Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 16, 2019

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

 

The National Rifle Association’s broadcast platform NRATV has launched its latest attack against freedom of the press, this time targeting The Washington Post, calling the newspaper a “fake news outlet” and claiming it is where “journalism dies.”

On July 11, the Post published an article calling an NRATV video about political unrest in the U.S. “dark.” The article noted that the video condemned “Democratic politicians, the media and activists as the catalysts for political upheaval” in this country, “with one glaring omission: firearms.” According to the article, the video focused on “political discussions” around public safety during civil unrest, “with less clear connections to Second Amendment rights.”

On July 17, NRATV released a response video featuring NRATV host Grant Stinchfield, who called out the Post reporter by name and slammed him for “tell[ing] us we can’t have an opinion unless it’s about guns.”

The video also accused the Post of “spreading lies about those who disagree with their radical agenda” and said the newspaper is pushing “organized anarchy” that is “destroying our country.” Stinchfield went on to claim, “You people do more to damage our country with a keyboard than every NRA member combined has ever done with a firearm.”

Less than one day after the video’s release, The New York Times’ Max Fisher tweeted that the video is “edging right up to the line of endorsing violence against journalists,” while HuffPost called it “disturbing.”

Despite the mounting criticism, Stinchfield doubled down on his video during the noon edition of NRATV’s Stinchfield on July 18, claiming the newspaper uses its “keyboards as weapons of destruction”:

 

GRANT STINCHFIELD: The Washington Post is out of line. They claim to uphold the standards of journalism when, in fact, they use their keyboards as weapons of destruction as they try to tear apart the Trump administration in an effort not just to destroy him, but to destroy America, and it is wrong.

This video is just the latest in a growing number of attacks the NRA has launched against both the press and freedom of the press since Donald Trump won the Republican nomination for president and was ultimately elected. During an October 26, 2016, broadcast, Stinchfield characterized dissent against Trump as an “assault against … the Constitution.” A month later, during a November 29 broadcast, Stinchfield called “mainstream” media “dishonest and downright dirty,” suggesting that it is “anti-patriotic” to report critically on Trump and his transition team, and said that the media instead “needs to get on board.”

After The New York Times ran an advertisement during this year’s Oscar awards about the importance of journalism, the NRA fired back with its own 75-second ad claiming Americans have “stopped looking to The New York Times for the truth.” And in April, the NRA announced a “series of messages” against the newspaper, which the organization claims has “gone on the offensive to take away your liberties.”

Header image source.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 7

847 responses to “Here Is The NRA’s Latest Attack Against The First Amendment”

  1. FireBaron says:

    So, is it officially time to label the NRA as a “terrorist group”? I used to be a member – around 40 years ago. Unfortunately, they took a hard-right political turn in the 80s that distanced themselves from their charter of promoting safe handling of firearms, and encouraging shooting sports. Instead, they developed a harsh view based on an us-versus-them philosophy resulting from the legislative attempts to control the purchase of firearms after the attempted assassination of President Reagan. As a result of that action, they were practically demanding the removal of all restrictions on firearms purchases, including to violent felons, people with mental illness and people who have vowed the violent overthrow of our Constitution. The latter, by the way, refers to the militia and sovereign citizen groups that sprang up, not to any foreign terrorists.

    • kep says:

      You should include Black Lives Matters and liberals on your list of domestic terrorists.

      • Bill P says:

        Go back to your cave you “know” nothing troll.

        • RE Hafner says:

          Get back in to your welfare line before you lose your place loser.

          • Bill P says:

            What a fresh breath of logical thought and comment. Not really, you are just another “alternative facts” believer who uses baseless stereotypes. If you are going to reply do so with an intelligent comment.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Problem being your post indicates you have no intelligence.

          • Bill P says:

            Oh my, my how do I stand up to such an Einsteinian type of comment. Your 1 sentence comments exhibit such depth of knowledge and intricate thought that NM is putting you into their Hall of Fame comments.

          • dpaano says:

            And he called ME uninformed? Seriously?

      • ⭐️Most Accurate Poster 2017⭐️ says:

        nah, but since almost all terrorism is right-wing, there’s definitely a case for putting birthers on a watchlist.

      • Independent1 says:

        As usual, your mental retardation is showing; you don’t know diddly squat about anything:

        Why Does the Far Right Hold a Near-Monopoly on Political Violence?

        In the real world, since the end of the Vietnam era, the overwhelming
        majority of serious political violence—not counting vandalism or punches thrown at protests, but violence with lethal intent—has come from the fringes of the right. Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project says that “if you go back to the 1960s, you see all kinds of left-wing terrorism, but since then it’s been exceedingly rare.”

        Meanwhile, says Beirich, “right-wing domestic terrorism has been common throughout that period, going back to groups like to The Order, which assassinated [liberal talk-radio host] Alan Berg [in 1984] right through to today.” Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, told NPR that “when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders.” The actual share is higher still, as violence committed by ultraconservative Islamic supremacists isn’t included in tallies of “right-wing extremism.”

        https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/

        • ramrodd says:

          bullsh*t

          hang a gun free sign on your home

          • dpaano says:

            Interesting…do you HONESTLY think that having a gun will protect you if someone wanted to kill you? It’s interesting how many people WITH guns in their homes STILL get killed. Many of them by their own family members!

          • ramrodd says:

            YOU SAY THAT youre ex military but ive never seen a vet who is such a gun grabber…

            ive been around guns all of my life but you are actually pushing to make people defenseless in there homes…

            you are a friend to communists who have disarmed their populations

          • jack burton says:

            Yes, a legally carried gun saved my life from two punks one afternoon and my wife didn’t have to ID my body in the morgue that day. Any emotional rant you make against guns doesn’t impress her at all.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Someone wanted to kill me once, so I shot them with my gun. They changed their mind. What’s your point?

          • goofy says:

            If guns didn’t protect you from someone trying to kill you, then how come criminals that are physically wrestling with police officers, do everything in their power to get the officers gun?

        • jack burton says:

          It is true… progressives and liberals actually do live in a fantasy world that they have built for themselves.

          • Independent1 says:

            Yeah! Only in the retarded minds of right-wing nut cases like you.

          • jack burton says:

            I am always content to let the reasonable readers decide for themselves… and as many of them have seen the riots across the country from the democrats I am sure they know which of us are living in a fantasy world of conservative rioters who are causing all this violence.

          • Independent1 says:

            No fantasy lowlife. Liberals may resort to civil disobedience and riot and show their displeasure, BUT IT’S CONSERVATIVES who resort TO MURDER FAR MORE OFTEN!!

            Not only murder with respect to killing Muslims and others that they disagree with, but actually committing MASS MURDER by passing legislation THEY KNOW will end up with thousands and even millions of Americans dying prematurely!!

            And you’re an abetter to that murder by supporting the GOP!!!

            There’s a BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

            As the above article I posted notes IT’S CONSERVATIVES that have been responsible for over 75% of the violence resulting in people dying via politically motivated violence since the 1980s!!!!!!

          • jack burton says:

            Yeah, that Bernie supporter and volunteer who just shot up those Republican congressmen was a real, true blue conservative, eh. As I said… fantasy land thinking.

          • Independent1 says:

            He had a long history of violent acts and had no business owning a gun. And it’s Conservatives unwillingness to enact more stringent background checks as to why he had those guns.

            And that is one ISOLATED INCIDENT AND NO ONE HAS DIED!!!

            Not like the 9 blacks that Roof shot outright in cold blood!!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            For every liberal you can state that’s committed a violent act like what you stated, I’ll list you 2-3 conservatives that have done FAR WORSE!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            And what you fail to recognize, is that all 10 states in America with the highest rates of all forms of violence are run by conservatives:

            -All 10 of the states with the most gun-related violence are GOP-run states
            Analysis by 24/7 Wall Street – 2013
            Homicides/Assaults/Violent Crime
            LA-9.53/99.51/555.3
            AK-4.22/80.47/606.5
            AL-5.92/40.50/420.1
            AZ-4.24/57.36/405.9
            MS-6.91/51.69/269.8
            SC-4.95/127.88/571.9
            NM-3.69/87.26/567.5
            MO-5.59/88.90/447.4

            -18 of the 20 states with the highest firearms mortality rates are RED STATES; with Louisiana leading the nation in firearms mortality followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Alaska, New Mexico,Oklahoma, S. Carolina, W. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia,
            Idaho, Florida and N. Carolina

          • jack burton says:

            most educated people learn the phrase “correlation is not causation” at an early age. It must have escaped you.

          • Independent1 says:

            That’s right, do what right-wingers love to do; don’t accept 100 years of facts which prove that the GOP is a disaster in trying to run a government, just throw out some nonsensical deflective comment so that you can bury your head in the sand and go on living in a disastrous environment.

            In addition to the above, Gallup-Healthways identified 10 GOP-run states as the most miserable states in America to live in with the worst quality of Life.

            WaletHub identified 25 GOP-run states as the 25 states in the nation with the most people broke and living on the verge of bankruptcy.

            CBS News found in 2015/16 that all 15 states in America where it was the hardest to find a job were GOP-run states.

            The CDC’s analysis found that 22 of the 25 states in America with the highest percentage of their populations living in poverty are GOP-run states.

            WalletHub again found that all 10 counties in America that are the absolute poorest and have the highest violence and rates of drug and alcohol abuse are in GOP-run states.

            How many more statistics do I need to post before you get the picture? Republicans know nothing about running a government, because they spend all their time trying to rig state and federal legislation so the rich can rob taxpayers blind!!!!!!

          • jack burton says:

            Yeah, of course that is why the Republicans are a minority in the House and Senate, and lost the presidential race this time. Along with having no governors or in control of any state leglislatures.

          • Independent1 says:

            You know full well that the only reason Republicans have control of so many states and now our government is because they’ve been stealing elections since the late 1990s via voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, elections fraud and actually the hacking of vote counting computers, Today’s GOP is no different than the Italian Mafia; it’s filled with people who are willing to steal and kill for power.

            Shocker: Republicans Account For Most Cases Of U.S. Voter Fraud
            http://addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/

            List of GOP Election Frauds, November Update
            https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/11/02/1154434/-List-of-GOP-Election-Frauds-November-Update

            Can We Count on the Election Results? Exit Poll Discrepancies and Voter Suppression Are Serious Issues

            http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-results-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-voter-suppression-are

            A mathematician may have uncovered widespread election fraud, and Kansas is trying to silence her

            http://americablog.com/2015/08/mathematician-actual-voter-fraud-kansas-republicans.html

            And those are only the beginning of numerous articles outlining Republican elections fraud of all types.

          • jack burton says:

            You’re so droll…

          • GAU-8 says:

            Meanwhile in Detroit the voting machines tallied in 37% of the precincts more votes than voters who voted

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Source, please.

          • GAU-8 says:

            Seriously Dude, what rock have you been under?

          • GAU-8 says:

            Pull the UCR data by state vs. Political affiliation percentage. No correlations either way. But thanks for playing the bad at data game

          • cargosquid says:

            Wow….cut back on the meth…
            Its making you over tighten that tin foil hat.

          • "Divergent" sgthwjack ✯ says:

            Many of that sort do not require drugs, they are “naturals”. Bless their hearts. 😉

          • Independent1 says:

            No meth/no foil hat it’s you and your lowlife right-wing friends who choose to live in an alternate universe – today’s right-wing conservatives are BY FAR the greatest terrorists. There is no difference between you and ISIS!! None!!

            The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat
            An officer from a large metropolitan area said that “militias, neo-Nazis
            and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to
            extremism. One officer explained that he ranked the right-wing threat
            higher because “it is an emerging threat that we don’t have as good of a
            grip on, even with our intelligence unit, as we do with the Al
            Shabab/Al Qaeda issue, which we have been dealing with for some time.”
            An officer on the West Coast explained that the “sovereign citizen”
            anti-government threat has “really taken off,” whereas terrorism by
            American Muslim is something “we just haven’t experienced yet.”

            https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylc=X3oDMTFiN25laTRvBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEaXRjAzEEc2VjA3NyY2hfcWEEc2xrA3NyY2h3ZWI-?p=right+wing+violent+acts&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

            And you are aware, are you not lowlife that the worst mass murder America has known was committed by a right-wing conservative radical from Florida who executed 50 gays in a night club.

          • cargosquid says:

            You are right… no use in your reducing your meth intake. Too late.

        • Gathering says:

          Quoting from The Nation?

          Your Richter Scale Retardation is a sight to behold.

          • Independent1 says:

            Let’s see you refute the stats quoted in the article. And how about from Newsweek?

            Most Terrorists in the U.S. Are Right Wing, Not Muslim: Report

            Right-wing extremists were not only more successful,they were often more deadly, too. From 2008 to 2016, a third of right-wing attacks involved fatalities, compared to 13 percent of Islamist attacks. It should be noted, however, that Islamist extremists killed more people overall, with a death toll of 90 people
            compared to 79.

            http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-extremism-islamist-terrorism-donald-trump-steve-bannon-628381

            And Islamist terrorists are also right-wing zealots!!!

          • Gathering says:

            “And Islamist terrorists are also right-wing zealots!!!”

            BWAHAHA!

          • Independent1 says:

            Sorry you’re too ignorant to realize that ISIS, al Qaeda and other terrorists are right-wingers!! The only difference is the pretend religious ideology.

            Only a moron like you wouldn’t realize these terrorists groups are right-wingers just like you white supremacist, radical bigots. Which ISIS, al Qaeda or any other of these groups such as these has ever gone around promoting socialism and everyone has a right to believe the way they want; and say things like ‘love they neighbor as thy self’, like a liberal??? HMMMM???

            Better wake up, the term Christian Conservative is an oxymoron – no true conservative can be a Christian!!!!!!

          • Gathering says:

            Only a moron like you would try to use one country’s political spectrum to that of another without regard to the history and geopolitical differences.

            I always like it when you pedophiles try to deflect attention away from your perverse and grisly criminal activity. Every time you’re called out for it, your response is one of ..”Look! Squirrel!”.

            “Better wake up, the term Christian Conservative is an oxymoron – no true conservative can be a Christian!!!!!!”

            Because YOU say so? That’s a hoot.
            Next you’ll be telling me that today’s so called “liberal” is no different than the classic liberals of the 40-60’s.

            Keep your race-baiting schtick to yourself and your fellow NAMBLA-vermin!

          • Independent1 says:

            True conservatives are more concerned about how something will affect them than how it will impact others. Your posts prove that. You are hateful of the term socialism or socialistic because it implies others are getting some kind of help you feel they don’t deserve or haven’t worked for.

            When Jesus said words to the effect of: Think of others more highly than you do yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love they neighbor as thyself. And he even said to a rich conservative bigot who claimed he had always done everything righteous in his life: Sell all that you have, give to the poor; and come follow me. Which of course, like you, could never happen.

            Virtually all the above phrases no true conservative could ever say in all honesty: and no true conservative would ever live by what those phrases say.

            It is Conservatives’ actions of hate, judgement and bigotry that condemn, you and your ilk; it’s not my opinion but conservatives words and actions. Supporting GOP politicians who willingly pass legislation they know will result in people dying; supporting budgets which favor the rich at the expense of the poor which even get the ire of religious leaders and on and on; prove categorically that there is nothing Christian-like in any conservatives today.

          • Gathering says:


            “True conservatives are more concerned about how something will affect them than how it will impact others.”

            Your opinion. You know what they say about opinions.

            “You are hateful of the term socialism or socialistic because it implies
            others are getting some kind of help you feel they don’t deserve or
            haven’t worked for.”

            I’ve made no opinion on socialism on here. You use the term as it suits your purpose. Now you want to equate Jesus with socialism?

            There is no room for religion in matters of government and governing.

            “Sell all that you have, give to the poor; and come follow me. Which of course, like you, could never happen.”

            Hypocrite! You haven’t done any of that.

            “It is Conservatives’ actions of hate, judgement and bigotry that condemn, you and your ilk;”

            It’s the actions of you and your herd to pass judgement on those you don’t know.
            What did He say about passing judgement? It’s HIS province, not yours.
            The rest of your diatribe is typical. You don’t mind polluticians running up debt as long as it’s spent on YOUR pet causes.
            So in addition to being a sanctimonious hypocrite, you also have shown an abhorrence for the rights and liberties of others.

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow!! So much nonsense!

            You have to be pretty blind not to see that GOP politicians are even working right now to pass legislation that will throw millions of Americans off of healthcare just so they can shovel more tax benefits to the wealthy; even though they’ve been told that thousands will die if they do that; and yet they laugh and cheer when they passed in the House a repeal of ACA – knowing it will result in thousands dying. That’s not my judgement THATS FACT!!

            I’m just going to leave you with two links because you’re clearly living in deflection and denial:

            Debate: GOP Crowd Cheers Dying Uninsured Man, Ben Bernanke Treason Claim

            http://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2011/09/debate-crowd-cheer-dying-man-bernanke/

            Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die

            https://youtu.be/irx_QXsJiao

            Nothing, absolutely nothing the GOP or conservatives stand for is remotely Christian – The GOP is the party of the Devil!!!!

          • Gathering says:

            First, I have no faith that EITHER side really wants what’s best for the citizenry. It’s all about getting in power and keeping in power.
            Second, let’s see the dots you’re trying to connect actually line up.
            We’ve heard more than enough about how MILLIONS are going to die.
            The wailing of the emotional hemophiliacs never abates.
            There will always be someone demanding the government give them more because they believe that everything they want, they have a right to.

            The ACA IS flawed and DOES need to be walked back and fixed. I don’t believe it should be scrapped but the Dems deny it has major problems. You’re obviously in Camp Denial with them.

          • Independent1 says:

            Why is it you had to end up all that with a flat out lie? The Dems have admitted for 7 years that ACA isn’t perfect and needed to have changes made to it but the GOP has refused to do anything but try and repeal it.

            And you don’t really expect me to buy into your fake comments that imply you’re not a right-wing bigot do you?

            You’re a pathological lying right-wing radical just like the rest of you idiots here on the NM.

            The experience that Mass. has had with their healthcare law since Romney signed it into law, has proven that providing health insurance to people saves lives – lots of live. But of course lives don’t matter to you Devil worshipers do they? Except for your own!!!

            So your mealy mouth comments about ’emotional hemophiliacs never abates’ is just one more proof that you’re just as big a lowlife as the rest of you murdering Republicans! You people just can’t stop being dirtbags and total scum of the earth! CAN YOU!

            What a waste of a life you are!!!!!!!! The world deserves much better than you!!! There isn’t a rock on the earth that you couldn’t slither under!!!

          • Gathering says:

            I didn’t end it with a lie. Your inability to think for yourself is not my problem.
            I’m as much a right-wing bigot as you are a pedophile. Are you also the Chapter President of your Local NAMBLA Chapter?
            You give every indication that that is the case.

            But do go on running your festering hemorrhoid of a mouth as you regurgitate the party line ejaculated down your willing and hungry throat. it appears to be all that you’re good for.
            No doubt you still wear the scars from some beat downs received for running your coward mouth on the playground while (allegedly) growing up.

            GFY and leave those young kids alone! You and your left-wing ilk take depravity to unknown levels.

          • Independent1 says:

            You’re as big a psychopath as Donald Trump; you’re so mentally deranged you don’t even realize when you’re lying through your teeth – just like Trump!!

            But keep on living in your delusional fantasy land. Given your high regard for yourself and the fact you carry a gun – I wouldn’t be surprised to read in the not too distant future of you adding to the list of right-wing terrorists actions.

            Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS

            “Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face,” the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.

            http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

          • Independent1 says:

            You can’t identify any true major recent instances of ‘left-wing’ violence, terror instances or depravity. It’s all fantasies in your mentally delusional mind!!

          • GAU-8 says:

            See kids, look at “I need depends 1” this is what drugs will do.

          • Gathering says:

            Love how they use their own definition of right wing terrorists.
            Almost all of the protester/Antifa types we see looting and burning are left-wing types. And there’s a lot more than 90 of them.

          • GAU-8 says:

            Meanwhile Chicago democrats prefer their violence one drive by at a time……

      • dtgraham says:

        He would but, as to gun rights, he thought that word “regulated” actually appeared in the second amendment.

        Anyway, the NRA says that BLM people and liberals are ok as long as they’re with a well armed conservative white person.

      • RE Hafner says:

        Facts destroy the liberal ideology.

    • dpaano says:

      Gee, why don’t we just issue a firearm to any felon released from prison…..maybe I shouldn’t give them any ideas.

    • RE Hafner says:

      You never belonged to the NRA.

    • jack burton says:

      when people such as baron here has to outright, willingly, and purposefully lie about the NRA you can pretty much tell the overall weakness of any argument he might try to make.

    • Jan123456 says:

      Unfortunately, they took a hard-right political turn in the 80s that
      distanced themselves from their charter of promoting safe handling of
      firearms, and encouraging shooting sports.

      That’s about the time that the gun manufacturers became the underwriters of the group. That’s about the time that the NRA took down the words “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state”….and left “.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” on the wall of its building in Virginia. That’s about the time Poppy Bush resigned his NRA membership calling the group “jack-booted thugs”.

      • Gathering says:

        ” well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state””

        The NRA took that down? That’s in the 2nd Amendment and remains there.
        Keep spinning.

        • Jan123456 says:

          Cons are so good at removing context from their statements.

          Yes, the NRA took that down. Please re-read what I wrote.

          Did you not see “on the wall of its building in Virginia”?

          • Gathering says:

            Who cares what they do to their building? I mean, who with a life of their own cares?

            “That’s about the time Poppy Bush resigned his NRA membership calling the group “jack-booted thugs.”

            False statement.

          • Jan123456 says:

            The NRA took that down? That’s in the 2nd Amendment and remains there.

            Who cares what they do to their building?

            OK, so you move the goalposts.

            You’re right, I got that backwards. The NRA called the federal agents by that term.

            From his resignation letter…

            Dear Mr. Washington,

            I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people.

    • OHJonesy says:

      When did vocally supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights get labeled “Terrorism”? I guess maybe around the same time that the radical left wing decided to attempt to undermine both?

      The NRA was, for most of it’s 145 years, an organization devoted to training marksmanship and gun safety. It is still, by far, the largest organization for training, safety and shooting programs, but the NRA is indeed heavily involved in protecting the 2nd Amendment today. This is in direct reaction to the left’s ever-increasing attempts to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      The point where the NRA took up the banner for gun rights was following the
      “Gun Control Act of 1968”, when it became obvious that the left was not interested in crime control, but in disarming law-abiding citizens. Democrats followed that act up with even more unconstitutional laws, including the gun bans in DC and Chicago, and the Clinton “assault rifle” ban, which banned semi-auto rifles that “looked like” (but did not operate like) military weapons.

      The question you should be asking is “When and why did the democrat party become so radical left wing?”, when the very people they claim to represent – the blue collar worker, the union men and women, the farmer or ranch owner, the
      lower-income and the middle class – are the class of people most likely to be law-abiding gun owners.

      The NRA has NEVER supported arming violent felons, people with mental illness or people who have vowed the violence of any sort. They’re nothing more then a grass-roots organization that has been pretty successful in getting the 100+ million gun owners in America to recognize the dangers in undermining the US Constitution.

      Democrats cry like babies when the NRA blocks their unconstitutional attempts at infringing on our rights, and the media puppets in the pockets of the Democrats make low information people think the NRA is evil or supports criminals.

      Balderdash. The NRA does one thing exceedingly well – it mobilizes voters who care about their rights. Hillary learned that lesson all over again last November.

      Thank you, NRA!

      • dpaano says:

        Apparently, you’re misinformed…..they have been fighting the request for stricter background checks to stop people with mental problems from purchasing guns or people who have been charged with domestic abuse, and felons. Their ONLY thing is to sell guns and they are bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers. They don’t care about how many people own guns and how many murders are committed…..they just want EVERYONE to buy a gun. We are NOT against people owning guns….we ARE against allowing them to go to gun shows and buy guns without any background check or gun shops allowing people to buy guns who should not have them. It would seem that many NRA members agree with this, but the NRA doesn’t. Again, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO CARRY OR OWN A WEAPON!!!

        • OHJonesy says:

          Actually, it looks like it’s you that is misinformed. Allow me to explain.

          The NRA has never opposed “stricter background checks”, but they know that so-called “Universal” background checks on private sales are impossible to enforce without a national gun registration.

          Thus the issue is the NRA membership opposes any sort of registration, because history shows every gun confiscation began with an innocuous registration. The NRA fully supports the existing background check system that prevents mentally ill people and convicted felons from buying guns, in fact they were a big part of getting that system set up.

          But you’re wrong, the NRA does not sell guns, nor are they a lobbyist for gun manufacturers, nor do they profit at all from gun sales. Manufacturers have their own lobby, the NSSF.

          Yes, the NRA does care about how many murders are committed with guns, that’s why they have, on many occasions, lobbied for stricter enforcement of existing laws that get criminals off the streets for long sentences. No, they do not want everyone to buy a gun, they only desire to protect our rights to do so, if we so chose.

          You also seem misinformed about gun shows and gun shops; the law requires every licensed firearms seller does a back ground check on all sellers, regardless of location of the sale. The majority of sellers at gun shows, and all sellers at gun shops, are required to perform background checks – only private sellers are exempt.

          And again, it’s impossible to enforce background checks on private sales without knowing who owns each and every firearms in America – it would be an honor system. Thus, only law-abiding citizens would follow it, but it would present no barrier at all to criminals. This is why you’re also misinformed in your belief that many NRA members agree with UBC’s. It’s just a popular lie from the Bloomberg group.

          I hope that clarified things for you.

        • fredoandme says:

          oh, contrare. i do.

    • Charlie Victor Alpha says:

      “So, is it officially time to label the NRA as a “terrorist group”?”

      Please, by all means, push this position with your representatives.

  2. bojimbo26 says:

    NRA – Just a bunch of wimps .

    • dpaano says:

      Not Really Aware…..that’s my thought about what NRA stands for!

      • dtgraham says:

        Hey, they hear things. They’re up on things. When those stories started coming out a few years ago about babies accidentally shooting people on a weekly basis, the NRA immediately came out against background checks for babies. Now that’s awareness.

      • Independent1 says:

        They’re also: Not Really Americans. True Americans do not have the attitude the NRA does that the rights of a minority of Americans (gun owners) supersedes the desires of the vast majority of Americans (almost 90%) who want stricter gun controls including background checks ON ALL GUN SALES. (Not just those done through federally registered dealers.)

        • dtgraham says:

          That’s true, Independent. Consistent polling shows that Americans don’t have the attitude of the NRA on gun safety measures. Amazingly, NRA members themselves don’t even agree with the NRA on many gun safety and control issues.

          It’s a wonder how a small minority have been able to do this.

        • ramrodd says:

          I DONT KNOW WHERE YOU GET YOUR NUMBERS BUT THEY ARE WRONG…

          The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            The NRA lied to you.
            You have the right to keep and bear Arms.
            There is no “right” to buy, sell, trade, or manufacture Arms.
            “Arms” are not defined. (I, personally, am willing to let you keep and bear any and every Arm manufactured or sold prior to ratification of the Bill of Rights, 1791.) Clearly, some Arms are denied to the general public.
            There is no “right” to keep, bear, buy, sell, trade, or manufacture ammunition.
            There is no Constitutional prohibition for background checks, or for creating a central registry of firearms and gun owners, or for penalties on people who acquire previously unregistered weapons.

          • ramrodd says:

            The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.

            https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+%22supremacy+clause

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Oh, swell.
            Your link is a self-taught crackpot tapping away on his bathroom blog.
            Tell it to the judge, Skippy.

          • ramrodd says:

            thats always where you marxists go – personal attacks

            have the ballss to contact this attn and say that to her!!

            youre just another internet coward

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Read it yourself, especially the “about” section.
            I’ll be happy to deliver the same assessment to anyone who asks.
            (That’s the problem with hosted websites-for-hire. They’re only accountable to the customers who lease their soapboxes.)
            Do you carry a phony pleather-clad Pocket Constitution, too? The one with “special” notations from Brigham Young?

          • cargosquid says:

            Actually, the Judge has already spoken. In the Heller, McDonald, and Caetano cases.

          • cargosquid says:

            Arms are legal private property. We have the right to conduct commerce.
            Ammo is part of arms.

            There is no Constitutional authority allowing for those things. Go back to Civics class. The government can only do those things for which it has authority from the Constitution.

          • ramrodd says:

            That is pathetic. you think that rights come from the
            Constitution. I suggest he read the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of
            Independence.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            You’ve got too much too wrong to handle here on Disqus, RimShot.
            Basic Civics is the least of it.

          • dpaano says:

            I’ve blocked both Ramrodd and his buddy, Jack. Jack’s comment about Independent1 was absolutely inappropriate! I’ve also marked it as inappropriate and sent it to the powers that be.

          • jack burton says:

            In other words, shut up he said

        • jack burton says:

          Independent is the type who would willingly and happily put black people back into chains if only a “poll” showed enough people supported it.

          • dpaano says:

            Jack….you are showing your racist bones here…..seriously?

          • jack burton says:

            Bless your heart dp but you must have me confused with another poster. I never said, hinted or posted anything racist. Keep looking around and you might find the person you tried to respond to.

        • dpaano says:

          I know quite a few NRA members and gun owners who agree that we need stricter gun controls; i.e., stricter background checks, not selling guns to people with mental problems; not selling guns to people arrested and tried for domestic violence, etc.! Many have even left the NRA because they think they’ve become too ridiculous and vastly out of touch with many of their members!

          • RE Hafner says:

            BS, you were never a member of the NRA.

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            “Stricter BGS”
            stricter how? what would be different than what’s being done now?

            “not selling guns to people with mental problems”
            Already law, I believe.

            ” not selling guns to people arrested and tried for domestic violence,”
            several states have this as law. A woman in NJ was killed within the last two years waiting for approval for a gun purchase to protect herself from her ex against whom she had a restraining order.
            He attacked her in her driveway and stabbed her to death before she got approval to purchase a handgun.

        • Krangus McBasketball says:

          Wow….
          You entirely missed the point of the constitution in your post.
          “True Americans do not have the attitude that… the rights of a minority of Americans… supersedes the desires of the vast majority of Americans…”
          Ever heard of Mob Rule?
          Let’s take a historical view of things:
          Blacks in America have always been ~13% of the population, more or less.
          According to your perspective, if a large enough bloc of people decided slavery was cool again, what should black people be able to say about that?

          Rights supersede the desires of others, period.

      • RE Hafner says:

        You definately are an uninformed fruitcake.

        • dpaano says:

          Maybe to you, but to everyone else, I’m an intelligent, informed fruitcake who is a retired US Army officer and have probably handled more guns than you!

          • RE Hafner says:

            You are delusional.

          • ray says:

            U.S. Air Force weapons mechanic B-52 And F4 aircraft. I think you are the wimp?

