20 elementary school children plus 6 adults shot dead by a guy with a gun

Your gun registration and/or permit is apparently public information bu virtue of the fact it is held by the government. I'm fascinated. I'm very tempted to file a Freedom of Information Act for every federal employee having a compensation package in excess of 100k per year. That is a personal name and address heat map I think people would be interested in seeing. After all, it is public information, right?

 

No ban has ever led to any major reform, nonetheless it was a tragic incident & hope things get better in future

 

Yeah, that is a good one. Why don't you get every govt contractor being paid more than $300,000/year. o-nation while you're getting that info, get their homes, their land line phone numbers, their mobile #'s and get the make, model, of their cars, and license plates. That will keep you busy.

The invasion of privacy issues that have mostly plagued things like google, facebook etc, are now hitting the political realm. That will raise a stink.

here is some info, completely different from those maps. Per what I read there were about 44,000 gun licenses for the 3 counties. Only two showed maps as one county will take a long time to respond to the data with names, addresses. The 2 counties that responded have the most people w/ gun licenses of the 44,000 total, and by far the largest populations of the 3, around 1.3 million folks of about a 1.4 million total population. One report suggested that 1 in 23 adults in that region had a license for a gun.

One other little detail is that the 44,000 # of licenses might be high in that it includes old licenses which could be related to people who passed away or moved.

Now there are somewhere between 270-300 million guns supposedly owned by private citizens in the US or about 1 gun per person. Another statistical estimate is that about 40-45% of households have guns and about 1/3 of the adult population has gun licenses.

The population in that region has relatively few guns compared to other parts of the nation. All those big dots makes it look like its everyone. The map is relatively out of proportion. All just weird anomalies relative to the information.

None of which deals with the privacy issue that is being brought up.

 

Btw... A quick defense of my state with regard to the stats you posted beside a recomendation that gun control is the cure.

California has stringent gun control, and their rank is worse than ours. Same for illinois, the only state that has no carry permit. And you dang sure cant compare us unfavorably with DC. If gun control is the answer for TX... Shouldnt those places have better figures than we do?

Texas has a 1241 mile international border with a country run by drug cartels. California has a 140 mile border with them. Illinois has none. Yet we have better stats. We also have better stats than the states that border us.

The Federal government is not only hesitant to police our immigration issues, they also prefer that we dont either.

Yet they have been caught arming the drug lords with m-16s and Barrett 50 cals. I do not see any reason my state owes anyone an apology, and i damn sure dont want her people disarmed while Obama's administration arms the sunsabitches south of us. That boy is nuttier than a jar of cashews.

 

@Earl: I'm glad you see the obvious privacy issue. It is a bit like when the registered voters list for Ohio was acquired by the Guardian in the UK during the 2004 election, and used as a cold calling list by a bunch of lunatics. It is a bit like when Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr handed out the address information for George Zimmerman. Obviously many if not most of the lefties don't see any privacy issue here at all, and people wonder why most Americans oppose increasingly stringent registration requirements for fire arms.

Maybe one day, the left can just send a group of thugs to the homes of those who fall out of line with approved thinking to teach them a lesson. It'll probably be the very same day a guy who has taken the time to own a few fire arms gets a chance to use them on those who would try and strip him of his rights.

Regarding the stats of registered owners vs. non registered owners and quantity of guns to person, I own several firearms, and most people I know who own firearms own more than one. Rifles and shotguns do not require registration at all. Some guns are inherited or sold privately. For only those reasons, one might see a relatively small number of registered owners and perhaps have a heavily armed population.

Lets also not forget that criminals never bother to submit to background checks or register their firearms. They also tend to ignore most other gun laws, so we might as well assume that 100% of the criminal population is armed.

 

Criminals do still get guns, but now they're hidden away and only get brought out when they need to shoot another criminal (and who really cares about that?). If you think about it, nobody's going to bring them out for the petty stuff. Australia's law, banning particular weapons, is proof of that if nothing else.

 

So your argument is criminals will have guns sure, but they will only use them against other criminals? And your evidence for that is what? Anything at all? Anything?

A criminal that is slightly more confident that the law abiding public had been disarmed, is more inclined to engage in what activity? It is a simple concept that has been demonstrated over and over again. As simple as removing the reward for hard work and watching people quit trying to work hard. Its a basic but obvious problem that liberals don't like the answer to. Like 1+1=2.

 

In Arizona, I think they've pretty much decided do a variation of this. Probably not hire outside officers, but the school principal and/or certain teachers will have a firearm.

 

Ah, but the Obama administration doesn't say that criminals obtain firearms illegally, they say criminals buy firearms on the, oh, what's his polite phrase, "secondary markets".

Next, the Obama administration will call drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists"

What?????
Bushie, do you have any proof? Anything? Anything?

Those people living in areas where firearms are banned, that are shot during home invasions. Are those people criminals, Bushie?

 

First time i've seen anyone actually admit they are happy with the fact that their laws arm criminals and disarm law abiding types. See something new every day.

Gotta admit i'm a little shocked to hear those people shot by home invaders were criminals. Wonder how Bush figured that out. I too would like to know the statistical basis for the statement that criminals only shoot other criminals.

 

[video=youtube;84ptFVq22PY]http://youtu.be/84ptFVq22PY[/video]

 

That's one of the funniest videos I've ever seen!

Oh, Bushie? I'm waiting on your stats proving criminals use guns mostly to kill other criminals.

 

Not that you would believe it here, nobody has mentioned banning guns altogether, so there's always going to be the risk of somebody getting shot, even with laws in place.

Ranters, I live in Australia, I see proof around me daily.

@all - I believe Australia's death rate from guns is more absolute proof that banning guns works fine.

Armed crims shoot crims. Simple really. When they're found with a gun it is confiscated and the possessor thrown in jail. Police have another reason to arrest them.

 

Since you didn't say which home invasion, actually Corwimp, YES they likely are! Many of the shootings in Sydney are criminals against criminals, and they will be caught. The families are well-known to police. The whole area is covered in drug pushers / car rackets etc. and they're (mainly Arabic backgrounds) vying for top dog. Good luck to them. They keep it within their own.

There's a huge difference between a random shooting at a large crowd and an incidental home invasion. It's the former they have stopped completely here.

 

http://www.dailybreeze.com/education/ci_22273835/gun-group-gives-free-training-utah-teachers-arming

Problem solved.

 

Classic:

 

How is that 'classic'? The first image you posted above puts free spreech up against guns. Are you saying you want to stop 'them' stealing your guns by nobbling free speech?

 

What is it to you? You would remove rights to guns at a whim, why not free speech? A totalitarian state by any other name is still a totalitarian state.

 

Oh, just pointing out the absurdity of the argument blaming Hollywood. Yes, most certainly I would agree with the majority of American 'normal people' and totally remove your right to own a bazooka and many other weapons whose only intention is to kill on a massive scale. Free speech doesn't risk me losing my loved ones for no reason whatsoever.