National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[Chicog]

It would seem Piers gets the protection of the First Amendment so he can stay and try to destroy the Second Amendment. Freedom of the press and all that.

Here's a little snip from the next night's Piers Morgan show where they discuss action that should be taken against Alex Jones. Nothing hypocritical on Pier's show, is there.

The interesting part is at 1:00 of the YouTube.

I think it's called sarcasm, Chuck.

Personally, based on his insane howling on Morgan's show, I'd be sending the men in white coats to put Alex in a padded room before he harms himself or others. He's paranoid and delusional.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Scott

[chuckd]

It would seem Piers gets the protection of the First Amendment so he can stay and try to destroy the Second Amendment. Freedom of the press and all that.

Here's a little snip from the next night's Piers Morgan show where they discuss action that should be taken against Alex Jones. Nothing hypocritical on Pier's show, is there.

The interesting part is at 1:00 of the YouTube.

I think it's called sarcasm, Chuck.

Personally, based on his insane howling on Morgan's show, I'd be sending the men in white coats to put Alex in a padded room before he harms himself or others. He's paranoid and delusional.

If it is hiding behind the veil of sarcasm, is it acceptable to suggest the killing of another human?

I never have liked Alex Jones either but have never advocated killing him. I also believe Piers Morgan is a waste of skin but I would never advocate killing him either.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

Oscar Wilde

[Chicog]

It would seem Piers gets the protection of the First Amendment so he can stay and try to destroy the Second Amendment. Freedom of the press and all that.

Here's a little snip from the next night's Piers Morgan show where they discuss action that should be taken against Alex Jones. Nothing hypocritical on Pier's show, is there.

The interesting part is at 1:00 of the YouTube.

I think it's called sarcasm, Chuck.

Personally, based on his insane howling on Morgan's show, I'd be sending the men in white coats to put Alex in a padded room before he harms himself or others. He's paranoid and delusional.

If it is hiding behind the veil of sarcasm, is it acceptable to suggest the killing of another human?

I never have liked Alex Jones either but have never advocated killing him. I also believe Piers Morgan is a waste of skin but I would never advocate killing him either.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

Oscar Wilde

I didn't think it was particularly funny, but neither do I think it was "discussing action to be taken" unless you choose to try and make that interpretation.

I don't think it was acceptable for Romney's son to say he wanted to take a swing at Obama, but I don't think anyone took that seriously, either.

It's getting away from the real issue which is what really would help make America's children safer. I posted this earlier but the graph was too big, but if you look at this link you'll see that the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban seem to have had a profound effect on gun deaths, so perhaps reintroducing those would be a good step?

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/graphicsmatter/americanpopulationfirearmsdeaths.png

[DocN]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

Alex was on the show for one reason. The station his show is on is an affiliate of time warner. He is not an independent broadcaster. Alex is as much a part of the same system as Piers Morgan. When you think in terms of association, Alex is to Warner as Glenn Beck is to Fox. He fulfills a purpose, and attracts a fringe audience, an audience that pays subscription fees to GCN (via prisonplanet.tv). So Alex was on the show because he is a 'TV', presenter. He's like a specialist reporter, a TV personality and an agent provocateur all rolled into one.

Jones is a nut-job and a conspiracy theorist.

He belongs into one box with Beck and Limbaugh.

Morgan is only a pretentious word-beginning- with -the-letter- "C"...

But in this case, my sympathies are with the Brit!

Edited January 10, 2013 by Scott

[Chicog]

If Alex Jones is a true representation of your typical American gun owner then I'm extremely worried!

Alex was on the show for one reason. The station his show is on is an affiliate of time warner. He is not an independent broadcaster. Alex is as much a part of the same system as Piers Morgan. When you think in terms of association, Alex is to Warner as Glenn Beck is to Fox. He fulfills a purpose, and attracts a fringe audience, an audience that pays subscription fees to GCN (via prisonplanet.tv). So Alex was on the show because he is a 'TV', presenter. He's like a specialist reporter, a TV personality and an agent provocateur all rolled into one.

Jones is a nut-job and a conspiracy theorist.

He belongs into one box with Beck and Limbaugh.

Morgan is only a pretentious word-beginning- with -the-letter- "C"...

But in this case, my sympathies are with the Brit!

I think he played it perfectly. Jones was continually evasive at answering questions, and his fake bluster must have fooled only his diehard supporters. He was crowing about it "putting him down" on his show yesterday (I listen to it quite often, it's a hoot what this bloke comes out with).

