Comments on: Guns in America: the business of fear Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: constitutionn Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:31:06 +0000 It belittles me to see these pitty and sad comments, You people are being scared by the media. If your against gun control then shame on you, leave this county, The 2nd amendment is there FOR YOU!you need to be able to defend you self from a tyrannical government(wich might be america very very soon) Much worse things happen in the world than a few shootings in america, yes they are tragic but tragedies happen. none of those shootings probably affected ANY of you people.(maybe some of you)
just turn off the news and go outside and live.

By: agej Wed, 01 Aug 2012 06:00:37 +0000 I went to a class so I could get my concealed weapons permit. I own a rifle and three handguns and want the option to conceal a handgun if I feel it is necessary. During the class a gentlemen kept giving the instructor different situations and wanted to know if he could shoot someone in them. The answer 95% of the time was “no, not legally.” A person like that should not be allowed to have guns. There should be some type of screening. I used to live in California, the anti-gun state, and completely hated the 10 day waiting period for a pistol; I’m starting to reverse my hatred of that law. I used to be an NRA members because of the benefits they give to gun owners but recently I haven’t reapplied because they have become too crazy. When it comes to politics, I’m not a one issue person and the NRA is so I have a conflict of interest there. I won’t say that no one is trying to take away your guns….ahem…San Fransisco….but the majority simply want stricter gun control. So you have to wait a few days and pass a test to get your gun….big deal. After that it’s yours for good.

By: flashrooster Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:29:44 +0000 soldier777: What’s your point? No one is suggesting that we roundup people’s guns, not in this op-ed and not in any of the comments, so why the meaningless tirade? That’s like posting a list of instances where legal use of heroin has led to many disasters to an op-ed merely discussing medicinal use of marijuana. What’s the point? The implication is that any discussion about laws pertaining to firearms is code for a complete ban, which is propagandized nonsense.

Guns, like cars, are dangerous. You have to be of a certain age to drive a car. You have to pass a test to get a drivers license. You have to register your car and have insurance. No one is saying that guns should be banned. Let me repeat that. No one is saying that guns should be banned. But as a responsible society we need to have a conversation about what laws we want that apply to gun ownership. Because like it or not, the US does have a problem with gun violence and people have the right to expect their elected representatives to find ways of diminishing that violence. As I posted earlier, guns don’t kill people–this is true–but people with guns do, and the numbers are disturbingly high.

By: soldier777 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:59:17 +0000 Second Amendment – You may not infringe on my rights :) I am free – that’s what makes this our country great. Never forget. The American Revolution would never
have happened with gun control. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
See below:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911,
Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

By: flashrooster Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:17:17 +0000 Boy, the comments on here only serve to underscore the points being made in Bernd Debusmann’s piece, that the NRA exerts undue influence in America. Nowhere in this piece is Debusmann advocating the removal of anyone’s guns, yet that is how most posters are addressing their comments.

Orion905 states, “Don’t just eat the propaganda. Just think for a moment and do a real research.” What propaganda? The only propaganda percolating through our culture on this topic is coming from “a $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying juggernaut with much of its funding coming from gun manufacturers and merchandising.” That’s a lot of money. Do some real research. What organization advocating a ban on gun ownership is spending anything remotely close to that amount? Can you name one organization that spends 1/200th of that amount promoting gun control?

Good propaganda does it’s work not only surreptitiously, but in a way that makes its target audience respond emotionally, usually with indignation. This is clearly evident with gun advocates and not those advocating a ban on assault rifles or background checks.

What I find most disturbing is how disingenuous the NRA message is, and yet how readily its target audience swallows that bogus message, that someone’s coming to take our guns. People should always be skeptical 1.when a message says one thing–their coming to take away your guns–but the desired response is increasing the profits for a small group of people, and 2. when politics is brought into the argument. So now Obama is coming to get your guns. What’s the real message here? Vote Republican so that small group of people who are profiting from selling guns can pay less in taxes and have no fear of any regulations that may interfere with maximum profit making. Romney has been a stronger advocate for gun control than Obama. Obama has no interest whatsoever in challenging the NRA or the gun industry. To what end would he do that? There’s little to gain and everything to lose. As Orion905 says, just think for a minute.

