Stupid gunners, these GUN SHOPS are a CANCER!

Guns DO kill people and you are a f---ing moron.

Great Video...

Hey idiot moron, there is no such thing as a "Liberal Media." Who do you think owns all of the major media outlets? Corporations or rich, greedy individuals like Rupert Murdock, that's who. This ridiculous attempt to paint big media as "liberal" is totally f**king asinine. Do you actually believe that Time Warner or GE or Rupert Murdock would ever allow anything of real substance to be broadcast on their networks? You right-wing numb nuts are so totally misinformed it isn't even humorous any more. Try reading something other than the conservative rags, watching something other than Faux News and try listening to something other than that bile spewing Limbaugh and you might actually get a clue to what is really happening.

You might want to go easy on the "idiots" comments, since you believe, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that the corporately owned media are liberal. Only a brain-dead, kool-ade-drinking, right-wing, drooling-inbred cretin still believes that load of horsecrap.

Grow a clue, dimbulb. The Brits have had a handgun ban for ages, as do all other civilized nations, and their gun deaths are a fraction of ours. The reason ours don't work is you have DC, for example, with a handgun ban right next door to Virginia. which allows anybody to buy a handgun a month. Who the hell needs a handgun a month? It's not as if they have a limited shelf life.

Following are facts on handgun deaths and injuries in the US, from the Brady Campaign:

"In 2006, 30,896 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,791 were murdered; 16,883 killed themselves; 642 were accidents; 360 died by police intervention, and in 220, the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.

An additional 69,863 people were shot and survived their injuries -- 48,676 people injured in an attack; 4,291 people injured in a suicide attempt; 15,698 people shot accidentally, and 1,198 people shot in a police intervention.

In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden. In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States.

In 2007, there were 198 justifiable homicides by private citizens using firearms in the United States."

Over 100,000 deaths and injuries a year in the US, compared to 198 justifiable homicides annually, by people using their guns in self defense. You don't even need to do a cost/benefit analysis to see that those numbers don't justify unregulated gun ownership on the basis of self defence.

Just to compare apples to apples, Australia's per capita handgun murder rate works out to works out to 0.26 per 100,000 people, 0.55 in Canada, 0.14 in Englsnd and Wales, 0.16 in New Zealand, 0.41 in Sweden, and a whopping 3.88 in the US. That's 15 times the Australian rate, 7 rimes Canada, almost 28 times England and Wales, 24 times New Zealans, and 9 1/2 times Sweden. Tell me again how handgun control hass no effect on murder rates, pinhead. Oh, yeah, and the per capita rate of justifiable homicides in the US is 0.07 per 100,000. Whoopee. Beeak out the freakin' champagne.

The reason you can't imagine how to respond, is your own idiocy. The media lies all right, but it is rhe right wing doing the lying: Rush Limbaugs, eaan Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, and Glenn Beck, just to name a few, are the liars. Proven liars beiieved only by pissants like yourself, whose ignorance is matched only by their arrogance and gullibility. "Scarface" was fiction, dipshit. You probably believe the "ticking time bomb" scenario from "24" is a legitimate possibility. too. Wrong again. It has never happened in the real world.

Unfortunately, you don't live in the real world with the rest of us, and until such time as you do take up residence here, I suggest you STFU.

So, you KNOW that guns are NOT coming from the US? You blame the "media", they are the ones making this all up? Have you seem the report from that left wing agency the ATF? You,ve been to ATF headquarters in ElPaso and have seen the guns they have taken from Mexican drug smugglers?
How about the gun shows where you can buy a gun from Joe Blow and not fill out a thing, you know this, right? I believe you have blinders on so that you do not have to face a complicated issue like this one. Just blame the media for distortion of the facts and you don't have to do a thing.

The fact is.. Most of all guns in Mexico come from Brazil and other Latin Countries as they have a great deal of Firearm Manufacturing facilities, that don't use serial numbers. They are much cheaper and more readily available than any U.S. Gun!! It always amazes me at how the left wing moronic view wants to blame the U.S. and it's "EVIL GUN LOVERS" for all of Mexico's problems. Keep supporting the "Poor Little Immigrant" (Illegal Alien) that sends 40 Billion a year home to Mexico to his family and friends so they can pay a coyote to get them here too, ( That money goes to the same cartels!). And support his right to wave the national flag of Mexico here in our streets. And soon enough they will have turned what is left of this country into the same cesspool they use to call home. You will deserve what you get.. Ask California how well those Sanctuary City things are working out for them? Oh Yeah , THEY ARE BANKRUPT!!?? I wonder if it's because the poor little immigrants use the hospital's emergency rooms as a nurse's station for everything from a stuffy nose to a headache.As well as all the free social services.. And we the taxpayer, that spends their money here, pays for it! Good Job California....and you leftist Mental Giants!!!

