A Principal Cause: Media Violence
More at:http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/ressenate.htm

What? Are bad taste dangerous?
So why do Hollywood and all other entertainment companies export this crap?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

A Principal Cause: Media Violence
More at:http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/ressenate.htm

What? Are bad taste dangerous?
So why do Hollywood and all other entertainment companies export this crap?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

LOL.
To be fair there are some US media voilence that is OK.
For instance Clint Eastwood movies.
In the 80's when renting VHS movies there was a whole rack called "Clintan" in some video stores here.

From the manifesto of the NRA witch use fear and lie's and misrepresented of quotes like " A arm society is a polite society " but forget about BECAUSE THERE ALL FEAR FULL OF A PERSON LOSING THERE TEMPER or in other words Freedom so long as you shut up and don't excerise your right to free speech because someone might lose there temper .

Clyde this is control by the superior . He whom has the most and biggest guns rule.

Everybody else is to fear full to speek up .

A history lesson

Oliver Cromwell decided to take on the King of England he had no weapons or a army but he still beat the King who had a army and weapons . So what you and others say is total b/s

Hitler came to power how and no one stood up or said anything to stop him and that is what the above quotes end up doing

As janne says other country's with gun control have more weapons but less deaths so gun control does not lead to superior's as the one's whom are the superior's are the ones that can afford weapons . That is how oppression works he who has the biggest and most weapons will rule and that will lead to caos or revolutions

---

As for violence from the media or game .

Well that's another lie and exaggeration

recently there has been studio's about this witch show the opposite happening .

People that watch to much violence or play a game that is very voilent acutally become advocates against violence .

It works like this .

People have there own code of ethics and while they watch or play a violent game or show , there is a point where they become so disgusted with them self's at taking pleasure from the voilence that they stop playing or watching the show .

This is also seen on a battlefield when soldiers have seen to much killing and then put there weapon down and refuse to fight

So to now blame Hollywood or lack of cencership is again a lie and wedge politic and once again prove the NRA are not about Freedom but only about protecting the owner of the factory's that make the weapons .

These men sit back and are laughing at the suckers that keep listening to them

---

One of my favorite games is Call of duty and i have notice'd the same thing if i play it to much i become disgusted at the fact i'm enjoying it . I haven't played it for over 3 years

---

----from Wikipedia

Please give a link.

by the numbers
That link says HTTP 404

What gets overlooked is the distribution of type of weapon.
In most countries it is much easier to get a rifle/shotgun than a handgun.
In most countries rifles and shotguns are used for hunting, with real training programs.
In Canada it's very difficult to even own a handgun, let alone transport a gun, even if only to go target practice at a gun-range. There are very few handguns in most countries.
In the USA there are ...

By 2007, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns....http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6676

A lot more handguns than any other country, very easy to obtain, easy to hide.
I'd blame the USA's love affair with with gun-slinging cowboys for it's lax gun laws that allows everyone to get ahold of and carry a handgun if they so fancy.

Do you have stats of legal or illegal weapons?
Dont Think so...

Sweden
Eleven people are detained on suspicion of involvement in the smuggling of weapons. Those who ordered the weapons could go free - ordering illegal guns is not criminal.
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gp.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2F1.2683016-lagligt-kopa-illegala-skjutvapen&edit-text=

And final post i take it the NRA will be against changing the censorship rules right as that will infringe on the constitution .

Nope there not part of the problem are there . They just oppose every measure to try a bring a stop to the deaths or sabbotage it .

well agree to police checks so long as it's only in the state your applying in .

Of course they know that won't work . Live in another state get arrested for domestic voilence and then go across the border where you don't have a record get your licence and buy your weapons then take them back to your home state .

Then they can say LOOK GUN CONTROL DOESN"T WORK WE ALREADY HAVE POLICE CHECKS AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED

Like i said come on suckers buy them guns make me some money .

---

Having a constitution from about the American Revolution saying that a US Citizen have the right to bear arms for protection is ludicrous.
And even concealed weapons.
Make no sense today.
Other countries have a police force to protect Citizens!
Here we cannot walk around with kitchen or carpenters knifes in public without beeing arrested!

Much harder to bring a shotgun or a rifle to a school, or a Chipotles without someone noticing.

Too many incidents in the US that proves that is wrong.

The fact is that the citizens of no other country in the world presently have or have ever had a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You can talk all you want about the unwritten right or the Magna Carta giving the right to take up arms against the King, but where are those arms to come from if only the King's minions have the right to possess them.

That was the problem (among others) that started the American Revolution.

