Discussions

FarmerMike said "Standard standard h8tr, the AR 15 was first designed as a small arms weapon for the US military. Since its introduction in the mid 50's, it has a variety of versions created for multiple tasks.     The features of the AR15, which i:nclude its light weight and precise accuracy makes it a great gun of choice for sports shooters. It is no different then any other semi automatic gun on the market that is currently available for hunters.     Did you know, that the only reason that the AR15 is a restricted gun and not a non restricted (here in Canada) is that it CAN be modified to fire fully automatically. But, since owning an automatic gun is illegal, getting caught with one will land you a very long sentence in jail. So, since it is a semi automatic gun, there is no difference between any other semi automatic in the market....just the looks.     Also, as if your not aware, the AR in the name AR15 does not stand for assault rifle. Since here in Canada, we are restricted to a 5 round magazine, owning an AR15 does not come close to making it an assault rifle. It does not have a large magazine capacity and it is not used for military purposes. Therefore, here in Canada, as legal gun owners, there is no such thing as assault rifles. (In the US, different story) "

Farmer Mike  
 
So if the AR15 was first designed for the military, its purpose was to kill people. Sadly, it has been very effective at doing that whether it be children in a school at Sandy Hook or people in a nightclub. Is it merely coincidence that this particular weapon has been used in so many mass shootings ?  
 
There is no need for people to have these !!  
 
If this coward had not had access to such a weapon, maybe fewer people would have been killed in Orlando.  
 
If one child's life could be saved by banning such a weapon, would it be worth it in your world ?

CitizenE said "I think you're getting your stuff in a knot over nothing man.     Sure, this one incident definitely has a religious component. So does the mass shooting at the camp in Norway that killed 70 or 80 people. Just that one was Christian.     Sure, Islam has prohibitions against homosexuality. So does Christianity. My point is not that this religion is good and that one bad. My point is that Islam has not been responsible for in any way, shape or form, for the VAST majority of mass shootings and domestic terrorist incidents in the states.     To claim otherwise is to willfully ignore the readily available facts. In 2015 there were 372 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more casualties in one event) in the US resulting in an average of 6 people killed/wounded per incident. If even a quarter of those were motivated by the hateful Muslims don't you think there'd have been a much louder hue and cry?     While I don't think what you said was a hate crime I also don't think you really care much about LGBQ people either. I think you saw a chance to defend guns and attack Muslims and you took it. Of course this is just my opinion.     BTW the difference between his "scary looking gun" and your "scary looking .22" is that his fires 5.56mm rounds.     I don't think I need to tell an expert such as yourself about the difference in stopping power and penetrative force between the two.     You're throwing up one strawman in order to defend your hobby and another in order to indulge your bias. "

Don't worry, I'm not getting upset, I'm trying to show that it is not the guns being used that are the issue here. Access to them, and along with various other reasons I've stated, are the reasons why.  
 
Yes, in a country where there is lots of firearms, there will be crimes involving firearms. It makes perfect sense. Like its been mentioned, look at France, where they have very strict gun laws. What happened there not that long ago?  
 
Banning them will not solve the issue. Restricting access to them, from the wrong people, is what needs to be done.  
 
Granted, of all the shooting incidents in the US, you could be right, that it is a minority that involve religion (Islam in this case), but this is the case in the shooting. It was the extremist Muslim attitude that lead to this.  
 
And yes, I'm very well aware of the difference in calibres of guns, and at least here in Canada, we have laws to prevent people from owning large capacity magazines. In the US, there are certain states that have certain laws pertaining to this. Is it wrong? Is it right? That's for everyone to have an opinion on. I feel, that if a person can legally own a gun, doesnt matter what it is, or what it shoots, if its legal, there is nothing wrong with it. But, what I've pointed out, (here in Canada at least) if you compare a semi auto 5.56 (likely restricted) to a .22 (non restricted) are you going to tell me that a 5 round magazine is more deadly then a 100 round drum? Both are legal, but according to you, the 5.56 is worse.  
 
