Barry Manilow can afford it!

"bury" then,,,something about snow or snowed, something along those lines......

Hey Kenny u keepin it socialist ?

He probably can but Manilows music is not bad enough to have someone gunning for him so I have no idea why you brought him up but it reinforces my previous statements about your weird off tangent posts. I guess this will be a new thread. "Why Does Barry Manilow Need Protections?"

Couldn't address the post could you kenny. Instead another deflection by the left to protect Dear Leader.

Barry Bonds can afford it too!

You obviously live in opposite world!

kenny I live in reality. You live in a world blaming a misnamed tool for human actions. Talk about delusional. I like the new KKK nametag I hung on those I describe. It is fitting.

Obviously you know nothing about the KKK either!

they didn't respect their elders
how do they experience history ?

Good question!

What's to know? Idiots, oppressive, hate group, constantly working to keep one segment of the country down, for themselves but no, I am not an authority like Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was but one does not need to have a doctorate in that subject to recognize the type.

Senator Byrd is dead, whats your excuse?

Yes I am aware hence my use of the past tense in my post. You ARE slightly delusional aren't you kenny. Better be careful, this may disqualify you from having your Russian toys when your savior requires that the government knows all about you.

Sounds like a post from a Rush blog, LOL :)

Right on, J J! Might as well ask why no one ever attacks a police station. I'll tell ya why. Because they're pussies. Put the fear of painful death in their minds and they cower down like the little children they are.

By the way, the term "libtard" is a term I've wanted to use but I've avoided, because I know I'm better than stooping down to the libtard level of name calling.

You're inciting violence.

I have heard you before. I hope you are more interesting this time.

If the person is up to using Righ Winger like a bad word and an insult, then they are asking to be called a libtard. Respect is given when it's presented. You don't get any respect for being kind to them. They've trampled so many who have been.

Police station is a great point.

How many vacuum cleaners lose suction at a Dyson show?

OSLER: He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.

Now this is a friend to Gabby Giffords' shooter---he may be biased some but what I find interesting is that he says the shooter ( I never use the murdering scumbag's name) didn't listen to political radio.T guess they were tied at the tit or something for him to make that assertion.

Sorry, did you know him well enough to suggest otherwise?

No.

And if guns are terrible, then a gunshow would be the most unsafe place ever.

I blame Obama for the Hurricane.

You see him when they short change him at the super market, it's like the apocalypse and a tax audit rolled into one.

Now that's comedy.

I'm playing the liberal game.

Really it's just like Obama being asked a question at not a press conference.

Do you know him well enough to know otherwise ?
NO.

I never been but let me ask, do they let people there come with loaded guns or handle loaded guns?

If guns are evil, then a lot of them in one place would be a terrible location. And yet...

Your questions don't matter. If the premise is they're vile then the outcome of any gun show would be bloodshed.

Therefore liberals are wrong about blaming guns. Always.

LOL !!

Does the space between the L and the first ! have any significance?

The guns are an object----the proposal is to remove as may from the reach of evil assholes regardless of any description that can be attributed to them:

man, woman, young, old rich, poor, black, white, smart, stupid, Liberal, right-winger( here I repeat myself because I already said stupid)They have proven irresponsible so the object of their obsession should be denied.

Sure. And it's worked so well for Chicago.

England has the higher violent crime rate per 100,000 person than does America. What exactly has worked?

Edit: and that's why Europe was the breading ground for Hitler.

Please provide a link. A cursory on line search dispels your claim.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

“England has the higher violent crime rate per 100,000 person than does America.”

Oh, that old chestnut again. First of all “violent crime rates” are notoriously unreliable (willingness to report being just one factor)

But this thread is about gun control. So let’s stick to the topic:

Gun deaths (incl. accident/suicide) per 100,000
UK 0.25
US 10.2

Gun homicides per 100,000
UK 0.04
US 3.7

Total number of gun homicides
UK (2011) 58
US (2011) 8,583

By way of comparison: Overall homicides per 100,000
UK 1.2
US 4.8

Total number of homicides:
UK (2011) 551
US (2011) 12,664

No matter how you look at it, firearm-related deaths are multiple times higher in the US than in the UK per capita. And so are murder rates, with or without firearms.

