ForumGarden

I have read this several times and I just know there has to be lies and misleading information here. I just know there is because I feel so passionately about it and how could anything but emotion hold my attention longer than a few minutes?

Anyhow, this is very informative and full of references. I know most on here really disapprove of anything other than hearsay (giggles).

The Truth About....

halfway;1417478 wrote: I have read this several times and I just know there has to be lies and misleading information here. I just know there is because I feel so passionately about it and how could anything but emotion hold my attention longer than a few minutes?

Anyhow, this is very informative and full of references. I know most on here really disapprove of anything other than hearsay (giggles).

The Truth About....


Simple and easy to follow.

There was an error in that full auto weapons are not totally banned. Federal law, National Firearms Act is the basic law in regards to real "weapons of war" that Obama and Feinstein keep yapping about. States more often than not place further restrictions up to and including a ban on such weapons.

The Washington Post editorial hit the nail on the head with the statement that such laws as the AWB which was passed is only a step towards even more restrictions on our right.

The observation toward the end that banning one popular product only causes people to seek ways around the ban as they did during the first AWB.

tude dog;1417512 wrote: Simple and easy to follow.

There was an error in that full auto weapons are not totally banned. Federal law, National Firearms Act is the basic law in regards to real "weapons of war" that Obama and Feinstein keep yapping about. States more often than not place further restrictions up to and including a ban on such weapons.

The Washington Post editorial hit the nail on the head with the statement that such laws as the AWB which was passed is only a step towards even more restrictions on our right.

The observation toward the end that banning one popular product only causes people to seek ways around the ban as they did during the first AWB.


Acknowledged. Thanks for an informative response.

The media does a stellar job of demonizing so many things in our lives (oil companies, pharma companies, etc), it is no surprise that these terms are used and reported on by ignorant "journalists" who tend to spend way to much time looking for their next career move and too little time thinking or actually researching a topic.

Gotta remember, not all this is about guns. Much has to do with a smug sense of superiority on the part of some like Charlie Rangel who told “MSNBC Live

some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome.

tude dog;1417515 wrote: Gotta remember, not all this is about guns. Much has to do with a smug sense of superiority on the part of some like Charlie Rangel who told “MSNBC Live

some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome.


He (Rangel) has been crooked for so many years yet the voters in his district seem to love him.

This is the core attitude of the "nanny state". This attitude does not promote quality of life for the poor or middle class, nor does it fight for their rights. It simply allows more government shackles through "hope, promise, post blame, make excuses, rinse and repeat.

BUT...as long as folks want to believe promises of free things, there will be room for these types of politicians.

My definition of an "assault weapon." Any gun that can kill 20 children in the space of a minute without reloading.

I would very much like to ban all firearms. Other countries do it and they can walk around the park, go to the movies, and go to school without fear of being shot. Short of that, I'd settle for the elimination of all semi-automatic weapons. While the killer is operating a bolt action, at least the other victims might have a chance to jump him.

Saint_;1417528 wrote: My definition of an "assault weapon." Any gun that can kill 20 children in the space of a minute without reloading.

I would very much like to ban all firearms. Other countries do it and they can walk around the park, go to the movies, and go to school without fear of being shot. Short of that, I'd settle for the elimination of all semi-automatic weapons. While the killer is operating a bolt action, at least the other victims might have a chance to jump him.


You should not have to endure the fear you live with. There are much better countries that have no such fear. They are probably very welcoming to those wishing to escape the US.

Seriously? I hear folks talk about how bad things are....why do they stay? There really are no good reasons if you are motivated...or at least reasons that cannot be overcome with real motivation.

Real motivation tends to make things happen. Embrace your fears.

halfway;1417529 wrote: You should not have to endure the fear you live with. There are much better countries that have no such fear. They are probably very welcoming to those wishing to escape the US.

Seriously? I hear folks talk about how bad things are....why do they stay? There really are no good reasons if you are motivated...or at least reasons that cannot be overcome with real motivation.

Real motivation tends to make things happen. Embrace your fears.The only people living in fear are the gun totters. They claim they need their guns for security. So, you leave.

halfwit wrote: Embrace your fearsBy this do you mean to become a gun owner? That's a very skewed understanding of the phrase.

halfway;1417529 wrote: You should not have to endure the fear you live with. There are much better countries that have no such fear. They are probably very welcoming to those wishing to escape the US.

Seriously? I hear folks talk about how bad things are....why do they stay? There really are no good reasons if you are motivated...or at least reasons that cannot be overcome with real motivation.

Real motivation tends to make things happen. Embrace your fears.
In the sixties it was said to people like me: America, Love It or Leave It. No. You stay, you work for what you want. You (& I use You generally) have rights too, you have opinions too, you are Americans too.

I am not afraid of gun violence the same as I was not afraid hiding under the desk from the Soviets in elementary school. Some things are too big, too dependant on the chaos theory to spend your life in fear of them.

Saint_;1417528 wrote: My definition of an "assault weapon." Any gun that can kill 20 children in the space of a minute without reloading.I think I'll adopt that definition.

