I'm sure the Jones Family farm is fortified to the nines with all manner of single shot, semi and fully automatic weapons.

I'm also quite sure a drone attack, an APC with half a dozen soldiers or a tank would make short work of his fairy-tale brand of home security if the US government really turned on its own people.

Really Alex Jones? What an exhausting waste of resources. He's clearly an impassioned activist. He could lobby for conservative values like fiscal responsibility and governmental accountability but he's really just telling the world how angry and violent many gun-toting Americans are.

No they simply haven't. There have been no peer review studies that pass any sort of scientific muster that prove banning automatic weapons won't help prevent tragedies.

It's amazing to me how many people claim "Yeah they did a study about it." What study? What were the subjects, the parameters, what was the system, where was it done, who did it?

It's amazing how many educated people such as yourself (I'm assuming) believe that just cause a "Study" has been done that proves something. It doesn't it matters how the study was done. There is simply NO convincing evidence any gun apologist can point to. Sorry, but you're all fucking stupid.

She wasn't arguing for that. She was saying that with private ownership (hopefully not advertised in keeping with these maps) there would be fewer home invasions in the UK.

Full autos are pretty heavily regulated. Lots and lots of red tape. I'm not sure I've heard of any crime being committed with fully automatic weapons. If there is any, it's minuscule compared to the homicides committed with handguns. Generally speaking though homicide isn't a major concern to me. I'm more concerned about general health, accidental deaths, etc. Gun control is placebo policy at best, and autocracy at worst.

If we had concealed/carry in the UK, by Sunday morning half the drinkers from the Friday/Saturday night binge would be dead. Seriously though, I'm totally torn on the gun issue in the USA. However, I do come down on the side of those wanting to ban automatic weapons.

OK, again I'm not an American. But I have an opinion.
And the technology already exists to do this.
Let them keep the guns ... but...the bullets!

All bullets to be coded!
~ Ownership of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

Only Coded bullets can be sold.
~ Selling of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

When coded bullets are bought, the serial number of the gun, the coded bullets are to be fired from, must be declared.
~ Selling of coded bullets without proper declaration. - LIFE Sentence.

After bullets are fired the user must declare where the bullets were fired, and at what they were fired at.
~ Owner not declaring - up to 10 years custody.

Silencers illegal!
~ Ownership of silencer - LIFE Sentence.

Hidden weapons including shoulder and ankle holsters. illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Automatic Weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Any modifications made to a firearm. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

NON USA manufactured weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Mind you I can be a bit flexible on all this........just a starting point.

Fortunately my country does not let me own a firearm.

Hypothetical:
Lets say a few people started carrying weapons at schools and wherever.
Some random kid comes in and starts shooting.
One of the kids with concealed weapons manage to stay calm, get cover, and unholster their gun. He tries to get in a shot, and in doing so, another innocent kid with a gun sees him and mistakes him for another gunman as well. This kid then shoots the other kid. Repeat until everybody with guns are dead.

Why does everybody seem to know that they immediately can assess the situation well enough to not kill other innocent people that are also trying to save the situation?

It is a fantasy. It might occasionally come true, due to luck, circumstances or whatever, but that doesn't mean that should be the go-to method.
Guns should be used for hunting. Fully automatic weapons have nothing to do with hunting, and should be banned. Permit should require checkups at a shooting range.

Run. Hide. Call 911. Don't carry guns!

Sheesh.. Can't believe we're having this discussion..

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

I was raised around guns, I've been trained with guns through the Hunter Core program. Purely for hunting game. (not human targets on the shooting range - mostly tin cans and paper circle targets.)

I've seen rampant gun use by teens because they thought guns were cool. I've seen my dog get his eye shot out because the neighbor kid didn't know the gun he just loaded was loaded. I've seen powder burns up the arm of a friend who thought it would be cool to saw off a shot gun and fire it. I was standing there when a good friend fired a rifle and the barrel exploded showering us all in shrapnel as it ripped apart his ear drums.

I was trained to handle guns, how to hold them, and all the safety and respect that anyone needs to handle guns. But that doesn't change the fact that they can be dangerous.

I live in Canada, yes, I could go out and get a gun any time I wanted, but our culture on guns is different. I don't feel the need to own one and I know the guy next to me isn't holding a concealed one. I have never let my kids have any toy gun that looked like a gun. (Nerf is ok) Guns are never toys - ever - and I've taught my kids that their entire life, just like matches and fire aren't toys. You just don't mess around with them.

I don't own a gun now nor do I ever see myself owning one. I like the culture of not needing to own one. I can understand a rifle and a shotgun for hunting (locked in a gun safe when not used.) I don't understand and cannot support the necessity for handguns and automatic weapons. Even semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary. Having an Uzi is just plain ridiculous as it's only intended use is for killing humans. That's just how I feel.

