*
Politically Incorrect
Carl McClanahan

Hot Button Issues

Posted Friday, October 6, 2017, at 1:53 PM
Comments
View 46 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Carl, Though often disputed by our liberal friends but backed by FBI statistics. In any given year more people are killed by hammers,bats and other items causing blunt force trauma and death than any rifle of any kind,much less AR and other so called assault weapons. Speaking of the war on drugs. I don't know if you have noticed but since there has been a stand to reduce legal pain killers, overdoses have hit an all time high. What has really caused this??? Lack of legal drugs being given by Dr's and pain clinics.This causes people who are in pain or addicted to seek bootleg drugs made with Fentanyl and other high powered drugs thus causing death and overdoses.Once again like you were saying things are what they are and can not be stopped or controlled.In my personal thoughts it like everything else our government gets involved in will just cause the rich to get richer and the powerful to come into more power. Keep telling the truth Carl.Even if it does fall on deaf ears.

    -- Posted by kings11 on Sat, Oct 7, 2017, at 10:34 AM
  • Kings11, thanks for your kind and thoughtful remarks.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sat, Oct 7, 2017, at 11:19 AM
  • It's laughable that the libs have spent the past several years demonizing the police as racist, bloodthirty, trigger happy thugs just looking for a chance to shoot someone.

    Now they want the populace to be disarmed and the police to do it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Oct 7, 2017, at 4:28 PM
  • Welcome back, Karl. I have to admit that you kind of surprised me with this one; "...we are left only with the common sense definition of insanity: Keep doing the same old thing and expecting a different result!" Because what we always do is nothing. We have the same tired arguments from both sides. The political "leadership" quails in fear of the NRA. Firearm enthusiasts, whipped into a frenzy of fear that they will be denied access to their vitally needed assault weapons rush out to buy even more guns. And then we do nothing. The clock is already running a countdown for when we will do it all again.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 10:17 AM
  • I was surprised by recent comments suggesting the NRA would be willing to consider some sort of restrictions on bump stocks. Is that accurate?

    While a proponent of gun ownership, I have always questioned automatic weapons being easily available to the public and the bump stock appears to be one of those things that circumvents current laws. Why was it ever allowed and even protected?

    Another invasion of privacy but something that may be necessary in today's world is scanning software that notes an unusual uptick in an individual's purchase of firearms and ammunition. 33 firearms of ANY type in 12 months should have been a trigger to say SOMEONE needs to check this person out.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 3:16 PM
  • Whose side are you on, Steve? The government is prohibited from keeping records of firearm purchases. I don't know that I would exactly call myself a proponent of gun ownership. There are a lot of people that I do not think should have guns. But, I need do no more than turn my head to see a rifle.If you ask me, the "slippery slope" is having no rules at all. Recent moves to allow people on a terrorism watch list, or under care for mental illness access to firearms seems like steps in the wrong direction. And it would seem appropriate for the NRA to be the ones suggesting common sense regulation. Their current stance is akin to breweries campaigning to eliminate drunk driving laws. (You know the government. Prohibit driving drunk, and the next thing you know we won't be able to drink at all!)

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 3:54 PM
  • The terrorism watch list and "mental healthcare" lists both had a serious issue when used to deny constitutional rights... no due process. In neither instance does the person have their day in court.

    A person adjudicated mentally defective or convicted of a crime will still be denied a firearm, but just because some bureaucrat pencils their name onto a list isn't enough.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 5:38 PM
  • Steve those stocks are legal based on the legal definition of semi automatic vs fully automatic.

    With a semi, one round is fired with each trigger pull. Fully auto keeps firing as long as the trigger is held back (and ammo is available). These stocks just allow you to pull the trigger to fire individual shots much faster than the average non competitive shooter can.

    There are some shooters who can shoot a standard rifle as fast or faster than one with a bump stock.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 5:43 PM
  • The Vegas shooter would not have been on any list, but buying 33 forearms in 30 days hints of someone needing a closer look. They have either taken a sudden turn to collecting, or their mind has taken a sudden turn to evil.

