Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting

It seems you want me to substitute one form of skewed data for another.

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?

Are the numbers accurate, are the guns really missing, or the record keeping and accounting process flawed?

Accountability is great, let's first apply it to your statements........GOT PROOF?

Assumptions are not the best basis of opinion........your intentions are to stir up the hornets, no matter how many times you continue to get stung.
 
Last edited:
It seems you want me to substitute one form of skewed data for another.

I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?

Firstly, you got and trusted information from the Brady campaign, an organization that has been caught in many a lie regarding their statistics.
If you want to hold someone accountable why don't you write them, and tell them to be accountable for all of the misleading "facts" they have put out over the last 10 years?

Funny how they always come up with these numbers, and it causes a big media sensation, then a year later it comes out that the numbers were radically skewed, they issue a short PR apology that no one picks up or mentions on the news and then they do it again.

You seem to not grasp the basic problem with gun control. Criminals will always get weapons, that's the nature of a criminal, they break the law.

Dis-arming the populace simply makes it easier for the stronger, more predatory people of a society to abuse the weaker, more civil members.
If you can't understand that simple fact, then stay in Canada, I don't need any more left wing morons trying to take away my means of defending myself.
 
If you don't like guns, don't buy em. Please put up GUN FREE ZONE signs so burglars target your house over mine.
 
I read that article and figured any percent of 62,000 is still a rather substantial amount. People in this section cry until they're blue in the face when their government isn't accountable to its people (budget, constitution, etc...) yet they pay little attention when the guns they care-about make it into the hands of nutjobs or shady folks via shady gun shop owners.

Is accountability such a radical a thought, or did my comments stir up the hornet's nest again?
62000 firearms in the hands of criminals is a big issue, too bad its a made up number. Just because a gun gets listed as "unaccounted for" doesn't mean its in the hands of a criminal. most of those are simple paperwork mistakes
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml
You would think these anti gun groups would at least agree on numbers. Show me data from the ATF and I might take you seriously.

A bit of a side note, I found this humorous
http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2008/09/17/atf-cant-account-for-418-laptops-76-guns/
Looks like the ATF isn't too great at keeping track of guns either.
 
Even if all of them are in the hands of criminals, I would rather every sane law abiding adult in this country was armed along with the criminals and insane people than have every sane law abiding adult be disarmed and illegal guns still sold to every criminal and crackpot that actually feels like getting one.
 
If you don't like guns, don't buy em. Please put up GUN FREE ZONE signs so burglars target your house over mine.

I lost track the amount of times I left the doors to my home open, or my jeep running, unlocked in my driveway. Just last week Purolator left a 42 TV on my front stairs, and it was still there when I got home several hours later.I don't live in a terrible neighborhood, but it's not a great one either. I'm not against guns, and I understand people feel the need to protect themselves. Personally, I like guns, but I don't feel afraid without them.

Everything I've been saying throughout this whole damn thread is that accountability's important. I'm sorry, if my comment was somehow misinterpreted as an attack on your way of life.
 
Everything I've been saying throughout this whole damn thread is that accountability's important.

Yes, accountability is important. However, it only works correctly if the figures being used are accurate to begin with. Given that the Brady Campaign has a long history of fabricating facts and figures to suit their point of view, the numbers quoted in the article cannot be taken as being in any way representative of the scope of the issue as the primary source for them is historically-unreliable.

I'm sorry, if my comment was somehow misinterpreted as an attack on your way of life.

I don't take your comments as an attack on my way of life; your inability to vote in the elections that would make such an attack a possibility means that I have little to worry about in that regard. But, and I say this in all seriousness: the way you're presenting your arguments comes across as somewhere mid-way between poorly-researched opinion and low-end trolling. If the intended result is actually to play Devil's Advocate, you're really not doing a terribly effective job of it because it's simply not possible to take what you're saying seriously.
 
Last edited:
I don't take your comments as an attack on my way of life; your inability to vote in the elections that would make such an attack a possibility means that I have little to worry about in that regard. But, and I say this in all seriousness: the way you're presenting your arguments comes across as somewhere mid-way between poorly-researched opinion and low-end trolling. If the intended result is actually to play Devil's Advocate, you're really not doing a terribly effective job of it because it's simply not possible to take what you're saying seriously.

I simply quoted what I saw on CNN followed by a googled cross-reference that led me to the Washington Post piece. I also accepted the fact that the Brady Campaign is biased, and that its numbers are bloated. What more would you like? Should I source my info from FOX or MSBC instead?

Look, as much as I appreciate your subtle attempts to mock my opinions as being "poorly-researched", I'd like to remind you my data came from American media, so please.... don't kill the messenger.
 
