In America, violence and guns forever

WASHINGTON - Another American mass shooting. Another rush to buy more guns.

On the Monday after the latest of the bloody rampages that are part of American life, gun sales in Arizona shot up by more than 60 percent and rose by an average of five percent across the entire country. The figures come from the FBI and speak volumes about a gun culture that has long baffled much of the world.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation compared January 10, 2011, with the corresponding Monday a year ago.

So what would prompt Americans to stock up their arsenals in the wake of the shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 14, including Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman who was the target of an unhinged 22-year-old who has since been charged with attempted assassination?

To hear gun dealers tell it, demand went up because of fears that the Tucson shooting might lead to tighter gun laws. There was a similar spike in sales after the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, where a deranged student killed 32 people and himself in the worst such massacre in American history.

Fear of regulation also drove up gun sales after President Barack Obama won the presidency in November 2008. In the first two months of 2009, about 2.5 million Americans bought guns, a 26 percent increase over the same period in 2008.

According to a CBS poll taken two days after Jared Loughner shot congresswoman Giffords in the head, Americans are almost evenly divided on the issue of gun control - 48 percent said gun laws should remain as they are or be made less strict, 47 in favor of more regulation. That is down from 56 percent in 2002 and confirms a Gallup analysis this week that found public support for stricter gun laws has declined over the past two decades.

That prompts one to wonder how many Americans see gun violence as the inevitable by-product of a free society - and whether the gun lobby has been right all along in saying that gun control advocates are out of touch with much of the country.

As one of the staunchest opponents of more gun regulation, John Lott, puts it in a book entitled More Guns, Less Crime: “American culture is a gun culture - not merely in the sense that in 2009 about 124 million people lived in households that owned a total of about 270 million guns but in a broader sense that guns pervade our debates on crime and are constantly present in movies and the news. So, we are obsessed with guns...â€

WORLD LEADER IN PRIVATE GUNS

That obsession has long secured the United States the number one position on the list of gun-owning nations. There are more guns in private hands than anywhere else on earth. On a guns-per-capita basis (90 guns per 100 residents) it is comfortably ahead of second-ranked Yemen (61 per 100), according to the authoritative Small Arms Survey issued by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

That obsession, in the eyes of gun control advocates, borders on insanity and some of the wrinkles of America’s permissive gun laws are so bizarre they beggar belief. To wit: “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law.†Neither does inclusion on the government’s ever-growing terrorist watch list.

So found the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the research arm of Congress, after looking into the background checks of prospective buyers gun dealers are required to file to the FBI. According to a GAO report read at a congressional hearing last May, sales of guns and explosives to people on terrorist watch lists totaled 1,119 in a period of six years.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, came out in opposition to proposed legislation that would have barred people on the list from buying guns. Why? They are placed there on “reasonable suspicionâ€â€of terrorist links and the NRA argues that suspicion is not enough for Congress to take away the constitutional right, enshrined in the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, to own and bear arms.

After the Tucson attack hurt one of their own, members of Congress are worried about their safety but whether that will translate into greater willingness to tighten gun regulations remains to be seen. The test will come when a New York Democrat, Carolyn McCarthy, introduces a bill to ban extended magazines, such as the 33-round clip used by Loughner.

Such magazines were illegal from 1994 to 2004 as part of a ban on assault weapons the Bush administration let lapse, a move that prompted gun control advocates to predict a sharp increase in the number of gun deaths. That did not happen. The rate of gun deaths - by murder, suicide or accidents - has held steady at around 31,000 a year and the murder rate has actually dropped.

Which is an argument gun enthusiasts and their lobby are certain to field when McCarthy’s bill is debated. After that, the topic will fade - until the next mass shooting.

I had heard that obviously these people are taking note of public sentiment which is strongly anti-gun too, especially in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy.   (Recent surveys have supported this point & are available if someone wishes to dispute the point)

The tragic fact was the assault weapons ban enacted in 1994 (with the support of Ronald Reagan I might add)   had been allowed to expire during the GW Bush administration. 

It is a fact that the accused killer, Jared Laughner had a weapon with a 30 round capacity,  which had been illegal prior to the assault weapons ban expiring   and is currently illegal to possess in California today.   This kind of insanity must stop.  If Jared Laughner had not had this type of clip who knows if the carnage would have been as high as it was.

While the NRA had publicly issued a statement of condolences privately it is reported that the NRA is gearing up for a major backlash against assault weapons which will hopefully be permanently banned.   and as this thread stated gun owners who wish to purchase this type of weapon and clip are thinking it will happen too.