    I did not say they HAD to be refused the right to buy, just saying someone needs to look closer.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 5:55 PM
  • I don't mean this to be argumentative, Quite, because I am pretty sure you agree with me on this. This administration has put on a big push to return to the old practice of law enforcement stealing people's money. Basically, they can take anyone's cash, and claim they suspect them of a crime. Without being charged, they cannot be acquitted, and if not found innocent they are presumed guilty and the cash is gone. While it is true that criminals deal in large amounts of cash, they are not the only people who have cash. Taking someone's money without charges being filed is presuming guilt. Franky, I would have less discomfort if someone suspected of being a drug dealer was allowed to keep their cash, than someone receiving mental health care or suspected of being a terrorist was allowed to buy assault rifles. Of course, the easy answer in both cases is to bring charges.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 9:57 PM
  • Jazz R Us,

    Asset foreiture has been a problem for a very long time. No administration has made any effort to end it.

    Denying rights without due process is bad regardless of the circumstances. No reason to prefer one instance over the other.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 3:52 AM
  • Lazarus....My "common sense" definition of "keep doing the same thing" intentionally includes doing nothing. Thanks all for your thoughtful and intelligent comments.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 11:58 AM
  • Carl, it seems to me that your "solution" is to do nothing.

    I mean, isn't that the republican solution to the mass shootings? "Thoughts and prayers", then do absolutely nothing. Except maybe suggest that we need MORE guns.

    Your example of drug laws not stopping people from doing drugs is flawed.

    Of course laws of any kind won't stop things completely. But you have to start somewhere.

    I'm sure law makers always knew that DUI laws wouldn't completely stop

    people from driving drunk and causing horrible accidents.

    Thousands of people still die every year in alcohol related car accidents.

    Should we just do away with DUI laws?

    Obviously they didn't work. People still drink and drive. See how ridiculous that sounds?

    We have to come up with some stricter gun laws. There is no reason for anyone to have military style weapons.

    That guy in Vegas shot over 600 people in just a few minutes.

    Do you really think that average citizens should be able to have that kind of weaponry?

    Are these mass shootings just as Bill O'Reilly said, "The price of freedom"?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 7:23 PM
  • RV,

    The flaw in comparing guns and DUI deaths is no one is suggesting banning cars because the DUI laws aren't 100% effective.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 6:15 AM
  • QM,

    The flaw in the NRA argument is that they are the only ones talking about banning guns. Cars have to meet certain requirements to be street legal. Why not guns?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 7:24 AM
  • Laz, You said ceratin guns shouldn't be available to the public. Since they already have been for over 50 years, that would be a ban.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 9:21 AM
  • Exactly laz. You have to take a written and skill test to operate a car. You also have to purchase insurance.

    How about we do the same for gun ownership.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 9:52 AM
  • RV......I am at a loss as to how you concluded my piece supports the notion of doing nothing. My problem with actions after tragedies are typically knee jerk reactions that do less than nothing to remedy the problem at hand and are designed to appease the populace for political purposes. The real problem lies within the mores of society and require a generation or two of education and training to effectuate a total realignment of attitudes and respect for the values that made America the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet. Until we institute measures to achieve this result, we will continue to buy light weight politicians that are interested only in their own aggrandizement and permanence in office.

    RV if perhaps you adjusted your blinders and applied your polymathic skills you might be part of the solution rather than the purveyor of platitudes.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 11:55 AM
  • Carl, so your solution to stop mass shootings is "a generation or two of education and training"?

    Yes, I would equate that to doing nothing.

    For as many mass shootings that we've had over the years I don't know how you can call any talk of gun control a "knee-jerk reaction" at this point.

    We will never ban all guns or totally repeal the 2nd amendment, and nobody wants to either.

    But I believe we need much tighter restrictions.

