Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

The Cost of Gun Deaths and Injuries in the US is Staggering.


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#61 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:34 AM

Realized I misworded that. What it was supposed to read is military grade ASSAULT weaponry. No one needs an assault weapon to hunt with...what are you hunting, Mastodon?

as

I'm not a hunter, but as I understand they are excellent for hunting smaller game like coyotes, groundhogs and the like, where a lot more shooting is done than in what most people think of ad hunting such as deer or moose hunting.

I'll also say that assault rifles are actually far less powerful than traditional rifles, basically being halfway between a pistol round and a "real" rifle round in power.

Another reason they're popular today is that unlike traditional type rifles, they're designed with modern construction methods in mind, most of the traditional type guns being made today are garbage because it would cost thousands to produce that kind of gun as well as the days when skilled "touch" labor, machined steel and high quality wood were dirt cheap.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#62 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:10 AM

as

I'm not a hunter, but as I understand they are excellent for hunting smaller game like coyotes, groundhogs and the like, where a lot more shooting is done than in what most people think of ad hunting such as deer or moose hunting.

I'll also say that assault rifles are actually far less powerful than traditional rifles, basically being halfway between a pistol round and a "real" rifle round in power.

Another reason they're popular today is that unlike traditional type rifles, they're designed with modern construction methods in mind, most of the traditional type guns being made today are garbage because it would cost thousands to produce that kind of gun as well as the days when skilled "touch" labor, machined steel and high quality wood were dirt cheap.

The .223 round from an AR-15 type rifle (a modified civilian version of the military's M-16) does a lot more damage to human flesh than a standard rifle round because it is designed to do that.

A February report by Guns and Ammo magazine noted a growing demand in recent years for AR-15-type rifles – and specifically those loaded with .223 caliber bullets – for use in home defense. The .223 caliber load is popular, the article says, because it has better fragmentation upon impact, meaning it will deal a lot of damage with less chance of accidentally continuing through the target and endangering whoever's in the background.



The magazine reported that 1.5 million AR-15s were made in the last five years alone – one for every 209 Americans.


"This thing is just a killing machine," Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told ABC News today. "It's designed, like I said it was designed... very similar to the weapon that's used in the battlefield."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884

As the cited issue of Guns and Ammo notes:


When talking about the effectiveness of rifle bullets on people, ballisticians and armchair commandos throw around a number of technical terms, such as “hydrostatic shock” and “temporary wound cavity.” The simple fact is that the more of its energy a bullet can dump into a target, the more effective it will be. Full metal jacketed ammunition has a tendency to zip right through, and while the resulting wound might cause the person to bleed to death, until they do there’s a good chance they’ll go on posing a threat. Projectiles designed either to stop in the body or cause a great deal of tissue upset work much better at immediately stopping the threat. That’s why police talk about the “stopping power” of a cartridge rather than its “killing power.”


When using rifle ammunition with projectiles designed specifically for personal defense, such as Winchester’s new .223 PDX1 loadings, fragmentation is assured.

...


The Winchester .223 PDX1 projectile has a split core. The front half of the bullet has a protected hollowpoint to initiate expansion. It is not bonded to the back half of the bullet, so when it impacts it expands and fragments, usually in the first six inches of travel. This creates a very impressive wound cavity. The rear core of the bullet is welded to the jacket to ensure penetration. Winchester engineers did this because much of the .223 ammunition marketed for self-defense is loaded with nothing more than thin-jacketed repurposed varmint bullets, which expand very rapidly but may not penetrate deeply enough to be effective on a man-sized target. With Winchester’s PDX1’s SCT bullet, you can have the best of both worlds.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/#ixzz2IjCwDEYz


Oh and BTW real men use Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifles and they take a test and get a card to prove it. Said card can be revoked for being a “crybaby,” a “coward,” a “cupcake” , having a “short leash” or being just generally “unmanly”.

Posted Image


There are lots of reasons to own guns: Hunting, self-defense, clinging purposes, but also to bolster your deflated sense of masculinity. This is not some glib liberal notion about how men only buy guns to compensate for their inadequacies, this is the explicit aim of an ad campaign from Bushmaster, the maker of the assault rifle that was used to kill 27 people last week in Connecticut.


You see, you’re not officially a man until Bushmaster tells you you are. “To become a card-carrying man, visitors of bushmaster.com will have to prove they’re a man by answering a series of manhood questions. Upon successful completion, they will be issued a temporary Man Card to proudly display to friends and family,” a press release for the campaign reads.


