Attn: American Gun Lovers - The Blessings of Civilization Are Required!

[ellisonz]

Your fellow human beings in Egypt and India need your efforts in the pedagogy of the penultimate doctrine of the virtuous nature of supreme firepower! Pack your bags, there is no time to waste, the gifts of guns are needed in these countries to thwart a blossoming criminal element intent on ravaging the decencies of good men! Pack your bags, sport your holsters, obtain your passport from the liberal State Department, and ship out to sunny lands to offer up the knowledge that you hold so close to your heart: more guns are the answer!

Rise in crime intensifies unease in once-safe Egypt
Egyptians say they don't recognize the country now, a place with carjackings, soccer melees and brazen bank robberies.
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan, Los Angeles Times
February 20, 2012, 6:46 p.m.
Reporting from Cairo—

The headlines reflect a previously unknown cruelty: a woman gunned down in a rich Cairo neighborhood, a rash of carjackings, a deadly soccer riot, a stream of smuggled arms that have given muscle to criminal gangs once easily outgunned by police.

------

Soldiers guard streets but few people feel safe. Police have largely returned to duty after months of work slowdowns, but their presence is sporadic; they appear and disappear at whim. Many Egyptians wonder whether security forces are complacent about or complicit in the mayhem around them, a sense of unease felt by fruit vendors and bankers alike.

"This is an Egypt I do not know," said Tarek Fouad, a sales manager at an international corporation. He said he saw this bewilderment in the faces at the funeral for a relative, who was shot in a January carjacking on the affluent outskirts of Cairo.

The car he was driving wasn't expensive, "but they murdered him to get it," Fouad said. "We kept hearing about such crimes in the news, but now they are common. We're having bank robberies, which is another thing we only saw in Hollywood movies and never, ever imagined they would happen in Egypt."

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-unease-20120221,0,4205913.story

Gun culture spreads in India
Indians own about 40 million guns, second only to the U.S. Rising incomes, along with crime and fear of terrorist attacks, have fueled firearms purchases.
By Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times
February 20, 2012, 5:46 p.m.
Reporting from Chandigarh, India—

Vikramjit Singh stands in the parking lot of a posh club in Chandigarh discussing one of his favorite subjects: guns. He owns 10 or so; he can't remember exactly. They may come in handy if the old family feud resurfaces.

In a Hatfield-versus-McCoy saga that haunts the 25-year-old student, his grandfather was shot to death here in the western state of Punjab and his father imprisoned for a retaliatory murder. Although the two clans signed a truce a few years back, Singh isn't taking any chances.

"Having a gun 24/7 is a necessity," he says. "You don't know if their relatives will crop up again. And an expensive weapon is a status symbol. You can't flash just any old gun around."

India, the land of Mohandas Gandhi, known for its Hindu belief in the sanctity of life, is anything but gun-shy. Rising incomes have made high-end weapons a new form of bling, and rising crime and memories of Mumbai's 2008 terrorist attack have left Indians eager to be armed and dangerous.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-guns-20120221,0,977361.story

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails. That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

I remember a decade ago at my first annual meeting in St. Louis. After my banquet remarks to a packed house, they presented me with a very special gift. It was a splendid hand-crafted musket. I admit I was overcome by the power of its simple symbolism. I looked at that musket and I thought of all of the lives given for that freedom. I thought of all of the lives saved with that freedom. It dawned on me that the doorway to all freedoms is framed by muskets.

- Charlton Heston

SPREAD THE FREEDOM AMERICAN GUN LOVERS!

[bowens43]

1. Charlton Heston = Moron

another right wing lunatic shouting insane lunatic fringe rhetoric

[safeinOhio]

2. A hero at FR

He campaigned for Republicans and Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan,[33] George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

AMERICAN GUN LOVERS? I thought guns were just a tool, nothing more and should not be feared. On the other hand "gun lovers" should.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. honestly --

what is he trying to do with this post?....I really do not understand the purpose of the OP and think it borders on ToS violation on several counts.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. What's FR? n/t

[ellisonz]

71. Oh my...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. Thanks

I didn't make the connection.

[Starboard Tack]

3. What a perfect solution! The Amerikan way!

Want more freedom? Carry a gun.
Want less crime? Carry more guns.
Want to prosper? Melt those plowshares and make more handguns.

[ileus]

4. Plenty of goblins here at home that need taken care of first.

What kind of Citizen would I be if I took my fine collection of firearms, abandoned my family and country? There's plenty of work to do here first. Besides I wouldn't want to be accused of killing the earf with a plane ticket.


I did score a new 14 round p229 magazine for the sig today.


I was also able to lay my hands on a sig 2022, and M&P 45 fullsized pistol today. Ummmmm.........nice.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. who gives a shit what Moses says?

[burf]

7. Looks as though our policy in Egypt is

strikingly familiar with out actions in Mexico (and how's that working out for us?).

Egypt has long been among the top recipients of US aid, getting about $1.6 billion annually, mostly in military assistance. In fiscal 2012, $250 million of aid approved for Egypt was economic; $1.3 billion was military and there was a $60 million “enterprise fund” approved by Congress.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/obama-proposes-800m-in-arab-spring-aid-445192.html

[ManiacJoe]

8. Well, the opening paragraph was entertaining.

However, once we move past the strawman, there seems to be no point to the post beyond a current events list.

[Broderick]

9. fyi

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Attn: American Gun Lovers - The Blessings of Civilization Are Required!

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Flame bait and not even original flame bait at that, more cut and paste from the usual suspects.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:45 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think this violates community standards.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think he forgot the sarcasm smilie here.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ellisonz]

10. Aww thanks!

[Broderick]

11. no problem

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. cute.

real cute.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. odd ...

looks like meta business to me.

but, since you posted in here, I will go ahead and say that ToS does not necessarily need jury decisions...unless I am misunderstanding something.

surprised that anyone alerted.

I know I don't bother. No point.

[Broderick]

35. Just letting the op know it was alerted on

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. and yet my thread was locked for questions regarding the same issue....

is there some sort of double standard going on in this group that I need to made aware?

