much you know about guns from TV shows.

    Just remember: Guns = Bad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    Full auto, no worries with the slide fire.

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-machine-guns.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    PG, I was speaking as I have found and based on experience in real life, not “blog personality”. I stand by my comment. Most anti gun people are pompous and/or fearful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    criminals get around any weapons bans and so do the mentally deranged.

    Sadly, this is especially true.

     

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. LabourDoesntWork (278 comments) says:

    No need for an assault weapons ban.
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fbi.homicide.1.jpg

    Note that homicides have been declining for more than 20 years with or without the ban…

    Lying thieving authoritarians like Obama have far more blood on their hands than a few psychotic killers. That’s why this is so true. It’s the outworking of the poor moral judgment of tyrants and their enablers that equates defense of gun ownership with conducting child massacres.
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=216135

    There is no excuse for not knowing in advance who will be initiating the use of force against whom. They’re already exploiting the moral cover that prop children, living and dead, gives them.

    23′s the start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Note that homicides have been declining for more than 20 years with or without the ban…

    Quite.

    As noted above, to get the 30k figure they add in the dramatic rise in gun suicides, and the US suicide rate is starting to aproach ours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    TC @ 11:24

    “All sensible, but all will no doubt will be countered by fear mongering and misinformation.”

    yeah just wait until Manolo, Fletch, Reid and Redbaiter get a whiff of this.
    “Tyranny! The Kenyan is taking our (their) guns! Socialism!”

    and

    TC @ 11:35

    “But isn’t the point of the gun laws in america is to arm the citizens in case the US govt turns ‘rogue’?”

    Not specifically

    Actually this is precisely the point, which was well articulated by Jesse Ventura against Piers Morgan

    Some people possibly like The Contrarian, haven’t noticed what’s happened in the US since the ‘war on terror.’ The Patriot Acts I and II, the NDAA, the TSA, all of these things and many more, are why this is what this gun control IS about protecting yourself against enemies, domestic and foreign.

    TC’s view is with many others. When Hitler came to power he confiscated guns, most dictators do, Marcos did it too as Ventura points out. But at the time people didn’t see it as sinister. Just like most don’t this time, either. But it was sinister then and it’s sinister now. The writing is on the wall if people want to look, but they don’t want to.

    What will happen is an incident will occur in the US that will be blamed on ‘terrorists’ [Iran, probably]; probably in a mid-west city and probably involving hundreds of thousands possibly millions of casualties. Obama will invoke all the legislation that’s been prepared while the sheeple (including TC et al) stood by and let it happen without saying anything, without even noticing it was happening. Possibly some now don’t even know what that legislation says. Possibly some don’t even know there are FEMA camps dotted all over the US capable of holding millions, yes millions, of Americans. Possibly some don’t even know the US govt has just bought billions of full metal jacket rounds of ammo. Possibly some haven’t noticed the US govt’s recent procurement of hundreds of three decker passenger trains with each seat equipped with shackles. Possibly some haven’t even wondered what all that infrastructure is for, if it’s never intended to be used.

    Profound ignorance isn’t a virtue when freedom is the prize. The boil the frog tactics have been very successful for those incapable of observing reality. It’s a shame those calling the reality are in the minority just like Churchill was in his ‘wilderness years.’ Shame.

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

    I am surprised at my inclination on this issue. As a woman I tend to want to preserve life rather than run it to ground, shoot it to shit and serve it up for dinner alongside Bambi. Still I can gut and fillet a fish with the best of them and my view is:

    It’s Not Guns That Kill Smurfs; It’s Gargamel

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-not-guns-that-kill-smurfs-its.html

    DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

    If you ban assault weapons you inhibit the power of citizens to protect themselves from the armed militia. This directly contravenes the 2nd and 3rd amendments which implicitly recognize the potential harm that an army with untrammeled power from a large population can do both in times of peace and when at war.
    Third Amendment
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    It is not that long ago in historical terms that a ruler could order the kingdom’s army to be housed fed and fucked by the local barkeeps.
    and wenches.

    In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts, requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists provide space for the troops to live in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted; it was one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution. The later Quartering Act authorized British troops to be quartered wherever necessary, including in private homes.[1]
    From Wikipedia. Yeah, I know.

    As soon as you have an armed civil society, you have respect for the tenets underpinning democracy. This is called Freedom.