    Let's face it, if it's easier to buy a gun than adopt a puppy from the animal shelter...something is wrong.

    And we can't wait a generation or two to figure it out.

    I think we should look to some ideas that Australia had with their gun laws.

    In 1996 they had a horrible mass shooting where 58 people were shot, 35 died. They ended up banning all automatic and semiautomatic firearms, adopted new licensing requirements, established a national firearms registry, and instituted a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases.

    They haven't had another mass shooting since. Also their gun related suicides and homicides dropped over 60%.

    All guns should be licensed and registered. Owners could be required to take training courses.

    Anyone with a serious mental illness or convicted of a violent crime can't own a gun.

    I think those are all good ideas.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 5:31 PM
  • If I remember right, most deadly crimes are committed by the perfect person who no one would ever think they would commit such a crime. How do you investigate someone who doesn't have a criminal record? Even his closest friends and family don't suspect anything.

    Just like Steve's blog on suicides. What are the tell tell signs and what do you do about it or do you have a right to get involved?

    33 firearms to a collector is nothing and if nothing is found in his past, what can the government do except violate his rights. You have a right to do anything you want to as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights.

    Shooting people is a crime and prosecutable, but we can only wait until it happens in most cases.

    It is the Devil at work! If it isn't a shooting it is an auto killing or bombing or??? It is going to happen and there is not a thing we can do about it.

    -- Posted by sui on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 5:42 PM
  • There's not a thing we can do about it?

    Tell that to the people of Australia.

    In the 18 years before they changed their gun laws they had 14 mass shootings.

    It's now been over 20 years since they did the things I listed and they haven't had one since.

    On top of that they have significant drops in gun-related homicides and suicides and you think it's all just a coincidence?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 6:17 PM
  • There's been fewer than 1000 people killed in all mass shootings since 1966 when Charles Whitman climbed his tower.

    Too many, but let's have some perspective.

    Chicago alone has had 500 murders already, just this year, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

    Overall murders are down 50% nationwide since 1993 while gun ownership is up over 50% during the same time. Not just gun murders, as some like to cite in Australia or England, but all murders.

    ROCKET VALENTINE

    You said there should be mandatory training and full registration and licensing.

    Currently that is the law for docs, phamacists, and prescription narcotics, yet we're still having a nationwide prescription opioid crisis.

    I asked Lazarus this in the other blog post but he didn't want to answer. How would you (register,confiscate, or anything else) guns in the US when no one has any idea how many guns are in the US?

    Until 1968 there was no requirement for guns to have serial numbers or transactions to be recorded. It is still legal to build your own gun without any paperwork whatsoever. No one knows how many guns have been smuggled over the border.

    Any assertion that all guns, or all of these types of guns, should be (fill in the blank) must face this insurmountable question of how many guns are out there.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 7:02 PM
  • Admittedly, a legislative solution cannot stop murders, drunk drivers, drug deaths, robberies, or a plethora of other violations.

    But, somehow, if we just pass more legislation, stricter, more invasive, more freedom robbing laws then it will get better???

    Laws are useless without strict enforcement. Even so, not every drunk, dope addict, thief, or crazed killer can be caught and the law enforced prior to the deadly event.

    The law is only effective when people are willing to obey it. Of course, we already have laws that would have prevented all these events if the people were willing to obey them.

    The problem is not the devices, or the laws. It is the hearts and minds of the people. It is a lack of morality. It is the cultural acceptance of perverse norms. It is the lack of individual responsibility. The problem is the people! Discover ways to correct the hearts and minds of people and you have the solution.

    Governments have historically had solutions when the people become the problem. They have also instituted genocidal solutions to those problems. Don't think it can't or won't happen again.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 7:52 PM
  • You all keep saying that stricter gun laws just won't work. That it's all a morality issue.

    But not one of you can explain the success that Australia has had since they tightened their gun laws.

    Why is that?

