This message was self-deleted by its author

[Aaronquah]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Aaronquah) on Thu Dec 8, 2016, 02:58 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[holdencaufield]

1. Not being from a free country ...

... you can be forgiven for not understanding that, unlike the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahatir, President Obama isn't a dictator. He has no powers to create bans in opposition to the US Constitution -- which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to US citizens. The president of the US in fact doesn't pass laws, only Congress can do that. His function is to sign bills approved by Congress into law and act as the titular head of the federal agencies that enforce federal laws.

If you are truly afraid of being shot in the United States, it is probably best if you stay in Malaysia where I'm sure no one is ever killed.

[holdencaufield]

5. What you don't understand is ...

... Albert Einstein, Madeleine Albright and all the other immigrants to the US -- including my grandparents -- came to this country with the singular goal of living a better life than the one they had in their home countries. They came not only to experience the American way of life but to embrace it -- including its laws which you find so distasteful.

If you seek to come to the US for a better life than the one you have in Malaysia ... that's great. But, come understanding what that entails and don't seek to remold it into a replica of where you left. America is a country of laws and rights -- respect them and don't fear them.

[holdencaufield]

19. If you're going to keep quoting movies ...

... at least quote GOOD movies.

[bossy22]

22. Yes, it is different now

now we have LESS gun violance.

[hack89]

24. America has seen a steady and drastic decline in gun violence

over the past 30 years. We are enjoying historically low levels of violence of every kind. So you are right that things are different from past times - they are now better.

[hack89]

37. Over half of gun deaths are suicides

which is irrelevant to the issue of responsible gun ownership - it is a mental health issue.

Criminal gun violence is highly localized in urban areas where crime, poverty, drugs, gangs and despair are concentrated - many inner city areas like Chicago are more war zones.

Most Americans live in areas that are just as safe as the safest countries you can name. I live in a densely populated state in a town of 45,000. There have been exactly two gun murders in the 12 years I have lived here.

The fact of the matter is that responsible gun ownership is the norm.

[beevul]

50. How about these.

There are over 3 hundred million - thats 300,000,000 - guns in America.

The numbers of people that own them, are over 80 million - thats over 80,000,000.

The number of firearm murders with all firearms, number below (IIRC) 10 thousand - thats 10,000.

[beevul]

65. Uh...

What I did post, tends to support the last statement made by the poster you were replying to:

"The fact of the matter is that responsible gun ownership is the norm"

Although I suppose someone could waltz into this forum, and reply that I have no proof that gun owners as a group don't burn their toast or overcook their steak or stop far enough away from crosswalks, or some other similar nonsense.

[spin]

79. Would you believe FBI and DOJ statistics? ....

FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows
By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News 11Jun 2012 6:17pm, EDT

Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.

Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country, FBI spokesman Bill Carter told msnbc.com.

***snip***

This is actually a pretty significant drop, which is fascinating because we’d normally expect crime to go up when we’re in an economic downturn,” Gary LaFree, a criminology professor at the University of Maryland, told msnbc.com, adding that the U.S. is experiencing the lowest crime levels since World War II.

According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

The media in this nation strongly supports the gun control movement and rarely mentions that violent crime has fallen significantly as it doesn't fit their agenda. The NRA and gun manufacturers also rarely mention the dropping violence rate as their interests are increased membership and the sale of new firearms. Still our nation is indeed becoming safer.

What's Behind America's Falling Crime Rate
By David Von Drehle Monday, Feb. 22, 2010

Health care, climate change, terrorism — is it even possible to solve big problems? The mood in Washington is not very hopeful these days. But take a look at what has happened to one of the biggest, toughest problems facing the country 20 years ago: violent crime. For years, Americans ranked crime at or near the top of their list of urgent issues. Every politician, from alderman to President, was expected to have a crime-fighting agenda, yet many experts despaired of solutions. By 1991, the murder rate in the U.S. reached a near record 9.8 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, criminologists began to theorize that a looming generation of so-called superpredators would soon make things even worse.