          • RE Hafner says:

            Do you thing I actually care what a zoomie wingnut thinks?

          • ray says:

            Do you think I actually care what a NRA troll thinks?

          • dtgraham says:

            She’s tough Hafner. dpaano used to wrestle under the name, the Red Cyclone.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Resembles the Red Blob!

          • dtgraham says:

            She’s a lean mean fighting machine Hafner. Her signature move in the ring was called, “snowflake off the top rope.” Her finishing move for the 3 count was called, “the liberal agenda.”

            Her evil manager was named Hillary.

          • Independent1 says:

            So you’re proud of supporting a terrorist organization – the NRA – and I’m guessing you’re proud to being an abetter to murder by supporting the GOP which is no different than supporting ISIS. The GOP willingly allows thousands of Americans to die prematurely every day just so they can keep sucking up donations from the wealthy by shoveling more taxpayer dollars into their pockets. And you’re proud of that, are you???

          • dpaano says:

            Did he call me a “Red Blob?” I have him blocked, so I’m not sure. What an idiot…..apparently he has NO idea what he’s talking about or WHO he’s talking about. Names are just words; they don’t hurt me (and I’m not going to pull out a gun and shoot you because you called me a name, but I am disappointed in you).

          • dtgraham says:

            You don’t understand these people dpaano. In a way, he’s kind of disappointed that you haven’t threatened him with a gun yet. Secretly, I think he wants you to.

          • dpaano says:

            Not really, but I LOVE the thought DT!!! At least I “wrestle….,” I don’t just pull out a gun and just shoot someone! Whatever happened with solving problems with a good fist fight….people are so afraid nowadays that they can seem to only solve their problems with weapons!

          • ramrodd says:

            that type of thinking is delusional

          • dtgraham says:

            Is this what it’s come to? C’mon, don’t shoot each other —
            do fight club. Alright, 12 rounds with the 3 knockdown rule may not exactly be talking things out with each other and compromising reasonably, but at least it’s better than high noon at the OK corral. Am I right?

            Has it really come to this?

          • Independent1 says:

            How can anyone be truly Manly or Womanly if they’re always wanting to grab a gun anytime they go out the door???

            People who own guns for other than hunting are simply wimps!! Afraid of their own shadow!! otherwise – why the gun??? Aside of course from living in fear, being afraid, being a wimp.

          • dtgraham says:

            You’re one intelligent informed piece of chocolate dpanno. And Hafner is the delicious nut in the middle.

          • RE Hafner says:

            This is my weapon, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun. So, you handled a lot of the men’s guns. LOL

        • ray says:

          NOT all vets are stupid like you.

    • RE Hafner says:

      The NRA consists of veterans, active military, retired military and the a cross section of Americans who work for a living. Men and women who have intestinal fortitude instead of gutless little pussies like you.

      • bojimbo26 says:

        Thank you for your reply .
        Jim : 12 year veteran Her Majestys Royal Air Force , 69-74 76-83 .
        I was also taught how to use a Self Loading Rifle .

      • dpaano says:

        Excuse me, but I’m also a veteran (US Army) and one of the many of the “cross section of Americans who work for a living.” However, I do not feel the burning need to have a gun. I’ve lived 71 years without that need, and I guess I’ll go on living even longer, if God wills it. And, for your information, I know MANY other military, active and retired, who feel the very same way as I do and have either never joined the NRA or have quit the NRA because of their overly RW rantings!

        • ramrodd says:

          evidently you have no clue to the history of the NRA….

          • Independent1 says:

            The history of the NRA?? You mean America’s largest terrorist organization?? The NRA you realize stands for Not Really Americans.

          • ramrodd says:

            you embarrass yourself

          • dpaano says:

            And, they pay them big bucks to vote their way….the NRA has one of the largest lobbies in Washington D.C. They’ve put more money into the pockets of our Republican (and, yes, some Democrats I’m sure) senators and congressmen and women than any other group!

          • ramrodd says:

            The NRA has been selling out the American gun owner for over 100 years. They actively supported the NFA in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968 and the oppositely named Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which removed the right of Americans to purchase new automatic or AOW weapons, a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

            All of this was done with the cooperation of the sellout Progressive owned and run Republican Party as well.

          • dpaano says:

            Yes, I do, but I really don’t need to look into their history….what they believed in a hundred years ago is NOT what they believe and proselytize about today!

          • ramrodd says:

            today they are CNP controlled and worked with the Obama Admin. on legislation to disarm PTSD veterans – i was at a meeting where L. Pratt pounded the NRA for working to disarm these veterans who have in many cases owned their guns for 4 decades..

          • ramrodd says:

            again –

            The NRA has been selling out the American gun owner for over 100 years. They actively supported the NFA in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968 and the oppositely named Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which removed the right of Americans to purchase new automatic or AOW weapons, a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

            All of this was done with the cooperation of the sellout Progressive owned and run Republican Party as well.

          • RE Hafner says:

            In other words you are full of liberal feces void of facts.

        • RE Hafner says:

          What were , a latrine orderly?

      • PrecipitousDrop says:

        Chest thumping?
        Adorable!

      • Independent1 says:

        So in other words, these Men and women who have intestinal fortitude need to carry a gun in order to have any guts whatever…. really?? Talk about wimps!!! They sound pretty gutless to me by needing a heater to make themselves feel manly or womanly????. What alternate universe do you live in??

        • RE Hafner says:

          Nobody mention need doofus, you don’t have to have a need to exercise a constitutional right, just a desire. If you don’t like it, too bad as there is nothing you can do about it. LOL

    • Gathering says:

      So you have something in common with them.

    • Gathering says:

      Something they have in common with you, jobimbo.

    • Krangus McBasketball says:

      Wouldn’t that be the people whining about being criticized and conflating it with a governmental violation of the 1st amendment?

  3. Godzilla says:

    Sounds like a lot of Liberal whining…..not news……Media Matters is FAKE NEWS…….The National Memo is FAKE NEWS……..Goodbye Fake news outlets, your ideology is crap.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    Since the NRA is not a government it cannot attack nor threaten “freedom of the press”.

    Maybe the author should go back to basic Civics class to understand how the Constitution works and who it applies to.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Since the NRA is not a government it cannot attack nor threaten “freedom of the press”.

    Maybe the author should go back to basic Civics class to understand how the Constitution works and who it applies to.

    • Independent1 says:

      Your mental retardation is also showing lowlife. The NYTimes isn’t a government either but Stinchfield from the NRA was accusing the Times of assaulting the Constitution: ” During an October 26, 2016, broadcast, Stinchfield characterized dissent against Trump as an “assault against … the Constitution.”

      Only a total moron such as yourself is too clueless to realize the NRA is trying to brainwash as many Americans as possible into believing that the media is subverting the Constitution – which as with everything else you right-wingers ever do is an outright lie!!!!!

      It’s pretty clear that you have absolutely no moral compunction whatsoever. You really don’t care one iota do you that you spend your whole day spewing pathological lies and distorting reality…do you?? and yet knowing that your setting yourself up to burn in Hell for eternity – you’re not bothered one bit are you?? Well, I hope you’re preparing for that time – because it’s coming. Just like it is for Stinchfield and all the rest of you anti-American pathological lying rightwingers!!!!

      • ramrodd says:

        you post scripture and then attack personally on the same link…

        pick your scripture because it will be used against you

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Hard time staying on the topic I see. I was not discussing what the NRA said about the press. I was talking about the FALSE accusation made against the NRA.

        But allow me to chase your rabbit a bit. A private entity attacking another private entity publicly has nothing to do with the Constitution.

        If a private entity is waging a deliberate effort to undermine a legitimate election then that is in fact acting in a manner to undermine the Constitution. That being the peaceful transfer of power and office provided for in that document. Although I would not have used that phrase myself. Undermine it yes, an assault against it, no.

        The actions of the NYT and WaPo is more akin to attempting a Coup. in the Trump case. Prior to Trump they were simply partisan hacks.
        Insurrections are not un Constitutional. They are simply illegal and they are illegal because the Constitution gave Congress the power to make them so.

        I do wonder if you realize that your constant name calling and hyperbole against others simply makes you look dumber than those you attack.

        And since there is no hell in the after life, I am not worried about it. I am more focused on the hell right here on earth being created by your ilk.

    • Independent1 says:

      Revelation 21:8

      But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

      • dtgraham says:

        Yeah, OK. That’s true. There are some sins that the NRA can stop though. They are licensed to perform shotgun weddings.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Godless Socialists spouting scriptures. Hilarious!!

        So tell my skippy. Where is the lie in my comment?

        • Independent1 says:

          Godless Socialist eh? Goes to show how much of a Devil worshiper you are: Jesus was a Socialist; in fact, if the Holy Spirit had its way in people’s lives, True Christians would live like True Communists where no one owned anything of their own but rather shared all their possessions.

          Only goes to show how anti-Christian you really are – you have no clue about anything.

          From Acts 4

          31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

          32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

          33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

          34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

          35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

          You’re so Godless you don’t even know that the term Conservative Christian is an oxymoron. No Conservative can be a true Christian!!! Better wake up Devil Worshiper!!!!

          • dpaano says:

            Personally, I don’t think they even KNOW what a socialist is…..they don’t seem to understand that our military, our police departments, our fire departments, etc., are all run as socialist entities.

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            I missed the part in those scriptures where Caesar or his soldiers did any of the collecting and redistributing….

        • Independent1 says:

          Anyone who tries to convince you that a Christian is a Conservative who goes around filling his life with worldly things like getting even too involved in worldly goings on; is clearly a servant of the Devil. God said clearly that you can’t love God and Mammon (or worldly things). So all you wealthy Conservatives better start thinking seriously about what Jesus said about it being virtually impossible for a rich person to get to heaven: Harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to jump through the eye of a needle; an impossibility. Better wake up before it’s too late!!!

          • dpaano says:

            Don’t worry, Independent1….when the rapture comes, we can all look down and wave at these idiots!!!

      • RE Hafner says:

        Dipstick, we are armed and there is not a damned thing you can do about . Now take your ignorant ass back to the welfare food stamp line before you loose your place

    • PrecipitousDrop says:

      Your argument falls flat, dimbulb.
      New York Times and Washington Post aren’t “governments” either.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Wow, logic is not your strong suit is it.

        The media is accusing the NRA of trying to undermine freedom of speech, ala the First Amendment. See the reference in the article?

        The Constitution is a constraint on Government action, not private entities.

        The NYT and WaPo are the ones complaining, not being accused. So what does them not being Govt. have to do with the discussion? NOTHING.

        • PrecipitousDrop says:

          When you get a gavel and a robe, you can lecture on the Constitution.
          Until then, you’re just feckless.

          • cargosquid says:

            And yet…you just opined on the Constitutionality of the article.
            Your new name is “Feckless.”

            By the way…. that term does not describe opining without knowledge. Thanks for playing.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Fallacy alert! Appeal to authority.

            So I guess Mr. Obama should have kept his mouth shut on the Constitution as well. Right?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Obama taught Constitutional law to university law schools students for 12 years before winning an Illinois Senate seat.
            How many years have you been teaching in law schools, Citizen?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            None.. and you had better check on what it was that Mr. Obama actually taught. Not what you think.

            Oh, I have taught classes for regular folks though. Not law school, just classed on Constitutional Law.

            But as usual, you folks can’t make a cogent argument, at least one on topic.

            Either the claim that ONLY judges can make a public statement is true or it is not. While you try to attack me, you just made my point.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            “When you get a gavel and a robe, you can lecture on the Constitution.
            Until then, you’re just feckless.”

  6. Dapper Dan says:

    How did the NRA ever appoint themselves the guardian of the Second Amendment ? In addition to distorting the intentions of our forefathers now they’re joining trump in an assault on the most precious Amendment we have. Not trump not the NRA or anyone else can silence the voice of our free press. We the people won’t sit idly by and let our freedoms and voice to be taken away

    • RE Hafner says:

      Between your ears is nothing but liberal feces.

      • Dapper Dan says:

        And between your ears is dead air. It’s always nice to see the deplorables speak up and remind us why we oppose the alt right so much. I salute you sir with my middle finger ????

    • John Crawford says:

      Well, perhaps you’ll enlighten us concerning the intentions of our Forefathers, by quoting them?
      Semper fi

    • cargosquid says:

      Other that using that false Media Matters claptrap, please point out how the NRA assaults the 1st amendment.
      Also, please point out what you believe were the “actual” intentions of our forefathers.

      I’m sure you have all sorts of evidence for both.

  7. dpaano says:

    Actually, Stinkfield is wrong…..guns kill more people than the Washington Post, but, then again, those NRA types have one-track minds!! Apparently, he thinks that journalists should “get on board” with Trump’s doing away with the Constitution completely! They’re a little backward in their thinking, but again….one-tracked minds! Why would they think this nation needs to support a totally dishonest, lying, narcissistic, paranoid idiot? Sorry, but most of us are smarter than that!

  8. fsilber says:

    It’s no more an attack against Freedom of the Press than anyone else’s complaints against fake news — and we had plenty of it from the Washington Post itself after the recent Presidential election.

  9. ramrodd says:

    Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    The Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media hookers tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

    • dpaano says:

      Apparently, people in Japan and Europe, where they have strict gun laws, are slave and chattel…..is that what you’re trying to say in your sad, uninformed way? We didn’t have as many guns back in the early 30’s and 40’s, and no agenda controlled us.

      • ramrodd says:

        The US is not Japan or Europe and the govt. has no right to gun control – – this is no longer the 30s or 40s..

        The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

        • PrecipitousDrop says:

          The Bill of Rights does grant “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.”
          But the rest of your post is just plain wrong.
          We “infringe” the “right of the people” to be armed every day. They go back to prison for being felons in possession of firearms. Ronald Reagan, distressed by the very idea of armed aggrieved and oppressed black people in Oakland, California, said he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act gun control act that he signed into law July 28, 1967, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
          Your seditious consortium of firearms manufacturers and hobbyists have worn out your flimsy little arguments. I get you’ll go away mad. I rejoice that you will all be legislated away.

          • RE Hafner says:

            You socialist nonsense reflect a spineless wimp.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Ad hominem is proof of your failure.

          • cargosquid says:

            That was not an ad hom.
            He merely insulted you.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Meanwhile we are armed and all you have is hot air.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Please.
            Ask me if I care if you are “armed”.
            Near as I can tell, that’s your fast track to a lo-o-o-ong incarceration.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Well there are over forty four thousand of us armed in El Paso County, Colorado with CCW permits and thousands of more firearms owners who disagree with you asinine assumption .

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Big deal, little feller.
            The jackrabbits must be petrified.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Run along little neutered one. There are wolves and there are sheep and you bleat baaaaa baaaaa blaaaa.

          • Independent1 says:

            You really need a mental check – you’ve gone over the hill!!

          • dpaano says:

            If we’re REALLY lucky, PD, he may accidentally shoot himself in the nuts!!! One can ONLY hope and dream! Hang in there….and don’t bother arguing with this guy, he’s useless. I’ve blocked him as have many others. You can’t change stupid!

          • Independent1 says:

            More nonsense from an NRA puppet.

          • ramrodd says:

            Reagan is no hero of mine – his admin. was loaded with CFR..
            He was known as Red Ronnie to many…well except the Left and the phony right!!

            ———————————————————–

            In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . .
            to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

            The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

          • cargosquid says:

            The Bill of Rights grants no rights. It protects existing civil liberties. The 2nd protects the existing right to keep and bear arms. That is an inalienable human right.
            We infringe on rights as part of the penalty awarded via due process.
            Reagan was wrong on banning the carry of guns but is right in that gun fire is a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” Gun fire is to deal with people of BAD will.

            You hope it will be legislated away. The problem is that, since 2010, the 2nd amendment was incorporated to the states.

          • RE Hafner says:

            You are losing.

          • Independent1 says:

            Nobody loses to a total loser like you. You clearly are nothing but an NRA puppet.

            I hope your content with potentially living a shorter life because you carry a gun around or own one. Studies that have shown via history that people who own or pack a gun get shot and possibly killed 4.6 times more often than people without a gun are not lying.

            So, have fun their with that potentially shorter life your living if you keep packing that gun.

          • RE Hafner says:

            Don’t have a stroke when a mouse farts pantie wetter.

        • Independent1 says:

          Sorry, but with virtually every post you’ve made, you are wrong.

          Justice John Paul Stevens knows the Constitution better than you will ever know it, and he says you’re wrong too:

          The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “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.”

          For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.f801d3aa0d6b

          • ramrodd says:

            washington compost is a rag of the left………..

            In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

            The germ of dissolution of our federal government is
            in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

          • RE Hafner says:

            Apparently you don’t understand the phrase shall not be infringed.

          • Independent1 says:

            I clearly understand what that phrase was intended to mean: The right to own and carry a gun for those involved in militia activities to ensure the sovereignty of the U.S. WAS NOT TO BE INFRINGED!!

            Problem is, there are no longer any bone fida militas in America, so in essence the 2nd Amendment does not really apply to anyone in America who is not serving in the armed forces!!!!! And that includes YOU and me and all your moronic buddies!!!

          • RE Hafner says:

            You just displayed your ignorance. Even the USSC does not buy your trash.

          • Independent1 says:

            Yes, because the USSC has a majority today of unAmericans – who will bastardize the Constitution for money!! Lovers of Not Really Americans!! Who have worked to destroy America with their treasonous Citizens United decision!!

          • RE Hafner says:

            We call them liberal Democrats who would turn the USA into a socialist welfare state of unarmed peasants, your idea of utopia.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            “…socialist welfare state of unarmed peasants…”
            There aren’t any “peasants” in the United States, RE Huffer.
            There are millions and millions of working poor people who are, statistically, three times more likely to be armed than household members earning over $50,000 per year.

          • RE Hafner says:

            You are the epitome of total ignorance. Too stupid to rate a reply.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Thank you for wisely deciding not to refute an indubitable statement.
            It would, indeed, be “too stupid” for you to reply in any other way.

          • Independent1 says:

            There’s where you show even more of your ignorance – fact is lowlife that it’s Republicans who are turning every state they govern into welfare states. It’s GOP-run states that by far lead the nation in sucking welfare dollars from Washington.

            Of all the states that the GOP-runs, only 3 of them get less welfare dollars back in the form of federal aid than the tax dollars they send to Washington; and those 3 get back more than 96 cents on the dollar in federal aid.

            While it’s 14 Democrat run states that all get back less than 90 cents on the dollar in federal aid – many of them around 60 cents on the dollar which are actually the states keeping America running.

            Your ignorance of reality is astounding – you couldn’t be dumber if you tried!!! Are you actually working at being a clueless right-wing moron??

            (And by the way Red States, by being the states which lead the nation in gun ownership, also lead the nation BY FAR in people dying via violence and murders committed by guns. So keep up with the stupidness because you moronic right-wingers are killing yourselves off at a record pace.)

          • Independent1 says:

            And by the way, the USSC does not have “a majority’ of “liberal Democrats’ lowlife – It has a majority of traitorous right-wing conservatives who would destroy America for nothing more than a few bucks in their pockets!!!!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            You need to read this article there lowlife (link below) – which proves the 2nd Amendment was only added to the Constitution so southern states could continue to maintain their slave patrols.

            As I said before, the 2nd Amendment does not in reality give any American a right to own a gun unless they belong to a militia; which is what virtually all judges and lawyers believed for 200 plus years until in 2008, 5 corrupt judges on the USSC were paid by the NRA to bastardized the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

            The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

            Closing paragraph:

            Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

            http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

          • RE Hafner says:

            Dipstick, there is no such thing as an assault rifle available to the public, and no , the 2nd Amendment was not added to preserve slavery and yes it is an individual right. Your references are as loony as you . You have to be a common core idiot.

          • Independent1 says:

            And the lies just keep on going and going and going!! You are a pathological lying fool!!!!

          • RE Hafner says:

            Blah, blah, blah. You mother is calling you for a diaper change.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Awww…
            What’s next for you, Kitten? A little tantrum, maybe?

          • Independent1 says:

            The AR15 is as close to an assault weapon as you can legally get and has been used in assault-type situations. Stop your lying!!

          • RE Hafner says:

            There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s obvious you know nothing about firearms. The AR-15 has never been issued to any military force. The military classifies weapons, not ignoramuses like you, politicians, reporters or civilian police. Now go back to your safe space and get some hot chocolate.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            You need to study the history of the National Firearms Act and subsequent legislation.
            Congress has — and does — classify weapons for civilian registration, ownership, transportation, manufacture, and sale.

          • Jan123456 says:

            The other thing about the right to bear arms is why it was put in. It was (gasp!) a compromise to the south to get them to support the Constitution.. The south wanted to be able to have the ability to shoot their slaves in case of an insurrection. That’s why this particular clause was added, to preserve slavery.

            http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

          • Independent1 says:

            Thanks for the link! The last paragraph really says it all. Why the NRA keeps spewing it’s pack of lies and was willing to pay right-wing justices on the SCOTUS to bastardize the Constitution by claiming that the 2nd Amendment gives the right of all Americans to own and carry a gun.

            “Little did Madison realize that one day in the future
            weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would
            use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to
            manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.”

          • King George says:

            Nice fiction

          • King George says:

            Nice fiction.

          • Jan123456 says:

            You evidently haven’t studied history. Nor have you seen NRA headquarters in Virginia.

            Keep them eyes closed and ears covered. Fact free the only way you can survive.

          • King George says:

            You’ll believe anything you read.

          • dpaano says:

            Apparently, from your many comments on this site, so do you. Unfortunately, what you read is not what is valid in many cases. Consider the sources.

          • Gathering says:

            Don’t you just love it when people like it and ‘dpaano’ wear their ignorance and sophistry like a badge of honor?

          • fredoandme says:

            oh, really?

            “the gun lobby’s interpretation of the second amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, i repeat the word fraud, on the american people by special interest groups that i have ever seen in my lifetime. the real purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. the very language of the second amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” conservative supreme court justice warren burger

          • legaleagle45 says:

            Incorrect. Mr. Hartmann is no historian.. first thing right out of the bat– Slave Patrols were not the same thing as “militias”. They were two distinct entities. Slave patrols consisted of about 2 dozen men in each county who served for about a month. A militia is a body consisting of all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.

            The confusion for Mr. Hartmann arises do to the fact that in 2 states, slave patrols were selected by lot from the militia rolls, in much the same way that jurors are chosen from the voters rolls. In other states, membership was based upon real property tax rolls.

            The entire article is based primarily upon a law review article written in 1998 by the then executive director of Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Campaign) and is based solely upon supposition and innuendo and leaves out significant parts of the story.. for instance, the first right to arms amendment proposal came from the hotbed of abolitionist thought in the early Republic– Pennsylvania. The next one came from the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, followed by the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention, then Virginia, then New York and then North Carolina copied all of Virginia’s proposals– that’s it… nothing from any of the other slave states.

            In fact, all 9 members of SCOTUS rejected the thesis forwarded by Bogus… not just the majority, but also the dissent, found the argument of Bogus to be quite unconvincing…

            Besides, the real reason for the entire Bill of Rights is much more interesting.

          • Jan123456 says:

            This is not the only source that confirms the reason for the “right to bear arms” was to get the south to ratify the Constitutions.

            In fact, all 9 members of SCOTUS rejected the thesis forwarded by Bogus

            Will you tell me what case you’re referring to?

            Just because other states had other reasons. (the US Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government enough power to run the nation) that does not mean the south was concerned that a federal militia would usurp the state militias and therefore take away the power they had over their slaves.

          • legaleagle45 says:

            They all ultimately rely upon “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” written by Carl Bogus.

            The entire thesis dreamed up by Bogus was to establish that the 2nd amendment protected a right of the states to organize, arm and train their own militias in the event the feds failed to do so. This thesis was rejected by all 9 justices in DC vs Heller.

            The Federal Militia was (and is) COMPOSED of the state militias who would be called into federal service for 3 reasons and 3 reasons only. They were not separate entities .

            It might well be that the states wanted to insure that their militias retained their vitality– but that was a concern of all the states.

          • Jan123456 says:

            Ok you’re going to have to give me a citation. I just went through Scalia’s ruling as well as Stevens’ and Breyers’ dissents in the Heller case and I see no reference to Prof. Bogus’ theory either by name or simply by reference to slavery. I see a lot about only freemen allowing to have arms and laws restricting blacks from owning it, but nothing that appears to confirm your claim that a 9-0 rejection of his thesis.

            I am not saying it’s not there, I just don’t see it.

            Here is the copy I used. Please tell me where you see the rejection. Page number of the opinions will suffice.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

          • legaleagle45 says:

            Bogus’ thesis was that it was a state right and not an individual right. That is why he pasted the whole article together– in order to assert that the 2nd was a collective right– read the conclusion written by Bogus in his article.

            This conclusion was rejected by all 9 justices.. from Breyers dissent:

            “In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).”

          • Jan123456 says:

            I don’t see how the words of Breyers that you cited disputes the point that the amendment was included as a compromise to the southern states so slaveowners would not be denied the weapons to keep their slaves in line.

        • Independent1 says:

          And you apparently have some friends who are as ignorant as you are of reality.

          • ramrodd says:

            What Do Gun Owners Do When the Supreme Court Won’t Acknowledge Right To Self Defense?

            First: It’s time to elect a new Sheriff who knows the Constitution!

            Second: Acknowledge that these gun control measures are NOT law. They are what our founders called, in the Declaration of Independence, “pretended legislation”.

            Americans need to call on sheriffs and police officers to declare their intention to uphold the law by refusing to enforce these measures.

            This God-given right given to all men to preserve their lives is codified into the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. “The right of the people to keep (i.e. ownership) and bear (i.e. carry publicly) arms, shall not be infringed.”

            If anyone is to begin discussing the topic of Americans’ right to bear arms we MUST understand it has never been the government’s responsibility to protect us as individuals.

            What did you say?

            That’s right. Courts have even ruled to support the fact that police are not responsible to protect individuals. If you call 911 and no police officer shows up and you or someone you know is vandalized, brutalized, or killed, you have no legal right to sue the police department for negligence.

            Let me repeat, gun control measures ARE NOT law. The people will NEVER give up their guns and the politicians know it!!

            https://newswithviews.com/what-do-gun-owners-do-when-the-supreme-court-wont-acknowledge-right-to-self-defense/

        • dpaano says:

          Where did you get this BS? In Europe, it IS a law that people can’t carry weapons…..they aren’t in the U.S. Their laws are NOT our laws and there’s been no mandate from God or any other higher being to say that a “law cannot be passed……” Get a life!

          • ramrodd says:

            The phrase “get a life” is as old and tired as you!

            Second Amendment has Biblical Natural Law foundation. Our Lord said in Luke 11:21, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.” In Luke 22:35, 36 He said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” The principle of armed self-defense is redundant throughout the scriptures in both testaments. Genesis 14, Esther 8 and 9, and Revelation 13:10
            are good places to start. In fact, Revelation 13:10 is an extended commentary on the words of Jesus to Simon Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ told Peter to put up (not give up) his sword in Matthew 26:52. No passage of Scripture has been more egregiously misinterpreted (except Romans 13*) than this passage in Matthew.

            Europe has been disarmed – –
            BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE USA

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Reaching into Bronze Age scrolls to bolster a document adopted in 1791 — specifically, what it says about the tools perfected for war and murder?
            Utterly staggering misapprehension.

          • ramrodd says:

            as the atheist you are – grow the spine to contact Pastor Chuck Baldwin with that comment?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Why should I?
            He lived and preached his vile, hateful spew for decades about a half-hour from my home, little gems like these:
            “I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law. … I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist.” from Me In A Nutshell
            But, hey, I get that you think he’s cool because his preachery crap is archived on VDARE — right next to somebody else’s skinhead drool.
            P.S. Thanks for admitting the cut and paste job. No way you came up with all those bible verses yourself, right?

          • ramrodd says:

            so youre saying that Baldwin is a racist….but of course anyone who hates scripture would go there!!

            btw genius…funny you didnt say that i wrote the passages myself!!

            do you ever read your posts back to yourself………

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            No. Chuck Baldwin and his followers are “vile” and “hateful”.
            Ask someone to point to the words when they read to you. It might limit your confusion.

          • ramrodd says:

            Jesus: Intolerant, Confrontational, and Exclusionary ..

            The typical denominational view of both Father and Son is that “God is love,” and only love. What is so easily forgotten is His severity (Romans 11:22) and wrath (II Thessalonians 1:3-10). Jesus is depicted as quiet, soft-spoken, harmless, almost a wimp (nothing could be further from the truth). The consequence of this one-sided view of Jesus is that while many believe in Him, they no longer fear Him. This tolerant, inclusive, non-condemning Jesus will accept just about any scheme that man will devise or any form of worship so long as it is offered in sincerity. Sadly, this political correctness has crept into the thinking of many Christians.

            Jesus Excluded Many By His Teaching. It is not that Jesus wants to exclude anyone from salvation. As already stated His offer of forgiveness is extended to all men. But He will exclude those who reject His teachings.

            Dan Gatlin

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Peanuts, Rimshot.
            More cut & paste to promote your favorite apostates?

        • Independent1 says:

          Are you really happy living in your delusional fantasy land??

      • RE Hafner says:

        They are sheep.

      • John Crawford says:

        Precisely. Or did you miss the European courts sentencing Charlie Gard to death, rather than let his parents bring him here for treatment?
        Semper fi

        • dpaano says:

          Apparently, you missed the latest news….the doctor from the U.S. came to see Charlie and examine him. It was his decision that (1) Charlie was too sick to move to the U.S. for treatment; and (2) the treatment would not help him in his current state. Get on board, John….

          • John Crawford says:

            What has that to do with the court refusing the parents their right to seek help for their child? See, the problem is one of control. Should the parents be in control, or should the state?
            Semper fi

          • Independent1 says:

            It’s whichever truly has the best interest for the child. And in many cases that is not the parents. The parents are operating on their emotions; not on what may truly be best for the child – or actually make sense medically.

            There are countless instances of when parents clearly are making the wrong choices – sometimes based on religious and often based on their emotional connection – neither of which are often the correct choice either medically for the child or humanely for him or her.

            There are countless examples of parents, who for religious reasons, deny their children the medical care that it is obvious they should get. Are you suggesting that in these clearcut cases that the parents should rule and let the child die in severe suffering with an illness like cancer?

            And are you really suggesting that parents, who have no medical training whatsoever, and are only pushing to alleviate their own mental grief, know better what’s really medically sensible and humane to do for a child, than a doctor?

            Sorry, but I seriously disagree. The medical profession or state cannot always cave to parents who are doing nothing but trying to satisfy their own emotional feelings (which of course are understandable).

