US Features
By Andy Goldberg Apr 17, 2009, 1:08 GMT
Decade after Columbine, gun laws lax as ever (News Feature)
And Also
Similar articles
- FBI: Hate crimes rising in US
- Man accused of running over "Westernized" daughter
- Man jailed after selling daughter, 14, for beer
- US prison population jumps by largest margin since 2000
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 2. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 3. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
- 4. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base
- 5. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
Most states have very strict laws concerned with firearms, but they are almost never enforced.
As soon as we cut off small arms sales to Mexico, those who would buy such arms for misuse will simply undertake to acquire them from points further south. Said arms will almost certainly be of Russian, Chinese or North Korean manufacture.
Secretary of State Clinton is being disingenuous here. Yes, we should cut off sales of arms to Mexican Nationals, most of whom enter the United States illegally. The best way to do that, of course, is to establish full control of the border, something EVERY Administration has been reluctant to do.
What will come of this is restraints placed upon law abiding citizens in the name of frustrating criminals. One must also ask, why are the Democrats so afraid of semi-automatic weapons? Do they intend to give the American public cause?
previous poseter said:why are the Democrats so afraid of semi-automatic weapons?
Probably because of all the killings going on in the USA ,I gues.Every lunatic seems able to buy guns and open fire on innocent people.This is now almost happening on a daily bsis.The fact that assault weapons can be bought by anybody is mind boggling .What is even more absurd is the above idiot even trying to defend what is going on and blame the democrats .A fruitcake republican idiot with a pea brain,most definitely.
You are right on tonny from belgium!
hey tonny,
'Every lunatic seems able to buy guns and open fire on innocent people.'
Almost all of the firearms used by criminals are not bought through legal channels. They either steal them or trade them for drugs or stolen goods.
Everyone who buys one a firearm has to go through an FBI background and mental heath check.
'The fact that assault weapons can be bought by anybody is mind boggling'
First off, they are not 'assault' weapons. This is a made up term that the mainstream media and liberals use to leave the impression that they are full-auto machine guns. Unfortunately, there are many people that do not research what the news media says and simply accepts everything as fact.
Secondly, they can not be 'bought by anybody'. Everyone has to pass an FBI background and mental heath check.
'What is even more absurd is the above idiot even trying to defend what is going on and blame the democrats'
What do you mean 'trying to defend what is going on' ? What is 'going on'? If it's someone committing murder then you're 100% wrong. No-one supports what these madmen do.
Regarding 'blame the democrats', it's factually correct to say that most of the people who do not fully support the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution identify as Democrats. I support the National Rifle Association. They do support Democrats. In the last election they publicly endorsed several Democrat candidates, one of which was over a Republican. Both the Republican and the Democrat had 'A' ratings from the NRA.
'A fruitcake republican idiot with a pea brain,most definitely'
At this point it appears that you're just ranting. If you have a logical statement, please offer it. I enjoy listening to other points of views.
There is no law that can be implemented that will stop someone who is committed to hurting other people.
...will tell even the most fervent libnazi that:
these 'kids' were 18 years old, which in the USA makes them adults, not kids.
these 'kids' were homicidal maniacs, and as you can see, gun laws do not protect anyone, and the USA, with endless gun laws on the books, can no more enforce them than we can enforce drunk driving laws, which we do not. Recent mass murders with guns in Germany, and other nations with oppresive gun laws only proves the point further. (see Australia below)
that the gun laws putting the guns within reach were legally obtained, by lawful citizens.
Now, take a look at how many gun laws have ended up killing in history:
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun
control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this datum on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED! (Gen. Toyo's words)
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
As John Steinbeck once said:
1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics stink.
3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!
But wait, there's more!
I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, 'Of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?' My reply was, 'No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.
All assualt rifles and automatic firearms should be banned, confiscated,
destroyed and none should be allowed to be made!
...take a look at bans, of all kinds, in America and then ask yourself how successfull they've been. Then, if you know how, READ, the earlier post and inform yourself at how gun bans have helped kill millions of helpless citizens the world over. Liberalism: it just kills WAY too many people.