    If you infringe the rights of civil society to arm itself you have an uneasy truce between the criminal underworld and the police and militia forces and no real protection for civil society. There is no repercussion for wrongdoing from either direction and civil society suffers as a result,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    The type of firearm can make a huge difference. Rifle versus shotgun versus handgun/pistol. Calibre. Means of loading. Size of magazine. Number of barrels.

    Accuracy, speed of reloading and potential damage are all greatly affected.

    Yes and no.

    I used a bolt action .22 a few years ago after using a semi-auto previous to that. I was suprised at just how little difference it made.

    A lot of people in the US are demonstrating just how quickly a praticed person can change clips, so I also disagree with your point there – having to reload 3 times instead of twice isn’t going to reduce any damage. And that’s making several assumptions about the shooting not obtaining an illegal magazine.

    Now, if you’re talking about shotguns, as someone above pointed out you’re talking real damage. It does seem that these mass shooters chose the assault rifles for an ego thing and in some cases this means they cause less damage than other choices.

    But again, if you somehow removed all assault rifles from the US, you’d still have shootings like these, as they’d just go for the next best (or even better) option. I’m of the belief (as I mentioned above I think) that a semi-auto .22 with a 10 shot mag would do just as much damage as these AR-15s, and those are quite easy to get hold of in this country and can be obtained on a standard firearms licence or stolen from any number of NZ farms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    And check this

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/americas-biggest-killers-the-chart-anti-gunners-dont-want-you-to-see_01052013

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    When Hitler came to power he confiscated guns, most dictators do

    Actually not true. I’m not even sure that the German people saw him as a dictator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    kia, guess why big city mayors want to keep guns out of their cities. A city ban on sales alone does not prevent outsiders bringing guns in?

    So quoting facts about cities with local sales bans – without reference to this, is misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    It is interesting that some of the most zealous Christians on the board believe in a conspiracy theory that gun control is part of some threat posed by the American government to their own people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that America has far more gun violence than any other developed country.

    Further to my above comment, please do tell us what Obama is doing about the overall murder rate? Because I don’t see anything above which will actually deal with that problem and the guns that are most commonly used to comit murder in the US outside of more background checks which everyone here seems to agree is a good idea.

    I do however see a lot of political posturing to pretend to solve a problem that is almost impossible to solve (school shootings), except for one very good solution (arming school staff) that 55% of Americans support but Obama won’t have a bar of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    scrubone, why does the government have to arm school staff or pay anyone to provide security? Simply allow staff take guns to their school. The issue is gun security at the school, that would require areas where staff would store their weapons until they were necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. nasska (9,501 comments) says:

    Reid

    …..”Possibly some haven’t noticed the US govt’s recent procurement of hundreds of three decker passenger trains with each seat equipped with shackles”……

    That is truly scary. Do you have a link?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Reid, good video of Ventura. Piers was being a right tool but couldn’t defend against Ventura’s mini-poll of the audience, where just about every person supported Jessie’s view. I had to laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    I do however see a lot of political posturing

    Big surprise, it’s the whole posturing thing that attracts the majority of politicians to the trough, that and the fact they get to use other peoples’ money to do it.

    America has a cultural problem with violence and no amount of “something must be done, and this is something” bullshit will solve that. No different than the calls to “do something” about our drinking culture by passing more useless laws…you should be thankful next time you see a teenager chucking up in the gutter, at least they’re not shooting up the local cinema or school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    The problem with security checks is that they only cover one person. There should either be a background check of all household residents and a requirement that weapons be securely stored so that guns are in the control of one person.

    Possibly those under 21 should be assessed for mental illness before being able to own their own gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    SPC: sure, so long as the school is known to have firearms, they’ll probably never have to use them. I wasn’t trying to imply the government had to fork out.

    As we all know, mass shootings almost always occur in gun-free zones. It could be interesting to see what would happen if such zones were done away with, but that’s very unlikey to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    nasska, if a valid story – it is probably for the purpose of prisoner transport.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    It is interesting that some of the most zealous Christians on the board believe in a conspiracy theory that gun control is part of some threat posed by the American government to their own people.

    What’s “theoretical” about any of the facts I cited above SPC? Or is it merely you believe it “theory” because you’re ignorant of them?

    Actually not true. I’m not even sure that the German people saw him as a dictator.

    While Hitler’s aim was to destroy one of the most cultured, civilised people in Europe, gun control for German Christians wasn’t part of his plan. Gun control for the people he planned to persecute within Germany before WWII started however, WAS his plan and that’s what he did.