I don't like gun violence but I believe the ownership of gun(s) can be good, granted you are of sound mind and judgement.  When the ownership of guns is threatened or banned, people rush to buy more, a black market for them is created and people modify them to become more powerful.  The laws don't change a deranged person like Loughner from acquiring weapons, they just go about killing another way or buy guns illegally.

Semi Automatic AK-47's are legal to buy in some u.s. states but fully automatics are banned.  People still acquire and assemble them in pieces to make them fully automatic.  The government and law enforcement is able to have full automatic weapons and the U.S. government has many types of weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear weapons. 

While I agree that there needs to be gun laws in place, tighter restrictions or banning could cause a huge backlash.  Considering we do not step in and stop the genocides in Africa why is OUR government trying to restrict our behaviors in our own country, as a whole the regular American's are peaceful and charitable, don't want to be mislead and want to live the American dream.

Unfortunately there is always a nut in the bunch no matter what laws are in place.  Loughner showed signs of mental illness long before this horrible incident occurred and no one intervened. He was also on the powerful hallucinogen salvia divanorum when he went on his rampage.

The United States has more of it's citizens incarcerated than any other country in the world, with 3/4 of the inmates locked up for NON-violent crimes.  It has been proven that putting non violent offenders in jail makes them break more laws when they are released, thus we are creating crazy people.  This is a huge strain on our financial system and overcrowding is a big problem. Save the jails for people that hurt others.

the second amendment: 

• Second Amendment â€“ Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  take this into account: Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion;
  
• suppressing insurrection;
  
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  
• participating in law enforcement;
  
• enabling the people to organize a militia system
  

Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.†(Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

full text:  http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

Now read this, it's scary:  Operation Garden Plot (declassified) obtained under the freedom of information act.

The official name of this project is called "Operation Garden Plot."
  Under this plan for the deployment of Operation Garden Plot, the use of CIDCON-1 will be mandatory. This direct support of civil disturbance control operations is to be used by the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. with an airlift force to be comprised of MAC Organic Airlift Resources, airlift capable aircraft of all other USAF major commands, and all other aerial reconnaissance and Airborne Psychological Operations. This is to include control communications systems, aeromedical evacuation, helicopter and Weather Support Systems.
  If any civil disturbance by a resistance group, religious organization, or other persons considered to be non-conformist takes place, under Appendix 3 to Annex B of Plan 55-2 hereby gives all Federal forces total power over the situation if local and state authorities cannot put down said dissenters.
  Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.
more....http://www.uhuh.com/control/garden.htm
  Some warn expansion of military involvement in domestic security could lead to “end of United States as a Republicâ€

An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security has stoked fears that the administration is stepping up preparations for martial law. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf

[SIZE=medium]A[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]very short Obama video:  [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s[/SIZE]

and soon if we don't pay attention our first amendment will go away too, but

That's okay I wasn't using my first amendment rights anyway!

Pumpkincat  i appreciate the comments but I think it is worth pointing out that our First Amendment rights are not absolute anyway.  The Supreme Court has determined that you cannot speak irresponsibly.   For instance you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater nor can you say something that is completely false and injurious to a person because that would be considered libel.

Why do some people think that the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)  is so absolute then with no restrictions permitted (like the NRA does)?   Why are sensible restrictions on Second Amendment rights such a bad idea?   Did the founding fathers actually think assault rifles were a good idea for instance?    Seriously I support responsible gun ownership,  I know people who hunt and appreciate other people are gun enthusiasts or collectors.   Not a problem.  

But if you were a hunter what good would an AK-47 do?  First the guns are not all that accurate and they are intended to inflict maximum damage on a battlefield.   What use do they have either for hunting or self protection?    These types of weapons need to be universally illegal.  

The idea that guns need to be preserved for the public to combat tyranny is the same mindset that let to Timothy McVeigh bombing the Murrow Federal Office Building in OKC.   As for citizens having guns for law enforcement that is illegal too, for taking the law into your own hands is considered being a vigilante.  Are we seriously expecting an invasion from the Russians like the movie,  Red Dawn?

Unrestricted gun ownership is crazy.   Look at incidents like this  (Tucson,   Columbine etc) and you see incidents like this are hard to find in countries where gun ownership is sharply controlled, like Canada and the UK.  The public attitude is changing get over it.

Pumpkincat - I had a bit of trouble following you. You seem to make one point and then flip to another with no segway.

Am I to understand that you would like the American public to stand up for them selves and take up arms against the government?

If so, isn't that what the Tucson shooter did?

Sounds like he was pretty angry with the US government and decided to bear arms against the congress woman.

"Loughner showed signs of mental illness long before this horrible incident occurred and no one intervened. He was also on the powerful hallucinogen salvia divanorum when he went on his rampage."

