A complex and deep question.

Sociological/Psychological/Political/Economical/Educational/Medical/Someotherkindacal?

The good old Peace & Love thing seems to have left the stage.

"Multiple shootings leave 5 dead in North Carolina

"The dead include a 7-year-old boy who was fatally shot during a birthday party in southwest Charlotte."

It's sickening -- it's become a nearly out-of-control epidemic
the peace & love hippie era you mention was always about that -- also respect for others first, & getting along
it was a different time indeed -- it's nothing like that any more
RIP Judy Carne, of Laugh-In fame -- I well recall those days, sitting w/the fam in the TV room & watching Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In

[Edited on 9/8/2015 by Stephen]

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

I thought that it was quite a stretch also until I ruled out - Sociological/Psychological/Political/Economical/Educational/Medical/Someoth erkindacal?

After that I was left with - everyone has a gun. But remember guns don't kill and people don't kill either. It is those f'n bullets.

Although I still have not ruled out Someoth erkindacal, I just have to figure out what the hell that is.

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

I thought that it was quite a stretch also until I ruled out - Sociological/Psychological/Political/Economical/Educational/Medical/Someoth erkindacal?

After that I was left with - everyone has a gun. But remember guns don't kill and people don't kill either. It is those f'n bullets.

Although I still have not ruled out Someoth erkindacal, I just have to figure out what the hell that is.

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

___________________________________________________________________

Okay.
The liberals are always screaming “Gun Control”.
Fine.

Tell us exactly how y’all intend to take all the guns from the criminals.

The fact that you make it a party issue is pretty sad. You would think that both parties' followers would want the killings to stop. Last time I checked, bullets can penetrate either side.

You can't get all the guns but you can stop supplying more of them. Also a gun is fairly useless without bullets so how about stop making it so easy to reload.

Funny how you think you know my political leaning and that it has a thing to do with the logical reason that so many US citizens are murdered.

its not funny, he does it all the time.

[Edited on 9/9/2015 by LeglizHemp]

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

Here is the thing. The gun control laws have been the same for decades. The gun crimes seem to be spiking now. But there is no corelation in a spike in gun ownership. So what accounts for it? Could it possibly be a relaxation of crime control techniques that proved effective?

Interestingly the number of firearms purchased and owned has gone up, but they are owned by a lower percentage of the population.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

FB post from a pastor at a local church. I blocked out the name.:
(Name of organization) is holding a Practical Handgun Level 1 class this Saturday, September 12th at 9am in Brock. This course is extremely valuable for those who will be carrying a concealed weapon. It will cover threat awareness, systematic drawing from concealment, reloading, malfunctions, responding to an attack, realistic force on force scenarios with airsoft, live fire scenarios at the range and more. This is great realistic training and we'll have a great time as well. The course is approximately 8 hours and will cost $125. Proficiency with a pistol is required. We have 4 slots available. You can register with a PM or via our website. Thanks and God bless.

Maybe because everyone has a gun?

Rap music

Peoples sense of self entitlement

But you can pretty much stop at - everyone has a gun.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

I thought that it was quite a stretch also until I ruled out - Sociological/Psychological/Political/Economical/Educational/Medical/Someoth erkindacal?

After that I was left with - everyone has a gun. But remember guns don't kill and people don't kill either. It is those f'n bullets.

Although I still have not ruled out Someoth erkindacal, I just have to figure out what the hell that is.

Muleman don't you know that all solutions to problems in the US are solved by shooting someone....???

We hold on to that right to bear arm like it's a fair prize and there's a huge population here that think we should all walk around armed like we did in the wild west....Not one of those people think....Why did we stop carrying gun openly????....well I guess it didn't dawn on them that innocent people were being killed by people having the ability to have a gun at their disposal....

See it's cool to have a gun here and people like me who don't own a gun are actually in the minority....

Now you living in a civil society just don't get the wild west mentality we can't seem to get past....

Yeah a lot of little children in the US get caught up in all kinds of gunfire but losing our children isn't as important as losing the wild west....Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet....Is something someone said to me who was a gun owner....Kinda opened my eyes to the level of thinking that goes behind the hidden fears that gun owners have....

I blame Sang.

(someone had to say it)

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

If the government started seizing weapons, you don't believe that all hell would break loose? The number of shootings could skyrocket under that scenario.