The NRA is the ultimate ad agency for the gun industry. Like all things in America, it’s about profits. The NRA wants people to believe that any mention of any kind of restriction on any aspect of gun ownership is a direct threat to our Constitutional 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is not under threat, but clearly our free speech is, our freedom to discuss certain topics without retribution is being threatened into silence. That’s where the real threat to our freedom is coming from.

Obviously there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, and the American people, along with their representatives, should be free to discuss pragmatic solutions that don’t include taking people’s guns without fear of retribution. Remember, guns don’t kill; people with guns do.

By: texan5555 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:37:15 +0000 What many gun control proponents apparently fail to understand is that the 2nd Ammendment was written at a time when the founders had just thrown out what they considered to be an oppressive government and realized that an armed populace would be the best deterrent to ours becoming as oppressive due to the fact that they could rise up against it. At the time it was written the standard military weapon was the large calibre, smooth bore musket which was only reasonably accurate up to about 150 yards and many of the civilians had Kentucky or Pennsylvania long rifles which were smaller calibre but more accurate especially at long range. These rifles can be seen as being better than the military weapons so I do not believe that saying that the civilians cannot have comparable weapons to the military is in the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment

By: rippedshorts Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:30:01 +0000 Very frankly, I do not understand why are you guys even debating this. The solution is so very simple, take out the guns and crime rate will drop.

There is a reason why such shooting only exist in America. Look at the stats and start to look beyond the propaganda that the NRA is brewing for your very eyes!

To orion905:
Look if that fellow goes to a movie filled with armed and fit individuals, there will still be casualty. Maybe less, maybe more. There will be a gun fight and there will still be casualty. However, if you take out every single gun in that room, casualty will drop, even to 0 maybe!
Pro-gun movement is simply full of lies and scare tactics. Now add that with stupid people who can’t see through their propaganda and you get the multi-billion dollar arms industry.

By: AuAgExpl Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:49:51 +0000 Debusmann again demonstrates his inability to understand the concerns of the citizens of the United States. It is obvious that the liberal elite, which he clearly believes he is a member, thinks that the average person is incapable of thinking for themselves and are being led around by the nose by corporate America and organizations like the NRA. According to this man, we are all ignorant red necks with our thought processes controlled by “the man”. It is insulting and, furthermore, incorrect. Why does the NRA even exist? Before ~1960, there was no need for gun owners to support a political effort to protect their 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights. Both the left and right recognized this right and understood the need to support a citizenry that was able to bear arms in defense of this country and for their own protection. But since then, elitists like Debusmann think they know better than the rest of us. We should let the government provide for us in every aspect of our existence, even to the point of protecting us from those who would do harm (including the government itself!).

Wow. How incredibly perceptive of these intellectually superior people. These same people tell us that businesses are only successful because of the government. This is purely an illusion. That’s a slap in the face to every person that has created a successful business form nothing. The government is one of the main impediments to a successful business! Likewise, the government can not protect you from individual acts of violence and certainly will not protect you from it’s own actions. Yes , the NRA is strong. Because those of us who value freedom and understand that our rights are constantly under fire support it. Do I agree with everything the NRA does – no. But the basic premise of its existence is to protect our freedoms as recognized by our government under the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. That is very important and it is not about selling fear in order to make a profit selling guns and ammunition!

By: texan5555 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:32:47 +0000 And in not so breaking news today, millions of law abiding people who legally own guns did NOT shoot anyone. No film at 11.

By: Stijntsje Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:32:10 +0000 Never in my life will I set foot in the United States of America. I’m gonna stay on my side of the Atlantic, where the chance of getting shot is about 99% smaller.