Prayers Instead of Politics...

A horrifying tragedy occurred in Newtown, Connecticut this morning. A senseless act of cold-blooded violence has taken the lives of 20 children in kindergarten to fourth grade, along with six adults and the shooter himself. The fact that a majority of these victims were very young children has just completely ripped my heart out.

The holiday season is supposed to be "the most wonderful time of the year." For me, it always has been. And every year, I get irritated just seeing reckless drivers on the road with no regard for the safety of others. It's such a horrible thing to imagine a family mourning, crying, and grieving, rather than relishing in the joy of the holiday season.

After hearing of this shooting at Sandy Cook Elementary School, the last thing on my mind has been politics. All I can think is these poor parents are now planning memorial services and funerals for their babies, rather than planning where to hide gifts from Santa before Christmas.

It was warming to see our President offer perfect words today as a parent rather than POTUS. He hit the nail on the head offering sympathy and condolences to the families and friends who have lost a child or adult in this massacre. And then he said, "Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children's innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain."

The families and loved ones of these victims deserve the respect and prayers we can offer before anyone can just jump on their political agendas. It can happen to anyone, anywhere. These people deserve all the love and prayers they can get while they cope with this unimaginable tragedy.

Posted by bigtex at December 14, 2012 7:40 PM
Comments
Comment #358861

Non è necessario per rompere milano abercrombie attraverso cervello molto se avete intenzione di vendere on-line i prodotti che sono già pre fatti. Se state pensando di sviluppare i vostri propri articoli, però, è necessario commessi abercrombie milano documento buon strumento per la creazione di prodotti che si può camminare il processo. Si potrebbe immaginare http://www.abercrombiemilanois.eu/c_abercrombie-uomo/uomo-manica-lunga-tee.html ci c’è niente da creating il tuo ebook. Gli strumenti di base semplicemente abercrombie paris france testo applicazione o un di e le istruzioni su come.

Posted by: abercrombiemilano at December 14, 2012 8:24 PM
Comment #358886

I’ve been torn between sorrow and anger all day. My heart and prayers are with those poor parents that won’t be tucking their babies in tonight.
Children are supposed to hugged and loved. Not shot down in cold blood. It’s to bad that the bastard that did this robbed the police of the privilege and honor of filling him full of holes.
I have 20 grandyoungins, 16 of them are in school. Four are the ages of the children murdered today. The thought of something like this happening to one of them most likely will give me nightmares tonight.
Children are our most precious resource and the most innocent and defenseless of our society.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 14, 2012 11:26 PM
Comment #358889

I’d like to see graphic photos of each one of those dead kindergartners hung around the neck of every card-carrying NRA member.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 12:12 AM
Comment #358891

We were in tears thinking about how one person ruined the holiday for many years to come for so many families with this senseless attack on these young children and their teachers. Our sympathies go out to all those suffering tonight from this horrendous tragedy.

The families and loved ones of these victims deserve the respect and prayers we can offer before anyone can just jump on their political agendas. It can happen to anyone, anywhere.

Big, Yes they do deserve our respect and prayers. They also deserve more than that. These attacks on children and schools seems to happen here more than in say Canada or Europe, quite a bit more, why is that? They deserve to understand why it is more likely in this country than in all other first world nations they can send their children to school only to have them killed en masse by one man in a matter of minutes.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 15, 2012 1:18 AM
Comment #358893

Phx8, for just one day can you let people grieve before delving into a political discussion? Oh you can’t? You’re a douche.

Posted by: BZA at December 15, 2012 1:29 AM
Comment #358894

phx8

Perhaps we should hang a pictures of the 4 dead americans killed in Benghazi around the necks of every Obama voter. Oh, and for the record, your remark was equally asinine.

Posted by: dbs at December 15, 2012 4:47 AM
Comment #358896

I knew this would degenerate into petty politics. Shame on you phx8 and dbs, don’t sustain the idiot with your comment.

Posted by: C&J at December 15, 2012 8:12 AM
Comment #358898


At the risk of also being labeled a “douche”, lately it seems we have been grieving an awful lot of innocents that have been slaughtered at the hands of lunatics with guns.

At what point do we stop grieving and actually have a conversation about this that isn’t driven by the NRA and the gun lobby?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 15, 2012 9:15 AM
Comment #358899

“Today, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun control advocate, moved to politicize the monstrous school shooting in Connecticut, issuing the following statement:”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/14/Bloomberg-politicizes-shooting

“A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.

“These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents … are happening more and more frequently. And they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit, and that means the president, takes leadership and pushes Congress,” Mr. Nadler said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz.

Mr. Nadler was asked whether the Newtown tragedy could be the turning point in many Democrats’ longstanding struggle to enact stronger gun laws.