[chuckd]

If it is hiding behind the veil of sarcasm, is it acceptable to suggest the killing of another human?

I never have liked Alex Jones either but have never advocated killing him. I also believe Piers Morgan is a waste of skin but I would never advocate killing him either.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

Oscar Wilde

I didn't think it was particularly funny, but neither do I think it was "discussing action to be taken" unless you choose to try and make that interpretation.

I don't think it was acceptable for Romney's son to say he wanted to take a swing at Obama, but I don't think anyone took that seriously, either.

It's getting away from the real issue which is what really would help make America's children safer. I posted this earlier but the graph was too big, but if you look at this link you'll see that the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban seem to have had a profound effect on gun deaths, so perhaps reintroducing those would be a good step?

http://www.wallsofth...earmsdeaths.png

I also posted a link that directs you to an FBI Crime report stating hammers and blunt instruments have killed more people in the past six years than rifles (aka assault weapons or long guns).

Romney's son advocating slapping Obama around is a far cry from some guest of Piers Morgan's suggesting he take an assault weapon and "pop" Mr. Jones.

What would really make the children safer is to strengthen medical care for some seriously disturbed citizens. Nearly all of the recent mass shooters have been either on medication or just coming off medication for psychiatric issues.

That is where the problem lies...not with the inanimate object called a gun.

[DocN]

If it is hiding behind the veil of sarcasm, is it acceptable to suggest the killing of another human?

I never have liked Alex Jones either but have never advocated killing him. I also believe Piers Morgan is a waste of skin but I would never advocate killing him either.

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."

Oscar Wilde

I didn't think it was particularly funny, but neither do I think it was "discussing action to be taken" unless you choose to try and make that interpretation.

I don't think it was acceptable for Romney's son to say he wanted to take a swing at Obama, but I don't think anyone took that seriously, either.

It's getting away from the real issue which is what really would help make America's children safer. I posted this earlier but the graph was too big, but if you look at this link you'll see that the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban seem to have had a profound effect on gun deaths, so perhaps reintroducing those would be a good step?

http://www.wallsofth...earmsdeaths.png

I also posted a link that directs you to an FBI Crime report stating hammers and blunt instruments have killed more people in the past six years than rifles (aka assault weapons or long guns).

Romney's son advocating slapping Obama around is a far cry from some guest of Piers Morgan's suggesting he take an assault weapon and "pop" Mr. Jones.

What would really make the children safer is to strengthen medical care for some seriously disturbed citizens. Nearly all of the recent mass shooters have been either on medication or just coming off medication for psychiatric issues.

That is where the problem lies...not with the inanimate object called a gun.

Chuck...FINALLY!

The paragraph about healthcare is one of the few things we actually agree upon.

Of course I am talking about a free and universal healthcare, that Obama wants (I know...the old commie!) and you (and I assume this, judging by your general stance on politics) are for something totally different, but ...hey...it's a start!

Unfortunately your comparrisson hammer/gun doesn't hold any water (again).

Letting aside the fact that a hammer is a tool to hit a nail with and you can misuse almost anything as a weapon as you want and a gun can also be used to hit a nail with (make sure it is not loaded, if you try) but is ultimately exactly doing what it is for, if it kills someone...of how many masshammerings in elementary schools or cinemas or malls or High- Schools have you heard? And how many firemen where lured into a trap and then attacked with a baseball- bat or a vase?

And please: Morgan is a c#[email protected] Jones is still a wack- job!

No reason for Morgan to say something that stupid and inhumane, but....he is an idiot!

[Scott]

Expressing your opinion on health care will be permitted, however, arguing about health care will not. Let's stick to the topic.

[marstons]

Armed guards in schools? I didn't really like the sound of that the first few times I heard it.

I wouldn't want any local volunteers that's for sure.

I wouldn't want to require teachers to be trained and carry guns.

I wouldn't want trained teachers wearing a holster walking down the halls.

I wouldn't want a teacher to keep their gun locked in their desk drawer (easy to break into)

We have school psychiatrists and school nurses sitting in an office most the day collecting a paycheck,...I wouldn't have a problem adding another desk for a security guard-type. A type like that retired police woman who worked security at that church where a madman walked in shooting. She put a quick end to that.

CNN just had a graphic showing there are over 130,000 schools in the USA (that probably sounds like a lot to everyone else with the exception of the Indians and Chinese). Each of those schools is in a community with many retired law enforcement officers around. I like the odds taking the retired professional over a young nut with a gun. Just need to make sure they aren't crazy either.

