Not that I'm paranoid or anything but uh.......

[Aaron]

%?

 

percent, as in the amount of the topic that relates to a spiritual or philosophical practice.

 

Aaron

[joeblast]

My points having nothing to do with leftist politics as you are so quick to point out. I am questioning the aesthetics of such a presentation in regards to the link provided by the OP. Aesthetics in terms of how this drama has been presented. The site supposedly contains evidence of a conspiracy fabricated by a government agency. The alleged evidence is a series of Facebook pages that appear to be photo shopped. It is simply easy to deceive persons that so desperately want to believe by presenting graphic evidence. Moreover, just a simple story line would not suffice in this case. Allegations that are presented visually are of greater importance to the believer and are more likely to be seen as absolute truth.

 

What I have seen in this thread is herd behavior brought about by ungrounded fear. That is easily taken advantage of by authoritarians.

Apparently you never heard of pulling google cache, etc.?

 

Gotta chuckle because you'd be responding pretty differently were bush still president (now go ahead and deny it )

Well someone's been listening to Rush Limbaugh, or at least you quote him word for word. And we're the blind conformists? Rush has an agenda, in particular to the NRA, one of the largest contributors to the republican party. I wouldn't use him as a source for objective arguments.

 

Aaron

Hmm... since Rush Limbaugh was saying the same thing as you have said here, almost verbatim, I would say that you are associated with his ideas, if not him personally. All of this misinformation is being spread by nut jobs trying to justify their right to bear arms that are solely intended to kill people. None of this conspiracy crap has any factual basis, it's all based on half truths.

 

Aaron

Point the finger and start calling names, "take down an argument" by relating it to someone you dislike. Quite a robust argument there, hah!

 

Actually the 7.62mm is almost completely restricted to rifles made in the Eastern Bloc countries. In America and NATO countries they use .5.56mm ammo for their guns. The rifle used in almost every mass shooting that's occurred in the United States over the last year is the AR15 or an AR15 variant (which is a refined and updated model of the M16) which uses a .223 caliber round. The .223 can shoot through nearly anything on a car except the engine block. Now why would an ordinary citizen need a gun that powerful? You can't hunt with it, it would shred the animal to pieces. There is only one purpose for these guns and that's simply to kill people. That's why they are called Assault Rifle (AR in other words) rather than recreational rifles.

 

The people starting all of these conspiracy theories are anti-government nutters that simply want to support their own twisted beliefs about the government. The fact that much of your rhetoric is spouted verbatim on conservative radio shows tells me that you're getting your information second hand and you're not even aware of it. Now that makes me wonder why? If you want to find the conspiracy, it's not with the government, but those who are trying to oppose the ban on assault rifles. The NRA, militia groups, etc. It seems clear as day to me, can't see why anyone else can't see it.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, go into any sheriffs department in the country and you'll find that the line you get into for fingerprints for a "concealed carry" actually has a sing that says "For Concealed Weapons Permit". What's even more disturbing is that you'll find a lot of people in those lines.

So you can do a google search about calibers, but still cant see outside of your blinders. It doesnt take a wizard to google and find out that AR stands for Armalite and not Assault Rifle. While you're at it why dont you look up the origins of the term Assault Rifle? Where'd that come from? The AR-7 was a .22 cal survival rifle, The AR-17 was for a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun, the AR-13 was a hyper-velocity multi-barrel gun system for aircraft, etc - those all sound like assault rifles though huh? Of course now you're going to turn around and claim you know what the term means, but you're already sticking to your web of funnies since that exposes the intellectual dishonesty of purposefully misrepresenting a term to try and make your point contain a little validity. So which is it?

 

...and the whole argument over mashing terms like concealed carry permit is an asinine strawman...

