Done.

Starting over

start

while working on this I am finding it very difficult to find words that are appropriate to hearing of yet another massacre of innocent lives caused by the US politicians lack of guts at making an attempt to reduce innocent deaths at the hands of humans that can legally obtain automatic assault rifles, even when having links to terrorists. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families and the hundreds if not thousands of people that will have been directly affected by this one preventable act of madness.

The time has come to act and it must come from the people. You live in a great democracy but unfortunately a corrupt one where vociferous gun lobbyists in a massive minority can prevent gutless politicians concerned only about their seats and not the greater good. If there is ever one thing you could learn from around the world it is to bring in sweeping gun laws as our Prime minister John Howard did after the Port Arthur massacre.

To the frankly absurd childish argument that you need to protect against an unruly Government, you live in a democracy, vote them out. Simply puts someone great once said, the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world is watching you America. If you want to be thought of as company that leads, then the time is to show it. Show the world what true democracy is all about. Someone stand up and get the people to follow and vote for common sense. Make it a political issue. Make every single politician stand up and say which way they will vote and vote for change, for decency and for the sake of humanity.

Apologies, I meant country not company, mind you, the irony doesn't escape me.

I'll have to come back to the puzzle a bit later.

Done, after many guesses.

It seems to me that the right to bear arms has cost America very dearly. At least 11 holders of public office, including 4 presidents, have been assassinated in the last 150 years. This compared to 4 Canadians, 3 Australians, and 1 Briton (who was blown up rather than shot). I am 60 years old and have never owned a gun nor wanted to own a gun. British police are mostly unarmed and there are very few shootings by British Police, and almost no shootings of innocent people by police. No toddlers shoot their parents, and we have had 7 mass murders by single shot guns in the last 50 years. I hear the news of all the senseless deaths in America each year and cannot see any sense to having the right to bear arms. It's a b it like the old arguments for fox hunting in Britain - 'we've always done it', 'it's part of our tradition/culture', 'it's a legal right'. We changed the law. There is still some illegal fox hunting, but mostly it is confined to drag hunting where the fox isn't killed. And the world hasn't ended. I'm sure the world would be a much safer place if Americans didn't have such easy access to guns of all kinds, but assault rifles would be a good place to start any legislation.

done with a guess

done with a guess

done with a guess

OOps

Sadly digondda I think the Americans have become so accustomed to the violence it doesn't even seem to make them think with any degree of logic. Where is the outrage, marching in the streets with banners saying it's time for change. Most importantly why are the politicians so gutless in the face of the all powerful gun lobby? Obama had the guts to try but the pathetic, I'm not willing to put my job on the line selfishness of the other pollies in case the gun lobby spend millions of dollars in attack ads against me seems to be the problem.

Sadly digondda I think the Americans have become so accustomed to the violence it doesn't even seem to make them think with any degree of logic. Where is the outrage, marching in the streets with banners saying it's time for change. Most importantly why are the politicians so gutless in the face of the all powerful gun lobby? Obama had the guts to try but the pathetic, I'm not willing to put my job on the line selfishness of the other pollies in case the gun lobby spend millions of dollars in attack ads against me seems to be the problem.

Sorry, sticking return key on the keyboard. Maybe Obama in his last period of office should have a referendum where everyone can vote and bypass the pollies altogether - thats true democracy.

done

Phil, digondda, you're both right. Our country is full of those who somehow believe our gun culture is making us safer, despite the overwhelming objective evidence otherwise. I don't get it, either.

go

Phil this will keep happening here until we change our campaign finance laws. Until we have publicly funded elections the special interests (Gun manufacturer lobby) will be able to control the 'gutless' politicians by threatening a primary challenge or funding their more pliant opponent.

I live in Binghamton, New York. Google binghamton mass shooting.

After Sandy Hook there were polls that showed that 70+% of U.S. citizens including gun owners favored more stringent gun control laws. Nothing was done.

Will Of The People. Nope.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States of America, and to the Oligarchies for which it stands, one Nation, divisible through fear and propaganda, with liberty and justice for those who can afford it.

Isn't it a little soon to politicize this tragedy?

An insane Muslim terrorist killed a bunch of people, not a gun. The gun was only his tool of choice. It could just as well have been a suicide vest, possibly with worse consequences.