[quote=anonymous]Lets think about this logically. In order to get a gun from the United States, drug cartels would have to send someone into the United States, get them to make a straw purchase (which would require someone with a clean background), then smuggle the gun back through the border. Their selection would be limited to semi-automatic weapons, and explosives would be next to impossible to buy.

On the other hand, they could get fully automatic weapons and explosives in bulk from a gun smuggler. The second option saves them time, money, risk, and effort, and it delivers a lot more firepower.

Do you really believe that these criminals would take the harder route to get less powerful weapons? I wish you would think through things before you make these videos. Do you think you could do a little bit of research next time?
[/quote]
Dude, this is a liberal site. How dare you bring facts and logic in here! Don't you know what this and other liberal sites are about? They take people they don't know, refuse to understand and then turn them into demonic figures out to eat your very soul if you dare try to understand a different point of view. After all, someone has posted *facts* from the Brady Campaign. They're totally unbiased, you know.

Oh yeah! Fox news on the internets is a powerful source! Did you use the google to finds it?

Politifact covered this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-ob...

90% was a misstatement but 17% is an astonishing misrepresentation of statistics.

Here's how it works

90% of guns confiscated from crime scenes in Mexico and sent to the US for analysis that could be traced came from the US. Clearly that does not mean that 90% of all guns used in crimes came from the US and that is not what any of the numbers' originators have ever claimed. It is statistically valid to treat the number as an upper-bound for a ballpark figure however. It is also understandable that someone would mis-speak the qualifiers.

The 17% statistic is the flip side coming from observing that only 1/3 of guns are sent to the US for analysis and many cannot be traced. To get 17% you have to make the assumption
that NONE of the remained came from the US. A bit insincere perhaps? Seriously, its not like the study's publishers were unaware of this fault - you should be mad.

In any case, the whole topic is a bit of a straw man. 90% or less, is anyone actually against tighter gun control on the border? Anyone? No? Then get over yourself and don't distract from the issue.

fox? really? u take fox seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtshALIeB8
Watch this video very closely, freeze it and find out the models of guns being shown here.
1st we have a few grenade launchers
Legality status in US: ILLEGAL IN ALL STATES
Belt fed machine guns
Legality in the US: ILLEGAL IN ALL STATES
Frag Grenades
Legality in the US: ILLEGAL IN ALL STATES
I will say that depending on the type of fire those assault rifles put out they may or may not be US civilian models. It is more likely they are fully auto as many of the shootouts have been w/ full auto weapons. In that case...
Legality in the US:ILLEGAL IN ALL STATES
About the only firearms in that display that likely came from the US are the Baretta .50 rifles and the various handguns.
Even w/ that being possible I would think these multi-billion dollar cartels would try to buy the best weapons in bulk rather than dealing with crappy civilian models that are difficult to get en-mass. The more likely source of these weapons is
A)corrupt Mexican army commanders selling munitions in Mexico.(this would explain the abundance of American military grade arms sold to the mexican army)
B)Gun runners like Viktor Bout(google it) who make careers out of buying and selling grey and black market munitions by the container load. Are we to believe that organizations such as FARC, the taiiban, Hamas, RUF, can get militarty grade arms but much wealthier drug cartels cannot?
Please do not insult our intelligence. Military arms are in abundance all over the world, anyone with enough money and disregard for law can secure a ship load of these weapons.

How right you are, this is just another leftist,socialist,liberal,lie,that our Government is using to pass more gun laws,and in the end they want all of them, and they have been working toward that end for a long time, fight back,join the N.R.A., or any and all groups that support our right's to own guns, don't believe the dam b----t.

I just have to reply to the statement "growth of gun crimes in the UK and Australia following strict prohibitions". Please read the following link that contains referances to offical stat's since tighter gun control was introduced.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/firearm-murder-rate-drops/...

The most important aspect of the laws at the end of the day is: if the cops see a person with an automatic weapon of any type, they will be stopped and asked to show just cause before they end up killing someone.

Oh and any increase in crime in Australia is bellow the rate of population growth...somthing that has only happened since the strict gun controls where put in place.

Are you kidding me? If our gun stores are the problem then please explain to me where the mexican drug cartels are getting the grenades, LAW rocket launchers, grenade launchers and the machine guns. Because you can't get those here in the US. And I bet they can get all the guns they want from where ever they're getting the explosives and machine guns. And cheaper too. I really do think that you are making up the 90% number. Do you really think that the violence and crime will just up and disappear if we ban guns in the US? Remember prohibition in the 1920s? Did that work? No. It actually caused crime. The drug ban isn't working. It's providing the violence with these mexican cartels. Why should I be punished? Why should my rights be taken away? Maybe we should just enforce the 20,000 gun laws we already have.

don't you see the connection between violent (and accidental!) deaths caused by easy to get guns? The more guns around, the more deaths, and this also applies to Mexico.