Most of the quiz questions are pretty predictable and harmless, if dumb — Do you eat tofu? Can you change a tire? Have you ever watched figured skating “on purpose”? — but others are more challenging. One question gives you four possible options of how to respond if a car full of the rival team’s fans cuts you off on the way to the championship game. The correct answer, it turns out, is to commit arson: “Skip the game, find the other car in the parking lot, and render it unrecognizable with a conflagration of shoe polish and empty food containers.”


If property destruction isn’t your thing, you can always reclaim your manhood by purchasing a Bushmaster assault rifle, like the .223 Adam Lanza allegedly used.


But watch out, manly friends. Don’t let those emotions show or that glass be full of anything but non-light beer, because your buddies can “revoke” your Man Card at any point. Revokable offenses include being a “crybaby,” a “coward,” a “cupcake” (we have no idea what that means either), having a “short leash” (presumably thanks to a wife or girlfriend), or being just generally “unmanly” (this one has a woman icon).


In the wake of the shooting, some clever Internet users have employed their revoking privileges to taking away Bushmaster’s own man card, listing their location as Newtown, Conn. “Bushmaster is run by awful human beings,” one revocation notice reads.


You can get your own Man Card, or revoke Bushmaster’s, here.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/bushmasters_horrible_ad_campaign/

Mind you things have not been going all that great for Bushmaster and its PR specialists lately.


Bushmaster’s past entanglements with mass shootings have not been good for business. The company paid $500,000 as part of a $2.5 million settlement in the Beltway Sniper shootings, which prompted the firm to close its factory in 2010 and later reopen in Ilion, N.Y., a small town 80 miles west of Albany. With the Newtown shootings, however, it’s run into even more trouble. Not only has the company been publicly pilloried for an ad campaign that some said (in hindsight) promoted a culture of misogyny and violence, it’s also being put up for sale by Cerebrus because of the attention brought by the Newtown tragedy.


“We believe that this decision allows us to meet our obligations to the investors whose interests we are entrusted to protect without being drawn into the national debate that is more properly pursued by those with the formal charter and public responsibility to do so,” Cerebrus said in a statement.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/#ixzz2IjGZjXwA
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#63 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:35 AM

A full power rifle round will do a lot more damage than a .223/5.56 round, bullet design being equal.

In the military context, the various full power rifle caliber rounds often have the limitation of using much older bullet designs that don't yaw or fragment readily, but get a better bullet design in there and it'll do more damage than an assault rifle round as you'd expect of something with at least twice the kinetic energy and bullet mass.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#64 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,630 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

Anyway, take out the gang related deaths, the self defense killings by civilians and police, the suicides, and its a different story.


Shhh, the anti-gun nutters don't like to hear that.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#65 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

A full power rifle round will do a lot more damage than a .223/5.56 round, bullet design being equal.

In the military context, the various full power rifle caliber rounds often have the limitation of using much older bullet designs that don't yaw or fragment readily, but get a better bullet design in there and it'll do more damage than an assault rifle round as you'd expect of something with at least twice the kinetic energy and bullet mass.

Bullet design is not equal which was the point. Fragmenting ammunition is designed for "stopping power" (i.e. seriously tearing up the human body).

In a number of states .223 ammunition has been outlawed for hunting because of its ability to tear up the flesh of prey.

And how about we check with someone who ought to know about such things... retired Army General Stanley McChrystal with over 30 years of distinguished military service in and around elite special forces commands:


“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#66 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

Your statement is contradictory, fragmentation is an aspect of bullet design, and in the case of the. 223/5.56, an unintended one originally.

Consider this, if the .223 and 5.56 were so awesomely deadly, why are they only generally used (and in many cases allowed by law) to hunt small critters like groundhogs and coyotes with?
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#67 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:10 PM

Don't our American cousins use assault rifles on squirrels and chipmunks too?? .. it's hard to hit them little buggers when they are running .. /sarcasm alert
  • 2
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#68 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:56 PM

Your statement is contradictory, fragmentation is an aspect of bullet design, and in the case of the. 223/5.56, an unintended one originally.

Consider this, if the .223 and 5.56 were so awesomely deadly, why are they only generally used (and in many cases allowed by law) to hunt small critters like groundhogs and coyotes with?

And once the .223 design was found to have fragmentation properties and "stopping" power, ammunition manufacturer went to work to enhance those properties.