If the young nut has a couple of assualt rifles with knowlede of where the old cop is and probably not armed as well weapon wise cant see it doing much. the young nut will have planned his attack the old cop will be taken by suprise, he/she would just be another casualty. Just watched a programme where bullet proof school bags are selling like crazy, as if thats going to help. The mentality is not within the populas to accept not being armed to the teeth, so just like the ather night 2 volunteer fire fighters were shot and killed and 2 wounded by another nut. Edited January 10, 2013 by marstons

[Chicog]

I also posted a link that directs you to an FBI Crime report stating hammers and blunt instruments have killed more people in the past six years than rifles (aka assault weapons or long guns).

But this thread is not about hammers and blunt instruments, nor do I remember any of those being used in a mass killing. We are talking about guns, so why do you keep drifting off topic to try and prove a point (which I believe is irrelevant anyway, although I do agree that they need to do more in managing mental illness and emotional disturbance).

The issue is reducing gun deaths in this thread, is it not? The NRA are proposing more guns, and in schools at that. I've posted what seems to be credible evidence that two tangible pieces of legislation reduced gun deaths.

Are you saying that the graph is wrong, or that you think there is no link between those two bills and the decline in gun deaths? And the subsequent rise since they've lapsed or been repealed (not sure which is the case)?

[Sing_Sling]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

[koheesti]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

[koheesti]

I'm not sure if this link has already been posted or not but since it is actually on topic, here you go...

Ex-SEAL one-ups NRA wth tougher, safer plan

"You have to create a first line of defense," he said. That, he said, should include training teachers and school officials how to react to an attack. Then schools should install ballistic doors with magnetic locks, put Kevlar blankets in every school room and even put Kevlar sheeting on desks for kids and teachers to hide behind.

"You want to have a way to let teachers and principals buy time for the cops to arrive and deal with the active shooter," he said.

Also, teachers should receive a TASER, with training, to shock an attacker. "It's easy to use and very effective," said McClellan.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ex-seal-one-ups-nra-wth-tougher-safer-plan/article/2516780?utm_campaign=obinsite#.UO_tjG932So

[DocN]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

So...how did the kid that was bullied get the guns?

We all had bullies in school and kids there were bullied...but no one pulled a gun out!

We had a fight, a letter home, parents talk with the principal...THE END

In the USA, kids stand up against bullies...with guns, they got...where?

Legally bought by their parents or grandparents, to guard their home but unable to be stored in a responsible manor!

Again: no guns- no shooting!

Maybe the kid would have taken a baseball bat...which is much easier to remove from it and puts no one in mortal danger PER SE!

[Sing_Sling]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

Take away access to guns and no-one would have been shot

[koheesti]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

Take away access to guns and no-one would have been shot

More bumper sticker wisdom that, unfortunately, is not true. The only one you can take guns away from are law-abiding citizens. This will lead to overall more gun crime than before. The stats and facts back that up.

Edited January 11, 2013 by koheesti

[FDog]

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

Take away access to guns and no-one would have been shot

More bumper sticker wisdom that, unfortunately, is not true. The only one you can take guns away from are law-abiding citizens. This will lead to overall more gun crime than before. The stats and facts back that up.

[Farma]

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=business

[Chicog]

As I have posted in the other thread, the Brady bill and the Assault weapons ban led to a significant decline in gun deaths in America. And still I don't see a logical argument against resurrecting them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

[Sing_Sling]

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

Take away access to guns and no-one would have been shot

More bumper sticker wisdom that, unfortunately, is not true. The only one you can take guns away from are law-abiding citizens. This will lead to overall more gun crime than before. The stats and facts back that up.

Precious, isn't it Edited January 12, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Samuimike1]

US Children under drugs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1VzKb7IUGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[beechguy]

As I have posted in the other thread, the Brady bill and the Assault weapons ban led to a significant decline in gun deaths in America. And still I don't see a logical argument against resurrecting them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

The assault weapons ban has been expired for a while, and was also shown to be ineffective anyway. But, if you believe otherwise, why has rifle deaths continued to decline without a ban? Also, I still haven't seen anybody mention anything that is going to stop the gangbanger/drug dealer, etc from getting a weapon. Do you guys really think they are going down to wal-mart or the sporting good store to buy guns? I doubt those guys are even going to gun shows, too many are buying out of the trunk of a car.

Some of the posts remind me of something Piers Morgan would say, ranting about gun control, but no real clue as to what the real problems are, that's why he is looked on as a joke.

