What Two Things...
Posted by: Russ on 21 September 2013
The Fort Hood Killer
The parents of the Columbine killers
The Newton, Connecticut killer
The Aurora, Colorado killer
The Virginia Tech Killer
?????!???????
They were all registered Democrats--and not one of them was a member of the National Rifle Association!
Is there any significance in the inclusion of the PARENTS of the Columbine killers?
What precisely is the point of this thread?
So you don't like Democats? You believe the NRA to be guardians of public safety? Then why not just say so?
What is your agenda here?
Hi Russ.
Are you drunk or on drugs.....?
I suppose that such advocacy on their part gives them the same sort of warm feeling a bed-wetter experiences--only it does no good. Then, to make matters worse, they ridicule Republicans and NRA members.
So i suppose the agenda here is to expose the ineffective hypocracy of those Democrats whom the shoe fits!
Cheers,
Russ
Cheers,
Russ
You are quoting at best purely anecdotal evidence. What is your real agenda? And why this forum?
. Thanks for your contribution.My question was not intended to be sarcastic! I just could not understand why you would post such a ridiculous question on a Hi FI forum base in a country where the vast majority of its population has never ever considered owning a gun. Even our police force don't carry guns as a matter of course. Therefore you might consider moving to the UK, if you are looking for a safer country than the USA.
Russ,
Given that 98% of US citizens are not NRA members, and that you've referenced parents as well as the perpetrators of the crimes, and finally that there are only 5 samples in your 'study', there really is no point to be made here which is in any way statistically significant.
You either know this and are being deliberately contentious, or you truly believe this to be a valid point, in which case I pity you.
Phil
No pretence of conducting a study--far less of any attempt at statistical significance. I totally grant your point that the insances cited are anecdotal. However, the anti-gun lobby and supportimg politicians were only too quick to sieze upon each of these incidents--however anecdotal--to advance the proposition that increased gun control would prevent them. So perhaps one could say that if it is anecdotal for the goose, it is anecdotal for the gander.
Russ
Attacked by whom? Millions of nutters with guns? Like you Americans? Last time I looked at the figures there were 310 million - that's 310 million - non-military firearms in the US. In 2012 your population was only 313 million, FFS!
Between 1980 and 2006, firearms deaths in the US were about 32,000 a year. Even taking into account the huge US population, this is disproportionately high compared to other industrialised countries. In 2010 gun deaths in the UK ran at 2.25 per 100,000; in the US the figure (for 2011), the figure was 10.3. In the UK. Murders were 0.04 per 100,000 head of population in the UK, 3.6 in the US.
On balance, one has a far better chance of not being shot in the UK than in the US - in part, no doubt to our strict gun control. I know where I'd rather live.
Some gun figures and stats here
I would still like to know why you started this thread. I'm not saying you have no right to do so, I'm just interested as to why.
Quad: i know of no administrator's rule restricting Americans from posting. As for the rediculousness, vel non, of mynposition, I respect your judgment.
I greatly respect the UK in many ways. The population and demographics ofnour two countries. I post here because i habe noted no hesitation on the part of many my British acquaintances to cast aspersions on the U.S. So, knowing as I do that no one here would impose a double standard...
The Fort Hood Killer
The parents of the Columbine killers
The Newton, Connecticut killer
The Aurora, Colorado killer
The Virginia Tech Killer
?????!???????
They were all registered Democrats--and not one of them was a member of the National Rifle Association!
Actually they have just one thing in common. They all had easy access to guns. And then they used them.
You are way too deep into the 'two things'.
Seriously, there is always too much of a good thing, including freedom.
I can accept your freedom to own a handgun for self protection assuming that (a) you bought and registered it properly, (b) you do not have a criminal record, (c) you are mentally balanced and (d) you received a proper training to operate the fire arm.
Your freedom to be allowed to hoard numerous assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition simply scares me.
There is not a rifle that you can legally buy in this country that is a real "assault rifle." That is a complete and total misnomer.
If you don't believe me, hand one to a soldier about to go on a real assault and see how much he wants to take it over his actual assault weapon. It would almost be a death sentence for him/her.
Where concealed carry is legalized, crime rates go down. If that doesn't fit your view of things, then i am sorry.
The problemnin the US is that we don't enforce the laws. We are so much more concerned with the rights of the accused than with those of victims, that we cannot keep criminals and the criminally insane off the streets. My perception is that in Britain you do.
There is not a rifle that you can legally buy in this country that is a real "assault rifle." That is a complete and total misnomer.
If you don't believe me, hand one to a soldier about to go on a real assault and see how much he wants to take it over his actual assault weapon. It would almost be a death sentence for him/her.
Why play with words? The AK 47 and M-16 were designed strictly for military use and the conversion to semi-automatic enables anyone in the US to own one or more of these deadly weapons. It is also relatively a simple process to restore their automatic ("assault") function.
Haim - it is not playing with words; and there are many other rifles that are not considered "assault" rifles that are no more so than the ones that are so named. And I don't know how easy it is to convert them back, but it must not be too easy since not once has one been so converted for these exhibitions of mental illness. And anyone so inclined will do so irrespective of laws..."Hey. I'm going to go and kill a bunch of people, but man, I don't want to run afoul of that automatic weapon ban thing. I could get in some real trouble for that."
For example, many (most?) believe the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle" - it does not; it was an abbreviation for the company name that first manufactured it (whose name escapes me since I am not an enthusiast of said products, but it is easily googled for the curious.)
However, why anyone would think that the Republicans are anything but total @ssholes (just as their Democrat counterparts are) is beyond me. I thought that warmonger hawk John McCain was going to have a stroke (ah, if we could only be so lucky) when he was trying to get us to attack Syria a week or so ago.
And then there is the Republican representative (forget his name) who is pushing the cutting of the Food Stamp program, while it turns out that he is a farmer and has received over a million dollars in federal farm subsidies for his farm. So I guess it's a case of "Welfare...bad, welfare for me...good!") What a hypocrite.
Sociopath parasites every d@mn one of them. Irrespective of party affiliation.
And Russ, enjoy watching TX go from "red" to "blue" - between the influx of Californians and the ever expanding Hispanic population, I give it 10 years tops to make the switch.
Is it true an ‘assault’ rifle is a gun in the hands of a baddy, and a ‘defence’ rifle exactly that same make/type of gun in the hands of a goody?
Debs