As General McChrystal says there is no good reason for such weaponry based on military weapons nor ammunition. I would go with his opinion on this issue as I consider his opinion to be informed. Mind you gun loons claim that McChrystal is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by making such statements. :picard:

Crazy US state laws on firearms and ammunition - a great reason for enhanced federal gun control, IMHO.

And how about former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell on gun control and the fear that a despotic government will be coming after freedom loving 'Muricans so they need their guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn4P_QsvWbQ


“As the Second Amendment says, a well-regulated militia is essential to our national identity,” former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell told the Morning Joe crew on Monday, adding that gun control advocates need only follow the Amendment in order to accomplish their goals.


“The American people want to see something done, and it is not a threat to the Second Amendment,” Powell said, live at The Dubliner.


“A message I’d like to see get out is: ’we’re not taking away your Second Amendment rights,’” Powell said. ”I believe in the Second Amendment, I have guns in my home, I am prepared to protect my family, but I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone buying guns is checked—what is objectionable about that?”


Extremists who think they need to protect themselves from the government need to be countered by diplomatic calls for gun control, the panel agreed.


“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact. You can own guns legally,” Powell said. “But the American people have been devastated by what’s happened at Newtown and elsewhere.”

http://tv.msnbc.com/...tions-you-know/

But hey what would McChrystal and Powell know about firearms and their use????

In Canada Liberal leadership candidate Marc Garneau is talking about prohibiting military style semi-automatic weapons (not just restricting them). Another former member of the armed forces whose grandfather and father were career military officers.



The Montreal MP said Tuesday he’d look at banning semi-automatic weapons, like the military-style, .223-calibre Bushmaster used in last week’s massacre.


“There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary,” Garneau told The Canadian Press. ”That kind of weapon, to me, definitely — well, it is (already) a restricted weapon but one should look at not allowing those things.”


http://www2.macleans...on-gun-control/

There have been calls to upgrade some weapons from unrestricted to restricted (e.g. Ruger Mini-14 and Beretta CX4 Storm) or even prohibited.



On the morning after the Dawson College shootings in Montreal, the country awoke to images of gunman Kimveer Gill photographed in sinister poses with the futuristic black rifle used in his rampage.


For many Canadians, it was the first they had seen or heard of the Beretta CX4 Storm, a sleek, 9-mm, semi-automatic carbine that had entered the Canadian market only two years earlier.


Posted Image


But for some who saw them, the pictures — disseminated on TV, in newspapers and across the Internet — were more than just a glimpse into a broken mind: they were a sales pitch.


Data obtained by the Citizen from the federal gun registry show that new registrations of the Beretta CX4 Storm nearly tripled after the Sept. 13 shootings.


In the month after the attack, there were 46 new registrations of Storms to individual owners across the country, compared with 16 new registrations the month before.


The sudden rise in registrations was no statistical blip. In the month following Sept. 13, 2005 — the year before the shooting — only nine Storms were registered by individuals.


In fact, in no month since the gun went on sale had so many Canadians acquired the gun.


The immediate reaction to Dawson, it appears, was a rush to buy the gun that the shooting suddenly made infamous.

http://www.canada.co...ab07bd0&k=19504



In the case of the Ruger Mini-14, dubbed the "poor man's assault rifle" by opponents, Lepine used 30-round magazines that are now banned in Canada. Today, the largest magazine allowed holds five rounds.


Posted Image


The Ruger Mini-14 was one of the weapons legally obtained and used by Anders Breivik to kill 77 in Norway last year.


Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler suggested in a 2005 letter that he'd like to ban the Ruger Mini-14, but later said it was a "mistake" following opposition from Canadian gun owners.


The Canadian Association of Police Boards passed a resolution at its conference earlier this year to reclassify certain firearms, including the Mini-14, as restricted.


The Beretta CX4 Storm used in the Dawson shooting is a less powerful weapon, called a semi-automatic carbine, with a trigger that resembles one on a pistol. It is more compact than the Ruger, and the cartridge reloads behind the trigger.


Montreal coroner Jacques Ramsay said in his 2008 report on the shooting that semi-automatics such as the Storm should not be available to the public and should be prohibited outright. Gill was able to obtain one as a gun-club member.


"It's a lighter rifle, it's easier to manoeuvre, but it is still very precise," Ramsay said at the time.


Former public safety minister Stockwell Day mused in the days following the Dawson College shooting about restricting firearms such as the Storm, but that did not happen.