1) It will come out in his trial if anyone ever tried to help Loughner get help for mental health issues.

2) Salvia must be inhaled and the high lasts for only 15 minutes. Wasn't he walking around the grocery store and the crowds for a while before he opened fire? I have not heard that he was on anything when he went on his rampage - what's a credible source you can quote with regard to Loughner being high on the salvia, when he was on the shooting rampage.

First of all I NEVER said there should be unrestricted gun ownership.  Restrictions on guns should be in place, I fully support this.  I also stated you should be of sound mind and judgement to own a gun, (although this would be difficult to determine as some people "go crazy" for unknown reasons).

If someone broke into my home, in Texas, I am legally allowed to kill that person to protect myself, my family and property. This is not unreasonable.

If the people of the United States, on a large scale believe their government is turning on them and all other routes of changing that don't work or if we were invaded by another country, then as the second amendment says, a WELL REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I hope it never comes to that.  I don't want wars or violence and I don't own a gun for that matter.

Loughner acted alone maybe had an accomplice, this is unclear, but he seems to be a paranoid schizophrenic.  He was also practicing the occult.  This was an isolated incident.  This doesn't mean that the population of the United States which is over 300 million should have to give up all of their guns. Statistics show when guns are legal, gun crimes decrease!   Our military has been stretched thin from the recent wars and it is not out of the question that someday we may have to rely on ourselves to protect our soil.  

I don't think AK-47's, semi or automatic weapons should be legal either, but they are and they will continue to be sold on the black market until the production of them in the U.S. and other countries stop.  I don't think this can be will occur without a full lockdown of the country and observation of every person in the country and person coming into the country.  Then we'd be like China.

as for his salvia/drug use I don't know if he was under the influence at the time:

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tucson-shooting-friend-of-jared-loughner-speaks-out-about-mo.html

He also refused treatment as was suggested by his college that suspended him.  This is where our health care system fails us.  I don't know if he got a psychological evaluation, but if so they should have had more than one doctor present to analyze his thoughts and behavior (so hopefully he could get a fair diagnosis).  It's a slippery slope to make a person take medication, especially psychiatric.  They could have placed him in a facility for a couple of days to evaluate him and deem him not a threat to himself or others.

gun crime stats: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp  also found elsewhere.

I did not mean to step on anyone's toes with my post I just wanted to show people that owning a gun doesn't mean you are crazy.

I pray for the victims and their families of this senseless act of violence and I hope the ones that survived have a speedy recovery.  

Originally Posted by pumpkincat210 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

First of all I NEVER said there should be unrestricted gun ownership.  Restrictions on guns should be in place, I fully support this.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.   I think we are on the same page.   So as far as some changes that would make sense here's some starters:

• Enact a permanent ban on assault weapons (such as AK-47) that expired in 2004.  These guns have no sporting use
• Ban all high capacity magazine clips  (including used ones)
• Require all military and DoD personnel to register their private weapons as the general public does (this is related to the Ft Hood shootings last year)

Coming from Europ i guess i have grown up with a different point of vue on the question, it keeps me baffled each time i hear about some event like this one. Everything here is much more regulated than in the U.S., even a hunting riffle needs a special authorization (not that, sadly, you couldn't get assault weapons on the black market). Even for a strict legitimate defence purpose i don't agree with keeping any weapons at home, and honestly in case that was to happen, i trust the person who want to do me harm would have more training in this than I. What good would it do me if i owned a weapon but didn't have the opportunity to use it? Bearing in mind i speak about french law, i also know killing a person who broke into my home wouldn't necessarily qualify as legitimate defence.

I hear you Magosienne

Everything you said is the same for Canada.

Of course we can get black market weapons if you really wanted to - they come from the US of course.

The thugs and drug dealers have an affinity for them - and just love shooting each other with 'em.

I have a friend (I'll call him A) that shot a guest, in his home.

A had a licensed hand gun and he had taken numerous shooting practices and classes at the local shooting range.

Well, his male guest was arguing with a female guest. The male became aggressive and actually assaulted the female.

A told the male to stop and shot a warning shot in the ceiling, to stop the male.

The male continued to assault the female.

Finally, A shot the male in the shoulder, which was the intended injury.

A spent weeks in jail and thousands on a lawyer. He was found guilty of a lesser offense and received a criminal record.

It's quite interesting that an American can shoot an intruder dead and there are no repercussions.

I would wager that the founding fathers of US wanted all Americans to have a weapon to protect themselves from wild animals, intruders, etc. as they travelled through the wild unknown. I'm sure the fathers would never have envisioned the senseless violence that weapons have caused/are causing.