Education, common sense, and doing things legally will ensure that we get to enjoy doing the things we do.

According to the BBC website (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36521761) these are the worst mass shootings in recent US history:  
 
Worst US mass shootings in last 25 years  
At least 50 dead, 2016 - Omar Mateen opens fire on revellers at gay club in Orlando, Florida  
32 dead, 2007 - Student Seung-Hui Cho massacres students at Virginia Tech university before killing himself  
27 dead, 2012 - Adam Lanza kills 20 six- and seven-year-old children and six adults before killing himself at Sandy Hook, Connecticut  
23 dead, 1991 - George Hennard drives through the wall of a cafe in Killeen, Texas, before opening fire and committing suicide  
14 dead, 2015 - Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik open fire at a staff gathering in San Bernardino  
13 dead, 2009 - Maj Nidal Malik Hasan opens fire at army base in Fort Hood, Texas  
13 dead, 2009 - Jiverly Wong shoots people at New York immigrant centre before killing himself  
13 dead, 1999 - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill fellow students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado  
 
According to American census figures:  
 
Asians are 5% of the population and committed 2/8 attacks.  
Muslims are 1-2% of the population and committed 3/8 attacks.  
Whites are ~65% of the population and committed 3/8 attacks.  
 
The Asian shooters had extreme mental health problems, along with at the least the columbine shooters (who most certainly would not identify as Christians). The outliers are the Islamic shooters, who had been screened for jobs in the military and security firms, all of whom self identified as deeply religious.  
 
Also, how does gun control explain the French massacres by religious radicals? Or the Boston marathon attack by religious radicals? Or the European be headings by religious radicals?  
 
As I said earlier, LGBT community can clearly see where they stand on the scale in today''s society. Hopefully they will now see through the disingenuous nature of the modern ''progressive '' movement and disengage themselves from being associated with such cretins. Even at their worst, the most far right conservatives were not throwing homosexual men off roofs for being who they were-nor did they support those who did, like I''ve seen many modern leftists doing in the last few days through intentionally shifting responsibility from these religiously inspired murderers onto their tools.  
 
Shame on neo-liberals.  
 
Edited by Mr.Nonsense, 2016-06-13 17:23:39

standard standard h8r said "    FarmerMike said "Standard standard h8tr, the AR 15 was first designed as a small arms weapon for the US military. Since its introduction in the mid 50's, it has a variety of versions created for multiple tasks.     The features of the AR15, which i:nclude its light weight and precise accuracy makes it a great gun of choice for sports shooters. It is no different then any other semi automatic gun on the market that is currently available for hunters.     Did you know, that the only reason that the AR15 is a restricted gun and not a non restricted (here in Canada) is that it CAN be modified to fire fully automatically. But, since owning an automatic gun is illegal, getting caught with one will land you a very long sentence in jail. So, since it is a semi automatic gun, there is no difference between any other semi automatic in the market....just the looks.     Also, as if your not aware, the AR in the name AR15 does not stand for assault rifle. Since here in Canada, we are restricted to a 5 round magazine, owning an AR15 does not come close to making it an assault rifle. It does not have a large magazine capacity and it is not used for military purposes. Therefore, here in Canada, as legal gun owners, there is no such thing as assault rifles. (In the US, different story) " Farmer Mike     So if the AR15 was first designed for the military, its purpose was to kill people. Sadly, it has been very effective at doing that whether it be children in a school at Sandy Hook or people in a nightclub. Is it merely coincidence that this particular weapon has been used in so many mass shootings ?     There is no need for people to have these !!     If this coward had not had access to such a weapon, maybe fewer people would have been killed in Orlando.     If one child's life could be saved by banning such a weapon, would it be worth it in your world ? "

Guess my first reply got deleted, so I'll just answer your last question.  
 
If lives could be saved by banning these guns, you are also agreeing that no crimes would ever be committed by criminals and lunatics that use these guns. If you could 100% guarantee that no crime would ever use and illegal gun in the future, Ill agree with you to ban them.