 

Any of us questioning a page taken from the bible of ideologies like yours or ralis' automatically get equated to regurgitating conservative rhetoric from radio shows - funny enough, the same exact sort of methodology you find all over huffpo or dailykos - hateful crap towards those with whom they ideologically disagree. (and one look at the death threats and other vile comments that come from there whenever you see a tragedy like this, such as "NRA members should have their kids murdered so they can understand what the other end of gun violence feels like" tells me I'd rather they not had guns, although since they can somewhat hide behind anonymity on the internet it just lets them express their bottomless cup of hatred without actually having to take responsibility for it. seems to be a problem with responsibility in that regard over there.)

 

It makes me wonder why progressive/liberal/leftists seem to have so much hate in them. Whereas people who defend the second amendment, or not supporting abortion are perturbed by the other ideologies forcing their views on others in the name of tolerance where lives may be at stake - the "left"...you disagree with me, I hate you - at least if you go by the internet.

 

In real life things are a little different - I have liberal friends, but they just dont challenge me on things like this (not unless they want to have their foundations shaken by real world data - like more guns less crime completely holds up if you want to present an honest statistical analysis...) and we all get along just fine. (shhhh, they talk about sandy hook being a false flag too!)

Edited January 13, 2013 by joeblast

[joeblast]

Am I one of those three ... I sincerely hope so.

 

“I bear the wounds of all the battles I avoided.”

― Fernando Pessoa

No Apech, you are a wonderful and respectful person. You dont wear your ideology like a badge that must be enforced upon others so that the world may be more correct. *thumbsup*

[Apech]

No Apech, you are a wonderful and respectful person. You dont wear your ideology like a badge that must be enforced upon others so that the world may be more correct. *thumbsup*

 

Damn you I wanted to be one

[三江源]

Damn you I wanted to be one

 

bloody whinging lefty

[Apech]

bloody whinging lefty

 

Thank you, thank you ....

[joeblast]

[gendao]

Edited January 13, 2013 by vortex

[Aetherous]

One of the noticeable problems with the official story is that alleged shooting suspect Adam Lanza’s car was identified as a black Honda Civic, Connecticut plate number 872 YEO which is registered to a one Christopher A Rodia (born August 1969), totally discrediting the official story.

 

It's uncertain whether this is actually registered to Rodia. The car was verifiably at Sandy Hook, since there are photos of it.

 

The police scanner is where everyone heard of Rodia. Apparently, a cop pulled Rodia over in another town and that call was mixed up with the Sandy Hook car's call on the scanner. That is the story that came out...

 

The way anyone could verify whether it belonged to Rodia or not, is to simply run the license. Cops, and in some states even civilians, can find out who a vehicle is registered to.

[ralis]

Vortex,

 

Believe whatever propaganda you choose. However, posting propaganda from Germer Rudolph who is an anti-semite and expecting reasonable people to join your way of thinking is absurd. Further, the extant evidence contained in the tons of documents captured after the war along with persons who were victims and eye witness accounts, afforded the allies to document the crimes of genocide that were perpetrated on the Jews. The SS and Army officers that were perpetrators of these crimes were either shot or hung.

 

A very good friend of mine was a professor at Northwestern and also was a translator at the Nuremberg tribunals . He would absolutely disagree with your pathetic notions and lack of intellectual curiosity.

 

If you have any curiosity at all, which I doubt, you can read the transcripts of the Nuremberg tribunals which contain the witness accounts of this tragic genocide.

[Immortal4life]

That is really uncalled for here!

 

You're right, apologies to Aaron. I have been watching way too many cable news tv shows.

[i am]

If you have time, here's a perspective of the gun debate I like.

 

[Aetherous]

Ha, that's the one episode of The Daily Show which I couldn't stand... Not to put down your opinion.

 

What did you like about it?

[i am]

It did get overly preachy. And a lot of his points could be refuted the same way he refutes others.

 

What I like about it is how it points out the hysteria with which gun rights/2nd amendment "defenders" react to any and all suggestions about a serious debate on gun violence.

 

His ideas aren't leak-proof, but it is, for me, a fun rant about how unreasonable gun rights people are about this stuff. And it all comes down to a rich, powerful lobby, and "they're going to take our guns away".

