A Principal Cause: Media Violence

More at:http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/ressenate.htm

You are joking right? That report is utter nonsense. Heavy metal causes violence? Playing games causes violence?

You know that study after study after study show that games, and to a greater degree the media does not cause violence right?

Perhaps not cite a study from 1999.

True.

Lead poisoning is actually a more likely factor.

Well technically lead is a heavy metal, so they got that part right :P

True.
Lead poisoning is actually a more likely factor.

Well technically lead is a heavy metal, so they got that part right :P

Buck shoots are lead bullets.
Once I ate a hare that had one piece in it and I could spit it out.
Lucky me...

Giron was recalled, but Rivera did not make it mich more than 13 months, being beaten by Garcia. While Morse was also recalled, his replacement was of the same party.

The beautiful part about the Giron recall was that it was a true grass roots movement. Very little funding and done out of a garage. That's TRUE democracy at work. I worked for the Hudak recall effort which was rendered moot by her 'abdication' to avoid embarrassment.

LOL. Grass roots, out of a garage. That explains the campers, eh?

LOL. Grass roots, out of a garage. That explains the campers, eh?

Pueblo Freedom and Rights...http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2013/06/giron-recall-effort-delivers-petitions-sets-stage-for-second-gun-battle/

---

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

Sigh...

An awful lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread... Not to mention 'off topic'...

Starting with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

This amendment is ALL ABOUT the People's right to firearms involving MILITARY firearms and uses of firearms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Now then, what is the militia?

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313

Both of these are from *CURRENT* US Federal Law.

All able-bodied male citizens (and candidates for naturalization) between 17 and 45 (and in some cases 64) ARE members of the militia, as well as all women in the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment directly applies to them, and by extension to everyone else (the older must train the younger, etc.).

Now, as to the meaning of well-regulated.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists as meaning 2B of the word 'regulate' v.:

b. To calibrate, adjust, or control (a timepiece or other mechanism) in order to ensure accurate or proper working.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/161422?rskey=71HmMK&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

This is a very applicable meaning. After all, one desires to hit what one is shooting at, and only through frequent practice is this possible.

The National Rifle Association has been mentioned. Its original purpose, and still a MAIN purpose today, is as follows:

A Brief History of the NRA

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

http://home.nra.org/history/document/about

The US Military was primarily State Militia based until the first decade of the 20th Century. Even today, State Militias are a large component of the US Military, with about 465,000 members out of the 2.2 million total (about 20%), and have seen heavy use in areas such as the Iraq War(s).

The armed citizenry serves a dual purpose. 1st, to help repel foreign invasion, and 2nd (the one most here will violently disagree with), to help prevent Federal Government tyranny over the States.

I know most here refuse to believe this function of an armed citizenry, so I will quote from an historical document that specifically mentions this.

James Madison was a principle author of the US Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, as well as the 4th President of the United States. Along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, under the pseudonym of 'Publius', he wrote and published a series of essays in support of adopting the US Constitution. This Series of essays is known as the 'Federalist Papers'. Federalist #46:

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:
...
On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.

The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
...
PUBLIUS.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html

Now then, the 2nd Amendment is part of the US Constitution, therefore it needs to be obeyed. If a US Citizen disagrees with it, they are free to lobby their Representatives in the House, and their State's Senators. If enough people do this, then Congress can draft an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and send it to the States for ratification. Then if 34 State Governments ratify it, it goes into effect. But good luck on getting this done, since an armed populace is virtually the LAST dagger the State Governments have at the throat of the Federal Government to guard against Federal tyranny, and the State Governments know it.

Now then, on to 'military' weapons, esp. 'assault weapons'.

Some members of the US Military are issued and do use handguns as their service weapons.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html

There is some confusion as to the term 'assault rifle'. The standard meaning of 'assault rifle' is

noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault+rifle

The military 'assault rifles' are capable of either fully automatic fire (hold down trigger, and rifle continues to fire until ammo is exhausted) or burst mode fire (one trigger pull fires multiple shots, often 3 shots).