          • John Crawford says:

            So, you support the state controlling the people, removing or negating any Rights we may have. Thanks, you show that you’re the perfect Socialist.
            I am suggesting that the parents, who raised almost 2 million dollars, should have been the ones to decide that their child could be treated in the U.S. Your lack of an answer, and your mocking response, is typical of Liberals.
            Semper fi

          • dpaano says:

            Again…..the child could NOT be moved to the United States because he was too ill. The doctor from the U.S. came to England and, after examining Charlie, clearly stated that he was suffering from incurable brain damage and that he was not going to be able to undergo the treatment which would NOT have helped him at the point he was at. Do you NOT read the paper or do you just read what you want to?

          • John Crawford says:

            WHen this brouhaha started, the baby was not too ill. Furthermore, seriously ill people are moved in such a way fairly regularly. When the doctor examined him, the State had already held him hostage for 6 months.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            you, sir, are a lazy fool.

            fiddle dee dee.

          • John Crawford says:

            Lazy, perhaps. But address the point. We are either a free people with Rights or the State controls us. Which is it?
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            the collective state, everywhere, has rights, into which yours either fit or don’t. don’t like that, you, sir, are free to leave. find some fabled, utopian state where you’re the ultimate authority. go on. i double dog dare you.

            mairzy doats

          • John Crawford says:

            Name a Right that the State has, please.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            all of them. the state is made up of people, people make up the state, all of whom must live together through compromise and cooperation for the common good.

            dippity doo

          • John Crawford says:

            No, sorry, but YOU said the STATE has Rights. So, name a single Right held by the State, per our Constitution, or the Constitution of the State to which you refer. The People have Rights, individually. That is why we don’t punish groups of people for the crimes of individuals.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            the state is composed of people and, collectively, they have rights.

            simple pie

          • John Crawford says:

            Then name one of those “collective” Rights. I’ll check the Constitution, and get back to you.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            the right to collect taxes. the right to police communities. the right to protect its citizens from harm, foreign and domestic. rights GIVEN to the state by those who comprise that state.

            if you have one, you should use your imagination. i bet you could come up with more examples. the only way the state has no rights is if there is no state. one dunce does not a confederation make.

            you’ll not find anywhere on earth where you are not subject to the rights of the collective to tax, punish or eject your sorry ass if you don’t behave.

            pimply butts

          • John Crawford says:

            That isn’t a Right. It is a power. Ditto policing. States have no Rights which are natural states held ONLY by the individual.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            you’re worthless. can’t see anything beyond the end of your dick. anti-social and antagonistic. the kind who gives out firecrackers to toddlers on halloween.

            patty cake

          • John Crawford says:

            Poor boy. You haven’t learned the difference between a Right and a Power, and you blame me? Its rather humorous, you know, that folks such as yourself want to debate issues here, but don’t know the facts. States have Authorities/Powers/Duties. They have no Rights because they have no need of Rights. Their authorities are spelled out in their Constitutions, as is the Power of the central government spelled out in the Constitution of the U.S. The Power to tax is backed with what? Power, that’s what, the Power to destroy those who refuse to cooperate. That is why the individual has Rights, so that we have protection from government Power where those Rights are concerned. In other words, government has no Power (or is supposed to have no power) to abridge those Rights absent adjudication by a jury of our peers.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            the power of the people. without them, no power.

            the adjudication by a jury of our peers? made me laugh again.

            all of those powers were granted by the people to protect their rights.

            can’t have one without the other.

            fuzzy buns

          • John Crawford says:

            The People have the 1st Amendment Right to gather to address their grievances to the government.
            None are granted by the people. All are natural Rights. If granted, they may be retracted. If natural, they may be violated, but never retracted.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            poor boy? where?

            frickled pickle

          • John Crawford says:

            You, of course. In your ignorance, you are to be pitied. If you strive to change that ignorance to knowledge, then you may be congratulated. Until then, you’re a poor boy.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            i’m not poor. guess again.

          • John Crawford says:

            I didn’t ask, because I recognized your education plight.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            you recognize nothing. you look at my name, but you don’t see.

            tiddly winks

          • John Crawford says:

            No, your utter ignorance is visible to all. You can’t hide it, when you open your (figurative) mouth and prove it.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            this isn’t about me. it’s about your lack of vision.

            coconut stacks

          • John Crawford says:

            Lack of vision? Well, I suppose it depends on what you are envisioning, doesn’t it!? I envision personal liberty, per the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What is it you envision, beyond the State which you believe has Rights?
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            vision. not envision. pay attention.

            you still don’t see it. probably because you don’t have the knack.

            but i see you. even in the most benign situation, you oppose, wanting only to dominate others and bend them to your will and way of thinking. at any cost. the opponent doesn’t matter because, always, you consider the opponent beneath you, less than you, to be destroyed or subjugated; under YOUR thumb, suject to YOUR rights. the rights of others be damned. you aren’t invited to many parties for a good reason. there’s a word for people like you.

            LOOK at me. vision. yours needs exercising in the worst way. the tools you need are at your fingertips. you’ll find you’re not so all knowing as you think.

            pumpkin seed

            p.s. i was going to let you guess what the word for people like you is, but i don’t think you’d get it right. it’s dickwad.

          • John Crawford says:

            You obviously don’t speak English as your first language. Look up the words “vision” and “envision”, please.
            How is desiring individual liberty “wanting to dominate others”? Please be specific in your answer.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            this also is NOT about semantics. it’s about eyesight.

            which is your last clue.

            desiring individual liberty is one thing. being a jackass is another. look those words up.

            i am now going to do to you what you fear most.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d2b9de261eb4ea2f7f4288f12b408c089b91d2b77a043ebfc4c6532a520a1de.jpg

          • John Crawford says:

            You wrote nothing that my eyesight may have missed. You stand for the State, that much is clear.
            I’ve been mooned by real people. Bart Simpson is meaningless.
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            oh, wait. we don’t punish groups of people for the crimes of individuals.

            now THAT made me laugh.

            fiddle stix

          • John Crawford says:

            Why would you laugh at it? Can you show groups of people punished for the crimes of an individual?
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            sure. lots. you could too, but your mind can’t deal with abstracts.

            stinky toes

          • John Crawford says:

            In other words, you haven’t a clue, further evidenced by your laughable assertion that the Power to tax is a Right held by groups of citizens. Absolutely hilarious!
            Semper fi

          • fredoandme says:

            selected reading:

            That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
            deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That
            whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
            the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
            Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
            powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
            Safety and Happiness.

            But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
            same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
            it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
            to provide new Guards for their future security.

            We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
            General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
            for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
            of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
            these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
            Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
            British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
            State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
            as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
            conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
            other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

            and so on and so forth. all for the wants, needs and good of all of the people. not john crawford alone.

            funnel cakes

          • John Crawford says:

            Apparently you don’t read what you post. “..deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..” Powers, not Rights!
            Another from your citation, a very limited paste of the Declaration of Independence. “…That to secure these rights,…”
            But you apparently forgot to add one small part, which I offer to you. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
            Nowhere within the Declaration is the concept of governmental Rights mentioned. It is the Rights of people which are mentioned.
            Now, if government has Rights, it has no need for the “consent of the governed”, because it stands individual and distinct, protected from interference in the practice of those Rights by the citizenry.
            Semper fi

          • OHJonesy says:

            The “state” is a unit of government, and while a state has citizens, you
            are confusing the “rights” of the individual citizens, with the
            “powers” of the government.

            Government cannot grant rights, because governments have no rights to grant, they have only powers, and those are the powers that We The People grant them, defined within the Constitutions of each state, as well as the Federal Government.

            Thus, there is no such thing as “Collective” rights. Every right is an individual right,and I am not required to be a member of any “collective” in order to exercise a right.

          • fredoandme says:

            i was just yankin’ his chain.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Why do you sign off with “Always faithful”?
            Faithful to what? To whom?
            Yourself?

          • John Crawford says:

            To the Constitution. To what do you pledge allegiance?
            Semper fi

          • Gathering says:

            You triggered the snowflake with your signature. LOL!

          • RE Hafner says:

            The British authorities have even told the parents they cannot choose the place of their child’s death. Talk about government controlled subjects.

        • john says:

          Hi, John. Hope you and yours are well and happy.

          • John Crawford says:

            Hey brother. Have a great weekend. One more week till the World Police & Fire Games.
            Semper fi

      • cargosquid says:

        What they are…are subjects. They do not have recognized inalienable rights which limit the actions of their governments. They do not have the right of free speech.

      • john says:

        Let me try to follow your arguments. We are not Japan, or England. By demanding that we be, is treachery. If I understand you correctly. I England in the 30s and 40s, what antigun laws did they have? I nthat era, they made the best shotguns and riflkes in the world, and they were unrestricted. Japan has a long history of violence.They suppress it viciously, to the point of making the Japanese suicide rate much higher that ours. Do you think that is a trade off? Why are you being so hysterical now, when the gundeath rate is at its lowest that it has been in decades? That can be documented by the FFBI Uniform Crime Reports. You can argue with them all you want. Incidentally, the FBI estimated guns in possession have been climbing at over 1 million per year. Has the crime rate risen at the same rate? Your argument is a fallacy, and a deflection away from the real argument, That reflects poorly on you. Why do you take every non-acceptance of what you say as a personal attack? That is just sad.

    • PrecipitousDrop says:

      Oh, fergodssake, Ramrod.
      Keep it in your pants, Scaredy Cat.

    • Gathering says:

      Uh-oh, you triggered ‘dpaano’.

      Who is going to clean up that mess?

  10. jack burton says:

    I completely agree with this article.

    Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

    Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime.

    Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

    Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can’t get licensed will certainly encourage the church folk to have the correct belief about guns.

    We should hold a nation-wide vote against guns but gun-owners cannot be allowed to participate. They are too biased.

    People who don’t like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.

    We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by Mayor Rahmfather as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don’t get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

    No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

    If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

    Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to us because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that our Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

    Long live our Constitution!

  11. harviele says:

    Another reason to not be an NRA member. They are so far out there that they can’t think straight. Every time a child picks up a gun and kills itself or someone kills a child by shooting it, I say, this shooting brought to you by the NRA.

    • ramrodd says:

      the NRA was brought to you by the govt. and have sold out gun owners thru the decades

      • RE Hafner says:

        Nonsense.

        • ramrodd says:

          The NRA has been selling out the American gun owner for over 100 years. They actively supported the NFA in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968 and the oppositely named Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which removed the right of Americans to purchase new automatic or AOW weapons, a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

          All of this was done with the cooperation of the sellout Progressive owned and run Republican Party as well.

    • RE Hafner says:

      And I say you are an idiot.

    • john says:

      That is a fallacy of logic, and would get you a failure in ant formal class on logic or debate. What organization is a bigger source of instruction for safety in the US? What other organization teaches weapons proficiency to the military and law enforcement> You can deny it all you want, but you would be wrong. Nobody wants you to be a member whether you like it or not. You, on the other hand want to impose your will on everyone else. What conceit. Your arguments are emotional, and, as such, are failures. You can call the NRA names all you want, but your arguments are merely invalid. You know that by name calling, you open yourself up to name calling in return, don’t you? It is called, abandonment of station. Look it up. Stop using childish arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

  12. Jonah Hirsh says:

    Unmitigated bulldookey.

  13. JimFromHouston says:

    What a pile of cr4p. “Attack on the First Amendment”? Since when is WaPo or any other media source the equivalent of the First Amendment? The lunacy of these people is astounding.

    If you want to see an attack on the First Amendment, just look at what is happening on college campuses these days.

  14. cargosquid says:

    The first mistake is using Media (doesn’t) Matters as a source.

    There is no attack on the 1st amendment.

  15. Orphan says:

    Seems to me that Cydney Hargis is attacking the NRAs first amendment rights, she/he is doing exactly what she/he is accusing the NRA of doing. Pot meet Kettle.

    • Independent1 says:

      Sorry, but the first amendment does not give you or the NRA a right to act like shouting ‘Fire’ in a nightclub; which is what the NRA is doing by publishing lie after lie in it’s efforts to brainwash Americans into believing their misguided guns for everyone agenda!!!

      • RE Hafner says:

        Now that you have posted that you are a uninformed unprepared fool, run along.

        • Independent1 says:

          You are the biggest joke posting on the NM – you don’t know diddly squat about anything!!

          Fact is, the NRA is nothing but a group of terrorists, who are trying to incite terrorism across the nation by conning people into believing that guns will protect you. WHEN THE FACT IS, that people who carry guns are almost 5 times more likely to get shot and killed in an altlercation or breakin than people not owning a gun.

          So owning a gun is doing nothing but setting gun owners, or someone who lives or visits their home, into being shot and killed!!

          Virtually all the 19,000 suicides that occur by gun each year, occur in homes where the gun is owned.

          Of the 165,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012, only about 1,300 were homicides justified as being committed in self defense by someone other than a police officer. That’s less than 1% of the homicides committed by a gun in 12 years being justifiable as self-defense. Showing clearly that the NRA lies!!!

          And see this clueless from the UTAH health department about guns being worthless as self defense and more likely than not resulting in the deaths of people in the home where the gun is owned.

          Firearms Tutorial

          The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or
          assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as aspouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

          • RE Hafner says:

            Blah, blah, blah. Run along little sheep boy.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Poor little guy.
            Need a Safe Space, Snowflake?

          • john says:

            How abpout you engage in a n adult conversation? That comment is just meaningless hatefulness.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Oh, you poor widdle ting!

          • dpaano says:

            I believe many of us have tried, but you and your brethren don’t seem to understand adult conversation and the right of people to disagree with you.

          • john says:

            Yours is the most polite response I have seen in awhile. However, I have to disagree with you. Your objection seems to be that we are fundamentally opposed in viewpoints, and even worldviews. Antigunners have not generally tried to engage in persuasion, nor do they generally adhere to facts or logic to support their arguments. It is my observation that antigunners take a rather dictatorial point of view, and dismiss out of hand any disagreement. Would you like me to enumerate some of the abuses I have seen from antigunners? You have very right in the world to disagree with me, but I demand that the arguments not be emotion-driven, and be supported by stone cold facts, and logic. What do you think of that? May I suggest you read some of the antigun comments in this string?

          • john says:

            Kid, you are a brainwashed sack of sh/t. You have a closed mind and nothing outside your dogma will soak through. It reflects poorly on you. You are being criminal in advocating the violation of my civil rights, and that does not matter to you, does it? 165000 homicides between 2000 and 2012? Prove it to me. Give me sources from places like the CDC and the FBI.You conveniently ignore that the latest numbers show that gun homicides are the lowest they have been in about 30 years. Or do you deny that? Do you deny that your numbers reflect all homicides, and o0 only gun killings,. You include suicides( what a value judgment), justifiable homicides, killings by LE personnel. You are being intellectually and academically dishonest. I refer you to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports since 1990. You can argue with them all you want, but it will only display your hysteria. Face it, in the light of verifiable facts, your argument just falls apart. Why are you in such a tizzy now about banning guns? Almost The most antigun president ( and she who lost the election)are out of play. Give it up.

          • Independent1 says:

            You’re the NRA brainwashed fool! No FBI reports have ever shown that the average citizen has ever on a consistent basis been able to use a gun to protect themselves. And a number of side studies of actual gun-related crimes have shown that the opposite is true. And you refusing to believe what studies that have analyzed the use of guns over the years which show that owning one puts you and your family more at risk for being killed by a gun, is nothing more than you being a total fool.

            And the fact is, that the cumulative FBI reports for the years 2000 through 2011 show that of over 165,000 homicides, that only 1,300 of those homicides were the result of a gun to successfully prevent a robbery or mugging (that’s less than 1%) shows clearly that your assertion that a gun is used hundreds of thousands of times to prevent an attack, is nothing more than a bald face lie.

            Fact is, the vast majority of claims by people that they’ve successfully used a gun to prevent an attack, is akin to fisherman’s fantasies about the big fish that got away.

            So keep on believing your foolish notion about that gun you want to carry will protect you. And it won’t be long before you are added to the statistic which has shown time and time again that people packing or trying to get to a gun they own are shot and possibly killed 4.6 times more often than someone not carrying a gun.

            It’s your life, so if you want to put it at greater risk, not only yours but also someone in your household – that’s your prerogative; but you may also be added to the overwhelming statistics which show that it’s the GOP-run states with high gun ownership which lead the nation not only in violence but murders by gun as well. Also proving that thee NRA lies that more guns will prevent crimes from happening!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            What a bunch of gibberish – fact is where there are more gun owners there are more killings. Homicides have declined somewhat in some recent years only because gun ownership is down over 15% since the 1970s: from an average of about 51% to an average today of about 32%.

            See this:

            The household ownership of firearms has declined in recent decades. Table 1 (left side) shows that the 31.0% of households reported having a firearm in 2014, essentially tying with 2010 for the lowest level of gun ownership in the last 40- some years. This is a decline of about 17 percentage points from the peak ownership years in 1977-1980. Similarly, Table 1 (right side) indicates that in 2010 and 2014 about 32%of adults lived households having firearms. This was a decline almost 19 percentage points from an average of 51.2% in 1976-1982.

            http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

            And here’s a chart which shows that with over 10,000 average homicides/yr, that at the highest, around 300 of those homicides are justifiable – the actual average for 2007-2014 is about 2.5% of homicides result from someone using a gun to protect themselves.

            See this:

            Number of justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers and private citizens in the United States from 2007 to 2015

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

            (If you add up the justifiable homicdes by civilians for 9 years you get 2,549 divided by about 100,000 homicides during those 9 years.)

          • cargosquid says:

            That study, using their numbers, shows an increase of 8 million households, based on population growth. There have been 240 million + NICS checks since 1998. You might want to take your stats with a huge grain of salt.

          • dpaano says:

            And you, sir, also have a closed mind. You’ve been led to believe what you want to believe and nothing anyone says or any link that you’re shown will change your mind. Quit calling people names who don’t agree with you…..just deal with the fact that there are some of us out here who would like to see some actual responsibility taken by the NRA! As I said before….many of us don’t actually want to see your guns taken away….we just would like to see stricter background checks to stop people from purchasing guns that have NO business owning one! Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand.

          • john says:

            I have to disagree with you. My mind can be change, given a persuasive argument. The problem is that, in regards to this argument, no argument has been factual and logical enough to change my mind. Your objection seems to be that I still do not buy into what you ( antigunners) have to say. I suggest that your distaste ( dare I say hate) for the NRA is not based on logic, or facts, but that it stands in the way of the antigun agenda. The fact is that a great many antigunners do indeed want to see the American people disarmed. I suggest you do some homework on the legal requirements for purchasing a gun from a license dealer. That you collectively want to see the government control interpersonal sales of property and a central governmental registry of gun owners is repugnant to me based on historical precedent of abuses thereof. Your anger is based on frustration that gunowners and a number of pro-gun organizations successfully stand in the way of you achieving your goals. Frustration leads to hate, anger leads to hate, ignorance leads to hate. That is why antigunners hate pro-gunners. Yes, the argument frequently leads to name calling, but antigunners are not innocent of name-calling and abuse.

          • john says:

            This is me laughing at you and sneering. You demonstrate just the same flaws that you accuse me of. That is significant. Tell me who are the people already denied the rights to own guns. Do you know what a 4473 is, and what questions it asks? Maybe you should look it up. Then look up the penalties for lying on the form. Get back to me when you can form a logical, factual argument. Your feelings are irrelevant. I am talking about the law, which you seem to know nothing about. Your talking points come straight out of the liberal antigunner playbook. I do not see you forming any critical thinking,or logic.

          • cargosquid says:

            Aww…. wow.
            This is really good. You present the PERFECT example of a bigot.

        • Independent1 says:

          And you and the rest of the clueless (aka ignorant) posters that are supporting the NRA really need to read that Firearms Tutorial from the great red state of UTAH, because it clearly outlines just how devastating to America that excess gun ownership is. Do realize that in England, where guns are not allowed that on average about 60 people are murdered by guns each year compared to 11-13,000 in the U.S.? Even if I adjust that 60 by the fact that England has 1/5th the population of the U.S. that’s 300 murders in England to 11-13,000 murders per year in the U.S.

          Excess gun ownership is one of the reasons America’s longevity has fallen to almost 50th in the world – actually shorter lifespans than some 3rd world nations. Because although the level of violence in England and the U.S. is almost the same, very few people die in violence in England because people don’t carry guns while in the U.S. hundreds of people are shot every day either via violence or accidents because there are so many guns around and it’s so easy for someone to just pull out a gun and fire it.

          Like I said, it would do well if you read this tutorial.

          Here’s some excerpts:

          Utah Med Department Firearms Tutorial:

          In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms,
          distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

          The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)

          The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

          • RE Hafner says:

            Were you born this ignorant or practice at it.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            You gave up all partial attempts at reasoned, factual rebuttal yesterday.
            All you’ve posted since then are cut & paste blurbs from crackpot ammosexual fundamentalist xtian preachers, and feeble insults.
            In other words, a remarkable 36 hour demonstration of ignorance in practice.

          • john says:

            I don’t know which is more disgusting: someone who sexualizes guns, or someone who sexualizes them, and then advocates for them being taken away from people.

          • dtgraham says:

            Yeah well, have fun stroking the shaft of your gun up and down tonight as you’re cleaning it.

          • Independent1 says:

            What’s more disgusting our inhumane NRA puppets like you who refuse to accept facts and keep on trying to con other people into buying a gun which just may end up killing them or someone in their family. And you are heartless enough to really not care!!

          • john says:

            Go ahead and make your bone-headed comments.

          • Independent1 says:

            And the total dumbass calls other people ignorant.

            In other words, facts and experience don’t mean anything – is that right dumbass??

            Well fact is turkey, GOP led states which have high gun ownership and follow the NRA like little puppies – have far lower longevity rates than Dem states – 2-6 years shorter, and BY FAR, lead the nation in dying via gun related violence.

            So just ignore facts and experience – is that right dumbass!!

            You are so utterly stupid that it’s totally mindboggling. But then keep up the good work and you’ll end up dead far sooner than even me, and I’m 80 years old!!!

            So here’s just a few more stats for you that show that possessing too many guns only ends up with creating more violence and more deaths and more suicides!!!!

            But then, when you’re a total dumbass, what does it matter? You don’t really care whether you live or die – as long as you have that notorious gun in your pocket!! Right dumbass!!!

            -All 10 of the states with the most gun-related violence are GOP-run states
            Analysis by 24/7 Wall Street – 2013
            Homicides/Assaults/ViolentCrime
            LA-9.53/99.51/555.3
            AK-4.22/80.47/606.5
            AL-5.92/40.50/420.1
            AZ-4.24/57.36/405.9
            MS-6.91/51.69/269.8
            SC-4.95/127.88/571.9
            NM-3.69/87.26/567.5
            MO-5.59/88.90/447.4
            GA-4.57/58.64/373.2
            AR-4.53/100.56/480.9

            -8 of the 10 most violent states are GOP-run at the time of the statistics (2012)
            Violent Crimes per 100,000 Population – 2012
            TN-643.6;NV-607.6;AK-606.5;NM-5.67.5;SC-571.9;LA-555.3;DE-547.4;FL-487.1;MD-476.8;OK-469.3

            -24 of the 30 Cities with the highest murder rates in the nation for 2016 – per neighborhoodscout.com – arein GOP-governed states with lax gun-control laws; or are in states that have
            been recently governed by the GOP or are right next to a GOP-governed state with very lax gun laws making gun access easy even though there are stricter gun-control laws in cities like Chicago. Here’s the top 20 with #1 being East St. Louis, IL then Chester, PA; St. Louis, MO; Gary, IN; Detroit, MI; Camden,
            NJ: New Orleans, LA; Riviera, FL; Trenton, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Jackson, MS; Harrisburg, PA; Baltimore, MD; Newark, NJ; Petersburg, VA; Prime Bluff, AR; Rocky Mount, NC; Flint, MI; Bridgeton, NJ; Harvey, IL; and note that Chicago, Heights, IL is
            #30.

            -18 of the 20 states with the highest firearms mortality rates are RED STATES; with Louisiana leading the nation in firearms mortality followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, W. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho, Florida and N. Carolina

            -9 of the 12 states with 6 or more public servants per 10,000 public employees convicted of corruption are RED STATES: led by Louisiana with 10.5, Kentucky – 8.5; S. Dakota – 7.5, Delaware – 7.2; Mississippi – 7.1; Alabama – 7.1; Pennsylvania – 7.1; N. Dakota – 6.9; New Jersey; 6.7; Montana – 6.5; Ohio – 6.3 and Tennessee – 6.0.

            -8 of the 10 most corrupt states are RED STATES: Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Kentucky and Florida.

          • dtgraham says:

            This is one debate that I don’t get into that much anymore at the National Memo. Maybe just a little. The gun nuts are like cockroaches coming out of every crack in the woodwork and spewing their nonsense on every gun story. Most of them are posters who are never seen at the National Memo except for gun articles.

            Facts, stats, peer reviewed empirical studies, and real world observations and examples? Forget about it. They DO NOT care. This is a fundamentalist religion for them.

            I think if I were a Democratic politician, I probably wouldn’t waste any political capital on gun safety and gun control measures. I’d just go on to other progressive issues.

          • john says:

            By being dishonest, by attacking my Constitutionally protected civil rights. You think you are being persuasive? You think that will make me agree to anything you say? If so, your level of intellect is a poor reflection of what you think it is. The very idea of what you suggest is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..

          • dtgraham says:

            The point is, I couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ about your so-called constitutionally protected civil rights (civil rights?) to open carry rocket propelled grenades, if that’s what you want to do. I’ve given up on this debate.

            I would argue like hell for all other liberal/progressive causes, but if you want to carry your machine gun around with you…go for it. I don’t think I care any more.

            We’ll pistol pack all 6 year old’s and train all teachers to be Clint Eastwood. After all, guns don’t kill people — schools kill people.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            I suspect that if you felt your position was rational, graham, you would not be driven to such wild hyperbole.

          • dtgraham says:

            It’s not rational, and I’m keenly aware of that. It’s just that I’m talking to the irrational. The irrational who apparently wield an incredible amount of power in the United States. So much so that rational arguments are worthless and useless.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Lol, graham, you are amongst the rational as well, but I think you were mainly talking to yourself. If you had rational arguments, you would have presented them.

          • dpaano says:

            It’s unfortunately that the NRA has the largest group of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. than any other group and they LOVE to throw their money around on Republican senators and congress people!

          • OHJonesy says:

            I would have thought someone who claims to be a Mensa member would check their facts before making wildly inaccurate claims.

            No, the NRA does NOT have ” the largest group of lobbyists in Washington”.

            “The five biggest spenders in lobbying last year, in descending order, were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.

            “Rounding out the top 10 were the American Medical Association, Boeing, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T and Business Roundtable.”

            In fact, the NRA is not even in the Top 50 lobbyists in DC. How could you get that so wrong?

            http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

          • saltysailor says:

            Jonesy, did you see this exchange in here?

            dpaanpo (responding to Barry) : “You’re kidding, right? There are a hell of a lot more than 600 accidental gun deaths in the US every year! Trust me, I know because I have dealt with them more times than I want to think about! When you see a very small child who has been shot through the head by another child who “happened” to find a gun lying around the house…..then you can discuss this with me in a more intelligent manner! We’ve had more than 600 just in Southern California alone, and it’s only August!”

            legaleagle45 (responding to the above post) : According to the CDC there were 489 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2015 (latest year available)
            According to the CDC there were 461 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2014
            According to the CDC there were 505 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2013
            According to the CDC over the 10 year period 2006-2015 there were an average of 560 accidental gun deaths per year.
            Source: Centers for Disease Control, Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999 – 2015 WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) . Link:
            https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwebappa.cdc.gov%2Fsasweb%2Fncipc%2Fmortrate10_us.html%3AsYPcq3Blet80jP6jNcoCflnspOA&cuid=1190584

            Perhaps you can provide me with a source which contradicts CDC?

            ———————————————————————————–
            Indicating the real fraud in here.

          • OHJonesy says:

            Thanks Saltysailor, I did not see that! I’ll definitely wander over there!

          • saltysailor says:

            It in the same thread…just up a bit.

          • Jo says:

            BOOM! Facts

          • OHJonesy says:

            Thanks Jo, good to see you here! Facts to anti-gunners are like sunlight to vampires!! The just can’t stand ’em!

          • Jo says:

            I’m glad I followed you over.
            It was interesting to learn who the biggest lobbying spenders really were.
            Thanks for that

          • OHJonesy says:

            My pleasure, my friend!

            It’s too bad that the only reply I’m getting from this old bag of wind who claims to be a Mensa member is . . .

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e0b2d54db7d18d4baaa7db9182c7a22b6dee39993b84fe55e0f6190f1126683.jpg

          • john says:

            You continue to advocate for violation of civil rights and the law of the land, Consider this: you will have to reverse my Constitutionally protected rights to do so, no matter what you think or feel. Tell me how you want to do that? Do you think that would stand in an even SCOTUS? I do not care what you want. You are a whiney liar for even advocating such a move. You want to preserve your rights, perhaps like the 1st Amendment, but you seem eager and willing to take away another ‘s rights, What a hypocrite. Again, you think that by being insulting and calling baseless names that you are being persuasive? Yeah, right. Keep it up.

          • Independent1 says:

            I’m not advocating to take away anyones’ rights; you like millions of others have a right to make dumb decisions. I’d like to see only expanded background checks and that people choose to buy a gun with all the TRUE facts; not NRA lies. And if they’re not planning to become gun use experts, that they think twice about buying one.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Also, when people say they want to buy a gun “for protection”, remind them that means they want to shoot at other people.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Actually, that does not follow, drop. Wanting to protect something doesn’t mean that you want to be forced to.

            And it certainly doesn’t mean that you want to have to shoot a person. Perhaps you can deter an aggressor, perhaps the aggressor is blind to deterrence. If it is the latter, what would you want to do?

          • OHJonesy says:

            Wow, I never knew that. So you’re saying that the over-100 million gun owners in American, who own over 600 million guns, all bought them because they want to shoot at other people?

            What happened? Did they forget to buy ammo, or are they all really bad shots, or are all those guns defective?

            Or did you just make up a really childish story?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae6b55a8f794335585c844bfee75ae479f74af783d59172499b30b644c943e73.jpg

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Also, when people say they want to buy a gun “for protection”, remind them that means they want to shoot AT other people.
            At what else do they intend they aim their “protective” weapons, if not other people?

          • OHJonesy says:

            You tell me. I already know.

            And while you struggle with that, address my post too – “What happened? Did they forget to buy ammo, or are they all really bad shots, or are all those guns defective?

          • OHJonesy says:

            I see nothing that makes an intelligent counter argument to what I said. Are you really trying to say that 4 cases of accidental shootings proved your silly claim that everyone who buys a gun for self defense wants to shoot at people? You’re really reaching, why not just admit you lied?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Why argue? We agree that guns shoot people. We agree that there are hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners in the US. We agree that defective ammunition, aim, and weapon condition prevent reliable gun firing.
            What’s to argue?

