California gunman 'was filmmaker Peter Rodger's son'

[PHP87]

And I saw one about some pissed off schoolkids who wreak havoc. I can't remember if it was St. Elmo's Fire or Bowling for Columbine.

You missed the point by a mile.

If you want other examples than Nazi Germany, look to other countries that slaughtered their own people and you'll see that one of the first things they did was take away the guns.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ohhhhhh! But that will never happen here! No, not as long as there are well over 100 Million armed citizens in the US it won't.

[BadBouy]

He also stabbed some people to death and purposely ran some over with his car. This can't all be blamed on guns.

Oh there you go. It's not guns that are the problem it's knives and cars. I'll lay odds the gun was used first. When will Americans wake up to the simple fact that a single shot rifle is for hunting, shotguns are for bird hunting an skeet, an automatic rifle is for mowing down people, and a handgun is for close quarter killing, Why, why, why does any body need or have the right to buy a handgun or an automatic rifle? Maybe it's because the USA is a sick society.

I'm curious, what does it matter in which order things were used?

[PHP87]

Once again.

When one of these hot house flowers that wasn't able to bloom in the day suddenly loads up his guns and blooms in the night . . . . . look to SSRI's.

Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft just to name a few.

Or don't.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit. . . . "

I thought SSRI's were meant to provide mental stability?

They probably DO, for a while, *for*a*while*

In much the same way as opium did for a while

and then phenobarbital did

for a while

and then diazepam did

for a while.

Those little helpers replaced one another. We became addicted to them the way we have become addicted to "progress" in science and "growth" in economics.

SSRI's are a huge profit centre for their manufacturers.

As with ALL psychotropics there is a crash and burn scenario.

These SSRI's are behind all these shootings.

You gun people ought to do some research on this stuff.

Google is your little buddy.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Nearly all of this spree shooter's are on some type of drug like Adderall, Ritalin or some type of Anti-Depressant.

How many of them are NOT on these drugs?

What has changed in the last 20 years or so when these types of crimes were unheard of?

I remember in High School, we used to bring long guns to school so we could hunt before and after school and no one would bat an eye. Nowadays, the hysteria in schools is so over the edge that you can't even point your finger and say "bang" without getting suspended. Pure idiocy.

Guns, including "Automatic Weapons" (LOL) have been around for over 100 years. Guns aren't the issue. The issue is, what has happened to society in the last 20 or so years?

The answer is likely in the post above.

But for the intellectually lazy, it's much easier to blame guns than to do any critical thinking and research.

Edited May 25, 2014 by PHP87

[englishoak]

Another bratt who thought the world owed him something. Unfortunately there are far too many that think like that.

As to the guns debate, its true guns dont kill people ...But unfortunately when you let people have access to firearms some will happily make use of them to kill others just to get noticed. .

The US does have a problem and it spends far too much time sensationalising these incidents instead of really looking as to why its on the increase, it glorifies these idiots in a way that gives other idiots an idea to check out in a blaze of misconstrued glory instead taking an overdose or something .........

I sometimes wonder if these rage attacks were made as little of as possible in the press and them forgotten rather than made infamous, then maybe others wouldnt think hey thats a great idea ... go blame and hurt others for their own life problems and go down in history albeit for something tragic... id rather they were consigned to the forgotten pages of history and name erased.

PS violent crime in the UK has been going down for the past 10 years not up

Edited May 25, 2014 by englishoak

[EyesWideOpen]

Another bratt who thought the world owed him something. Unfortunately there are far too many that think like that.

As to the guns debate, its true guns dont kill people ...But unfortunately when you let people have access to firearms some will happily make use of them to kill others just to get noticed. .

The US does have a problem and it spends far too much time sensationalising these incidents instead of really looking as to why its on the increase, it glorifies these idiots in a way that gives other idiots an idea to check out in a blaze of misconstrued glory instead taking an overdose or something .........