“I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next” incident, Mr. Nadler said.

Mr. Nadler joins New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and others who quickly turned their attention to gun control laws in the hours following Friday’s shooting, one of the worst campus massacres in U.S. history.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/

“BEIJING (Reuters) - A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.

The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.

There have been a series of attacks on schools and schoolchildren around China in recent years, some by people who have lost their jobs or felt left out of the country’s economic boom.

The rash of violence has prompted public calls for more measures to protect the young in a country where many couples only have one child.

In 2010, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.”

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

And finally, in the words of one of the modern day socialists and Obama supporter, Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”

Posted by: Rebecca at December 15, 2012 9:22 AM
Comment #358900

Rebecca,

And your point is?

Posted by: tom at December 15, 2012 10:07 AM
Comment #358902

Oh. Wait. The Sandy Hook massacre was cause for some of you assholes to mourn, and not play politics just for one day. Ah. I see. Unfortunately, it was already the day after a massacre for me. I live near the Clackamas Town Mall, where a gunman ran amok the day before, killing two people with an assault rifle, seriously wounding a young girl, then killing himself. Only the fact his AR-15 assault rifle jammed prevented him from killing many, many more people.

So no, assholes. You don’t get a free day of mourning. You should have already been in mourning for the massacre in Portland. But not enough people died in that one, eh? Those dead people were adults. Wonderful people, but unimportant. Not quite such a tearjerker.

Of course, identifying the role assault weapons played in these massacres would be “political,” because the emotions behind the slaughter would be aimed directly at you NRA supporters.

So no. No day off. You assholes don’t get to mourn. Instead, you get to bear the responsiblity for contributing to the death of those dead kids, and those dead adults at that mall, too. It wouldn’t have happened without your support. So own it, assholes. Own it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 11:08 AM
Comment #358905

Phx8, your ignorance is only surpassed by your complete lack of any gasp on reality and compassion.

There is little, if anything, that we could have done to prevent those deaths through ‘gun laws’. And you only want to focus on a couple of instances that display guns in a negative light and ignore the thousands of instances where guns were positively used. That is because you have an AGENDA and want to argue from emotion, not logic and reason.

A requirement for a progressive.

You keep plugging away at creating a truly totalitarian/authoritarian society, you will most likely one day get your wish. And you will have to live with those consequences. Maybe it will take that time for you to finally realize… Of course, it will be too late for millions of others, but hey, you don’t care about that, do you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 11:28 AM
Comment #358906

Tell you what, Rhinehold. You can wear the picture of Cindy Ann Yuille around your neck. She was a hospice nurse. Do you know what a hospice nurse does? She was killed by an automatic weapons while shopping, a gunshot to the back. Why don’t you wear her picture around your neck today?

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment #358908

Tell you what, phx8, why don’t you wear a picture of the innocent people killed by Obama in his wars in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

Rather, I will wear a picture of Joel Myrick around my neck… Don’t know who he is?

He’s the assistant principle in Pearl, Mississippi who stopped a gunman in a school with, get this, a GUN.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html

Or, I can wear a picture of the THOUSANDS of people who thwarted violent crime being attempted against them by the use of a GUN.

http://pulpless.com/gunclock/

You want to argue from a place of emotion, that’s your problem, not mine. I know enough to know the damaging effects of that to get sucked into it. Have your moment of emotive triumph, it’ll make you feel better railing against things you can’t fathom because you aren’t aware of what is going on around you, trying to place blame where it doesn’t belong. Why not curse some god? Or some other person/inatimate objects as the cause of what happened. Heck, the shooter yesterday was a gamer, blame the games!

Don’t focus on the fact that an obvious mentally malfunctioning person caused harm to others. Don’t try to figure out why he snapped and see if we can prevent others like him in the future from doing harm with whatever weapon they choose. Do do any of that because those things might actually be HELPFUL in preventing something like this in the future… You’re better served focusing on the weapon that 99% of the time is used responsibly and safely, that’s where you should be focusing your anger…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 11:54 AM
Comment #358910

phx8; the ignorance is on your part. An AR-15 is NOT and “assault” weapon and certainly is not an “automatic” weapon. When will you guys on the left ever understand it is not guns that kill people, it is people who kill people. Obama has done more FOR the sale of weapons and ammunition than any other president. Everytime he or the left opens their mouth about gun control, the sales of guns and ammo increases. The American people will never be disarmed. The left’s 60 year attack on God in the public arena and public school system, the throwing out of personal responsibility, Hollywoods infactuation with providing increasingly violent films, and violent video games have created these problems.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 15, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #358911