Well you guys are a little stuck as far as the guns go. You can't take them from people. Also the vast majority of gun owners are sane people that don't murder anyone obviously. That said hand guns and assault rifles are a different matter though. It would take years but you have to be able to control the ammunition and phase out sales of some weapons.

But I agree that most of the blame can be put on Sang's shoulders. I didn't want to be the first to state the obvious.

Huh? 😛

Huh? 😛

Can't run for Office and not expect some fire works. But have no fear as we have provided Secret Service protection.

And a School Bus Driver riding around on his Mom's bike.

[Edited on 9/10/2015 by CanadianMule]

It's pretty simple....conservative America simply loves guns because they are cool and fun, and can kill things. They don't care about safety, otherwise they wouldn't pose in a pic holding a gun. They wouldn't subscribe to gun magazines, etc. It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with feeling cool and strong. They also place a greater value on feeling strong than protecting the lives of kindergarteners. Their so-called "rights" to own a gun are more important than rights of those children to live. That 2nd amendment is so awesome until your own loved one is gunned down while shopping in a mall. Everyone has a choice on what they value the most. This is typical of conservatives - lacking the courage of their own convictions - I'm not a bigot, it's freedom of religion. I don't fascinate on killing, I want to protect my family.

As for the cause in a spike in gun crime, i would say irresponsible rhetoric from politicians on both sides, and from the media, is to blame. Nothing makes a nice quick buck as much as one of those exciting mass shootings. Ratings and votes for everyone! Inner city gang crime is way down in Philly.

[Edited on 9/11/2015 by BoytonBrother]

To all of you anti gun Kum by ya singers, you are so far off base you are not even in the game! This Is America if you would rather live in say Russia or China then move there! Anti gun people spout their Crap all the time and yet never say a word about the 500,000 thousand who died at the same time by Alcohol and tobaco yet who is spout crap about getting rid of these two things? NO ONE! that's who.

This country was founded by people because they had guns and because the British tried to disarm us you people need to learn real history not the crap spewed in universities today...

Each country that imposed no firearms on their people ended in a dictatorship and some form of genicide or other foul actions to the people read this with a open mind I am no asking you to like guns or buy one or even look at one but if you are going to complain about the deaths then complain about them all and know the reasons why...

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

By Woody published on September 4, 2015 in Consumer Information

Guest post by TJ Martinell, a blogger and researcher for the Tenth Amendment Center and ShallNot.org. Used with permission.

When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.
hidden-history-1-copy

Researcher and attorney David B. Kopel writes that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party included a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation—similar to gun-control efforts of today. Image courtesy of the Tenth Amendment Center.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”

Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”

Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”

An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

“When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.

Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.

It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.

One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house—where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature—and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.

“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”

Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston—they later turned around once they learned the truth.

Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear:

“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”

Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.

Governor Gage then tried another approach—warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.

In October 1774, the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”

Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.

“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”

Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence:

“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”

The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.

Eventually, Kopel writes, “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”

It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.

Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.

Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.
The Powder House is located near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston. Itâs called a âMagazine.â Image courtesy of the the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Powder House is located near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston. It’s called a “Magazine.” Image courtesy of the Tenth Amendment Center.

But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following:

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”

Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.

“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”

Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.

“Gun ownership simply ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”

It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.

Their reason for disarming American citizens today is the same as that of the British in the 1770s.
This item originally appeared on the Tenth Amendment Center’s blog. Click here to see the original. The Tenth Amendment Center teaches people about the original meaning of the Constitution and leads grassroots coalitions to use nullification as a means to block federal overreach, including 2nd Amendment infringements.

I'd be happy with people owning and carrying all the 1770 firearms they wanted. No problems with that whatsoever.

This Is America if you would rather live in say Russia or China then move there! Anti gun people spout their Crap all the time and yet never say a word about the 500,000 thousand who died at the same time by Alcohol and tobaco yet who is spout crap about getting rid of these two things? NO ONE! that's who.

Actually that statement is absolutely wrong. There are plenty of people trying to get rid of both alcohol and tobacco. They are also having far more success than any anti-gun group especially tobacco. I don't think you thought that statement all the way through.