I sometimes wonder if these rage attacks were made as little of as possible in the press and them forgotten rather than made infamous, then maybe others wouldnt think hey thats a great idea ... go blame and hurt others for their own life problems and go down in history albeit for something tragic... id rather they were consigned to the forgotten pages of history and name erased.

PS violent crime in the UK has been going down for the past 10 years not up

"The US does have a problem......." Here let me help you out. The country I assume you are currently living in,

Thailand, has the third highest gun murder rate in the world. In fact it is 33 per 100,000 people. The rate in America is......wait for it....... 3.6 per 100,000. So where is the problem again ???????

For America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

For Thailand

http://www.thaiskale.com/journal/homicide-and-gun-firearm-violence-in-thailand-world-ranking-crime-statistics/

[NeverSure]

Another bratt who thought the world owed him something. Unfortunately there are far too many that think like that.

As to the guns debate, its true guns dont kill people ...But unfortunately when you let people have access to firearms some will happily make use of them to kill others just to get noticed. .

The US does have a problem and it spends far too much time sensationalising these incidents instead of really looking as to why its on the increase, it glorifies these idiots in a way that gives other idiots an idea to check out in a blaze of misconstrued glory instead taking an overdose or something .........

I sometimes wonder if these rage attacks were made as little of as possible in the press and them forgotten rather than made infamous, then maybe others wouldnt think hey thats a great idea ... go blame and hurt others for their own life problems and go down in history albeit for something tragic... id rather they were consigned to the forgotten pages of history and name erased.

PS violent crime in the UK has been going down for the past 10 years not up

PS Violent crime has dropped by 50% per capita in the US in the past 20 years. Link to the FBI official web site.

OH NO!!!! That doesn't fit the ignorant prejudices of the libs from the nanny state countries.

But it's true.

[englishoak]

Guys Im well aware of Thailand's gun murder ranking, it really is on paper one of the most dangerous places to live and far more so than the US I agree, however its irrelevant to this thread.

I can only tell you violent crime really has been dropping in the UK in most areas for quite some time and gun crime has never been an issue there and certainly not since our stricter laws.

If you don't think theres a problem in the US thats up to you.... dosnt bother me any and im not interested in having a gun debate or testosterone competition thanks and do not care what laws re guns you end up making or dont there. Its you and your citizens lives and choice not mine.

still think these incidents deserve less not more exposure and the perpetrators names forgotten rather than emblazoned all over the media. impressionable young minds and all that

Edited May 25, 2014 by englishoak

[NeverSure]

Guys Im well aware of Thailand's gun murder ranking, it really is on paper one of the most dangerous places to live and far more so than the US I agree, however its irrelevant to this thread.

I can only tell you violent crime really has been dropping in the UK in most areas for quite some time and gun crime has never been an issue there and certainly not since our stricter laws.

If you don't think theres a problem in the US thats up to you.... dosnt bother me any and im not interested in having a gun debate or testosterone competition thanks and do not care what laws re guns you end up making or dont there. Its you and your citizens lives and choice not mine.

still think these incidents deserve less not more exposure and the perpetrators names forgotten rather than emblazoned all over the media. impressionable young minds and all that

Well, you have guys posting from Thailand where they have 10x the chance of being killed by a gun as they would in the US, blabbering on about things that make them look silly. Yes, the US has 5x the population of Thailand, meaning the world's 3rd largest population so there will be lots of everything, but per capita the numbers are statistically tiny.

I already posted a link to the official FBI web site showing that violent crime has dropped by 50% in the past 20 years in the US so it's making progress. But to listen to the loudest whiners you'd think it's crescendoing into a new epidemic.

I do agree that the shooters shouldn't be recognized and given their 15 minutes of fame. They should be deprived of it.

[englishoak]

No i dont think its an epidemic I think its more of the need there for the media to create fear and ratings and the state to capitalise on that. Keep them scared and role out more laws etc..

I still however think there is always more that can be done and im not necessarily talking about restricting guns so much as looking at whos on what when they do go off the rails, social issues, social trends, etc.