Semi-automatics were banned in Australia in the wake of a 1996 mass murder in Tasmania. "Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996," former prime minister John Howard wrote in August 2012 and the statistics bear that out.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#69 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:23 PM

Generals are political puppet creatures, it's either do and say as they're told or kiss their 30+ year military careers (and attendant lavish lifestyle) goodbye.

Anyways, if they manage to ban or confiscate the "assault" rifles, its only a matter of time before they start trying to demonize the other types of guns and their owners.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#70 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:31 PM

Generals are political puppet creatures, it's either do and say as they're told or kiss their 30+ year military careers (and attendant lavish lifestyle) goodbye.

Anyways, if they manage to ban or confiscate the "assault" rifles, its only a matter of time before they start trying to demonize the other types of guns and their owners.


It's really all or nothing with the pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd, isn't it? Doesn't the paranoia get to be too much sometimes? :sadno:
  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#71 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

Generals are political puppet creatures, it's either do and say as they're told or kiss their 30+ year military careers (and attendant lavish lifestyle) goodbye.

Anyways, if they manage to ban or confiscate the "assault" rifles, its only a matter of time before they start trying to demonize the other types of guns and their owners.

???


So much fail in such a short post.

You seemed to have missed the fact that both McChrystal and Colin Powell are retired Generals - they do not have military careers to protect and are free to speak their minds. Something that would have constrained them had they been serving officers.

Then the conspiracy theorist pops up again.

And for good measure you throw in the good ol' "slippery slope" scare tactic. No one is talking about banning all firearms which would not be possible in any event given the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision in any event that found an ban (in that particular case on handguns) to be unconstitutional.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 22 January 2013 - 01:33 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#72 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:41 PM

It's really all or nothing with the pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd, isn't it? Doesn't the paranoia get to be too much sometimes? :sadno:

The basic philosophy/approach of pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd seems to be:

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" as writer Joseph Heller noted in his novel Catch 22.

"Hey, dey are takin' our gubs (NOTE Woody Allen nod from Take the Money and Run)" so they can oppress us and we cannot fight back.

As Colin Powell says - “The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact."

Reality does not seem much of a touchstone for the pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd and a concept they seem unfamiliar with. (And yes I know I dangled that participle).


Edited by Wetcoaster, 22 January 2013 - 01:42 PM.

  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#73 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research which is one of the research units at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which investigates the cause and prevention of gun injuries and fatalities published a study in Ocober 2012 titled "The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America".

It is a well researched argument for increased gun control laws and it sets out the costs and burden of gun violence in the US clearly and concisely. It also puts paid the the NRA talking points that try to minimize the damage done by guns. As set out in the introduction (footnotes can be found in the link to the study).


The Burden of Gun Violence in the United States


More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds.1 Because victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 non­fatal violent crimes committed with guns,2 and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds.1,3


Gun violence in the United States is unusually high for a nation of such wealth. Although there is little difference in the overall crime rates between the United States and other high-income countries, the homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries.4 This is because the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is twenty times greater than in these other high-income countries. The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U.S. is so much more lethal than in countries of similar income levels.


There are enormous economic costs associated with gun violence in the U.S. Firearm-related deaths and injuries resulted in medical and lost productivity expenses of about $32 billion in 2005.1 But the overall cost of gun violence goes well beyond these figures. When lost quality of life, psychological and emotional trauma, decline in property values, and other legal and societal consequences are included, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. was estimated to be about $100 billion annually in 1998.5 A new study has examined the direct and indirect costs of violent crime in eight geographically-diverse U.S. cities, and estimated the average annual cost of violent crime was more than $1,300 for every adult and child. Because much of these costs are due to lowering residential property values, violent crime greatly reduces tax revenues that local governments need to address a broad array of citizens’ needs. The direct annual cost of violent crime to all levels of government was estimated to be $325 per resident.6

http://www.jhsph.edu...102512_CGPR.pdf

Johns Hopkins researchers contend that tighter gun control laws will save lives and reduce violence, particularly if "high-risk" people such as alcoholics and youths under age 21 are barred from buying or having firearms. The report calls for broadening current state and federal prohibitions on who can own guns while also closing loopholes in the regulation of gun sales.

"When you deny high-risk people access to guns, the evidence shows that saves lives," said Daniel W. Webster, director of Hopkins' Center for Gun Policy and Research and the report's lead author. "And when you regulate all gun sales, fewer guns get diverted to criminals."

The report argues for extending prohibitions already in effect against those convicted of crimes. It also recommends regulating gun designs to make them safer and less likely to be used in a crime or shooting spree — by, for instance, limiting ammunition capacity to 10 rounds.