Demanding that there be change so this cannot happen again is not politicizing. And whether he was a Muslim, a Catholic, a Jew, a Protestant, an Athiest, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Pastafarian is irrelevant. He had an automatic weapon that we used to have bans on and that ban was lifted thanks to a lot of help from the gun lobby and some weak minded politicians. And now we are reaping what we have sown. And, I'm sorry, but every time this happens, the pro-gun folks say it is too soon to politicize anything which is another way of saying, be quiet until we have all gotten over this and no one is upset enough anymore to do anything about it. It's all weasel words. Something awful happened and we want to prevent it from happening again.

NRA propaganda rebuttal point #1. Right after a mass shooting say it is too early to politicize the tragedy. That way it will all be forgotten 2 weeks later or until the next tragedy.

How about incarcerating insane people. That would be more effective. You can't tell me that stricter gun control laws would have prevented this. Not if he was intent on doing it. He would have gotten the gun illegally or he would have made a suicide vest. Murder is already illegal, but that didn't stop him.

Don't forget, it was a gun that stopped him.

Yeah and it is poison that kills cancer cells.

If just 1 of his victims had been armed the results might have been very different.

And more nuclear weapons that keep them from being used. MADD.

Yes, I am sure the NRA support arming Gays and Latinos.

The problem isn't guns, it is that we don't have enough of them.

If all your kids had guns then none of them would accidentally shoot each other.

"'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Yes, but the gun helps." --Eddie Izzard

The NRA supports arming every law abiding citizen last I checked.

Guns help, so do SUVs.

Of course they do. It increases their funders customer base.

I'm glad your faith in the NRA is so strong. An organization founded for the safe use of firearms that now goes out its way to PREVENT any laws that would increase firearm safety.

The NRA is not funded by their members donations. It is funded by the Gun manufacturers.

The NRA supported 1 gun control law. It was in California after the Black Panthers marched while armed. Go figure.

73% of NRA funding comes from members dues.

And how many of those "members" are Gun Corporations?

O come now, you're being silly.

of course I am

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-f\nunds-nra-2013-1

Link didn't work

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

remove the \n Andy

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-f\nunds-nra-2013-1

Why does it insert that \n into it?

not sure. Probably to stop spamming of websites in chat

Well, much as I would love to continue this debate, I have to get to work in a few minutes.

https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-\nthe-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from

Keep calling for gun control legislation, that has prompted more contributions to the NRA than anything else.

Good rebuttal drwho but since there are conflicting accounts here I would tend to go with the business insiders numbers than a message board whose posters are in the gun business and NRA members.

I really don't see the Business Insider as a left wing rag.

I too must also get to work. Sheesh what is with all the Experts lately :-)

From your own source, 20-56 million was contributed by gun manufacturers between 2005 and 2013. Yet from the same article we learn that 20.9 million was only about 10% of the NRA's revenue for the year 2010. So um...I'm confused. How is that the majority of NRA funding?

B.T.W. the fact that the perpetrator was a Muslim is significant. It may be that true Muslims don't do such things. If so, then there are a lot of heretical imams that need to be defrocked. Until that happens Islam has a problem and we cannot ignore it.

Difficulty score 41. No green.

drwho, do you feel the same about all of the fundamentalist christians who are utterly unchristian and perform all manner of atrocities as well in the name of god?

drwho, do you feel the same about all of the fundamentalist christians who are utterly unchristian and perform all manner of atrocities as well in the name of god?

What atrocities are you talking about?

What the article points out is that what the NRA shows as its source of financial support is not the whole story. They are supported by the manufacturers in a kind of "dark money" way.

Which fundamentalist Christians?

Seriously? If you honestly know of no such attacks then you are not paying attention at all.

Illuminate me.

Bring some specifics to my attention.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atrocities+committed+in+\nthe+name+of+christianity

I do repudiate anyone committing atrocities in the name of Christ. And I repudiate the Westboro Baptist Church. But to compare fundamentalist Christians with Muslims beggars belief.

I agree. But compare Christian Fundamentalists to Muslim Fundamentalists and you are closer to the mark.

I also repudiate most main line denominations that have rejected historic Christian doctrine.