The US is the murder capital because of guns and to deny that is just plain silly. A simple look at the rates of countries with far stricter gun access is all the proof needed. That said if you are willing to accept the murders for the right to bear arms then so be it. Nothing will ever change your mind except possibly someone close getting shot by some teen/crook who should never have had access to a gun and/or ammunition.

Now if you go beyond murder to include those who were shot and violent crime, the numbers go absolutely through the roof. Again if the number of gun related crimes haven't changed your mind then they never will which is your right.

But it doesn't change the facts and/or statistics. The choice is yours whether or not owning a gun is worth it. The crimes of today and comparisons to the 1700 are not valid unless of course the street gangs of today are the future fathers of Independence.

Your country also restricted guns otherwise the Wild West would be Nation wide and some would argue that it still is.

Also the statement that countries who impose firearm laws ended in dictatorship and genocide is absurd. I know because I live in one and last time that I checked, Canada has no dictators and we are pretty free of genocide. We do however have increased gun crimes. Want to know where the guns are smuggled from?

I'd be happy with people owning and carrying all the 1770 firearms they wanted. No problems with that whatsoever.

I appreciate your sympathy. Really hits home for me. As an unemployed concert cannonist (yes we do exist, believe it or not I'm actually the selfsame cat who did the cannon breaks in Paul Simon's "The Boxer", and my bread and butter is the occasional "1812 Overture" gig) I can tell you it gets really old, people's reactions as I drag my cannon around the streets, especially from the Kum ba ya singers . Lately have been busking, haven't been doing too well on tips. Should hawk it, but it is one of the few titanium musical cannons ever made, by Steinway if you can believe that, I wouldn't be able to get it back. Point being, if there was a law against cannons, it would kill my career prospects. So, thanks, man.

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

You might not be, but a large majority of Americans are, and have proven many times over to be responsible
citizens who own guns.

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

You might not be, but a large majority of Americans are, and have proven many times over to be responsible
citizens who own guns.

I think that is where the collectively as a society part comes in. You could give everyone a rocket launcher and the vast majority would never fire but the few "bad apples" sure are going to make a mess. There is no reason in the world that some nut can access assault rifles and ammunition to go to a school, mall or theater. To tie that in with peoples' right to own a gun is where it gets messed up. No one is hunting with that and you don't need to own one.

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

You might not be, but a large majority of Americans are, and have proven many times over to be responsible
citizens who own guns.

I think that is where the collectively as a society part comes in. You could give everyone a rocket launcher and the vast majority would never fire but the few "bad apples" sure are going to make a mess. There is no reason in the world that some nut can access assault rifles and ammunition to go to a school, mall or theater. To tie that in with peoples' right to own a gun is where it gets messed up. No one is hunting with that and you don't need to own one.

Exactly. And apparently we are willing to accept what is going on as just the price we are willing to pay, collectively, for such easy access to firearms. I am not willing to pay it, but the majority of US citizens are. I am a veteran and handled a variety of weapons on a regular basis. I have the utmost respect for them amd what they can do, wich is exactly what they are mode to do; Kill.

We have collectively proven as a society that we are not responsible enough to have free access to firearms. Take handguns and assault style rifles away from everyone.

You might not be, but a large majority of Americans are, and have proven many times over to be responsible
citizens who own guns.

I think that is where the collectively as a society part comes in. You could give everyone a rocket launcher and the vast majority would never fire but the few "bad apples" sure are going to make a mess. There is no reason in the world that some nut can access assault rifles and ammunition to go to a school, mall or theater. To tie that in with peoples' right to own a gun is where it gets messed up. No one is hunting with that and you don't need to own one.

Exactly. And apparently we are willing to accept what is going on as just the price we are willing to pay, collectively, for such easy access to firearms. I am not willing to pay it, but the majority of US citizens are. I am a veteran and handled a variety of weapons on a regular basis. I have the utmost respect for them amd what they can do, wich is exactly what they are mode to do; Kill.

Exactly!

You might not be, but a large majority of Americans are, and have proven many times over to be responsible citizens who own guns.

Perspective is everything I guess. One might look at the long list of mass shootings (another one yesterday, ho hum) in recent years, the children being killed accidentally by finding dad's loaded unlocked gun, inner-city crime, that we have proven many times over to be embarrassingly irresponsible.