the mass shootings were all across the states pro gun areas and anti gun areas. i wonder if anyone has the time to really pursue this and generate some more useful stats. sociology thesis anyone?

It would be incredibly foolish for anyone to think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to possess semi-automatic weapons or engage in the kinds of killings we see on a daily basis in the US.

“After previous mass shootings — the Wisconsin church killings of 7 in 2005, the Salt Lake City and Omaha mall killings of 13 in 2007, Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois University killings of 5 last year — the public would listen to the gun lobby dogma that we need more guns not less and teachers, church goers and shoppers should be armed.”

Wisconsin church killings: DEPRESSION – ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Salt Lake City mall killings: POSSIBLE PTSD/GANG RELATED
Omaha Mall killings: DEPRESSION/ADHD – ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Virginia Tech killings: DEPRESSION – ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Northern Illinois University killings: DEPRESSION – ANTIPEPRESSANTS

Guns are not the problem. That little white pill is the problem.

Today we have by far the largest military in the world, with an budget equal to that of the world’s combined budget. We have 800 bases throughout the world and are fighting “wars” in two sovereign nations who never attacked us.

I don’t think the constitution or the 2nd ammendment had any of this in mind. It certainly didn’t spring for the enlightenment period that supposedly gave “birth” to the constitution.

For your consideration – http://goingcrunchy.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-my-cold-dead-hands-or-about-ten.html

i can allow dissent in cuba, venezuella only if the lethal enemies of equality wld swear off use of violence/sanctions/blockades/sieges/bombings against socialist states.

do you think i’d allow my enemy freedoms who wants and will kill me the first chance s/he gets and with help from fascists?

the best people on our orb love socialism; the worst love fascism and killings of pristine aliens.
some blessing?? tnx

As such, I don’t need to match my attacker with a similar gun. He can use whatever he wants, and I’ll still come out the victor and have stopped his homicidal rampage. Will I get shot? Maybe, but if I get shot and 20 other people don’t, I’m fine with that.

You said that purchase of a gun is reason to be cautious; that’s simply moronic. Many firearms are used in competitive sport in America. We have pistols for sport, Semi-automatic rifles for sport, shotguns for sport, I even once shot a ‘machine gun’ in a competition. Also, if I want to shoot and eat a deer, that is my business. If you don’t, that is yours. Don’t try and push your belief that we shouldn’t eat deer into this conversation, because you’re guaranteed to lose.

And then, to come to the end, you speak about ‘defending yourself with a taser, a baseball bat, or an alarm system’. These are all terrible ideas.
A taser, while occasionally useful, hinges upon ONE thing for succesful application; that the target will not be wearing anything more than a light t-shirt, and that you won’t be more than 50 feet away. Why? Because a taser requires penetration of the skin for its barbs/electrodes. Many criminals wear very heavy clothes due to the fact that they A)obscures their figure B)dampens the impact of a physical blow at least a bit and now C)will stop a taser from penetrating the skin, thus rendering it useless.
A baseball bat is even worse. To use it, you need to be within 5 feet of your target (which is not likely, especially if your home is broken into while you’re asleep). At the point when you’re actually using the bat, your target, who may well have a knife, a gun, or a crowbar, will probably be stabbing, beating, or shooting you to death while you try and land a second hit.
An alarm system is by far the worst idea on here. Sure, they occasionally make less proffessional criminals flee, but the fact is that after the alarm goes off, it will be an average of 5 minutes to 15 minutes before the police arrive, depending on where you live, what day it is (God help you on the weekends), and other criteria. Once the police arrive, they don’t have to help you. The supreme court has stated time and again that Police officers are under no legal obligation to put themselves in harm’s way. Besides, by the time they’ve arrived, you’re probably already dead.
Now, let us suppose I have my pistol and a robber breaks in (and let’s leave my dog out of the picture for now). The robber breaks in, I hear it, he sets off the alarm, but figures he’ll make off with something I own (computer, TV, antique clock, jewelry, one of the expensive plaques in my office, an old book, my PS3, a fur coat, whatever). He starts heading upstairs to what looks like the master bedroom, walks in, and as my wife turns the lights on hears me yell ‘DOWN ON THE GROUND OR I’LL SHOOT’. Very likely, he’ll drop his gun and lie down, or he’ll try to run. Very few robbers are dumb enough to try and fight an armed citizen; they’ll take the short jail time and go back to robbing houses rather than die.
Dogs are also a good system, in combination with aforementioned pistol. The dog (a real dog, mind, not some teacup poodle, chihuaha, or anything else that fits in a purse) will attack the robber, making noise enough to alert me, and holding the robber til I get there. Then go back to the step above, and I’ve won.
By the way, your idea to buy blanks is idiotic, mainly because most burglars who come into your house at night are crackheads who could care less about a ‘bang without a hit’. They’re too intent on getting money for more crack. The best way to deal with them is a real bullet.