Yes ;,by all means let us look at statistics like SP4 says .Compare the situation existing in the USA and Europe and conclude:per capita the amount of people killed by guns is 10 times less in Europe ,with an exeption in Finland,the one country in Europe with insufficient gun contol.Thanks SP4 for allowing me to score so easily.As for the list of African countries cited in the hilarious track record of ethnic violence (if reality werne't so sad ),let as look briefly at the situation in those african countries were guns are omnipresent,Somalia comes to the mind,as well as Ethiopia and Soudan...Congo with it's armed militia,Liberia during the civil war,Sierra Leone perhaps ?
Those are the examples of countries where guns were or are present everywhere ...we knnow the results of that.
As for citing Japan during WW2,Tojo never ever said that Japan would not invade the USA due to it's gun happy cowboys...it was the presence of Jon Wayne and Gary Cooper that prevented the invasion of course .;;;as well as the fact that the USA was on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean and such invasion was simply impossible .SP4 is a complete moron when it comes to understanding the very ,most simple elements of logics .To be disregarded in a serious debate.
I took the time to check SP4 's affirmations on crime in australia;it is nothing but a copy paste from an article dating back to 2001,based on nothing at all,here are the official statistics on murder cases in australia from 1996 till 2008.Facts obviously are not worth checking for SP4: www.aic.gov.au/stats/
It is so easy to find crime related statistics I couldn't help but post another one :the assault per capita ,which in my eyes is an objective criterion
www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
This is yet another blow to the afirmations from SP4 that entirely rely in copy and paste from any gunslinger site he can find.
...if you are willing to acknowledge the 10's of millions dead from the totalitarians of the last century who slaughtered millions unable to defend themselves as a result of giving up their right to weapons.
Europe, of course, led the way, here, a fact Tonny is glaringly short on pointing out, but you always have to remind him. Hitler and his buds made this a priority before they slaughtered one of the most pacifist enthinc groups in the world, plus five million more Gypsies, gays, poles, russions,...dogs cats, etc., etc., and menatlly challenged individuals, all with the ease of a butcher in his own shop. Stalin, the Chinese, etc., all rely on this as a necessary step to pacify political opposition. Honestly, you'd think europeans would finally get the point, but then a Kosovo happens and one is dumbfounded at the sheer blindness.
Scared of gun ownership....go ask ethnic muslims in Kosovo if they feel better with a weapon Tonny...be sure to run back to us with the answer.
Also your vaunted government statistics never seem to look into the glaring fact that you are 75% less likely to sustain a serious injury during a crime, as a potential vitim, if you have a firearm available. Needless to say this fact is usually missed by libnazis who rely on the culture of victimization to perpetuate their philosophies, but libnazis seem to flaunt the indiviudals problems while ignoring the masses.
'..would you PLEASE, step into the gas chambers!?' Ayn Rand
Wow! all this comment on a feature article. On one side, Marshal Rooster, 'True Sh*t' SP 'draw, Texan' fudd. On the other, nanny-knows-best Tonny, the bloodless bureaucratic bullsh*tter from Bilge-um.
You both miss, or rather choose to ignore the point. SP's arguments about an armed citizenry providing some sort of bulwark against absolutist take-overs like Hitler's are as pure a moonshine as that which he must be imbibing to inspire them. Only fifteen years after WWI Germany was stiff with privately held firearms. The point is that at the time, most Germans thought Adolf was the best thing since sliced bread: And what justification is there for private citizens in a western democracy being able to cite 'self defence' as an excuse for tooling up with multiple heavy, fully automatic weapons? The US is a civilised society under the rule of law. Isn't it?
Tonny's arguments about contemporary Africa are equally ludicrous: And for the same reason. In some states there, with no law to speak of, a plethora of competing armed factions, traditional tribal rivalries, endemic corruption and little if any regard for human life outside ones own faction; to be anything other than able to defend yourself, your family and your property instantly, along with your fellows, is to end up potless, starving, enslaved, or dead very, very quickly.