The nonmilitary, or civilian, versions are only semi-automatic (one trigger pull fires one shot). The ONLY real difference between these civilian 'assault rifles' and other civilian rifles are in magazine size and cosmetic features. In the past, there has been regulation of magazine size. Perhaps it should be done again (it was not repealed, but instead it expired). But the cosmetic features? They don't make the rifle any more deadly. Why do they matter? Maybe they might make the weapon LOOK a little more 'scary' to some people. Other than that, it is not an issue.

Most hunting rifles use MILITARY cartridge cases, but civilian loads and bullets. The MOST popular hunting rife ammo in the USA is the '30-06'. In 1903, the Springfield Armory designed an infantry rifle known today as an "'03 Springfield". In 1906, the ammo it used was redesigned to correct a few design issues. It became known as the 30-06. The 03 Springfield saw use in WWI as a primary infantry rifle, and in WWII as a special use rifle (for instance some snipers). In WWII, the M1 Garand (also used the 30-06 ammo) was the main infantry rifle in use, and it saw limited use in conflicts since then.

Another popular hunting ammo is the .308 Winchester. The .308 is VERY similar to the 7.62x51 NATO. Generally speaking, quality 7.62x51 NATO ammo can be fired in a .308 Winchester rifle without issue, but not the other way around. A major difference is the .308 Winchester is designed for a maximum pressure of 62,000 PSI, and the 7.62x51 NATO is only designed for 50,000 PSI. Also, the 7.62x51 NATO is SLIGHTLY longer by 0.005 inch by specifications, though most are made to fit the .308 Winchester as well. Other than that, they are the same round. Note: the civilian .308 is a LOT higher powered than the military 7.62x51 NATO.

Other popular hunting ammo has had military origins and use, as well.

Another difference between civilian and standard military ammo is in the bullet design. The military uses full metal jacketing on their bullets, while civilian hunting bullets have exposed lead at the tip and possibly other features to facilitate bullet 'mushrooming' expansion. Note: the use of these civilian bullets in military weapons is considered too barbaric and is outlawed by international agreement. Also note: this makes civilian ammo a LOT more deadly to unarmored targets than military ammo.


Much has been said about conversion of civilian weapons to 'full auto'. Converting a weapon to full auto or even just making the part(s) required to convert one to full auto counts under federal law as 'making' an automatic weapon, meaning even higher requirements than just for legally owning one.

Civilian ownership, possession and use of 'full auto' and 'burst mode' weapons are HEAVILY regulated by federal law. The permit is not exactly easy to get, and has a heavy burden of recordkeeping and background checks (both State AND Federal). These permits require BOTH approval from the Federal Authorities and from either the County Sheriff or the city Chief of Police (and many of these local officials have a policy of NOT APPROVING anyone).

Most of the criminals that desire automatic weapons are going to buy those smuggled in and sold on the illegal black market. Much cheaper, no records, less likelyhood of being caught through records. But ANY criminal that goes out to buy a weapon from "John Q. Public's Guns and Ammo" (a legal establishment) is stupid in the extreme and is going to almost certainly get caught.

Some in this thread have made the observation that people in the USA seem to be more violent than people in some other parts of the world. Of course we are. The reason is cultural, and it Britain's fault.

Many posting in this thread are familiar with Australia's history as a penal colony of Britain. Well, they only started using Australia this way when their Penal Colony in the 'New World' became... unavailable.

The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

We got the worst here in the USA, and this has had a profound effect on making our culture more violent. Sorry Australia. You guys just got the sloppy seconds. <Grin>.

The end result is that the remaining British in the UK have a higher than normal respect for authority, Australia has a somewhat lower respect for authority, and here in the USA we tend to say 'Eff you!' to authority, like we did to Britain back in 1776...

Now then, back to the subject of the thread...

James Boulware.

He is, in my opinion, a nutjob. He had a run-in with the law back in 2013 in Paris and Dallas Texas involving domestic violence. The language of the news reports leads me to believe it was settled with a deferred adjudication agreement. Now then, what many of you may not be aware of is that in Texas, in addition to any 'felony', even misdemeanors involving domestic violence lead to loss of gun rights... permanently. Any sort of conviction. Even a no-contest plea and deferred adjudication won't stop the loss. Well, you can get a pardon from the Governor, but Gov. Perry has not been overly generous with pardons in these cases, and current Gov. Abbot is even less inclined to give pardons in these cases, since his time as Attorney General of Texas when he championed the rights of victims of domestic violence.


