Nine slaughtered in the World's Greatest Democracy!

[RW]

Watch your step, toots...I am a maestro of Photoshop...



You might wanna put a stopper on those juices.



As to "restrictive" gun laws, that is pure bullshit. There is only ONE restrictive gun law, and that is NO FUCKING GUNS. Putting restrictions on gun ownership in a country where a man buys a high powered handgun for his son on his 21st birthday is closing the gate long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. There is NO justification for private gun ownership. Not one rational, reasonable, sensible, logical and humane argument.

We have restrictive gun laws in Canada and it works out okay.



And don't stifle the woman.  She's arting!

[Bricktop]

You missed an "f" out there, bunnykins.



BTW, even with your "restrictive" gun laws, your stats aren't all that flattering. Compared to the US, they are stellar. Compared to more civilised nations, not so much. However, I suspect there is a significant overflow of weapons from your south.

[Renee]

So what's the rest of your country waiting for?

Maybe when these restrictive gun laws start working someone will take notice. Until then it all smoke and mirrors. Just so you know, Connecticut where the Newtown massacre took place has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Those restrictive laws didn't prevent 20 kids and 6 adults from getting killed, now did they?:

What good is an island of restriction in a sea of free for all?

It not a free for all. Here in the northeast, from DC to Maine the laws are extremely restrictive. For example were I am right now, so-called assault weapons are forbidden. Magazines of any kind are restricted to 10 rounds. All repeating shotguns must be plugged to 3 rounds. No expanding ammunition allowed , hardball only. That covers anything from hollow points to soft point ammo. If caught with any "expanding" ammo each round is a felony. That means if you are caught with a box of 50 rounds it's 50 felony charges. If you get caught with a gun during the commission of a crime it's a mandatory 3 years in pound me in the ass prison. To purchase a handgun you need to pass state and federal background checks and submit to a mental health background check, then it is still up to the discretion of local law enforcement if a permit shall be issued. All long arm purchases must go thru the federal data base background check. Transporting a firearm means cased and inaccessible to the vehicle occupants. Ammunition must be stored separately from the firearm while transporting.



These laws are pretty much the same  across the board in most northeastern states. This is a whole region of the US, yet the gun violence is thru the roof in cities like DC, Camden, Trenton, Newark, Albany, Hartford, Bridgeport and Boston.



The bottom line is gun crime in the US is caused by a cultural phenomenon that Canada and Oz do not share with US. But no one wants to talk about that, it's not politically expedient. Any attempt to open a dialogue regarding the causes of violence in the US such as moral decay, socioecnomic disparity, demographic changes and politicians run for cover. Oh no they can't talk about that, it will cost them votes. Let's blame guns and gun owners, IT'S EASIER and they get to point and wag their crooked little fingers at everything and anything but themselves.

[RW]

I accept that it's cultural and limited to your country.  I have no problem talking about the causes of gun violence including socio-economic factors but it's something I see the RIGHT avoid like the plague.  Why is that?

[Bricktop]

Well, derp...who'da thunk it, Ms. Obvious.



We're not stupid. We know what the cultural factors are. It does not change the reality that NO GUNS means NO GUN DEATHS...now, I know that won't happen...but try FEWER GUNS means FEWER deaths. Get as many guns as you can out of circulation.



There is NO justification to own a firearm. None!

[Renee]

I accept that it's cultural and limited to your country.  I have no problem talking about the causes of gun violence including socio-economic factors but it's something I see the RIGHT avoid like the plague.  Why is that?

It's pretty much universally avoided by both political sides of the argument. The LEFT only pays it lip service especially when the TV cameras are near. As I stated, addressing the issues that are the root cause of crime and violence in the US, rock the boat and politicians don't like to......rock the boat. They might fall out. It's easier and lazier to call for a bandaid and LOOK like they are doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something. It's more about perpetuation of there positions of power than doing the business of the people. That is what Washington politics is reduced to in today's day and age.

[Renee]

Well, derp...who'da thunk it, Ms. Obvious.



We're not stupid. We know what the cultural factors are. It does not change the reality that NO GUNS means NO GUN DEATHS...now, I know that won't happen...but try FEWER GUNS means FEWER deaths. Get as many guns as you can out of circulation.



There is NO justification to own a firearm. None!

Wild eyed foaming at the mouth fanatics will not be engaged.    

[Renee]

Watch your step, toots...I am a maestro of Photoshop...



You might wanna put a stopper on those juices.

Photshop ac_lmfao spare me....any idiot can use that geriatric pile of shit. You do not frighten me "maestro". I'm well versed in Corell Draw graphic suite and Acad versions 13 thru 2014. Push it and I'll see your head on the shit end of a horse and it will be so convincing, that your mom will think it's one of your baby pictures. DON'T tempt me.



But don't worry, I think you'll like what I'm doing. It's definitely you. In fact you may even have to break down and thank me.

[J0E]

.

