Really? You think the non-US citizens posting here feel the way you describe? Couldn't be anything else, could it?

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

Ernest Hemingway comes to mind...
An American author who was very in to European politics!
http://www.biography.com/people/ernest-hemingway-9334498

The big boss speaks

Oh I love that chart. Lets put something else up there that causes preventable deaths too. Tobacco.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ wrote:

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

1300 people a day slaughtered by tobacco. Tobacco doesn't have a second amendment to protect it. Where are the news stories about this horrific slaughter that happens every day in America?!!!

When you have successfully banned tobacco then put up booze on that chart.

---

The big boss speaks

Oh I love that chart. Lets put something else up there that causes preventable deaths too. Tobacco.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ wrote:

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

1300 people a day slaughtered by tobacco. Tobacco doesn't have a second amendment to protect it. Where are the news stories about this horrific slaughter that happens every day in America?!!!

When you have successfully banned tobacco then put up booze on that chart.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics comes to mind.
Yes. tobacco and alcohol makes your life shorter.
But there are so many other things that makes your life shorter.
Depression is a BIG killer.
Depressed people tend to use tobacco and alcohol more than others.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

So it would appear that until recent times, the right to bear arms was restricted to common use weapons that could be used in an organised malitia.

Therefore if the US were to overturn all the decisions made due to the pressure by the NRA and similar groups, you can keep your rifles and shotguns, not sawn off ones, for hunting etc and for use in your local organised malitia and get rid of all other firearms, because they are not covered by the 2nd ammendment.

@brutus, I did not suggest banning the police, I just pointed out that by your examples YOU should consider banning the police because of numbers killed by the police so far this year.

Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Thats a lot!
321 million people in the US.
If there would be 1000 killed by firearm per year in Sweden with 10 million people...
We have 46 deaths per year.
And thats the record:)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2F46-dodsskjutningar-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar&edit-text=

Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Thats a lot!
321 million people in the US.
If there would be 1000 killed by firearm per year in Sweden with 10 million people...
We have 46 deaths per year.
And thats the record:)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2F46-dodsskjutningar-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar&edit-text=

You failed to mention that 2/3 were suicides. I imagine that most of them would have tried a different method if a gun were not available.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The big boss speaks

Oh I love that chart. Lets put something else up there that causes preventable deaths too. Tobacco.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ wrote:

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

1300 people a day slaughtered by tobacco. Tobacco doesn't have a second amendment to protect it. Where are the news stories about this horrific slaughter that happens every day in America?!!!

When you have successfully banned tobacco then put up booze on that chart.

Indeed, where are those news stories?

Warning, the linked video is from an HBO show, and contains language not permitted on network TV.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Thats a lot!
321 million people in the US.
If there would be 1000 killed by firearm per year in Sweden with 10 million people...
We have 46 deaths per year.
And thats the record:)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2F46-dodsskjutningar-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar&edit-text=

You failed to mention that 2/3 were suicides.

That's sounds better.
Or does it?
I think many of them have seen too many Ingemar Bergman movies...

Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Thats a lot!
321 million people in the US.
If there would be 1000 killed by firearm per year in Sweden with 10 million people...
We have 46 deaths per year.
And thats the record:)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2F46-dodsskjutningar-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar&edit-text=

You failed to mention that 2/3 were suicides. I imagine that most of them would have tried a different method if a gun were not available.

The question then is would these people have committed suicide if the easy option of using a gun were not available. Because a quick look at suicides per capita says the US rate is double that of the UK.

And you do realise that each year in the US 10 times more people are killed by firearms than died on 9/11. If nothing else compare how much money was spent combating that terrorism threat to what has been spent finding solutions to the shocking gun related deaths.

Some interesting graphs on CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/

it is not the number of weapons or there surculation it is the number of elegaly
possed weapons in the hands of people that should never have been allowed to keep them that is the biggest problem.
that and the police are constrained to not do anything untill a crime has been comitted.
it is sad but well armed well trained teachers would likely end the school shootings.

---

Some interesting graphs on CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/

Switzerland, Sweden and Finland is also on that list:)
In Finland there was a mass shooting in a school some years ago.
But that was an exception.

it is not the number of weapons or there surculation it is the number of elegaly
possed weapons in the hands of people that should never have been allowed to keep them that is the biggest problem.
that and the police are constrained to not do anything untill a crime has been comitted.
it is sad but well armed well trained teachers would likely end the school shootings.

And how long is it going to before some harassed teacher blows a gasket and kills half the class?

you are 5 times more likely to be killed by a doctors bad disision in a hospital
3 times more likely to be killed by someone elses car where is the outrage for that?

---

it is not the number of weapons or there surculation it is the number of elegaly
possed weapons in the hands of people that should never have been allowed to keep them that is the biggest problem.
that and the police are constrained to not do anything untill a crime has been comitted.
it is sad but well armed well trained teachers would likely end the school shootings.

And how long is it going to before some harassed teacher blows a gasket and kills half the class?

Not long.