This report came out before the Sandy Hook massacre and it seems that the caution then sounded by Director Webster who acknowledged that the report was unlikely to get much traction in this election season. Too often, he said, the issue of gun safety bogs down in what he called a "cultural debate" dividing camps into those in favor or opposed to guns or hunting. That seems to have changed.

As a result on January 14 - 15, 2013 Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research convened a panel of more than 20 experts to make specific recommendations as to what changes need to be made to deal with the public health crisis of gun violence. This was a multi-pronged solutions approach and here are the recommendations:


Information for Media

JANUARY 15, 2013

GUN POLICY SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS

A Summit of more than 20 of the world’s leading gun policy experts has identified several research-based policies to reduce gun violence in the United States. The policy recommendations were the result of a two-day Summit on gun violence convened by The Johns Hopkins University on January 14 and 15, The Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis.
During the Summit, experts presented and analyzed research-based approaches to reducing gun violence. Collectively, the Summit participants recommend* the following:
Background Checks

Fix the background check system by:
  • Establishing a universal background check system, which would require a background check for all persons purchasing a firearm (inheritance exception).
  • All sales would be facilitated through a federally licensed gun dealer. This would have the effect of mandating the same record keeping for all firearm transfers.
  • Increase the maximum amount of time for the FBI to complete a background check from 3 to 10 business days.
  • Require all firearm owners to report the theft or loss of their firearm within 72 hours of becoming aware of its loss.
  • Persons who have a license to carry a firearm, permit to purchase, or other firearm permit must still be subject to a background check when purchasing a firearm.
Prohibiting High-Risk Individuals from Purchasing Guns: Expand the conditions for firearm purchase to include:
  • Persons convicted of a violent misdemeanor would be prohibited from firearm purchase for a period of 15 years.
  • Persons who committed a violent crime as a juvenile would be prohibited from firearm purchase until age 30.
  • Persons convicted of 2 or more crimes involving drugs or alcohol within a three-year period would be prohibited from firearm purchase for a period of 10 years.
  • Persons convicted of a single drug-trafficking offense would be prohibited from gun purchase.
  • Persons determined by a judge to be a gang member would be prohibited from gun purchase.
  • Establish a minimum age of 21 years for handgun purchase or possession.
  • Persons who have violated a restraining order issued due to the threat of violence (including permanent, temporary and emergency) are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
  • Persons with temporary restraining orders filed against them for violence or threats of violence are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
  • Persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor stalking are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
Mental Health
  • Federal restrictions of gun purchase for persons with serious mental illness should be focused on the dangerousness of the individual.
  • Fully fund federal incentives for states to provide information about disqualifying mental health conditions to the National Instant Check System for gun buyers.
Trafficking and Dealer Licensing
  • A permanent director for the ATF should be appointed and confirmed.
  • ATF should be required to provide adequate resources to inspect and otherwise engage in oversight of federally licensed gun dealers.
  • Restrictions imposed under the Firearm Owners Protections Act limiting ATF to one routine inspection of gun dealers per year should be repealed.
  • Provisions of the Firearm Owners Protection Act raising the evidentiary standard for prosecuting dealers who make unlawful sales should be repealed.
  • ATF should be granted authority to develop a range of sanctions for gun dealers who violate gun sales or other laws.
  • The Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, providing gun dealers and manufacturers protection from tort liability, should be repealed.
  • Federal restrictions on access to firearms trace data, other than for ongoing criminal investigations, should be repealed.
  • Federal law mandating reporting of multiple sales of handguns should be expanded to include long guns.
  • Adequate penalties are needed for violations of the above provisions.
Personalized Guns
  • Congress should provide financial incentives to states to mandate childproof or personalized guns.
  • The Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission should be granted authority to regulate the safety of firearms and ammunition as consumer products.
Assault Weapons
  • Ban the future sale of assault weapons, incorporating a more carefully crafted definition to reduce the risk—compared with the 1994 ban—that the law can be easily evaded.
High Capacity Magazines
  • Ban the future sale and possession of large capacity (greater than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines.
Research Funding
  • The federal government should provide funds to CDC, NIH and NIJ adequate to understand the causes and solutions of gun violence, commensurate with its impact on the public’s health and safety.
  • The Surgeon General should produce a regular report on the state of the problem of gun violence in America and progress towards solutions.
“The purpose of putting forth these recommendations is to provide a research-based framework for reducing the staggering toll of gun violence in America,” said Summit organizer Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Importantly, most recommended policies have broad public support and would not violate constitutional rights.”