          • OHJonesy says:

            Nope, we’re nowhere near agreement. Again, you claimed that gun owners “want to shoot at other people”, which is an out-and-out lie.

            99.9% of gun owners in America have never fired their weapons at another human being, and have no intention of ever doing so. They own a gun for a variety reasons, including hunting, target shooting, competitions, and self-defense.

            Yes, criminals also obtain guns illegally, and use them to commit criminal acts. Yet, you attempt to shift the blame for criminal actions on the over 100 million law-abiding gun owners who have no intention of harming another human being, and would only do so if they or their loved ones were in imminent danger.

            Why do you lie?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            No. False attribution. For the third time:
            “PrecipitousDrop Independent1 • 4 days ago
            Also, when people say they want to buy a gun “for protection”, remind them that means they want to shoot at other people.”

            “All guns” are not guns purchased “for protection” of home or family. I agree that some people buy and own guns for recreational and law enforcement purposes.
            Why do you introduce criminality?
            Please stop insinuating things I clearly did not post.
            That makes you a liar.

          • OHJonesy says:

            Yet you are still unable to answer one simple question. Why it is that people who buy a gun for self defense, seldom have the need to use it? Just as most people with a fire extinguisher don’t use them – but if they suddenly have the need for either one, they need it right then and there!

            So if most people who bought a gun for protection “want to shoot at other people”, why have so few done so?

            Really – why do you lie?

          • Barry says:

            When I buy a car with airbags, it means I WANT to get in a wreck.

            I have a gun for protection, and I hope that I never EVER have to shoot at another person.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            All cars come with airbags, Barry — unless they’re over 25 years-old.
            Happy motoring.

          • Barry says:

            When I buy a fire extinguisher it means that I want my house catch on fire so I can try to put it out.

            When I buy a first aid kit it means that I want to cut myself so I can try to stop the bleeding.

            When I buy a security system it means that I want someone to try to break into my house.

            When I buy a battery backup for my computer, it means that I want the power to go out.

            Sorry but your original comment was just stupid and has no basis in logic.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            You have given examples of common household items being used for their limited intended purposes (and you have proved my point).
            If you have obtained a gun for “protection” what is the most likely target of its primary limited intended purpose?

            P.S. Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day, Barry. You’re a riot.

          • Barry says:

            “Also, when people say they want to buy a gun “for protection”, remind them that means they want to shoot at other people.”

            Justify the use of the word “want” in that sentence. It is not a defensible word choice. A correct wording would be: that means they are prepared to shoot another person in defense from a violent attack.

            There is nothing wrong with that.

            The most likely target of my defense gun? Steel at my range where I practice.

          • Doc Chaos says:

            Annoying illogic isn’t it? Good post!

          • Charlie Victor Alpha says:

            Some people need to be shot at.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Please try to restrain yourself.

          • Charlie Victor Alpha says:

            No, don’t think I will.

          • cargosquid says:

            Define “expanded background checks.”

          • Independent1 says:

            Background checks on all gun sales, not just those that go through a federally licensed dealer. About 40% of gun sales today have no background checks.

          • cargosquid says:

            Your statistic is BS. It is based upon a flawed telephone survey from 1993, before background checks were mandatory for commercial sales. As for universal background checks, talk to your gun control Democrats. THEY defeated the ONLY universal background check bill ever presented to Congress, covering EVERY transfer.

            As for the disc jockey…good. Had the background check It is her right to keep and bear arms. As for Chicago, you might want to look up the ATF trace data. You are full of talking points, but none of them are correct. The Boston study is obviously BS because the Bureau of Justice reports that only about 2% of “crime guns” come from private sales. The ATF data also says it is BS. The TOTAL number of “crime guns traced from neighboring states comes out to be 68%. Not from private sales…but total. And the vast majority of THOSE were “crime guns” because of illegal possession. The average “time to crime” from purchase to crime is 12+ years. So not a very convincing “pipeline” from neighboring states.
            https://www.atf.gov/docs/163556-maatfwebsite15pdf/download

            You should really learn to do some actual research instead of relying on talking points.

          • Independent1 says:

            And let me post you an article in today’s news which is a clear example of why I said that if people aren’t really going to become expert at using a gun, they should really think twice about buying one. And becoming an expert handler of a gun requires far more than going somewhere to target or practice shoot as this article makes clear.

            Man fatally shot in southern Maine sandpit, police say

            A 20-year-old Sebago man is dead after being accidentally shot Sunday at a sandpit off Carl Burnell Road in Baldwin, according to the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office.

            Chance Gallant, 20, suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the chest during a recreational target practice session, the sheriff’s office said in a news release.

            According to the sheriff’s office report, six men, all in their early 20s, were participating, when one of their rifles jammed. Two friends were working to clear the jam at approximately 1:45 p.m. when Gallant walked into the line of fire and was shot accidentally from about 4-5 away.

            For more than an hour, personnel from Sebago Rescue and Life Flight tried to save the man’s life, but were unsuccessful, the sheriff’s office said.

            http://bangordailynews.com/2017/07/30/news/man-fatally-shot-in-southern-maine-sandpit-police-say/?utm_source=BDN+News+Updates&utm_campaign=fe49c8aeb8-RSS_MORNINGUPDATE_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_715eed3192-fe49c8aeb8-82548417&goal=0_715eed3192-fe49c8aeb8-82548417

            And the above article is just one example of what happens in America more than 150 times every single day. People being accidentally shot with 3-5 being killed every day because they really don’t know how to handle a firearm – it’s far more of a danger to them or their family than it ever will be protection.

          • cargosquid says:

            Sure. By your logic, no one is qualified. Your article is irrelevant. We have the inalienable human right to keep and bear arms. But thanks for supporting the idea that we SHOULD have more training. Let’s start in elementary school for the Eddie Eagle program. To graduate, one must demonstrate safe marksmanship skills with pistol, rifle and shotgun.

          • dpaano says:

            Independent1…..you’re being too logical for these people.

          • dtgraham says:

            What’s with this 1964 civil rights act talk? That law had nothing whatsoever to do with guns. It’s goal was to help finish the work of the Civil War and to ensure the promise of legal equality for blacks and whites.

            You might want to look into the gun control act of 1968 though.

            Limiting magazine sizes, criminal background checks, and banning obvious weapons of war do not “infringe” on the right of law abiding citizens to “bear arms.”

          • cargosquid says:

            Actually, it does. See Heller.

          • dtgraham says:

            One last thing, john. Surely you must respect one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices of all time, Antonin Scalia. Here’s what he had to say about restrictions on the second amendment, just as there are restrictions on the first amendment:

            (CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says “yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed” on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It’s up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

            Some limitations “undoubtedly” are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: “For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor,” he explained.

            “I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to ‘keep and bear.’ So, it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be — it will have to be decided.”

            Scalia said he would consider the limitations society observed when the Constitution was written — and then “see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

          • cargosquid says:

            You might want to examine the fact that all arms, suitable for a militia, in common lawful use, are protected. Held in Heller. Caetano v MA held that applies to all bearable arms.

          • dpaano says:

            Independent 1…..apparently, it’s a lost cause to cite valid figures for these people. They have been totally brainwashed by the NRA into believing what they wish to believe…..there’s no changing their minds with statistics. Why argue…..we can just respect their right to their opinions and move on!

          • john says:

            You ignorant Fvck. You attack my Constitutionally protected civil rights, and dare to call names and throw insults based on political disagreements. You are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 AND the Second Amendment. That reflects poorly on you academically and intellectually for being dishonest. We are Not Canada, we are not England. If you do not like it, then why don’t you permanently relocate to someplace that is more agreeable to your ethical and political inclinations? You want to punish the honest, law-abiding 150 million or so gunowners. The US has no legal concept of collective guilt. Try making the realistic social changes that would really address gun violence. The liberal Democrats have tried that for decades, and it had not worked, so you wish to attack the law of the land, the Constitution for no better reason than that you disapprove. Here is a hint: you are supporting the violation of my rights, and the Constitution that I swore to protect. You were never in the military, were you? You might be a better man for having done so. EASD!

          • dpaano says:

            So now you say that there are 150 “law-abiding” gun owners…..those are NOT who we’re talking about in most cases. As for being in the military…not sure what that has to do with anything. I retired from the U.S. Army with over 26 years of service….I did swear to protect the Constitution, but, like the Bible, it is oftimes misinterpreted. I sincerely doubt our Founding Fathers meant that every man, woman, and child should carry a gun. They meant an armed MILITIA, which is a group who is supposed to militarily protect the country against a war against it…..

          • OHJonesy says:

            Sorry, but that’s not correct, the 2nd Amendment does not protect an armed militia. The 2nd Amendment states that government is explicitly prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that the people can assemble well regulated militias in times of crisis.

            And when the people mustered for militia duty, they were expected to bring their own arms and ammo. It should be clear to you that the right to keep and bear arms was placed in The Bill Of Rights because it protects an individual right. Were it meant to ensure states could arm militias, would it not have been placed in Article IV?

            “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison

            “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

            “The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed…” – Ronald Reagan

          • dpaano says:

            Also, I read where Australia passed a gun law and it’s citizens freely gave up their weapons. Since then, they have had LESS gun violence and shootings in the country.

          • OHJonesy says:

            Actually, Australia’s gun violence has fallen at the same pace as the United States, where the number of guns more than doubled over the same period of time.

            But the Australian gun confiscation only disarmed the law-abiding, while criminals were completely unaffected. A recent report on crime in Melbourne from newspaper “The Age” revealed the limitations of
            Australia’s stringent laws.

            According to the paper, “Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Author massacre.”

            The papers report shows what gun rights advocates have long contended; that gun controls merely disarm the law-abiding, and are ineffective in confronting criminal behavior.

            http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html

          • Doc Chaos says:

            It sure makes the phrase live and learn a bit iffy. Too late now. Probably a good place to open a chain of gun shops in the not too distant future…

        • King George says:

          You’re responding to a mental toddler.
          As you can see, she/he/it only knows to bray with emotional hand-wringing and a dismissive obnoxiousness with those that sheit disagrees with.

          You would have better luck debating a brick as sheit is intellectually closed for business.

          • Independent1 says:

            And another NRA puppet speaks!! If like Hafner, you own and carry around a gun; just be aware that you’ve greatly increased the odds that you or someone in your family will be killed by a gun by a factor of almost 5 times. And that’s not my opinion that is what numerous studies have shown happens to gun owners.

            So good luck living what well may be a shorter life??

          • RE Hafner says:

            Amazing, you continue making a fool of yourself.

          • Gathering says:

            You have to remember that Independent1 would rather that the parents of his intended victims remain unarmed should they catch him/her molesting their children.

          • RE Hafner says:

            That how most perverts like their victims, unarmed and helpless.

          • john says:

            That would be mean, if it was not so true.

          • john says:

            Now, that is just nasty and mean, man. May I suggest that by stooping to the level of these haters, you somehow make them feel like they have won. Maybe by sticking to facts and logic , calmly stated, it will just make them crazy. What do you think?

          • john says:

            Does he, exactly how so?

          • King George says:

            Another Brady Bunch shill squeals. And comes out with yet another claim of the odds of being killed by a firearm. You use 5%. So far I have heard or read…4…5…7…11….17….24…and 43.
            Can’t you guys get your schtick together?
            Those polls/studies are typically flawed. With as many firearms that are out there in the hands of law-abiding citizen, the numbers of deaths would support those claims. Alas, they don’t.

            Let’s talk about the increased odds of death with people that own swimming pools, chemicals/flammable/explosives, engage in high risk behavior, etc.
            Not that you may care about deaths incurred by any means other than firearms.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            No one is preventing you from linking to any peer-reviewed study you care to reference.
            Why have you deliberately gravitated to dimwitted ad hominem instead?

          • King George says:

            Ad hominem? Where?
            And why did you ignore the facts that exposure to any potential for danger increases the odds of being killed?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Read your posts.
            Where are your “facts” regarding “potential for danger”?

          • King George says:

            I read them. Read yours, too.

            Oh? So having a swimming pool doesn’t increase the risk of drowning? Smoking doesn’t increase the risk of getting lung cancer?

          • john says:

            Good points! May I use that?

          • dpaano says:

            We’re not talking about drowning or getting cancer from smoking…..it’s apples and oranges…..stay on point!

          • john says:

            I refer you to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports on self-defense. Or do you choose to display any acceptance of them as being shills for the NRA. Listen buddy, you are not helping your cause by calling names. It reflects poorly on you personally, and is certainly not making your position any more persuasive. Your manner only makes it obvious that you are a shill for the liberal left, not factual.

          • john says:

            I have a great Truth for you: For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. Don’t believe me? Do some homework yourself. You do not display any open- minded inclination. I suggest that as a narrow-minded dogmatic liberal, you just cannot stand it when anyone disagrees with you. Want to argue statistics? How come it is okay to use ad hom attacks to support liberal convictions, but your intellectual opponents are not? There is a rather abrasive name for that behavior. Do you know what it is?

          • john says:

            George, these guys are intellectually and academically dishonest. Keep up the good work. Hold their feet to the fire!

          • john says:

            This is me laughing at you, and sneering. You stick with that purported statistic, but do not seem to provide any justification for it, Citation? We are NRA puppets? “I am not sure that word means what you think it means.” You speak with a great deal of conviction, but not much in the way of facts, when you end everything you say with the understood: ” because I said so.” Tell me, where do you get your information? Or are you too cowardly to say?

          • ELSEVAR says:

            You have made that claim of “5 times” two times on this page, indy, and added the phrase “numerous studies”.

            Would you share those “numerous studies” with us, please? Please be specific with your attributions.

          • Independent1 says:

            If you read a post of mine below, you see that in the Firearms Tutorial from the Medical Department of the Red State of Utah, a study done some time back of almost 700 gun related instances showed that people possessing a gun during an altercation were 4.46 times more likely to be shot and possibly killed than someone not possessing a gun.

            Brief excerpt:

            Firearms Tutorial

            ” Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”

            http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

            From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, their study concluded the same thing:

            Brief excerpt:

            “research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5”

            http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

            Here’s another for you:

            Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

            Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

            Looking at the issue in another way which proves that owning a gun is more danger to the owner than it’s value is for self protection, see this article which notes just that issue:

            In 2012, it said, only 259 “justifiable homicides” involving a
            private citizen were reported, compared to 8,342 criminal homicides committed with a gun.

            Put another way, for every justifiable homicide involving a gun, 32 criminal homicides carried out with a firearm occurred. And that does not take into account “tens of
            thousands” of gun-related suicides and unintentional shootings.

            The influential National Rifle Association contends that “guns are necessary for self-defence,” said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. “But this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact,” he said in a statement.

            “In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million firearms, it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense.”

            http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/guns-rarely-used-self-defense-us-there-are-32-criminal-homicides-every-1

          • OHJonesy says:

            “… it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense.”

            Sorry, that’s demonstrably wrong. Studies have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are used a minimum of 100,000 times every year in legal self-defense, often without a shot ever being fired. Many studies put that number closer to one million times a year.

            “A university criminologist in a position of responsibility similar to the NCIPC director would at least have known that this question [Defensive gun use] has been exhaustively researched and answered by criminologists. Researchers in criminology, the real experts in the study of crime, have done at least eight independent studies of this question over the last twenty years. The best estimates consistently put the answer between 600,000 and 900,000 defensive uses of firearms every year. (Note: subsequent research yielded even higher estimates).

            The source for this, published by Dr. Timothy Wheeler, MD,

            https://drgo.us/?p=285

            also details why your information (A gun in the home is more likely to be used …) is the result of long-debunked psuedo-research by long-debunked researcher Dr. Arthur Kellermann.

            “… the research methodology used by Kellermann and his coauthors was flawed. Aside from the unusual use of the case-control method more suited to epidemiology studies, the subjects for the study were highly aberrant. They were selected only from homicide victims in Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

            As the metropolitan areas including Memphis, Seattle, and Cleveland
            respectively, they were skewed toward inner city populations with high rates of violent crime.

            As the scientific process of peer scrutiny unfolded, it became clear that Kellermann’s work had little or no validity. His close connection with the already-outed CDC further discredited him. His research, like that of other public health advocacy researchers, came to be discounted by the scientific community

            Sorry, but the fact remains that guns in the hands of the law-abiding are used many times more often in lawful self-defense, than are used by criminals to commit murder.

          • dtgraham says:

            Talk about a flawed study. The reason that your Wheeler study is scoffed at is because he factored out all of the shootings at home, in the Kellermann study, that had to do with quarrels, romantic triangles, and drug selling. Why factor those out? The point is…no gun, no shooting.

            Wheeler says that the authors themselves in the Kellermann work admit that half of the homicides occurred in connection with a “quarrel or romantic triangle” and 30 % occurred during the commission of drug dealing or another felony such as robbery, rape, or burglary. So?

            Furthermore, anybody who thinks that any association with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention somehow automatically discredits you, is a nut. In this case, a gun nut.

            Look, gunshot homicides in the U.S. totaled 8,124 in 2014, according to the F.B.I. That level of violence makes the United States an extreme outlier when measured against the experience of other advanced countries.

            Around the world, those countries have substantially lower rates of deaths from gun homicide per capita. This isn’t complicated. The more guns per capita, the looser the gun laws, the more gun shootings and deaths. In the developed world, it really is that simple. The stats show it.

          • OHJonesy says:

            “The more guns per capita and the looser the gun laws, the more gun shootings and deaths”

            That’s demonstrably wrong as well. In the past 25 years, since the high-point in gun crime (around 1993), three things have happened;

            – The number of guns in America more than doubled, from around 170 million then, to well over 400 million today.

            – Concealed carry permit holders increased from nearly none, to nearly 16 million, and that doesn’t include those who carry lawfully in the growing number of “Constitutional carry states”.

            – gum homicide has fallen by HALF

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#3d3d0ed7de9e

            You are more safe from gun violence today then you have been in the past 50 years. More guns and less gun laws have NOT resulted in more deaths because clearly, more law-abiding gun owners do not commit more crime.

            Focus on the problem – the FBI tells of over 70% of all gun homicides are gang related, often fought over drug turf in the violent inner-cities like Chicago. But don’t pretend that passing laws that only disarm the law-abiding, will ever keep criminals from getting the guns they want. They won’t.

            “FBI Drops Truth-Bomb on Gun Control Advocates: Firearms Numbers at Record Levels & Violent Crime Decreases”

            http://ijr.com/2014/11/200671-fbi-now-know-record-numbers-gun-sales-means-gun-crimes-america/

          • dtgraham says:

            No, it’s demonstrably right. Like I said, this isn’t complicated.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

          • OHJonesy says:

            No, I just showed you it’s demonstrably wrong, and now you’re moving the goal posts by trying to compare the US to other countries. That was not my argument.

            Try to focus here, it’s not complicated.

            But sure, we’ll play your game, since you cannot refute my point.

            You cannot compare the US, an ethnically diverse nation of over 330 million people, with other countries of the world.

            Such comparisons are useless:

            “Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.”

            -from-

            https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

            Britain for example shows us the folly of gun control, because only the law-abiding gave up their guns. For any criminal so inspired, obtaining a gun in Britain is no more difficult than buying heroin.

            Worse, Britain deems the rights of violent criminals above the law-abiding, and advocates a pathetic state of helplessness, placing the responsibility for safety in the hands of others. The ONLY “fully legal self defense product… is a rape alarm (whistle).”

            https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

            Yet, in America guns in the hands of the law-abiding save lives. Just a few weeks ago, a citizen saved the life of an Arizona police officer by shooting an attacker. Guns in the hands of the law-abiding are used a minimum of one hundred thousand times a year in lawful self defense, often without firing a shot. Most studies place that number between 500,000 and 1 million.

            https://drgo.us/?p=285

            Clearly guns save far more lives in the hands of the law-abiding, than they take in the hands of criminals.

            Making good people defenseless will never make bad people harmless.

          • saltysailor says:

            Hat tip!

          • OHJonesy says:

            Thank you sir, I appreciate that!

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh, so gun violence in the U.S. is on a completely different level than all other developed countries, and so is gun ownership per capita, but we’re not supposed to notice that. Right.

            Criminals and gangs do exist in other wealthier countries. What’s different is their access to guns.

          • OHJonesy says:

            So you didn’t read the link? That’s all in there, why ignore it?

            Think about it – in a country with over 600 million firearms, if your “theory” held any water, we should be walking over dead people every hour of every day.

            Maybe it’s not the guns . . . .

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb6de55cfd32a4b205c320674224a50bd5eec0e3397acce6bab22ee97007bdcc.jpg

          • dtgraham says:

            Iceland definitely does not have a gun ownership rate that is inordinately out of sync with many of it’s wealthier peer countries. It’s guns per 100 people comes in at 30.3, but it’s homicides by gun per 100,000 people is just slightly lower than many other countries that have a gun ownership rate of around 30 per 100 people.

            Iceland’s gun homicide rate may not be statistically countable, but France clocks in at only .06 gun homicides per 100,000 people, with the same level of gun ownership. Germany is at .19.

            On that score, Finland has a gun ownership rate per 100 people of 45.3. It also has a homicide by gun per 100,000 people of 0.45. Canada is at 30.8 per 100 people and 0.51 gun homicides per 100,000 due to the flow of guns from south of it’s border that is hard to completely stop, and a bit of a gang issue from same. The United States has a gun ownership rate per 100 people of 88.8 (dated) and a homicide by gun per 100,000 people of 3.2 (dated).

            Look at countries with even lower levels of gun ownership. England, 6.2 guns per 100 ppl and .07 homicides per 100,000 people. Japan, .6 and .01. Poland 1.3 and .09. Czech Republic, 16.3 and .19. Spain, 10.4 and 0.2. Austria, 15.0 and 0.14.

            There’s a trend there that can’t be denied.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

          • OHJonesy says:

            Precisely, thanks for proving my point. It’s not the number of guns, it’s a culture issue. You’d realize that if you would read the link I provided, but you seem to wish to ignore that. Pity.

          • dtgraham says:

            That’s not what I said at all, and you’re fully aware of that. Don’t play stupid. There are small blips of difference within the developed world that are due to other factors but overwhelmingly, the more guns per capita…the more gun violence rule prevails.

            You’d realize that if you spent one waking moment looking at all the data, but you ignore it. That’s more than a pity.

            I’ll respond to the rest of your gun freaks tomorrow. Sorry I allowed myself to be suckered into another one of these worthless American gun nut debates.

          • OHJonesy says:

            “… the more guns per capita…the more gun violence rule prevails”

            I don’t know how else to convince you how wrong you are, since you’re fighting tooth and nail to ignore the facts, but for the sake of others here with more open minds, let’s try one more time.

            Let’s look at the bigger picture. You may not be aware that since the high point of gun violence (including gun homicide) in 1993, three interesting things have happened:

            (1) The number of guns in America have more than doubled, from 170 million then, to over 400 million today. Over 40 million were sold in the final two years of Obama’s term alone. That’s over 50,000 new guns sold every day!

            (2) The number of Concealed Carry license holders grew from nearly none, to almost 16 million today. That does not include the people in 13 “Constitutional Carry” states that can carry concealed without a permit.

            (3) The violent crime rate in America, including gun homicide, has fallen by about 50%. Yes, by HALF!

            There you have it – proof-positive that the number of “guns per capita” have skyrocketed, while gun violence is at its lowesst leverls in many decades. Why is that hard to understand?

            If you want to reduce murder even further, gun laws will not help. Cleaning up our violent inner-cities of the drug cartels and gang waging turf wars is the answer, not more gun laws that criminals already ignore.

            FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
            https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

            More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013
            http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

            Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#5e0e9ab43f7c

            Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
            http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

            America Is Awash In Guns, And Crime Is At Record Lows
            http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

          • Independent1 says:

            Fact is dummkopf, those more guns piled up in a smaller percent of peoples’ hands. Gun ownership fell from 51% in the 1970s to around 32% of American households today. So gun nut’s like to buy and store a lot of guns today!! BIG DEAL!!!!

          • OHJonesy says:

            That’s a cute theory, but one that falls apart under scrutiny. The fact is . . . no one knows, but it’s almost certainly close to 50%.

            https://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2017/06/27/more-than-600-million-firearms-in-america/

          • Independent1 says:

            Do you worthless gun nuts ever do anything but create fabricated statistics??? 50% – In your dreams!! The percent is actually closer to 30%!!!!

            Number of households with guns on the decline, study shows

            That the number of households with at least one gun is declining doesn’t necessarily mean that the number being purchased is on the decline. Data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system shows that in recent years there’s actually been an increase in the number of background checks being run, suggesting the total number of firearms being purchased is going up.

            But those are concentrated in fewer hands than they were in the 1980s, the General Social Survey finds. The 2014 poll finds that 22 percent of Americans own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent who said so in 1985.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-on-the-decline-study-shows/

          • OHJonesy says:

            Again, that’s a cute theory, but one that falls apart under scrutiny. Anyone with two firing brain cells knows that —

            (1) Gun owners stopped answering pollsters honestly long ago. When asked ‘Do you own a gun?’, the answer now is “Nunya Business”

            (2) FBI statistics gleaned from 4473 forms plus data from gun dealers tell us that women are the fastest growing group of new gun owners. The number of new members, especially women, at my range confirms that.

            (3) Over 100 million new guns were sold during the Obama years alone. To assume that they all went to existing gun owners is preposterous.

            That CBS poll is every bit as made-up as that New York Times poll that said Hillary was going to win by over 80%.

            But hey, you keep on believing that if it help you sleep at night!

          • Independent1 says:

            And the propaganda just goes on and on. You gun-lovers have no level of depravity that you will sink to in trying keep up with the carnage that too many guns are inflicting on our Country.

            Sorry NOT BUYING A WORD OF IT!!!

          • OHJonesy says:

            Nope, I’m giving you verifiable facts, the propaganda is coming from your side.

            Speaking of your side, you have no intellectual counter-argument, I see. You should have just said so.

            The facts don’t support your agenda, but the truth is, since the high point of violent crime (including murder) in 1991, the number of guns in America more than doubled, while crime fell by half.

            Sorry if the truth hurts.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f414c4586d331f4ae395c134508f6d572a9fe88294d8719ab49485cd4dadc1aa.jpg

          • Independent1 says:

            Sorry but those are not guns per person – the chart has been manipulated; fact is – guns per person has plummeted over the past 2 decades. it’s the number of guns owned/gun nut that have increased like the chart!!!!!!!!

            THE CHART YOU’RE POSTING IS A FRAUD!!!! JUST LIKE YOU!!!

          • OHJonesy says:

            Sorry but that’s nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion, which you’re still unable to prove. I already showed you why you’re wrong, but you seem to want to double down.

            More guns, less crime. It’s the single fact you cannot deny.

            But hey, you keep on believing your lies if it help you sleep at night!

          • Independent1 says:

            Hogwash!! That’s not opinion. FACT IS, that the number of households in America owning a gun has changed very little over the past 40 years!!

            In 1979 there were just under 78 million households in the U.S. and surveys showed about 51% of American households had a gun. 51% of 78 million households is just under 40 million households.

            Surveys done over the past couple years show that today about 32% of households have guns and there are just under 126 million households in America. 32% of 126 million households is just over 40 million households.

            So essentially the same group of gun loving Americans own guns today that owned them 40 years ago; if anything only about one million more households own a gun today than owned a gun back then. Despite the fact that there are over 100 million more Americans today.

            And despite your fake chart – homicides by gun have stayed almost flat around 32,000 each year – they have not gone down like your fake chart claims to show.

            Because 40 million households have purchased millions more guns, DOES NOT mean that there are millions more Americans owning guns. The chart is trying to show a trend that IS NOT HAPPENING because it’s BY FAR existing gun owners who are piling up guns not more people stupid enough to go out and buy them!!!

          • OHJonesy says:

            Nope – I’ve given you links and sourced charts to prove you’re wrong.

            You keep replying with worthless opinion.

            But hey, just keep on believing your lies, if it help you sleep at night! And if you have a hard time falling asleep at night, here’s some more hard facts for you to dwell on —

            FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
            https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

            More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013
            http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

            Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#5e0e9ab43f7c

            Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
            http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

            America Is Awash In Guns, And Crime Is At Record Lows
            http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

          • William The WarLord says:

            Thanks to the veiled threats to violate the Constitution and take away certain guns by Obama,the number of gun owners has doubled to around 160 million.Your urban myth that a small bunch of old White guys in the country have bought up 125 million firearms during the Obama regime and still continue to buy 2-3 million new guns per month is nothing by false and all the valid evidence points to the number of individual gun owner doubling not shrinking!Your single flawed NORC survey flies in the face of both common sense and all evidence from the FBI,NSSF and gun dealers.

            After Obama was elected but prior to Sandy Hook,over 26 million firearms warranty cards were received by the NSSF claiming to be first time gun owners.Since then ,another 100 million more guns have been sold and gun store owners estimated that 40-60% were new first time gun owners.Police departments agree and have issued 8-10 million new concealed carry permits in those States that have not abolished all government gun permits and permissions and adopted Constitutional Carry!Women,Blacks,Elderly and Millennials have all embraced the expanding gun culture and bought their first gun.Your denials and false reliance on the flawed NORC study changes nothing.You are just wrong!

            The only “Hogwash” are the fake facts from the NORC Survey.If you had read their survey and understood scientific sampling and polling it would very become clear that the number of actual

            respondents(1725)makes way too few to represent any valid national conclusion on gun ownership.Furthermore the respondents were all from the Chicago area and not nation wide!How many of the 1725 respondents do you think drove or flew cross country to take part in this survey?Clear proof of the Chicago area bias can be seen in the 71.7% of respondents who felt a “police permit” should be required by law ‘prior’ to purchasing or obtaining a firearm.That “police permit” practice is exclusive to the State of Illinois and most Americans find that totally unconstitutional.Finally the question itself is confusing and uses 1930’s wording that makes many respondents think the Question is only about handguns and not the more numerous and popular long guns resulting in an undercount of gun owners.The NORC study is not any valid scientific study but a hack job from 1970 that is no longer scientifically valid and clearly erroneous when measuring the explosion in the number of gun owners.This study was brought to us by the same people who said “Trump has no route to 270” and “Crooked Hillary” is ahead 12 points in the polls!

            You are both wrong and in denial!There is no valid evidence that firearms ownership is declining and overwhelming evidence that the gun culture and number of individual gun owners has doubled.Do you think those few old White guys you think have all the guns have abolished all gun carry laws in 14 States and have similar Legislation pending in 27 others?You are clearly wrong and out of your League when it comes to the Right to bear Arms! Guns are here to stay and can never ever be taken away! Thanks NRA!