CitizenE said "The vast majority of "terroristic" incidents in the states (mass shooting, bombings what have you) were committed by white, non-muslims.     Prior to 9/11 the most devastating attack on American soil was when Tim McVey blew up the building in Oklahoma.     The problem is not Islam. In fact most of the people responsible would have identified as Christian. The problem is not Muslims with guns.     To the best of my knowledge none of the people who have committed mass shootings had a criminal record or would have failed a background check. They only became criminals when they committed these acts. The problem is not criminals with guns.     The problem is primarily guns and secondarily, in the states, a lack of accessible affordable mental health care.     You have a country with a history of violence (how many wars in it's 240 year existence?) and fiercely independent "don't tread on me" attitude and a profusion of guns. Big guns. Big guns with lots of big bullets.     Focus on the real problems instead of red-herrings like religion and criminal background. "

I must reply to your post as I feel your last para of "Red Herring" is aimed at my last post.  
Religion in this mass murder is not a "Red Herring" attack.  
This thread is titled "Mass shooting Orlando". I don't know why you would want to discuss other mass murders and blend this one into the whole lot. Let's just talk about this one. Let's talk, "who,what,when,where how and why", shall we?  
We know:  
Who: Omar Mateen, New York born Muslim to Afghan parents  
What: Mass killing  
When: just after midnight when club is at it's fullest on a Sat night  
Where: Soft target, LGBT nightclub  
How:by means of assault weapon and handgun.  
Why: This is where we are going to disagree. Here it goes, From what I've read, he had a big "hate on" for homosexuals, so it could be called a gate crime. ISIS has a big "hate on" for homosexuals. When ISIS finds them,they execute them and not in a nice manner I might add. I think he was acting in support of ISIS. Also he called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS and this further proves my point that this is an Islamic terrorist. He also mentionned the names of the Boston marathon bombers as heroes, further hammering him being a radical terrorist fuelled by islamic beliefs. These are the facts, like them or not!  
I'll post a link for you to peruse through. It's regarding a poll done in the western world identifying where muslim's stand on suicide bombings/mass killings in the name of Islam. These numbers will blow you away CitizenE. Not all muslims like the western way of life and some think that the measures that Omar took in Orlando this past weekend is justified. As insane as this sounds, it's true. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN2244293620070522

FarmerMike said,"Yes, in a country where there is lots of firearms, there will be crimes involving firearms. It makes perfect sense. Like its been mentioned, look at France, where they have very strict gun laws. What happened there not that long ago?"  
 
To say that gun control works is not to say that it is infallible. There ARE outlying events. I'm not disputing that. I am glad that you agree that, as a rule, more guns equal more death.  
 
"Banning them will not solve the issue. Restricting access to them, from the wrong people, is what needs to be done."  
 
Except that, using this case as an example, he was the right people. No criminal record, no reported history of mental illness. Nothing for a background check to find.  
 
It almost sounds like you are saying [I]keep them out of Muslim hands.[/I] Who are the right people and how do you determine?  
 
"Granted, of all the shooting incidents in the US, you could be right, that it is a minority that involve religion (Islam in this case), but this is the case in the shooting. It was the extremist Muslim attitude that lead to this."  
 
Except that in this case the shooter had no consistent Muslim ideology. He was a big fan of Hezbollah and Al Quaida. These two groups are enemies. The guy was nuts and happened to be Muslim. Not the guy was Muslim and happened to be nuts.  
 
"if you compare a semi auto 5.56 (likely restricted) to a .22 (non restricted) are you going to tell me that a 5 round magazine is more deadly then a 100 round drum? Both are legal, but according to you, the 5.56 is worse."  
 
I am telling you that a .22 round is a weaker round. They are known to bounce off car windshields and, except at very close range, can't penetrate bone. The same can not be said of a 5.56 round. There's a reason people don't hunt anything bigger than gophers with a .22  
 
A firework CAN be deadly but no sane person would compare it to a pipe-bomb.  
 