Then, a breakthrough. Crime rates started falling. Apart from a few bumps and plateaus, they continued to drop through boom times and recessions, through peace and war, under Democrats and Republicans. Last year's murder rate may be the lowest since the mid-1960s, according to preliminary statistics released by the Department of Justice. The human dimension of this turnaround is extraordinary: had the rate remained unchanged, an additional 170,000 Americans would have been murdered in the years since 1992. That's more U.S. lives than were lost in combat in World War I, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — combined. In a single year, 2008, lower crime rates meant 40,000 fewer rapes, 380,000 fewer robberies, half a million fewer aggravated assaults and 1.6 million fewer burglaries than we would have seen if rates had remained at peak levels....emphasis added

There's a catch, though. No one can convincingly explain exactly how the crime problem was solved. Police chiefs around the country credit improved police work. Demographers cite changing demographics of an aging population. Some theorists point to the evolution of the drug trade at both the wholesale and retail levels, while for veterans of the Clinton Administration, the preferred explanation is their initiative to hire more cops. Renegade economist Steven Levitt has speculated that legalized abortion caused the drop in crime. (Fewer unwanted babies in the 1970s and '80s grew up to be thugs in the 1990s and beyond.)

The truth probably lies in a mix of these factors, plus one more: the steep rise in the number of Americans in prison. As local, state and federal governments face an era of diminished resources, they will need a better understanding of how and why crime rates tumbled. A sour economy need not mean a return to lawless streets, but continued success in fighting crime will require more brains, especially in those neighborhoods where violence is still rampant and public safety is a tattered dream.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html

[Marengo]

72. Do you commune with the deceased?

[Marengo]

77. If not, how can you know the founders would deeply regret..

the inclusion of the Second Amendment in our Constitution?

"if the American founding fathers had knew the current situation, they would have greatly disappointed and deeply regretted for making the Second amendment"

The last "founding father" to die was Madison in 1836, how is it possible to know what he and the others would think of our situation in 2013?

[Marengo]

84. Can you provide cites from these biographies?

A reference from which a reader might conclude the founders would have regretted including the Second Amendment if they knew of our current situation?

[gejohnston]

88. one thing

the militia is not the main part of the second amendment. The argument did not exist until the 1930s.

FWIW, Hamilton was a conservative.

[gejohnston]

89. much of that had

with pay, or lack of. Of course they had to go home to get the crops in and get them to market. Of course that is not a complete history. Adding to the morale problems were basic logistics of food and equipment. The militias were became very skilled at guerrilla warfare.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/

BTW, that isn't really relevant to private ownership of semi automatic rifles.

[Marengo]

91. Did Washington believe...

that the right to possess firearms was entirely dependent on militia service, and the effectiveness of a militia body?

[Pararescue]

13. A president cannot create new laws.

Only the Legislative Branch can, which is the Congress.
A president can issue Executive Orders which pertain to only those Federal Agencies that he has control over, and even then, the Congress can stop the president cold by refusing to fund it.

[gejohnston]

18. no, and AFAIK didn't happen

public schools are controlled by state governments. A federal law over the public schools might have been ruled as being against the Constitution in the 1930s. We have a federal system, not a unitary system. What you are thinking of is when the Supreme Court ruled that state segregation laws violated the Constitution. President Eisenhower sent the Army and US Marshalls to enforce the court order. Some states had segregation, some did not. Where I grew up, we did not.

[gejohnston]

41. Japanese

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154/

He acted as the CiC of the military during a declared war. The order gave the military the right to ban who they wanted from being 50 miles from the coast.

The internment of Japanese Canadians on the other hand was an act of legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Obama can't do what you want him too.

HoldenCaufield explained to you how our Constitution works so I won't repeat it.

I will tell you that rampage shootings are very rare. When they do happen, the media covers them intensely so the emotional impact of them is greater than for lesser crimes. Statistically, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a rampage shooter, or be illegally killed by a person with a concealed carry permit. And some people do get struck by lightning.

Guns are very common here, except in some cities. There are about 300 million guns in private hands in the country and tens of thousands more are sold every day.

There are bad people in any country. Just as you have learned to avoid them in your country you will have to learn how to avoid them in this country.

Do not let fear rule your life. Come on over and learn our culture, including our gun culture. Make friends with a gun owner and ask him to take you to a range. Accidents are extremely rare.

