5 Yr Old Boy Shoots 2 Year Old Sister, With His Own Gun

[Lonan3]

I've no intention of decrying the work of R J Hummell - during the course of the last few days I've read a good deal of it on the Internet. I should, however, point out a few things using http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ALLIANCE.HTM which is one of the more 'accessible' pieces (in which, incidentally, he puts the democide number at 174million for the last century) and explains his belief that democracies never make war on each other. What particularly struck me, however, was that all of the examples he uses when explaining the theory of democide are countries which have had little or no experience of a democratic form of government. That is one of the reasons I asked the question.

The other reason is that I then tried to find a country with a reasonable experience of democratic government which had been undermined (either by gun control or some other means) to become a dictatorship. That is the second reason why I asked the question.

Several people have argued that, without its citizens being armed, the USA would be in danger of being turned into a dictatorship which, given the facts of history, seems little short of paranoid. Is their system of government so fragile that it could be overturned like that? Are there really people who believe that?

I know quite a number of American people (my comments about their stupidity, lack of civilisation etc are tongue-in-cheek) and yet I don't know any who see Barack Obama as some kind of evil demon in the way that the gun lobby seem to wish to portray him. As a matter of fact, most regard him as someone doing his best to try and clear up the mess left by the previous imbecilic holder of the post.

I am aware - increasingly so - that we have little or nothing in common with our so-called American cousins; they are actually far more foreign to us than most Europeans, but I can't help being reminded of the adage that "America is a country that went straight from infancy to senility without ever reaching maturity."

[Ruger]

Just a quick response. Some fair points L3. MDO, I am aware of those polls and there is also conflicting results depending where you look. I will have a better look later but I noticed somewhere a poll by the NRA of its own members that only gave 5% support for UBCs?.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Just a quick response. Some fair points L3. MDO, I am aware of those polls and there is also conflicting results depending where you look. I will have a better look later but I noticed somewhere a poll by the NRA of its own members that only gave 5% support for UBCs?.

 

To be fair, do you think such results are fair and unbiased from the NRA?

 

I'm much more willing to believe the findings on the subject by the likes of Johns Hopkins than an "organisation" that is heavily funded by gun manufactures.

 

Edit to add: Did LaPierre ever explain his flip-flop on UBC's?

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2013/04/12/the-nras-background-check-flip-flop

[Lonan3]

Just a quick response. Some fair points L3. MDO, I am aware of those polls and there is also conflicting results depending where you look. I will have a better look later but I noticed somewhere a poll by the NRA of its own members that only gave 5% support for UBCs?.

On that subject, in post No 281 (I think P.19 of the thread) I provided a link to Gallup Poll results on many aspects of gun ownership and control - not a single poll, but a year-on-year survey. It doesn't provide the dramatic results MDO's does, but it does show that the freedom for anyone to bear arms is not as well supported as pressure groups such as the NRA would have everyone believe. The problem is that both sides of the argument tend to feed off 'scare stories' rather than indulging in reasoned debate - and both sides attempt to brainwash people into accepting their views exclusively.

Ultimately there is, I think, a vicious circle in which the need for guns for self-defence has been created by the easy accessibility of guns to all classes - including criminals of every kind.

Whether American society can ever break free from that situation is what the debate ought to be about; whether it will ever be possible for it to become a society freed from fear and the threat of violence. The founding fathers may well have had idealistic motives in having the population armed to prevent the possibility of invasion or insurgence, but that was for a time when such threats seemed ever-present and possible.

More than 200 years have passed since then and society has changed beyond recognition. Their democracy is as secure as any in the world, but that original idealism has brought unforeseen consequences. It may well be the case that, if they were alive in today's society, they would still insist on the need of arms for self-protection - but whether they would approve of the idea of military-quality guns being so freely available might be open to doubt.

I know full well that nothing anyone outside the country says will have much, or any, influence on American attitudes - and that is as it should be. One can only hope that, some day, the American people will be able to live without the kind of fear that leads to them feeling the necessity of being armed to the teeth.

[Ruger]

Yet it doesn't appear to be very high on peoples list of priorities. Slightly less of concern than immigration.

 

 

MDO I don't think its about bias I think its about, why would they risk pissing off their membership by lying about them. Lying to them to gin up fear is one thing but about them is not going to go down well when they pay quite a lot to be properly represented.