Someone should ask Heckle and Jeckle, since one is afraid to talk to me and the other has serious comprehension difficulty, if they believe the Sandy Hook shooting really occurred or is a conspiracy.

AnneBoleyn;1417531 wrote: Some things are too big...to spend your life in fear of them.


Well said. I'd apply that to most things people fear.

And I like what Ahso! said about the gun owners seeming to be the ones with the most fear. Truthfully, if there were less guns, there'd be less fear. The main thing people are afraid of is other people running around shooting guns!

Saint_;1417536 wrote: Well said. I'd apply that to most things people fear.

And I like what Ahso! said about the gun owners seeming to be the ones with the most fear. Truthfully, if there were less guns, there'd be less fear. The main thing people are afraid of is other people running around shooting guns!I recently rented Kevin Costner's "The Hatfields and McCoys" and if there was ever a story that should show people just how dangerous gun ownership is, it's that one.

It is difficult to discuss this with people motivated more by emotion than facts. One moving target is definition of the so called 'assault weapon'.

Be that as it may, the real target is the big black scary looking rifle.

President Obama was hardly truthful when he proclaimed,

"even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

If that were true he would be speaking of hammers and blunt objects,

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.


At least we can lay to rest the mantra that this is about saving lives.

tude dog;1417539 wrote: It is difficult to discuss this with people motivated more by emotion than facts. One moving target is definition of the so called 'assault weapon'.

Be that as it may, the real target is the big black scary looking rifle.

President Obama was hardly truthful when he proclaimed,

"even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

If that were true he would be speaking of hammers and blunt objects,

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES



At least we can lay to rest the mantra that this is about saving lives.Do you really think everyone is a gullible as you?

First - lets have a link. That's your first lesson.

Second - since you want to narrow gun violence down to rifles then let's narrow hammers down to drywall hammers.

Third - now go get those statistics and then make your argument.

Saint_;1417536 wrote: Well said. I'd apply that to most things people fear.

And I like what Ahso! said about the gun owners seeming to be the ones with the most fear. Truthfully, if there were less guns, there'd be less fear. The main thing people are afraid of is other people running around shooting guns!


I have a healthy respect for violence in general.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



Our crime rate is going down, and more guns are being sold every day.

My country has plenty of violent crime to spread around. Each individual is responsible for his/her own safety. No government, police or Guardian Angel is going to save you from a violent attack, robbery etc.

chit happens

Ahso!;1417541 wrote: Do you really think everyone is a gullible as you?


Only delusional if I expect you to actually read my post and follow the link supplied.

So once again I 'll play your game.

FBI

Ahso!;1417541 wrote: First - lets have a link. That's your first lesson.

Second - since you want to narrow gun violence down to rifles then let's narrow hammers down to drywall hammers.

Third - now go get those statistics and then make your argument.


They were there all along. Gets tiresome having to hold your hand.

tude dog;1417544 wrote: Only delusional if I expect you to actually read my post and follow the link supplied.

So once again I 'll play your game.

FBI



They were there all along. Gets tiresome having to hold your hand.You're right, I did miss the link.

Now let's move on to #2 - since you want to only use rifles, I want to only use drywall hammers. How many drywall hammer murders were there. REMEMBER - DRYWALL HAMMERS ONLY!

Otherwise the argument stands as murders by ALL firearms and ALL hammers. Okay? Ready? Set? Fetch!

Ahso!;1417545 wrote: You're right, I did miss the link.

Now let's move on to #2 - since you want to only use rifles, I want to only use drywall hammers. How many drywall hammer murders were there. REMEMBER - DRYWALL HAMMERS ONLY!

Otherwise the argument stands as murders by ALL firearms and ALL hammers. Okay? Ready? Set? Fetch!


I am addressing the push for another assault weapons ban. You want to change the subject, go ahead, have fun.

tude dog;1417553 wrote: I am addressing the push for another assault weapons ban. You want to change the subject, go ahead, have fun.TaTa Tuddy-Fruity. You made a statement that there are more homicides by use of hammers than with rifles. You didn't want to include all guns so I'm not including all hammers. That's only fair. So what is the homicide rate with the use of drywall hammers only? Fetch!

AnneBoleyn;1417531 wrote: In the sixties it was said to people like me: America, Love It or Leave It. No. You stay, you work for what you want. You (& I use You generally) have rights too, you have opinions too, you are Americans too.

I am not afraid of gun violence the same as I was not afraid hiding under the desk from the Soviets in elementary school. Some things are too big, too dependant on the chaos theory to spend your life in fear of them.


Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahso!;1417554 wrote: TaTa Tuddy-Fruity. You made a statement that there are more homicides by use of hammers than with rifles. You didn't want to include all guns so I'm not including all hammers. That's only fair. So what is the homicide rate with the use of drywall hammers only? Fetch!


naw

I think I have been clear enough. You want a different topic, go for it.

Running away again? No wonder you think you need a gun, you don't handle relationships very well, do you.

Ahso!;1417570 wrote: Running away again? No wonder you think you need a gun, you don't handle relationships very well, do you.


Not going anywhere. I don't care to comment on your new subject.

tude dog;1417543 wrote: I have a healthy respect for violence in general.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



Our crime rate is going down, and more guns are being sold every day.

