Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121238)

The rifle is by far the superior tool as compared to a pistol for a demented mass murderer that has a well-planned strategy for his killing spree. The key superiority of a RIFLE is the distance. A minimally trained killer could easily shoot into a crowd like at a July 4th parade from a DISTANCE of 50 to 200 yards away. I don't know the exact distance that the Las Vegas shooter was killing people at, but I would guess an average of 75 yards. An AR-15 RIFLE and the rifle cartridge that it fires are designed to hit a target at 100 to 200 yards with much more accuracy and terminal velocity than a PISTOL. The cartridge design for a RIFLE is bigger than a PISTOL cartridge - thus allowing MORE powder and therefore more VELOCITY at the muzzle and downrange. The very aerodynamic bullet design of most rifles allows the bullet to travel through 200 or more yards of air resistance with a flatter trajectory and less energy loss than a typical PISTOL bullet design

A pistol in contrast is designed for hitting targets under 50 yards by a shooter with limited training. The sight radius between the front sight of a PISTOL is much shorter than that of a RIFLE - Thus making the pistol inherently less accurate than a rifle. The pistol cartridge normally has less powder than a rifle cartridge. So, the muzzle velocity is less for the pistol. The pistol bullet is normally shorter, blunter, and less aerodynamically configured than a rifle bullet. This gives a PISTOL bullet a less flat trajectory and less velocity and energy at 100 yards than a RIFLE bullet

Overall a pistol is a short-range firearm compared to a rifle. That is why military snipers, obviously, use rifles and NOT pistols.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2121452)

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.

There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121346)

That VERY chart confirms what I have been saying. The gun death rate in the US is about 3 times what Australia's is. And Australia's rate DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY after they did their buybacks of semi-auto rifles and allowed bolt actions. That's the way I read that chart !

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2121471)

You will NEVER find a sniper using a semi-auto rifle. Maybe some could read up on barrel length and twist rate to understand the effects the barrel has on a projectile. Most of the comments are laughable

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2121452)

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.


There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2121452)

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.


There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 2121333)

In other words you just make stuff up. At least you admit it. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121393)

Honestly Jim, so far most of what I'm reading seems to be fantasy and conjecture based on no facts. Have you read the statistics and citations previously provided?

Let me recap and please correct me where I'm not correct.

We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Why?
Because they hold large capacity magazines and shoot too fast. Why?
The NRA and greedy manufactures have caused young men fantasize and buy AR style rifles to commit mass murder. What proof do you have of that?
None.

Most mass murders are committed with a semi-automatic rifle. That's not true, most mass murders are committed with a pistol.
Most mass murderers really want to commit mass murders with semi-automatic AR styled rifles. What proof do you have of that?
None

We could stop mass murders if no more rifles were sold. There are already 6-20 million AR style rifles in circulation in America. How would banning new sales affect mass murders? I don't know..

But I know a lot of lives would be saved. How many lives would be saved if we ban sales of AR style rifles? I don't know. Lots

Mass murders cost society millions. Exactly how much? I don't know.

How does violating the rights of millions of law abiding citizens end mass murders and punish evil people? It wouldn't be a violation if the majority of people think we should ban all new sales of semi-automatic rifles. So, you would advocate for mob rule over Constitutional Rights? I don't know.

It's going to get a lot worse. What proof do you have of that? None.

****

Facts:
1. Gun rights people, gun control people, and the government all agree that mass murders are rarely committed with rifles of any kind and extremely rare with an AR style rifle.

2. Pistols are used in the majority of mass murders.

3. The majority of mass murders happen in the home, not public places and even more rare in schools.

4. Below is ten years of child homicide data. It is clear where children are dying.

2011, no mass shootings at schools
2012, 27 children killed is school mass shootings(including a univesity)
2013, no mass shootings at schools
2014, 5 children killed is school mass shootings
2015, 1,660 children died from domestic violence., 8 students from mass shooting at school
2016, 1730 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2017, 1710 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2018, 1780 children died from domestic violence, 22 students were killed
2019, 1840 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2020, 1,708 children died from domestic violence. no mass shootings at schools
2021, 4 students killed in mass shootings.
2022, 19 students killed in mass shootings.

We know who is being killed and we know who is doing the killing. Yet, the only focus is on the rarest of events with the rarest utilization of a particular firearm. Why is that?

Should mob rule override minority rights?

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2121470)

I am glad I live in the United States and not Australia. I am also happy to be a Lifetime Member of the NRA. You will never find a better group of people than NRA members. You will also find great men and women at the various Villages shooting clubs.

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2120188)

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2121471)

You will NEVER find a sniper using a semi-auto rifle. Maybe some could read up on barrel length and twist rate to understand the effects the barrel has on a projectile. Most of the comments are laughable

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2121530)

It's difficult to help someone understand facts when you even draw a picture and they still don't get it. I made a point that there was already a downward trend in Australia(that seems to be the superior country of choice) before the gun ban. We also have had a downward trend which seems to match that of Australia. No one said that murder does not exist. The point is that attributing a trend to a particular act when the trend was already in motion is not even scientific.
There are two different purposes being displayed here:
1. Ban guns using a very minute percentage of criminal acts as the reasoning.
2. Protect the children.
In this case, children being murdered is a tool or reason for radicals to ban guns. The purpose of the discussion is supposed to be suggestions on how to protect the children. Sorry, but that is like saying, "I want to get rid of liquor so I am going to blame all accidents on DUI's." Get rid of the liquor and you still have vehicle accidents.
Do not presume to compare Australia with the U.S. when it comes to murders. That is a totally different country, with a different culture(s) and different government and different laws. The demographics are different and the population density is different.
If you don't like guns and need a reason to ban them from EVERYONE because of your fear, then please be honest about it. The only thing that will change in mass murders if you get rid of semi-automatic firearms is that anyone intent on killing will use a different tool.
What is more effective, hardening physical security at the schools or banning one instrument of mass murder?

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2121530)

It's difficult to help someone understand facts when you even draw a picture and they still don't get it. I made a point that there was already a downward trend in Australia(that seems to be the superior country of choice) before the gun ban. We also have had a downward trend which seems to match that of Australia. No one said that murder does not exist. The point is that attributing a trend to a particular act when the trend was already in motion is not even scientific.
There are two different purposes being displayed here:
1. Ban guns using a very minute percentage of criminal acts as the reasoning.
2. Protect the children.
In this case, children being murdered is a tool or reason for radicals to ban guns. The purpose of the discussion is supposed to be suggestions on how to protect the children. Sorry, but that is like saying, "I want to get rid of liquor so I am going to blame all accidents on DUI's." Get rid of the liquor and you still have vehicle accidents.
Do not presume to compare Australia with the U.S. when it comes to murders. That is a totally different country, with a different culture(s) and different government and different laws. The demographics are different and the population density is different.
If you don't like guns and need a reason to ban them from EVERYONE because of your fear, then please be honest about it. The only thing that will change in mass murders if you get rid of semi-automatic firearms is that anyone intent on killing will use a different tool.
What is more effective, hardening physical security at the schools or banning one instrument of mass murder?

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 2121534)

Not exactly. The M107 and M82 are examples of semi-automatic sniper rifles.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121778)

I will answer......the part about young MEN fantasizing about AR-15-style rifles. There are statistics that say that only about 5 % of mass murders are women. Now, as to whether they are young men or old men? Lately, they have been mostly YOUNG men. And we all know that the testosterone levels of YOUNG men on average are greater than OLD MEN. So, I am going for a wild-butt and educational guess that statistically there are more young men. For example, the original DOMESTIC TERRORIST was the Oklahoma City bomber and he was basically a YOUNG DUDE. And AGAIN I would rather state an intelligent, intuitive OPINION than become a professional writer with a PAID staff.

Next....about pistols vs rifles......I have PREVIOUSLY beaten that subject into the turf. I have proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.......so I REST on that case......your Honor.

Now, about how many lives would be saved, and what do mass murders cost society? Let me be really, really real, NO ONE that is human can answer those questions. In a few years, when I go to meet God, I will try and remember to ask him.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121788)

The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121817)

The Highland Park shooter, Robert Crimo, III was NOT a sniper by the very definition of the word. Snipers shoot from long distances, not 50 feet. He was on top of a 3 story building. Not sniper material. More of an insult to actual snipers, really.

These days 2,000 yard shots are not very difficult. Recently Paul Phillips (from my home town) completed a 6,012 yard impact (3.4 miles) with a custom .416 Barrett round. To give some appreciation to that accomplishment consider, after 21 cold bore shots and some adjustments and a flight time of 17 seconds he impacted a 32"x48" steel plate. He didn't get confirmation of the impact until after he had launched his second shot.

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 2120171)

Every thread in this forum is started by someone with an obvious bias. lol

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121792)

True, they might then be forced to use a different tool like a bolt-action, which is slower and would or could give Police more TIME to arrive on the scene. And give children and adults more TIME to run and hide. Magazine limits of 6 or fewer rounds would also give more time to run or throw rocks or whatever. That is what New Zealand and ALL other 1st world countries PROVED...........except the US.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121793)

Banning one instrument of Domestic Terror .........the semi-auto rifle .........Australia proved that !

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121817)

The Highland Park shooter, Robert Crimo, III was NOT a sniper by the very definition of the word. Snipers shoot from long distances, not 50 feet. He was on top of a 3 story building. Not sniper material. More of an insult to actual snipers, really.

These days 2,000 yard shots are not very difficult. Recently Paul Phillips (from my home town) completed a 6,012 yard impact (3.4 miles) with a custom .416 Barrett round. To give some appreciation to that accomplishment consider, after 21 cold bore shots and some adjustments and a flight time of 17 seconds he impacted a 32"x48" steel plate. He didn't get confirmation of the impact until after he had launched his second shot.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2120606)

Another more drastic measure (for the USA, not so much for other places): instead of maintaining "registration" for all males age 18...

How about mandatory military training and service for all able-bodied/minded men and women between 18 and 20. It should be a civic duty to the country to serve. Plus they get their weapons training, real actual military training rather than this proud boys pretend garbage that gets peddled.

That way this younger generation can grow up to be adults who carry firearms, know how to use them, how NOT to use them, when to use them, when NOT to use them. And they've proven themselves mentally and physically capable of handling it.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121941)

I have to wonder why you're against protecting children. The only solution I keep reading is to slow down the killer. Given the average response time for Law Enforcement is 12 minutes how many casualties are acceptable?

It is much more cost effective to harden the schools. That doesn't mean barbed wire and Dobermans. That means taking measures like a few schools have done. There is a fantastic plan implemented by a school in Indiana that stops a killer from accessing children. Florida has implemented the Guardian program in 60% of the schools so far. And of course, as we saw at Greenwood Mall recently, a good Samaritan citizen, armed and trained, stopped the killer in 15 seconds.

What is really the agenda then? Stop killers in their tracks and protect innocent people or disarm law abiding citizens. Those are the two choices.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121941)

I have to wonder why you're against protecting children. The only solution I keep reading is to slow down the killer. Given the average response time for Law Enforcement is 12 minutes how many casualties are acceptable?

It is much more cost effective to harden the schools. That doesn't mean barbed wire and Dobermans. That means taking measures like a few schools have done. There is a fantastic plan implemented by a school in Indiana that stops a killer from accessing children. Florida has implemented the Guardian program in 60% of the schools so far. And of course, as we saw at Greenwood Mall recently, a good Samaritan citizen, armed and trained, stopped the killer in 15 seconds.

What is really the agenda then? Stop killers in their tracks and protect innocent people or disarm law abiding citizens. Those are the two choices.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2121983)

Jim, why do you think Australia has accomplished what you say? Have you done the research and what do you know of mass murders in Australia.

As we know the turning point was the Port Arthur massacre which was the catalyst for Australia's weapons ban and forced confiscation. That was 25 years ago. Since that time, there have been 37 mass murder events resulting in 160 deaths. The weapons used were axes, knives, shotguns, vehicles and blunt objects. Perhaps the families of the 160 victims can take solace that they didn't die by a rifle.

But, what about the 25 years before Port Arthur? Prior to the weapons ban there were 128 people killed in 21 mass murder events. Of the 21 events, two involved a semi automatic rifle. The rest were shotguns, knives, vehicles, etc.

The facts show that Australia has had more mass murder events and more people killed after their weapons ban than they had before the weapons ban.

What exactly did they accomplish?

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2122055)

I agree whole heartedly on mandatory military service, bring back the draft. At 18 years a person enters military service for 2 years, no exceptions for anything other than a physical condition. During my 21 years in the Army I saw many young kids, who were problem children for their parents, be made to face consequences for their actions and grow up. You either learned to control your anger and emotions or you faced repercussions.

A couple examples.

A neighbor kid was loud, obnoxious, a bully and a hot head. I met up with him one day a couple of years after he got of the Marines, and he was a changed person. Polite, mature and a hard working guy.

A guy in my unit in Germany stole a military truck to go to the local bar one night. He was given 30 days in the stockade located in Mannhiem, Germany. At that time a stockade was not a nice place, it was very rigid and infractions were dealt with harshly. When he was being taken to the stockade he was bragging that he would own the place. 30 days later when he returned to the unit he told me he would rather die than go back. He stayed on the straight and narrow until he got of the Army, and I believe he stayed that way in civilian life.

The best thing about the military was it put all races, ethnicities, city kids, rural kids, rich and poor into the same environment. You learned, firsthand, how to work with people that you didn't interact with where you were raised.

Everyone should perform some kind of civil service for two years. If a person didn't want to go into the military they would be placed in something like the Depression era CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). You should be expected to give back something to your country, it gives you a sense of ownership in the wellbeing of the country.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122062)

I said in 2 previous posts that I liked the IDEA of hardening schools. I also said previously that I did NOT believe that a SIGNIFICANT number of schools will EVER be hardened in any SIGNIFICANT way. That is because most communities and states will NOT do it because it will raise TAXES. And people in the upper tax brackets that have significant property do not ALLOW property taxes or other taxes to go up. Try getting a tax increase here in TV Land !

Just do this thought experiment.........suppose someone is crazy and determined to be a mass murderer. And they just read a newspaper article that stated that EVERY LAST school in the US was hardened like the one in Indiana. Or even that the school in his community was hardened. So, imagine what he might think and come up with in his demented brain.............gee wizz, he thinks I should forget schools and plan for killing in a church or concert or ANY place where there is a bunch of people.......hhhyyyymmm maybe the football games or baseball.......they are NOT hardened.

Think about it - no matter what event the demented shooter chooses the ONE thing that is constant is that he will take the fastest shooting, LONG RANGE, big magazine, firearm that he can procure. It might have a flash suppressor of even a silencer or even a Bump-stop attachment. But, if he is planning it out well (in a demented way)......the firearm he takes will NOT be a pistol, except maybe as a backup!

I hate to say this, but I think that this has been laid out with about the highest logical quality that would make even Dr. Spock (of Star Trek fame) happy .....as a moonbeam from heaven!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122064)

Also that Greenwood Mall incident further proves my point. he was unsuccessful because he did NOT use a RIFLE and put lots of DISTANCE between himself and his targets. And he did NOT use elevation and cover. Basically, he was NOT a SNIPER and planned badly. He was out of control and probably wanted to die himself.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122070)

What they and all other 1st world countries did (except for the US) was to force the mass murderers to use S-L-O-W-E-R and less efficient means of killing people - like baseball bats, etc. That gives Police or people close by opportunities to intervene in the DOMESTIC TERROR-PRODUCING event - the mass murder.

Whatever the statistics for murders or mass murders are AFTER the Port Arthur - they are LESS than they would be had Australia NOT attacked the PROBLEM and realized that the SOLUTION was to eliminate the fast-shooting semi-auto rifles. They did NOT decide to HARDEN all their schools because that IS the WRONG solution. And that adds further PRROF to what I have been saying. And their MAIN success is that their children do NOT have the TERROR that US children have when they start school soon. Australia and ALL the other 1st world counties, other than the US prove that organizations like the NRA can be BEATEN because people can see that such GREED is unpatriotic and gets their citizens (children and adults) KILLED! Wake up America or the TERRORISM will continue and get worse!

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2122077)

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2122079)

That is not correct. The Greenwood Mall shooter used a Daniel Defense AR rifle. The man who stopped him within 15 seconds of his killing spree did so with a handgun. Other than the Las Vegas shooting, the rest of the mass murder events have been up close, not the great distance as you imagine.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2122077)

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2122086)

So, facts don't matter. Nearly twice as many mass murder events have happened after Port Arthur that happened before Port Arthur and that is a "win"? After Port Arthur there have been 25% more people killed than before Port Arthur and that is a "win"?

Why is it that if they were slowed down in their killing spree that there have been more events and more people killed? I can't connect those dots.

I think you previously mentioned you were a member of the NRA in the past. If that is true, then you must realize that the NRA is comprised of it's membership, approximately 5 million Americans. When you attach labels to the NRA you are attaching them to your fellow citizens. I would posit they are more patriotic than those who deny them their Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution.

Critical thinking seems to be gone. People are being spoon fed by social media, the main stream media and are too lazy to do their own research. Trust but verify are very wise words.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2121788)

The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2121538)

Wrong! There IS a background check on any firearm sold by a legal firearms dealer. And anyone that thinks you can stop a crazy from owning a firearm is sadly mistaken. Crazy is not determined by law enforcement. To do a proper background check it costs thousands of dollars, so that is not even practical. All they can do is a record check. Although, many states interview neighbors and associates when they do a check for CCW.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122075)

I agree with that 100%. And in addition to all the improvements to society that were mentioned. I would like to add that a draft would place in the services young men who would be LESS likely to ever try to overthrow their government - something that I worry about with the current ALL-VOLUNTEER military. I believe that an over-throw is VERY unlikely, but the probability is NOT ZERO !

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122172)

Numerically more mass murder EVENTS of maybe up to 6 people are caused by pistols, that IS correct. But, it is the PLANNED attacks (by RIRLE) causing 20 to 60 people to be killed by the most diabolical killers that become DOMESTIC TERRORISM. And thus get the maximum media coverage (NOT just local news) that sends shock waves throughout all of society and maximizes the emotions of TERROR.

Churches and school classrooms and ALL large sports or music events are the targets of these predators seeking headlines. They are looking for more recognition than MERELY 5 killed in a driveby with pistols. On the many parts of the dark web, it is the military AR-15-style RIFLE that is worshipped and put up on its diabolical pedestal - these people don't want to kill ONLY 5 people - they need dozens of victims to satisfy their dark egos. The mundane pistol is not weapon ENOUGH for their insane ambitions. Plus, it puts them too close to their victims - they want DISTANCE for more efficiency and cover and the illusion that they MIGHT get away with it.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122174)

OK, I was wrong about how he armed himself, but I believe that I was still correct that he had a bad plan because he was not elevated and in a protected area like a SNIPER would desire. If he was just running around on the same level floor as his victims and shooting at SHORT range then he might have been better off (from his perspective) with 2 or more handguns.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122176)

It is not practical to believe that a handgun can be placed on the hip of every US citizen in ALL situations. They would start shooting each other at the 1st sound of a golf car backfiring. Australia and ALL other 1st world countries do NOT have large gun violence problems. It is the US that does. The US is more than 4 times greater than the next worse country. And even Canada is way better than America. The US has 1.2 guns per PERSON. More guns equate to more killing, not less. Any other conclusion is based on propaganda put out by companies that sell guns. I try to avoid propaganda.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2122180)

I wish that my fellow Americans would seriously question the propaganda that is being put out about guns by those that have a vested interest in them being unaware that the US is the dubious outlier in the list, by country, for gun violence. Mass murders and gun violence are increasing at a RATE where public outcry, even in TV Land will DEMAND a solution, sooner rather than later.