I, personally, have nine guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. regarding...

"mentally ill people and former criminals (who were charged with heavy offense), should be banned from buying guns"

Currently they are banned for sale to or possession by most criminals and the mentally ill. The Sandy Hook shooter stole guns from his mother after killing her.

[gejohnston]

16. what evidence do you have of this?

Just because it was mentioned in the media once, doesn't mean it is true. As it turned out, she wasn't a teacher there either. Much of the journalism was awful that did not turn out to be true. She may have been a "prepper" but I doubt it had anything to do with 2012. Even if it did, it is't relevant to public safety. Making prohibitions on any civil liberty because of what some one thinks, assuming it is true, has no place in a liberal democracy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. It's just a matter...

...for the thought police.

[gejohnston]

40. or it could be a factoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
the Lanza family that have been debunked, like her being a teacher at the school, or making statements based on nothing and joining in as group think. Assuming she did take him to the range and let him fire them under her supervision, that is not "playing with them".

The US media often puts corporate and political bias ahead of the truth. Many US journalists are lazy and not very good at their jobs.

[iiibbb]

52. So let's accept that it was her responsibility to her disturbed child that was the core problem...

... what does that have to do with my guns 500 miles away?


Also, I think this is the first I've heard that Lanza was "autistic", or that it was autism that was a root cause of his acts. You might be committing a heck of a slander against Autism.

[gejohnston]

67. or the prohibition of some drugs from

the 1930s to the present, or strict gun control in Jamaica and Mexico.

[spin]

80. Adam Lanza was supposedly diagnosed with SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder) ...

SPD Foundation Comments on Newtown Shooter’s Diagnosis of SPD

On February 19, PBS aired an investigative report that stated Adam Lanza, the young man who killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut in December, had been diagnosed with Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) when he was a child. ABC.com contacted the SPD Foundation the day before the story aired asking us to provide information about SPD. Dr. Lucy Jane Miller explained SPD and the vital importance of support for the individuals and families impacted by this disorder. Read the full story at ABC.com.

***snip***

There is so little information about Adam Lanza’s diagnostic conditions and any treatments he may have received. We want everyone to know that SPD is real and that there are effective treatments. Most important, there is no direct correlation between sensory issues and the type of aggression and violence exhibited by Adam Lanza.


***snip***

SPD is not autism or ADHD or anxiety disorder. It is a separate condition, although it can co-occur with a wide variety of other disorders.

Individuals with SPD do not resort to guns and premeditated acts. Some children with SPD do have aggressive symptoms caused by the way their bodies process “fight or flight,” the brain’s natural and automatic response to stressful or dangerous situations. For example, a child with sensory over-responsive SPD (one of the six subtypes) who is bumped from behind standing in line at school may have an instantaneous reflex to protect himself by “fighting” back, causing him to turn around and push or hit the child who bumped him. The child would not harbor anger and “get even” at a later, more opportune, time.
http://spdfoundation.net/sensory-processing-blog/2013/02/28/spd-foundation-comments-on-newtown-shooters-diagnosis-of-spd/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. And...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
B. Franklin, 1759

[jmg257]

25. Don't forget...

"a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved"

Robert Yates, 1787

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Robert Yates...

...a few sentences further in the same writing:
"But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc."

[Marengo]

23. Well, if you believe people should be prevented from excersizing rights...

declared in our constitution based on what they think or what belief system they hold, I'd rather you not come here. We have enough of that already.

[Marengo]

38. That's not how I interpret the post I responded to...

"his mother is actually a zealot and also should not be approved from buying guns, due to her paranoid about the failed 2012 doomsday prediction.

Perhaps it is a matter of phrasing, but your statement above suggests that the person in question should have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm based on her thoughts. Being a "zealot", or believing in "doomsday prediction" are not criminal acts nor do they determine a person will behave in such as to require adjudication of mental incompetency.

[gejohnston]

43. not so much a red herring

that is what you said. Those laws already exist.

[iiibbb]

53. What loopholes?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. you live in Malaysia yet this incident is what shocked you to the point that you felt the need to

post on this website? really?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-yff16&p=maylasia%20atrocities&type=

[ileus]

7. Giving up rights for "safety" is never an answer.

We gave until blood gushed out our eyes at the hands of *43 after 9/11. We thought freedom had finally returned, now we find more freedoms must be surrendered for security?

