Well hey there stranger!

Ya know, i was friends with a tax attorney who explained the tax code just as you did... (Only paying higher taxes on the money you earned within the respective tax bracket) I have also seen family members and friends make several hundred dollars less for the year after receiving raises.
Perhaps we are talking about just federal income tax? I wonder if the same could be said for social security, medicare, and state income tax... I honestly don't know. Perhaps further investigation should be pursued...

Aye, and you do the same good sir

On the contrary... The "willing" of which we speak are those not wanting to break any laws. The shooters in question have always broken several in their efforts. For instance, carrying a gun into a firearm-restricted area (Note: gun laws that were prohibiting ANY firearm were broken), Murder, open carrying in public, etc. All laws that had to be broken placing them far from any law abiding individual.

I think you will find there is a link between gasoline and crime rates as there is a link between gas prices and the economy, then there is a direct link between the economy and crime rates. Just a thought...

You wouldn't be cold, you'd be "wicked cold"!

FYI Maine is also home to more than 23,000 class 3 weapons...

Actually Willing, Maine does not require any sort of gun registration (even ones you carry). They conduct background checks for any firearm, but no registration to my knowledge.

Again, i have personally witnessed what drones can do. I have called them in on an occasion or two. It would be very difficult not kill any of your "gun toters" without first identifying them. (Remember what you said about not letting your enemy see you coming?) Even if they did identify them, its difficult in public settings to kill them without killing bunches anti-gun advocates with whom they are blending (if they are doing it right) would be few are far between. Also, many of the opponents for the U.S. government under this very extreme circumstance will be our own military using the same technology. Just saying...

I do believe that the weapons you speak of have been banned since the 1930's. Automatics are sold with a tax, extensive background check and 4 month waiting period. The weapons in these shootings were not fully automatic. Semi-automatic guns are sold to hunters for hunting purposes as well. But that is besides the point. The 2nd amendment never had anything to do with hunting and any point in time. Its sole purpose was so the people, as a whole, had the power to defend themselves against our government. Whether the government is a threat now is another issue. But it could be, and historically speaking, will be someday.

It is merely the last and final check and balance in our system. We cannot keep getting rid of these checks and balances for our "safety" because it does just the opposite. And it allows our current government more leeway to become corrupt (more corrupt). Not to mention it makes us much more dependent (for protection) on the same government which may grow corrupt someday.

Again, weapons were never the threat. The wielder is. Lets start there instead.

Indeed sir. That's about where i was trying to lead the debate. Every time there is a knee-jerk reaction, you have people giving up rights, and surrendering independence and gun control is a prime example of that. Another good example is something called the Patriot Act which overrides our right to due process. Although we don't hear many libs complaining about that anymore, now that Bush is out of office, do we?

This is interesting. I remember going over this in sociology and business classes. Truth is the income they bring home has NOTHING to do with taxes. We want these businesses to have right-off incentives because this is where they do things like donate to charities and such... Anyhow the dramatic increase you see there stems from the wages they have allotted themselves. On average the highest payed corporate executives only made about 30 times what their lowest paid employees made. Now it up to something like 600 times. They have just been hording more money. (Hence why i don't believe any sort of tax hike will ever help, they would just horde more money. Thereby indirectly taxing us common folk.)

Actually, (i am playing from memory of debates years ago), when i looked up crime statistics from their .gov website (not one connected to any debates) there was very little, if any change in crime. It went up some years, but down others, really only fluctuating in single digit numbers. These fluctuations could be attributed to anything. I have discovered, when trying to analyze things like this from an unbiased standpoint, gun control has very little, if any effect, on violent crime. Take a look at Mexico where guns are illegal, and their homicide rate. Now take a look at Switzerland who owns more guns per capita than the U.S. (and their guns are real assault rifles, meaning full auto, unlike ours). These "exceptions" lead me to believe my prior hypothesis of guns having little/no impact on crime itself. There are other factors here that we are not looking at.

Again, sad, but the population is caught up in a huge knee-jerk reaction instead of seeking out real solutions to the problem of violence.

ADJU all I have to say is.... Amen brother

I do have to point out, that we still have troops that were unable to secure afganistan or iraq. Fighting a full scale war, dead on, army to army, the U.S. army would wipe out any opposition without breaking a sweat. However there are two dynamics that we are not looking at here. #1. Many troops would literally turn their weapons on their own officers before carrying out an order to slaughter other americans, as they have taken the oath to defend the constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. This precedes the promise to obey orders from the officers appointed to him/her including the president of the United States. #2 When a population is armed, you cannot decipher between friend and foe, making large scale attacks nearly impossible. This results in constant skirmishes, and on american soil, who knows how it would all end up. I been a personal witness to both sides of this issue. I have used this devastating technology of which you speak in live combat (front lines). I will say this, we have yet to lose a battle (i believe since wwII), yet we have lost wars. There is a lot more to fighting than who has the bigger stick.

Again, we are not seeing all the moving parts.

Furthermore, if people care so much about preventing these tragedies, why are they not pursuing avenues that have been proven to be much more effective? Why are they not looking at the problem itself?

I agree that the effectiveness of weapons depends more on the situation than the weapon itself. Again, a firearm is merely a tool. Nothing more than a power drill is to a carpenter (with exactly the opposite outcome of course).