On the flip side....

I do understand the need for a militia. They are an integral part of a free society. the last defense against invasion and more so against government forces when the military is turned against the people.

I just don't believe military weapons should be kept in a home environment. There are any number of places they can be stored but at the very least - a proper gun locker with a lock is the only alternative. I don't care whether you have kids living in the home or not. I also don't think anyone should be in possession of military weapons unless they are registered with the militia.

Did you even read my post? I specifically mention that I am from Canada and that the US is different. Second I have my PALR and know quite a lot about our gun laws here in Canada.

Cool story tho

EDIT: I realized I cut the "Canada vs US" out of my abbreviated post here, so I can see what you mean.

>> ^Shepppard:

@Buck
DO NOT drag Canadian gun ownership into your thought process. Your entire post is invalidated if you refer to Canadian gun ownership the way you do American gun ownership.
Buying a gun in most of (if not all) of the U.S. is basically passing a 3-15 day background check. If you don't have a felony, history of mental health problems, or even some larger misdemeanors, you get your gun.
Canadians need to first off pass a safety course (C.anadian F.irearms S.afety C.ourse) then mail away an application for gun ownership. If you're granted the PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you can then go out and buy sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. (Air rifles that are capable of a muzzle velocity of over 500 feet per second require the license.)
Handguns, and anything fully automatic are still prohibited.
If you want a handgun, you can take a CRFSC (R for Restricted) test and pass it, and then you're allowed to own and use Handguns. Fully automatic weapons, however, are still prohibited.
TL;DR:
Canadians have to jump through hoops and actually pass safety courses and tests before even being allowed to mail off your application and be considered for gun ownership.
Americans have to not be crazy, not have been in jail, and be able to wait up to two weeks.
Comparing gun ownership between the two is NOT valid.

@Buck

DO NOT drag Canadian gun ownership into your thought process. Your entire post is invalidated if you refer to Canadian gun ownership the way you do American gun ownership.

Buying a gun in most of (if not all) of the U.S. is basically passing a 3-15 day background check. If you don't have a felony, history of mental health problems, or even some larger misdemeanors, you get your gun.

Canadians need to first off pass a safety course (C.anadian F.irearms S.afety C.ourse) then mail away an application for gun ownership. If you're granted the PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you can then go out and buy sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. (Air rifles that are capable of a muzzle velocity of over 500 feet per second require the license.)

Handguns, and anything fully automatic are still prohibited.

If you want a handgun, you can take a CRFSC (R for Restricted) test and pass it, and then you're allowed to own and use Handguns. Fully automatic weapons, however, are still prohibited.

TL;DR:

Canadians have to jump through hoops and actually pass safety courses and tests before even being allowed to mail off your application and be considered for gun ownership.

Americans have to not be crazy, not have been in jail, and be able to wait up to two weeks.

Comparing gun ownership between the two is NOT valid.

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

Wow, I have just lost respect for Bill Moyers. He has stooped to flat out lying and playing a fear mongering video that is full of BS. Right at 1 minute he says "one of the guns used was an AK-47 type assault weapon that was banned in 1994." This is a flat out lie. The so called "assault weapon ban" did not actually ban any weapons, it only banned cosmetic features on semi automatic replicas, or more accurately it limited a gun to having no more than two military style features found on the real assault weapon. His "AK-47 type assault weapon" would have still been legal, it just might have looked less scary.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was political stunt that banned something that people feared, but didn't do squat to prevent crime. The DOJ conducted a study on the effect of the 1994 Assault Weapon ban and found that its effects on gun violence was "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The Brady Center did a study of the ban and their findings were that "assault weapons" were only used in 1.6% of gun crimes.

I can't believe he played that clip of a scary muslim instructing on how easy it is to go to a gun show and walk out with a fully automatic weapon without a background check or showing any ID, without checking the facts claimed. That is total fear mongering BS. First of all you can't buy a gun at all, even at a gun show without a background check. Second, to legally own a fully automatic weapon requires a class 3 firearms license, which isn't easy to get or cheap, and you must register your weapons with the ATF. Way to go on fact checking that video Bill.

How come you never hear about the crimes that are prevented by people lawfully carrying a gun? A NIJ and another independent study from 1993 and 1994 found that 800,000 to 2.5 million crimes per year are prevented each year most of which the victim never had to fire a shot.

When you look on this stage
Under all these bright lights,
You just see some guys
That you don't really like
At all, grow some balls
When you choose tonight!