No....not security, for insecurity. We're suffering a round of 2A setbacks because of the insecure, it's going to take decades of work to regain the rights we've lost so far this year, and with more dark day coming down the pipe we may never dig ourselves out of this hole they're putting us in.

Now is not the time to take a regressive stance in the 2A, or simple mechanical devices we have to protect our families and homes with. Making more innocent victims isn't the correct answer to mental illness and hopelessness these latest shooters all suffer from. It's time to stop punishing the innocent American seeking personal protection, and work on making society a better place for everyone. It will cost money, but if it keeps our 2A rights intact there's no limits tax money wise people won't accept to assure the safety of the 2A and the American people.

[gejohnston]

17. there is

the law says people who ruled by a judge to be mentally incompetent. The criteria is specified in the Gun Control Act. Giving the police arbitrary authority of issuing out permits has no place in a democratic society. The criteria should be specifically explained by the law. That is why "shall issue" laws are better than "may issue" because the latter generally has no standards other than a cop's opinion.
The laws barring people felony convictions have been federal law since 1938 and court ruled mentally ill since 1968. Criminals do not buy their guns at the local gun store.

[gejohnston]

39. not really

loopholes in the normal sense. That implies that criminals get their guns legally through the loopholes.

[rrneck]

12. Please come to the United States, we'd love to have you here.

This is a very safe country in which to live, but it is not crime free. The implications of the quote you offered are actually quite appropriate. You see, if you get assaulted your fate will be in your hands alone. There won't be any police there because they can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time to help you. Your assailant will have chosen a time and place to attack you when he thinks you are most vulnerable. So it's quite true that in a situation like that you will indeed be the one making your own fate. In the United States, if you want, you are allowed to have a gun to use to fight back so that you will have a future.

I don't know what the crime rate is in Malaysia but I doubt it is any better than here. And in the end, no matter where you are violence between people has been pretty much the same for two million years, and mass shootings are very rare. All in all you have more to fear from fatty food and bad drivers than people with guns. C'mon over and have fun.

[gejohnston]

42. respected criminologist say otherwise

One study doesn't prove anything. It depends on how well one can do the same experiment and get the same results. Mr. Hemenway is the gun control advocate equivalent to John Lott.

[iiibbb]

54. You seem a bit impressionable

I think this place might not be safe for you.

Might I suggest Norway or Sweden for you studies.

[gejohnston]

55. not quite

the law only prevented the CDC from lobbying and advocating. Some doctors used CDC money to write biased studies to push that agenda.

[gejohnston]

66. you certainly have been

everyone is exposed to biased information.

[rrneck]

44. Someone with a troubled background won't need a gun to hurt you.

How you deal with that individual in that situation will be up to you.

There is some confusion in people's minds when it comes to the management of technology and public policy. They confuse their personal safety and convenience with the public good. It leads them to treat public policy objectives like a product designed just for their personal proclivities. Personal convenience and civic duty are not the same thing.

You are perfectly free, and quite correct, to advocate for, say, coast to coast light rail to reduce pollution. Just don't expect the train to stop at your front door when you're ready to go. You can advocate for the wisdom of single payer health care, but don't do it while you stuff pork chops in your mouth. And you can advocate for all the anti crime measures you think are appropriate, but no single anti crime initiative will make you safer than any other. People who abuse others for a living circumvent the law as a part of their occupation. So unless you are exceptionally large, strong and well trained in hand to hand self defense, banning guns won't help you one whit. Your assailant will have long since altered his tactics and strategy to circumvent whatever limitations have been placed on his access to firearms.

The United States is a nice place. I like it here and I think you will enjoy it. We, as a country, are very wealthy and powerful. That's part of the appeal. But remember we got that wealth and power by becoming an empire. And we became an empire by killing a lot of people all over the world. Our national identity was forged in part by our history of violence just like any other empire. And the safety that the vast majority of our citizens and visitors enjoy is more the result of our blood soaked wealth than the generous nature of our population. We all have our crosses to bear.