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow!! What a total waste of time putting together one fabrication of reality after another sandwiched around one lie after another. Only you and the other gun-loving morons on this blog thread would believe your bald face lie about 160 million gun owners!!! Wow!! You really can throw the bull!!!

          • William The WarLord says:

            The only fabrication here is your pathetic belief that your one flawed survey carries more weight than the FBI,ATF,NSSF and the records of Gun Dealers and the local police.You are both wrong and in denial and cannot face the truth that you have lost all hope for any further gun control or restrictions and are just grasping at Liberal Straws that fall apart at the slightest research.Proves you did not even read or understand the flaws in the NORC study.Proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about!Proves gun ownership has doubled as all evidence clearly indicates!

            Too bad you cannot provide a single provable fact to support your flawed and proveably wrong allegation that the number of gun owners has shrunk instead of doubled!You probaly still think that Crooked Hillary is really the President!Do not bother to respond because you have already lost the battle for firearms freedoms and more fake studies and Liberal Lies will change nothing.You have lost and are just in denial!

          • Independent1 says:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2f7553284abf48e1cf5e66b26a470f54470ccc968c6d8c8a2863d2b8be657f3.jpg Everything in your posted painted the wrong picture.

            Gun ownership is not up; it is declining. The massive gun purchases have been existing gun owners stocking up on guns.

            Crime rates are not down because of more guns, even though murders are constant, murder rates are down because growth in the U.S. population has resulted from immigration, with immigrants that commit less crimes than native borns. So there are now millions of immigrants who don’t commit murders to spread out the murders committed by you gun-loving conservatives.

            Murders and suicides that have not changed and still ravage especially GOP-run states. 19 of the 20 states with the highest suicide rates are all GOP-run states with high gun ownership. The 3 highest gun ownership GOP-run states are in the top 4 states for the most suicides.

            No matter how you distort and try to paint the wrong picture, there are still too many murders and suicides going on especially in red states.

            See this:

            American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years

            But the declining rates of gun ownership across three major national
            surveys suggest a different explanation: that most of the rise in gun
            purchases is driven by existing gun owners stocking up, rather than by
            people buying their first gun. A Washington Post analysis last year
            found that the average American gun owner now owns approximately eight firearms, double the number in the 1990s.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.958f6acaf845

          • William The WarLord says:

            Wrong again Independent 1!You are just parroting the same discredited NORC Household study which is both wrong and intentionally so! The Joyce Foundation is behind the NORC study,the same corrupt anti-gun organization that funded Obama’s fake college Professorship and many other anti-gun groups.Like all anti-gun nuts,they are well known for falsifying statistics with bogus studies such as the NORC one which has duped you!These are the same people who backed Crooked Hillary when President Trump “had no path to 270”!

            If gun ownership was really going down,why did the gun control State of Illinois increase the number of “Police Permits”for individuals(not households)to own guns by 33% in 2016? That is a huge number for a State where individual gun ownership is allegedly going down!Try and spin that fact away!You can not because you are wrong!Gun ownership is up in all States!

            Every single iota of evidence is that gun ownership has doubled under Obama and continues to increase today not decrease.Your “Urban Myth” that Billions of dollars of guns and ammo are all being bought by a small number of gun owners”Stocking Up” is simply without any foundation in fact!It is just an emotional response to the reality that gun ownership has increased and continues to do so.When do you think the Old White guys will get tired of “stocking up” with 2-3 MILLION guns every month!LOL!

            As the number of gun owners increases and those misguided individuals who felt the “need” for gun control fade away,gun rights will return to their rightful place and the failed policy of gun control will fade into history with the corrupt Democratic Party!Guns are here to stay and only the misguided anti gun nuts are fading away!

          • legaleagle45 says:

            CBS News also believes that Washington DC is the 2nd most heavily armed state in the USA

            http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/51/

            Surprisingly they have Florida coming in at #30

            http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/23/

            Their commentary is cute–

            “Florida comes in at number 30, with 10.2 guns for every 1,000 residents. That’s a staggering 199,828 registered firearms dispersed among 19,552,860 people.”

            I wonder if CBS News realizes that the UK has 66 guns per 1,000 people, making the UK with their strict gun control laws 6 times worse than Florida when it comes to gun proliferation. That means that the UK is a gun nuts paradise or… CBS does not have a friggen clue.

          • saltysailor says:

            Why do you hoplophobes dance in the blood of victims of firearm misuse?

          • Independent1 says:

            Why do you gun-loving nutcases ignore the fact that more than 80 people every day are dying in America BY GUNS via murder or suicide; while you deliberately continue to support an organization (the NRA) that laughs at those dying by doing everything it can to keep all gun dealers from being forced to ensure that the guns they sell are not getting into the hands of people who are not mentally able to use them safely or aren’t inclined to use them for criminal activities/murder???

            And how do you continue to live with yourselves knowing you’re supporting the carnage going on day after day in America which the NRA is promoting???

          • William The WarLord says:

            Americans ignore the fact that many people die each day from guns because it really does not matter.Most gun deaths(50-90%) are Gang Members and drug users or dealers,thus they do not matter.Most gun homicides are concentrated in 5% of the counties,those with large urban areas and run by Democrats.Those deaths do not affect 97% of the population.Suicide is part of the right to life and no one can take the right to suicide away.The NRA does not support your “gun carnage”but rather the freedom to choose to be armed or not.Guns do not cause deaths all by themselves,they all need a person with a hand and a mind to kill with!

            Your unnamed studies with their “claims” that having a gun in the house makes you more likely to be a victim are total nonsense and are never proven in the real world.Every month 2-3 million new guns are sold to mostly new first time gun owners.If guns were so dangerous,there would be thousands of accidental shooting per month instead of a few dozen!

            You need to understand there is no tipping point.It does not matter how many people die each day from guns or why,our inalienable right to be armed with modern weapons of war and self defense in common use can never ever be taken away!Our government is limited to the powers granted to it in the Constitution.The inalienable right to be armed is never to be infringed upon.Now America and the NRA are taking back our right to be armed whenever and where we desire. Already some 14 States have abolished all government gun permits and carry restrictions and adopted Constitutional Carry’ as the State gun carry policy.Crime in those States has gone down not up.Twenty six more States have similar Legislation pending.

            The bottom line is that guns are here to stay forever and the government will never have the Legal,Moral or Constitutional power,nor the means of force ,to ever make America’s 400 million plus guns go away.So thanks to the NRA!

          • Independent1 says:

            Just more you gun-loving idiots blatant lies. Far more than 50% of gun-related killings are perpetrated by family members, friends and other acquaintances of the person being murdered.

            You are such worthless people to spread such outright lies to try and justify the carnage in America that you and the NRA are clearly willing to inflict on America!!

            It’s hard for me to understand how you worthless individuals even live with yourselves knowing clearly the heartbreak that your blatant lies and the blood money you’re feeding to Congress to keep your carnage going is creating!!!

          • shandy1 says:

            Professor WarLord. I learn so much from reading your posts that I feel like I am in a college class. Are you going to start posting quizzes? Thank you for taking the time to type out such complete and well documented posts.

            When I am following you in real-time I cringe when someone mouths off to you with a boiler plate leftie argument. You are like a pathologist with a cadaver.

            Thank you for being a member of this strange community we call DISQUS.

          • William The WarLord says:

            Thank you Shandy1 for reading my posts.Many of these issues are too complex to answer in one or two sentences so more detail is needed to fully comprehend what are the facts and what are falsehoods, especially when one side has controlled the media and laid out numerous falsehoods,covert policies and outright emotional distortions of the rule of law.

            It is rather shocking how uneducated some Regressive people are and how much they “Feel” their emotions should Trump the rule of law and common sense.When dealing with issues such as warfare,public policy and foreign policy analysis,politics and the rule of law,(my areas of expertise)emotions must be put aside and pure logic combined with knowledge of past events must prevail!If not you will sound like Maxine Waters who knows everything but cannot tell us because of President Trump’s secret ties to Putin!

            It is amazing some of the bizarre “facts”Liberals allow their emotions to create.Then there are the fools who rely on a single false source (like the NORC Gun Survey of Households)in the face of dozens of proven source and let their emotions rule.I personally feel the more people know the better they will live and vote.

            I will have to think about the Quizzes but instead will leave you with the “Tactical Tip” of the day;”Always trust your instincts”!God gave you those for a reason!

          • saltysailor says:

            Why do you mental misfits ignore the fact that people commit suicides by a myriad of ways and when one method is not available, another one is chosen.
            Why do you deliberately support policies that seek to make it harder for people to exercise a Constitutional right?
            Why do you support organizations that loath the concept of rights and liberties?
            Why do you lie in your accusations about the NRA?
            How do you live with yourself knowing that you’re supporting & excusing the criminal element at the expense of the lives of law-abiding citizens?

            Why do you support NAMBLA? An organization that encourages adult-child sexual relations?

          • Independent1 says:

            Where do you come up with all this nonsense??

            Suicide by gun is still the leading method of suicide – there were 21,000 suicides by gun for 2015; and the vast majority of those 21,000 occurred in a home where a gun was maintained. Without those guns, thousands of suicides would not have happened because by gun is not only the easiest method it’s the one method that’s the most final.

            Nobody is supporting policies that make purchasing a gun much harder for people who actually should own a gun. Suggesting that people wait for a background check to confirm their eligibility to own a gun is not something that’s onerous when one considers what’s going on today with guns getting into the hands of people who are not mentally or morally capable of possessing a gun.

            Nobody is lying about the NRA!! The NRA constantly spews lies in its efforts to con unsuspecting Americans into purchasing a gun that will not provide them with protection unless they are committed to become expert users of that gun!!! And the vast majority of people who buy guns are never willing to take enough effort to really know how to use a gun.

            The rest of your post is pure garbage and not worth responding to.

          • saltysailor says:

            “Without those guns, thousands of suicides would not have happened
            because by gun is not only the easiest method it’s the one method that’s
            the most final.”

            Pure speculation on your part. Many people will continue to try if the first attempt is not successful.
            Just having guns around does not guarantee that someone will choose one when they decide to end their life.
            I can speak to that first hand.

            “Nobody is supporting policies that make purchasing a gun much harder for people who actually should own a gun.”

            No cite to support that opinion.

            “Suggesting that people wait for a background check to confirm their
            eligibility to own a gun is not something that’s onerous when one
            considers what’s going on today with guns getting into the hands of
            people who are not mentally or morally capable of possessing a gun.”

            And most people don’t have a problem with that as long as records of sales aren’t kept.

            “..what’s going on today with guns getting into the hands of people who are not mentally..”

            Some states are lax keeping their records up to date for those people adjudicated and determined to have mental illness.

            “… or morally capable of possessing a gun.”

            Morally? Who defines “morals”? You? Me?

            “Nobody is lying about the NRA!!”

            Yes they are.

            “The NRA constantly spews lies in its efforts to con unsuspecting
            Americans into purchasing a gun that will not provide them with
            protection unless they are committed to become expert users of that
            gun!!!”

            No cite to support that opinion.

            ” And the vast majority of people who buy guns are never willing to take enough effort to really know how to use a gun.”

            No cite to support that opinion.

            “The rest of your post is pure garbage and not worth responding to.”

            You ratchet up the ad homs you get it back in equal measure and then you whine.

            Coward.

          • Will says:

            Vast majority of suicides which will happen without guns anyway. Those that aren’t suicides are majority gang related in cities that ban guns already.

          • Independent1 says:

            Both assertions are total hogwash. Of 34,000 suicides/yr from all causes, over 60% – 21,000 – are done by gun.

            And over 60% of the 14-16,000 people murdered are committed by a family member, friend or relative – they are not gang related.

            Of the 34,000 suicides over 75% are done in red states – 19 of the 20 states with the most suicides are done in high gun ownership red states. And all 10 states with the highest murder rates are also high gun ownership red states.

          • Will says:

            You “friend” and “family” don’t preclude gang members right? In fact a lot of gang members have relatives or people they know in rival gangs. Doesn’t change anything about gangland creating violence not guns.
            Your suicide numbers are also bogus because they don’t break down lower than state levels. San Francisco has a very high suicide rate but no guns.

          • Independent1 says:

            My suicide rates are bogus because they don’t break down below states?? Why do you worthless right-wingers/gun-lovers always want to try and bring things down to cities?? When politicians who run cities have little to do with how people have to live their lives in the city because it’s politicians at the state level who set most of the rules that control the lives of people living in cities. And it’s the state police which always are called on to support the city police in troublesome times, so when states cut their budgets, as is the case often in red states, cities in red-states generally find they don’t get the help they need. Which is why as I point out below, more than 15 cities in red-states have higher murder rates/capita than Chicago which is actually #30 in the nation in murders (despite all the press it gets)

            It’s not mayors or people working for them who control the monies that state government give to cities to help them in providing the services t hat cities have to provide to all the people living outside the cities in state demand and use!! It’s not mayors who cut social benefits for state citizens or edict that businesses can pay people poverty level wages that drive city people into poverty like happens in most red states because Republican State Reps constantly cut budgets or refused to fund things like Medicaid expansion and on and on.

            And you clueless right-wingers always like to site all the shootings that go on in Chicago, when there are at least 20 cities in GOP-run red states that have more murders/capita than Chicago!! Like Gary Indiana – 1/2 an hour from Chicago has 30 more murders/100,000 population than Chicago – so why aren’t you pointing out Gary, Indiana as an example of a murder prone city?

            Or even Louisiana. Do you clueless right-wingers even realize that Louisiana is the only state in America where the murder rate is over 10/100,000 population? And Louisiana has a murder rate over 12/100,000!! Louisiana is the murder capital of America!! Why don’t you ever bring that out?? Because Louisiana generally votes as a red state???

            And where are your facts on San Francisco?? And what suicide rates are you comparing SF to???

            Here’s the list of the 21 states in America with the highest suicide rates/capita:

            19 of the 21 states with the highest suicide rates/capita
            in America are GOP-run states or have had significant
            GOP influence the past 8 plus years.

            1. Alaska
            2. Montana
            3. New Mexico
            4. Wyoming
            5. Nevada
            6. Colorado
            7. West Virginia
            8. Arizona
            9. Oregon
            10. Kentucky
            10. Idaho
            11. North Dakota
            12. Oklahoma
            13. Maine
            14. Utah
            15. Vermont
            16. Arkansas
            17. Florida
            18. Kansas
            19. Missouri
            20. Tennessee

            Now maybe you can answer a question for me. Given that 24/7 Wall Street rain a survey and claims that Alaska is the ‘Happiest State’ in America, Why does Alaska then lead the nation BY FAR in suicides per capita if it isn’t because Alaska also leads the nation in GUNS/CAPITA?? With over 60% gun ownership in the state of Alaska.

            If Alaskans claim they are so happy, why are more Alaskans killing themselves if it isn’t because there’s a gun handy whenever they may get down about themselves.

            And do you notice in the above list that there are a number of other red states which should be paradises, like Wyoming and Montana with very high suicide rates!! Why?? Because of too many guns?? Or the terrible GOP governance that is too free with allowing drugs and alcohol usage??

            Look at North Dakota which has been the job leader for almost 2 years because of the oil fields, and yet North Dakota is number 11 on the list of states with high suicide rates – why?? If it’s not too many guns – ND has a high gun ownership rate just like WY and MT and virtually all the other states on the list including the two more Dem associated states of Oregon and Vermont. Again!! Too many guns to easy to get to!!!!!!

          • Will says:

            Cities are where you have crime despite gun bans. They show gun control NEVER works.
            The Alaskan suicide rate is seasonal effective disorder plus a small population skewing everything you’re using. NYC alone has vastly more suicides than Alaska.
            Also wildly hypocritical of you to pad stats with suicide when the left has no issue with physician assisted suicide. If suicide is bad with a gun why is that OK?

          • Independent1 says:

            “Cities are where you have crime despite gun bans. They show gun control NEVER works.”

            What a load of BS!! The only reason gun control doesn’t work in some cities is because the NRA bribes the GOP into fighting against better background checks on all guns at the national level. So gang members can run to the nearest NRA controlled red state and buy all the guns they want and bring them back to cities that try to control gun use.

            But despite that lowlife – all 9 states with the most gun control laws are the states with the fewest suicides in the nation!!!

            And the three red states with the laxest gun control and highest gun ownership are in the 4 states with the most suicides.

            PROVING THAT IMPROVED GUN CONTROLS AT THE STATE LEVEL SAVES THOUSANDS OF LIVES A YEAR IN REDUCED SUICIDES!!!!!!

            BUT THEN WHY WOULD YOU CARE??. YOU’RE NOTHING BUT AN NRA LOVING GOP SUPPORTER AND THE GOP IS NOTORIOUS FOR BEING PREMEDITATED MURDERS BY REFUSING TO EXPAND MEDICAID TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS!!!

            YOU’RE ALREADY AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER!!! SO WHY WORRY ABOUT A FEW THOUSAND MORE DEATHS???

          • Will says:

            If guns are the problem why is it the places not banning guns don’t have any of the problems you’re complaining about?
            Again suicides are completely irrelevant.

          • Independent1 says:

            That’s pure BS – there are no such places!! You’re a lying fool!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            Vermont is a totally unique situation that is the way it is because it’s been like it is today since the nation was born. Name one other such place!!

          • Will says:

            It isn’t unique. Literally all of America outside a small number of inner-cities looks like that. Tons of guns. Marginal violence.

          • Independent1 says:

            Aboslutely total hogwash!! You are a lying fool.

            The rural areas of Tennessee and Kentucky are rampant with crime that make are inner cities look like walks in the park. They’re infested with the drug trade.

          • Will says:

            Have you ever been outside a major metropolitan area?

          • Independent1 says:

            I live on an island clueless. I can’t see my nearest neighbor’s house.

          • Will says:

            So you know nothing about the US.

          • Independent1 says:

            I’ve forgotten more about the U.S. than you’ll ever know. You’re clearly just perpetrating a hoax!!

          • Will says:

            No. I’m giving you facts.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Oh dear…

            Now there’s a clear display of Dunning-Kruger Effect
            Not to mention a strong dose of paranoia with the belief that it’s a conspiracy.

            Oh, dear, dear..

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Well the poor thing did admit to
            – living on an island,
            “I live on an island”
            – far from people
            ” I can’t see my nearest neighbor’s house.”
            and being clueless.
            “I live on an island clueless”

            So it should come as no surprise that it gets upset when the cluelessness is pointed out.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Ah..
            That explains a great deal..

            Stuck in the boonies and cut off from reality.
            So you live in a fantasy world.
            Where gunz are eeeevuul and if you magically make them disappear, all will by good in the world and the bluebirds will be happy..

          • Independent1 says:

            Here’s one from wikipedia on Tennessee:

            In 2009 and 2010, Tennessee had the highest rate of violent gun crime of any US state.[1] In 2010, only Washington, D.C., had a higher rate of gun violence.[1]

          • Will says:

            And how much was in Nashville vs the rural areas?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Now tell us how many counties in Tennessee had the highest rates
            And how many did not.

            n the US, when crime is broken down by county, the whole comparison by cities or States is shown to be false
            https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
            “Murders in US Very Concentrated: 54% of US Counties in 2014 had Zero Murders, 2% OF Counties Have 51% of The Murders”

            Funny how you try to cherry-pick your numbers to push your lies.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            There you go trying to cherry-pick again

            And yet
            In the US, when crime is broken down by county, the whole comparison by cities or States is shown to be false
            https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
            “Murders in US Very Concentrated: 54% of US Counties in 2014 had Zero Murders, 2% OF Counties Have 51% of The Murders”

            As of 2016, there were a total of 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the United States.
            3,007 counties,
            64 parishes,
            18 organized boroughs,
            11 census areas,
            41 independent cities,
            and the District of Columbia

            And with 2% of counties having 51% of murders
            Those 2% would be the ones occupied by large cities like NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, LA, etc.

            Why don’t you get back to us about which counties in Kentucky and Tennessee are the ones with problems, and how they fit in with the other crime data.

          • Independent1 says:

            Here’s some stats for you on cities:

            24 of the 30 Cities with the highest murder rates in the nation for 2016 – per neighborhoodscout.com – are in GOP-governed states with lax gun-control laws; or are in states that have been recently governed by the GOP or are right next to a GOP-governed state with very lax gun laws making gun access easy even though there are stricter gun-control laws in cities like Chicago. Here’s the top 20 with #1 being East St. Louis, IL then Chester, PA; St. Louis, MO; Gary, IN; Detroit, MI; Camden, NJ: New Orleans, LA; Riviera, FL; Trenton, NJ; Wilmington, DE Jackson, MS; Harrisburg, PA; Baltimore, MD; Newark, NJ; Petersburg, VA; Prime Bluff, AR; Rocky Mount, NC; Flint, MI; Bridgeton, NJ; Harvey, IL; and note that Chicago, Heights, IL is
            #30.

            (Remember NJ has been governed by a Republican who has fought tighter gun control laws for almost 8 years.)

          • Will says:

            Again you ignore that there are laws and government below the state level. That your cities are Democratic Party run and ban guns. Again if guns are the problem why isn’t there all this crime in the rural and suburban areas where all the guns are?

          • Independent1 says:

            “Again if guns are the problem why isn’t there all this crime in the rural and suburban areas where all the guns are?”

            What?? You can’t get any more rural than Alaska and Alaska is one of the top 5 most violent states in the nation!! What kind of an idiot are you??

            Note in this list that Alaska is number two most violent with the highest gun ownership!! Are you some kind of a mentally deranged nut case??

            All 10 of the states with the most gun-related violence are GOP-run states Analysis by 24/7 Wall Street – 2013
            Homicides/Assaults/Violent Crime
            LA-9.53/99.51/555.3
            AK-4.22/80.47/606.5*
            AL-5.92/40.50/420.1
            AZ-4.24/57.36/405.9
            MS-6.91/51.69/269.8
            SC-4.95/127.88/571.9
            NM-3.69/87.26/567.5
            MO-5.59/88.90/447.4

            *Alaska has the most violent crime!!!!!

            Not one state in that above list could not be classified as a rural state!!!

          • Will says:

            Except Alaska is “violent” with your dishonest suicide padding only.
            You realize that there are huge cities in every one of those right? Have you seriously never heard of New Orleans? Phoenix? Charleston? Again look at break downs by city or county.

          • Independent1 says:

            Boy! Are you grabbing at straws. You’re a true nutcase.

          • Will says:

            No. I’m the one using real facts. Gun ownership doesn’t cause violence.

          • Independent1 says:

            That is a flat out lie!! Study after study has proved that where there are more guns there is more crime and murders!! Because guns are used in most violent crimes DUMMKOPF!!

            So if there are more guns around, there is more incentive for just anyone to get involved in a crime!! Only the stupid would believe otherwise!!!!!

          • Will says:

            Not remotely true.
            https://www.cato.org/events/more-guns-less-crime-understanding-crime-gun-control-laws
            Again if guns caused violence why is violence not in the rural and suburban areas with the most guns? Why is it actually dominated by gun banning urban areas and vast majority gang related?
            http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423
            You want to decrease violence end the drug war and go after gangs. Gun laws only increase crime by creating yet another black market.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            And yet, the reality is the complete opposite
            John Lott wrote about it in a study called “More Guns, Less Crime”.
            Have you read it yet ?

            You should.
            It proves you WRONG !

          • Independent1 says:

            I’ve got to believe you’re being paid to say all this nonsensical stuff. No rational person would believe the way you’re posts suggest. It’s clearly all just one big ploy.

          • Will says:

            I’m posting know facts and basic logic.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            That is where so many of is differ from such as you..

            We look at the facts and draw conclusions.
            You decide on a conclusion and then go looking for facts to back you up.

            And that explains why you get so upset when we present facts that show your conclusion to be wrong.
            It’s hard to accept that your vision of the world is false and all your pet beliefs are wrong.

            We do understand.
            But you know that you can get counseling to help you deal with this.
            Even if your live on a remote island and clueless.

          • dtgraham says:

            “That is where so many of is differ from such as you..” (nice grammar)

            The Wayne Lapierre Bat signal causes you gun nuts to flood a story and totally ignore the strikingly different gun stats from around the entire developed world [strikingly different in a good way].

            Then you claim that America is unique in a horrible way, and that’s why Americans have to be armed to the teeth while shooting each other in appalling numbers every day.

            “That is where so many of is differ from such as you..”

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            1) Nothing wrong with my grammar, dummy.
            Of wait, a typo is what set you off in your desperate need to feel superior ?
            And you confuse a typo with “grammar”
            You are such a moron.

            2) Don’t know what “Bat signal” you may be blathering about, but clearly your reality is in the Marvel Universe.

            3) As stated elsewhere, and clearly beyond your low-grade comprehension, correlation is nice, but it’s not causation.
            Why don’t you also try to argue consensus too.
            That way you can have a twofer in idiocy.

            Carry on.

          • dtgraham says:

            “That is where so many of is differ from such as you..”

            That’s wrong and incomprehensible in every way. Did you fall and hit your head before typing that?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Repeating yourself just proves you’re an idiot

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Funny…
            When you are caught flat-footed and can’t rebut, the name-calling starts.

            Looking at the country by county instead of city and State gives a far more realistic vision of where the crime actually ism and the whole comparison by cities or States is shown to be false
            https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
            “Murders in US Very Concentrated: 54% of US Counties in 2014 had Zero Murders, 2% OF Counties Have 51% of The Murders”

          • Independent1 says:

            Suicides are not included in violent crime!! And Alaska does not have on big city!! You’re whole argument is full of hogwash!!!

          • Will says:

            Juneau and Anchorage are major cities. You also ignored how every other state you mentioned is far from rural. Your realize there are cities outside of California, New York and Illinois right?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            What a collection of nonsense and straight out lies

            1) Lie #1
            ” The only reason gun control doesn’t work in some cities is because the NRA bribes the GOP into fighting against better background checks on all guns st the national level”
            The NICS check is a National Background check
            The same system for background checks is in place across the country. A person buying a gun from an FFL in Florida, undergoes the same check as the one in Alaska, or any other State. The bacground check is run by the FBI.
            So how can you have different background checks in different parts of the country, when Federal law applies equally ACROSS the country.

            2) “So gang members can run to the nearest NRA controlled red state and buy all the guns they want and bring them back to cities that try to control gun use. “
            No they can NOT do that
            The same NATIONAL system is effect in neighboring States.

            3) “But despite that lowlife – all 9 states with the most gun control laws are the states with the fewest suicides in the nation!!!”
            A totally meaningless claim since suicides are NOT caused by the presence of guns.
            As a matter of fact, suicides are means-independent.
            IN other words, if one tool or method is not possible, the suicider just uses some other tool or method.
            This was shown to be true in both the UK and Australia with their respective gun bans and confiscations. The trend in total suicides did not change. The suicides that would have been by gun, became suicides by rope, poison, gas, or whatever they could find instead of a gun

            4) “And the three red states with the laxest gun control and highest gun ownership are in the 4 states with the most suicides.”
            Just a repeat of the lie debunked in 3)

            You need to take your meds with more care.
            You’re a touch off kilter there, bub.

          • dtgraham says:

            Well said Independent. Do you think that any of the gun freaks care about statistics that are based on reality? They just divert to suicides, butter knife bloodshed, dental floss destruction, and garden hoe felonies. If that doesn’t work, just make the rest up.

            Hell, WilliamDimon wanted to talk to me about “hands and feet” murders somehow being worse than semi-automatic machine gun murders. The clear connotation and overtone being, “we don’t ban hands and feet do we?” “So why ban machine guns?”

            That’s just what they do. They’re big on comparisons and analogies, but just the ones that don’t actually make sense.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            And if you take away those guns, then people will commit suicide some other way using some other tool
            And your TOTAL number of suicide will remain unchanged.

            Swapping A for B and not changing the TOTAL number is NOT a solution, bub.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Because the guns are not doing the killing, dummy.
            It’s people using tools like guns, knives, cars, etc that are doing the actual killing.

          • dpaano says:

            Indy: It’s useless to argue with these people. They tend to believe what they’ve been told by their right wing sources rather than look at actual statistics, etc. There’s no changing their minds because telling them the truth doesn’t jive with what they have been led to believe.

          • cargosquid says:

            The problem with all of your statements is that there is no valid utilitarian argument to infringe upon inalienable human rights. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable human right.

          • dtgraham says:

            The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been described as an Etch A Sketch or an optical-illusory M.C. Escher staircase that climbs back into itself. You can make it into pretty much whatever you want.

            After more than 200 years of intense scrutiny by people a lot more versed in the law than you and I, the meaning of the Second Amendment continues to baffle. They could have just been talking about militias only in regards to guns. Incredibly poor syntax.

            At any rate, packing heat would hardly be considered a basic human right by anyone outside of hardcore gun nuts. It’s not inviolable either. Even Antonin Scalia said that the second amendment came with restrictions, just as the first amendment does.

          • cargosquid says:

            It may have been described as such by pro gun control people, but the idea that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right has been consistent through the last 180 years. All rights are restricted by the rights of others, so your statement is irrelevant. The idea that it is not an individual right appeared only in the early 20th century when the feds wanted to justify gun control.

          • Charlie Victor Alpha says:

            “The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been described as an
            Etch A Sketch or an optical-illusory M.C. Escher staircase that climbs
            back into itself. You can make it into pretty much whatever you want.”

            Funny(or not), you’re the only person I’ve ever heard describe the 2A in that manner. Regardless, the only people that seem to want to reinterpret it are people that don’t like what it very plainly says.

          • Independent1 says:

            And try this on for size:

            More Police Are Killed in States With More Guns, Study Finds

            Police officers are most likely to be killed in states where the most people own guns, a new study finds.

            The report is sure to be controversial, but it adds a new dimension to a conversation that’s recently been focused more on police shootings of unarmed Americans. This study looks at who’s killing the cops, and it’s overwhelmingly people with private guns, David Swedler of the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health found.

            “Officers are three times more likely to be murdered on the job in high gun ownership states in comparison with low gun ownership states. That was the big wow for me.”

            http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/more-guns-more-dead-cops-study-finds-n409356

            And all 10 of the states in America with the highest gun ownership and highest murder rates are NRA loving GOP-run states.

          • Independent1 says:

            And don’t you worthless NRA lovers just love these facts???

            According to shootingtracker.com, there were 30 mass public shootings with four or more dead in 2014, and there have been 31 this year through the Oct. 1 tragedy in Roseburg, Ore., or one every 1.6 weeks.

            Our gun problem of course extends beyond mass violence. In 2014 alone, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 11,208 people shot to death, 33,636 injured by gunfire and 21,175 who killed themselves with a gun. That’s a total of 66,019 people who were killed or injured by a gun, which comes out to 1,269 per week, 180 a day or 7.5 per hour.

            http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1008-shermer-gun-data-20151006-story.html

          • cargosquid says:

            Mother Jones even refuted “shooting tracker” for dishonesty.

