The more the gun nuts fight the assualt weapons ban, the more attention it gets

No, this should happen to anyone holding and expressing the view you just expressed

 

Gungoons? Wow, here's a perfect example of "reasonable gun control" and the type of extremest that makes an organization like the NRA necessary to counter their lunacy. Semi auto rifles (or to the ignorant - "assault rifles") have been around for over 100 years. I own 3 of them and have owned them for over 20 years. I use them for both hunting and target shooting though they are certainly suitable for self defense. I've worked hard my entire life, payed my taxes, supported charities, led a boy scout troop, helped with the local h.s. band etc. etc. etc. In short a simple responsible citizen who happens to enjoy hunting and target shooting and thinks the 2nd ammendment regarding our right to defend ourselves is important. I am no danger to anyone yet, to use your words, "goons" who think like you call me a "gungoon". Well I'm not surprised...you obviously don't know a think about firearms and like the sniveling cowards on the left who rather than learn about firearms and how to defend themselves prefer to cower in a corner waiting for the police than stand and defend themselves and their families against an armed intruder. I have nothing but contempt for this sort...

 

Why? As the existing 20,000 laws do not seem to affect anything, why more??

 

Do you think that the situation with violence in America 'cannot' be improved?

And please, stop trying to push the lie that controls on the possession or authorization of ownership of firearms does not make a difference, for it DOES. If you don't 'want' to know that, then you won't.

Even so, just understand that a majority of Americans want and are trying to improve the violence stats in this society. If you want to do nothing about it, stay planted in the world of death, destruction and wanton violence. I'm certain that society will go on without you.

 

"A majority of Americans" aren't trying to do dick. You'd be hard pressed to find a more apathetic and complacent bunch.

 

What you are saying is 'delusional'. (Stay in your little violent world, close your eyes. You'll be on the fringe.)

If you are foolish enough to play-down or underestimate the will of the people, you'll experience exactly what you deserve to. Reality, will run right over you.

 

The will of which people, johhny. The forty to fifty% of those that can't even stir themselves to get out and vote? The 20-30% that like you seem to have a totally irrational fear of weapons? Or the 20-30% that can actually disucss the subject rationally?

 

Delusional? Do we live in the same country? You are talking about the United States of America, right? The same US of A where the "majority of Americans" don't show up to the polls at midterm elections? The same America that is constantly at war, that spends an insane amount of the nation's wealth on new and improved ways to kill people while the "majority of Americans" barely even take notice? That United States of America? You seem to be the one living in La-La Land if you think a majority of these people are "trying" to do anything other than get through another day. They will accept untold amounts of violence without a wince. There is precious little that "a majority of Americans" even care about much less actually try to effect any type of change in.

What are you even talking about? What is this "little violent world" of which you speak? The one where I'm forced to pay to kill innocent women and children in far off lands? I'd rather not live in that world but, unfortunately, "a majority of Americans" don't give a flying frack about reducing violence so I have no choice.

Like I said, a more apathetic and complacent bunch of people will not be found outside the borders of the United States of America. You can live in your little fantasy world if you like but out here in the real world - it doesn't look pretty.

 

Do what you can/will man.

I'm not going to argue this with you. We are going to continue to disagree; I see that coming.

 

You see, this is the goal of the propagandists, to make something that has been owned or done for a hundred years seem insane now. Why? To promote their agenda of disarming the public through dissemination of fear. Monty is a good example of the success of this propaganda campaign. Total ignorance of the issue is what is relied upon to make something like this work.

 

It has been, and continues to improve. Murders, per capita, are at, or VERY near ALL TIME LOWS. Violent crime of all kinds has fallen dramatically since the early 90's, as has every other kind of crime. In fact, every social metric I've ever studied, including STD data, high-school dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, you name it, our society in 2013, based on those metrics is the best it has ever been.

If you REALLY want to cut homicide, end the war on some drugs. It'll go down by roughly half almost overnight. There is no (constitutional) firearm law you could enact that would have as dramatic an affect.

 

BTW, that graphic assumes that ALL rifle deaths were done with "assault weapons". While I've never found a credible source to say how many of the 323 were assault weapons, and how many were not, it's obvious that they ALL weren't, I'd gamble that (significantly) less than half were.

 

Of course you're not because you realize that you have no argument.