My country has plenty of violent crime to spread around. Each individual is responsible for his/her own safety. No government, police or Guardian Angel is going to save you from a violent attack, robbery etc.

chit happens


Maybe it's a case of how you count your statistics - what you class as "violent crime".

I have, in my life, twice been the victim of "violent crime" of the type included in the statistics - I've twice been thumped by a drunk in a pub. Do you imagine that South Africa include cases of common assault in their figures?

Going to the Office of National Statistics and working the latest figures from their site (I find it so much more accurate than the Daily Mail) the figure for 2011 comes out at 1395 / 100K of which half are "without injury" and the result of "3. Includes threat or conspiracy to murder, harassment, possession of weapons, other offences against children and assault without injury (formerly common assault where there is no injury)."

I've lived in one of the more deprived areas of the UK :-

What's going for it? There was a time, not so long ago, when the very mention of the words "Moss" and "Side" in one sentence could chill the blood. This was Manchester's Southside, a place where lurked monsters, where the police and ambulance sirens were the nearest you got to birdsong. I'm not going to say everything's ended up happy ever after, but it's definitely changed for the better. Memories linger, of course, of the 1981 riots, of all the gang-related deaths, and you always get some dolt – Chris Grayling, I'm looking at you – demonising the place. But so much energy has been poured into the area, it's a shadow of what it was 20 years ago.


Let's move to Moss Side, Manchester | Money | The Guardian

and I currently live in one of the rougher areas of inner city London. I have never been afraid to walk the streets anywhere in the UK - can you say the same of the US?

I currently live in one of the rougher areas of inner city London. I have never been afraid to walk the streets anywhere in the UK - can you say the same of the US?




Watta nutts?

You take your risks in your in your town, that is up to you.

tude dog;1418058 wrote: Watta nutts?

You take your risks in your in your town, that is up to you.


I am totally risk averse - walking the streets in the UK is not risky - can you say the same in the US?

tude dog;1418058 wrote: Watta nutts?

You take your risks in your in your town, that is up to you.


Bryn Mawr;1418060 wrote: I am totally risk averse - walking the streets in the UK is not risky - can you say the same in the US?


I can.

I have walked around a lot of neighborhoods that were deemed "dangerous".

The only time I was ever robbed was back in my days of delivering Pizza. And that was at an Ivy League College Campus.

LarsMac;1418064 wrote: I can.

I have walked around a lot of neighborhoods that were deemed "dangerous".

The only time I was ever robbed was back in my days of delivering Pizza. And that was at an Ivy League College Campus.


and glad I am to hear it too.

It's not the impression we get from this side of the pond but then, it's difficult to know on the basis of news reports

Bryn Mawr;1418060 wrote: I am totally risk averse - walking the streets in the UK is not risky - can you say the same in the US?


Good for you.

tude dog;1418076 wrote: Good for you.


You have a funnny way of answering questions :wah:

tude dog;1417543 wrote: I have a healthy respect for violence in general.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.



Our crime rate is going down, and more guns are being sold every day.

My country has plenty of violent crime to spread around. Each individual is responsible for his/her own safety. No government, police or Guardian Angel is going to save you from a violent attack, robbery etc.

chit happens


Rather depends on what you class as a violent crime - punching somebody is classed as assault and is recorded as a violent crime if you are lifted for it.



Why do americans feel this need to compare yourselves with the UK? Stop it we are in a league of our own. many envy us, many have copied us few can come close to matching us. You are not british learn to accept your fate and stop feeling sorry for yourselves. Please don't tell us we are oppressed and living in terror of violent crime because we can't bear arms it's irritating and a load of bollocks



How many schoolchildren have been killed in the UK by a nutter wielding a gun in the last twenty years? it may surprise you to know that the number is less than the US has had in the last six months.

The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.


China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children




BBC News - China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children

Do you still seriously think a knife is as dangerous as someone with a weapon like an ar-15? Mind you if you want to be pedantic a knife can be an assault weapon as well. The article you posted plays with semantics, just because it wasn't a fully automatic weapon makes it ok? 45-60 rounds a minute is still an awful lot of bullets. I doubt anyone fired at by an ak47 is going to be counting the bullets to see if it is the assault rifle or a semi-automatic version and I also doubt any of the kids in sandy hook would have appreciated the difference. Good news you child wasn't killed with an assault rifle just doesn't seem to hack it.

Bryn Mawr;1418078 wrote: You have a funnny way of answering questions :wah:


Golly I sure didn't

So the answer is

NO !

tude dog;1418084 wrote: Golly I sure didn't

So the answer is

NO !


The stop trying to make Britain out to be a hotbed of violence!

Bryn Mawr;1418086 wrote: The stop trying to make Britain out to be a hotbed of violence!


I didn't make up the stats.

tude dog;1418091 wrote: I didn't make up the stats.


Be wary of statistics. The average man in America has less than two legs. That is a true fact but does it tell you anything useful? The daily mail is a right wing tory rag that rabbits on about the moral decline of society while carrying endless articles that are basically look at the tits on this and isn't her skirt a bit short.