So, any gun he had during this attack on the Dallas, Texas Police HQ is going to be TOTALLY illegal. So no amount of Gun Control is EVER going to make a difference in cases like this. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting illegal guns. Gun control can ONLY restrict the guns available to law-abiding citizens. The criminals are going to get ahold of guns in other, illegal ways. You want to help the problem? We need to have better control of our borders. It is almost trivial to smuggle things and even people into the USA. A whole lot of border, not enough Border Patrol and Customs agents.

Mr. Boulware's firearms were illegal. Mr. Boulware's explosives were illegal. When he attacked the Dallas police with his guns (The HQ building, at least one police car), his vehicle (rammed a police car), and his explosives (explosives set in the parking lot of the police HQ, plus others reportedly in his possession... He (Mr. Boulware) got EXACTLY what was coming to him... Being rendered dead by the police (shot with a 50 caliber rifle by a police sniper, then given several hours to bleed out just in case he survived the shot, on the pretext that he had other explosives on him -- which he claimed to).

A crazy person doing a crazy thing... and got made dead over it. End.. Of.. Story.

LOL. Grass roots, out of a garage. That explains the campers, eh?

Pueblo Freedom and Rights...http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2013/06/giron-recall-effort-delivers-petitions-sets-stage-for-second-gun-battle/

The Colorado Observer is a well-known ideological web version of a rag. It is propaganda. Here is visual proof of the truth I spoke. (Zoom your page momentarily to see it better.)

The guy that started the recall



thought he'd been so successful that he'd seek office a year later. He failed to win the election.

The guy he helped to bring in to replace Giron



had an admission on his own website that while an infant he was brought to the USA as illegal immigrant. (Somehow, his family elf-deporting, then "coming back and doing it 'right'" is supposed to make it all ok.)

His 5 or 6 point "platform" was so short, it should've been insult to all voters.

He was replaced in about a year by

Sarge I guess I'm missing your meaning with regards to the camper and the Giron recall. I didn't see anything significant in the photo.

---

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

Sarge I guess I'm missing your meaning with regards to the camper and the Giron recall. I didn't see anything significant in the photo.

I know, the AR15 on the flag is normal.

---

...

The end result is that the remaining British in the UK have a higher than normal respect for authority, Australia has a somewhat lower respect for authority, and here in the USA we tend to say 'Eff you!' to authority, like we did to Britain back in 1776...

...

As a British person I can tell you this is a load of total codswallop. The British people are very capable of saying 'eff you! to authority and do so regularly.

---

Reality Internet Personality

As a British person I can tell you this is a load of total codswallop. The British people are very capable of saying 'eff you! to authority and do so regularly.

As a non Briton but have stayed in Britain some time and have relatives there I can say that they are not.
They are very much like us Scandinavias not to 'eff you! to an authority.
Behave:)

Oh look we got two non British people telling British people what their culture is like.

As a British person I can tell you this is a load of total codswallop. The British people are very capable of saying 'eff you! to authority and do so regularly.

As a non Briton but have stayed in Britain some time and have relatives there I can say that they are not.
They are very much like us Scandinavias not to 'eff you! to an authority.
Behave:)

British people behave when they think it is necessary for a peaceful life...but we take the streets when authority oversteps its mark.

It is not about a respect for authority, it is about an understanding that we have to do certain things to respect other people. If you want to compare that to Americans who appear to us to be very "me..me...me". If you want to interpret that is telling Authority to "eff" off go ahead. The two are not the same.

And British Culture is nothing like Swedish culture in that respect.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh look we got two non British people telling British people what their culture is like.

Hmmm.
I have as a non Briton been in England.
Maybe its different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I'm not telling British people what their culture is like.
They are telling me.
Even in my home country!
Behave!