    What I don’t understand about the ignorance on this issue is that all the dots are available just a click away just waiting to be connected, yet most appear not only unable to make these basic connections but worse, unwilling. As if these people are living in some fools fantasy land where to them, reality is what they would prefer it to be, rather than what it actually is.

    The worst part is, when the sheeple finally but finally wake up and realise what’s happened, say after martial law has been operating in the US for awhile, they’ll want to look but they’ll find nothing, because it will all have been removed, to “protect us.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    America has a cultural problem with violence and no amount of “something must be done, and this is something” bullshit will solve that.

    I’d have to check the numbers again, but if you exclude some gang-riddled inner city areas you actually have a society that’s not that violent compared to others. However because there are more guns, people tend to get shot more than stabbed and hence there are in fact more murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. nasska (9,501 comments) says:

    SPC

    Possible, but they must be planning on moving huge numbers of prisoners to justify that sort of expenditure. Note that the government wouldn’t be involved with state prisoners….they’re the responsibility of individual states.

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

    @James Stephenson

    Funny. I saw scores of teenagers chucking up in gutters and some in my own house when I was in New Zealand.
    Haven’t yet seen one in America.

    For the most part, America isn’t troubled by the levels of alcoholism and violence that New Zealand is.

    And we’ve got better roads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    The worst part is, when the sheeple finally but finally wake up and realise what’s happened, say after martial law has been operating in the US for awhile, they’ll want to look but they’ll find nothing, because it will all have been removed, to “protect us.”

    Well, look at this country.

    I outlined yesterday how the S59 changes gave our government the ability to easily persecute people who disagreed with it. The response? Several people called me violent. Yet those same people are parents who are at risk under the law as it stands today. There’s already been cases of Bradford supporters changing their tune after ending up at the hard end of the law, only to have Bradford herself slander (there’s no other name for it when someone tells you you have a desperate need to go on an anti-violence course when you teach one of them yourself) them on breakfast TV.

    Hell, Idiot/Savant who’s normally right on the ball when it comes to potentially abusive laws was pretty much demaing that the government use it’s power to persecute the people he disagreed with on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    Looned.

    He warned that many Patriots and Christians arrested and secured into these prisoner boxcars under martial law will never even make it to the death camps..that many will be tortured and sacrificed once restrained in these prisoner boxcars.

    http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/fema-ordered-102-000-boxcars-with-shackles

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Inky_the_Red (718 comments) says:

    I realise it is the US law and they can believe what they want.

    What I don’t understand is Kiwis (who have controls over have control in the form of Firearms License) quote the rubbish on the risk from the government and keep quoting Germany becoming a dictatorship because of gun control. Germany’s dictatorship came because of social and economic reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    nasska:

    http://www.issuesandalibis.org/campsd.html

    and

    http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/10/20/fema-ordered-102000-boxcars-with-shackles-presented-by-victoria-baer/

    Can I suggest, possibly in vain to people like SPC and cha, that you don’t get fixated on debating whether or not a particular issue like this one is true. I only cited that since I knew it was bound to hit home to thinkers, which is the purpose whenever I raise this stuff. However, whether or not someone like SPC or TC or anyone else can find a site that “debunks the boxcar myth” is not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is look at all the things I cited above in particular the legislation like the NDAA. See, this issue, as it really is, is a macro issue. There are lots and lots of components. And if this is the first time you’ve ever turned your mind to it, you need to take a macro view, and understand first what the various bits are and then how they inter-operate. If this is the first time you’ve ever turned your mind to this and you drill into a single element such as the boxcars, and spend all your thinking time on this new issue establishing whether or not in your mind that is true and then use that to make your judgement about the veracity of the macro issue based, you run a big risk of drawing an incorrect conclusion and that is not my opinion, that is just how thinking works, isn’t it.

    I’m not saying that because I’m defending the boxcar issue as ‘the weak link,’ I’m saying that because this material requires you to change your worldview to which you are emotionally committed through your ego as an ‘intelligent’ person who understands the world.

    That’s why you need to take the macro view, first broadly understand the pieces in the puzzle, like the legislation for example, and only then, start drilling into the micro issues. Because then you have a framework, a mental model, to compare what you’re looking at, at the micro level. And if you don’t have that framework, you have no frame of reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Reid, I guess we have a different threshold of what constitutes proof. If you really really do believe that the American government is intent on martial law – what motive could they have?

    Consider first, how you define American government. Is the American government “they”. If it is this who is “they”, is it because they are the agent of some adversary (you do know what to call your enemy don’t you?). Who is this adversary that you know of? Is it my adversary, or is it just yours?