          • Independent1 says:

            Come on, disprove all this stuff!! Come on!! Let’s see you’re fake studies that disprove all this stuff!!!

            Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.

            The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.

            On a state-wide level, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have been shown to have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.

          • cargosquid says:

            Kelleman refuted his own study. Thanks for playing.

          • dtgraham says:

            He didn’t refute it. He just updated it in 1998. A subsequent study by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. That’s a plenty high enough number.

            Secondly, no correlation was made between independent factors that actually may have been factors related to each other — he treated illicit drug use, having an arrest record, living alone or not, renting, having a gun, and a history of domestic abuse as independent variables without any relationship to each other. No collateral multivariate analysis was performed purposely. The correlation to each control was not predicated on other factors, just gun ownership.

            The gun nuts hate that but Kellerman did it for a reason. In the end, these independent factors don’t matter. Simply put, without a gun there’s no shooting.

            Thanks for playing.

          • cargosquid says:

            He admitted that his methodology was crap. His own study showed that renting an apartment was even MORE related to “gun death.” His “kept a gun in the home” included those stored in attics. Kellerman’s study is junk. Thanks for admitting you don’t have the slightest clue.

          • dpaano says:

            Independent1…..we can argue our point time and time again and give valid links, but they will never acknowledge this. According to these people, THEIR links are the only ones that are true…..I’ve given up arguing. Let them continue to feel the way they do….hopefully, none of them will have to suffer having a family member shot innocently by someone with a gun! The main problem in this country is that there are TOO MANY guns out there; TOO MANY that make it easier for someone who should NOT have a gun to get one! Unfortunately, these posters don’t see the logic.

          • Independent1 says:

            And here’s another that claims guns pose a danger just being in your home. DISPROVE IT!!!!!!

            The health risk of having a gun in the home

            Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

            And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

            If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

            Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

            The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

            https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

          • OHJonesy says:

            Actually, Elsevar is right, the entire study you are referring to is invalid, and has been debunked numerous times.

            Dr. Kellermann’s study is full of highly subjective methodological errors and has long since been debunked as pseudo-scientific, and has a following predominantly by people with which his findings comport with their pre-established beliefs.

            Objective studies cannot substantiate any causal relationship between firearms ownership and increased risk of homicide or suicide in the home.

            “Despite the richness of descriptive information on the associations between firearms and violence at the aggregate level, explaining a violent death is a difficult business. Personal temperament, the availability of weapons, human motivation, law enforcement policies, and accidental circumstances all play a role in leading one person but not another to inflict serious violence or commit suicide….

            “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

            http://www. nap. edu/read/10881/chapter/2#5

            What is of much more concern, and what actually increases the odds of spouse on spouse violence, or homicide in a household, is not the presence of firearms, but the presence of individuals with violent histories, and/or involvement in criminality.

            “Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary law abiding citizens. Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. The vast majority of persons involved in life threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.

            “Thus homicide whether of a stranger or of someone known to the offender is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known as violence prone. Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records, approximately 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child of six or more years, including four major adult felony. arrests.”

            http://www. law. harvard. edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline. pdf

            Yet certain people who wish to ignore the facts, continue to post references and links to false and debunked studies, as tho somehow they still matter.

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow! You sure know how to post a whole bunch of rambling right-wing deflection, delusion and pathological lies!!

            Absolute BS!! Every link of it is nothing but right-wing NRA lovers BS!!!

          • OHJonesy says:

            LOL, you’re posting links to ALTERNET, and complaining that my links (including Harvard!) are NRA links? You’re a comedian, right?

            Sorry, but there are over 100 million law-abiding gun owners in America, who own over 400 million (and perhaps as many as 600 million) lawfully owned firearms, and untold trillions of rounds of ammunition.

            If they were a problem, believe me, you’d know about it.

          • cargosquid says:

            The AAP is a known pro-gun control group that issues statements with no basis in facts.

          • cargosquid says:

            So…list those studies. We’ll wait.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            A proud ammosexual like yourself is happy about the prospect of a shorter life and fewer living family members?

          • King George says:

            A proud rapist like yourself is happy about the prospect of being successful with your attack on unarmed victims if you and your ilk have their way?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Is “ilk” a cool new word in Alt-Right circles for single syllable types? Is this some new jargon to keep up with — like cuck?
            Can you and your pals even manage more than one syllable?

          • King George says:

            The word “ilk” has been around a long time.
            Is that the latest word to trigger emotional hemophiliacs? You know, the ones that use the term “Alt-Right” a lot?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            People who often repeat the term “Alt-Right” — Like Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Jr., Richard Spencer, The Federalist, et al?

          • King George says:

            Not to mention about everyone on the Left.

            You know, the same ones that use Cuckservative”.
            Do you call them out for the ‘cuck’ part?

          • dpaano says:

            Let’s face it…..if the shoe fits. wear it!

          • Pig Farmer Bill says:

            That’s how insane people like ‘dpaano’ roll.

          • john says:

            Personal attacks and name-calling, You display your level of maturity, or lack thereof.If you do not understand what it means, may I suggest the Oxford Unabridged dictionary?

          • RE Hafner says:

            He could molest children without fear of a parent terminating his miserable existence.

          • dpaano says:

            Boy, you really enjoy calling people names when you have NO idea who you’re talking about…..seriously? Grow the hell up! If you can’t have a valid conversation about something, find somewhere else to post!

          • saltysailor says:

            Bricks are smarter than WindyIndy.

      • dpaano says:

        We had an incident here in California where someone carrying a gun was trying to help some people and the police shot him because they thought he was one of the bad guys……it happens! Guess you have to wear a tee-shirt that says “I’m the GOOD guy” if you intend to use your gun in such a situation; otherwise, the actually GOOD guys may not recognize that you’re actually not a BAD guy! Luckily, the guy that was shot was just grazed, but it could have been worse. Carrying a gun and using it in some instances is NOT always a good idea.

        • Independent1 says:

          Yes, and not only do people who try to be heroes in those situations run the risk of being shot by the cops, there have been incidents where those trying to help actually end up shooting and injuring or killing innocent bystanders in their attempts to help. And,or they get shot and killed by the bad guy when they try to be the hero. Studies show that people carrying a gun are almost 5 times more likely to get shot in a break-in or other violent incident.

          • john says:

            I sure would like to get some sort of citation to your facts. I suspect your facts as being distortion and hysteria. Maybe those “facts” apply locally to you, but not where I am, according to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports.

          • Barry says:

            Actually studies show that using a gun for self defense results in less injury on average than other defensive measures. Source 2013 CDC report on gun violence.

            The study you refer to includes criminals who carry a gun. No doubt being a drug dealer of gang member increases the chance of getting shot. It doesn’t apply to people who legally carry.

        • john says:

          This is me laughing at you and sneering. You suggest a path of cowardice, and disengagement. Yes, accidents do happen, but do they happen enough to dissuade you from helping? By your statement, it would seem once is enough. It reflects poorly on yo8u. What would it take to engage you enough to take action against evil acts? You live in California. I live in one of the “fly-over states” where neighbors do help take care of each other and everyone seems to be armed. You wish to dictate your values on everyone else? Stay in California.

          • dpaano says:

            Thank you, I will stay in California. We do have our problems with gun violence, but we don’t try to blame it on immigrants, gangs, etc. Many of our gun violence problems are children who find a gun in the home and shoot a sibling or another innocent person. Other gun violence that occurs in California are not done mainly his Hispanics……you need to quit blaming a certain group of people for gun violence….it happens with every race, everywhere! And, please do NOT call me a liar…..again, you don’t know who I am or what I know. I respect your feelings about guns; you need to respect someone else’s feelings who may not agree with you. We have rights to agree or disagree and have a sincere conversation about those differences without judgment! If you don’t agree with me, it’s understandable, but I have a right to my beliefs!

          • Barry says:

            “Many of our gun violence problems are children who find a gun in the home and shoot a sibling or another innocent person. ”

            There are only 600 accidental gun deaths in the entire US every year (a staggering low number). That is a drop in the bucket to California’s gun violence. Most of it is gang related.

          • dpaano says:

            You’re kidding, right? There are a hell of a lot more than 600 accidental gun deaths in the US every year! Trust me, I know because I have dealt with them more times than I want to think about! When you see a very small child who has been shot through the head by another child who “happened” to find a gun lying around the house…..then you can discuss this with me in a more intelligent manner! We’ve had more than 600 just in Southern California alone, and it’s only August!

          • legaleagle45 says:

            According to the CDC there were 489 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2015 (latest year available)

            According to the CDC there were 461 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2014

            According to the CDC there were 505 accidental gun deaths in the USA in 2013

            According to the CDC over the 10 year period 2006-2015 there were an average of 560 accidental gun deaths per year.

            Source: Centers for Disease Control, Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999 – 2015 WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) . Link:

            https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

            Perhaps you can provide me with a source which contradicts CDC?

        • Sparafucile says:

          Eh, liar?

          Where’s the citation? You’ve lied already in this thread — so a reasonable person must conclude that you are a liar, making everything you assert suspect.

          • dpaano says:

            Excuse me….you don’t even know me, so how can you possibly call me a liar. First of all, I’m not like our so-called commander in chief who lies every time he opens his mouth. I’m an intelligent, informed individual who reads the news from several sources on a daily basis. I can’t give you date and time about the incident that I read about, but it DID happen, and it could happen again.

          • Sparafucile says:

            I can call you a liar because earlier in this thread I read where you were lying — claiming the murder rate is the same thing as the (meaningless) “gun death” rate, which includes suicides and justifiable homicides.

            You’re not as intelligent or as informed as you claim you are.

          • dtgraham says:

            At least she bothers to look things up and make herself aware. You don’t appear to know anything.

          • Sparafucile says:

            You mean “she looks things up and then distorts actual facts to support an otherwise fact-deficient agenda”.

            You liars are repugnant.

          • dpaano says:

            Unfortunately, that wasn’t a lie…..but, as I said before, if you choose to believe what you want to believe based on what you’ve heard….it’s your prerogative. I tend to deal only in facts and NOT in something I heard on some alt-right TV program!

          • Sparafucile says:

            You’re still a lying liar. Redefining terms is one of the most-insidious forms of lying, and you do it recklessly.

      • john says:

        I am not a cowboy, but I recognize bullsh/t. A gun won’t protect me? what great wisdom do you base that on? You just ignore the FACT that the FBI estimates there are ” at least” 100,000 defensive gun uses. Some academics place the number as high as 3 million. But you would rather say it does not happen, instead of being intellectually honest. and academically dishonest. It reflects poorly on you. Let me put it this way: I can change my mind, but I have to be persuaded with facts and logic, not emotions or distortions or half-truths. You have contributed nothing to the discussion to persuade me, except to recognize you for what you are, and that is not a good thing.

      • williamdiamon says:

        You are incorrect, there is no correlation between access to firearms and the murder rate. Let’s discover,

        In your searchbar type “List of countries by intentional homicide rate” and press enter. The data is from the UN and casualties of war are not included. America ranks 98 for murder rates to the world. People in 97 other Nations have the ability to commit this act with knives, a kitchen utensil, at will.
        The average rate of death by murder in the world is – 6.2 – per 100,000. Yet America (5% of the worlds population) with 65% of all the guns in the world, 112 guns for every 100 people, more gun owners and guns then the 10 largest armies in the world combined – has an average death rate of – 4.8 -, lower then the average or median…If the availability of firearms effected a society’s public safety…Why isn’t America #1 on that list?

        The FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 lists about 400 justified shootings by police. Table 15 lists about 300 justified shootings by armed citizens. Those 300 justified homicides are 3/4 the figure of justified homicides by police officers. Without their services we would need to expand our police departments by that 3/4th to maintain our current level of public safety. We also know that 7 of 10 people shot survive, so add another 700 bad guys taken off the street by armed citizens.
        Concealed Carry gun owners are arrested for crime at a lower rate then police are. We also shoot negligently (shoot the wrong person) at 1/5th the rate for police. You are safer around the law abiding gun owner then you are around police.
        That also means police are safer around the law abiding gun owner, then they are around other police. Think about that.
        The CDC report, -“ Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ”- is found online. It is a study commissioned by the CDC at the request of Obama in an attempt to paint firearms as a public menace as and matter of concern for the healthcare industry. Note that while it is a guide to what a comprehensive report should consider, it is not a complete study on the topic. Here are some key findings,
        —-” 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
        “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

        2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
        “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. ”—-

        The figures of 500,000 to 3,000,000 are produced by some 19 different studies on the topic. When faced with varying figures like these, the reasonable response is to estimate. We can say that a reasonable estimate of those figures is a solid 1 million + times a year guns are used in self defense and/or to prevent a crime.

        As only 1 gun owner, legal or otherwise, in about 23,000 will ever murder someone with a gun, and if not engaged in criminal activity like a gang, that figure drops to about 1 in 100,000. It’s so rare it’s an anomaly, an extreme deviation of the norm, not the norm.

        • dtgraham says:

          You are incorrect, there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and the murder rate. Let’s discover.

          The total firearm death rate in the U.S. is 10.2 per 100,000. The closest among the developed countries is Finland at 3.6 per 100,000. Most range from 0.0 (Japan) to 2.0.

          At 88.8 guns per 100 people and 67.5% of homicides by guns, the United States has by far the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.

          Case closed.

          Here’s the proviso. We’re talking about developed countries. The third world and even developing world can have firearm death rates that are off the chart; worse than even the U.S. That’s despite having fewer guns per capita. Very high levels of poverty and economic instability are huge factors there in gun violence.

          More guns, more gun violence, applies; but only if we restrict the comparisons to peer countries in the developed world.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Incorrect, our murder rate is currently 4.9, up from 3.8 just last year. You should have checked the link. At 67.5% of homicide weapons used, guns alone would rate at 3.2 per – but no rational person considers one method differently than another, that is, murder is still murder, Cain used a rock. As to weapons used,

            The Americas
            66% use guns.
            17% use knives.
            17% are poisoned, beat to death or other.

            Europe
            13% use guns.
            33% use knives.
            54% are poisoned, beat to death or other.

            Globally
            41% use guns.
            24% use knives.
            35% are poisoned, beat to death or other.

            The current official figure is 112 guns for every 100 people and even that figure is outdated as every month brings record level sales of new firearms. My own estimate is 125 per. Twice as many as the next nation, all while we rate below average and the median…no matter how you try to twist the facts a simple fact of life remains – guns don’t cause crime – criminals do.

            But since you brought up Finland and Japan, let’s compare our nations and discover why we have different rates.
            How many violent street gangs does Finland have? NONE. While every major city in America suffers violent street gangs in constant war over drug turf.

            Now, notice Japan’s conspicuously lower figure? Not only do they not tolerate violent street gangs per their closed and homogeneous culture – they’re an island with a rather large moat around it. Their borders are quite the contrast to our porous Southern border that facilitates the most ruthless criminal cartels on the hemisphere fueling those drug wars with heroin cut with cheap fentanyl from China, and responsible for 50,000 opioid overdose deaths last year…that’s more than all gun-related deaths including suicide, murder, and accidental. Notice the city of Chicago in the news lately because the police chief has asked for Federal help in combating their crime wave? It’s because Chicago is the American headquarters of the Sinaloa Cartel.

            Notice these cities by per capita murder rates,
            Detroit 54.6
            New Orleans 53.2
            St Louis 35.5
            Baltimore 34.9
            Newark 34.4
            Oakland 31.8
            Chicago 27.6
            Stockton 23.7
            Kansas City 22.6
            Philadelphia 21.5
            Cleveland 21.3
            – In a nation with an average rate of 4.8 per 100,000.

            All sanctuary cities that refuse to deport their alien criminals, and suffering high gang populations. Our FBI considers an average of 70% of murders to be directly due to these gangs fighting over drug turf in our inner cities.

            If your real concern is to our public safety, you are barking up the wrong tree entirely with your myopic focus on firearms. The armed common man has no detrimental effect on our society. Neither pertinent history nor current data can be used to support disarming law abiding citizens.

            Note that in the last 20 years 16.3 million carry permits have been issued and there are now 13 States that don’t even require a permit to carry open or concealed, your choice. That means that for every cop you see in your daily travels, there are likely 10 to 20 armed citizens that you never even notice. Over 260 million new guns have been sold for an estimate of 500 million in circulation, and the Second Amendment has more support then ever before…and at the same time murder and violent crime have dropped to a hundred year low. You are literally safer now then you have ever been in your life – unless you live in a sanctuary city.

            Secure the border, drain sanctuary cities, deport the cartels, prosecute the gangs with RICO laws and our murder rate will drop as low as England’s.

          • dpaano says:

            It’s interesting to note that in California, the sanctuary cities have fewer crimes, with guns or otherwise, than most other cities. Maybe you need to do your homework….it is not immigrants that are committing the most gun crimes…..it’s white conservatives, many of which are racists.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Thanks for your emotional reply, but let’s look at the facts for just a moment,

            From the FBI,
            —” There are approximately 1.4 million active street, prison, and OMG gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States. Gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and Great Lakes regions boast the highest number of gang members.
            Neighborhood-based gangs, hybrid gang members, and national-level gangs such as the Sureños are rapidly expanding in many jurisdictions. Many communities are also experiencing an increase in ethnic-based gangs such as African, Asian, Caribbean, and Eurasian gangs.

            ————–
            Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence.
            —————-

            Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.
            Gangs are increasingly engaging in non-traditional gang-related crime, such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, and prostitution. Gangs are also engaging in white-collar crime such as counterfeiting, identity theft, and mortgage fraud, primarily due to the high profitability and much lower visibility and risk of detection and punishment than drug and weapons trafficking.
            US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central American and MDTOs to perpetrate illicit cross-border activity, as well as with some organized crime groups in some regions of the United States.
            US-based gangs and MDTOs are establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants along the Southwest Border; and serving as enforcers for MDTO interests on the US side of the border. “———-

            Still with me dpaano? If you have contradicting information concerning our public safety, please pass it on to the FBI ASAP, but until then the rational gentleman has no reason to bother with your nonsense. The facts remain,

            Chicago’s murder rate is 27 per, ranking them at 208 to the world. It is one of the deadliest cities to live in with only 11 countries with higher murder rates than the city of Chicago has.

            In fact, if you look at those red counties on our election map you will notice a murder rate of 1 per, or less. It is only when you factor in our inner cities extraordinarily high murder rates that our national average climbs to 4.9 per.
            27 compared to 4.9….do the math.
            You are 27 times more likely to become the victim of a murder if you live in Chicago than if you live in a suburb or rural area.
            You are 7 times more likely to become a murder victim in Chicago than if you live anywhere else in America as a whole.

            So tell me dpaano, do you think executives in Armani suits are doing drivebys on their way to the country club?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            It’s amusing you’re quoting ephemeral “crime stats” to dpaano, who happens to be a law enforcement officer — of many years military and public service experience, and highly elevated rank.
            It’s hilarious that you’re wetting your bed over non-white “criminal gangs“, as though they’re a new thing, and not (correctly) the first tired trope bigots like yourself trot out to condemn poor people.
            Your hysteria makes me laugh out loud, williamdiamon.
            You and Chicken Little.
            THE SKY IS FALLING!

          • williamdiamon says:

            One would imagine with his credentials that he would know the statistics pertinent to the conversation. One would in fact imagine that anyone interested in the subject at least complete preliminary searches for the facts before commenting as it is all found online. Not being aware of the data leaves me wondering if your claims of “highly elevated” are not mere emotional fabrication similar to dpaano’s entire argument.
            Feel free to evidence me condemning “poor people”. Also note, I said gangs – the Bloods and Crips are Black, Bikers are mostly White, and the Latin Kings and MS13 are Latino. Some are exclusively Asian and there are even American Indian gangs. Specifically which race has your panties in a bunch?
            Suggesting myself and the data is “bigoted” and dismissing the FBI’s discoveries only confirms the suspicion of your emotion based position on the matter.
            I can even hear you laughing, it’s the sound of insane laughter, correct? Nice, but it’s no excuse for a rational argument.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            You and Chicken Little are free to “imagine” and “emote” to your hearts’ content. You appear to have lots of practice because you’re very good at both, imagining and emoting over irrational peril.
            That’s what’s so over-the-top funny about your posts, williamdiamon.
            That, and your pretentious, presumed aggrievement.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Your chatter displays a distinct lack of self-awareness. Notice it is you Precipitous who has brought nothing to the table but emotion and nonsense.
            For all your folly consider, the only thing a reader will take from these threads are knowledge and enlightenment to the subject of discussion. Your 5th grade playground drama and joke book insults will be forgotten before the reader gets to the next comment.

            You might as well be composing on an Etch-a-Sketch for all anyone will ever care.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Oh, no!
            williamdiamon AKA SnowFlake is melting!

          • williamdiamon says:

            Whatever you’re on, it’s obviously not doing your brain cells any favors. jus sayin

          • Geralt_0f_Rivia says:

            My compliments to you Bill, you’ve got the GCZ projecting up a storm, well done.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Thank you Geralt. I don’t always engage gun-con-trolls, but when I do it often involves a “personal intervention” segment. Being emotionally based personalities, I try to give them that “moment of clarity” obviously lacking in their daily life and they may just need the time to reflect.

            I just wish I could hand them a box of Kleenex too.

          • SeeCamp says:

            How much does Cruella pay you to be her lap dog?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Need work?

          • Barry says:

            Do you agree with dpaano that “white conservatives” commit most of the gun violence? If not, don’t you think such a claim destroys her credibility? If you agree with her then do you think the FBI is fabricating their data?

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Let’s see…
            Stats quoted by a law enforcement professional vs. anonymous Disqus commenter?
            Ooh…that’s a poser, “Barry”.

          • Barry says:

            How do you know a person is a law enforcement professional? She is objectively wrong here. Again, just look at FBI crime stats. They break every type of crime down based on race.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            So?
            Link to your stats, “Barry”.
            Can’t wait to see.

          • Barry says:

            Note that these are absolute numbers, not rates. If rates are taken into account it becomes even more lopsided.

            According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.[42][43][44]
            In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:
            Black or African Americans 4,379 = 52.2%
            White Americans (including Hispanic Americans) 3,799 = 45.3%
            American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.06%
            Asian Americans 101 = 1.2% [45][46]”

            According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times higher than whites, and blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic whites. Robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the reverse.[50][51]

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Cut & paste from god-knows-where is NOT a link, “Barry”.
            And 2002 was fifteen years ago.
            Please try harder.

          • John Crawford says:

            How do you know Dpaano is a law enforcement professional?
            Semper fi

          • Barry says:

            “it is not immigrants that are committing the most gun crimes…..it’s white conservatives”

            You are living in a bubble. I would be happy for you to show data indicating that white conservatives commit most gun crime. It is laughably false.

          • dpaano says:

            Personally, I don’t have time to go in and find out where I got this information. Unlike Trump, however, I do not tend to make up stories. If you don’t want to believe what I have stated because it doesn’t jive with what you’ve been led to believe, that’s not my problem.

          • Barry says:

            My data comes from the GUN and CDC. What are yours?

          • Geralt_0f_Rivia says:

            It’s simple, any assertion made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, so “personally, I don’t have time to go in and find out where I got this information”, just doesn’t fly.

          • john says:

            Somebody told me that, and I liked it and how it fit into my dogma. I cannot prove it, but it has its’ place in my narrow belief system….. Does that sound about right?

          • Barry says:

            Note that I agree that immigrants aren’t committing the most gun crimes. That wasn’t your error.

          • OHJonesy says:

            ” I don’t have time to go in and find out where I got this information.”

            Translation: “I make baseless claims that I can’t back up all the time.”

            Yeah, we figured that out.

          • john says:

            Unfortunately, the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports disagree with your statements. Unlike you, I try to be academically honest, and can sometimes support my opinions with irrefutable evidence. What local group in Mensa? I am an isolated M. As well as some of the other high IQ societies. If they let me in, it is hard for me to take them seriously, and they really do nothing to ” prove” my superiority to anyone. Your ability to frame or support an argument reflects poorly on you.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            “…show data…”
            What’s stopping you?
            Trot it out here, “Barry”.

          • john says:

            The responsibility does not rest on Barry. It was dpaano that said it, so the responsibility lies with her. That is Somebody’s Law.

          • legaleagle45 says:

            That really depends upon the nature of the city itself rather than its status as a “sanctuary city”. For example, Oakland, California is a “sanctuary city” and has some of the highest crime rates in the nation, let alone California. San Jose, California (only about 40 miles away from Oakland) is also a sanctuary city and has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation for a city with a population in excess of 1 million.

            The distinction is that San Jose is the “capital” of Silicon Valley and is quite prosperous, while Oakland is a very poor and a poster child for criminal gangs.

            Your assertion that “white conservatives, many of which are racists commit the most gun crimes” is absurd and directly contradicts FBI data.

            Maybe you should do your homework

          • OHJonesy says:

            She’s a member of Mensa and has an MBA. Homework is clearly above her, she’s qualified to make up her “facts” as she goes along!

          • legaleagle45 says:

            She claims to be a member of Mensa and has an MBA?

            She certainly makes up facts, perhaps that Mensa bit and MBA bit is also made up as well. The claim that there have been over 600 accidental firearm deaths in So Cal alone this year “and this is only August” was clear fabrication. No other explanation is possible.

          • OHJonesy says:

            Yep, if you hover your cursor over her avatar, you should see:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67cf55eeccc01abce2b2fceec1ab48da2f9291e1056890d8c9a612b616df6496.jpg

            which tells me she is her own biggest fan, LOL! You’re so right tho, she’s making up the Bravo Sierra like there’s no tomorrow.

            [edit] I’m on a Windows laptop – maybe you won’t see what I saw (cursor on her avatar) if you’re on an Apple device or cell device. 🙂

          • john says:

            I belong to Mensa and couple other high IQ societies. It is hard to take it seriously, since they let me in. Mensa is governed mostly by the NY liberal elitists.

          • dtgraham says:

            So even IQ is now a liberal elitist thing and not to be trusted or respected.

            Fully in line with the wilful ignorance that’s now favoured in conservative circles, and is also now a litmus test for many Republican candidates.

          • saltysailor says:

            Her ‘MBA’ is clearly Master Bullshit Artist.

          • john says:

            There is no direct relationship between measured intelligence and any kind of observable success or common sense.

          • saltysailor says:

            She qualifies for the “Educated Idiot” reference oft used.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’m not getting dragged into the minutia of detail on permits and barrel size and whatever else you want to distract to. The gun crowd is famous for that. Among developed nations, the U.S. is off the charts for both gun violence and gun ownership per capita. That’s not a coincidence.

            If America is so horrible in your opinion, then why doesn’t Canada have a gun shooting problem anywhere close? It’s right next door. Should have spilled over to some degree, no? Canada has a lot of gangs too. They find it a lot harder to get a gun though.

          • williamdiamon says:

            You call it detail, we call it reality. but whatever

            “Off the charts”, I like it, thanks. Yes, by far the highest gun ownership of anyone else, too cool and why we are and have been the bastion of liberty in the world. As to our “problem”, all suicide, murder, and accidental death comprise 1.15% of our death rate and .059% of our emergency room visits. We’ll get over it.

            hahaha, “A lot of gangs”, that’s a good one. Canada has 2 major cities…America has over 100 of them. Do the math and get back to me.

            More people take their own life with firearms than murder someone else making it the largest component of gun-related deaths. In America about half of suicides are committed with a gun.
            Consider,
            America has the most guns because of our 2nd Amendment, yet ranks 43rd in the world for suicide rates. That means people in 42 other nations have the ability to commit this act more frequently then the US, slitting the wrists, self hanging ( the most common method worldwide ), poisoning, and jumping from heights are common and have been since Cleopatra.
            Therefore guns cannot factor into this equation, unless you consider guns make us safer than the other 42 nations.

            People have been committing this act long before there were guns as it is an act caused by depression and emotional trauma. I have yet to imagine a law that can effect this mental condition.
            If the availability of guns effected the suicide rate, America, would be Number One. Wouldn’t we?

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            Killing him.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Thanks Krangus, better to kill it before it spreads.

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            Amen to that

          • dtgraham says:

            That’s because you don’t know anything. It would seem that way to you.

            Now do your country a favour and go shoot yourself in the foot. Literally.

            Accidentally of course.

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            I’ve seen him spar with folks like yourself before.
            You’re decent, but he’s still got a better grasp of facts than you.

            Also, all your attempts to compare different countries’ violence statistics are largely meaningless since each country’s history, culture and laws are all so different.

            It’s also quite interesting how the grabbers and hoplophobes are almost always the ones wishing violence on their opponents in these debates. Accidental violence, of course 😉

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh yes, the United States is so different and unique that Americans must all shoot each other in order to be constitutional patriots.

          • Krangus McBasketball says:

            Your dripping disdain sure helps your argument….

            But you’re right in that America is unique, both in history, make-up and law.

          • dtgraham says:

            Two major cities huh. Not that it takes a “major” city to have street gangs, but Canada has one city at nearly 3 million, one at nearly two million, one at over 1.2 million, two at over 900,000, two at over 700,000, and three at around 600,000. You do the math on that.

            The latest national figures cited by Public Safety Canada date back to 2002. They put the number of youth gangs at 434, representing some 7,000 members. Ontario harboured the most youth gangsters with 3,320; Saskatchewan followed with 1,315 gang members. Then there are the biker gangs on top of that.

            The reason Canada’s firearm violence rate per capita is a fraction of America’s is not because of a shortage of gangs. It’s because of the harder access to guns.

            First you have to sign up for the Canadian firearms safety course. You’re assigned an instructor and you must pass the course. Then you mail in your successful course completion certificate with a filled out application for something called the possession and acquisition licence. You send the application to the RCMP, who will take weeks checking you out. If good to go they will send you the PAL licence, and that’s the only way you can buy a firearm. You must present the PAL licence when buying.

            You will then find that there are a lot more restricted guns in Canada, than Americans are used to being able to buy.

            That’s the idea. At least try to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

            America’s firearm homicide rate per capita blows everybody else away in the developed world, as does it’s gun ownership per capita. That’s the ticket. A country awash in guns. No, I’m not interested in being deflected to suicides and dental floss murders.

          • williamdiamon says:

            uhhh, Nope, you pretty much need streets to operate a “street gang”, it’s actually self explanatory. Yes, there are streets in Canada, but we are addressing street gangs. Has Canada ever been in the news for record gang murders in their cities like Chicago is? Have you ever read of a drive-by murder in Canada?

            Wow, 434 gangs in Canada, there are 33,000 in the US per the FBI. Seven thousand members? We have 1.4 million. Looks like your research supports my position, not yours.