Finally:
US law enforcement officers shot and killed 532 people in 2012 alone.
UK police have shot and killed 9 people since 1980.

Which country has the more violent culture?

Yes. You are correct, jackhole.
Multiple sites / statistics confirm this.
See my response to JJ.

"...and that's why Europe was the breading ground for Hitler." [sic]

Complete non-sequitur. Why invoke Godwin's law here?

Hitler's rise to power was due to a combination of mass unemployment, hyperinflation, the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty, a disunited government... many factors; none of them even remotely related to present-day (or past) levels of violent crime in England.

You lumped all gun deaths together. Which is wrong, considering it matters.

And violent death count matters. If guns are horrible, then America should be higher than The UK and it's not. That's why you have to pull out numbers without meaning behind them, which the video linked blows everything you said out of the water.

I like how you say it's unreliable because it makes you wrong.

Nope. It's on par. Europe was ran so horribly it created Hitler. Not only did they as a whole create him, they incubated him and allowed him to gain power.

Yes it does. England has to control it's population. Every little thing it does or else what's going to happen?

Bad things happen. You can't legislate them away. As THE EU has shown, The UK is the most violent of all any member.

Thanks for the link to that article.

You might also be interested in knowing that even the UK police don't want guns.
(They are unarmed; though we do have some specialist armed units, deployed only for specific tasks)

In 2006, the Police Federation conducted a poll to determine opinion within their ranks on the possibility of introducing an armed police force in the UK:

83% of serving police officers stated that they preferred to remain unarmed.
56% of serving police officers stated that they would resign if ordered to carry a gun.

"... violent death count matters. If guns are horrible, then America should be higher than The UK and it's not..."

I think you ought to re-read those figures.
I included all homicides, not just gun homicides.
Both are far, far higher in the US than the UK.

"You lumped all gun deaths together."
No, I didn't.

“…violent death count matters…”

Oh wait… oh, no… the penny drops… it just occurred to me – and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this – that maybe you actually think “violent crime” means “violent death”. Is that possible, JJ?

No wonder you think the UK is such a scary place! LOL!

You seem terribly confused about Europe.
Have you ever considered visiting?
Travel does broaden the mind, you know,

Truth from FOX NEWS? What lie are you trying to push--FOX NEWS is lies and that is the truth.

Nope.

You must think Violent crime means hugs and lots of Doctor Who.

You must be confused about America. Have you ever been here longer than a vacation? They have homeless shelters, you know.

You didn't include what the gun deaths were actually. Hence why my video is way better than your need to have vague numbers.

Where's your facts on that other than hate?

"How many gun shootings happened at gun shows?"
Never seen a one. Also never seen any cross word or violence at a shooting match. In fact, I see more violence in accepted sports than at gun events.
Good observation on the libtards treatment of Rush. Don't ever expect an apology. They do that stuff and move on to find another target, or the same one, for their hatred.

Oh, alright. Since you’ve asked more than once:

Gun deaths per 100,000 in UK / US
Overall: 0.25 / 10.2
Homicide: 0.04 / 3.7
Suicice: 0.17 / 6.1
Unintentional: 0.01 / 0.2
Undeteremined: 0.02 / 0.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Okay? Better now?
(Oh -- and please don't diss this Wikipedia article. It does provide links to the original sources. I only cited it because the stats were all in one place there, whereas I had looked them out separately before.)

BTW: the overall (2011) gun death rates I cited were the same as those cited in your video -- yet you claim the numbers cited in the video are "way better"? How so?

(Piers Morgan, btw, was citing the gun death rates for 2010, so he wasn't entirely wrong either)

As for "violent crime" -- well, that includes everything from common assault to sexual assault, robbery, domestic violence, barroom brawls, football hooliganism, rioting... you name it.

"Violent crime" cannot be held up as a comparison with actual homicide figures, which are very low in the UK compared to the US. Plus, they are notoriously unreliable (due to un/willingness to report certain crimes).

That's ok kenny. Many of your posts sound like missives right out of the Communist Party website.