But if you vote for me
You'll be doin the country
A really, really big favor--trust me, you can thank me later
When I legalize everything

I can guarantee you'll be
Much, much more happy
With me
I can satisfy all your needs
For shady activities
As you please, like

Prostitutes and drugs
Panda skin rugs
Automatic weapons
Exposin your erections

It's high time
You vote for Einstein
I'll legalize everything

Euthanizin old people
Poachin bald eagles
I'll fire the regulators
Of asbestos toilet paper

It's high time for Einstein
I'll legalize everythiiiiing

If you vote for him
You'll be helpin the nation
- God's favorite nation -
Live like the founding fathers did
And never have to bother with
Laws against anything

He can guarantee you'll be
Much more happy and free
constitutionally!
If you wanna see tyranny's demise
Realized we should legalize

Public urination
Without taxation
Buying the election
Exposin our erections!
You got it!
It's high time you vote for Einstein
I'll legalize everything:

Extreme religious sex/sects
Interspecies sex/sects
If you're wondering how i spelled those
Then you'll just have to guess ...

It's high time for Einstein
He'll legalize everythiiiiiing
Every single
Inconceivable
Smokable, drinkable thiiiiiiing

>> ^criticalthud:

Cops are the largest organized and armed gang in the US. They collect revenue for cities and states. They enforce laws that disproportionally target the poor and the non-white. They are rarely prosecuted and almost never convicted for crimes committed by their members, even while off duty.
The police often attract employees who enjoy violence.
I fear the police much more than I count on them to do the right thing.


Not in Rochester. In Rochester, it's the Crips. Just sayin'. I know they both wear blue and all, it can be tough to tell. I have a feeling the Rochester Crips run most of the Caine and H that the north east sees. They also routinely wear vests, and carry automatic weapons. A friend of mine witnessed a drive-by with an automatic weapon right down the street from our house, which I believe is right down the street from where the original arrest took place.

She shouldn't have been arrested, and the court dismissed it out of hand. In fact, the court didn't, the prosecutor didn't even press the charge. Our legal system has routinely defended our rights to question and record the police. That a couple of high-stress cops over-react isn't surprising, nor is it particularly threatening to our liberties. There is, however, some serious anti-cop sentiment that is threatening to everybody. I can see being uneasy as a cop, particularly in some neighborhoods of that town. Edgy cops are more likely to do something they shouldn't. Sure, the ticket thing was childish, but it's too convenient to paint this issue with a broad brush. If you were forced to watch every arrest on film, my suspicion is that you'd agree with the vast majority of them. You just only see the videos the "changing minds campaigners" want you to see.

Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
All I can say is I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe you could send me your tax return, and I could figure out what the deal was!

But something's definitely fishy about that, because the top marginal income tax rate is 35%, which means you only get taxed at 35% on income above $373,651, and that's adjusted income, as in after you do all your deductions.

I'd have to whip out a calculator to check what overall % of my income it was when I was all said and done, but mine was more like 12%. Then again I'm pretty much doing most of the normal middle-class stuff that's subsidized (i.e. married, own a home, work for a corporation that provides health insurance, etc.). Only thing missing is the 2.5 kids, and a cache of semi-automatic weapons.

Anyways, here's Turbo Tax's summary of the tax changes for 2010, you tell me what it was that bit you.

As for cutting spending when times are tough, how's that working for Ireland? Greece? Spain? UK? Is it working for them, or are they in even worse shape than they were before they started? How are countries like Sweeden and Canada that did big stimulus (relative to their GDP anyways), currency devaluation and strict bank regulation doing?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, my federal income tax went up to 35%. I made significantly less this year, as well. The difference between people like you and people like me, is that I'm freelance and considered to be a small business while you're an employee working for a corporation. My taxes went up. Yours probably went down.

That's the government incentivizing you to work for a corporation or the government.

Taxes aren't the only incentive for working for government and corporations. They have lower taxes to pay, so they can generally pay more and offer great benefits, as well. Freelancers like me cannot afford health or dental insurance. I could if they weren't stealing 35% of my income. Luckily for me, my fiancée works for a corporation so I'm a dependent on her policy.

Also, because I made less this year (thanks to the economy), I have to look at cutting my spending. Logical, right? So I have done so. But my 2010 expenses for doing business haven't gone down, and the cost of living has skyrocketed (especially here in LA). Agriculture is up. Gas is up. My utilities went up. And brilliantly my state and federal taxes have gone up. But really it's the federal income tax that's abhorrent.

Why is it the government can't cut its spending when times are tough? Why do they have to squeeze us during rough times? Why can't they see we're hurting and help us by taking a little less? Maybe if we didn't have to pay for all this defense spending? Maybe if Obama didn't go into Libya? Maybe we can get rid of some of these government departments? I mean, something? Anything?

There's never an answer for this except "pay your fair share". I wish I was paying my fair share, but 35% on top of a financial loss this year isn't fair. And didn't they report that we, the people, paid more in taxes this year than the corporations? Shocker.

So, NR, my taxes did in fact go up. They went way the hell up with everything else... except my income. Where's my reprieve? Where's Obama when the small businesses need him?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.