phx8
My heart and prayers go out to the families of all the shooting victims regardless of where it took place. Senseless violence is hard to understand regardless of the age of the victims. But it’s even harder when the victims are innocent 5 & 6 year old children whose only crime is to be in school.
So the answer to all this is to ban guns. And when these bastards start using bows do we ban them too. Maybe we should cut everyone’s hands off. That way no one can’t use any kind of weapon.
What makes you think we’ll keep guns out of the hands of these puke bags if we ban guns? There are laws against convicted felons having guns. It doesn’t seem to bother them. They still have them. They get them from illegal guns dealers that don’t care how old you are as long as you can come up with the money. But then these douche bags wouldn’t go to an illegal gun dealer now would they? If we ban guns we’ll just be expanding, making more profitable, and making more violent an already existing violent criminal enterprise. It won’t stop the senseless violence like we’ve seen over the past few weeks.
I’ve noticed that these sons of bitches go to areas where they know there’s not much chance that someone will have a gun. Why don’t they go to a school in Harlem or South Central LA? Or just go there and open fire in the middle of the street? Or better yet they should go to a police station somewhere with 20 or so cops in it all the time and start shooting. They don’t seem to have any intention of coming out alive anyway.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2012 1:17 PM
Comment #358912

Ron, the area where the shooting took place was a ‘gun free zone’. Ie, by law there were no guns allowed to exist in that area.

Sooo, we need more laws against guns! See the logic?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 1:32 PM
Comment #358913

Maybe we should ban violent video games and violent TV shows. And while we’re at it ban boxing and wrestling.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2012 1:45 PM
Comment #358914

BTW, what happens when you ban guns like in England? Well, let’s look at what happened in England!

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to “walk on by” and let the professionals handle it.

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife.”

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. “Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon,” concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be “very heavy.”

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: “For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 1:48 PM
Comment #358915

Oops, forgot the link… There is much more there.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 1:50 PM
Comment #358916

Own it.


NRA Instructor,
Just pin that picture of a dead kindergartner on your shirt, go to the mall, and tell everyone what you believe about guns. See how it goes over. Tell everyone that bullshit about guns too. And make absolutely sure to mention you are an NRA Instructor.

Rhinehold,
The guns used at Sandy Hook AND Clackamas were legally owned, as is the case in most massacres. In these cases, a ‘friend’ or ‘relative’ took those guns, along with a LOT of ammunition, and proceeded to kill as many people as possible. See the logic?

By the way, you got real quiet about Rasmussen polls v Daily Kos polls for the recent election. Rasmussen turned out to be among the least accurate, along with Gallup. PPP turned out to be the most accurate. I was right. You were wrong. See the logic?

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 1:51 PM
Comment #358917

By far the four worst reactions to the recent shooting:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/15/4-archetypally-awful-reactions-to-sandy

“They come courtesy of a former presidential candidate (Mike Huckabee), an international media mogul (Rupert Murdoch), an Oscar-winning filmmaker (Michael Moore), and a famous crusading journalist (Geraldo Rivera).”

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #358918

Ron,
There are psychological profiles for the types who commit massacres, but I’d prefer not to get into it. The way our media covers these massacres actually makes it worse in at least two ways. First, it feeds the kind of attention the mentally ill killers seek, by advertising and inadvertently promoting & legitimizing their cause, whether it’s rage, revenge, or other delusions. Second, it softens the impact by not showing graphic pictures of the bodies of the victims. Although that’s done in the name of sensitivity and protecting the young, I think it makes the matter worse by letting the deaths of innocents remain an abstraction. It’s not a coincidence that I want to see the NRA people wear pictures of the victims tied around their neck. The mere image forces people to make the horror more real, to make the emotional impact more real, to face the consequences of their beliefs, especially when the emotions are fresh and raw. It won’t stop the fact that the victims have been murdered en masse, but maybe it will finally spur Americans to act.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #358919

I’m beginning to get the idea that our friends on the left ain’t as worried about the tragedies of the senseless shootings over the last few weeks as they are taking guns away from law abiding citizens. I sure as hell hope that ain’t true. But how can I believe other wise when the first thing out of their mouths is a call for gun control.
Obama hinted at it, That idiot mayor in NY came out and said it. And now the very first comment here from a liberal is about it.

Rhinehold
I know that schools everywhere are gun free zones. So are malls and theaters for the most part.
That’s why I don’t understand why these shit bags chose them instead of a police station that ain’t. These fart bags didn’t seem to plan to come out alive anyway. Why not go somewhere where there are folks with guns that will help them with their plans to die?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2012 2:11 PM
Comment #358921

PHX8,

The guns used at Sandy Hook AND Clackamas were legally owned, as is the case in most massacres. In these cases, a ‘friend’ or ‘relative’ took those guns, along with a LOT of ammunition, and proceeded to kill as many people as possible. See the logic?