So come on over and build a future here, but don't expect us to turn the North American continent into your own private Disneyland. We are a nation of over three hundred million human beings, and some of us just aren't very nice. But then, you'd find that to be case no matter where you go.

[GP6971]

26. How many

signatures have you obtained?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. So far there are 3. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. I stand corrected...

...it's up to 4 now.

[iiibbb]

51. The irony is all the other more likely ways you might die when you're here. I'm scared to go to

Malaysia

http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2012/6/16/central/11483630




well maybe I'm not... but you can use the news to make yourself scared to do just about anything.

[iiibbb]

62. and you suffer from foregone conclusions

come and see. It is hugely unlikely you'll have a problem.

[iiibbb]

64. I don't know that theory... if you are saying you would be targeted for being different

Then you've been misinformed.

[iiibbb]

71. That is impossible.

You can take guns away and people will get hurt because they can't defend themselves. I have two close friends who are alive today thanks to a firearm. One was a woman who had a violent husband who said he was going to kill her one day... and she believed him.... and I have no reason to doubt her. She had a pistol and used that to convince him to leave the house.

I have another friend who was accosted by 2 men with knives late at night at a highway rest stop. He had a pistol (probably before it was legal to actually carry one in a pocket). He didn't need to fire, but he is certain they intended to kill him.

I myself hunt. I carry a pistol because there are wild dogs in the are that I hunt. I am generally by myself and miles from my car. I don't feel my single-shot rifle is adequate protection; and dogs have been a problem for people before.


So while your intentions may be good, the goal of "increase the safety of all people in the US" can not ever be achieved. This is why guns are a controversial topic.

[kudzu22]

70. I always wondered what impression people abroad have of the US

based on TV shows and especially the news. If your only source of info about the US is what you see on TV and the internet, you're getting a very distorted picture of what it's like here. I've lived here for (ahem) several decades, including a number of big cities, and I've never heard a shot fired in anger. I do not know anyone who has been murdered (by gun or otherwise).

If you dream of coming here to study, go ahead and do it. You won't regret it. And don't let the news scare you off.

[spin]

81. I hope you do decide to study in and perhaps immigrate to our nation. ...

Immigrants from all over the world have contributed to our nation and made it what it is today. While we are far from a utopian society as we have our problems, I feel we are gradually becoming better. I have seen significant positive change since I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s.

[gejohnston]

83. partisan rants are just that

Blogs written by political hacks churning out the same ideological talking points they copy and pasted from someplace else. That's why I don't waste my time with them.

9."We see that gun restrictions do work in the rest of the world, despite the catch 22 surrounding criminals and gun ownership (only law-abiding citizens follow gun laws). In Europe and much of Asia, the per capita murder rates are far lower than the United States and this is, in part, due to the fact that they have fewer guns. Crime still occurs, and murders still happen, but it is harder to do massive harm to large numbers of people when guns are less common."

that is actually a logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc because there is no evidence of cause and effect. Since Europe's murder rates were already that low before these laws were passed suggests there are a number of other reason.

10."By restricting guns, forcing gun registration, and punishing illegal guns harshly, the total number of guns on our streets will eventually decrease. As it gets more risky to buy or sell guns, people will have a harder time getting their hands on them and overall gun-homicide deaths will decrease."

notice he didn't say all homicide deaths will decrease.

Oh yeah, guns are not cheap. What is a "developed" country, and how is it relevant to murder rates? Using most definitions, Mexico, Estonia, and Brazil are "developed" countries. When you look at wealth inequality, the strongest correlation with murder and violent crime rates regardless of weapon, the US is closer to Mexico than any of those other 22 countries.

[Remmah2]

85. And how many innocent people have been murdered by government?

Cambodia is in your neighborhood. Interesting that you're so knowledgeable about the US but so unfamiliar about your neighborhood Mr. Rodgers.

[Remmah2]

93. Oh?

[dookers]

92. Response to number 12

Why do you say "our" when American gun laws don't apply to you? Your statement about "ever expanding body count" is false. The rate of violent crimes, firearm related homicide, and most crimes across the board has steadily decreased year to year for the past decade. Yet the AWB expired, there more privately owned firearms, and gun laws have relaxed in many states.