    Some people believe in there being “the adversary” – part of believing in “the one anointed to rule” and ritualising the role of a rival to being the adversary. We call this contested elections. The Hindu refer to the established order and the challenger, much more modern and less defamatory to ones rivals/opponents. After all labelling another the adversary is like being the slanderer yourself. You ever wondered what the term twin image means and why conflict requires two parties opposing the way of peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Yes reid, that has got me thinking, and looking.

    For example, many people insist on reporting ‘crematoria’ at the ‘closed Amtrak facility’ in the Beech Grove community of southeastern Indianapolis, Indiana.

    Wow. But then the dude says it is not only not true, but these wacko conspiracy stories are being deliberately put out there.

    Anyone who uncritically reports the disinformation has their credibility tarnished, as does the credibility of their organization. The larger target is the credibility of the movement, and publishing disinfo allows the police state propaganda ministry (aka the mainstream media) to attack, marginalize, and demonize the movement.

    But it gets confusing, is it being done or not?

    The point being, if all this stuff is really being done by the government – and the evidence is overwhelming – from the ammo purchases to the dismantling of our liberties, from the creation of a nightmare totalitarian police state system to the preparation of concentration camps for American dissidents – this should be awakening patriots to the need to join the constitutional militia in their state, or at least becoming an active material supporter.

    Otherwise, we can expect to see these prisoner transports with depressing frequency!

    But this seems quite clear:

    At what point are Americans willing to stand up and fight against tyranny with arms and sweat rather than soda and keyboard?

    Just as well there’s only one Redbaiter in New Zealand (and he keeps trying to talk others into doing his dirty work).

    PS I wonder what all the 2012 preppers are going to turn their minds to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. cha (3,531 comments) says:

    The Kenyan obviously planned all this way..waay… waaay…. back..

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Rule-by-fear-or-rule-by-law-3229509.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    what motive could they have

    SPC I don’t think you’re ready to assimilate it because you don’t yet have a mental model of the components involved, but here’s the declaration of war, ten years to the day before 911.

    Consider first, how you define American government. Is the American government “they”

    Why don’t you ask that of a US citizen in the land of the free and the home of the brave just after they’ve passed through an average TSA airport inspection to “protect” them? Do you seriously think that the individual cases of groping and other abuses you can read just a click away in the hundreds of thousands probably millions now, are there to “protect” them? No. Of course not. Duh. Fucking duh. Think about it. What does this behaviour do the population, any population? And now the TSA are branching out, into bus stations, mobile squads, etc etc etc.

    What is this really for? Boil the frog, of course. Get people, everyone (except “important” people like politicians, the wealthy etc who don’t have to suffer the indignity but you know, you and I, basically) used to having their personal rights intimately violated on a daily everyday basis so in time to come, it just becomes background noise. Boil the frog.

    You ever wondered what the term twin image means and why conflict requires two parties opposing the way of peace.

    It doesn’t actually. Human conflict rarely involves two protagonists, it normally involves at least initially, a protagonist and an innocent. Thinking in macro terms, of any war in history, this is how it always started, isn’t it. And innocent bystanders are always the meat in the sandwich, aren’t they. Even in the case of two vicious powerful psychopaths like Hitler and Stalin, it was Hitler who was the protagonist, wasn’t he.

    I don’t really know what you’re driving at SPC, perhaps you could expand.

    But it gets confusing, is it being done or not?

    Yes Pete, perhaps you should take my advice and forget about the micro and consider the macro and after you’ve assimilated that, only then, consider a particular micro issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    If I could just point out that I *don’t* subscribe to FEMA conspiracy theories!

    I also *don’t* believe that CYFS is being used politically – just that there are far, far too few checks on them. Far fewer than on the police who prosecuted Shane Arden…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    cha

    Some see that as part of taking the global policeman role too far, because a war on terrorism without end had consequences for how rule in America would develop.

    This suggests some see a change is now occuring.

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/avoiding-wars-never-end?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130115&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=1e7a030fa41447738fbab996fd05f0a9

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    If I could just point out that I *don’t* subscribe to FEMA conspiracy theories!

    Who does, scrubone. You’d have to be mental. OTOH, observing FEMA as it operates in reality not just in its infrastructure but in its past operations like Katrina, is an entirely different matter isn’t it. Since *that* is *reality* not theory, isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Reid, yes domestic security measures are an imposition – but it is the government that is held accountable for continued security failure once a threat is identified.