Peter Harvey: science teacher 'possessed' during dumbbell class attack

I'm sure the outcome would have been so much better if the teacher were armed with a gun.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oregon shooting occurred in state that 'actually forces colleges to allow guns'

"In the Umpqua case, though, at least one student (and likely others) was carrying a concealed weapon during the massacre. Needless to say, this did not prevent the tragedy.

An armed Umpqua student, John Parker Jr, explained just how difficult, if not impossible, it would have been for an armed bystander to stop the attack.

“The Swat team wouldn’t know who we were, and if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think we were bad guys,” he told MSNBC.

Another reason college administrators tend to support banning firearms on campus is insurance. A rash of state bills to allow guns in classrooms followed the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, but according to Jennifer Lynch, spokesperson at the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, most were ultimately voted down because insurance companies refused to cover schools with more guns or charged sky-high rates.

“Insurance companies aren’t emotional or political, they look only at the risk,” she said. “They know the risk of having armed people on campus increases the risk of gun injuries and gun deaths.” "

---

Reality Internet Personality

What I find interesting is Chris Mintz was not killed because he fought back for his life and others. With his training and background had he been armed it might have ended there. There are former/retired military/LEOs teaching in most every US school these days with more to come. ;) If allowed it could make a difference.

The fixing of all this will take generations if ever. In the mean time I choose to defend myself and those around me.

“Insurance companies aren’t emotional or political, they look only at the risk,” she said. “They know the risk of having armed people on campus increases the risk of gun injuries and gun deaths.”

With so many current events lately they might want to check their math again.? There will be more litigation over not protecting the $tudent$ enough. In$urance is a for profit business don't forget that.

---

...

What I find interesting is Chris Mintz was not killed because he fought back for his life and others. With his training and background had he been armed it might have ended there. There are former/retired military/LEOs teaching in most every US school these days with more to come. ;) If allowed it could make a difference.

The fixing of all this will take generations if ever. In the mean time I choose to defend myself and those around me.

“Insurance companies aren’t emotional or political, they look only at the risk,” she said. “They know the risk of having armed people on campus increases the risk of gun injuries and gun deaths.”

With so many current events lately they might want to check their math again.? There will be more litigation over not protecting the $tudent$ enough. In$urance is a for profit business don't forget that.

As long as you do industry standard however inadequate you are protected from suit. Same applies to securing PII online.

---

As long as you do industry standard however inadequate you are protected from suit. Same applies to securing PII online.

Industry Standards change with events.

They are always changing and evolving.

The best thing with Industry Standards is that there are soo many to choose from:)
Metric versus imperial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber
I prefer 7.62 mm and 9 mm.

The cold fact is there are over 100 million legal gun owners here(probably a lot more)who will oppose any onerous restriction of our rights to do so. Every time the Prevaricator in Chief starts his oral diarrhea threatening to ban guns, the manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and all related products smile all the way to the bank and the membership in the NRA and the community of gun owners increases.

Australian/British style gun control will never happen in the USA.

I have three guns and agree we need better gun laws especially around straw sales inside and outside gun shows and back ground checks.

I have NO problem whatesoever with a license that needs to be renewed every 3 years and a safety and usage testing that must be passed to obtain a gun license. It doesn't restrict the right to own a gun but limits it from people who fail to show the ability to use it safely since they are violating the other citizens' rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Voting and gun ownership are equal level citizen rights in the U.S. and I don't see why gun ownership should be treated any differently than voting. If we are required to have I.D.s and have our voting regulated then gun ownership can be similarly regulated.

EDIT: I missed this later post

Additionally I feel an FBI background check should be performed and a permit system established for each person wishing to purchase firearms that would be good for a stated period of time, say 5 years, and require renewal after that period. This could be done in concert with a National Concealed Carry permit honored by all US States and Territories. Once instituted, a national 'Stop and Frisk' law could be enacted to allow Law Enforcement to remove unlicensed concealed firearms from Society.

We have some agreement and I am glad to see you propose this although a national Stop and Frisk law where police can stop and frisk randomly anyone in order to search for concealed weapons would never pass constitutional 4th amendment test. The constitution would have to be amended and *I* wouldn't want to live in that kind of police state nor do I think any Oath Keeper, who are strong 2nd amendment rights supporters, would either.

---

We have some agreement and I am glad to see you propose this although a national Stop and Frisk law where police can stop and frisk randomly anyone in order to search for concealed weapons would never pass constitutional 4th amendment test. The constitution would have to be amended and *I* wouldn't want to live in that kind of police state nor do I think any Oath Keeper, who are strong 2nd amendment rights supporters, would either.

I wouldn't like Stop and Frisk, but I think it is needed to remove illegally carried weapons. It worked in New York City for many years until 'Big Bird' decided it wasn't good for his image. Result: Crime and shooting increase since he took office. I also don't like Colorado's background check law which prevents me selling an extra older gun I don't use to a family member without paying for the right to do so, and not at all if they live in another state. That is overreach. But I live with it.

---

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