Sorry folks, I'm proud of that right and I along with 200 million (at last count) of my fellow American citizens feel the same. Gun Control in the USA Ain't Gonna' Happen.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Please explain this then or don't you know what history is

Oliver Cromwell decided to take on the King of England he had no weapons or a army but he still beat the King who had a army and weapons . So what you and others say is total b/s

Please explain

---

That was the problem (among others) that started the American Revolution.

you words

Another distortion of the facts .

It wasn't the guns it was the other things that pushed you all to far and you rebell'd just like what happen'd in England it's self with Cromwell

---

Please explain this then or don't you know what history is

Oliver Cromwell decided to take on the King of England he had no weapons or a army but he still beat the King who had a army and weapons . So what you and others say is total b/s

Please explain

It was your statement, you need to explain it. Please cite where stated he had no weapons or army.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

On the outbreak of the First Civil War in August 1642, Cromwell took up arms for Parliament. He led one of the earliest military actions of the war when with 200 lightly-armed volunteers he prevented the King's men from carrying off the silver plate of the Cambridge colleges. Cromwell raised a troop of sixty horsemen and effectively secured Cambridgeshire for Parliament. In October 1642, Cromwell's troop joined the army of the Earl of Essex and was present during the later stages of the battle of Edgehill. The superiority of the Royalist horse impressed upon Cromwell the need for a well-trained Parliamentarian cavalry corps. Returning to East Anglia, he was careful to recruit only "godly, honest men" as his troopers and to lead them with firm discipline.

He had to build his own army and he had to get his own weapons . he did not have amry but built one the same with the weapons . While the Kings men where well armed and was a trained army .

And you can read the rest of it your self i'm shore you will be able to distort the facts so here you are .

http://bcw-project.org/biography/oliver-cromwell

---

I have read it Glenn......but just to recap you stated "Oliver Cromwell decided to take on the King of England he had no weapons or a army but he still beat the King who had a army and weapons . So what you and others say is total b/s"

Where what you cited states "Cromwell took up arms for Parliament. He led one of the earliest military actions of the war when with 200 lightly-armed volunteers"...that would seem to say they were an army and were armed albeit lightly.

Here's a little more light reading on the background to the 2nd Amendment..http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. ...more

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Sorry folks, I'm proud of that right and I along with 200 million (at last count) of my fellow American citizens feel the same. Gun Control in the USA Ain't Gonna' Happen.
____________

Thirsty in the long run that's not a viable position, you should not watch as many Clint Eastwood movies as you seem to do.

---

Ok let's put the NRA to a little test shall we .

This proposal will not change or require a change to your constitution or you will not need to amend the 4th.

You have stated that to buy a tank you need to apply to a organisation starting with B and then have F.B.I checks .

Is not a assault rifle a military weapon ?

So place theses weapons under that system . You can still buy and use them but you will need to jump through a few hoops . if it's ok to do that with a Tank you should have no objections to it . Assault rifles are military weapons .

---

dg6580004 I do understand it and why i said it was not the guns it was already a tense situation and the banning of guns a gunpowder was the last straw to break the Camels back . I put it to you had the king lisened to many of the other problems you would not have thought you needed the weapons and the King would not have figured you where about to rebel and banned the weapons .

So it was not just the banning of guns it was all the things that lead up to that point . I might not live in your country or know all the history but i do know enough not to have a distorted view of what happen'd

---

So place theses weapons under that system . You can still buy and use them but you will need to jump through a few hoops . if it's ok to do that with a Tank you should have no objections to it . Assault rifles are military weapons.

Glenn, I think there is a definition problem here with the term 'Assault Rifle'

Webster Dictionary says "a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military".http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle

Wiki says "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Further.. United States Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."

The common theme is rapid fire or selective fire. An M-16 is not an AR-15 due to the selective fire feature being left off the AR. A legally owned AR and similar detachable magazine guns cannot be fired any faster than a semi-automatic 30-06 hunting rifle.

All fully automatic weapons are not allowed to be legally owned by the general public and are nationally registered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and classed under Title II.

Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term."[25] Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm."[4] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a media invention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

And as I have repeatedly stated, fully automatic weapons are not allowed to be carried by anyone except law enforcement or military ON DUTY.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

So it was not just the banning of guns it was all the things that lead up to that point

Correct, but with the 2nd Amendment that possibility (banning guns)is negated. The 'King' can't take away our only final protection against tyranny and despots. Someone posted several months ago that what good would armed civilians do against an invasion or suppression of freedoms? What that poster failed to realize is that those armed civilians are composed of a good many battle hardened Veterans of two Gulf Wars and some older battle hardened Veterans from South East Asia.

I think we would make a very good accounting of ourselves.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>