    How exactly is George H W Bush lauding the rule of law at the global level, after UN authorised action liberated Kuwait, the beginning of some new world order threat? It is simply his end of history boast – we won the Cold War, we have the UN to guarantee the collective security of nation states, so now the rule of law can prevail and thus our freedom wins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    I’ve finally compiled some of the more interesting gun data in one handy chart:
    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/gun-and-other-deaths-in-the-us-graphed/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    That said I do regard Bush family politics as dangerously elitist – the fathers goal of wanting an America where there were more wealthy and the rich were richer than ever before has been delivered by his son, but not for the good of the USA as a society or as a place to live with more struggling economically. Nor for the rest of us, after the GFC.

    The real story to investigate is how an elite could hope to pull that transformation off and then expect someone like Romney to win an election. But then I would not be one of the bible believing fundamentalist sheep voting for these Republican elites while awaiting the second coming to solve my economic problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    How exactly is George H W Bush lauding the rule of law at the global level, after UN authorised action liberated Kuwait, the beginning of some new world order threat? It is simply his end of history boast – we won the Cold War, we have the UN to guarantee the collective security of nation states, so now the rule of law can prevail and thus our freedom wins.

    Yes SPC, that’s exactly what he was doing.

    (Snigger)

    All I can say mate is, educate yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Reid: never blame a conspiracy when incompetence will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    scrubone, nice chart.

    It would seem economic/social life hard times (suicide) are killing more Americans than guns. I suspect this raises once again the need for connecting mental health status to weapon ownership or at least make this part of background checks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    SPC: the curious thing is that suddenly the *gun* suicide rate suddenly started rising in 2006, while the overall rate has been rising all the time even before that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    It is interesting that some of the most zealous Christians on the board believe in a conspiracy theory…

    This is the same guy who says this:

    …the fathers goal of wanting an America where there were more wealthy and the rich were richer than ever before has been delivered by his son, but not for the good of the USA as a society or as a place to live with more struggling economically. Nor for the rest of us, after the GFC.

    Seems to me that if you don’t like people who take the easy way out to explain things, you’d try to avoid it yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    scrubone, GHWB actually had that as a stated goal – more wealthy and the rich richer than ever before.

    I don’t think the outcome of that can be good for the country and it it is one factor leading to the GFC – the only means to the outcome desired was increasing profit on capital investment and thus the expanded credit fed speculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    srubone, maybe the 2006 date links to the beginning of home ownership problems? The continuing trend to unemployment (including for youth). Not the usual victims

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    scrubone beat me to it.

    It is interesting that some of the most zealous Christians on the board believe in a conspiracy theory that gun control is part of some threat posed by the American government to their own people.

    Names and evidence please SPC. Or are your simply using this conversation to demonstrate your intolerance of anything uttered by a Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    The real story to investigate is how an elite could hope to pull that transformation off and then expect someone like Romney to win an election.

    SPC the “real story” which to someone just starting out on the journey equates to a bizarre and unfathomable falsehood is to recognise there is an unbroken line of connections and chess moves between every single Administration since Kennedy. Yes, this does include both Carter and Reagan, and the key to avoiding cognitive dissonance over Reagan’s Administration is recognising who was really pulling the strings during his time (his VP at the time, who when you look at it, behaved just like Cheney did during Bush 43′s time).

    Carter is possibly one of the hardest to understand because he seems like such a great guy. Even Johnson is thought of by most to have been a good President, if not a good human being.

    But that’s the dot-connection story. It goes back much further than that BTW, but the history before Kennedy has little bearing on what we see today, in which gun control is simply yet another move on the chess board.

    This time period, spanning sixty years, is why people don’t notice it happening. This is why it’s called boiling the frog. Most people have trouble connecting dots dating back a few years, let alone a few generations. This is how they succeed in what they do.

    And don’t ask me who “they” are, look it up yourself. Hint: it’s not the POTUS’s, they’re pawns in the game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    kk, this thread and yesterday. Reid, Fletch and Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Reid, the problem with identifying the macro (conspiracy theory) is that then one is constantly seeing current events as micro signs signs of its advance to some end game gambit. It can get like the religious person seeing signs in world events of the coming of the end of the world.