Anyways its always sad to hear of young lives being cut short for nothing more than being in the wrong building at the wrong time... so sad

[OMGImInPattaya]

my gaydar was flashing off the charts

Is a 'gaydar' like a perk on? and how does one get it to 'flash off the charts?"

All I saw was some spoiled brat who had had shit parents who then have the nerve to blame other people for their poor parent skills

If you're not a "friend of Dorothy," then you won't understand. In your world, it's not as you say like a "perk" but more like "it takes one to know one."

[NeverSure]

No i dont think its an epidemic I think its more of the need there for the media to create fear and ratings and the state to capitalise on that. Keep them scared and role out more laws etc..

I still however think there is always more that can be done and im not necessarily talking about restricting guns so much as looking at whos on what when they do go off the rails, social issues, social trends, etc.

Anyways its always sad to hear of young lives being cut short for nothing more than being in the wrong building at the wrong time... so sad

I agree with you. The US already has laws restricting gun ownership from the mentally ill. Ditto for convicted criminals and some others.

It is already the law that a doctor must report a patient who is thought to be a danger to himself or others to the police. Perhaps requiring reporting anyone who goes on some of these meds would work if that person had to give up his guns. I too am suspicious that they cause some people to go crazy.

The fact remains that violent crime is down 50% in the US in the past 20 years, but listen to the whiners and you'd think it's at record highs.

Also, it isn't true that just anyone can own a gun in the US. Get a drug bust for instance and you're all finished.

I'm just not willing to give up my freedoms because of the actions of the statistically tiny few.

[neverdie]

Right, so the family knew he was a nut-case but he still has access to a semi-automatic. Oh wait, this is the US where any moron can get their hands on a gun.

Even you?

Would you be happier if he had used a Revolver?

Semi-auto = one round fired per trigger pull, just like a revolver.

But "Semi-Automatic" sounds much scarier, especially to the ignorant.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

You mention the word, Ignorant ?

Sounds like you know a little bit about that.

I would much rather come up against someone armed with a revolver than a Semi-Auto hand gun. Firstly, many revolvers are only 6 shots (there are others available, but 6 being most common) whereas Semi Autos vary but nearly always have at least nearly 3 times this amount.

I use to carry a S&W revolver, it was terrible and after you fired 6 shots you were left in an awkward position reloading. Of course reloading strips made the job somewhat quicker, but it was still slow, tapping out, rounds not clearing and then it was either 1 in at a time, a speed strip going at it 2 in at a time or the circular strip which was a bit diddly but allowed for 6 to go in. Slow.

The Semi Auto, a different animal all together. My old Glock took 15 in the magazine and if you wanted you could rack it, remove the mag and place an extra round in....that gave me 16 shots, straight up. There was larger magazines available too. Reloads took a nano second, fast and efficient. It was powerful (.40 cal) and deadly accurate too. In a training exercise, I fired in excess of 100 rounds in a very short time, around two minutes and I could have possibly got through more and that was as I moved through a darkened warehouse, constantly moving, taking cover and firing. Standing behind cover and firing one of these beauties randomly into a crowd could easily go through more. For instinctive shooting, there's no comparison between the Semi Auto and the revolvers. I could easily arm myself with numerous magazines, you go from empty to full again in just a second or two. Even a complete retard can pull wayward shots In to become deadly, whereas the revolver only gives a relatively narrow window to do this.

Anyway, what would I know. I've been shot at, I've come up against the bad guy armed with numerous types of weapons and let me tell you, when I was called to jobs and told that an offender was armed with a Semi Automatic weapon, my blood use to run cold. Scarey......You betcha it's scarey.

[Chicog]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Chicog

[Gulfsailor]

Another bratt who thought the world owed him something. Unfortunately there are far too many that think like that.

As to the guns debate, its true guns dont kill people ...But unfortunately when you let people have access to firearms some will happily make use of them to kill others just to get noticed. .

The US does have a problem and it spends far too much time sensationalising these incidents instead of really looking as to why its on the increase, it glorifies these idiots in a way that gives other idiots an idea to check out in a blaze of misconstrued glory instead taking an overdose or something .........

I sometimes wonder if these rage attacks were made as little of as possible in the press and them forgotten rather than made infamous, then maybe others wouldnt think hey thats a great idea ... go blame and hurt others for their own life problems and go down in history albeit for something tragic... id rather they were consigned to the forgotten pages of history and name erased.

PS violent crime in the UK has been going down for the past 10 years not up

"The US does have a problem......." Here let me help you out. The country I assume you are currently living in,

Thailand, has the third highest gun murder rate in the world. In fact it is 33 per 100,000 people. The rate in America is......wait for it....... 3.6 per 100,000. So where is the problem again ???????

For America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

For Thailand

http://www.thaiskale.com/journal/homicide-and-gun-firearm-violence-in-thailand-world-ranking-crime-statistics/

The data you mention for Thailand comes from nationmaster. Has been debunked dozens of times on TVF already. They are listing all crimes relating to firearms (and that includes even illegal ownership or carried in wrong place) as gun homicides. Check the actual number of murders. That's around 3000 annually. How can over 20,000 of those 3,000 have been committed with a gun?

[chuckd]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

It isn't the alleged NRA money they are afraid of losing, it is their respective seats in both the House and the Senate they are afraid of losing.

In many/most states a vote for more gun controls is tantamount to slapping the faces of their constituents. Even Harry Reid (D-NV) isn't that stupid.

[Chicog]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

It isn't the alleged NRA money they are afraid of losing, it is their respective seats in both the House and the Senate they are afraid of losing.

In many/most states a vote for more gun controls is tantamount to slapping the faces of their constituents. Even Harry Reid (D-NV) isn't that stupid.

Which is it Chuck? Many? Or Most? They aren't all like Texas are they?

And I would suggest that in many cases the NRA money is a stick to some and a carrot to others.

[7by7]

Here in the UK I could go to my kitchen, select a knife and then stab someone.

I could then get into my car and run someone over.

What I could not do, unless I knew how to get a gun illegally, is then drive around shooting people at random.

In the US, I could do so easily as I could legally buy a gun from a private seller without any restrictions, including showing I.D.! (Source)

It is possible anywhere for anyone who knows how to illegally obtain a firearm; but it is a fact that the stricter a developed county's gun control, the fewer gun related deaths there are.

U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

When will the American gun lobby realise that the second amendment was a symptom of the times in which it was written.

The Revolutionary War is over. The Native Americans have all been killed or pacified and placed on reservations.

You don't need an armed citizen's militia anymore.

[Humberstone]

First - the victims of this crime should be remembered not the idiot who was responsible.

Now, I'm not going to go all preachy and try and understand US gun laws but one thing I cannot understand is how some posters have referenced the Jewish holocaust as a reason why an armed populace is a good thing? If so, this is absolutely absurd.

[Chicog]

Ironically I notice it's Texas that pays more heed to mental health and guns than most.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Scott]

<snipped>

It is possible anywhere for anyone who knows how to illegally obtain a firearm; but it is a fact that the stricter a developed county's gun control, the fewer gun related deaths there are.

U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

When will the American gun lobby realise that the second amendment was a symptom of the times in which it was written.

The Revolutionary War is over. The Native Americans have all been killed or pacified and placed on reservations.

You don't need an armed citizen's militia anymore.

It is slightly off-topic, but it seems that South Africa is a slight blip in that analysis.

[Ulysses G.]

Now, I'm not going to go all preachy and try and understand US gun laws but one thing I cannot understand is how some posters have referenced the Jewish holocaust as a reason why an armed populace is a good thing? If so, this is absolutely absurd.

I think that the point is that they would have not gone marching off to the gas chambers, if they had been armed. They did arm themselves and fight back, later in the war, but it was too late for most of them.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

<snipped>

It is possible anywhere for anyone who knows how to illegally obtain a firearm; but it is a fact that the stricter a developed county's gun control, the fewer gun related deaths there are.

U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

When will the American gun lobby realise that the second amendment was a symptom of the times in which it was written.

The Revolutionary War is over. The Native Americans have all been killed or pacified and placed on reservations.

You don't need an armed citizen's militia anymore.

It is slightly off-topic, but it seems that South Africa is a slight blip in that analysis.

Point taken, Scott. The gun death rate in South Africa is higher than that of the US; but it is falling.

How the Pistorius trial presents a skewed view of South African gun culture

The advocacy group Gun Free South Africa points out that gun-related deaths have actually decreased by nearly half between 1999 and 2009, largely due to the strict gun ownership laws that came into effect in 2000. Gun-related crime overall has dropped by 21.2 percent in the last decade.

A lesson there for the Americans?

[F430murci]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

It isn't the alleged NRA money they are afraid of losing, it is their respective seats in both the House and the Senate they are afraid of losing.

In many/most states a vote for more gun controls is tantamount to slapping the faces of their constituents. Even Harry Reid (D-NV) isn't that stupid.

Which is it Chuck? Many? Or Most? They aren't all like Texas are they?

And I would suggest that in many cases the NRA money is a stick to some and a carrot to others.

Chuck is correct. Completely about job security, not money. The NRA went after a Republican incumbent in my state a year ago when the Republican did not back a bill about allowing employees to have guns in workplace parking lot while working. The NRA lobbied hard against the Republican in the primaries and the Republican lost.

Edited May 26, 2014 by F430murci

[Johpa]

I think that the point is that they would have not gone marching off to the gas chambers, if they had been armed. They did arm themselves and fight back, later in the war, but it was too late for most of them.

Being armed to the teeth did not help the French. A far less lightly armed urban civilian population would have had absolutely no impact upon history.

And I would suggest that in many cases the NRA money is a stick to some and a carrot to others.

Guns and the NRA are neither the stick nor the carrot. Guns are one of the psychological hooks, one of those deep emotional issues that hook the soul. I suggest watching the full documentary "The Century of the Self" to begin to understand modern propaganda and mass psychology. Understand Edward Bernays and you begin to understand how the emotional issue of "gun rights" is used to divide and conquer the American masses, using the issue as just one of the hooks to to lead the people into voting against their own best economic issues. This issue was also explored in Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?". Note that the same people who go ballistic over any perceived infringement of their US Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights have little to say about arguably the more egregious recent violations of, say 4th Amendment rights regarding protections against unreasonable search and seizure, not to mention recent degradations to rights to demand writs of habeas corpus and laws against torture.

So yes, the rather lowly politicians might want the political contributions from the NRA, but the people who are really running the show could care less about any perceived "rights" of the people.

[Chicog]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

It isn't the alleged NRA money they are afraid of losing, it is their respective seats in both the House and the Senate they are afraid of losing.

In many/most states a vote for more gun controls is tantamount to slapping the faces of their constituents. Even Harry Reid (D-NV) isn't that stupid.

Which is it Chuck? Many? Or Most? They aren't all like Texas are they?

And I would suggest that in many cases the NRA money is a stick to some and a carrot to others.

Chuck is correct. Completely about job security, not money. The NRA went after a Republican incumbent in my state a year ago when the Republican did not back a bill about allowing employees to have guns in workplace parking lot while working. The NRA lobbied hard against the Republican in the primaries and the Republican lost.

Notice if you will that I did call it "campaign money"

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chuckd]

It isn't the alleged NRA money they are afraid of losing, it is their respective seats in both the House and the Senate they are afraid of losing.

In many/most states a vote for more gun controls is tantamount to slapping the faces of their constituents. Even Harry Reid (D-NV) isn't that stupid.

Which is it Chuck? Many? Or Most? They aren't all like Texas are they?

And I would suggest that in many cases the NRA money is a stick to some and a carrot to others.

Chuck is correct. Completely about job security, not money. The NRA went after a Republican incumbent in my state a year ago when the Republican did not back a bill about allowing employees to have guns in workplace parking lot while working. The NRA lobbied hard against the Republican in the primaries and the Republican lost.

Notice if you will that I did call it "campaign money"

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well, let's look at all that wonderful "campaign money" donated by the NRA to political candidates.

It must be up in the multi-millions for each election...right?

Wrong!

The National Rifle Association donated exactly $1,022,237 to political candidates running for a federal office in the 2012 election cycle.

This princely sum was donated to a total of 322 candidates with the largest single donation being $12,400, and the lowest donation being $500.

The NRA has already donated the grand sum of $487,152 in the 2014 election cycle so they are well on the way to buying yet another election.

By the same token, didn't a comedian named Bill Maher donate $1,000,000 to one single politician's campaign in 2012?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2012&state=&party=&chamber=&sort=A&page=1

PS: Our grammer lesson for today:

most

mōst/

determiner & pronoun

1. 1.

   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.

   greatest in amount or degree.

   "they've had the most succes

[Johpa]

Well, let's look at all that wonderful "campaign money" donated by the NRA to political candidates.

It must be up in the multi-millions for each election...right?

Wrong!

The National Rifle Association donated exactly $1,022,237 to political candidates running for a federal office in the 2012 election cycle.

This princely sum was donated to a total of 322 candidates with the largest single donation being $12,400, and the lowest donation being $500.

The NRA has already donated the grand sum of $487,152 in the 2014 election cycle so they are well on the way to buying yet another election.

By the same token, didn't a comedian named Bill Maher donate $1,000,000 to one single politician's campaign in 2012?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2012&state=&party=&chamber=&sort=A&page=1

Perhaps you should have scrolled down a bit a on the same website and noticed the amounts listed under the rubric "outside spending" where the NRA spent nearly $20 million, ranking #20 on the list of lobbying groups. The same website notes that the NRA spent $1.43 million in support of one political senate race alone, Pat Toomey ® of Pennsylvania.

Bill Maher's donation to a pro-Obama super-pac is a drop in the bucket to the amounts that, for example, the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, donate to their preferred causes.

Be aware that US Federal regulations place strict limitations upon direct donations to political campaigns. That is not where you want to be looking.

[NeverSure]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

What a bunch of hooey.

The NRA is nothing more than its voluntary, dues paying, private sector members.

The reason that the politicians won't go against the NRA is at least two fold. There are 5 million member voters backing them up, and even without the NRA there are many citizens and members of congress who agree with the NRA. Maybe 100 million citizens who own guns.

It's not the NRA. It's the people. Without the people there wouldn't be an NRA.

America has a gun culture. Get over it. Many members of congress would vote pro-gun based on their own beliefs even in the absence of an NRA.

If congress wants to get re-elected they'd better not vote anti gun, and that's the voters speaking.

[Bwanatickey]

Living in England , I look at this boys image, and ask myself, this, he does not look like an Anglo Saxon.

Tattoos and a fat gut Anglo Saxon look,

well I only can see his face.

[folium]

<snipped>

It is possible anywhere for anyone who knows how to illegally obtain a firearm; but it is a fact that the stricter a developed county's gun control, the fewer gun related deaths there are.

U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

When will the American gun lobby realise that the second amendment was a symptom of the times in which it was written.

The Revolutionary War is over. The Native Americans have all been killed or pacified and placed on reservations.

You don't need an armed citizen's militia anymore.

It is slightly off-topic, but it seems that South Africa is a slight blip in that analysis.

If you are referring to South Africa as a "developed nation", you might need to spend a little more time there.....

Gun crime in S Africa is so rife because of the underlying social issues and a vast amount of weaponry available on the streets, much of which being guns lost/stolen from irresponsible gunowners who are not required to secure weapons or ammunition, let alone account for weapons owned.