I respectfully disagree with people being more "civilized" prior to having semiautomatic weapons. Think back in history to ancient times, before muskets were even invented. I seem to recall reference to times when citizens would cheer as women at children were being ripped apart by lions as punishment for whatever crime they committed . Or women being stoned to death after being "cheating" on her husband (whether or not the infidelity was voluntary). And i need not mention the brutality of the "Salem Witch Trials" (although muskets did exist back then) These are just a few of the many examples of how people in industrialized nations have come a long way as far as becoming more civilized.


Society is a funny thing. You cannot simply pass a law and expect it to do what you want. There is an equal and opposing reaction (for ex. prohibition was the biggest financial backer to the gangs in the 1930's). And, believe it or not, violent crime has been decreasing steadily since 1993. (That excludes the past year). Furthermore, oddly enough, there has not been a full scale war between first world countries since World War II, which many attribute to the development of atomic weapons. Many believe we can attribute this to the development of "massively destructive" weapons (nuclear bombs).

Note: I am not condoning countries having them, nor promoting access to any massively destructive weapons, I am merely emphasizing my point of human nature and its "equal and opposing reactions".


As I have previously mentioned, there are many more moving parts in society than just the added firepower. I think you will find there is a mental health problem in this country that needs to be addressed. According to sociologists there is a large undisputable correlation between economics and crime (crime increases as the economy decreases). And then there is the issue of over medication. Children are exposed to highly addictive and/or mind altering pharmaceuticals from a young age (and people wonder why they lack certain coping skills).

Again, my life philosophy follows closely to my medical philosophy, if there is a problem treat the cause, not a symptom.

IF this were the case, then why has no one written Obama and told him to disarm his secret service because they are a danger to his personal safety? Or is the president not important enough? This may not have been what you meant, however i felt compelled to comment.

I do agree with the false sense of security, as i have mentioned in a separate post, but the majority of gun "toters" (im translating this to meaning those who carry concealed), have been trained differently, and surprisingly enough, they listen.

Just any FYI.... Not trying to defend Bush, but payments haven't been made on our national debt since Andrew Jackson.

And i do agree, a small portion of the upper class is hording more and more money out of our economy ( pay differences between CEO's and common folk working for them have increased steadily and dramatically since the 30's). This increase in pay difference is definitely an issue. I really don't believe any tax hikes will level any playing fields however. They seem to be carrying too many cards. Im thinking tax hikes will end up trickling down to the consumers.

Furthermore im pretty sure that the 15% (that everybody says is unfair) is actually dividends, not normal income. I'm pretty sure they pay 35% on their normal income. This would mean that taxing dividends would hurt the middle class as that is where most people's retirement funds reside. Not to mention there would be a risk of people removing their money from the market in response to the tax hikes.

We could hike up corporate taxes, but the U.S. seems to have one of the highest in the world. This unfortunately promotes outsourcing costing us many jobs.

We need a different approach, one that is more specific to the issue. Admittedly I really don't have any answers though...

Again, I agree, there is a problem. The highest payed corporate executives only earned about 25 times what their lowest payed employee made back in the 1920's. In the 1970's that grew to 50 times. I believe in the 1990's that number reached 500 times. Still it grows.

Indeed sir And i believe our apathy continues us steadily on this course

Im gonna go out on a limb here. I think i understand what you are saying and oddly enough, for the most part, i agree.

One of the big things stressed in a concealed carry course is that street smarts is your first line of defense. Having a firearm does not make that dark alley a safe passage. They say if you find yourself willing to go places you wouldn't otherwise go and/or do things you wouldn't otherwise do because you are carrying, then you should leave it at home. Its a big responsibility.

A firearm is a tool. Under a specific set of circumstances it can be used for good (i use the term loosely here), and under a specific set of circumstances it can be used for bad. Sometimes people forget the specifics behind each circumstance.

I would like to point out that gun ownership in Switzerland is a wide spread tradition, and they have more gun owners per capita than the U.S. I would also like to point out that Mexico has strict guns laws, and one of the highest murder rates.

These figures are unfortunately null and void as there are obviously many more differences not taken into account. Perhaps, in light of the two points i mentioned earlier, we should look at other avenues to address the actual problem instead of trying to mask its symptoms.

Also, driving up prices on firearms/ammunition, makes them less common, but more valuable. Unfortunately in this society that means its worth a greater risk stealing them/selling them illegally hence growing a black market. There just are no simple answers when trying to control a population in this manner. every action has an equal and opposing reaction.

Concerning the O.P. i commend you for attempting to find ways to prevent further trageties. However, as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. has different moving parts (culture/economics/healthcare, etc) than other countries. So on the gun control debate one country cannot be compared to the other. About the only thing we can do is look at our own. I seem to remember the Bill Clinton ban on assault weapons in the 90's. I think we will find that right smack-dab in the middle of the ban the columbine shooting occurred. Even MSNBC admitted that these bans had no effect on shooting sprees (which says a lot). Washington D.C. had very similar rules to what you suggested, all guns had to be dismantled, and kept under lock and key when not in use. Ammunition had to be kept under separate lock and key. D.C. still remained one of the highest sources of gun violence. The ban was lifted a few years ago, which i also believe had no real impact on gun violence.

Again, i truely believe that gun control in response to gun violence is a scapegoat. The true problem lies in the wielder of the tool. This is where we need to begin.