    Many of us can agree that the reach of government is expanding, and we sometimes support it, and sometimes we don’t – influenced in part by our personal politics. Whether that is tax and spend or security (surveillance and increased government rights in law to detain without trial). Some of us fear the move to globalisation rules – the left can fear this as much as the right does in the USA. The right in the USA wants to impose their corporate rules on the rest of the world (feared by the left) but does not want the world to impose rules on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    the problem with identifying the macro (conspiracy theory) is that then one is constantly seeing current events as micro signs signs of its advance to some end game gambit. It can get like the religious person seeing signs in world events of the coming of the end of the world.

    That’s true SPC and that’s where discernment comes in. The macro picture BTW is not a “theory.” Let me give you an outline.

    JFK is assassinated.

    Why? That’s macro.

    How? That’s micro.

    Who? That’s micro.

    Answer both the micro’s accurately and you begin to glimpse the macro.

    Answer both the micro’s by thinking that even though the govt’s explanation doesn’t stack up logically based on the evidence, that’s OK, because the alternative couldn’t possibly be true; is not logic, it’s denial.

    And yet this is why many people think that LHO acting alone killed JFK. Not because it makes any sense, but because the alternative is too horrendous to contemplate.

    As I say, this is not logic, it’s denial. And for some reason, people in denial label people who don’t accept the denial, as “theorists.”

    Tell me this is not what happens. In JFK or in the side discussion we’ve just been having on gun control, or on anything else where logic leads people into areas they would prefer not to venture into.

    Just as in JFK, the logic is writ large in gun control. But because some people don’t want to look at it (because of where it would lead them if they did), they pretend the logic isn’t there, by pretending that people who are articulating it are just “theorising.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    And if you don’t think it’s all done on purpose, by design, look at the shows on the US media over the next few years including the “news” shows…

    It’s all about creating a new culture, when the order comes down to make it so.

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

    Some points to consider – it doesn’t matter how fast you miss… Remember those shooters in Washington that fired out of the boot of a car at random targets, and brought the city to a standstill? I am surprised some terro organization hasn’t done this as a means of bringing a city to a halt with better “value for money” than a suicide bomb.
    Pre WW1, the British Army had requirements for the rate of fire for the Lee Enfield rifle, called “the mad minute” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute), with a minimum of 15 rounds (typically 30+) into a 12″ target at 300m. This is using a 0.303 bolt action rifle, 10 shot magazine fed with charger clips. That rate of *aimed* fire is up there with a self loading rifle, and with various models over 60 years and over 4million No 4 model alone made, there is no shortage of them in the world.
    They could ban ownership and confiscate and prosecute known owners, like in Australia, however also like in Oz, al lthat will happen is that they will disappear and as they will be illegal, there will be no control over the black market guns. The Australians confiscated less guns of all sorts than the number of Stirling and SKS semi autos imported… Given many of the confiscated guns were shotguns or ordinary rifles, there must be plenty buried in pipes around Oz

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

    If you want to change the gun laws honestly in the U.S. you need to repeal the 2nd amendment, it doesn’t matter what the public thinks is bad about guns, any restriction of the 2nd amendment is a violation of the constitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    It’s going to get a few innocent Americans classified as “Potentials” and then onto “Probables” and then onto “Mild probable mental health issues” and so and so on and so on. A paper monster.

    Shame no one see’s this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    How are they going to change a culture like theirs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Reid, a theory is something unproven.

    No one doubts that there are interests that would like to express themselves through influence on and through the US government. But there is no singular “they”, more like rival “they’s”.

    And yes the idea that “they” can have a President removed, and get away with it, is disturbing. Whether “they” have, has not been answered. We do know that the Koch brothers failed in 2012.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    I think this is great for the Americans to be so animated over something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    It’s better than hearing the “Into Iran” to protect Israel. Did we help set up Israel when they created they’re country? What do we owe Israel? We didn’t try to exterminate them.

    The french seem be to the only ones actively trying to do something in Africa but will it work? No one seems to give a crap about whether the Africans are exterminating each other?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Azeraph, some of those concerned, about their government becoming a growing threat to their liberty, think their gun is their means of personal and collective defence/protection. They see it as of their culture to be able to stand up against oppressive government – including by use of a gun, as part of their constitutional rights.

    There is good and bad in that – government is not to reign after all. But it converges with southern secession heritage and fear of their government being part of a global (UN) conspiracy against their liberty. Nation state rights as the new states rights movement. There is good and bad in this as well. Defence of national sovereignty is OK, so long as it is not based on xenophobia.

    As for the “mental health” of the gunowner applicant – there is need for greater background checks on who can legally own and possess weapons. You are right this could be abused, but … .