[Broderick]

39. I think it is merely luck of the draw

when a jury is seated.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. uhm .... no, THE HOST LOCKED my thread and told me to go to META to discuss a jury verdict

I understand that to mean that jury decisions need to be discused in H&M....

am I misunderstanding the HOST????

would like some clarification.

Thanks.

[Broderick]

42. sorry I wasn't aware of your particular situation

The only reason I posted was because I was seated on this particular jury. Sometimes I like to pass it along.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. it is my understanding that it needs to passed along in H&M. n/t

[Broderick]

47. Only if there is a question about it or a complaint

As far as I am concerned there was no issue with the results.

Frankly, I am unaware that there is a "dictate" that jury results can only be posted in one area. I didn't post here to discuss the results or make an issue, just notified the OP that his or her op was reported on. I have seen this done many times.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. in public forum when a PM would have sufficed ... of course that it your right and indeed, it is my

right to question your manners in the doing of it. agreed?

[Broderick]

51. If that floats your boat

Agreed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. whatever trips your trigger

[Broderick]

58. LOL

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. peace

[gejohnston]

41. If same jury that ruled on this

also locked yours, then I would say probably. Different people will look at it differently. I think discussing gun politics in other countries adds to the discussion. Of course, it helps to know something about the laws in that country, when and why they were passed etc.
On the other hand, we could do without the "go east young man" diatribe.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. no, THIS IS A HOSTING ISSUE

please refer to my locked thread for clarification. Thanks.

[gejohnston]

12. absolute terms

Indians own about 40 million guns, second only to the U.S. Rising incomes, along with crime and fear of terrorist attacks, have fueled firearms purchases.

because of India's population. In a per capita basis, India has a long ways to go to come near the US, Norway, Finland, France, Canada, Switzerland and about 105 others.

[spin]

13. Do I get the feeling that you believe that all gunowners hope for the chance...

to blow away some bad guy?

If so, let me point out that most responsible gun owners have no desire to ever have to use their firearms for self defense. People who carry concealed weapons go out of their way to avoid confrontation or a situation in which they will have a legitimate reason to use their firearms.

Such individuals practice something called "situational awareness". That means simply that they are alert to their surroundings. They don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to their ear. They don't visit outdoor ATM machines at 2 am. They avoid dangerous areas without a good reason to enter such areas. I could go on but you probably get the idea.

But if they really wanted to, they could ignore all the safety rules. They might walk into a bar in a bad neighborhood and flash a roll of $100 bills just to attract the attention of predators. Leaving the bar, they could wonder off staggering like someone who is drunk and wait for some fools to attack them. They then could whip out their "assault weapon", perhaps a Glock .40 with a high capacity magazine that holds 24 rounds, and proceed to put large holes in their attackers. (http://www.glockmeister.com/22-Round-GLOCK-Factory-Magazine/productinfo/G22MAGHF22/)

But many studies show that those who carry concealed have little impact on crime. Perhaps that is because of the alertness of those who carry and the wisdom of street predators that look for easy targets instead of those who like they might be far more difficult to surprise and overcome.

You too can practice situation awareness and reduce your chances of ever being attacked even if you chose to not carry a concealed firearm or any weapon. The video below, while not the best, can give you the idea. In this long video you will find a poster who those who oppose firearms will view as a stereotypical person who carries concealed. Of course he is not typical of the majority who CCW but I chose him because you probably will laugh at him and that's fine. You may consider him a paranoid idiot but there is some wisdom in his words. If you watch the entire video you might just realize that many people who carry concealed listen to such videos and discuss situational awareness on various forums that are far too conservative for many Democrats to read. They are far from the blood thirsty vigilantes in your dreams.

Watching this video may enable you to avoid a very serious situation by merely being observant of your surroundings. It does take practice but I often find it an interesting game to play when I am in public. People are very interesting and if you practice situation awareness you might find that it increases your enjoyment of being in a crowd or even alone. If alone on a street, you will be far more aware of the natural beauty that surrounds us on a daily basis. You may pause to watch or sunset or smell some roses. Plus situational awareness might just save your life or your health one day.

But if you chose you continue to enjoy all your fantasies about those who own and carry firearms. Write a novel, direct a film. Either should prove profitable as many people love unrealistic films and books. Be sure to include assault weapons with 3000 round magazines, cars that explode in minor traffic accidents and superheroes who can defeat twenty trained opponents without weapons merely by using their skills in some obscure martial art.

[ellisonz]

14. Would you deny that some do?

Also, I'm not watching a 30 minute video of some dude with a goatee in a dark room.

[Remmah2]

15. If the bad guy was a active mass murdering child molesting arsonist rapist home invader?

Why would you object?

Even worse, a tea bagging republican?

[spin]

16. It's a shame that you didn't watch the video...

You would have found it at first hilarious and later you might realized that it contained a valuable lesson that might just save your life or your health. However, that is your choice and I have no problems with your decision.

Secondly I will agree that a very few people who own firearms and even fewer who carry concealed harbor dangerous ideas of playing a vigilante. It is unfortunate and does lead to tragedy. Fortunately it is very rare.

If as many people as you suspect had the desire to look for an opportunity to find an excuse to kill others, our nation would indeed have blood flowing in the streets. Remember that there are millions and millions and millions of gun owners who handle their firearms responsibly. We are the most armed nation in the world.

[ellisonz]

17. Yeah - I got better things to do with a half-hour...

...than listen to some guy mumble about "situational awareness."

Also, I think a lot of this depends on on what you mean by rare, but at least you acknowledge that there are people who harbor that fantasy and act upon it.

According to the CDC in 2000 alone, "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." - so yes, blood does flow in the streets. I would simply state, that many here, and in the world at large, spend an awful lot of time oogling guns as if they were toys or tools as some here have taken to calling them. There is a hell of a lot of difference between a hammer and a gun. There is nothing romantic about guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. like what? gazing into your crystal ball and reading people's minds.

there are people who harbor that fantasy and act upon it.

this is true .... what is your point?

do you think these people are DUers?

[ellisonz]

23. Hey spin gazed first...

My point is clear. We live a society that glorifies violence and many people yuck it up. Statistically speaking, I couldn't rule it out that there might be DUers who think there's something romantic about guns and gun violence in general. What do you think? Are guns romantic items that embody freedom and are glorious in their use?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. I have said many times that they are a tool.

mechanically, they are a marvel to behold. some of them artistically so. it is amazing how deadly things can be fierce, awesome and scary and yet at the same time a beauty to behold. life is a lot like that... a paradox, if you will. diametrically opposed, it is the tension that creates magic.

it is DUs fault that society glorifies violence?

Do you want Pro 2Aers to have to defend these people?

Can you not see that some of these OPs are pure flamebait and would have been locked on DU2?

Are you intentionally trying to get peoples goat, or what?

[ellisonz]

25. Well if they are tools...

...they are the mother of all tools. Furthermore, I would note that all other "tools" have a constructive purpose. Guns have a purely destructive purpose, to kill.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate my sarcasm. But in no way does my thread violate the Terms of Service or Statement of Purpose. You are free to use the alert function as you please!

Complaining about jury results is a pointless endeavor. It is what it is. This is DU3, not DU2. I couldn't participate most of DU2 in groups because I did not have a star.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. you know I do not alert. we have had this conversation before.

Guns have a purely destructive purpose, to kill.

depending on where they are aimed, they merely stop the oncoming. Gregg Allman used one to keep Duane out of Nam. They can be used to shoot handcuffs in two. They can be used to give SOS.

Guns provide nourishment for my family and put food on my table. I acknowledge and give thanks for this.

Laughing about jury results is also a useless endeavor... cuts both ways.

[ellisonz]

28. Well then I don't understand your charge that "it borders on ToS violation on several counts."

Appreciate sarcasm. It's healthy.

As 157 DU members agree, "no matter what the hell your organization says a freaking assault weapon does not make for good quail hunting!"

A hunting rifle in the hands of a permitted hunter can probably be loosely considered a tool, but the idea that weapons like these: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117216372#post21 - are tools is ludicrous - they are weapons of death and mayhem unrelated to any usage but that of war. I don't see how distributing all kinds of weapons to those who aren't using them for a sporting purpose is anything other than a militarization of society that as Hoyt would say is "pollution."

[gejohnston]

29. functionally

it is a 12 guage shotgun. It operates no different than the pretty one below. Since it functions the same, why not use it as a sporting weapon?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. you do realize what 157 votes mean in the scheme of things, right?

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 11:38 AM - Edit history (3)

parts of the ToS where I question these types of OPs. Naturally it is open for discussion and other people may come to a different conclusion:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. extreme-fringe left-wingers

2. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats

3. No bigoted hate speech.

4. Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

5. Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact.

6. In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

7. Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok.

8. The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I contend that your OP is in vioation of ToS on these counts listed above. YMMV.

[rl6214]

100. That is just a shotgun, what difference does it make that it has plastic instead of wood?

[Johnny Rico]

101. It's scaaaaary!

(insert ominous music)

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Very astute.

Well if they are tools they are the mother of all tools.

A very astute observation.

It is a sad fact that weaponry has enabled most progress of humanity through all of history. In some cases it has allowed progress through forcibly taking things from others, and in some cases it has allowed progress by allowing people to keep what they have gained from being taken by force.

But the tools of violence could very much be seen as the mother of all tools.

[ellisonz]

63. Guns have spread death and oppression for centuries. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

67. Guns have also saved lives and enabled freedom for centuries. n/t

[ellisonz]

68. So why so much objection to reasonable gun control?

Why the idolization of guns as the solution to the problem of crime? It's plain as day in both the OP articles that this is precisely the message that American culture projects. The answer can be found at the barrel of a gun. It's about power. And frankly, you guys have power to share, so why not ship your excess guns off to somewhere that has a gun shortage.

[PavePusher]

69. The last time we did that....

the Brits alledgedly tossed them into the ocean after WWII. Ungrateful bastards.

From now on, if part of another country wants freedom, they can fight and pay for it on their own dime/dinar/rupee/shilling/baht/whatever, or have conditions attached to the aid we give them.

Seems fair to me.

[ellisonz]

70. Seems the Brits had some sense...

I think it's only logical - if guns in responsible hands convey freedom, then those who believe in that philosophy should seek to spread their freedom!

No one is saying you couldn't attach conditions, but the true gun lover should seek to share his love through charity! Is charity not a blessing?

[Atypical Liberal]

80. I'm all for reasonable gun control.

For example, I'm all for FOID cards as a condition of firearm ownership, and requiring recording of FOID information for all private sales.

It just needs to be an opt-out system to preserve firearm ownership anonymity.

I don't see many people claiming that guns are a solution to the problem of crime. Most people I associate with realize that crime is not caused by nor cured by guns. Crime is caused by poverty and a sense of hopelessness and a perception of lack of any other opportunity.

Guns most certainly do, however, allow victims of crime another option besides fleeing, submitting, or engaging in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.

And frankly, you guys have power to share, so why not ship your excess guns off to somewhere that has a gun shortage.

My first thought is this certainly points out the problems with finding yourself in the position of having a gun shortage in the first place. But I'm sure many folks would be happy to sell firearms to anyone with the cash to buy them.

[ellisonz]

81. "But I'm sure many folks would be happy to sell firearms to anyone with the cash to buy them."

Ahh...so it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So you're for more control but you but you also think there should be "opt-out system to preserve firearm ownership anonymity." How is that a consistent position?

"Crime is caused by poverty and a sense of hopelessness and a perception of lack of any other opportunity."

And as the recently departed "liberal_biker" once stated, "the gun made it easier."

[Atypical Liberal]

84. If you want guns, yes, you have to purchase them.

Ahh...so it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yes, if someone wants to own firearms then they will have to buy them.

So you're for more control but you but you also think there should be "opt-out system to preserve firearm ownership anonymity." How is that a consistent position?

Simple: I am all for a system which inhibits prohibited persons from owning firearms while maximizing the freedom of everyone else.

I'm not going to support any kind of system which inhibits prohibited persons and everyone else alike.

It's bad enough that I should agree to any kind of licensing scheme at all on behalf of criminals. But if I'm going to submit to licensing, it has to be a licensing system that does not allow the government to have a list of all firearm owners. And on top of that, if I have to be licensed to own firearms, then I expect to be able to buy firearms through the mail, to my door, without involving an FFL middle-man.

And as the recently departed "liberal_biker" once stated, "the gun made it easier

First of all, ots of things have made crime easier. Cars. Telephones.

Second of all, the modern firearm is now 100 years old. We have record numbers of firearms in circulation. Violent Crime in the United States is continuing its decades-long decline.

Third of all, guns also make self-defense easier.

But the point here, going back to your previous post, is that guns are not a solution to crime. Most crime is caused by hopelessness and real or perceived lack of opportunity and real or perceived lack of fairness. Crime, at its root, is a social problem. Until and unless you address the underlying social problems, the tools of the trade a pretty irrelevant.

In fact, the tools of the trade are worse than irrelevant. Because as long as you focus on the tools used to commit crimes, you are causing problems for people not involved in crime, and you've done nothing to solve the crime problem.

[ellisonz]

86. So it's all about the money.

1. I think you're going to great lengths to ignore the reality that our current system does a very poor job of inhibiting prohibited persons form obtaining firearms.

2. The proliferation of cheap and easy to get firearms certainly does make crime more destructive.

3. Addressing the root social problems is a lot more difficult than having responsible gun control. It's not the either or that that gun apologists what to make it out to be. Furthermore, many would argue, that by addressing the symptom (gun crime) you ease the suffering inflicted by the disease (hopelessness).

Have a blessed day.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. Yes, buying guns is about money.

So it's all about the money.

I don't know anyone in the world providing arms for free.

1. I think you're going to great lengths to ignore the reality that our current system does a very poor job of inhibiting prohibited persons form obtaining firearms.

How so? I have already said that I support universal licensing similar to what Illinois currently does, with the major difference that the process be opt-out rather than opt-in. Opt-in creates a registry of firearm owners, while opt-out does not. Everything else works the same - you cannot sell a firearm to a private individual without recording their FOID information. Sellers have a highly compelling reason to obey the law because selling to someone without an FOID is a pretty good indicator that that gun is going to be used in crime and will be traced back to the last legitimate owner.

Gun owners may be willing to embrace such a licensing scheme if they know that their anonymity is preserved and especially if they regain the ability to buy firearms through the mail once again.

2. The proliferation of cheap and easy to get firearms certainly does make crime more destructive.

But this is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing!!!!!!

We have the proliferation of cheap and easy to get firearms and violent crime has been declining for decades!!!!

It also ignores the fact that cheap and easy access to firearms helps law-abiding people defend themselves from violent crime.

3. Addressing the root social problems is a lot more difficult than having responsible gun control. It's not the either or that that gun apologists what to make it out to be. Furthermore, many would argue, that by addressing the symptom (gun crime) you ease the suffering inflicted by the disease (hopelessness).

Oh I have no doubt that solving the root social problems is much harder than any kind of gun control. It would be much easier to simply say, "All guns are banned!" This is far easier than passing an edict that "All social problems are banned!"

And again, the problem with focusing on the guns is that you are catching up all the law-abiding people in the net you are trying to cast to prevent crime. That is wrong, and lots of people like me are not going to tolerate it. There is only so much inconvenience that lawful gun owners are going to tolerate in the name of easing the suffering caused by criminals.

Personally, I'd rather tolerate the inconvenience of increased taxes for better social programs aimed at targeting the root causes of crime than have onerous restrictions on firearm ownership.

Ultimately, that is why you are losing and will continue to lose this fight. So long as your policy focus is on guns and affects all gun owners you are doomed, because there are far, far, far more gun owners than crimes committed using guns. We are very invested, emotionally, financially, and politically, in protecting our interests. And we are organized and hyper-vigilant and internet-connected. We are not going to allow people to use the actions of a tiny minority of gun owners to be used as an excuse to do things to the vast majority of us who have done nothing wrong.

[Callisto32]

112. That would be people.

[safeinOhio]

30. IF guns are just a tool, why isn't there

a National Hammer Association?

I know lots of people that do own guns and are neutral about them. That is they own them to hunt, target practice and for self defense. Then there are those that LOVE them. Can't own enough of them. Wake up thinking about guns and go to sleep thinking about guns. Spend all day posting about gun rights yet refuse to support the forum they post on. Some even get very angry with anyone that argues for any kind of regulation, sometimes to the point of having anger issue. As if someone insulted their wife or mother.

Forget the term "gun nuts", "gun lovers" is a much more accurate description.

[pipoman]

31. It is stymieing how many apparently smart people are so ignorant..

believing that there is only one 'tool'..laughable really. I've got a shocker for ya..get ready...there is actually NO MENTION of 'hammer' in any definition of 'tool'. How can this be since hammers are the only tool known to man...amazing.

1tool
noun \ˈtül\
Definition of TOOL
1
a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool
2
a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools> b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function <a drawing tool> c : a means to an end <a book's cover can be a marketing tool> d often vulgar : penis
3
: one that is used or manipulated by another
4
plural : natural ability <has all the tools to be a great pitcher>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

Nobody who is honest can dispute that a gun fits the above definition.

Just in case visual aid is needed..



A tool in use.



Another tool in use (plasma mass spectrometer).

So how about cutting the disingenuity?

[safeinOhio]

33. "apparently smart people are so ignorant.."

First dictionary I looked in.

ham·mer   [ham-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle, used for beating metals, driving nails, etc.

tool   [tool] Show IPA
noun
1.
an implement, especially one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2.
any instrument of manual operation.


There is actually NO MENTION of 'hammer' in any definition of 'tool'. so say you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. ah, but the inverse is that the hammer is already defined as a tool

so it is inherently an equal statement.

a hammer is a tool but, NOT all tools are hammers.

a hammer is a subset of a set of tools.

agreed?

[safeinOhio]

57. Agreed, even though

your post has nothing to do with the conversation you are posting to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. ~

[Callisto32]

113. The Cohen brothers are a couple of my film-making heroes.

Great flick.

[pipoman]

73. Nobody is claiming a hammer isn't a tool..

there are a few foolish souls hereabouts claiming a gun doesn't fit the description of a 'tool'. Get the unbelievable silliness of such a nonsensical position?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. how about the NAHB?

http://www.nahb.org/

they use a lot of hammers.

sure "gun nuts" and "gun lovers" is fine with me....does that mean I get to call you "pearl clutching Nanny"?

It is not my fault that the constitution was written the way our founding FATHERS saw fit to write it. Please, do note, the patriarchy at work here. There are larger philosophicla arguements to be made, wouldn't you agree?

Please let us turn down the rhetoric and name calling that is clouding the issue of 2A and how it can be twisted to keep Democrats from being elected.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

[safeinOhio]

53. IF you wish to call a CCW holder,

like me a nanny, please feel free to do so. Just, please don't call me a gun lover or a gun grabber.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. please don't call me late for supper. thanks.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Probably because there is no concerted effort to strip people of their hammers.

[Callisto32]

111. No paradox, merely complexity.

[spin]

34. We do indeed live in a society that glorifies violence...

I rarely watch most action films as they are totally unrealistic and the people that such movies attract often have little understanding of firearms or how real life works.

The fact that extreme violence exists on TV, the movies and in video games can hardly be blamed on gun owners. If people familiar with firearms and self defense made such shows they would be far more realistic and would more likely focus on character development and plot rather than special effects and firearms with unlimited magazines capable of firing hundreds or thousands of rounds without reloading.

[ellisonz]

61. And gun owners are hardly immune from that...

[spin]

74. Before the Dirty Harry movies, .44 magnum revolvers...

were used mainly by hunters.

This series of movies caused many people who were unfamiliar with handguns to run out and buy a S&W Model 29 revolver. The price of this weapon sky rocketed.

The recoil of this big S&W is extremely oppressive to a person unfamiliar with handguns and shooting one can often lead to the development of a nasty flinch which can throw a bullet far off target. A few inexperienced people who didn't realize how to hold such a powerful firearm ending up injured when the recoil caused the muzzle of the weapon to hit their face.

Once again the movie makers failed to portray reality.

◄ Dirty Harry (1971)
Did You Know

***snip***

Dirty Harry's gun is supposedly a Smith & Wesson Model 29 revolver, chambered for a .44 Magnum cartridge. In the film, the gun is shown as being capable of sending assailants flying through the air, even when shot from a distance, however, in reality the gun does not produce such dramatic results. Additionally, the .44 Magnum round is not considered to be a practical caliber for urban police force use due to recoil (which makes target re-acquisition difficult) and over-penetration issues, which greatly increases the likelihood of the bullet going through its target and injuring bystanders. The actual gun used on set by Clint Eastwood was in fact a Smith & Wesson Model 29. It is a common misconception that a Model 29 could not be located and a Model 57, chambered in .41 Magnum, was used instead. Clint Eastwood contacted Bob Sauer, representative for Smith and Wesson, to acquire the pistol. The Model 29 had been out of production for several years at the time, but a number of pistols were assembled from parts at the factory and provided to the crew. Eastwood took one to a firing range to familiarize himself with the Model 29.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066999/trivia

[gejohnston]

76. IIRC

in Magnum Force his partner asked him about over penetration. Harry replied that he actually used hot .44 special rounds.

[spin]

78. I havn't watched the entire series...

and a hot .44 special would be a far better round for a cop to use in a .44 mag revolver in an urban environment than a full power .44 magnum round.

It is also a good choice in a revolver for home defense.

[ellisonz]

82. lol

"A few inexperienced people who didn't realize how to hold such a powerful firearm ending up injured when the recoil caused the muzzle of the weapon to hit their face."

That pretty much proves my point that a good deal of gun ownership and the formation of a thought process in which one may use such a weapon is fueled by various fantasies. Good example of the foolishness that permeates much of the gun culture.

[spin]

85. In the cases I described...

it is my understanding that the people who got a bloody nose or forehead from the muzzle of their brand new .44 magnum revolver were most often individuals who had never fired a handgun or any other firearm before. They were not members of the gun culture. I was a member of the gun culture at that time and I asked other members what they thought of a .44 magnum revolver. I was forewarned to beware the recoil.

You would be unwise to attempt to drive a car such as the one pictured if you had just obtained a training license and had never been behind the wheel of a car.

The Bugatti Veyron boasts 987 bhp power and races to 62 mph in 2.5 seconds. Often considered the most powerful car ever, it has a low podium placing and went through various redesigns. This car can do 253 mph. There is another 1250 bhp version on the cards, expected to do 274 mph. That’s power.
http://www.automotoportal.com/article/top-ten-most-powerful-cars-they-ve-got-the-power

[ellisonz]

87. "They were not members of the gun culture."

They sure as hell wanted to become members of the gun culture. In the sociology literature I've read on sub-cultures, people who aspired to join the sub-culture and actively took a step to involve themselves (buying a gun) in fact came to compose the actual culture. Like it or not, in terms of being part of the "gun culture" the novice is just as important in terms of sociological analysis as the experienced gun fan.

In 1995, Sarah Thornton, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, described "subcultural capital" as the cultural knowledge and commodities acquired by members of a subculture, raising their status and helping differentiate themselves from members of other groups.[2] In 2007, Ken Gelder proposed to distinguish subcultures from countercultures based on the level of immersion in society.[3] Gelder further proposed six key ways in which subcultures can be identified:

through their often negative relations to work (as 'idle', 'parasitic', at play or at leisure, etc.);
through their negative or ambivalent relation to class (since subcultures are not 'class-conscious' and don't conform to traditional class definitions);
through their association with territory (the 'street', the 'hood', the club, etc.), rather than property;
through their movement out of the home and into non-domestic forms of belonging (i.e. social groups other than the family);
through their stylistic ties to excess and exaggeration (with some exceptions);
through their refusal of the banalities of ordinary life and massification.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture#Definition

[spin]

90. Plenty of people are intestested in the marital arts...

They often read books and watch movies and sometimes sign up for a class. When they first walk into a dojo wearing a white belt, it is quite a stretch to label them as a martial artist or even part of the martial arts culture.

You seem to define the term gun culture to include every person who watches action films in which firearms play a role or owns a couple of firearms.

I tend to believe in a much tighter definition. To me, to qualify as a member of the gun culture requires more than an interest in firearms developed through movies, first person shooter games or the fact that a person owns several firearms.

It's a interest in shooting that leads to frequent practice on a range with the object of improving one's skills to the highest level the individual can achieve. It's a serious dedication to a sport that exceeds the investment of time that most people would be willing to devote to a simple hobby.

For example police own and carry firearms but only a few officers are members of the gun culture. The range master, at a range I used to shoot at, retired from a police department and even had some experience as a member of the SWAT team. He told me that after he took the job as range master, he would sit around a table at the range listening to members of the gun culture talk about shooting and by listening to their advice, he finally began to learn how to excel at shooting firearms. I would now consider him a member of the gun culture under my definition as he is an excellent shot and very knowledgeable about handguns and shoots on a frequent basis.

The majority of the people you would consider members of the gun culture are to me on the edge but not part of the actual gun culture. I feel that often I have encountered such people and I took the time and effort to introduce them to shooting and with the help of other regular range members, these newbie shooters joined the ranks as a full fledged member of the gun culture. Once I was also a newbie shooter and fortunately some experienced shooters where willing to help and guide me and I owe them considerable thanks for introducing me to a great sport.

I'm not saying that your definition is wrong and that mine is right. However, that fact that our definitions of the term gun culture are so different does make a good discussion difficult.

[ellisonz]

91. A lof of it depends on your definition of membership in the culture...

...for sociological purposes, and apparently for the recent Time photo essay. The definition of gun culture was broadly cast. I would note though that in that thread I did not see a single post explicitly stating that those images showed people and things that were not part and parcel of the gun culture. What you're describing, the process of indoctrination into a culture has many stages, but the assigning of the judgment that someone has tacitly become part of the culture cannot be limited to only the select membership. The kid who sits at home and mimics Jackie Chan over and over again is imagining himself as being part of the culture even if he isn't "legit" in a black belts opinion.

[spin]

93. While the people at the range that I consider to be part of the gun culture...

were very willing to introduce others into shooting, they also were careful of who they taught or welcomed into their group

Once an individual showed up at the range and from his comments we suspected that he might be a member of a militia group. We were not impolite but he never returned to the range.

To me the Time photo essay did show a portion of even what I would consider the gun culture but was unfairly biased in that it largely ignored the overwhelming majority who shoot for fun at ranges or compete in shooting competitions. While the photo was interesting, I have never known a single shooter who had any interest in owning a gilly suit. Is there possibly an insinuation that many members of the gun culture are interested in becoming snipers and murdering people at a distance?

Hobby
Bob Dogget, a Vietnam Veteran, is a competitive sniper rifle shooter.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1886076,00.html#ixzz1nFIjR3Mr

Perhaps the addition of this picture of a hunter in a tree stand might have provided better balance.



Or this picture of a shooter who competes in NRA High Power Rifle matches.


http://www.6mmbr.com/highpowerbasics.html

I felt that the essay concentrated on what some would call the dark side of the gun culture and largely ignored the fact that many people simply shoot firearms for the challenge and the fun and some hunt to provide food for their table and of course some own firearms for self defense. I personally had no real problem with the individual pictures in the essay but I felt the overall impression of the essay was very negative. That's why I made the OP and I found that many people agreed with me.

[ellisonz]

94. I for one question the gun obsession...

I think even you wouldn't deny this has gone way past "fun," providing food, or self-defense. This stops being fun for millions of Americans every year. I'd like to see a photo essay on victims of gun violence, but will Time do it, probably not, because it's easier to sell magazines with pictures of clowns in gilly suits than it is of gun violence victims.

How the fuck can anyone think guns are "fun" knowing the social cost to inflict? Isn't that like thinking oil drilling is swell despite being aware of the human and environmental costs? One thing that can be said for sure, if we redirected all the energy we spend on guns toward schoolbooks, the world would be a better place.

[spin]

98. I find shooting challeging...

and I also find it relaxing. Of course I mainly enjoy target shooting although I do practice defensive shooting with my carry revolver which is definitely not a target weapon.

Yes, firearms do have a social cost. There is absolutely no doubt that criminals misuse them and there are times when people who have consumed far too much alcohol or abused illegal or prescription drugs also misuse firearms. I do feel that easy access to a firearm can prove fatal if a person has any desires to commit suicide. I also believe in limiting access to firearms for children and allowing them to handle and shoot firearms only with adult supervision.

I will also agree that we need to improve our educational system in this nation. More school books might help but perhaps we need to move into the current century and start using computer programs and e-books to help students learn at their own individual pace.

[ellisonz]

99. "And now we will pound our swords into plowshares and proceed with peace." - Cincinnatus

I think it's time we all admit there are too many swords and not enough plowshares!

[Clames]

115. I have two cousins visiting this week...

...who are UK citizens and thoroughly enjoyed going to the range to shoot a few guns for the first time. Something they'd never be able to do back home and they each have a nice E type silhouette to take back as a souvenir. I was more than happy to spend a few hundred dollars on ammo and range fees to share that little bit of Americana. They both agree that England's laws are ridiculous and have done nothing to make anyone safer there.

One thing that can be said for sure, if we redirected all the energy we spend on guns toward schoolbooks, the world would be a better place.[/quote]



Any evidence to support this? Didn't think so....

[WinniSkipper]

119. This stops being fun for millions of Americans every year.

What exactly does this mean?

[ellisonz]

120. Those who suffer from gun violence...

...have friends and family members, thus the number of people who take a second look at our harmful gun culture surely numbers in the millions.

[WinniSkipper]

122. So are you saying that.....

.....every year millions of people are re-evaluating their stance on the issue? Millions of people that used to think guns were fun - no longer think they are fun?

[ellisonz]

123. Yes.

I think that's a fair assessment. If you don't like it, I don't really care. I have things to do, good day

[WinniSkipper]

124. How long do you think this has been going on?

It's an interesting theory you have.

So over the course of (let's say) 30 years anywhere from 1-2 million people a year, who were formerly Pro Gun, are now Anti Gun. Let's say that the population of the US above 18 years old over that time is approximately 80% of the population - 240 Million.

Being generous, let's say the country was 50-50 in 1980. It was more Anti Gun then, someone else can expound on that.

So we have 120M Anti Gun, for and 120M Pro Gun in 1980. By your theory, we should have in 2012 anywhere from 150-180M Anti Gun to 90-60M Pro Gun.

I don't think your theory works.

[Johnny Rico]

92. "Gun culture" has always seemed, to me, a very loose term.

Example: While I shoot very little (usually no more than a couple of times per year) I am an avid collector, to the extent of getting a C&R license to help my collection grow. I have a fairly extensive knowledge of military firearms (from the point of view of a collector), have a reference library of hundreds of books about guns, and am very supportive of gun rights. I keep a defensive gun loaded and available for home defense.

By your tighter definition, am I a member of the gun culture? As I read it, no. I'm far more interested in collecting guns than shooting them.

[spin]

95. By my definition I am currently a retired member of the gun culture...

as since I retired and left Tampa, I have been unable to shoot on a regular basis. No ranges are conviently close to me and while occasionally I do go shooting when I get permission on someone's private property, I feel that I don't practice regularly enough to qualify.

This may change in the future as if we can sell this big old home that is inside the city limits, we plan to move to a more rural environment with some acreage. If so, I will take up reloading my own ammo once again and probably shoot on a daily basis. I enjoy tailoring very accurate loads for the various target handguns that I own.

[Johnny Rico]

97. That's a very narrow definition that you're using.

Here's a description that Erik Luna (an Associate Professor at the University of Utah College of Law) has come up with. I'm not familiar with him, but this seems like a pretty good definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture#Present-day_gun_culture_in_the_United_States

They share a belief that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates an individual right, (as further elaborated by Justice Antonin Scalia of the SCOTUS). Generally they see people as trustworthy and believe that citizens should not be prevented from having guns unless they have done something to show that they are not to be trusted with them.

They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it is good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny.

They are generally responsible with respect to firearms handling. They have an awareness (or internalization) of either Jeff Cooper's Four Rules or the NRA's Three Rules, providing for safe handling of guns and try to abide by them when handling firearms.

They support, widely and in principle, the gun rights associated with hunting and other outdoor sports activities, although these activities are not always practiced by all within the gun culture. Some members of the gun culture remain avid collectors and shooters but this is not universal.

I would characterize your more narrow definition as a description of someone who's active in the shooting sports. I'm not sure what term I would use ("Shootist"? "Shooter"? Nah.). Keep in mind that such a person will usually be a member of the broader gun culture at the same time.

[spin]

104. Yes, my definition is indeed very limited...

The people that I consider members of the gun culture are dedicated shooters who love the challenge of the sport and often tailor their own homemade ammunition to their individual firearms. Some are hunters and some are target shooters. Some shoot informally and compete against themselves and others engage in shooting competitions. Some are interested in politics while others have little interest. Almost all oppose unreasonable and draconian restrictions on their hobby but most favor reasonable laws designed to hinder the acquisition of firearms by people who are criminals or who have serious mental issues. The large majority are willing to show up at the polls if they fear that a politician will favor unreasonable gun control such as bans of certain firearms because of their appearance.

Such people come from a broad spectrum of our society. You'll find rich and poor, well educated and poorly educated. Some work as professionals and are doctors and lawyers, engineers and technicians, white collar and blue collar. The one thing they have in common is a love of the shooting sports and the willingness to devote a significant amount of their free time to the hobby.

I've found those who I consider members of the gun culture to be honest citizens with clean records. They also are extremely friendly and helpful to new shooters and are willing to help newbies learn the basics of shooting and share the secrets of becoming a competent and accurate shooter.

[rl6214]

102. "Good example of the foolishness that permeates much of the gun culture."

You do know what the "gun culture" is, right?

The gun culture is a culture shared by people in the gun politics debate, generally those who advocate preserving gun rights and who are generally against more gun control. In the United States, the term is used solely to identify gun advocates who are legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self defense, sporting uses (hunting), and recreational uses (target shooting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture

[ellisonz]

103. Plain hokum. n/t

[ileus]

89. I remember the first time my wife shot a 44 mag...

It wasn't a pretty sight....a friend handed her his super redhawk. I was over to the side doing other things, and she wrapped her hand around the cylinder and pulled the trigger.

The kick didn't bother he much, but the powder burns did. She only shoots auto's now....

[spin]

96. Ouch! (n/t)

[Clames]

21. There is nothing romantic about hammers....

...miter saws, speed squares, or a host of other tools for that matter. A gun is just another tool and like all tools the benefit of responsible use depends on the individual. Then again my education has afforded me the ability not to place blame on inanimate objects....


According to the CDC in 2003 it "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."



All that kool-aid....

[ellisonz]

22. Really?

You're going to make that argument. I'm sorry. But how many people are killed with hammers every year? Comparing guns to hammers does a disservice to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The CDC also didn't conclude they were ineffective. I think the appropriate conclusion is a comparison to the levels of violence in other Western nations.

[pipoman]

32. Who's comparing guns to hammers?

Nobody brought up hammers except those trying to make an erroneous, ignorant, disingenuous case that a gun isn't a tool.

"I think the appropriate conclusion is a comparison to the levels of violence in other Western nations."

As long as we don't look at those nations which has had similar gun freedom to that of the US in the past, then compare the levels of violence compared to the US prior to their revision on gun freedom. Funny how a fair analysis is just avoided like the plague by those making such provably false assertions.

[ellisonz]

64. When the claim is made that guns are simply tools...

...the natural conclusion must be that they are in the same class of objects as hammers, screwdrivers, and wrenches.

The problem with that analysis is that you're talking about 100+ years of history with sweeping social and political changes.

[pipoman]

75. Maybe

the "natural conclusion" of a person who doesn't understand the definition of the English word 'tool'.

The only way any measurable difference is noted in any of the world's gun free panaceas is by using the term "gun violence" or "gun homicide" to the exclusion of actual violence and homicide. Red car accidents can be eliminated by getting rid of all red cars...no reduction of car accidents are found, but red car accidents, well by golly, they're at record lows!!1!1

[DanTex]

77. Wrong...

If you get rid of red cars, then people will just drive other color cars, which are just as likely to get into accidents. But for guns, there is no such substitute which is equally lethal and equally likely to be used in a homicide. And this is why you find that the US not only has far higher gun homicide rates than the rest of the developed world, but also much higher overall homicide rates. Yes, there is still plenty of crime in other developed countries, but there is much less lethal crime.

[pipoman]

79. Then why no measurable reduction

in homicides or violence? In fact increased violent crimes in those special places, and static murder rates?

And again, you know the answer but refuse to hear it...the US has ALWAYS had higher crime rates than those places with no real statistical change since these places enacted bans. This is so simple...guns do not cause crime and never have.

"Yes, there is still plenty of crime in other developed countries, but there is much less lethal crime."

Certainly less lethality in being a criminal in those places, rates of violent crime in which the victims are injured are higher..there are some stats floating around the gungeon demonstrating this, I just don't feel like going looking for them right now..

[DanTex]

83. The fact that the US with its lax gun laws has by far the highest homicide rates

of the developed world is in fact a significant piece of data, despite how much you would like to ignore this. It is true that the US has had higher homicide rates (though not crime rates overall) than other developed nations for quite some time now, but then the US has also had much looser gun control laws for close to a century, at least since WW2. So, given that the reason we have such a high homicide rate is gun homicides specifically, which are close to zero in most other developed nations, it is pretty silly to try to pretend that gun availability has nothing to do with it.

Have fun not looking for stats. But make sure you don't go anywhere near a peer-reviewed study, (like this or this). Stick to the gun blogs and NRA press releases -- they'll tell you exactly what you want to hear...

[PavePusher]

36. Just because a particular style of weapon is obsolete or out-of-style.....

does not make it any less effective.

https://www.google.com/search?q=war+hammer&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_QdFT--1KfDKiQKY2qTdDg&ved=0CHUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=869

Hammers were, and still are, efficient weapons. Perhaps even more so because people generally no longer perceive them as weapons.

[ellisonz]

65. Better watch out for the scary guy carrying a hammer.

[spin]

105. Do a google search for "murders committed by hammers"...

Let me help:

http://www.google.com/search?q=murders+committed+by+hammers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

This link is interesting:

Top 10 most common murder weapons

The order of most common murder weapons used in the US murder cases has not changed very much in recent years. Even though the number of killings involving firearms has gone down compared with the figures for the early years of the 20th century, fire arms and sharp instruments still stand on top of the list of the most common murder weapons used in homicides, at least in the US. Statistics collected in 2008, shows 68 percent of the murders in the US were committed using firearms. Below we have provided a list of the top 10 most common murder weapons used as reported by FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

***snip***

4. Use of blunt objects:

Let’s not be vague, these objects include anything from hammers, clubs, and baseball bats to bottles and tree branches, annually taking the lives of nearly 600 people in the States alone.

***snip***

2. Knives and cutting instruments:

Cold arms usually in the form of sharp objects – mostly knives – have caused the death of 1897 people in 2008. There’s no way to regulate or stop people from obtaining sharp object and it is unfortunate that they are used in murders.

1. Firearms on top of the most common murder weapons:

It is reported that annually nearly 10,000 people in the US lose their lives in murder cases using firearms. Whether illegally or legally, firearm weapons can easily be purchased or dealt in many parts of the world and the US, while providing massive profits for weapons manufactures and they taking innocent lives.
http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons

[ellisonz]

106. You actually just presented a good argument for better gun control.

People use firearms 5x more than the next means to commit murder in the United States.

Let me help - you should reconsider your positions on these issues.

[spin]

107. So if firearms were banned...

how do you suggest I protect myself against a person armed with a hammer or a knife that has every intention of seriously injuring me or killing me?

[ellisonz]

108. Who said anything about ban?

Not me. If we had better gun control laws, we could reduce the number of gun homicides, and likely the number of homicides in general.

[spin]

109. If we had better enforcement of existing laws...

it might produce the same results. I am not against improvements to current laws to help make them more effective and I would like to see the NICS background check improved and required for all private sales of firearms. I think that you may well agree. I don't always tow the NRA line.

[ellisonz]

110. It's not the gun control movement that is holding up a bill like that.

It is the NRA and their Republican allies that stop progress on this issue.

[Clames]

117. So this whole myth thing you posted...

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

...isn't a myth? Or is it? Which is it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215392

[ellisonz]

118. I think you need to re-read those blog posts in full. n/t

[Callisto32]

114. How is that an argument for gun control?

It isn't.

There is no way to extrapolate from that data that if firearms were removed from the system overall violence rates would drop.

You must be suggesting that, otherwise gun control would have no purpose at all.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. Hammers probably kill more people each year than the gun in your cartoon.

Hands and feet kill twice as many people in the United States each year as do rifles of all kinds, including the one in your cartoon.

It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that hammers kill more people than rifles do.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. Clames, I have to disagree ... I find all those tools beautiful in their own right. I appreciate

their capabilities and the potential to enhance my way of life. Inanimate objects, yes. The danger is in the beholder and their intention of The purpose of said tool.
The evil of man is inherent here and what is at issue.

To blame the tool is the game of fools and is why philosophically guns can not be legislated away, imo.

Society needs to focus on the human not, the tools.

This is where the 2Acons fail fundamentally.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Atypical Liberal]

46. More guns do not always equal less crime.

More guns do not always mean less crime or increased social stability.

Look at places like Somalia or, in your example, Egypt.

The fact of the matter is, without law and order you have chaos. And in a chaotic situation, all firearms allow is every man for himself.

That said, if I lived in such a chaotic place, I would want to be armed more than ever, because you could count on official protection even less.

The worse things get, the more you will need to be able to protect yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. India & Egypt

India with the second highest number of civilian arms in the world is still way behind the privileged and humane standard of per capita ownership enjoyed here in the US by 95%. Civilians in India need about 20 times as many firearms as they currently own.

Egypt's per capita firearm ownership is about 3.5 per 100 just behind India's 4.0 per 100. Clearly what is needed here is for citizens of those nations to lobby their respective governments for more freedom related to the RKBA and for citizens here to lobby our government to grant small arms export permission to these countries, where not already allowed, subject to ITAR, CCL... restrictions. Clearly this would be a plus for all parties as our balance of trade would benefit.

[ileus]

116. Hillary Clinton says they're going to get weapons on their own.

Turns out they won't need a bunch of American relics and semi autos.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. India has started their version of our NRA, called Indians for Guns.

http://indiansforguns.com/index.php