However, I will concede this, gun control is too loose a phrase.  
 
In the US basically any idiot can score a very powerful gun. Any idiot is able to carry one openly, concealed, in their car or what have you. Perhaps restricting the firearms themselves is not the whole solution but rather when and how they can be carried.  
 
If I walk down Rosser Avenue with a shotgun slung over my shoulder you can be sure I won't get three blocks before I'm stopped by the police. This is not the case in the states.  
 
It is a historically violent society with lax laws regarding what weapons can be possessed and, maybe more importantly, lax laws regarding carrying them.  
 
But don't try and equate a .22 with 5.56mm. That's just silly no matter how many .22 rounds you have. You know that.  
 
[b]Mr.Nonsense[/b] Your link doesn't work and good post/username.  
You cherry pick 8 events spanning 17 years and call it a day.  
Like I said earlier there were 372 mass shooting in the states LAST YEAR.  
 
The worst mass shooting on record (to the best of my knowledge) happened in Norway and was committed by a radicalized [b]right-wing [I]Christian[/b][/i] who specifically stated in his manifesto that he was partly motivated by his understanding of Christianity.  
 
Religion is not the problem.  
 
Again, the vast majority of mass shootings in the west are committed by Christians.  
 
"the most far right conservatives were not throwing homosexual men off roofs for being who they were-nor did they support those who did,"  
 
I assume you are talking about the middle east here. Perhaps you should look into what happens to homosexuals in many Christian African nations. Start with Uganda and South Africa and go from there.  
 
Religion is not the problem. Or, it is not a SINGLE religion that is the problem.  
 
70'sGuy said "I must reply to your post as I feel your last para of "Red Herring" is aimed at my last post."  
 
Nope, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm pretty sure that I specifically said I was replying to [b]FarmerMike[/b]. I didn't bother to read past your first sentence.  
 
"This thread is titled "Mass shooting Orlando". " You're right. And it was to express grief regarding those who were killed and those effected by the shooting.  
 
I don't know why you're talking about anything other than how heartbroken you are.  
 
As to the rest, well, I believe it was the eminent psychologist Niles Crane who once said, "It's not even piffle; it's piffle lite."

about the religious aspect if it turned out that he was in the closet?  
 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...613-story.html  
http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-wa...d-h-1781920316  
http://time.com/4367566/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen/

CitizenE said "about the religious aspect if it turned out that he was in the closet?     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...613-story.html   http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-wa...d-h-1781920316   http://time.com/4367566/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen/ "

CitizenE!  
You just proved that his motivation was religion based as I and many others suspected.  
 
On one hand ( if he was straight) ISIS and Islam denounce LGBT and death is the sentence when apprehended, so he did it because of his and religions hatred of LGBT or  
 
On the other hand (if he was LGBT), he did it because he hated himself for being someone that his religion and religious family could never accept and decided to kill as many LGBT people in the name of Islam.  
 
Either way it's religion based based.  
 
Thanks

@citizene  
 
The link is down, and acting like that refutes my point is laughably embarrassing for yourself when a search for the same information is a mouse click and >30 characters away. They are not cherry picked: they are factual." And relevant. What is cherry picked is your sole reference to one single radical right wing spree killer who was motivated not by religion but by hatred of Muslims and Marxists  
 
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jul/24/norway-anders-behring-breivik-beliefs  
 
You obvipusly do not understand how these religious radicals work either. Yes, they squabble over territory in the Middle East, but outside of it, in our countries, they switch priorities to Believers vs. Infidels. The same thing happens in prison where crips and bloods, mortal enemies on the streets, combine and unite against other groups. During the Iraq war, when gangs were sending their members into the us military, there was a more or less universal truce amongst these bitter rivals while they fought the external threat before they came home and resumed their civil violence. Omar would not give a hoot about the fact that every religious faction in the Middle East is at war with each other there. Here, they are objective allies against us, and Omar is not a hero of hezbollah or Isis but all of this extremist religion.  
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military  
 