Edited January 12, 2013 by beechguy

[Chicog]

As I have posted in the other thread, the Brady bill and the Assault weapons ban led to a significant decline in gun deaths in America. And still I don't see a logical argument against resurrecting them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

The assault weapons ban has been expired for a while, and was also shown to be ineffective anyway.

Unfortunately I can't post the graph here, but if you open this link it suggests otherwise.

http://idigitalcitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/americanpopulationfirearmsdeaths2009-3.jpg

However, if you have evidence showing that the Assault Weapons ban was "ineffective", please post it.

[beechguy]

As I have posted in the other thread, the Brady bill and the Assault weapons ban led to a significant decline in gun deaths in America. And still I don't see a logical argument against resurrecting them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

The assault weapons ban has been expired for a while, and was also shown to be ineffective anyway.

Unfortunately I can't post the graph here, but if you open this link it suggests otherwise.

http://idigitalcitiz...eaths2009-3.jpg

However, if you have evidence showing that the Assault Weapons ban was "ineffective", please post it.

I already have previously, but you guys are too busy trying to impress people with how smart you are, you couldn't be bothered to read it. Have a look at FBI statisics on homicides. Less than 400 people have been killed with rifles each of the past few years, and that's all rifles. While your at it, how about looking up crime information on Chicago, and a few other major cities, and see who many of the victims are.

At any rate, an assault rifle isn't a requirement for a mass shooting, ask the people at the Sikh Temple, Virginia Tech, or Phoenix.

Edited January 12, 2013 by beechguy

[DocN]

As I have posted in the other thread, the Brady bill and the Assault weapons ban led to a significant decline in gun deaths in America. And still I don't see a logical argument against resurrecting them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

The assault weapons ban has been expired for a while, and was also shown to be ineffective anyway.

Unfortunately I can't post the graph here, but if you open this link it suggests otherwise.

http://idigitalcitiz...eaths2009-3.jpg

However, if you have evidence showing that the Assault Weapons ban was "ineffective", please post it.

I already have previously, but you guys are too busy trying to impress people with how smart you are, you couldn't be bothered to read it. Have a look at FBI statisics on homicides. Less than 400 people have been killed with rifles the past few years, and that's all rifles. While your at it, how about looking up crime information on Chicago, and a few other major cities.

At any rate, an asault rifle isn't a requirement for a mass shooting, ask the people at the Sikh Temple, Virginia Tech, or Phoenix.

...and I said before, that it is very interesting and would be even more, if you point out, how many were killed at one time...in one spot. You know...like...let's say Sandy Hook, 26 persons...etc.

[beechguy]

How about 32 killed, 17 injured at Virginia Tech, 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Not as successful, but 6 killed, 13 wounded at Phoenix, 9mm handgun. 6 killed, Sikh Temple shooting, 9mm handgun. Easy enough to search and verify if you can be bothered.

Chicog, here is a chart from the FBI, I'll just go by that one thanks. I think there is another chart for the 5 years previous to this one, but I doubt you would be bothered to look at that one either. http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

Not the same category, but I think worth mentioning, the Columbine shooters didn't use the popularly bitched about,

AR-15 type rifles with .223 ammo, they used 9mm based weapons, and shotguns, 12 killed, 21 wounded.

Edited January 12, 2013 by beechguy

[DocN]

How about 32 killed, 17 injured at Virginia Tech, 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Not as successful, but 6 killed, 13 wounded at Phoenix, 9mm handgun. 6 killed, Sikh Temple shooting, 9mm handgun. Easy enough to search and verify if you can be bothered.

Chicog, here is a chart from the FBI, I'll just go by that one thanks. I think there is another chart for the 5 years previous to this one, but I doubt you would be bothered to look at that one either. http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

Not the same category, but I think worth mentioning, the Columbine shooters didn't use the popularly bitched about,

AR-15 type rifles with .223 ammo, they used 9mm based weapons, and shotguns, 12 killed, 21 wounded.

I don't need to be bothered as I KNOW THAT!

My point is, he makes it sound like "oh yeah...400 casualties in three years...not much at all" because statistically it means an average of 0,4 deads per day. But if you read 20 in one go here, 8 in one go here (not as successfull, as you call it)...it tells a different story!

[beechguy]

How about 32 killed, 17 injured at Virginia Tech, 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Not as successful, but 6 killed, 13 wounded at Phoenix, 9mm handgun. 6 killed, Sikh Temple shooting, 9mm handgun. Easy enough to search and verify if you can be bothered.