    Maybe those with guns should be required to secure their weapons from access by others (the recent case involved a suicidal youth with access to his mothers guns who wanted to be noticed by the rest of the world when he went – a violent form of tagging for attention/notoriety)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Azeraph, the stratfor intel is probably based on declining American capability (self imposed restraint) combined with the President’s choice of Defence Secretary (while a Republican, not a hawk on Iran).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. axeman (250 comments) says:

    They sure aint happy down south with barry

    http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/227606_409367935817138_57610190_n.jpg

    Or elsewhere
    http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/385274_474448085925692_350210606_n.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Azeraph (597 comments) says:

    SPC (1,960) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 12:08 am

    I don’t have any issue with what you said as it is their country not ours but the way i have been viewing this is they are going to have a new church take over from the old one, the new Bishops and priests and vicors of the new age. The Psychologist, Assessors, Counselors and their bible the script pad.

    I’ve worked in mental health and just about everyone knows someone that suffers from some form of mental condition, there is no fast track training in spotting these conditions until after the first spiral of the poor person.

    We have a pretty good system here where a police officer will interview an applicants family or flatmates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. kiwi in america (2,335 comments) says:

    People – I thought this was about gun control not miscellaneous conspiracy theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    I simply cannot work out the mentality of people who think that the answer to the gun problem in the USA is more bloody guns.

    Is the answer to obesity more food?
    Is the answer to lung cancer more cigarettes?
    Is the answer to diabetes more sugar?

    The answer to the problem is less guns, it is blindingly simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    SPC made a couple of pertinent comments:

    No one doubts that there are interests that would like to express themselves through influence on and through the US government. But there is no singular “they”, more like rival “they’s”.

    And yes the idea that “they” can have a President removed, and get away with it, is disturbing. Whether “they” have, has not been answered.

    The highlights a problem with conspiracy theorists, who seemed to get fixated on a conspiracy and see everything (and often nothing) that ‘proves’ they are right…

    …the problem with identifying the macro (conspiracy theory) is that then one is constantly seeing current events as micro signs signs of its advance to some end game gambit. It can get like the religious person seeing signs in world events of the coming of the end of the world.

    There’s no doubt that crap happens, and some crap happens that we don’t get to know about, and some crap happens and we never find out for sure who was responsible.

    But there is not just one master crapper, there are many crap shooters with different agendas, often competing.

    We live in a very complex and convoluted world. Some people try to simplify things by understanding everything crappy as being caused by one conspiracy god.

    Are most conspiracy theorists religious? Do they have an innate drive to find a single ‘they’ or god responsible for a myriad of intermingled machinations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. mikenmild (8,778 comments) says:

    Belief in all-pervading conspiracies is one coping mechanism in a complicated world; religion is another. Sometimes these mechanisms combine to produce significant, almost pathological, levels of cognitive dissonance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    PG you will find that most conspiracy discussed or posted on KB is the result of conservative right wing thinking exemplified by the policy’s of the tea baggers in the states.
    I do not believe the casual link between religion and conspiracy thinking is as solid as that between conservative right wing America and conspiracy theory’s.
    We can forget on KB that most Christians are not represented by Fletch’s and co’s conservatism..
    Some who post on here without doubt will be Christians but dont advertise the fact because they support the concept of a separation between church and state and see no relevance in their religious views on a secular subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Colville (1,771 comments) says:

    I would note that the calibre of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shootings was .223, which is not that far removed from the very common .22 calibre rifles.

    A .22 is for rabbits (or Bains !) at less than 50 meters. A .223 is for deer at up to 300 meters.
    Around 4 times the bang from a .223

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. kiwi in america (2,335 comments) says:

    Big Bruv

    Allowing EXISTING CCW permit holders who might also be teachers, school administrators, caretakers or security guards to carry their EXISTING weapons into a school would go a long way to averting mass school shootings without adding a single NEW gun to the US’s collective arsenal (please refer the extensive links of mass murders averted as published by local media in the NZ found here http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html)

    Name one school that allowed staff with a CCW to carry at school where a mass shooting has taken place. There isn’t one because all the schools where students have been mass murdered either had a gun free policy or were within juristictions forbidding CCW. People planning mass murder may be mad but they are not stupid – they are going to choose locations where the only constraint on their rampage is the time it takes for the police to arrive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    PG you will find that most conspiracy discussed or posted on KB is the result of conservative right wing thinking exemplified by the policy’s of the tea baggers in the states.