"How many vacuum cleaners lose suction at a Dyson show?"

Huh.

"Oh, that old chestnut again. "

I love it when the libtards do this. Soo dismissive.
Violent crime is violent crime. The fact is that violent crime in the UK, including B&Es and burglaries, went up after people could not defend themselves. A person does not need a gun to defend themselves against another gun exclusively. Numbers, age, sex, size all come into it. What this current "gun control" push is about is restricting guns, period. It has nothing to do with reducing crime. The libs have this bone in their teeth, the same on they have been running with for 40 years that I can remember. They do not feel that people should have the means of self defense.

Actually, violent crime in the UK has been falling continuously for years.

"Offences of violence against the person recorded by the police showed a 6% decrease compared with the previous year, continuing the decline seen since 2006/07..

Crime Prevention Minister Jeremy Browne said the statistics showed that people had "the lowest chance of being a victim of crime since the survey began in 1981."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19989350

See also:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wal...

No: "violent crime" includes pretty much any crime involving injury -- which could be anything from barroom brawls, football hooliganism, rioting, or violent protests to robbery, mugging, sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse... the whole spectrum. Statistics are notoriously unreliable from country to country depending on the willingness of victims to report such crimes.
Your repeated comments suggest that you are mistakenly equating "violent crime" with "homicide".

This might explain why you seem to believe that murder rates are higher in the UK than in the US, even though every single statistical source available will confirm that they are considerably lower.

I never said murder.

No, you didn't say "murder", but you did appear to equate "violent deaths" with "violent crime".

So there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding here.

Now that we have established that firearm-related deaths in every category from suicide to homicide are higher in the US than in the UK... and now that we have also established that the overall homicide rate, with or without guns, is also higher in the US than in the UK:

What exactly are you trying to say to me?

How much more "violent" does it get than homicide?

Thats because you live in opposite world! You have been crying ever since Obama won re-election and it shows with every comment. Now you keep trying to make a case for the republic, but as you should know from a 6th grade civics class when we all vote it is a Democracy and even the Republicon leadership says we need to spread Democracy around the world. So what is it? Try and make your answer understandable rather then to deflect and come up with some real answers.

WOAH! I guess some didn't like your FOX news link. I guess there's no point in debating it as you're gone but faux news is hardly a reliable source.

"Thats because you live in opposite world! You have been crying ever since Obama won re-election and it shows with every comment. Now you keep trying to make a case for the republic, but as you should know from a 6th grade civics class when we all vote it is a Democracy and even the Republicon leadership says we need to spread Democracy around the world. So what is it"

I'm trying to find what you are responding to.
We democratically vote but this country was founded as a Republic not a Democracy. Historical fact. As for the "crying" if there is any "crying " being done it is by the rational, freedom loving people facing the specter of four more years of Dear Leader. I have no idea what "deflecting" you are referring to. I am pretty much convinced that you did not read my statement correctly and have inferred your own meanings........ again.

"And if guns are terrible, then a gunshow would be the most unsafe place ever."

You are much safer at a gun show than in the fine town of Chicago with very, very strict gun laws. Work well don't they. In fact, an infantryman in AFG is safer than walking the streets in Chicago.

The problem is not so much that it isn’t “reliable” – but that it is downright devious.

The figures they quote are actually correct (same stats I provided). It’s what they do with them that’s brazenly false and misleading.

The video cites the 2011 statistics to “prove” that Morgan was wrong, or lying.
But Morgan was neither wrong, nor lying. He was just citing the 2010 statistics – and the difference is not that great. Nor even relevant -- because both sets of figures still illustrate the same point: the huge and undeniable difference in the number of firearm-related deaths.

And then, having (falsely) insinuated that Morgan was lying, the video further deflects and misleads by citing overall “violent crime” rates in the UK… as though this broad catch-all category (covering a wide range of offenses from the relatively minor to the serious) somehow negates the incontrovertible fact that both overall murder rates and overall gun deaths are waaaay higher in the US, no matter how you look at it.

I was wondering where your post went to,,,,

Strange days indeed.....

"Say Hello to my little friend" LOL

Sigh.