And since you opened this can of worms, and insist on being continually racist toward white people, here's a question: of all the mass shootings that were carried out in the US last year, how many were carried out by whites who legally own guns? Here's a relevant example: New York is inarguably one of the most prestigious cities in the world. Crime control there is top tier. There are armies of police officers. Stringent gun control. The majority of people in the city identify as democratic/liberal. Yet it has a tremendous crime rate. Who is carrying out these attacks? Read for yourself. http://newobserveronline.com/89-crime-nyc-nonwhite/ The few whites included is also disingenuous, since crime statistics often lump paler Mexican criminals in with European ones. Check out the FBIs most wanted. As of this post, 7 of the top 10 most wanted are non-white, but the paler Mexicans are official classified as Caucasian. White people are not the problem, nor are Christians. It is simple bigotry to suggest otherwise, as empty an accusation as saying Japanese people are a problem, or Chinese or Indian or Hutus. As of the 8th day of Ramadan 2016, there have been 65 attacks resulting in 528 kills by religious radicals of this one particular religious sect who claimed to be killing in the name of their faith.. How many for the rest combined during the same period? All those billions of Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Native believers of the Great Spirit, etc? Including attacks by 'Islamophobes'?  
 
0.  
 
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com  
 
So far, citizene, you're the one who has displayed the things you accuse others of: race based bigotry, cherry picked outlier and irrelevant examples, and an extreme, almost childish petulance toward anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of the facts they have to back up their argument. Were this a moderated debate, you would have been politely asked to step down by now.  
 
I'm not going to end with a silly quote, or some other ridiculous thing like *drops mike*. My words and sources speak for themselves, and all they speak is the truth. Shame on the people trying to turn the focus of this religiously inspired hate crime solely toward the tools that this foul human and the others like them use to carry out their hateful religious agenda. I feel sorry for the global LGBT community who now know they rank below gun control and those fearful of religious fanatics in today's supposedly modern world. What a horrific feeling it must be, to know that so long as you are attacked and killed by a religious fanatic who is not a member of a religion that is an acceptable target for public scorn, simply for loving whom you love, people will abandon you and your community to your fate. A reprehensible and embarrassing display. I pray members of Brandon's LGBT community have more steadfast friends than what we have seen on this thread.

Look, if y'all want to hate Muslims go ahead. Hate 'em. Just be big enough to say, "I hate Muslims." How hard is that?  
 
The fact is that there more crimes, more murders, more "domestic terrorism" is caused by white Christians than Muslims or any other group.  
 
You want to look at eight incidents over 17 years and think that proves something knock yourself out.  
 
You want to say a nutjob that didn't even know what he believed in did it for religion please feel free.  
 
Do so and feel good about yourselves.  
 
I prefer to take a more Christian approach.  
 
You can't argue a bigot out of bigotry anymore than you can argue a branch out of a tree.  
 
Just please have the courage of your convictions and say outright, "I hate Muslims and I'm scared of them."  
 
Then maybe we can move on to the more salient points.

Thank you for not so graciously conceding your points, Citizene. I hope others focused solely on guns in this thread will rethink their erroneous positions as well.

I am more than happy to refute what you have said. You said a lot so it will take some time.  
 
I'm happy to do it here but I think this hijack (which I am certainly a good part of) has gone on long enough.  
 
This thread has moved from grief for the dead and effected to gun control to the virulence of Islam.  
 
It has moved far from the goals of the original poster and for my part in that I apologize to the original poster.  
 
I am going to start a new thread in order to address this and I hope you will join me there. I also hope the PTB will allow it though the discussion will likely become heated.  
 
Again, I apologize to the original poster.  
 