I simply quoted what I saw on CNN followed by a googled cross-reference that led me to the Washington Post piece. I also accepted the fact that the Brady Campaign is biased, and that its numbers are bloated. What more would you like? Should I source my info from FOX or MSBC instead?

What I'm not understanding is why you would initially present figures from a source that you subsequently acknowledge as biased and known for inflating its numbers. To me, that seems like a poor approach to the debate as all it does is invite immediate scrutiny of those numbers - which is pretty much exactly what happened, and, given the subject involved, utterly predictable.

Look, as much as I appreciate your subtle attempts to mock my opinions as being "poorly-researched", I'd like to remind you my data came from American media, so please.... don't kill the messenger.

Dude, this was in no way an attempt to mock you or your opinions - nor were any of my other replies. Clearly I've extended courtesy in error.
 
What I'm not understanding is why you would initially present figures from a source that you subsequently acknowledge as biased and known for inflating its numbers. To me, that seems like a poor approach to the debate as all it does is invite immediate scrutiny of those numbers - which is pretty much exactly what happened, and, given the subject involved, utterly predictable.

I'm willing to amend my comments in light of new info presented in this thread. I knew the NRA had lobbyists; I didn't know the Brady Campaign was similar. I realize , now, that the truth must be somewhere in-between. Lesson learned.
 
I guess we all knew it was coming...


White House to Push Gun Control
Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president’s highest-profile speech of the year. “President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence—which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings. Asked about a specialized White House effort on guns, a spokesman for the powerful gun lobby declined to comment.

Newsweek 1/27/11
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html
 
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Urban, I'm curious.....what's your position on Bill C68?


“I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”

Rebecca Peters
President
IANSA
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)


How is IANSA funded?

IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of UK, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute, Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid - UK.


George Soros' Open Society is a huge supporter on IANSA......no surprise that the guy who is focused on collapsing capitalism is also funding the effort to restrict US citizens ability to defend themselves.

Socialism and Freedom cannot co-exist.
 
1/28/11 SALT LAKE CITY -- After a heated debate, the Browning M1911 handgun is one step closer to becoming Utah's official firearm.

The handgun was designed for the military by Ogden native John Moses Browning for World War I and served as the military's standard-issue sidearm into the 1980s.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, sponsored House Bill 219, which was passed by the House today on a vote of 51-19. It now goes to the Senate for consideration. If passed and signed into law, Utah would be the first state with a designated official firearm.
 
I'm willing to amend my comments in light of new info presented in this thread. I knew the NRA had lobbyists; I didn't know the Brady Campaign was similar. I realize , now, that the truth must be somewhere in-between. Lesson learned.
The NRA has lobbyists, the brady campaign are lobbyists. Please dont call them similar, thats the closest they come.
 
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Urban, I'm curious.....what's your position on Bill C68? .
What do you mean xjeeper. How do I feel about your 17 year old quote, or how do I feel about Canada's lower firearm murder rates per capita? Sheesh, and you wonder why I don't trust anything you say.


George Soros' Open Society is a huge supporter on IANSA......no surprise that the guy who is focused on collapsing capitalism is also funding the effort to restrict US citizens ability to defend themselves.
Yeah, I saw Glenn Beck's puppet show too.


Socialism and Freedom cannot co-exist
Communism and Freedom cannot co-exist. 'Socialism' is a blanket term people like you use to scare the shit out of folks that don't know the difference.
 
What do you mean xjeeper. How do I feel about your 17 year old quote, or how do I feel about Canada's lower firearm murder rates per capita?

I blame the fact that they hit the ground before they go far enough to get from one canadian to another
 
I guess we all knew it was coming...

No surprise there. However, my suspicion is that this basically the administration trying to be seen doing something about 'the problem', and it will ultimately go nowhere.

They know that there really isn't much of a climate in favour of gun control right now, and are further hampered by having lost control of the House. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect a representative or two to try to sneak something in on the back of something else - but it's a dead-end issue.

Note that this is not to dismiss their efforts in this regard - underestimating your adversary is always a mistake - but rather that all it will ultimately serve to do is divert attention away from the other issues they've failed to effectively address during their term of office.
 
What bearing do reports of home owners organizing to combat looters in their neighborhoods in Cairo arming themselves with kitchen knives and sticks have on this conversation?
 
I'm surprised that Urban Yan hasn't said anything. I guess he recognizes that if he was in those people's position and had to protect his home and family with no police protection that he would rather be armed with something more than sticks and kitchen knives.
 
Back
Top