Why the sigh?

Because I actually empathised with that F-U comment too... which is sooooo not my style.

I wouldn't get too bothered over it. This forum's days are numbered.

Besides, hombre can just post his comment up again.

Fact of the matter is that I really don't see much getting done on this subject. But I could heat my home with all the hot air.

"I could heat my home with all the hot air"

Now that's the spirit...

...an infinitely renewable source of energy -- even if it just causes you to pace up and down long enough to get warm.

;-)

Now this post seems out of place.

Anybody that "KNOWS" they have a crazy person in their home and ALLOWS them to have access to Guns is "NOT" responsible!

And that is why we need to concentrate on irresponsible behavior instead of banning guns. If we reduce the number of guns easily accessible to those that will do us harm then we will reduce the violence.

jackhole, thanks for your answer. Incredible it has come down to this point in time and the NRA has broken down from a decent organization that actually had a great magazine with gun safety tips and really good programs for kids, to a lunatic fringe element of some right wing fantasy that stands for anything but Democracy. I think they could at this time become a responsible organization again with some really decent contributions to the current problems facing our crazed nation. But, that said, it will never happen now!

I am a gun owner and enjoy hunting and target shooting sports. I have been fighting the fight against terrorist weapons--military weapons--since the early 1970's. I once owned a gun shop. I once was a member of the NRA. I stopped being a member over the terrorist weapons stand that the NRA took just after they were taken over by the RNC.

I love my guns but would burn them all to gain an end to the insane US gun violence we see today. Must say a word about Conceal Carry---one day wonders get to go public with hidden guns. No certification as to ability, competency, nor follow up of any kind. Some who are now in our midst never fired a shot prior to being granted a Conceal Carry Permit--what could possibly go wrong?

"to a lunatic fringe element of some right wing fantasy that stands for anything but Democracy."

Absolutely false,exponentially false.

The NRA is a civil rights organization that trains people in the safe storage and use of firearms (did you know that they will provide a person to come to your home to train you in the use of your firearm then make recommendations as to storage), has a child gun safety program, is the governing organization for untold numbers of shooting events each year, shooting events which do not result in any violence, and promotes individual freedom and responsibility within our Republic as we do not have a democracy.

'"RESPONSIBLE" gun owners, trained individuals who legally keep "SENSIBLE" guns such as shot-guns, hand guns, semi automatic hand guns, non-assult type rifles for sport or protection'

This place is a riot. "Responsible" now means "sensible" guns which you have defined. It does not meet my definition of "sensible" so I guess there we are. Oh, kindly tell me what is a "non-assult type rifle" is. Never heard of it and really don't what assault weapons are doing in this discussion.

Unfortunately, people like you will suffer in this scenario. It's always the same, fuckweeds mess things-up for everyone. The thing is that this is not the same of choosing between having a golf course Vs a national park, we are talking about taking real steps to stop weapons from reaching the wrong hands , we must all come together in this.

Realistically guns are not likely to disappear. what will happen is the worst of these guns will be gone and super strict requirements will be set. I can live with this, though in my world I rather see them all gone.

kenny, "a decent answer" is subjective.
Instead of guessing that Righties have claimed "the dumb ass prize", why not consider keeping an open mind to ALL comments? Just sayin'...

They haven't answered, just the same dumb ass line about somehow the government is going to take their guns away! Just Saying! :)

I agree. Don't hold your breath.

I'd be dead a long time ago holding my breath for a decent answer from these freaks!

Thats funny, 650 views and 130 comments apparently nobody cares what you think! :)

O.K. Ya got me. Here is real answer. From the prez's own mouth we have heard him say he wants to ban "assault weapons", but assault weapons have been banned since 1986. So what is left? All other weapons. The gov will keep changing the definition of "assault weapon" until all guns are banned. "reasonable gun control measures", as they like to say, have already happened in the 1930s, 1968, and 1986. They are chipping away at the second amendment slowly, using events like Sandy Hook to justify knee-jerk reactions. They will not stop until civilian disarmament has been achieved. You might trust our current government with your rights, but gun owners all over this great nation do not.