Not worth it.

The problem with your position is that you seem to want this unrestricted freedom to own guns, but without the reponsibility imposed upon you or others.



But given the number of gun related homicides, its clear that the situation is out of control in your country. And of course this just leads to the type of anarchy we've seen in South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Columbine and the Batman shooter in Colorado.



At least Blue Frost appears to acknowledge a need for at least some preventative measures, but you don't.



Its seems your attitude is the more guns you have the better, anything to protect you against them.



If there's no restrictions placed on criminals and the mentally ill especially from owning guns, how is the society going to be protected from those types?



Sure I'm supportive of a gun culture, but not the United States. More like Switzerland where they have strict measures placed on the groups I've mentioned from owning or having access to guns.

[Bricktop]

Wild eyed foaming at the mouth fanatics will not be engaged.    

Translation; He's winning the argument, and I got nuthin'.

[J0E]

So what's the rest of your country waiting for?

Maybe when these restrictive gun laws start working someone will take notice. Until then it all smoke and mirrors. Just so you know, Connecticut where the Newtown massacre took place has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Those restrictive laws didn't prevent 20 kids and 6 adults from getting killed, now did they?

I thought what might have prevented that massacre was having at least one highly trained, armed law enforcement officer permanently stationed at that school. That would've greatly deterred the shooter from attempting what he did. Then in the event of an incident these 'satellite' officers could contact larger police units with reinforcements such as swat teams if needed.



They have policemen stationed at the larger high schools in Canada or those situated in problematic school districts as well and it seems to cut down on crime and keep school kids safe. So, its already been done

[Bricktop]

You're STILL missing the point!!!



If there are NO guns, you will not need armed security and police in schools, libraries, cinemas and churches!!!



Target hardening does not ELIMINATE the crime...it shifts it to soft targets.



Besides, most of these whackjobs seem apathetic to the present of law enforcement or security officers. If you take away the guns, the problem reduces substantially.

[J0E]

Yeah, but you're also missing a major point.

You judge the USAs gun laws without taking the historical context into account.

Their constitutio states that its citizens have the right to bear arms.

So you can't take that right away from them and its beeb affirmed and upheld by the US Supreme Couert.



The USA is not Canada or Australia where the RCMP or the Australian frontier police represented the British Crown, moulded their laws from them and where they could confiscate weaponry from these British subjects. Laws limiting the sale and possession of firearms were in place before either assumed full nation status.



Given these differences between America and the former dominions of Canada and Australia, its better to control guns rather than eliminate them in the USA. Sure, people there may have the right to bear arms, but restrictions can be placed upon them to limit their use.



Ideally, it'd be nice if everyone didn't own a gun, but this is unrealistic, especially with the United States.

You're STILL missing the point!!!



If there are NO guns, you will not need armed security and police in schools, libraries, cinemas and churches!!!



Target hardening does not ELIMINATE the crime...it shifts it to soft targets.



Besides, most of these whackjobs seem apathetic to the present of law enforcement or security officers. If you take away the guns, the problem reduces substantially.

[kiebers]

.

Not worth it.

The problem with your position is that you seem to want this unrestricted freedom to own guns, but without the reponsibility imposed upon you or others.



But given the number of gun related homicides, its clear that the situation is out of control in your country. And of course this just leads to the type of anarchy we've seen in South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Columbine and the Batman shooter in Colorado.



At least Blue Frost appears to acknowledge a need for at least some preventative measures, but you don't.



Its seems your attitude is the more guns you have the better, anything to protect you against them.



If there's no restrictions placed on criminals and the mentally ill especially from owning guns, how is the society going to be protected from those types?



Sure I'm supportive of a gun culture, but not the United States. More like Switzerland where they have strict measures placed on the groups I've mentioned from owning or having access to guns.

You have never read anything I have posted regarding gun control. If you had you could not have made those comments. The reason I said it's not worth it is I am trying my level best to get back to ignoring any trolling you do or any posting you do for that matter. You are not worth it is proved by that very post above since you have chosen not to remember any of my comments over the last few years. Not going to continually repeat myself.



Now I guess I have to restart my chip quest.

*climbing back on the wagon

[kiebers]

.

Not worth it.

Nah.



Just keep killing 30,000 of your neighbours, friends, cousins, brothers, sisters and total strangers a year.



Who gives a fuck.



As long as you have a nice Smith and Wesson .357 tucked under your pillow, YOU'RE safe.



Of course, its hard to take your country seriously when you bang on about justice, liberty, human rights and freedoms...but who cares.



Its not worth it.

You keep wanting to beat that dead horse. I know what your opinions are just as you know mine. The not worth it is explained above. But I am sure just like Frank you will have conveniently forgotten anything I have said over the years. So it is not worth it to me to go back over all the bullshit with you or him. Besides I do not own a Smith and Wesson .357 nor would I ever tuck a firearm under my pillow. I care a little more about gun safety than that.