 

Now, guess what, you are not only way off the track but being totally asinine. In 1969 the population was 201,385,000 in the U.S. and we had 14,760 murders. As of 2011 the population was 311,591,917 with 14,612 murders. That a drop of over 33% per-capita. That means there were 7.3 murders per 100,000 people. By 2011 that was down to 4.7 per 100,000. So tell me Joh, where is all this destruction and wanton violence???

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Your opinion. I've seen experts (far more credible than you) disagree with your interpretation of stats and conclusions.

I'm not phased by your insults; been there and dealt with that silliness already.

If you think that we don't have serious firearms problems (even with those numbers) in this society, then I have to believe that is fairly stupid thinking.

See you at the voting booth.

 

It's just my opinion, but it's what I will strongly advocate for. You surely have a right to disagree and promote what you think/believe on this matter.

I've seen your opinions and raise you a few different ones.

So be it.

 

You know what? I think it is clear to many MILLIONS of Americans, that people do not need the kind of firepower that's out here in the hands of too many paranoid fools.

Reasonably concerned Americans cannot ignore that.

Whether its a hammer, autos or guns, if enough people die in certain ways... it's going to get noticed and likely 'controlled'.

 

Gun control nuts will never be anything more then nutty

- - - Updated - - -

So do you think those population or murder numbers are bogus ? Otherwise It seems you are being ignorant to the actual facts which need no opinion .

 

What's "nutty" (and barbaric) is that Americans think the existing levels of firearms violence in this society aren't worth improving.

 

Cost of freedom can be high sometimes .

 

Violence in truth 'cannot be improved' as long as we treat a symptom and not the disease...You know, bandaid on cancer sort of treatment. The guns are not the problem, rotten or crazy people are. Fix the society that produces them...Violent crime has dropped despite a vast increase in guns...

 

And there are around 70 MILLION adult gun owners in the USA...see, we both can play the 'millions' game, and those gun owners put their money where ther mouth is while yours simply haunt internet forums.

 

I love it when a leftist trys to do his/her own thinking. You put stats in front of them that disagree with the argument they are trying to make and they say, "That's just YOUR opinion". No, Johnny boy, that isn't just my opinion, that's the stats and again, here they are;
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Now, if you want to check them out state by state, here's where you can go;
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Your the one that is so far off the track that you think your there already.

It doesn't seem that you have dealt with the facts because you are still pouring forth large quantities of nonsense;

http://leftcall.com/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/


Leftcall

Murder
1991 – 24,700
1962 – 8,530
2010 – 14,748

Rape
1992 – 109,060
1960 – 17,190
2010 – 84,767

Assault
1993 – 1,135,610
1960 – 154,320
2010 – 778,901

Burglary
1980 – 3,795,200
1960 – 912,100
2010 – 2,159,878

Vehicle Theft
1991 – 1,661,700
1960 – 328,200
2010 – 737,142

Now, Johnny boy, lets compare the numbers of leftcall to disastercenter, shall we;

Disastercenter

Murder
1991 - 24,700
1962 - 8,530
2010 - 14,772

Rape
1992 - 109,060
1960 - 17,190
2010 - 85,593

Assault
1993 - 1,135,610
1960 - 154,320
2010 - 781,844

Burglary
1980 - 3,795,200
1960 - 912,100
2010 - 2,168,457

Vehicle Theft
1991 - 1,661,700
1960 - 328,200
2010 - 715,373

So tell me, where am I wrong??? Where is Disastercenter wrong???

And, by the way, it's not hard to insult someone of your limited intelligence. And why do I say that??? You have 51 years of the United States crime stats staring you in the face and then want to argue with them or say their wrong??? That doesn't show that your the brightest bulb in the chandelier. If the murder rate in 1969 was 14,760 and the murder rate in 2011 with better than 33% more people was 14,612 then the murder rate is DOWN by over 33% from 42 years ago. And with the murder rate at 24,700 with a population of 252,177,000 in 1991, the muder rate was more than double per-capita to what it was in 2011. Johnny boy, per-capita in 1991 one ment that we had 9.8 people murdered per 100,000 while we had 4.7 murdered in 2011. I know, your not that good in math so here is the break down, Johnny, 4.7 + 4.7= 9.4. Take 9.4 from 9.8 and you will find that the murder rate was .4 per 100,000 over the doubled mark in 1991. Now, was you able to follow all that, Johnny??? I know I went kind of fast for you but all you have to do is read slow to be able to get it information right. Are you up to it, Johnny, or do I have to say, 9.8 - 9.4= .4?? Did that help???

 

And how we define 'freedom' can be debated.