E

Banning guns will not stop terrorists and psychopathic mass murderers from getting their hands on them. As already mentioned, the Paris terrorists were able to get guns, even though average citizens of Paris wouldn't likely be able to. If the terrorists can't get guns they will use explosives, chemicals, poisons, etc. However, even with gun bans, I don't believe for one minute that the terrorists wouldn't manage to get them. If there is a will there is a way and there definitely is a will. This guy, the shooter, was a fanatic, a religious fundamentalist. If he had been a right-wing Christian all we would be hearing about would be that fact, that a religious fundamentalist Christian killed 49 people because he didn't approve of their lifestyle, because his religion doesn't approve of their lifestyle. In this case however, he wasn't Christian. I can't help but think that it would have been so much easier for the mainstream media and the politically correct left-wing types if he had been a right-wing Christian. The truth is that no fundamentalist religion does approve of the lifestyle and that is not going to change. That doesn't excuse the killer by any means. What it does mean is that this likely won't be the last time this or something very similar happens. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to change the mind of a religious fundamentalist. To the fundamentalist, it is God's word and cannot be changed by man. You are dealing with people who actually believe that they are killing for God. The killer said so in his own words. So the question becomes where will it happen next time, not if it will happen, but where.

The bottom line. If in the states you can purchase a assault weapon even with mental illness and 2 contacts with the FBI, then it is a gun regulation problem. End of story

Timetowakeup said "Gun Ownership - It's The   Law In Kennesaw   By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch   Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers   http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page   3-14-1       KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.     In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.     The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."     Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."     "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."     In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.     Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.     "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."     Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.     "You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.     The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.     "I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."     Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.     "I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."     Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious o:bjectors to the list of those exempt.     Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.     "The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.     According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.     The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.     Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.     "It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.     "They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."     Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.     "I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.     But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.     "We believed in the right of people to own guns," he said.     Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, "The Law Heard 'Round the World."     He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.     "There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."     Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.     Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt i:nclude the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.     The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.     Jones said the unusual law has not deterred anyone from moving to Kennesaw.     "Our population has increased just like everyone's in Georgia in the past 20 years," he said. "The law really hasn't done any harm to the city's growth."     The city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census.     Cobb Chamber of Commerce president Bill Cooper said odd laws are typically not counted as strike against a city when a business is looking to relocate.     "These laws don't have laws don't have an impact on a company's decision to move to Cobb County," Cooper said.     "Many communities have strange laws that are out of date. Businesses look at many factors when relocating, such as quality of life, education, infrastructure and available workforce."     Bentley said the law actually may have helped business development.     "Kennesaw is home to more manufacturing businesses than any other Cobb city," he said. "Companies have said they want to be located in conservative areas."     And Kennesaw isn't the only city in Cobb with an unusual law on the books.     According to Jeff Koon, who runs a Web site specializing in funny laws, Dumblaws.com, Acworth has a ordinance requiring residents to own a rake.     In Marietta, it is illegal to spit from a car or a bus, but perfectly legal to spit from a truck.     Strange how we never here about this strategy and its proven results reported in the media. Only about the evil guns threatening us all! Now for the kicked. I DONT even own a single firearm so don't go thinking this is being written by "some gun nut" as some of you like to. I respect them and those that use them responsibly and as an ex serviceman and police officer I carried one every day. "

http://www.snopes.com/kennesaw-gun-law/  
 
You cant make people buy guns, specially if they are convicted felons mentally unstable, Id say blind but Iowa has permits for the blind to have and use guns.

your little blurb mentioned a drop in property crimes. That is a good thing. Notably absent was the number of people who have been killed or wounded by all those guns. I wonder why that is ?  
 
Here is a view contrary to yours:  
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/opinion/some-extremists-fire-guns-and-other-extremists-promote-guns.html?smid=:tw-share&_r=:0  
 
Edited by standard standard h8r, 2016-06-18 12:10:03

Timetowakeup, and maybe drop some of the attitude instead.  
 
I did not specify murder in my earlier post. I asked about killed or wounded. An example could be a child killed or wounded accidentally by a gun in the house. One of the statistics that gun advocates often omit is the number of accidental shootings as a result of playing with guns found in the home.  
 
I look forward to your posting the link that evaded you earlier.