    I'm sure they thought the same thing about the immense task of registering, confiscating, buying back, etc., all the guns in Australia when they did it.

    But they ended up taking 700,000 guns off the streets.

    They showed that it's not impossible.

    They also proved it stopped mass shootings there.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 8:38 PM
  • Also Mike, Chicago might have some tougher gun laws that other cities. But neighboring Indiana has virtually no gun restrictions. FBI statistics show that's where most illegal guns used in crimes in Chicago are coming from.

    FBI stats also show that Chicago was still safer than other U.S. cities when crime was viewed on a per-capita basis. Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Newark, Oakland, Stockton, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Memphis and Atlanta all had higher per-capita murder rates.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 8:47 PM
  • RocketValentine

    Just because Australia has had a reduction in gun violence does mean it was due to the law.

    This fact check article says the decline was already underway before the law was passed. Also, the law/program resulting in 700,000 fewer guns equaled 20% reduction in guns. So, if it was cause and effect, we would expect to see 20% reduction in gun violence.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

    Consider this quote from the FACT CHECK article.

    "The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write"

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 9:31 PM
  • I misspelled a word above. This should say.

    Just because Australia has had a reduction in gun violence DOESN'T mean it was due to the law.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 9:34 PM
  • Ok...So you're saying the fact that Australia had 14 mass shootings before they changed their gun laws, and absolutely none after, is most likely just a coincidence.....gotcha

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 9:45 PM
  • It seems many commenters employ the use of analogies to "prove" their arguments. Perhaps you might try comparing Honduras and Switzerland.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 10:00 PM
  • RV,

    Why just focus on "shooting deaths"? Is it somehow worse than dying by other means? Austrailia still has mass killings. Many are done by arson now. I don't know about you, but given the choice between death from a bullet or fire, I'd take the bullet.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    Also, if it's a gun issue, why wasn't Indiana, with their lax gun laws, listed in your collection of higher per capita murder areas?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 4:20 AM
  • RV

    You also need to decide if you're going to rely on raw numbers or per capita numbers.

    If it's per capita, there have been 948 victims of mass shootings since 1966. That averages out to 18.6 per year,in a country of 300 million.

    That leaves a person with an average of. 0000062% chance of being the victim of a mass shooting in a given year.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 4:36 AM
  • I understand Mike. You, like most conservative/republicans, have taken the stance that there is no solution to stopping the now common mass shootings that occur in the U.S.

    According to you, since you only have a "0000062%" chance of being the victim in a mass shooting....hell, it's really no problem at all.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Let's just wait until the next gun-nut busts out his "collection" and opens fire on some more innocent school kids or concert goers.

    We'll just hand out the "thoughts & prayers" and chalk it up to the price of freedom.

    Plus with those odds, 0000062%, chances are pretty **** good it won't be you or anyone you know. No biggie

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 5:01 AM
  • Like most liberals/democrats you sound off about deaths from mass shootings (when it has the opportunity to give government more control) but are silent about "normal murders" and even decry penalties that are too harsh.

    No uproar over obesity which, with its attendant problems, is the number one killer.

    Certainly no mention of abortion which takes an American life ever 97 seconds.

    Artful dodge of the questions in the previous posts. But then proclaiming "something should be done!" makes one appear to be concerned without being mired down by pesky things like actual plans and details.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 6:42 AM
  • Mike, do you also go to breast cancer awareness marches and yell out to them..."Hey, what about lung cancer!"

    "What about obesity?"

    Is this really your argument to ignore mass shootings?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 7:35 AM
  • More nonsense to avoid answering the questions?