            Another fallacy you are basing your argument on, gang members or anyone involved in criminal enterprise or lifestyle do not buy guns through legal channels. The last thing they are going to do is to register a gun they later expect to use in a crime. That would be idiotic, to say the least, to leave a paper trail to themselves. Now consider if you were a criminal, would you buy a gun from the guy down the street, or steal it when you break into his home? Your homies would laugh at you. They buy or barter them through their criminal contacts, not in gun stores. That registry will only contain law abiding citizens, the least of your worries. You presume that a street gang member, someone who murders people for a living, is going to follow the law, all of a sudden like, just to get his name on a list as a gun owner? Really?

            Now tell me, have you ever heard of a case where that has happened, or of a crime being solved because of a registry? You will notice it’s inherent uselessness is the very reason the rifle registry has been scraped in Canada.

            And yeah, I’m going to jump through hoops to enjoy a right my ancestors fought for…dream on.

            Again, “the wrong hands”, neither a registry, AWB, nor a UBC can be shown to benefit our public safety. There’s a reason a Federal registry is illegal in America and that precludes a registry. As to “military-type weapons”,

            The United Nations is not made up of people from around the world. It consists of governments from around the world, the enterprises meant to control the people of the world. Gun-control is an evil and draconian way to control these people as it reduces the common man to the status of herd animals. This is why governments propagate it. Gun-control does not make you safer (unless you are a criminal), it makes governments safer. Consider the proposed “assault weapons ban”,

            America in perspective:
            Total murders- 12,664
            Handguns- 6,220
            Knives-1,694
            Hands and feet-728
            Hammers + clubs-496
            All rifles- 323 (that includes your “assault” + .50 rifles)
            Source: FBI 2011 Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

            Why would anyone suggest banning the semi-auto rifle when more people have been murdered with “hands and feet” (twice as many) then all types of rifles?
            Because it is an effective battle weapon and the one a modern day Minute Man would carry. The Right arm of We the People, the Torch and Pitchfork of our times. This is what concerns them, not your safety.

          • Paul says:

            Canadian Gang-Bangers.
            Shizzle Eh?

          • williamdiamon says:

            haha, I can picture them riding around on a moose flashing gang signs. But they do have a few bikers and the Triads are there. We even have American Indian gangs on reservations here. So weird.

          • williamdiamon says:

            He can pull it off, but you know gangbangers would spent all day trying to figure out how to hot-wire it, and when they can’t find the stereo they’ll just give up on it.

          • goofy says:

            ROTFL!! Hot wire a moose??? I guess gone are the days of just getting it rolling and popping the clutch, huh?! LOL!!

          • dtgraham says:

            You don’t want to run into any of them. I hear they apologize sharply.

            The Canadian ISIS recruits politely ask hostages to remove their own heads.

          • dtgraham says:

            Well it’s hard to do a drive by shooting and engage in record gang murders when there is less likelihood that you even have a gun. Those drive by knifings are tough to do.

            So not enough gangs for you in the great white north? Keep in mind that you’d have to multiply those Canadian numbers by about 10 to have a comparative figure.

            Ok, then Britain has had a gang problem since the 19th century and today it’s concentrated more around the Manchester, London, and Liverpool areas. With twice the population of Canada, I would assume a lot more street gangs. The UK’s firearm related death rate per 100,000 is also 45 times less than that of the U.S.

            Denmark and Sweden have a problem with Muslim gangs. France has an extensive gang problem. The point is, America is not the only nation with street gangs. It is the only advanced nation with a firearm related death rate per capita that’s crazy high compared to it’s peers, and a gun ownership rate per capita that’s an absurd number compared to everyone else.

            You have to remember that with far fewer total guns in circulation, there are also far fewer guns to be scored through break-ins and illicit deals.

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

            The gun registry was scrapped in Canada by the previous Conservative government for strictly ideological reasons, although it survives in the province of Quebec. It had the support of the police across the country. It may or may not be resurrected by the current Liberal government, or future governments.

            In a mass shooting, you can kill a lot more people quickly with a semi-automatic weapon than anything else, including hands and feet(?). You don’t need that type of weapon for anything else other than mass murder or in war.

            Lastly, you’re getting into the tin-foil hat gun nut crap about the United Nations and people control. I was waiting for it.

            “Gun-control does not make you safer”, you said.

            Firearm related death rate per 100,000:
            UK — .23
            US — 10.54

            Guns per 100:
            UK — 6.6
            US — 112.6

            Gee, sure seems to me like gun control makes a society safer.

          • williamdiamon says:

            That’s because you are blaming an inanimate object for suicide and murder, as if human will had nothing to do with it.

            So that’s it, just remove the guns from a society and the gangs will move on to somewhere else? You are really going to suggest that the reason there are so relatively few gangs in Canada is fewer guns? Canada’s market for narcotics is considerably smaller, and the gangs that do distribute drugs in Canada have distinctly different operating procedures than American street gangs and the cartels that supply them. Neither the Russian mob, Triad, biker gangs, or Aborigines are known for drive-bys or murdering with machetes. If the market was there, the gangs would be too.
            That’s like saying that if there were no guns – there would be no murder, and I’m pretty sure people murdered before the invention of firearms.

            England is an island and enjoys a moat commonly called the English Channel. This is in contrast to our open Southern border that enables the most ruthless cartels on our hemisphere access to all our major cities. Open immigration is a large reason for Brexit as they see now the harm it does to communities.

            You do realize the “10.4” figure includes suicides. As suicide is not considered violent crime, I’m not sure you want to use it to support you position. There are many more countries with way fewer guns, yet higher suicide rates, Japan for instance.

            As to mass murder and rampage shooting, Europeans are 55% more likely to be the victims than Americans by both event and victim counts. Really think semi-auto rifles in the hands of the common man are the problem?
            In America all rifles combined are used in less than 2% of murder and violent crime. Of 62 mass murders wherein 5 or more people were either shot or killed from the early 1980’s to now;
            41 times pistols were used, 12 times shotguns or some type of hunting-styled rifle was used, and 9 times semi-automatic rifles were used. That’s 14% of the time.

            The deadliest mass murder in a school in America was done with a firebomb and the victims of the Nice truck attack beg to differ with you.

            The “112.6” figure is from 2007 and outdated. It counts 300 million guns at that time while NICS records show 200 million new firearms sold since that time, so the proper figure would be about 500 million guns in America or 150 guns per 100 people. And not only are we not giving away a single one to your Statist masters, we are building more every day.

            You say it’s not people control only because you agree with them. If we were speaking of snowmobiles or smart phones that were banned or highly restricted would you not resent other people controlling that aspect of your life? It is self explanatory, it’s why it is called gun-CONTROL.

          • dtgraham says:

            “You are really going to suggest that the reason there are so relatively few gangs in Canada is fewer guns?”

            Nope. Never even implied that. They’re just less dangerous overall because of the lesser availability of guns.

            “If the market was there, the gangs would be too.”

            The market is everywhere. Americans aren’t crazy addicted drug users any more than anywhere else.

            “England is an island and enjoys a moat commonly called the English Channel.”

            England has been part of the EU for a long time and has open borders by necessity. That’s one of the deals in the EU. If immigration levels continue the way they have been for a long time, Britain would have to find room for an additional 650,000 people — the population of a city the size of Glasgow — every year between now and 2035.

            “If we were speaking of snowmobiles or smart phones that were banned or highly restricted would you not resent other people controlling that aspect of your life?”

            Only the gun nuts would even think of an analogy like that. No one would ever do something like that because of their usefulness in their intended purpose, and because there are no stats on smart phone related homicides for obvious reasons. And not that a snowmobile has never injured anyone, but it happens accidentally…not intentionally — and nowhere remotely close to happening as often as gun shootings. Did I really have to explain that?

            Firearm related deaths per 100,000:
            Japan .06
            Netherlands .58
            UK .23
            Australia .93
            Austria 2.63
            France 2.83
            U.S. 10.54

            Guns per 100 ppl:
            Japan .6
            Netherlands 3.9
            UK 6.6
            Australia 21.7
            Austria 30.4
            France 31.2
            U.S. 112.6

            Unless we’re talking Mexico or the Republic of the Congo, the more guns — the more gun violence.

            Case closed Mr. Deflection.

          • williamdiamon says:

            Hi Mister Deflection, thanks for replying.
            “Lesser availability of guns”…Like they can import narcotics to distribute, but not firearms? If the market was there the addicts would steal handguns when burglarizing homes to trade for the drugs as often happens here.
            Incorrect, as Americans have more discretionary income available for luxuries, we are the prime market for illegal drugs. The cartels aren’t even in Canada.

            As I said, their open border per the EU was a large reason for Brexit.

            Have your ancestors fought a terrible eight year long war for your right to enjoy cellphones and snowmobiles? Then I can understand your passion.

            Want to cherry pick nations to compare? That is the very definition of deflecting. The truth remains, at 5% of the world’s population and owning 65% of it’s guns yet ranking lower than average or median – if it was the guns we would be #1.

          • Barry says:

            Canada has the same type of gun violence problems that Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine have. Note that those states have almost no violence and allow concealed carry without a permit.

            You have already been proven wrong when you stated that where there are more guns there are more gun deaths. You were literally shown data from the US that shows the opposite. You deflect by wanting to compare to other countries (but only certain countries). As if slums in Detroit or Baltimore somehow benefit from the US being called a developed nation. The US contains pockets of 3rd world cities usually having been run by Democrats for decades. This is where most of the violence comes from.

            We don’t compare to Western Europe or Japan. We have problems they don’t have. They have problems we don’t have (terrorism in Europe, suicide in Japan that is more than our combined suicide and homicide rates).

            In the US, as the number of guns in circulation have increased and carry laws have expanded, gun violence and violent crime in general have dropped. I am not claiming causation, but your assertion correlates negatively from data within the US. Sorry.

          • dtgraham says:

            In no way, shape, or form is any part of the United States like the third world. I use country to country comparisons because within the U.S., guns can so easily be brought into areas that attempt stricter gun control laws, from adjacent areas that don’t have these stricter laws. That skews internal gun violence statistics.

            The more gun ownership per capita, the more gun violence, within the wealthier developed world. With some minor deviations. I simply found that this doesn’t apply to poverty stricken nations racked by instability. I’ve checked all this out thoroughly.

          • Barry says:

            “I’ve checked all this out thoroughly.” LOL. Great for vouching for yourself.

            What advantages does a city like Detroit have over a city like Rio de Janeiro? Why is one third world and the other not?

            Why do the states I mentioned have such low gun violence compared to states like Maryland, California, or Illinois despite the difference in gun laws?

            Why has gun violence dropped in the US as carry laws have expanded and guns in circulation increases? That destroys your argument. It doesn’t hold up in the US.

            Sorry but people in the US have a right to have guns. We have the right to any arm in common use for lawful purposes. We have the right to carry outside of the home. No statistical argument changes that.

            Check out this Harvard study. I think they have looked into it more thoroughly than you.

            http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

          • dtgraham says:

            I just thought that I’d try to inspire the gun freaks to do a little research. You know, check it out.

            So it doesn’t matter to what absurd statistical level Americans are killing each other with guns. You just don’t care. Nice.

            Brazil is not a third world country but Rio still would not have the local and national governmental support services for a wide variety of things, that Detroit has.

          • Barry says:

            “Brazil is not a third world country.”

            Then why is their homicide rate roughly 5x the US despite having strict gun control? What are you missing?

            “So it doesn’t matter to what absurd statistical level Americans are killing each other with guns.”

            The rights of Americans are not affected by the wrong doing of others. So there is no level of gun violence that would remove our right to posses guns. Fortunately it doesn’t matter because it turns out that gun violence is falling as we pass more laws protecting the rights of gun owners. Win win.

          • dtgraham says:

            Brazil? Poverty and corruption. I said both the developing world and the third world were outliers to a simple formula of more guns, more gun violence. That is, in the wealthier first world countries.

            A gun control movement was born in Brazil in 2003 and was successful for a brief time. The government passed a law called the Disarmament Statue which, among other restrictions, limited who could buy and sell guns, and prevented civilians from carrying them in public. The new law built on some previous regulations that mandated background checks and registration of weapons. Gun sales dropped, and firearm deaths fell from nearly 40,000 in 2003 to a little over 34,000 in 2004.

            However, a lack of cooperation between state and federal police, as well as corruption in the gun trade, hindered Brazil’s efforts to keep its estimated 20 million legal and illegal guns out of criminal hands.

            Weapons exported to Paraguay and Colombia by Brazil’s powerful gun industry are smuggled back into the country. Others are stolen by criminals or sold to them by crooked Brazilian soldiers, cops and firefighters. Firefighters in Brazil carry guns.

          • Barry says:

            I agree that Brazil’s violence is linked to poverty and corruption. That is the cause of violence in 3rd world countries. That is the cause of violence in nations like Russia and Brazil. It is the same cause in the US.

            Detroit: Poverty and corruption.
            Chicago: Poverty and corruption.
            Baltimore: Poverty and corruption.
            Oakland: Poverty and corruption.
            New Orleans: Poverty and corruption.
            Birmingham: Poverty and corruption.

          • dtgraham says:

            C’mon now. Those cities have their ghettos or “areas” for sure, but it’s not Brazil or Somalia level.

          • Barry says:

            I’m not saying that the US is as bad as Brazil. After all their homicide rate is 5x higher than ours.

            The US is worse than the countries you want to cherry pick. You could give every person in Japan a machine gun and box of hand grenades and they would still have a sliver of the violence we have. Check out the homicide rates of Japanese living in America. It is roughly the same as those living in Japan.

            Culture and poverty dominates this issue. You can’t gun control your way to violence levels like Western Europe or Japan. You certainly can’t without violating the Constitution. We would be far more productive if we stopped focusing on the gun and tried to get at the causes for violence. Most efforts at gun control only cause more proliferation of guns.

            In the US, gun violence is dropping while gun rights are expanding. I realize that this is counter intuitive to you, but it is reality.

          • dtgraham says:

            If you honestly believe that you can’t gun control your way to violence levels approaching other advanced democracies without violating the constitution, did it ever occur to you that the present interpretation of the second amendment may be wrong?

          • Barry says:

            “did it ever occur to you that the present interpretation of the second amendment may be wrong?”

            No. Did it ever occur to you that the current interpretation is correct? What you want, you can never have.

            If you try, it will only result in more guns being sold (as Obama found out).

          • saltysailor says:

            “I just thought that I’d try to inspire the gun freaks to do a little research. You know, check it out.”

            Like the way your brethren, ‘dpaano’ has been caught twice lying through her teeth?

          • dtgraham says:

            Well, if you compare what she said to your favourite gun website, Blowemup.com, it may seem like Kelly Anne Conway’s alternative facts to you, but actually dpaano knows what she’s talking about.

          • saltysailor says:

            “Well, if you compare what she said to your favourite gun website, Blowemup.com, ”

            No, she’s been nailed twice in here and she hasn’t come back to correct her position.

            We know why you hate the concept of law-abiding citizens having a means to dispatch criminal vermin..especially children.
            Your favorite companion seeking website, https://www.nambla.org/ lays that out.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Well you failed.

            The research shows you to be wrong and using false comparisons to make your claims

          • dtgraham says:

            Sure pal. So, if weed whacker assualts and butter knife crimes happen to be down, give the credit to more guns.

            False comparisons huh.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Indeed
            Particularly when you try to cherry-pick which data sets you use.

            In the US, when crime is broken down by county, the whole comparison by cities or States is shown to be false
            https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
            “Murders in US Very Concentrated: 54% of US Counties in 2014 had Zero Murders, 2% OF Counties Have 51% of The Murders”

          • dtgraham says:

            The gun-nuts are the supreme masters of deviating and diverting to cherry picking, while refusing to acknowledge the much bigger picture.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Whenever you go into nothing but insult, you are conceding losing the debate

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            IN the US over the last 30 year, doubling gun ownership per capita has seen a halving of crime rates.
            Even the FBI noted the phenomenon

            Your claim is contrary to the data.

          • dtgraham says:

            Crime rates have been dropping in all the major advanced countries, with a few exceptions like Russia. “Crime” is a generic term. We’re talking about crime that specifically involves guns. Not just “crime.”

            The United States still remains off the charts for shootings and firearm related homicides per capita compared to other first world advanced wealthy countries. Off the charts for gun ownership per capita too. That’s not a coincidence.

            You can’t change the bottom line data, and you’re ignoring it.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            YOU are trying to talk ONLY about guns, but you are also ignoring where guns are used to stop crimes.
            You can NOT honestly discuss the subject when you try to ignore the other side of the coin.
            Per the CDC’s 2014 report to the White House, there are more DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) that crimes where guns are used.

            Funny how you NEVER talk about that.

            As to your lie of “You can’t change the bottom line data, and you’re ignoring it.”
            I’m not ignoring the bottom line.
            I just refuse to let you cherry-pick it.

          • dtgraham says:

            It’s doesn’t matter what they can occasionally be used for, it’s the more guns…the more gun violence in the developed world with minor deviations, and the data shows that clearly.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            NOPE !

            NOT TRUE !

            In the US over the last 30 years the number of guns in private hands more than doubled from about 175 Million to MORE THAN 350 Million
            And during that time crime, including your fake category “gun crime” dropped by about 50%

            The data shows you are lying.

          • Will says:

            Except violence has declined sharply as gun ownership has increased and gun laws have been repealed or struck down.

          • dtgraham says:

            Copied and pasted from my reply to Attila.

            Crime rates have been dropping in all the major advanced countries, with a few exceptions like Russia. “Crime” is a generic term. We’re talking about crime that specifically involves guns. Not just “crime.”

            The United States still remains off the charts for shootings and firearm related homicides per capita compared to other first world advanced wealthy countries. Off the charts for gun ownership per capita too. That’s not a coincidence.

            You can’t change the bottom line data, and you’re ignoring it.

          • Will says:

            Only counting shootings is dishonest. If shootings are down but stabbings are up violence is either the same or getting worse.

          • dtgraham says:

            No, it’s not dishonest because this is an NRA story and we’re talking about guns.

            When the NM story is about the National Knife Association, I’ll make the switch.

          • Will says:

            Guns are irrelevant to homicide numbers. People we’re killing each other well before the invention of Gunpowder.

          • dtgraham says:

            I should screenshot this. Holy Christ! Guns are irrelevant to homicide numbers?

          • Will says:

            Yes. If guns were the problem the places with the highest homicide rates should have the most guns. The exact opposite is reality.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            Buggy accidents don’t kill as many people as they used to, either. Should we give up traffic safety?

          • Will says:

            Safety has zero to do with gun control or laws.

          • PrecipitousDrop says:

            The what’s that little doodad near the trigger?

          • Will says:

            Safety has nothing to do with gun control. Those writing those laws don’t know what a safety is.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Revolvers don’t have any “little doodad near the trigger”
            The ONLY safety on a revolver is not having your finger on the trigger if you’re not ready to fire.

            For pistols:
            It the ” little doodad” is behind the trigger, it’s most likely the magazine release.
            It the ” little doodad” is above the trigger, it’s most likely the slide release.
            The safety ” little doodad”tends to be up and behind the trigger, either just below the slide, on on the slide
            Some pistols have and additional safety on the back of the grip, that you must squeeze to be able to fire.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            In the UK following the handgun ban
            — Gun crime went up
            — gun smuggling went up
            — knife crime went up

            But hey..
            Those are the unintended consequences when idiots with tunnel vision forget the big picture are are too blind to see past their nose.

          • Will says:

            Also look at were violence is in the US. It’s in urban areas with European style gun bans not where gun ownership is highest. Vermont has virtually no gun laws and minimal violence. If guns are the problem how do you explain that?

          • dtgraham says:

            No urban area in the United States has European, Australian, New Zealand, Korean, Japanese, or Canadian style gun bans. That s for starters. National, constitutional, laws on guns within the U.S. have to be respected.

            As I said before, within the U.S., guns can so easily make their way into a more gun restricted area from adjacent areas that have far more lax laws. That skews internal domestic gun stats. So you have to go international for comparison.

            Of course urban areas are going to have more violence problems of all kinds due to the close proximity of people to each other. Vermont wouldn t have those issues to anywhere near the same extent.

            What you don t want to do is exacerbate the situation by throwing a lot of guns into those urban areas.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Actually, before 2008, Washington DC had the strictest and most aggressively enforced ban
            And it was one of the worst crime cesspits in the US>
            Same goes for Baltimore Md. right up the road.
            And yet, States like VIrigiinia with much more relaxed gun laws, did NOT have the same problems.

            Once again, your ignorance is showing

            The funny thing is that those low gun control areas, have less crime than just about all those high crime areas.
            If easy access to guns causes the crime, then how come the low gun control areas have less crime ?

            BECAUSE IT’S NOT THE GUNS, DUMMY !

          • dtgraham says:

            DC city leaders said the handgun law kept many guns off the streets and warned at the time that violence could increase without it. Firearms still flowed in from states like Maryland and Virginia, but District of Columbia officials say the ban nevertheless reduced the number of legally owned firearms that are stolen or used in domestic killings and suicides.

            A study released by University of Maryland criminologists in the New England Journal of Medicine in the 90’s suggested the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before. They argued the ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders. Surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia had not seen a corresponding drop in gun crime.

            Because it’s the guns dummy!

          • Will says:

            Washington DC had a complete ban up until it was ruled wildly unconstitutional by SCOTUS in the Heller case.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            This ditz has absolutely NO CLUE about the gun control history of the USA
            He had no clue about Washington DC gun ban and the crime explosion that followed.
            Neither does he have any idea of the histories of NYC, Detroit, Chicago and other major cities and their respective gun bans.
            In all cases, increasing gun control was immediately followed by increasing crime and violence in those cities.

          • dtgraham says:

            There wasn’t a gun violence rate that exploded after the DC handgun ban. Stats and peer reviewed studies showed the opposite.

            The reason that you don’t know what you’re talking about is because the internet is absolutely filled with lying gun-nut propaganda websites portending to be serious information. You have to wade through them to get to serious websites. I’ve never seen anything like it.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            The explosion of crime and gun crime in DC is well documented
            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-dcs-handgun-ban-prevented-bloodshed/

            Didn’t work in DC

            Didn’t work in the UK
            https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

          • dtgraham says:

            And Washington DC’s ban did have some positive effects. As I keep pointing out though, you have to remember that we’re talking within the continental United States, and the city’s location remained a huge problem for that handgun ban. That’s why I say that international comparisons are much better.

            Washington is surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, where guns remained legal, and many firearms could be traced to shops just across the line. The number of guns seized by police surged after 2003, reaching 2,924 in 2007, nearly 1,000 more than in 2003. Most of the guns were used in crimes.

            City officials realized the law had its limits, that guns would never vanish from the streets. And they never imagined it would do away with homicides and violent crime altogether. However, it at least provided some check on violence, and it took away a tool for some criminals at the time.

            They knew that there would be problems and they couldn’t wipe it out. They at least had a little more control over it.

            City leaders said the law kept many guns off the streets and warned at the time that violence could increase without it. Firearms still flowed in from states like Maryland and Virginia, but District of Columbia officials say the ban nevertheless reduced the number of legally owned firearms that are stolen or used in domestic killings and suicides.

            A study released by University of Maryland criminologists in the New England Journal of Medicine in the 90’s suggested the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before. They argued the ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders. Surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia had not seen a corresponding drop in gun crime.

          • Will says:

            It had zero positive effects and was a massive civil rights violation.

          • dtgraham says:

            I just outlined the positive effects.

          • Will says:

            You named as “positive” civil rights violations.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            What “positive effects” ?

            Gun control went in
            Crime, including crime with guns went up

            NO “positive effects”, you dumb twit

          • dtgraham says:

            University of Maryland criminologists argued in the New England Journal of Medicine that the handgun ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders. Surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia had not seen a corresponding drop in gun crime.

            Wrong again idiot boy.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Unsupported claim
            NO PROOF

            Just another LIE

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            BWAHAHAHA !

            Some more nonsense
            “And Washington DC’s ban did have some positive effects.”
            Turning a city into a crime and murder capital is not “some positive effects.”, dummy

            Meanwhile, the adjoining States with limited gun control did not have anywhere close to that level of crime.
            Why do you think that is.
            Hint for the dummy: It’s because the criminals got shot if they tried anything.

            Only a true moron would suggest that the criminals went to to HIGH gun control locations to commit their crimes, when they could have just as easily committed those crimes in the FAR WEALTHIER adjoining States.
            DUH !

            And then more nonsense
            Gun control which immediately triggered a surge in crime ONLY in Washington DC and NOT the adjoining States alleged sved lives..
            Hello ?
            Is there ANYONE home ?

            The data proves you’re lying (again)
            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-dcs-handgun-ban-prevented-bloodshed/

          • dtgraham says:

            There was a decline in some gun crime stats in DC not seen in the adjacent states. That’s all it said, idiot boy. That and nothing more. We’re talking gun violence only…remember?

            They didn’t go to an adjoining handgun control state to personally commit crimes; they sold weapons to people in that adjoining state. That’s all it said, idiot boy. That and nothing more.

            Talk to the University of Maryland criminologists. But remember, talk to them only about gun violence data. Remember?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Go ahead and provide the FBI-UCR report to prove your claim

            Since you’re making these claims, it’s on you to provide the proof.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            In the US, when crime is broken down by county, the whole comparison by cities or States is shown to be false
            https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
            “MURDERS IN US VERY CONCENTRATED: 54% OF US COUNTIES IN 2014 HAD ZERO MURDERS, 2% OF COUNTIES HAVE 51% OF THE MURDERS”

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            The moment you start claiming a difference between wealthier countries and poorer countries, as a factor for crime, you destroy any argument or gun control

          • dtgraham says:

            Only destroyed to those who are dedicated gun-nuts and either can’t or won’t reason things out.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Your concession is accepted
            No need to further prove that you’re an idiot
            It’s evident.

          • dtgraham says:

            Said by Mr. Self Evident, Lord of the idiots.

          • john says:

            Your insight and comparison into Canada is misplaced. The US is not Canada, never has been, and hopefully never will be. The gun crowd is indeed capable of intense arguments about minutiae. How does that have anything to do with protecting American Rights? You try to deflect the argument. That is a maladaptive ego defense on your part. It reflects poorly on you. Get back to the point. What is the headline of this article?

          • dtgraham says:

            The gun crowd argues irrelevant details as a diversion.

            There’s nothing unique or special about Canada, and Canada has much to learn and copy from best practises around the world.

            However, when a severe gun problem exists and somebody else seems to have a better handle on how to deal with individual gun rights in a way that maximises public safety, it’s worth it to pay attention to what they’re doing.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Too bad that Canada’s incremental gun control over the last 100 years has had ABSOLUTELY NO STATISTICAL EFFECT in reducing Canada’s crime rate.

            If as you claim that gun control is effective in reducnig crime, then Canada’s crime rate should have dropped EVERY TIME some new gun control law was passed
            Since that did not happen, and Canada’s annual crime rate after 100 years is higher now, your whole house of cards collapses

          • dtgraham says:

            Wrong again buckeroo. We’re talking gun violence, not all crime. Remember, Mr Deflection?

            The year following the introduction of firearms licensing in Canada (1977), saw a continuation of the pre-existing decline in murder involving firearms, relative to other types of murders. That is true for that year. However, from 1977 to 2003, Canada’s firearm homicide rate declined from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000, while other murders declined less significantly (1.85 to 1.23 per 100,000).

            A January 2011 study by the Université de Montréal found that Canadian gun control legislation since 1974 resulted in a 5-10 percent drop in firearm homicides.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Nope
            Only YOU are making such a distinction.
            Because that cherry-picking is the ONLY way you can push your lie.

            And when smart people, just take one step back and ask what the effect will be on the TOTAL picture.
            The answer is NONE.

            And that is why your fake selectivity fails.
            If all the effort and money spent has NO EFFECT on the TOTAL numbers, and your set only get replace by another set with NO TOTAL CHANGE, then you are pushing something that is not worth the effort.

          • dtgraham says:

            Canada: far fewer guns per capita than the U.S. Far less firearm related homicides and other gun violence per capita than the U.S.

            Wrong. The U.S. set got replaced in Canada with a different set involving very different data. If it’s Canada we’re now talking about.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            What are you blathering about now.

            Did you forget to take your meds again ?

          • dtgraham says:

            “If all the effort and money spent has NO EFFECT on the TOTAL numbers, and your set only get replace by another set with NO TOTAL CHANGE”

            Sorry. I’m trying to respond to a low information semi-literate gun lunatic. Doing the best I can here.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Once again, you go to straight insult when you’re stumped to even produce a dumb response.

          • john says:

            Deflection. A maladaptive ego defense mechanism. We are not Canada. Your argument is specious. Why don’t you look at the numbers of murders/ gun related crimes in the inner cities. I have noticed you avoid going into that argument.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Canada has ALWAYS had a lower crime rate than the US.
            One reason is that it’s much colder
            Countries close to the equator, usualy have much higher crime rates than those far away.

            Another reason is culture
            Canada was always a far more law-abiding country
            The historical crime rates prove that.

            And excellent book explaining why your are wrong is titled “The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy” by David Kopel.
            The book pretty much shows why your arguments are false, and based in incorrect premises.

          • dtgraham says:

            “Canada has ALWAYS had a lower crime rate than the US.
            One reason is that it’s much colder
            Countries close to the equator, usualy have much higher crime rates than those far away.”

            That’s what you said.

            Well, the crime rate in Russia is appalling. According to a 2009 survey, Russia has a homicide rate of 11.2 per 100,000 people, which is among the highest in the world.

            In 2012, Russia had a murder rate of 9.2 per 100,000 population. There were a total of 13,120 murders in Russia in 2012. Siberia is one of the worst areas in Russia for crime and homicide.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You’re so easy.

            Russia has more gun control than Canada, and yet Canada has a lower crime rate.
            Oops
            Why is that ?
            If gun control works as you claim, Canada with more guns per capita and less gun control should have more crime than Russia.

            There goes that nonsense about gun comtrol

            As I said.
            Gun control does NOT work, except when you chery-pick the countries to make your claim

            Also, you’re so easy.

          • dtgraham says:

            Right. All northern countries have much lower crime rates, you said. OOPS! Damn that Russia.

            Remember, we re talking firearm related homicides and other gun shootings — not general crime. Remember.

            For one thing, it’s impossible to make a direct comparison of gun homicides because Russia doesn’t break down its murder statistics. Who really knows.

            Two points –

            i) When I look at Russia s gun laws, I don t see much difference to Canada s. They look similar.

            ii) I m not sure that Russia even counts anymore as a first world country in many ways, due to it s considerable poverty and very high levels of income inequality.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            1) Now your lying again and trying to put words in my mouth.
            That’s called a strawman argument
            I wrote:
            “Countries close to the equator, usualy have much higher crime rates than those far away.”
            Which is very different from your strawman of:
            “Right. All northern countries have much lower crime rates, you said. “
            Which is VERY different from YOUR LIE.

            2) NO
            We’re looking at ALL crime, because the presence of guns affects ALL crimes.
            When civilians are armed, they are less apt to be the victims of crime.
            That is also why Russia has announced that it will be relaxing gun ownership to that people can more easily defend themselves from criminals
            https://www.rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/
            “In an amendment to its tough gun control laws, the Russian government eases restrictions, allowing citizens to carry licensed weapons for the purposes of ‘self-defense.’”

            You just lost Russia as an example, doofus

            3) You once again made the claim that gun control only works in 1st World countries
            But that claim only shows that your claim of gun control effectiveness is flawed
            It’s like claiming that a medical vaccine only works in special countries, but should be implemented everywhere even though it fails everywhere else.
            Smart people step back and go
            “Whoa there, little cowboy”
            If it only works in special countries, we need to figure out what makes them “special”. Because maybe it’s not the vaccine that’s at work here.”

          • dtgraham says:

            “Canada has ALWAYS had a lower crime rate than the US.
            One reason is that it’s much colder.”

            Yeah, I guess Russia isn’t that cold huh. OOPS! Damn that Russia.

            Pakistan also has a very large and sophisticated military, and is a nuclear power. They’re nowhere close to first world. With the high levels of poverty, corruption, and chaos that the oligarchs have brought, I wouldn’t count Russia as a peer country worthy of comparisons.

            Funny, under the old Soviet system, they did have less crime and gun crime.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            And so the above factoids are supposed to be meaningful ?

            But hey,
            You’re the one that is misquoting me or worse trying to put words in my mouth

            The Soviet had a bunch of secret police.
            And they sent about 60,000,000 people to their deaths in the Gulags over a period of less than 80 years.
            They had more to fear from their government that had basically disarmed them than criminals.
            A perfect example of what happens with more gun control.

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh yes, every jurisdiction that attempts gun control turns into something akin to the Soviet Union. Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan — they’re all just like that. Pfffffft.

            Stay off the gun-nut websites.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Your strawman
            YOU feed it.

          • john says:

            Oh, Hell, Yeah.

          • Sparafucile says:

            So you start with your assertion about the murder rate, and then dishonestly cite a number that does NOT REPRESENT THE MURDER RATE?

            Your ilk doesn’t even try, any more, to pretend you’re not rampant repugnant liars, do you?

          • dtgraham says:

            Here’s some stats for you. You can’t easily look this up? You can’t read? What’s your problem? Where do you gun freaks come from anyway? You’re never seen except on gun stories.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

          • Sparafucile says:

            Ah, so now the liar deflects from the lie the liar offered. What a typical dissembling rube.

          • dtgraham says:

            What’s the point of showing you anything if you can’t or won’t read? OK, so what’s the firearm homicide rate in America, and then compare that to other advanced countries? Your turn. Do you even know?

          • Sparafucile says:

            It’s approximately 3.2 per 100,000. Why?

            It’s not the 10 you and that other liar are implicitly or explicitly claiming.

          • dtgraham says:

            It’s point .06 per 100,000 in France. .19 per 100,000 in Germany. .51 per 100,000 in Canada.

            They all have a fraction of the gun ownership per capita that the United States has. That’s not a coincidence.

            More guns, more gun violence.

          • Sparafucile says:

            Thats like saying “more gryuere, more gryuere – related deaths”. Gruyere isn’t the only thing that makes people obese and clogs arteries.

            Man, your ilk make bad arguments.

          • dtgraham says:

            Wrong again. Nobody ever said gryuere obese or gryuere arteries. The reason is that there are a ton of other causes for those things. On the other hand, nothing causes mass shootings like guns.

            Literally nothing.

          • Sparafucile says:

            I see you are incapable of understanding analogies. Your ilk is so predictably obtuse.

          • john says:

            You are being intellectually dishonest. You are the one that ignores facts to make your points. An impolite label for that behavior would be: lies.

          • Sparafucile says:

            Your baseless accusation is, well, baseless. Next time, try pointing our the “lie” you believe I proffered. Lest you be clearly identified as a moron.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Too bad it’s only simple correlation.
            It’s pretty much meaningless statistically BECAUSE it’s not demonstrating CAUSATION.
            And you are trying to (falsely) claim causation.

            You’ll have to do better.

          • dtgraham says:

            Not a problem.

            Firearm related deaths per 100,000:
            Japan .06
            Netherlands .58
            UK .23
            Australia .93
            Canada 1.97
            Austria 2.63
            France 2.83
            U.S. 10.54

            Guns per 100 ppl:
            Japan .6
            Netherlands 3.9
            UK 6.6
            Australia 21.7
            Austria 30.4
            Canada 30.8
            France 31.2
            U.S. 112.6

            That is one hell of a lot of correlation. I could prepare this list using various countries several more times, with different countries in each list, but each list showing the same correlation. When there’s THAT much correlation, that is by definition, causation. In the developed first world, the more guns…the more gun violence. Minor deviations.

            Case closed.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Doesn’t matter that you have a “hell of a lot of correlation”
            If you don’t have CAUSATION, you have NOTHING !

            By the way, If as you claim gun control works, why does it only seem to work in 1st word countries and nowhere else ?
            Apparently there is some other factor at work that you and your ilk are desperately trying to ignore.
            If gun control worked as you claim, it would work in EVERY country, and not just a select few.

            But keep trying.
            Who knows
            If you keep repeating this nonsense long enough, it might just magically come true.

            Maybe you should get one of those Harry Potter wands.
            You could wave that around and shout real loud “TELUM IMPERIUM !” or “IMPERIUM ARMIS !”, while wishing very, very hard, and your dream might just come true.

          • dtgraham says:

            ‘”Who knows
            If you keep repeating this nonsense long enough, it might just magically come true.”

            It does magically come true, each time that I look at the data on this.

            Doesn’t matter that you have a “hell of a lot of correlation”
            If you don’t have CAUSATION, you have NOTHING !

            Wrong. That much correlation amounts to causation.

            There are complicating socioeconomic factors that affect violent crime rates. Economic disparities within countries, along with periods of economic downturn, drive up crime and homicides, and violent crime occurs four times more often in countries with wide income gaps. These factors are true but mitigated in the richer countries.

            While that all may be generally correct, we re talking a magnification of these factors by multiple times in the poorer parts of the world. Enough to overwhelm the more guns, more gun violence, formula.

            Economic prosperity itself tends to decrease violent crime. Myself and my ilk ignore nothing.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You ignore simple data that shows gun control makes NO CHANGE over time on the crime rate.
            You make false and superficial comparisons while ignoring all other factors that are pertinent.
            And you even lie when you think you can get away with it.

          • dtgraham says:

            “You ignore simple data that shows gun control makes NO CHANGE over time on the crime rate.”

            It easily can, only because it lowers the gun crime part of crime. Were talking about gun violence…remember?

            And you ignore the simplest data of all concerning the obvious relationship between gun ownership per capita and firearm related homicides per capita in the developed world.

            Hey gun-nut brain. If the sun refused to rise whenever the rooster didn’t crow, or if it took x number of roosters to get the sun to rise, you’d rethink the rooster relationship.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Poor baby
            You’re reduced to babbling the same nonsense over and over.

            That clearly shows you know you’ve lost.

          • dtgraham says:

            Exactly the opposite my gun-nut friend. I’m still posting thoughtful rebuttals where warranted. Looks like you and Will have nothing left.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You really are a clueless idiot.

            A demonstration of ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE of causation follows
            “Wrong. That much correlation amounts to causation.”
            Quantity of correlation does NOT create Causation

            For example
            Every morning just before dawn roosters start crowing.
            Then the sun rises.
            This has been observed on EVERY continent, every day, since time immemorial
            Roosters crow and the sun rises soon after
            So clearly, according to you, after millenia of daily observation one can conclude that this MASSIVE amount of correlation proves that roosters cause sunrise with their crowing..
            After all, according to you
            “That much correlation amounts to causation.”

            And then you wonder why you’re considered an idiot.

            Yourself and your ilk are ignorant of and clearly ignore the basic tenets of statistical analysis.

          • dtgraham says:

            Hey gun-nut brain. If the sun refused to rise whenever the rooster didn’t crow, or if it took x number of roosters to get the sun to rise, you’d rethink the rooster relationship.

            You must be aware by now that I can swat down all of your cute little gun-nut analogies, comparisons, and slogans that Wayne Lapierre taught you at http://www.shootemuprealgood.com.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Does the “d” stand for “dumb” and the “t” stand for “twit” ?
            And even a Graham Cracker is smarter than you.

            I’ve been wiping the floor with you since your sufaced.
            And you’d have a hard time finding your way ouf of a paper bag open at both ends with written instructions.

            And even as a troll, you’re pathetic.

          • dtgraham says:

            As I just finished saying seconds ago in another reply, you and Will have got nothing left at this point.

            You couldn’t wipe the floor with a Swiffer Sweeper, even with the Barber of Seville playing in the background. You’d have to shoot the dirt away.

          • john says:

            Deflection, since you cannot argue with facts. You are full of sh/t and can prove nothing. Why are you so hysterical when gun violence and murders are 5the lowest they have been in 3 years?

          • john says:

            Your assertion that I did not read it is specious. You expect me to eat BS just because I read it? The United States of America is no other advanced nation in the world, nor do I want it to be. I have seen libs block changes in laws that try to address our crime rate, only to have libs ignorantly call the proposed laws racist . What nonsense. I have a counter challenge for you: Take the top ten metropolitan districts in the US. Determine their crime/ gun deaths rates. Subtract their aggregate population from that of the US. Subtract their numbers of crimes from the US aggregate numbers. Do you deny that the ten most dangerous cities in the US have been under Democratic Party control for a few lifetimes? In any case, if your try this exercise, the crime rate in the rest of the country becomes close to that of Mayberry. There are about 300 millions ( or more) of guns in private hands; They are in the possession of about 150 millions of innocent, law-abiding, citizens. I want you to think about the gundeath rate from these perspectives. That does not have any influence on your thinking, does it? I accuse you of being closed minded and dogmatic.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            What makes you imagine that it’s even a meaningfull comparison.
            You could be comparing ice cream consuption rates that would be just as meaningfull.

            Here’s a challenge for you.

            Look up the annual crime rate of Canada over the last 100 years
            Mark the key dates when Canada implemented some gun control law.
            And then show us how the crime rate dropped noticeably during the time that followed.

            It can NOT be done, because it did NOT happen
            And 100 years ago, Canada basically had NO gun control laws.

            And even funnier, do the same for the US.
            You will find the crime rate fluctuations to actually run in parallel with the crime rate fluctuations of the US.
            And NOT with any new gun control laws implemented in either country.

          • dtgraham says:

            We’re not talking about the overall crime rate, Mr. Deflection. We’re talking about firearm related deaths per capita.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Well
            The problem with dummies like you is that you indulge in magical thinking

            You stupidly imagine that passing a law, will make criminals obey said law.
            But smart people, unlike you, recognize the concept that criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY IGNORE th law.

            So passing laws to disarm the law-abiding will have no effect on criminals
            Think Prohibition.
            It didn’t stop the consumption of alcohol
            It just made it very expensive, so that criminals move into the market and made lots of money at it
            Think the “war on drugs”
            It didn’t stop the use of drugs,
            Instead it led to the creation of far more potent marijuana, and other drugs, and the criminals moved in to make a lot of money supplying those drugs.

            The same applies to guns
            Your proposed solution is not solution, because you’re basically going around and playing word games to minimize the context.

            But that’s typical of not very smart fanatics with fixation issues.

          • dtgraham says:

            How will these criminals all get guns with strict laws on who can buy guns, and with far fewer total guns in circulation that can be gotten through break-ins or other illicit means?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            The same way criminals get guns illegal in stricter gun control places like the UK, Jamaica, even Mexico.
            It’s called the black Market.
            And just like the one for drugs, it’s pretty efficient.

          • dtgraham says:

            There isn’t a black market in the UK. Criminals looking to obtain guns in the UK will find themselves resorting to rebuilt antique weapons, homemade bullets and even illicit rent-a-gun schemes.

            The reason is because there are fewer and fewer weapons still available on the streets in the UK after the gun crackdown of a couple of decades ago.

            Guns in circulation per 100,000 means what it says.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Funny how the media and UK government dont agree with your claim
            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/rising-number-of-guns-being-smuggled-into-uk-metropolitan-police-say
            “More guns are being seized in cities across Britain as the number of firearms being smuggled into the country increases, Britain’s most senior police officer has said.”

            Guns that are and seized represent a small number of the guns that are successfully smuggled in.
            It’s just like drugs.
            If there is a demand, there will be a black market.

          • dtgraham says:

            Inevitable, and even possibly one of the reasons for Brexit.

            There was a report on the National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review released to parliament two years ago that dealt with this. We don’t know the number of guns smuggled though. Just the number seized by police. Exactly how big a problem is it?

            The report concluded with a scorecard rating the government’s overall performance against eight key national security and defence tasks. It found that the UK’s border security system had one the worst records in the previous 12 months.

            They’re fully aware of this and will get a handle on it. They seized 714 guns in 2015 alone. Scotland Yard launched a crackdown on this called operation Viper.

            Of course you’re still missing the big picture because that’s just what professional gun-nuts do.

            Britain: one twentieth the number of guns per capita than the U.S. and one forty-fifth the number of firearm related homicides than the U.S.

            Don’t want to talk about that do you?

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Poor baby

            You’re so desperate to redirect when facts contrary to your claims show up

            That was 174 guns in ONE CITY

            The UK with a higher violent crime rate than the US because the citizens have been disarmed and made defenseless.
            Nothing to brag about.

          • dtgraham says:

            Violent crime is calculated very differently in the UK than the way that the FBI calculates it. There’s no good way to really know what the difference in violent crime rates are between the two countries.

            Some things are easy to know though. While it’s no surprise the UK has fewer shooting deaths than the US, since handguns are almost totally banned, but Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides — it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around.

            In 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people — 4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000.

            Get off the gun-nut websites.

            And now, I have to go. May take this up later tonight or tomorrow, although I don’t know why.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            1) The US ALWAYS had a higher murder rate than the UK

            2) The Guardian is definitely NOT a “gun nut website”
            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/20/violent-crime-in-england-and-wales-rises-police-figures

            YOU LOSE AGAIN !

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            The same way that they are getting them now in all the countries with strict gun control
            They smuggle them
            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/gang-found-guilty-of-uks-largest-known-gun-smuggling-operation
            They make their own
            http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/criminals-make-mockery-of-australias-gun-ban/

            Your claim is false.
            The data proves otherwise.

          • dtgraham says:

            Gee, if you go through this list, it sure doesn’t seem like they’re smuggling guns into other countries “with strict gun control.” Their estimated guns per capita still appear to be a tiny fraction of the U.S. So do their firearm related homicides per capita. In the advanced first world countries anyway.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

            Remember, we’re only talking guns and gun related homicides. Now, tell me all about the sweat sock strangulation murders Mr. Deflection.

            I’ll get back to you gun nuts tomorrow on your other gun nut crap.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            “Remember, we’re only talking guns and gun related homicides.”

            NOPE !
            You are (Dishonestly) trying to limit the discussion to that.
            And that is so that you can present a very skewed and biased picture.

            And the bottom line remains
            Correlation is NOT causation
            Causation is not effect.
            And all you have is correlation

            And to make YOUR case, you need CAUSATION.
            And you do NOT and NEVER WILL have that.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’m limiting the discussion to guns because GUNS ARE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            YOU may want to falsely and dishonestly ONLY talk about so-called “gun crime” to SKEW the cherry-picked data.
            But in the US we KNOW that guns are used to AVOID being the victim of a criminal.
            So that justifies looking at TOTAL crime numbers

            BECAUSE when a gun is used to AVOID being robbed, burglarized, assaulted, raped and even murdered, then it’s MEANINGFUL and PROPER to include those numbers.
            And per the CDC, MORE people AVOID being the victims of crime, than guns are USED to COMMIT crimes

          • dtgraham says:

            Gun crime IS the data you idiot.

            The U.S.: 112-114 guns per 100 ppl. Between 10-11 firearm related homicides per 100,000.

            Both numbers completely off the charts compared to other developed peer nations.

            You just need two brain cells to rub against to see the relationship.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You’re lying again
            You’re trying to INFLATE the Numbers by including suicides with homicides.

            Too bad that your attempt to claim causality is ALSO a LIE..

            .

            If your cause was so noble, you wouldn’t have to lie for it.

          • dtgraham says:

            That was done on purpose, you debauched uncaring idiot. All the more reason to put in some gun controls.

            The fast-rising U.S. suicide rate is in sharp contrast to what’s happening in most other developed countries, where suicide rates have declined significantly over the past decade.

            There’s widespread agreement among experts that the suicide rate would decline significantly if firearm availability in the United States resembled levels of other developed countries.

            Fifty percent of Americans who commit suicide do so with a gun. The average level of other Western countries is 9%. So, the assumption being that the remaining 41 percent would try to commit suicide by other methods, such as suffocation or poisoning if American gun availability resembled the rest of the developed world.

            Because none of these methods is as lethal and quick as a gun, fewer people would succeed at committing suicide than if they used firearms. Of course it’s also highly likely that some people in this 41 percent would not attempt suicide otherwise without a gun.

            Your gun-nut cause doesn’t have even one shred of nobility about it, so you can lie all you want.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Too bad that your attempt to blame guns for suicide is bunkum
            Guns do NOT cause people to commit suicide
            If guns are not available, other means are use.

            And in Japan, FAR MORE people commit suicide per capita than the US.
            And they don’t have guns to do it with

            So your whole doo-doo pile about suicide and guns is just another lie for your agenda.

          • dtgraham says:

            So you point to one developed country with a higher suicide rate than the U.S. and then stick out your tongue. You goda*ned ignoramus. FYI, S. Korea also has a higher suicide rate than the U.S….but that’s it. Countries with a unique Asian culture of honourable death. Recall Kamikazes?

            Yes, guns are normally a factor in suicide rates idiot boy.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            If gun control were the magic bullet solving all problems you claim it is, then it would work in all countries not just some cherry-picked developped ones.

            All your data is nothing but loose correlations that do NOT support any claims of causation.

            When those silly claims are debunked your reduced to appeals to emotions and insults

            Bottom line is you can’t make your case.
            Gun control does NOT work

            It’s magical thinking for idiots

            By the way your claims bout the US Suicide rate is also bogus
            Whole bunch of countries including Belgium and Sweden are ahead of the US.

            8 Lithuania 26.1
            10 South Korea 24.1
            14 Belarus 19.1
            15 Poland 18.5
            17 Russia 17.9
            20 Latvia 17.4
            21 Ukraine 16.6
            23 Belgium 16.
            24 India 16.0
            25 Hungary 15.7
            26 Japan 15.4
            31 Slovenia 15.0
            33 Estonia 14.9
            35 Finland 14.2
            38 Argentina 13.9
            46 Sweden 12.7
            48 United States 12.6

          • dtgraham says:

            I only know what I read, if I think it’s a legitimate source. This is what I said… “The fast-rising U.S. suicide rate is in sharp contrast to what’s happening in most other developed countries, where suicide rates have declined significantly over the past decade.”

            I was talking about the rate of RISE in suicide rates in the U.S. compared to the rate of rise in suicide rates in other developed countries, in more recent times. I know you’re only semi-literate, but that’s what those words meant.

            However, the general overtone stands. There are only 5 or 6 wealthy first world developed nations (depending on exact definition) on your list ahead of the U.S. for overall suicide rates. That means that most of the developed world has a lower suicide rate than the U.S.

            Like firearm related homicides, very high levels of poverty, economic and social instability, civil unrest, civil war, and general societal chaos play a huge role in suicides too. That’s why you would factor them out for comparison’s sake. Look at any of these suicide lists and you’ll see the third world overrepresented, just as it is in gun violence per capita. I know you don’t have the ability to think that through, but it’s really just common sense if nothing else.

            I know you don’t think that deeply, but turn your question around. Why does gun control work very well in the developed world if, as you say, it doesn’t work at all? Compare U.S. gun violence and gun ownership per capita to other developed countries. Compare France’s to Britain’s. Look at the bigger picture.

            With that, I’m done here. I didn’t think that I’d ever get into another gun-nut debate, but I did.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Lot of blather to get to the meat, but couched as a lie.
            “Why does gun control work very well in the developed world if, as you say, it doesn’t work at all”

            There is absolutely NO DATA to support any claim that
            “Why does gun control works.”
            All you have is some cherry-picked countries where you go:
            “Look low crime compared to the US and more gun-control than the US”
            That’s not proof of anything.
            that’s just correlation.

            And unfortunately for you idiots, there’s way to much contrary evidence to preclude causation.
            And without causation, you have nothing.

            That’s the bottom line
            And you can wiggle as much as you want in denial, like a worm on a hook.
            But without the ability to demonstrate causation, you are unable to demonstrate credibly that gun control works.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Attila, I think graham already knew that and hoped you would get sloppy and not discover it. Back to the drawing boards for Mr. graham.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            I suspect you are right.

            I’ve reached the point, where I just assume that a gun controller is lying.
            And all you need to do is figure out where the lie is.
            They’re getting more subtle and playing numbers games.
            Absolute numbers vs rates and that sort of hand-waving.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Technically speaking, it isn’t strictly a lie if it is completely believed …

            … of course, then it is delusional religious madness, or something like that.

            With our graham, it might be a combination of the two … because he certainly is a True Believer.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            I disagree

            1) If an untruth is being told, then it’s a lie. EVEN IF, the person fervently believes it to be true.
            For example.
            You may fervently believe the earth is flat, but that does not make it true for all that. So when you claim the earth is flat, you are telling a falsehood, they telling a lie.

            2) The reason for the telling is not relevant.
            The motive for the telling may be. But not the reason.
            The lie is compounded when a person refuses to acknowledge the truth .
            For example, if the flat-earther continues to insist that the earth is flat.

            3) Then there is the lie of those who will claim that those who question their belief are the liars
            For example, the flat-earther calls those who question his belief to be deniers because they don’t buy into his belief.
            Another example is the warmista who call “climate denier” anyone who dares to question their global warming belief, and even worse provide evidence that their belief cannot stand scrutiny.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Alas, Attila, you make a strong case. It is true that a falsehood clung to after a deluge of contrary evidence AND beyond the ability of the believer to present any new, unrefuted arguments … that falsehood certainly moves into lie territory.

            I wonder what graham’s position on belief v. lies would be if he were here. Fingers in ears and LALALA? He definitely ducks into his ad hom bunker when challenged.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Hmmm. Actually, graham, the WHO ranks the U.S. as tied for 48th place out of 183 nations for suicide rate in 2015 … following advanced nations like Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Belgium, Hungary, Uruguay, Argentina, and Sweden. To the best of my knowledge, none of those have “a unique Asian culture”, and exactly how many Japanese, S. Koreans, and Indians are in search of Kamikazi-style “honorable death” in your opinion?

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Lol, graham, your claim about suicide rate increases subverts your claims of guns being to blame.

            The new federal analysis noted that the methods of suicide were changing. About one in four suicides in 2014 involved suffocation, which includes hanging and strangulation, compared with fewer than one in five in 1999. Suffocation deaths are harder to prevent because nearly anyone has access to the means, Ms. Hempstead said.
            And while the share of suicides involving guns declined — guns went from being involved in 37 percent of female suicides to 31 percent, and from 62 percent to 55 percent for men — the total number of gun suicides increased.”

            That is the best the NYT could do to support your cause … only it doesn’t work because the “total number” of suicides using ALL methods increased.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

            And those reductions in gun-related suicide rates occured simultaneously with and in spite of significant increases in gun ownership and in carry permits.

            See also …
            https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm
            … and scroll down to the section titled, “Percentages of suicides involving firearms and poisoning declined from 1999 through 2014, while suicides involving suffocation increased.”

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Lying by statistiscs is still lying.

            And gun controllers seem to lie every chance they get.

          • john says:

            Which you feel the need to lie about. You are not supported by the CDC, the FBI, or Wikipedia.

          • john says:

            Hypocrite.

          • john says:

            I hold all the media in disdain. You seem to lie what most of them say. That reflects poorly on your ability to think for yourself, as evidenced by your citations.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            Cherry-picked data that attempt to imply that correlation is causation

            Here’s a clear example of incremental being a total failure
            It basically shows that incremental gun control in the UK over a 100 year period, from NO gun control to a total ban and confiscation of privately owned handguns, has had NO EFFECT on the crime rate

            http://violentdeathproject.com/charts/UK%20compared%20to%20US%2020th%20century%20homicide%20rates-large.jpg

            As a matter of fact, after the 1996 handgun ban and confiscation, the crime rate went up 89% over the following 10 years.
            As a matter of fact, the crime rate was on a down trend before 1997. and the UK had to do massive hiring of police to reverse the post 1997 up trend.
            In effect the UK confiscated guns, crime went up, and then they had to hire a lot more police to keep people less safe.

          • dtgraham says:

            I haven’t checked out the pick pocket, loitering, and assault statistics from Britain, but we’re talking gun violence. Remember?

            You’re talking about the UK’s Firearms Act, which prevents private citizens from owning most types of handguns and makes it much harder to purchase other types of guns, such as rifles and shotguns.

            The British parliament passed the law nine years after passing another gun control law that made semiautomatic weapons illegal.

            Since the UK Firearms Act gun control legislation, more than 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition have been taken off the streets as of 2012 (I think) and statistics show that the number of gun crimes began to decline and have continued to do so to this day, thanks to strict enforcement and regular police sweeps.

            Both laws were enacted in response to mass shootings, motivated by a 1996 primary school massacre that left 16 5- and 6-year-old’s dead.

            In Britain today, most gun crime can be traced back to fewer than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation and anyone looking to obtain a gun will find themselves resorting to rebuilt antique weapons, homemade bullets and even illicit rent-a-gun schemes.

            One of the many lies of the gun-nuts. Yes, you can actually go a long ways towards keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Reduce the total number of guns in circulation and don’t make it easy to buy legally.

            In Australia, a 2012 a study by Australian National University’s Andrew Leigh and Wilfrid Laurier University’s Christine Neill concluded that in the decade after the Australian gun control laws were introduced, the firearm homicide rate dropped by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65, with no corresponding increase in homicides and suicides committed without guns.

            In the last 21 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn’t been a single mass shooting since the mid-nineties Port Arthur incident.

            “It’s not that we are a less violent people and that Americans are a more violent people,” says Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney who runs GunPolicy.org, which tracks gun violence and gun laws across the world. “It’s that you have more lethal means at your disposal.”

            Australia’s gun control measures have been called a model of success.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            LOL
            The more you bloviate, the more manure you spread.

            Too bad that over 100 years and incremental gun control, the crime rate did NOT GO DOWN as a response to ANY of those gun control measures.
            And in total, gun control had NO EFFECT across those 100 years

            So bloviate as much as you want.
            but the data puts the LIE to your claims

          • dtgraham says:

            Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides of all kind since their gun law change.

            According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record.

            Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law.

            The lying gun-nut propaganda websites masquerading as legitimate information are why you don’t know anything.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You are lying again.

            Australia was ALREADY on a downward trend before their 1997 gun confiscation
            The trend did not change markedly after

          • john says:

            How is that a causation?

          • john says:

            B)llsh/t. You can cite media with prejudice and lies showing. I notice you ignore real facts that have been given to you. You can look things up, you just refuse to be intellectually honest.

          • ELSEVAR says:

            Hysteria suggests you doubt your own argument, graham. Calm down and try to remember what your mom taught you about manners. It is a better look.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            This is the lie you push
            “The closest among the developed countries…”

            Why is it that gun control has magical qualities ONLY in developed countries and is a total failure in 90+ countries that are not “developed” ?

            Think of it this way.
            If I was pushing a vaccine for measles and it ONLY works in developed countries and nowhere else.
            A smart person would start questionning if it’s the vaccine or some other agent that is keeping measles down in developed countries. How come it doesn’t work in other countries that are not as developed
            Maybe, just maybe there’s another agent at work to keep measles out of those developed countries., and not your vaccine.

            You may want to shout case closed
            But it’s because you have NOT made your case, and have in fact demonstrated that your claim has no legs.

            —————————-

            Then you make another really stupid claim
            “More guns, more gun violence, applies; “

            Over the last 30 years in the US.
            — guns in private hands has increased over 100% from about 175 Million to AT LEAST 350 Million. Some estimate up to 600 Million.
            — During that same time 13 States have removed permit requirements to carry in public. And all the other States have mostly “Shall Issue” permiting.
            — During that time, crime rates including so-called “gun crime” rates have dropped about 50%. Same for accidental shootings.

            Apparently your rule of
            “More guns, more gun violence, applies; “
            is an abject failure in the US..

            Funny that.

          • dtgraham says:

            “Why is it that gun control has magical qualities ONLY in developed countries and is a total failure in 90+ countries that are not “developed” ?”

            Extreme poverty and extreme levels of economic instability and upheaval seem to play a huge role in gun violence. I keep reading that, but it’s hardly a revelation. More like common sense. I just know from looking at the data that more guns, more gun violence, applies only in the first world. It applies very well, but the model starts to break down in the developing and third world.

            Your vaccine analogy makes no sense because it should be apparent that drugs affecting certain diseases would never be reliant on societal factors for their effectiveness. Human physiology is what it is.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            So you’re trying to claim that
            “Extreme poverty and extreme levels of economic instability and upheaval seem to play a huge role in gun violence. “
            And it ONLY applies to “gun violence” but has no effect on OTHER violence ?
            You’re cherry-picking again.

            Then you try to lie
            “I just know from looking at the data that more guns, more gun violence, applies only in the first world.”
            If you “just know from looking at the data”
            How come, in the US, gun ownership more than doubled in the last 30+ years and crime went down about 50% ?
            Apparently the data contradicts what you “just know from looking at the data”
            Why is that ?
            Could it be you’re looking at the wrong data, and ignoring data that contradicts your belief ?

            My analogy makes perfect sense, because gun control does NOT work consistently across the board
            And that means that OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FACTORS are in play.
            And that completely undermines your claims.

          • dtgraham says:

            Remember? We’re just talking about firearm related violence. Third world conditions do play a role in all violence, not just gun violence. So? I know you’re all anxious to keep pivoting to something else in that famous gun-swervy way. You’ve noticed that I keep dragging you back.

            Crime has been on the decline everywhere in the developed world in recent decades. It would have been on the decline within the U.S. even more were it not for the gun nut culture.

          • Attila Iskander - A Déplorable says:

            You are confused.
            “We’re just talking about firearm related violence”
            NOPE !
            That was ALL YOU.

            And you even admit to your lie with the clam that you have to “keep dragging me back”
            Sorry dummy.
            Not playing along with your cherry-picking lies.

            Too bad that in the US as opposed to say the UK and Canada