    Griff, you appear oblivious to the left wing conspiracy theories, involving, big business, big oil, the big carbon industry, big banks, the big USA, and so on.

    You do not see right wing people holding public protests about a fictitious 1% and various other fabrications.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoOb_KD50jY

    Your worried about the “tea baggers” ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    More to the point colville is that most .22 rounds are subsonic limiting the energy of impact.
    A .22 round is still considered lethal at up to 500m providing you could hit the precise point of aim
    A .22 in the eye ball still has enough energy to kill at 1.5km!

    Because a .22 LR bullet is less powerful than larger cartridges, its danger to humans is often underestimated. In fact, a .22 LR bullet is capable of inflicting very serious injuries (e.g. the four people wounded during the Reagan assassination attempt) or death e.g. the Kauhajoki school shooting (11 killed and 1 wounded), the Jokela school shooting (9 killed and 12 wounded), or victims of Brenda Ann Spencer (2 killed and 9 wounded) as well as the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle
    Interesting post on caliber/ knockdown calculations
    http://africanxmag.com/debunking_ballastic_myths.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Griff, if you really want to learn about the lethal effects of bullets, then stay well away from hunting sites. Look up – forensic ballistics- and terminal ballistics. They are based upon thousands upon thousands of medical examinations done by doctors.

    Very briefly, the deciding factor is the size of the permanent wound cavity, (when comparing various rounds). Things like “hydraulic shock” and pressure waves are not big factors.

    The size of a wound cavity is decided by the amount of available energy. The shape of that cavity varies greatly. If you compare two projectiles with the same energy, with one being heavy and slow, and the other light and fast, the wound cavity will be the same volume, but a different shape. The fast bullet will make a more shallow and wider cavity, the slow one a deeper longer one. But the volume will be the same. (if the bullet stays inside the target).

    There are many other factors, but I really don’t want to get into a big technical debate on KB over terminal ballistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    they are going to choose locations where the only constraint on their rampage is the time it takes for the police to arrive.

    Rubbish, they target almost universally the perceived target of their hatred. Columbine, Virginia Tech etc. The same applies to all the mass work place shootings. Columbine even had armed police stationed there.

    And you obviously have little to no experience with handguns if you think that a CCW weapon holder with a minimum of training would be an effective counter to a highly motivated offender with an assault rifle or a deterrent whatsoever. The only thing they would create is possibly more casualties, a hazard for law enforcement and add to the general confusion and chaos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Griff, that article you linked to is actually very good and I see why. It was from a professional ballistician, not some hunter and makes my comments above a bit redundant. He says it all.

    Pseudo science

    What is the root cause of all this erroneous of ballistic misunderstanding? The author of the articles justifiably lays it at the door of pseudo science. He points out that “to be meaningful and scientifically sound (correct and true), a formula or theory must be founded on carefully collected test data, not “gut feelings”, prevailing perceptions, and anecdotal evidence (which is little better than hearsay).

    All hunters should have to read that article, before getting their gun licence. Of course that will kill the conversation around the campfire at night ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Is the answer to obesity more food?
    Is the answer to lung cancer more cigarettes?
    Is the answer to diabetes more sugar?

    The answer to the problem is less guns, it is blindingly simple.

    bb, well it sounds logical, but in this case it doesn’t work.

    Is the answer to World Peace the getting rid of all armaments?
    Is the answer to ending child abuse the banning of smacking?
    Is the answer to ending abortion the greater availability and use of contraception?

    The answer to all the above cases is no. It doesn’t take into account human nature.
    Sure it’d be great to get rid of all the weapons in the world, but I don’t think it can be done now and I’m not sure the difference it would make. After a handgun ban in Britain in the 80s, handgun related crime had doubled in a decade.

    After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

    Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

    The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. SPC (4,639 comments) says:

    Is the answer to World Peace the getting rid of all armaments?
    Is the answer to ending child abuse the banning of smacking?
    Is the answer to ending abortion the greater availability and use of contraception?

    Put it this way … armaments reduction, disapproval for violent punishment of children and availability and use of contraception occur because people think they will help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is.

    This argument is simply laughable on a number of levels.

    In the past decade gun crime in the UK has reduced. Despite the onset of Police stop and search powers, prevalence of airguns and imitations and strict enforcement.

    The UK’s gun homicide rate remains one of the lowest in the world at .07 per 100,000, while America’s is 40 times that. This huge discrepancy is not reflected in other crime rates, thus it is clearly not down to societal differences.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.