So let's address the real issue. The reasons why one civilised western state in particular retains a culture of entitling private citizens to bear lethal weapons as part of an inherent right of armed self defence.
This right is enshrined, not too strong a word, in the US constitution. Indeed, originally it was almost a duty, with it's roots in the revolutionary war against ourselves. SP, who is intensely patriotic, if nothing else, harks back to this period as an almost mythical golden age. Contrary to popular belief, he is intellecually capable of realising that the original practical reasons for it are now redundant, but true to form has never let mind triumph over gut where his idealistic preconceptions of what his country 'should be about' are concerned.
Most Americans venerate their constitution. They have right. It's the only written one I know of that actually does what it says on the tin. They loathe to contradict it. Add to this that they had to 'pioneer' much of their territory and you will see that they entered the twentieth century as a modern, but still armed society with an only recently closed 'frontier.' Add to this the fact that they are largely an immigrant population, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation, many of them with terrible stories to tell of their ancestral homelands, self reliant and versed in the use of arms, and it is not difficult to see why they remain attached to the second? Ammendment. It is their affair.
What they must accept is that in a society where firearms are readily available, people will be killed inevitably in far larger numbers than in one where they are not. When a Yank says 'I support the right of self defence' he is implicitly stating that he believes his liberty is more important (to him) than others' security.
All your statistics are fluff, Tonny. American society is, and will remain armed for the foreseeable future. It's not a matter of logic. It's cultural: And you, who have quoted historical European death tolls as justification for your support of the EU are hardly in a position to scoff!
Remember, Tonny, American culture places greater emphasis on self reliance and individual responsibility for ones own affairs than most continental European societies have ever done. In all English speaking states there is an intrinsic scepticism anent the beneficent intentions of 'authority' in any guise. So long as the consensus in the US remains in favour of 'tradition' in this respect, the status quo will be maintained. It is not for you, Tonny, to denigrate this or pretend to a greater degree of superiority of civilisation than your heritage warrants.
...neve rmind ignoring all of the historical perspective of America itself, which has managed as the result of firearms ownership to avoid the millimetric precision holocausts that Europe suffered, precisely because of the right to arm ourselves, from throwing off our colonial oppressors, the american indian, the american civil rights movement, the ethnic chinese of the western US, and the list goes onto christions in the pacific Northwest, etc., etc.
In each case, while there were atrocities, we managed to avoid our European ancestors tragedies, by empowering the citizen.
Don't include us in your definition of 'Europe,' fudd!
Britain, although geographically part of it is different in every way from 'the continent,' as we refer to it.
Our heritage is one of limited government, checks and balances, freedom of expression and association, personal liberty, and the rule of law. English Common law, with its doctrines of the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, and the equality of all before it; the system from which US law too descends.
Theirs is one of autocracy, absolutism, persecution, the denial of freedoms, persecution of minorities and dissidents, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, communism, fascism, and the Holocaust.
No wonder Tonny is so keen on the EU. He is probably willing to endure it in the hope of preventing continentals going back to killing each other by the million.
..for that I apologize...I mean...THAT is a reeeeal insult. One other thing...the founders put the 2nd amendment in because they wanted an empowered citizen, not because they were a bunch of kill-crazy slave owners. Time and again, it has protected american citizens from the Revolution to the riots in Los Angeles.
OK. So long as the difference between a Brit and a 'continental' is understood, cheers!
Tonny would like to see your authorities ban firearms in the cause of 'peace and order' and 'for your own good.' It's a nanny-knows-best philosophy that is typical of the EU. Symptomatic of the paternalist, top-down statism, albeit now essentially benign, that characterises continental Europe today and to my mind, always will: Though it may not always continue benign, of course. As a Briton, I abhor it in any guise.
In truth, I must admit that there are many over here who are not averse to a touch of nanny-knows-best themselves: But with one crucial caveat. Namely, that THEY are always the nanny! Try to place a typical Brit in the position of BEING nannied and the results are usually a trifle, shall we say 'unfortunate.' The same goes, thank the Gods, for all within our great family of English speaking nations.