And all the countless numbers of people - innocent people - that have been seriously injured or killed in the name of the the second amendment.

By the way, in Canada the militia is the Reservist of the Canadian Armed Forces. The militia is a recognized military force, not a group of disgruntled individuals that are angry with the government.

Is it possible that the word "militia" has been disjointed in order to suit the needs of some ticked off Americans? Just like the right to bear arms is nothing like it was once intended?

Speaking of "nuts" - as some folks like to call the mentally ill,

It seems that everyone is so shocked when someone they know decides to go "postal" and shot their co-workers

How unbelievable that some guy decides to kill 'his woman", children and other relatives - and then perhaps kills himself.

So bizarre when an individual slips through the mental health care system, and in a dissociative state, kills innocent people.

I'm sure there are many that can not believe Loughner was able to legally obtain a weapon and ammunition, when they felt he was unstable.

Since it appears that anyone could become mentally ill, at any given moment, why take the chance and give anybody guns, clips and/or ammunition?

I agree.  I think if you want a gun you should have to take and pass a gun safety/proper use class.  In the 9th grade we spend a semester on gun safety at the end, if you passed you got your hunting license.
 

Originally Posted by Darla /img/forum/go_quote.gif


Quote: Originally Posted by pumpkincat210 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

First of all I NEVER said there should be unrestricted gun ownership.  Restrictions on guns should be in place, I fully support this.
I totally agree with you.   I think we are on the same page.   So as far as some changes that would make sense here's some starters:

• Enact a permanent ban on assault weapons (such as AK-47) that expired in 2004.  These guns have no sporting use
• Ban all high capacity magazine clips  (including used ones)
• Require all military and DoD personnel to register their private weapons as the general public does (this is related to the Ft Hood shootings last year)

Click to expand...

Not all states in the U.S. have the same restrictions on guns.  Texas is one of the few with little regulation. You can shoot and kill someone *if they enter your home unlawfully.  You can also kill someone in your house that is assualting, kidnapping etc someone else..

The gun laws are not strict. There is no limit on the number of guns and you can carry a gun on your person if you have a concealed handgun license.  You can carry a weapon in your car without a license.  You don't have to have a permit to buy any type of gun, you can also have semi automatic assualt rifle, shotgun etc. as long as you don't have a felony conviction. I don't think there is a waiting period on buying certain guns, like shotguns, but i'm not sure.  Terrorists are allowed to carry guns. Pretty stupid and not enough regulation imo.

Not only do we supply other countries with guns we also get them imported from Mexico.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I hear you Magosienne

Everything you said is the same for Canada.

Of course we can get black market weapons if you really wanted to - they come from the US of course.

The thugs and drug dealers have an affinity for them - and just love shooting each other with 'em.

I have a friend (I'll call him A) that shot a guest, in his home.

A had a licensed hand gun and he had taken numerous shooting practices and classes at the local shooting range.

Well, his male guest was arguing with a female guest. The male became aggressive and actually assaulted the female.

A told the male to stop and shot a warning shot in the ceiling, to stop the male.

The male continued to assault the female.

Finally, A shot the male in the shoulder, which was the intended injury.

A spent weeks in jail and thousands on a lawyer. He was found guilty of a lesser offense and received a criminal record.

It's quite interesting that an American can shoot an intruder dead and there are no repercussions.

I would wager that the founding fathers of US wanted all Americans to have a weapon to protect themselves from wild animals, intruders, etc. as they travelled through the wild unknown. I'm sure the fathers would never have envisioned the senseless violence that weapons have caused/are causing.

And all the countless numbers of people - innocent people - that have been seriously injured or killed in the name of the the second amendment.

By the way, in Canada the militia is the Reservist of the Canadian Armed Forces. The militia is a recognized military force, not a group of disgruntled individuals that are angry with the government.

Is it possible that the word "militia" has been disjointed in order to suit the needs of some ticked off Americans? Just like the right to bear arms is nothing like it was once intended?

Speaking of "nuts" - as some folks like to call the mentally ill,

It seems that everyone is so shocked when someone they know decides to go "postal" and shot their co-workers

How unbelievable that some guy decides to kill 'his woman", children and other relatives - and then perhaps kills himself.

So bizarre when an individual slips through the mental health care system, and in a dissociative state, kills innocent people.

I'm sure there are many that can not believe Loughner was able to legally obtain a weapon and ammunition, when they felt he was unstable.

Since it appears that anyone could become mentally ill, at any given moment, why take the chance and give anybody guns, clips and/or ammunition?

Click to expand...