 

Should we ban the new sale of semi-automatic rifles? "you can't take my guns away!!!!! 2nd amendment, commie!!!"

 

Should we at least have a discussion about whether citizens need armor-piercing bullets? "Nazi! Hitler! You can't take my guns away!!"

 

Etc...

 

Usually I think he's spot on. I couldn't agree with everything in that episode, but he does nail people pretty well, if not the issue. The vast majority of the people on the "don't touch my guns" side of the issue are completely unreasonable. There is no massacre, no fact, even, if you ask me, no amount of death which will make it ok to have a discussion, and put in new regulations. Because everything is, if not a conspiracy and sly attempt to "take their guns away", at least a slippery slope to guns being outlawed.

 

Not one regulation is ok. The consitution gaurantees all sorts of things which we can limit and talk about. But not guns. Off the table, at any cost.

 

So whether I agree with everything he says or not, I like where he's coming from.

[Aetherous]

Ah, I see.

 

Well, consider that the actual law in place states clearly "shall not be infringed". Anyone who attempts to subvert or nullify that is breaking the law...period. I personally consider it to be high treason to attempt to pass gun control laws and infringe upon that right of the citizens, which has existed for the entire history of this nation...high treason - a crime worthy of something like long term imprisonment, extradition, or death.

 

Yes, really!

 

There should be NO discussion on gun control, not just because it's illegal and unconstitutional...but more importantly, because there is no compelling evidence to suggest that it would actually help. The evidence actually shows the contrary.

 

If there were clear evidence that being sitting ducks would prevent massacres from happening, I'm sure many more people such as myself would be in favor of a gun control discussion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not infallible...but they are also not something to try and undermine when (I'm guessing) over half of the nation is in favor of it, and when it actually helps protect lives according to statistics.

Edited January 14, 2013 by turtle shell

[i am]

Interesting. Well, the constitution can be changed. For instance...when they amended it to include the right to bear arms. Things change.

 

I personally have very little real, gutteral allegiance to any country. I would defend my country, but stopped actually "pledging my allegiance" early in school. We are all people, in this world. For me to think that the document written at this nations founding contains ideas which, if someone were to try to change, would be punishable by death, is ludicris. To me.

 

I'm not sure, in reality, how far off we are from believing more or less the same things, but with some slight (though strong) differences on certain points.

 

If over half the country wanted to change gun laws...is it treason? Really? Just like with a lot of the constitution, people can and have been interpreting it since it was written. The right to bear arms and a well armed militia are not clean cut, obivous explanations of what is meant, in my mind.

 

The current gun control "debate", or lack thereof, is not trying to take away those rights. It's about restricting certain weapons. If I have 2 hand guns and 3 rifles, and everyone else without a criminal record can also have that many guns or more, but a law is passed saying they can't have something classified as an "assault rifle" (and that's sticky, I know), is that treason? Is it clearly against the constitution?

 

I have the right to free speech. But if I yell "fire!" in a movie theater (same old argument), or say I'm going to kill the leader of our country, etc., that speech is NOT protected by the law.

 

There is a right to bear arms, but do armor piercing bullets need to be allowed in order to live up to that right? Fully automatic weapons are already illegal to sell. Has treason already been committed?

[Aetherous]

Interesting. Well, the constitution can be changed. For instance...when they amended it to include the right to bear arms. Things change.

 

Totally...if there is a good enough reason, there is no problem amending it. Americans aren't so stupid that they will blindly defend a law. They only defend a law when there is an abundance of evidence that the law protects them, when it's common sense that concealed carry helps with self defense and defending other innocent people, and when it provides them freedom rather than oppression from an outside source.

 

I personally have very little real, gutteral allegiance to any country. I would defend my country, but stopped actually "pledging my allegiance" early in school. We are all people, in this world. For me to think that the document written at this nations founding contains ideas which, if someone were to try to change, would be punishable by death, is ludicris. To me.

 

I know what you mean...but consider that the law is in place to protect American citizens, who are your fellow people of the world...from criminals who try to do big massacres, from invading armies if that ever were to happen, and from when the government becomes overly tyrannical.