    Didn't realize this blog was a march. Even if it was, you have participated in numerous blog discussions over the years and you've never brought any of the other concerns up. But then, the democrat puppet masters never told you to.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 9:10 AM
  • Sorry, QM. I did not know you were expecting an answer. I thought that was a rhetorical question. It is not like removing assault weapons is impossible. Like anything else, 100% would be difficult to achieve, but 99% would be easy. It has even been done. You simply set a cutoff date, maybe establish a buy back program if you want to be fair about it, and then set the penalty for owning/possessing such a weapon higher than the threshold of wanting one...say 10 years in the penitentiary without possibility of parole for ownership, and life for sale or possession for resale. You aren't dealing with physical addiction (punishment for drug use won't work, when the price of doing it is already death.)You aren't dealing with an act of emotion (murder/assaults/etc.) And you aren't dealing with the tradeoff of huge profits weighed against the risk of incarceration. You are not dealing with a demographic of people with nothing to lose. Lets face it; for many criminals life outside is not that much better than life inside, and that segment of society is not the primary market for assault weapons.

    From a practical standpoint, I have already moved on. We will do nothing. We always do nothing. All that is left is the general amusement of reading the rather specious arguments, and wondering if the real truth will ever dawn on people. Mass shootings are the lifeblood of the NRA. That is their one chance to convince their target market that guns are in danger of being banned. Do you think their contributions don't spike, and their membership and power grow, with every mass shooting? And it is like Christmas for the firearm industry, who can count on a surge in sales, as the NRA followers rush out to buy more guns before the impending.... doing of nothing.

    Actually, the only thing in this latest round that I found interesting at all was your reference to the extremely low probability of being involved in a mass shooting. Risk assessment seems to be a weakness among humans, assigning disproportionate weight to risks based on emotion, rather than mathematical probability. You are absolutely correct. When you consider the numbers, mass shootings are not a major problem. Because of the emotional impact, they receive disproportionate media coverage. Like Steve Mills, I think they might occur even less often without the attendant coverage. But, I am not "quite" going to pat you on the back for your rationalism. If I remember correctly, you are an enthusiastic supporter of the silly "travel ban," which is an even more pointless response to an even more miniscule threat. It would seem that everyone has their hot buttons.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 9:46 AM
  • Actually I am in favor of completely open borders, but we'd have to eliminate the great welfare state first. It's impossible to have both. Unless you intend to run your heater this winter and leave all your doors and windows open.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 9:56 AM
  • RocketValentine,

    Australia does not have the same U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that we have here in America. Nor does it have a Declaration of Independence that declares all people as "EQUAL".

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Because our Country recognizes this - It means that a Syrian "Refugee" (when (s)he steps foot on our soil, they have the very same sovereignty that "We the People" have. Every illegal alien, undocumented immigrant, and every refugee is acknowledged to have the same Constitutional Bill of Rights that we have.

    They are not bound by our U.S. Laws unless they injure someone or do property damage or violate a contract they make with a citizen.

    This should make all you brain dead Americans very happy with yourself for inviting them in without any conditions to their staying in our country.

    They are free to do anything they want to to better their life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness and the federal and State government is prevented from interfering with their rights by the U.S. Constitution.

    In America, the government and Law enforcement agencies have no authority to prevent them from purchasing weapons, nor violating their rights. These are Sovereign Rights, NOT Civil Rights!

    I haven't studied anything about Australia so I don't know what rights people have in Australia and what powers the government can not take against their citizens.

    Did you see the word Citizen? When you become a Citizen in USA you surrender your sovereignty and accept Civil Rights given (Not by God) but by your friendly government employees. You no longer have Sovereign rights unless you reclaim them yourself personally.

    Australia bought back guns, stole guns and confiscated them from the people. There may not be any guns to buy in Australia, and if so, their gun control laws would apply to everyone, unless their constitution recognizes the Sovereignty of the people like the US Constitution does.

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 6:08 PM
  • Australia and Great Britain have both passed so many gun control laws that it is almost impossible to get a permit to get a gun unless you just want one for a target shooting club membership or for hunting food.

    Because of the control laws Britain was determined to be “the most violent country in Europe.”

    Just in the last couple years Australia was invaded by Isis. It was left up to the Police to fight Isis. Remember that? Good Luck with that when they rise up in America.