Chicog, here is a chart from the FBI, I'll just go by that one thanks. I think there is another chart for the 5 years previous to this one, but I doubt you would be bothered to look at that one either. http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

Not the same category, but I think worth mentioning, the Columbine shooters didn't use the popularly bitched about,

AR-15 type rifles with .223 ammo, they used 9mm based weapons, and shotguns, 12 killed, 21 wounded.

I don't need to be bothered as I KNOW THAT!

My point is, he makes it sound like "oh yeah...400 casualties in three years...not much at all" because statistically it means an average of 0,4 deads per day. But if you read 20 in one go here, 8 in one go here (not as successfull, as you call it)...it tells a different story!

Yes, somewhat easier to have fake moral indignation over a dramatic headline than the everyday reality of a handful getting shot. In 2012, 513 people where killed in Chicago alone, many of them black, and I would suppose it would appear racial except for one problem, the shooters were also black. Also, not uncommon, is that many were with stolen weapons, and the incidents gang/drug related, that's why I suggested looking at other cities. If you, and others were really so upset over the loss of life, you would quit focusing on Billy Bob the NRA/deer hunter, and pay attention to the real criminals causing so much carnage.

[DocN]

How about 32 killed, 17 injured at Virginia Tech, 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Not as successful, but 6 killed, 13 wounded at Phoenix, 9mm handgun. 6 killed, Sikh Temple shooting, 9mm handgun. Easy enough to search and verify if you can be bothered.

Chicog, here is a chart from the FBI, I'll just go by that one thanks. I think there is another chart for the 5 years previous to this one, but I doubt you would be bothered to look at that one either. http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

Not the same category, but I think worth mentioning, the Columbine shooters didn't use the popularly bitched about,

AR-15 type rifles with .223 ammo, they used 9mm based weapons, and shotguns, 12 killed, 21 wounded.

I don't need to be bothered as I KNOW THAT!

My point is, he makes it sound like "oh yeah...400 casualties in three years...not much at all" because statistically it means an average of 0,4 deads per day. But if you read 20 in one go here, 8 in one go here (not as successfull, as you call it)...it tells a different story!

Yes, somewhat easier to have fake moral indignation over a dramatic headline than the everyday reality of a handful getting shot. In 2012, 513 people where killed in Chicago alone, many of them black, and I would suppose it would appear racial except for one problem, the shooters were also black. Also, not uncommon, is that many were with stolen weapons, and the incidents gang/drug related, that's why I suggested looking at other cities. If you, and others were really so upset over the loss of life, you would quit focusing on Billy Bob the NRA/deer hunter, and pay attention to the real criminals causing so much carnage.

Domestic violence, gang violence, armed robbery and the likes are real, happening on a daily basis and are BAD! Bad as in "shouldn't happen"! But they do happen! Everywhere, not only in the USA. Unfortunately we are not living in a perfect world.

What separates the USA from other nations (at least many of them and especially so called "developed" nations...and I guess, that is what the USA should be compared with...not Columbia, Somalia and Outer Mongolia) is the repeated occurance of mass- shootings. Especially by ( I shorten it) mental -cases, who break into high- schools with weapons they "stole" from mommy or granddad and decide to ,mow down some innocent students, movie- lovers, shoppers or firemen.

Don't get me wrong: every gun- victim is one too many. But 513 gun victims in Chicago happen UNFORTUNATELY almost daily but are still single standing cases! Again: bad! Very bad!

But there is a difference between "normal" crime in a melting- pot like Chicago or New York and mass- shootings in Santa Elsewhere, where 20 people are being taken out in one blow.

Even you should see that!

[F430murci]

Drops in crime are related to a litany of factors. NRA trying to attribute drops in crimes related to increaes in gun sales is comical. Even more comical that anyone would buy into that theory.

Crime rates correlate to many factors including better enforcement of laws, stricter laws on drug violations with mandatory sentencing guidelines, better investigative technology (criminals pretty much know that cannot get away with crap) and decreases in crack epidemic in some key locals.

Give credit where credit is due. Lots of hard working cops, prosecutors, politicians and judiciary making strides to be tough on crime. Knowing you will get caught and lose your freedom is biggest deterrent on commission of crimes.

Experience is a much better teacher than television or media so not sure how someone who has been away from US for many years and educated primarily by long distance media sources could have an accurate feel for what it us truly like here in the streets and in the criminal justice system.

Problem with NRA theory, besides ignoring other factors, is that we do not have any control groups to use as a bench mark. Perhaps other factors are driving crime lower and crimes would be 1000 percent lower over same time period had a gun ban been in place.

Edited January 12, 2013 by F430murci