@ES99 "And British Culture is nothing like Swedish culture in that respect".
How do you know that?
British Culture is very much like Swedish Culture.
For good and worse.
We share a lot of common things.
Language, alcohol, silly jokes, Not beeing in the EMU, BBC, UKIP, Svennis, Glen Hysen, Henke Larsson...
More than the brits want to know:)

Oh look we got two non British people telling British people what their culture is like.

Hmmm.
I have as a non Briton been in England.
Maybe its different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I'm not telling British people what their culture is like.
They are telling me.
Even in my home country!
Behave!

I'm British, Jannesti.

I come from a country where people do things like take a chainsaw to parking metres every night to stop the local government installing them in area's where parking used to be free.

I come from a country where too many speed cameras were installed so people used to go out at night and take them down.

I come from a country where if the police are seen to be publicly abusing someone, random passers by will stop and tell them off.

I come from a county where if an unfair law is passed, people of all ages will go out and protest.

I come from a country where if a politician is behaving badly no matter how senior they are, members of the public will go up and give them a dressing down.

So just because we don't need to carry guns to make ourselves heard, doesn't mean we don't know when to say "Eff you" to authority. In fact unlike petulant children, we know when it is actually appropriate to do so.

---

Reality Internet Personality

So just because we don't need to carry guns to make ourselves heard, doesn't mean we don't know when to say "Eff you" to authority. In fact unlike petulant children, we know when it is actually appropriate to do so.

Sounds very much like Scandinavian behaviour.
Lots of guns but not used to kill persons and "Effing you" to authorities when its appropriate.

...

The end result is that the remaining British in the UK have a higher than normal respect for authority, Australia has a somewhat lower respect for authority, and here in the USA we tend to say 'Eff you!' to authority, like we did to Britain back in 1776...

...

As a British person I can tell you this is a load of total codswallop. The British people are very capable of saying 'eff you! to authority and do so regularly.

Maybe Es with us Brit's respect has got to be "earned" , im 41 and I don't know anybody that will call a policeman "sir" just coz they wear a uniform . Ive told em to f-off plenty of times , and ive punched a policeman to the ground when he grabbed me from behind when I was at a cashpoint and he didn't say . Just grabbed me so I swung . No Charges pressed and no F-ing apology from him either !!

Sarge I guess I'm missing your meaning with regards to the camper and the Giron recall. I didn't see anything significant in the photo.

Why is it difficult to understand? If it was, as claimed, grassroots from that side, that would mean it was free of outsiders on that side. Is it normal for someone to travel 5 miles ... yes, 5 ... 10 at best ... to set up a location for signing petitions in a WalMart parking lot ... drive that 5 to 10 miles in a camper?

Sarge I guess I'm missing your meaning with regards to the camper and the Giron recall. I didn't see anything significant in the photo.

Why is it difficult to understand? If it was, as claimed, grassroots from that side, that would mean it was free of outsiders on that side. Is it normal for someone to travel 5 miles ... yes, 5 ... 10 at best ... to set up a location for signing petitions in a WalMart parking lot ... drive that 5 to 10 miles in a camper?

The restrooms are for customers only!

---

Why is it difficult to understand? If it was, as claimed, grassroots from that side, that would mean it was free of outsiders on that side. Is it normal for someone to travel 5 miles ... yes, 5 ... 10 at best ... to set up a location for signing petitions in a WalMart parking lot ... drive that 5 to 10 miles in a camper?

grassroots
[gras-roots, -roo ts, grahs-]

Examples
Word Origin

noun, (used with a singular or plural verb). Also, grass roots
1.the common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file.
2.the agricultural and rural areas of a country.
3.the people inhabiting these areas, especially as a political, social, or economic group.
4.the origin or basis of something; the basic or primary concept, rule, part, or the like.
adjective, Also, grass-roots
5.of, relating to, or involving the common people, especially as contrasted with or separable from an elite: a grassroots movement for nuclear disarmament. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Grassroots

Are we discussing the same word? The above I think would apply to the volunteers who drove the 5 or 10 miles to assist the effort. You don't have congressional districts that large in your area?

I still don't see where you're going with this.

---

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