New national public opinion polling data presented during the Summit from Johns Hopkins researchers showed the majority of Americans—including gun owners—support a universal background check system, more oversight on gun dealers, restricting access to guns among high-risk individuals such as those with previous criminal convictions, and banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition clips or magazines that allow some guns to shoot more than 20 bullets.
Presentations included research findings from experts at Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Rutgers, Michigan State, George Mason and Howard universities, the universities of Chicago, Connecticut and California-Davis, and insights from former federal law enforcement officials. Experts from Great Britain, Australia and Brazil presented evaluations of gun policy reforms in their nations.

“This has been an important two days,” said Ronald J. Daniels, president of The Johns Hopkins University. “We knew that a critical outcome of this Summit would be a set of research-based recommendations designed to inform the current debate. These will help lawmakers and opinion leaders identify the policy changes that are most likely to reduce gun violence in the United States.”

Last month’s shootings in Newtown, Conn., opened the door to new federal action to reduce gun violence in the United States. Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Policy and Research believes that any action should be based on the best available research.

“The research-informed measures address not only mass shootings but also the less publicized U.S. gun violence that takes an average of 30 lives every day,” said Summit organizer Jon Vernick, JD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We can reduce this number through implementation of such measures as expanding conditions which would prohibit high-risk individuals from possessing guns, strengthening the background check system by covering all firearm sales, and ensuring that necessary records for prohibited individuals are available.”

The Summit convened by the University, its Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Center for Gun Policy and Research is believed to be the most extensive summit meeting ever of gun policy researchers to discuss the evidence and make specific action recommendations.

“Gun violence is an urgent public health problem facing our country. I’m proud of our faculty for their contributions to the prevention of gun violence and for their leadership in this important summit,” said Michael J. Klag, dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Efforts like this Summit showcase what we do best, providing the science and evidence to solve the major challenges to our health.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns kill more than 31,000 people each year in the U.S., including more than 11,000 homicides. The U.S. homicide rate is seven times the average of other high-income countries.
Within weeks of the Summit, the Johns Hopkins University Press will publish the book, Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Collected for the first time in one volume, this reliable, empirical research and legal analysis will inform the policy debate by helping lawmakers and opinion leaders identify the policy changes that are most likely to reduce gun violence in the U.S. The book will be available in late January. Copies of the book will be delivered to policymakers from across the country, including members of Congress and the Administration.

* These recommendations represent the consensus of the experts presenting at the Johns Hopkins Gun Policy Summit.
However, it may not be the case that every expert endorsed every specific recommendation.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Restricting High-Risk Individuals from Owning Guns Saves Lives
In October 2012, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health produced a reportexamining policies and initiatives for reducing gun violence in the U.S. by reforming current gun policies.


SOCIAL MEDIA AND MULTIMEDIA

Follow the Summit and gun policy research conversation on social media.

ABOUT

The Johns Hopkins University

The Johns Hopkins University, founded in Baltimore in 1876 by philanthropist Johns Hopkins, was America's first research university and today is a leader in higher education across more than 250 major fields of study, conferring both graduate and undergraduate degrees at campuses throughout the Baltimore-Washington area and in Italy and China. The University comprises schools of Arts and Sciences, Business, Education, Engineering, Advanced International Studies, Medicine, Music, Nursing and Public Health, and the Applied Physics Laboratory, a research-only division. For decades, Johns Hopkins has won more federal research-and-development funding than any other U.S. university. For more about how The Johns Hopkins University is working to advance humanity in service to our world, see www.jhu.edu.


Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
As a leading international authority on public health, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to protecting health and saving lives. Every day, the Bloomberg School works to keep millions safe from illness and injury by pioneering new research, deploying its knowledge and expertise in the field, and educating tomorrow's scientists and practitioners in the global defense of human life. Founded in 1916 as part of the Johns Hopkins University, the Bloomberg School of Public Health is the world’s oldest and largest independent school of public health. More information: www.jhsph.edu.


Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to reducing gun-related injuries and deaths through the application of strong research methods and public health principles. Its faculty have pioneered innovative strategies for reducing gun violence, and achieved a national reputation for high-quality, policy-relevant research. The Center examines the public health effects of guns in society and serves as an objective resource for policy makers, the media, advocacy groups, and the general public. For the past two decades its faculty has helped shape the public agenda in the search for solutions to gun violence. Graduates of the School’s academic programs hold leadership positions in the field of gun violence prevention worldwide. More information: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy


CONTACTS

Tim Parsons
Director, Public Affairs
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street/E2132
Baltimore, MD 21205-2179
410-955-7619
tmparson@jhsph.edu

Dennis O’Shea
Executive Director Communications & Public Affairs
Office of Communications
The Johns Hopkins University
901 S. Bond Ste 540
Baltimore, MD 21231
443-287-9960
dro@jhu.edu

http://www.jhsph.edu...tion-for-media/
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#74 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,362 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:19 PM

The basic philosophy/approach of pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd seems to be:

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" as writer Joseph Heller noted in his novel Catch 22.

"Hey, dey are takin' our gubs (NOTE Woody Allen nod from Take the Money and Run)" so they can oppress us and we cannot fight back.

As Colin Powell says - “The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact."

Reality does not seem much of a touchstone for the pro-automatic/assault weapons crowd and a concept they seem unfamiliar with. (And yes I know I dangled that participle).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHOgkDbVqc


And there is about as much intelligence being in the gun debate in america , as there is in Hellers book.

Yossarian Is Orr crazy?
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: Of course he is. He has to be crazy to keep flying after all his close calls he's had.
Yossarian: Why can't you ground him?
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: I can, but first he has to ask me.
Yossarian: That's all he's gotta do to be grounded?
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: That's all.
Yossarian: Then you can ground him?
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: No. Then I cannot ground him.
Yossarian: Aah!
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: There's a CATCH?
Yossarian: A catch?
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: Sure. Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat isn't really crazy, so I can't ground him.
Yossarian: Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying.
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: You got it, that's Catch-22.
Yossarian: Whoo... That's some catch, that Catch-22.
Dr. 'Doc' Daneeka: It's the best there is
  • 1
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#75 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:37 PM

I can't believe the opinions that are coming from the anti-gun nuts. They're such extremists.

The slippery slope is not a fear tactic. It is reality. Just because you want to try and label people that are worried about it as ferar mongers doesn't mean they aren't correct.

What happens if they ban Semi-Automatic weapons and then they start having school shootings every month with hand-guns?? What if the fatalities are as bad or even worse than what has happened with semi-automatic weapons. Then we're going to realize hand-guns are the problem and institute a ban on them! If you can't see that potential scenario then you're simply being ignorant.

Most pro-gun people aren't paranoid. They are cautious. (They are some fringe people that are... and you anti-gunners love them to lump them in with the rest of em)
  • 1

#76 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:38 PM

Catch-22 .. the favored book of my youth .. mandatory reading at an early age if one ever hopes to develop a refined sense of ironic sarcasm .. :wacko:
  • 1
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#77 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

I can't believe the opinions that are coming from the anti-gun nuts. They're such extremists.

The slippery slope is not a fear tactic. It is reality. Just because you want to try and label people that are worried about it as ferar mongers doesn't mean they aren't correct.

What happens if they ban Semi-Automatic weapons and then they start having school shootings every month with hand-guns?? What if the fatalities are as bad or even worse than what has happened with semi-automatic weapons. Then we're going to realize hand-guns are the problem and institute a ban on them! If you can't see that potential scenario then you're simply being ignorant.

Most pro-gun people aren't paranoid. They are cautious. (They are some fringe people that are... and you anti-gunners love them to lump them in with the rest of em)

Gun control advocates are extremists but not the pro-gun loons??? A very strange view of reality. There are many more wackos on the pro-gun side of things.

Yet another member of the tinfoil hat brigade it would seem. And BTW tinfoil does not work. See - http://forum.canucks...st__p__11068595

The slippery slope you fear is not possible as I pointed out. The boogeyman ban on handguns is a no-go as that would be unconstitutional as the 2008 case of Heller makes crystal clear. I have noted that a number of times. The issue is gun control not a complete ban on guns as that would not as SCOTUS says "pass constitutional muster".

Before accusing anyone of ignorance you might want to consider informing and educating yourself first otherwise in this debate you are bringing a knife to a gunfight... pun intended.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#78 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

Posted Image
  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#79 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:12 PM

thepedestrian, some of us are cautious for good reason, we (unlike some of our fellow Canadians) know American politics enough to know that these restrictions (along with not working in preventing gun deaths) are step one for the gun control lobby -- to reiterate my post from the first page:

And if you wonder why second amendment advocates don't want to compromise much on gun control, besides the non-existent foundation it has in proving that guns cause people to kill others, is prominent gun control movements that have already helped mold gun policy (the Brady Law) have more than openly espoused their give-a-mouse-a-cookie crap:

http://articles.balt...-brady-campaign

In reality, those so-called "gun safety advocates" want nothing less than the following, as quoted from then-chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields: "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily — given the political realities — very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."


The Brady Law was not overturned, and the Brady Campaign holds significant clout with the Obama administration. Also, progressive gun control think tanks like the Joyce Foundation or Children's Defense Fund will do their due diligence in demonising the second amendment, or coming up with favourable "research" (if you wonder why research isn't trusted much anymore in politics, this is why) that gun control advocates can use to try and legitimise that.

Edited by zaibatsu, 22 January 2013 - 03:13 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#80 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,421 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:14 PM

Posted Image


The fact that you are comparing the states to Libya is scary. I feel nothing but pity for you guys who live in paralyzing fear.
  • 0

#81 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:14 PM

Posted Image

/inb4 "apples and machine guns" :lol:
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#82 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

Posted Image

A reality check courtesy of Colin Powell:

“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact."

The governments of Libya, Syria, Egypt and the US of A... which of these is not like the others?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#83 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:53 PM

The fact that you are comparing the states to Libya is scary. I feel nothing but pity for you guys who live in paralyzing fear.


You're right, they're not trying to take guns away, well aside from so-called assault weapons, just like they're not trying to regulate the internet or pervasively monitor regular citizens.

Anyway, these generals, why all of a sudden are they speaking on this now?
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#84 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,421 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:57 PM

You're right, they're not trying to take guns away, well aside from so-called assault weapons, just like they're not trying to regulate the internet or pervasively monitor regular citizens.

Anyway, these generals, why all of a sudden are they speaking on this now?


How should I know? Who cares?

What's striking to me, and what I feel pity for you and others is the degree of fear you all live in. I really had no idea. Scared of your guns being taken away, scared of being raped in the night, scared of the government attacking you in your sleep, scared of everything. It's really bizarre and just sad.
  • 0

#85 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

You're right, they're not trying to take guns away, well aside from so-called assault weapons, just like they're not trying to regulate the internet or pervasively monitor regular citizens.

Anyway, these generals, why all of a sudden are they speaking on this now?

Because gun control has become a widely debated issue in the wake of the recent mass shootings and the two former Generals have real life knowledge, experience and expertise with firearms? Just a guess.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#86 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:06 PM

How should I know? Who cares?

What's striking to me, and what I feel pity for you and others is the degree of fear you all live in. I really had no idea. Scared of your guns being taken away, scared of being raped in the night, scared of the government attacking you in your sleep, scared of everything. It's really bizarre and just sad.

You obviously embellish highly the "degrees of fear" gun owners, as well as second amendment supporters have. Trust me, no one loses any sleep over it. In fact, it's more possible fear comes from such embellishments than fear of government or invaders.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#87 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

How should I know? Who cares?

What's striking to me, and what I feel pity for you and others is the degree of fear you all live in. I really had no idea. Scared of your guns being taken away, scared of being raped in the night, scared of the government attacking you in your sleep, scared of everything. It's really bizarre and just sad.

Living in the Land of the Fearful and Home of the Paranoid would seem to be an accurate description of such 'Muricans .
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#88 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,421 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:11 PM

You obviously embellish highly the "degrees of fear" gun owners, as well as second amendment supporters have. Trust me, no one loses any sleep over it. In fact, it's more possible fear comes from such embellishments than fear of government or invaders.


Do I? Cause when you show images of Syrians running for cover from government forces to demonstrate why you think Obama is full of crap, it kinda sounds like you're comparing the two.
  • 0

#89 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

Do I? Cause when you show images of Syrians running for cover from government forces to demonstrate why you think Obama is full of crap, it kinda sounds like you're comparing the two.

This comparison is much akin to pointing out Bush's "spreading freedom" foreign policy while signing the PATRIOT Act.

It's to point out hypocrisy.

Nothing to do with fear.

The fear thing is a well established gun control talking point.

Edited by zaibatsu, 22 January 2013 - 04:16 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#90 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,421 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:18 PM

This comparison is much akin to pointing out Bush's "spreading freedom" foreign policy while signing the PATRIOT Act.

It's to point out hypocrisy.

Nothing to do with fear.

The fear thing is a well established gun control talking point.


Ahh ok, so showing an armed guy running through the streets to prove the point about how this could be America isn't meant to scare at all. Gotcha.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.