Andy, I doubt you really understand what a Christian fundamentalist is. The term originated in the early 20th century or perhaps slightly before that. It was codified by a 12 volume work called The Fundamentals A Testimony to the Truth. The thesis was that certain beliefs were fundamental to Christianity. Denial of any one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity was proof of apostasy. Most evangelical Christians agree on what the fundamental doctrines are, but they will not go so far as to mark those who deny them as heretics.

If you repudiate other theological thinking and claim all others are heretics then there is zero chance we will ever have a discussion that goes anywhere. So, I wish you well, but I am out. I've gotten into arguments with fundamentalists before and it always ends with me headdesking. And I think the larger community here would be glad to see this discussion end.

Andy, fundamentalist only insist that there be a clear definition of terms. You may believe what you want, just don't call yourself a Christian if for instance you don't believe Christ truly died for our sins, was buried and rose bodily from the dead on the third day.

Further, the term fundamental, implies that some doctrines are not fundamental. In other words, fundamentalists recognize that we may not agree on all doctrines, but we must decide which are the most important ones where we cannot tolerate deviation.

Andy, following the link you gave, I got the top 10 atrocities committed in the name of religion. The most current ones having to do with Christians were the Klu Klux Klan murders and the Holocaust. Of course virtually all Christians repudiate the Klu Klux Klan and racism. The Holocaust was not a Christian atrocity, it was political and/or pagan. Hitler and Mussolini may have been (and still are) members in good standing of the Catholic Church, but Hitler in particular and Nazism in general was more pagan than anything else.

Dr. Who, I like your logic, especially in your "clear definitions" plea and your "fundamental implies that some doctrines are not fundamental." I'll have to remember those.

UTH: Thanks. The slanderous media presentation of Christian Fundamentalism is to equate it with Muslim Fundamentalism. Just doing my part to set the record straight.

But if indeed, Muslim Fundamentalist are like Christian Fundamentalist, in that they have identified and adhere to the Fundamental doctrines of Islam, then one has to wonder if Jihad via suicide bombing is a fundamental tenant of Islam?

I hope not!

A double virtual takes you a long way. But it looks like I still might need a guess.

Or is Genocide a fundamental tenant of Christianity?

And since the Oklahoma City bombers were white males, does that mean that blowing up day care centers is a fundamental tenant of white right wing anti-government believers?

Or since we pillaged our way in the Philippines does that mean the fundamental tenant of being and American is occupying countries that were our allies and brutally surpressing their attempts at freedom?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is why all violence is repulsive to me. It can be justified in so many ways. And it doesn't matter how evil or destructive the tactics. If you win they are "justified". Churchill and Truman would have been put to death for war crimes if the Allies had lost.

The root cause is always greed over land and resources.

You mean tenet, not tenant.

thanks

No religious doctrines speak of violence. It is the extremists who twist the words to attempt to justify their violent acts.

The Christians marched around the world trying to convert non believers and killing them if they opposed them.

It would be great if the worlds religious leaders all got around the table and all worked together, accepting that they can hold different beliefs but all denouncing violence and showing unity.

The person -should not reward them with mentioning their name, who killed the people in the bar was most likely motivated by a hate for homosexuals that was derived from religious teachings. Until the worlds religions all start teaching tolerance and acceptance this will continue.

However, we are not going to change intolerance for a long time, especially with someone such as Trump being a presidential candidate spouting garbage and people lapping it up. What can change would be risk reduction.

We live in a world full of risk, where every business is expected to put in risk reducing procedures for their employees. Same in Government, mitigate harm to the public. Yet a person who has been investigated for links to terrorists can legally buy an assault rifle! It frankly beggars belief.

Make it as hard as possible to get a firearm. Limit it to gun club owners who have to have a place to use their firearm. Handguns must be kept at a gun club. Special licences to those who use a firearm in their work and limit the magazine to 15. Make it illegal to have an automatic weapon outside of the military. Full police clearance to obtain a firearm and must be held at a licensed club where training is provided. All firearms to be maintained on a register and stored in a secure gun cabinet bolted to a wall unless being transported to and from a club. Ammunition stored in a separate locked compartment. Chamber flags to be used to verify an empty chamber and Police able to check at any time. It's not hard guys. You can still shoot but lets have some common sense in play.