 

The people that wish for the 2nd Amendment to be gone, are people who want Americans (you) to be defenselessa nd unprotected....against criminals; against invading armies; against the government (or connected corporations) which they are a part of.

 

These people with an agenda are not your fellow citizens of the world...they are the type that wishes to enslave you, your family and friends, your neighbors, other countries, out of greed and a lust for power. They have set themselves apart from the innocents.

 

They do deserve death for attempting to take your liberty and ability to defend yourself and others from all of those things...but only if the punishment were to happen through the proper legal channels. I'm not suggesting that it's wise to assassinate these tyrants.

 

Or, on the other hand...we can allow these types of people to enslave us completely, because we feel that punishing them would be improper. But in my view, that makes us accomplices to the crime, and we would have allowed it to happen...to ourselves and everyone else.

 

We can let this thought sink through our heads when we are freezing and starving in internment camps...

 

So, I'd rather go with fighting for your freedom and safety, by ridding the country of these corrupt individuals in one way or another...than to allow you to be enslaved by them, or for you to be a victim of one of the other scenarios. For the people that don't like guns, that's fine...but there will (hopefully) be a man to the left and right of you that do appreciate guns, who will stand up for you when the time comes that you need them.

 

"You" meaning anyone on that side of the argument...not you personally, necessarily.

 

If over half the country wanted to change gun laws...is it treason? Really?

 

Discussion is protected by the First Amendment...that is not treason to have an opinion or to share it, if just one person or if that many people actually wanted to ban guns. I don't think they do...

 

But what should not be protected are politicians attempting to pass unconstitutional laws, such as Senator Feinstein, who by the way has armed guards and also has a concealed carry permit of her own.

 

 

She is a traitor to this country (to YOU) and deserves, at the very least, be stripped of all potential power. Really!

 

Just like with a lot of the constitution, people can and have been interpreting it since it was written. The right to bear arms and a well armed militia are not clean cut, obivous explanations of what is meant, in my mind.

 

The 2nd Amendment is totally clear. Look into it more, and don't listen to the likes of Piers Morgan, who is not an authority on Constitutional law. Look into how militia has been defined...it means all capable men, not just the military, or not just a militia group. When the shit hits the fan in this country, the ones who are protecting their friends and family will be the "militia". That means every gun owner.

 

The current gun control "debate", or lack thereof, is not trying to take away those rights. It's about restricting certain weapons. If I have 2 hand guns and 3 rifles, and everyone else without a criminal record can also have that many guns or more, but a law is passed saying they can't have something classified as an "assault rifle" (and that's sticky, I know), is that treason? Is it clearly against the constitution?

 

Well, some (with an agenda) want to have a gun control debate. Others want to have a "what to do about the mass shootings" debate. Huge difference in terms, which reveals the true intentions of one of the sides.

 

The NRA's solution to the school shootings is to have armed guards...something that would actually help. Versus further saying "no guns allowed" which obviously has not worked in stopping these criminals. All schools are gun and criminal free zones in the first place. The "gun control" crowd is simply nonsensical.

 

So, this was one part of the Daily Show which I thought was horrible; I was surprised John Stewart wasn't intelligent enough to see through the cloud of bullshit. He usually is.

 

About your question of whether an "assault weapon ban" is treason...I think it is. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the things I discussed earlier. Mainly, an oppressive government.

 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

Look at what our military currently has in terms of technology and weaponry. We would almost stand no chance these days, even with assault weapons.

 

I can see that crazy things like surface to air missiles have absolutely no use for civilians...and that perhaps if people could buy those, there'd be a lot more issues, such as shooting down commercial airplanes or whatever. So it's good to draw the line somewhere. My neighbor doesn't need a Hydrogen Bomb in his basement! In my opinion, we don't need automatic machine guns with armor piercing rounds. But semi automatic? Yes, it's plainly treason to prohibit those.

 

I have the right to free speech. But if I yell "fire!" in a movie theater (same old argument), or say I'm going to kill the leader of our country, etc., that speech is NOT protected by the law.

 

True. And some speech that subverts the integrity of the nation could be considered treasonous. For instance, a foreigner living on American soil with a visa, spreading propaganda on an American news channel. I consider that treasonous. Free speech is one thing...that is another. Consider that not every citizen gets to have their voice heard in millions of homes...that is power...and then consider that the person doing it isn't even a citizen of this country.

 

Although apparently the White House's stance at the moment, is that he is protected under the first amendment anyway.

 

There is a right to bear arms, but do armor piercing bullets need to be allowed in order to live up to that right? Fully automatic weapons are already illegal to sell. Has treason already been committed?

 

It's a tough question...because I think that perhaps criminals not having armor piercing rounds is a great thing. We don't want cops to be killed when they are doing their job as best they can.

 

Personally, I base my decisions on "what is the bare minimum I could put up a fight with, if it ever came down to that?" My answer is: a semi automatic rifle with a red dot sight, and I don't absolutely need armor piercing rounds if I can aim. Or other types of firearms that tend to be legal, such as handguns, or a sniper rifle.

 

When people attempt to take semi automatics, something is wrong. That's just my opinion.

[Birch]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001034/

[Aetherous]

This is pretty huge. Will read through the whole thing sometime. To those on the opposite side of the fence...anyone feeling patient enough to dig through this?

 

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

[joeblast]

I clicked the stop button as soon as I saw the general - I already know his views and dont need to be subjected to them again One could just about dictate the show and then watch it to see if there might be any discrepancies

 

Interesting. Well, the constitution can be changed. For instance...when they amended it to include the right to bear arms. Things change.

 

............

If over half the country wanted to change gun laws...is it treason? Really? Just like with a lot of the constitution, people can and have been interpreting it since it was written. The right to bear arms and a well armed militia are not clean cut, obivous explanations of what is meant, in my mind.

 

The current gun control "debate", or lack thereof, is not trying to take away those rights. It's about restricting certain weapons. If I have 2 hand guns and 3 rifles, and everyone else without a criminal record can also have that many guns or more, but a law is passed saying they can't have something classified as an "assault rifle" (and that's sticky, I know), is that treason? Is it clearly against the constitution?

 

I have the right to free speech. But if I yell "fire!" in a movie theater (same old argument), or say I'm going to kill the leader of our country, etc., that speech is NOT protected by the law.

 

There is a right to bear arms, but do armor piercing bullets need to be allowed in order to live up to that right? Fully automatic weapons are already illegal to sell. Has treason already been committed?

The constitution wasnt amended to include the right to bear arms. The second amendment is a basic fundamental right, and if taken in context, is not a right bestowed by man or government. It is part and parcel of the constitution - you have the ability to speak up for yourself, you have the ability to defend yourself, the first two fundamental points.

 

Wrt/ interpretation, those that call it a living breathing document have been trying to "interpret" anything they dont like right out of it.

 

The term Assault Rifle is a media coined term - MSM was overrun with leftists over 30 years ago and the narrative is pushed as much and as hard as possible.

 

The push for restriction on semi auto is absolutely asinine - they have been around for over 100 years, although I was surprised there wasnt a higher percentage of arms out there being semi auto.

 

Make no mistake, the push for banning "assault rifles" is merely "getting the camel's head under the tent" - anti gun zealots think nobody should be armed, that's that, and no amount of real world data or the correlating behaviors thereof will change that zealot's mind. Good pdf there.

[i am]

I can see that if you beleive there are corporations and politicians who want an unarmed populous so that they can take over with no fight...then all this gun control talk would feed right into it.

 

I believe a lot of bad things about corporations and politicians, but I'm not sure if I believe that there's a unified, spoken (in private settings) plan or desire to unarm the people, so that these politicians and corporations can take over without a fight. Having that stance absolutely allows no wiggle room in the gun rights debate, which is exactly the problem.

 

I do agree that if you're thinking that you want guns so that you could overthrow your government, should it become tyrannical, and that government wants to limit the kinds of weapons you can have...yeah, sticky!