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 8:16 PM
  • RocketValentine,

    Australia only has 6 States. It wasn't hard to get just 6 States to agree with the Leader's new Gun Control Laws after their big mass killing they had, because they didn't have a Constitution forbidding the disarming of the people.

    We in America have a Constitution in every State protecting your right to bear and keep arms plus the Federal Constitution forbidding the government employee's from taking your guns.

    So, where do you go from here RV? Do you violate everyone's right to bear arms against the US Constitution and every State Constitution when it is listed as a God Given Right in the Bill of Rights. Once a right is acknowledged as a right, it is unconstitutional to take it away of trade it for a lesser right or privilege.

    To take away our guns if just as much a crime as a shooter killing people, because you are breaking the Law of the Land.

    You can Amend the Constitution all you want to, but you can only ADD RIGHTS for the people, not remove rights.

    So, you have to get Congress to pass gun control laws, because only Congress has the power to legislate laws without Constitutional restrictions and limitations, and that is only for 14th Amendment Citizens and Citizens of Federal Territories(See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)

    Gun Control Laws apply to (Documented)14th Amendment Citizens and Federal Citizens of the Territories, because Congress has the power to make all needful laws, codes, rules and regulations without considering the US Constitution.

    14th Amendment Citizens were given Civil Rights by the Congress, Not Unalienable Rights.

    That means, their PRIVILEGE to Keep and Bear Arms can be taken away or limited by Gun Control Laws because "What Congress Creates Congress can take away".

    Now can you understand why Gun Control Laws won't stop the violence?

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 8:43 PM
  • Until all the American People stop all this stupid crap they are doing and come together as one people, the devil will continue to play in our back yard, "The United States of America", which is totally divided and fighting each other making it a Heaven for Lucifer to reap his souls he needs to come against God.

    It's not the guns, or the autos, or drugs. It's the devil taking over the weak minds of the idiots.

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Oct 11, 2017, at 9:01 PM
  • Phew!!

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Thu, Oct 12, 2017, at 7:19 AM
  • Lord he was born a rambling man....

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Oct 12, 2017, at 4:23 PM
  • Many commenters employ anecdotes to bolster their arguments. I can only conclude they choose to ignore my suggestion to compare Honduras with Switzerland. I guess my anectodal information is not worthy of consideration.

    In any case a factual argument is totally incontrovertible as to the following: both Honduras and Switzerland have 8.2 million people population; Honduras has a ban on gun ownership; Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the world; Switzerland has the least restrictive gun ownership laws, even in some cases mandate compulsive gun ownership; Switzerland has the lowest homicide rate in the world.

    What is the difference between these near identical countries? Culture! Ergo my suggestion that the core problem is cultural and this can only be rectified by a concerted commitment of a one to two generation effort.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Fri, Oct 13, 2017, at 12:12 PM
  • Here is a Hot Button Issue for you!

    The Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional unless you volunteer to pay Taxes by filling out a W-4 form with your employer volunteering to let your employer take taxes out of your salary!

    Federal Income Tax MUST BE Uniform throughout the States. How do you figure the Federal Income Tax is Uniform when some people don't have to pay, some pay little and some pay too much because the others don't pay? Also why does 50% of the people don't pay taxes? Is that what Congress calls Uniform?

    And now just for your pleasure, the government is going to fix the Tax. Yeah, right! They don't even know what the constitution requires when it comes to Taxes. They are just looking to get their greedy Big hands on your money!

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Oct 22, 2017, at 1:20 PM
  • Switzerland requires mandatory military service. It also allows for military personnel to store their service rifles at home. Years ago, I was on an exchange trip to Switzerland and stayed at a private home; I opened up the closet and their was a military issue automatic rifle. I also remember seeing a person on the way to drill, on a bicycle with a rifle slung over his back. Clearly, people are trained on the use of these firearms.

    -- Posted by Grit on Wed, Nov 1, 2017, at 1:16 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: