Summations Only

Is the gun industry wrong to do this, if the U.S. government is one of its most enthusiastic customers? At about the 2:50 mark, it said this will "revolutionize law enforcement capabilities".When referring to the "gun happy U.S." as many seem to in gun control discussions, it's important to realize that so much gun interest is within the U.S. government.

Including the U.S. government. U.S. morals are declining. It's not the fault of the private ownership of guns. I realize that in gun control debates, England is always perfect. I just get the feeling that the U.S. does a few things better than England does. The U.S. covers so much more land area, climate differences, diversity in its population, etc. - the two countries aren't even comparable concerning most issues.

You have a firm opinion on the gun control debate and have never seen that evidence? You must have formed an opinion without much research.More Guns, Less Crime - WikipediaNot Found - CSMonitor.com.http://www.unitedliberty.org/...rearms-are-a-crime-deterrent I remember hearing years ago that the New York City police force has more firepower than the entire Canadian military. As I said, the U.S. government loves its guns, and cares nothing about gun control for itself - it's not going to happen. Could be. The U.S. government doesn't seem to have much respect or trust for its citizens anymore. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

It doesn't matter who "advocates" any thing about guns concerning what the U.S. government has. The police, the Dept of Homeland Security, the EPA, they will have all the guns they want.

Well no, I don't think they do. But if Canada does have a few, New York's swat teams could probably win a war against them.

Very good, neither is northern Kentucky. But even a liberal with their eyes tightly shut can't help but notice the significant increase in the Mexican population in this area. Over only the past 15 years or so, we've seen Mexican restaurants spring up all over the place, I can't go to my local food store more than once or twice without seeing a few of them in the aisle gibber-jabering among themselves in Spanish. I don't think there's a landscaping company anywhere around here that doesn't have an almost exclusive Mexican workforce. Why yes, your map shows my county of Kentucky to be at the 2.5% to 16.2% range. Must be closer to 16.2 in this case. South Carolina has lots of counties the same shade of yellow as mine, and it's a lot warmer there, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some Mexicans there, with some South Carolinians that aren't too crazy about it.But never mind, you don't believe that. South Carolina has more gun violence than the heaven-on-earth New York because SC has more armed citizens - that illegal immigration has nothing to do with gun violence. But wait - you're about to go ballistic and tell me you didn't say that at all! There often seems to be a point in threads you participate in where you don't have an opinion at all - all you do is insult. Oh you speak for everyone, and none of you has yet figured out that I don't like it when police shoot unarmed 19 year old girls? And you can't have an opinion of it until I tell you?Now bring on the insults to amuse your friends, but I won't be responding.

History shows that the disarming of the public can have some really bad consequences.What happens when governments disarm their citizens? « You believe it can't possibly happen in the less-than-250 year old U.S.?

?? So can many illegals - so can those who know nothing about history. Here is a Wall Street Journal article that shows some convincing evidence that blaming hardware for human behavior isn't a foolproof answer.Is any exploration of human behavior completely off limits to gun control advocates?Richard Dawkins, a respected leader and influential voice in science, has said this;

quote:

---

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

---

From what I've seen at forums like this, in textbooks, anywhere science is discussed, these descriptions (no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference) is how science is studied, and taught. Would you say there is blind, pitiless indifference in gun violence? Could the two be related? Are we teaching impressionable public school students that our origins, our existence, doesn't actually have evil or good?Other subjects, such as history, show that there really is evil and good in the world. I don't see evidence of much history education by posters at scientific forums. Could some new education methods do anything to alter the blind, pitiless indifference that's involved in gun violence?I'd guess that the percentages of students that become astronomers or biologists are pretty small. Do we have to hammer on ALL students the importance of believing human existence is blind indifference?I'm tired tonight, and that's pretty raggedy I'll admit, but does that inspire any thought at all, or does it just inspire Dr. Adequate style arrogance? If so that's fine - I have little more to say. But I'm beginning to see that those who take an interest in science are amazingly ignorant of other subjects._________________________On edit - another question; Do you notice any......gleams in the eyes of news anchors/reporters when the breaking news of another mass shooting hits the TV screens? There's no question that their ratings go through the roof when it happens. There's also evidence that some of the more recent shootings were probably "copycat" acts, that the previous reports of mass shootings aroused some ideas in the minds of future shooters. Some sickos get a little jealous when they see the mug of a shooter plastered all over the news, they'd like to get some of that attention too. Does the news media really care if their sensationalism inspires more shootings? Since they reap some pretty hefty profits from mass shootings? How about if we TAX THE HELL out of the news media every time there is a mass shooting? It could be based on the number of minutes (or seconds) they spend harping on it. It could even include Fox news! Would our society really suffer all that much if we only got some abbreviated coverage of these tragedies? Is our morbid sense of curiosity so important that the news media has to constantly cash in on it? Edited by marc9000, : News media question

It worked fine! But using hollow points for target practice, and other things about the desperate attempts to downplay government purchases of enough ammo to kill every U.S. citizen, doesn't pass everyone's "smell test"

quote:

---

...according to retired Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, a decorated Army war veteran, the Feds' explanation about the bullets fails to pass the smell test.

---

PandaHi.com is for sale | HugeDomainsIf you have a complete trust of government though, you're good!

You've made...29 posts in a gun control thread, but your opinion isn't firm? Sorry, I thought it logically followed. I suppose you'd think that, if you're clueless about the history of nations that have disarmed their citizens. Myth? You don't believe the American Revolution happened? (it's worse than I thought)

I'd really need you to look at a 6th grade history book as a start - I can't describe to you the benefits of an armed citizenry in a few paragraphs.

[qs]"FEARING" is the key word. It's not that complicated.

It's not a case of forgetting, I didn't know anyone thought that purchases of guns and ammo by today's U.S. government were anywhere near voters, or even elected officials. We don't vote for anyone in the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, the IRS, the Dept. of Justice, the FMCSA, the list of U.S. bureaucracies with purchasing power is almost endless. The evolution of the multi-trillion dollar U.S. government has gone far beyond the voters to measurably make any difference in things like hardware purchases within the time span of one entire generation. I'm not saying that's a reason for a revolution, but it's a step towards understanding reality. You didn't say anything specifically. You said;

quote:

---

The significant issue is still how to reduce gun deaths.

---

And you didn't see any there?? What do you think about news media sensationalism? Let me try a less raggedy package this time. As long as this thread is, it isn't much different than most gun control discussions - it's largely about only two choices; more gun laws versus doing nothing. This puts pro-gun people on the defensive every time. But by looking at gun violence as a human behavior issue rather than a hardware issue, it can greatly broaden the discussion, if anti-gun violence people are honest. A look at the background of some of the past mass murderers in the U.S. (not the types or sizes of guns they used) shows us that;The Ft Hood Shooter was a Registered Democrat and Muslim. The Columbine Shooters were too young to vote, but both of their families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals. The Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff and was a registered Democrat. The Colorado theater shooter was a registered Democrat, a staff worker on the Obama campaign, an occupy wall street participant, and a progressive liberal. There's no evidence that I know of that they were Christians, or NRA members. Would you say they showed "blind, pitiless, indifference in their acts of murder? How is that completely different from the blind, pitiless, indifference that the scientific community puts forward as it describes life's origins, existence, and death?Steven Weinberg, a scientific leader similar in status to Dawkins, claimed that one of science's greatest accomplishments should be to weaken the hold of religion. One of the things that they, and many other leaders in the scientific community will do as they attempt to weaken the hold of religion, is to refer to Christians as "sheep", or a "flock" who follow a certain leader, or even Bible teachings. So could the blind, pitiless indifference of scientific sheep, who follow scientific community leaders be linked in any way to the blind, pitiless indifference of the above mass murderers? If not, why? Can a case be made for a complete disconnect from the two? If not, maybe an overhaul of the way public school children are taught could go much further in reducing gun violence than gun laws for law abiding people. I'm not advocating teaching religion, but more actual history would be a good start, or any other secular subject that could more clearly show that there really is (and always has been) good and evil in the world, despite the remarks of Richard Dawkins.Again, how about the consideration of news media sensationalism with the evidence that some shootings are "copycat" shootings? A windfall profits tax on them wouldn't violate their first amendment rights one iota. Or how about a law that prohibits them from displaying a picture of the shooter? There could be any number of laws that would at least somewhat discourage the news media from doing anything they want to cash in on mass shootings.I think I know why these things aren't discussed - because these types of new laws and changes WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO INCREASE THE POWER OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. That's what I meant with the phrase above "if the anti-gun-violence people are honest".So those are my proposals for reducing gun deaths, and there could be many more similar ones, but unfortunately for the Democrat party and one of their main special interests, the scientific community, it wouldn't give them any more power and money. So are those types of proposals automatically disregarded by mainstream gun control advocates?If there are no substantive replies to this in the next few days, I'll summarize and finish up.

Yes I should have - I stand corrected. I hereby apologize to Theodoric, since he asked nice.

Should the number of government guns be reduced then? If so, how would that be enforced? (I'm talking about police, Dept. of Homeland security, the military, or any other government agency)If you DON'T consider it possible, or necessary to reduce government guns, then do you have a greater trust of government than you do free citizens? If so, do you have historically sound reasoning for that trust?