 

" Our membership rolls are not released, so it's impossible for organizations that have no access to the NRA's membership list, to "test the pulse" of NRA members as effectively as NRA can. "

 

" NRA's own polling data shows that a much higher 89 percent of actual members oppose banning semi-automatic firearms. "

 

" The Pew poll went on to state, "Yet people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74% favor this proposal while just 26% are opposed." On the contrary, our own survey showed conclusively that NRA members strongly oppose these measures.It is important to note that when the Pew poll says, "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks," what they are referring to are "universal" background checks. "

 

If polls are lying or getting false readings about the NRA members then how trust worthy are the rest of their results...

 

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/3/dont-believe-everything-you-read.aspx

 

The way I understand the passing and striking down of bills by congressmen is that it is mostly based on the amount of support and opposition they receive regarding the bill. So if they receive more emails and letters favouring UBCs or AWBs then they will vote in favour (as many did).

 

That comes back to L3 and his point about the fear and I agree it's going on both ways. What ever goes on people need to think for themselves and make informed decisions.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Hmmm who would I believe....the NRA which is almost entirely funded by the firearms industry or some of the highest places of learning in the nation which have no financial link to the firearms industry.....

[Ruger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/nyregion/at-1-1-billion-bloomberg-is-top-university-donor-in-us.html?pagewanted=all

 

How about strong financial links to the gun control advocates. I'm not having a pop, but in the interests of a fair debate, the JHU also has vested interests (in the sum of $1.1Billion).

 

Hopkins, in return, has become something of a brain trust for Mr. Bloomberg, shaping his approach to issues like cigarette smoking, gun violence and obesity.

[HeliX]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/florida-13-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-sister-playing-hide-and-seek/

[Lonan3]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/florida-13-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-sister-playing-hide-and-seek/

Under Florida law, the parents could be charged with a third-degree felony if police determine that the gun was “within the reach or easy access of a minor” and was used to cause injury or death.

 

That seems reasonable to me.

[ScotsAlan]

 

Just a quick response. Some fair points L3. MDO, I am aware of those polls and there is also conflicting results depending where you look. I will have a better look later but I noticed somewhere a poll by the NRA of its own members that only gave 5% support for UBCs?.

On that subject, in post No 281 (I think P.19 of the thread) I provided a link to Gallup Poll results on many aspects of gun ownership and control - not a single poll, but a year-on-year survey. It doesn't provide the dramatic results MDO's does, but it does show that the freedom for anyone to bear arms is not as well supported as pressure groups such as the NRA would have everyone believe. The problem is that both sides of the argument tend to feed off 'scare stories' rather than indulging in reasoned debate - and both sides attempt to brainwash people into accepting their views exclusively.

Ultimately there is, I think, a vicious circle in which the need for guns for self-defence has been created by the easy accessibility of guns to all classes - including criminals of every kind.

Whether American society can ever break free from that situation is what the debate ought to be about; whether it will ever be possible for it to become a society freed from fear and the threat of violence. The founding fathers may well have had idealistic motives in having the population armed to prevent the possibility of invasion or insurgence, but that was for a time when such threats seemed ever-present and possible.

More than 200 years have passed since then and society has changed beyond recognition. Their democracy is as secure as any in the world, but that original idealism has brought unforeseen consequences. It may well be the case that, if they were alive in today's society, they would still insist on the need of arms for self-protection - but whether they would approve of the idea of military-quality guns being so freely available might be open to doubt.

I know full well that nothing anyone outside the country says will have much, or any, influence on American attitudes - and that is as it should be. One can only hope that, some day, the American people will be able to live without the kind of fear that leads to them feeling the necessity of being armed to the teeth

Excellent post Lonan3

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/florida-13-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-sister-playing-hide-and-seek/

Under Florida law, the parents could be charged with a third-degree felony if police determine that the gun was “within the reach or easy access of a minor” and was used to cause injury or death.

 

That seems reasonable to me.

 

Agreed, once again, I'm willing to bet the parents were exactly the sort of people who shouldn't have children in the first place, let alone possess firearms.

[MilitantDogOwner]

[Thomas Jefferson]

394213_650590058300978_727575756_n.jpg

 

What is this all about? Who is selling guns to 15 yr olds???

 

The Second Amendment does not apply to children.

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

394213_650590058300978_727575756_n.jpg

 

What is this all about? Who is selling guns to 15 yr olds???

 

The Second Amendment does not apply to children.

 

You mean the parents that buy their children guns?

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

 

394213_650590058300978_727575756_n.jpg

 

What is this all about? Who is selling guns to 15 yr olds???

 

The Second Amendment does not apply to children.

 

You mean the parents that buy their children guns?

 

Well, that's just mentally retarded --- I wouldn't support that, and nor does the 2nd Amendment.