 

Joe, I'm not sure, but are you saying that the right to have guns is a God-given right?? Crazy. The right to defend yourself, sure. But if my idea of self defense is a missile launcher, does that therefore mean that my right to a missile launcher is God given? 'Cuase that's crazy!

 

Yes, "assualt rifle" is a coined term, just like death panels, death tax or a thousand other political tools to try to get people to think about the subject in a certain, subjective, biased way.

 

I can kill a whole lot of people with a semi-auto .22 rifle in a crowded setting, but it is not an "assault rifle" by their definition, I don't believe...

[joeblast]

If you investigate the source of the "self evident" individual rights, you can see that it is not granted (and therefore cannot be taken away) (by) men, or government.

 

Sorry to make this big and red, but this needs to be said if it hasnt already in some way shapr or form:

 

Any ban, even on automatic weapons - IF you go by the constitution - is only constitutional in context of the individual states implementing it, and there can be no federal mandate for such things, because it simply is not within the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.

 

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

 

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

 

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, etc., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

 

and last but not least:

 

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

[i am]

I see.

 

So on a certain level, this is an argument between people who feel safer knowing that even though they couldn't possibly win, they'd at least die shooting if their government ever came for them after becoming tyrannical_________and those who are just your regular old citizen, living life in a great country and more or less left alone by the government to do as they please, more than pretty much anywhere else in the world, thinking "we have more gun deaths than anywhere in the civilized world; we have more guns than anywhere else in the civilized world, maybe we should do something about this".

 

Both are right, on their own grounds. It's just that the people who want to defend themselves against their government can easily be labled as extremist (and in a lot of cases are), and are fighting gun control on any level because of a "what if", and often conspiracy-based fear. I do agree that it makes me feel better knowing the government has some fear of its citizens.

 

 

 

Either way, I don't know what the answer is. If we're just, as Americans, a more violent people, for whatever reason, or if it's only because of guns that we kill more of our own than any other western nation. I'd like to see if all the hammer mass-murders and sword deaths and "anything is a weapon if you hold it right" scenarios that gun rights people constantly remind us of start to come about if guns were completely outlawed.

[Aetherous]

Actually, I gave a bad article...carry on...

Edited January 15, 2013 by turtle shell

[Apech]

This is pretty huge. Will read through the whole thing sometime. To those on the opposite side of the fence...anyone feeling patient enough to dig through this?

 

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

 

 

I have had an admittedly very quick look at this document and would say from the parts about Britain that there is a level of misuse of statistics (which always need interpreting anyway). One point, which is pretty obvious I suppose, is that if guns are in the criminal community then gun control doesn't work. Only law abiding people bother with licenses and so on. I'm not saying that's an argument either way just a fact. There has been an influx of guns into Britain over the last couple of decades for various reasons mostly relating to organised crime ... this is why the level of gun related crimes has risen. In fact you could if you wanted just use this in a straighforward way to say more guns in the community = more gun crime ... which is fairly obvious. The issue with Scotland is an outlier statistically as there must be specific conditions in Scotland which make the gun crime so high on the graph. Otherwise the countries with gun control do generally have less gun crime but there is no straight line correlation ... on the other hand you could argue that those that allow more guns don't suppress crime as much as you might expect (including the USA).

 

I would think that the fact is that the US is starting from a different place to other countries (where the numer of guns are fewer) and with a different political/cultural attitude. So the solutions ... the strategies to combat shootings may well have to be different. Where there is only a small criminal minority who carry guns in a community then by bearing down on the numer of guns generally available and cutting off supply it might be possible to make everyone safer. But this would not work in a country where there are already a very large numer of firearms in circulation.

 

I think the US needs to get out of the highly emotive and politicised stances taken by both sides of this debate to find its own unique solution. Start by defining the problem ... what is it exactly that makes people go into schools on a shooting spree ... what psychologically/socially and so on are the defining factors and so on. Then design a solution which targets these causes.