You talk about people ‘taking out’ corrupt officials. Who? Other corrupt officials? Or do you mean that someone would ‘take them out’ in the sense that someone would do them grievous bodily harm? Once again, who? The citizens who don’t own firearms? The UN, which has NEVER proved useful in a firefight or rebellion? Look at Rwanda, Somalia, and pretty much anything else the UN has had to do.

And just because using pitchforks and rakes was a good idea in Australia a few hundred years ago doesn’t mean it’ll fly now. When only the government has guns, it’ll no longer be beholden to its citizens.

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. – Thomas Jefferson
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. – Benjamin Franklin

Well, Ikari, perhaps you know that felons on this side of the Southern Sea are interdicted with respect to firearms, so they are in the “boat” as your forefathers who were transported to Botany Bay to populate that desolate island and improve the quality of the British Isles population.

As for your “rakes and pitchforks,” perhaps you ought also to consider shovels. Those were used to great effect in trench assaults during the War to End Wars.

Up the Oz!

the pro-gun people are dumb, they think that guns are the best tools to cure this violence problem in America is not guns, but knowledge and a united socialist movement as the real medicine and solution to overthrow the USA corrupt corporate oligarchic imperialist government which has been kidnapped by the democrat party and republican party !!

.

Stating that we must have weapons to defend ourselves isn’t the greatest one to raise. If you do carry a gun, what if the other person has a more powerful one? One which is more accurate, or can spray more bullets in less time? The appropriate response with “match the attacker” would be “carry a similar gun.”

A gun is a weapon. We can say most anything can be a weapon too. A metal spoon, for instance, can be a simple blunt shiv to jab a person with or damage the eyes. But guns aren’t utensils. They’re crafted specifically as a weapon. As a weapon, they are made to cause severe injury when used against a person. If you don’t intend to hurt a person with a gun, and would rather use it for home protection, buy blanks. A “bang” without a hit would scare an intruder as much as a real bullet. In that situation, loosing your gun to the attacker puts you at an advantage.

Bigger isn’t always better. Being armed isn’t always the way out. I must admit with some cliches. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It’s not the bullet with your name on it you should worry about, it’s the one marked ‘to whom it may concern.’ But a gun is a dangerous thing. It’s intention is to destroy or injure, whether for good or bad. We restrict people from getting access to things that cause nothing but injury for the safety of the public. Even bulk purchase of fertilisers can be considered suspicious. When someone buys a gun, there is reason to be cautious: this person may be willing to perform grievous harm (or threaten such) against a person or animal.

At the end of the day, I’m an Aussie. I can’t talk about a “right to bear arms”, ’cause I don’t have any. And our civil wars were fought by miners bearing rakes and pitchforks.

But “defending yourself” (striking fear or harming others) isn’t a reason for owning a gun. You could own a bat, or an alarm system, or a taser. “I have the right to protect myself against a corrupt government” is odd too, considering the government should be controlled by your elected officials, and if they fail, people take them out. With pitchforks and rakes if necessary. Failing that, let’s ask the UN and international coalition forces to help out. That’s what they’re for, right?

One a month has not stopped anyone, they just wait the few months needed to get what they want. You want to stop gun crime? Then ARM EVERYONE, within a few weeks or so, any smart criminals will change jobs and the rest will be either dead or hospitalized.