As I hinted above, the status quo is not going to change anytime soon. It's a cultural matter. I deduce that whilst most Americans are bright enough to realise that if weapons are readily accessible on an everyday basis, then there will be more gun deaths than if this were not the case, they are nevertheless willing to accept this because they believe it to be the price of personal liberty and the ability to act unilaterally to protect themselves, their families and their property. So I always have a good laugh, when US gun laws are debated, at the arguments each side contrive to avoid this plain statement.
I see no reason for circumlocution. Over here there are some, usually canting hypocritical leftists, who will routinely resort to argument along the lines of;
'is your right to...(insert anything under the sun)...worth more than the life of a single child?'
My answer is always the same. 'Our freedoms are not negotiable. Our fathers and grandfathers considered them worth the lives of over a million of our best. Men, women, and children. Yet had they not, we would be serfs and how many would then still be dying in Red Gulag or Nazi Death Camp?'
'Liberty is the soul's right to breathe' say the Yanks. How right they are.
On the other hand it has allowed those very same americans to operate a genocide on the native inhabitants of the USA ,not exactly a trifle,etc,etc.All the tripe published by SP4 are merely speculations offered without even any evidence or logics to support his cause.Just the usual tripe from the NRA...sometimes I wonder if these arguments originate from the Monty Python Flying Cicus though,as they are so funny.
Tonny, were I to be as facile and stupid as yourself I could answer you with two words 'BELGIAN CONGO' and leave it at that.
It is ludicrous to apply contemporary mores to 18th and 19th century pioneers in the age of European expansion and colonisation. That being said, we English speakers were invariably far less brutal and destructive than you continentals when faced with, what to our ancestors, were neolithic savages in need of the benefits of civilisation. The USA, with its rapidly expanding population (much of it from the later 19th century on, fleeing the oppression of European continental absolutism), was always going to pioneer the largely 'empty' lands in the west in fulfillment of Her 'Manifest Destiny.'
She nevertheless sought accommodations with the Tribes when possible, and although pressure of settlement frequently led to their breakdown and atrocities undoubtedly took place, they were regretted, restitution attempted, and it is difficult to see from a historical perspective what else could ever have been expected to occur.
Contrast American, Canadian (much more liberal), Australian, New Zealand (Treaty of Waitangi), and British Imperial treatment of what were once known as 'subject peoples' with Russia's eastern expansion into areas with far more politically and culturally complex indiginous populations than those faced by the Yanks. The whole world knows the names of Cochise, and Geronimo. Sitting Bull, and Gall. Tell me, Tonny, how many have ever heard of Yakub Beg?
Or what about German treatment of her African possessions? The French in Indo-China and French West Africa? Portuguese Mozambique and Angola? Italian Somalia and Her subjection of Abyssinia as late as the 1930's?
Come on Tonny! What next? Time for you to have a whimpering little pop at the great British Empire too, surely? When you do, just remember good old King Leopold's shining example of enlightened colonial administration in your own former African colony.
truebrit,I'm not responsible for what happened in Belgian Congo,no more than you,that should settle your silly ntionalistic ranting .
Go find some real arguments ,something that does not involve collective responsibility,so there go our two words...belgian congo...
Forthe sake of clarity:those that fled Europe in the nineteenth century to find their luck and fortune in the USA tried to escape poverty,the romantic picture presented to you all by truebrit is a figment of his imagination .Hunger ,famine and misery are the causes of migrations ,let that be clear.
There might be the casual idealist as an exception to this rule but history has it's rights too.
As for the idealistic portraying of typical english values as opposed to dark continental european politics,if you want to indulge in this nationalistic tripe ,be my guest,I'll give you a free ride on that,reality will catch up with you ,and as far as I know that attitude is very exceptional in England anyway.It even might be part of the charm,as inoffensive as folk dancing or tree throwing,lifting heavy stones and other cultural peculiarities.I like diversity,even when it is mildly offensive or xenophobic,as long as no arms are handed out to the population.
You amuse me truebrit,keep the ink flow pouring....
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story