Yep, the logic states that a derranged individual chose a weapon to kill as many people as possible. Had he not had such easy access to the guns, he would have chosen something else. A bomb is very easy to make with normal household goods, and every indication is that the person was smart enough to know this. SO, had he not had access to the guns, he would have still committed the crime, people would still be dead, but we would be trying to ban some other inanimate object.

BTW, the area he took those guns to was a ‘gun free zone’. IE, him having them was a) illegal because he was not their owner and b) illegal because they were not allowed where he took them. Your ‘logic’ is that if we make it MORE illegal, those people would still be alive, but that isn’t logic at all, because you can’t get your head out of your own ass long enough to understand the reality of the situation.

By the way, you got real quiet about Rasmussen polls v Daily Kos polls for the recent election

Yes, I’ve been dealing with my wife battling stage 4 ovarian cancer, diagnosed just before the election. I imagine I was very quiet about a lot of things for some time.

But since you seem to have your panties in a bunch about it, let me respond now.

1) I told you then that the whole polling thing was irrelevant because they are at best educated guesses, but previous to 2010 Rasmussen was the most accurate. Therefore they were a valid polling firm to use. I also told you that once the election was over, and they were no longer accurate, it would reflect in their ability to charge for those polling results. Since they weren’t as accurate as they should have been, I expect Scott to lose a lot of money. Polling is subjective and I suspect that he is not happy that he was wrong.

2) You make a suggestion that ‘daily kos’ was more accurate than ‘rasmussen’, but you a) don’t provide any evidence to back that up and b) never mentioned daily kos in our discussions. If you somehow think they were ‘more accurate’, please provide the evidence to that.

A good article to look at in this would be http://www.decodedscience.com/polling-accuracy-2012-presidential-election/20390. One election does not an accurate NOR inaccurate predictor make. Nate Silver has done a good job in 2008, 2010 and 2012, but he has a short history to judge upon to say that 2014 will be as accurate, you can use Rasmussen as an example of that. Though from this list, I would take Gallup and Nate over Rasmussen until they can figure out why their models were off and prove they have compensated for them.

Apparently you think that polling is some hard science that is either right or wrong, it isn’t and that any deviation is obvious ‘bias’. Whatever meaning you seem to gather from all of this is apparently leading you to suggest things that the facts don’t mesh with, but clearly it is important to you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 2:13 PM
Comment #358923

We should all be sick of the “guns are not the problem” defense. It has to be the most absurd and overstated defense of the use of weaponry by private citizens there is. Let me make it perfectly clear. As soon as any gun is leveled on an innocent human target it becomes a problem. 300 million privately owned poorly regulated guns in this country are not only a problem but they are a huge problem. Often stated cliches are no answer to an issue that is long overdue a serious conversation. The problem is not that guns exist or that they are legal. It is that we are not allowed a conversation that deals with the issue. I am with phx8 on this one. Each time one of these senseless massacres happen all you folks who stymie the conversation with simple cliches should do a gut check and reflect not on your sacred right to possess a weapon but what we should be doing to prevent the increasingly occurring loss of innocent life at the hands of a massive weapons problem. Because there is no logical stance that can deny the reality of its existence.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #358924

To all our liberal posters, Lets ban all types of weapons, that includes knives of all types, bows and arrows, all the simple household goods that can be used to make a bomb, there are all types of weapons that can be used to KILL innocent people. Rickil, guns are not the problem, IT’s THE IDIOT WHO’s HAND IS ON THE TRIGGER who is the problem.

Posted by: KAP at December 15, 2012 5:20 PM
Comment #358925

Rhinehold,
First, my sympathies to you & your wife as you go through this. Best wishes.

As for the polls, PPP = Daily Kos.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/fordham-study-public-policy-polling-deemed-most-accurate

A bomb is NOT as easy to use as an assault weapon, automatic, or semi-automatic. Attacks using bombs are very rare, although the ingredients are readily available.

Ron Brown,
It is precisely because I am concerned with senseless acts of mass murder by maniacs with guns that I want to see gun ownership severely limited. In Britain, a gun owner belongs to a gun club and does hunting through that club. That seems like a very sensible solution to me. Gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense is allowed only if the citizen goes through a because of a serious threat. That seems sensible too.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 5:22 PM
Comment #358926

kap, guns are the vessel that deliver the fatal wound. They are a precision instrument designed for quick efficient killing. Properly controlling the use of 300 million of them across the spectrum of an entire country is a problem. Were it not for the guns the issue would not exist. Hammers can also kill people but they are not a problem. But then they were not designed to be an efficient killing tool. I am not advocating repeal of the second amendment or that your weapons be extricated from you. Just that we are able to demand and have a discussion that results in some sort of practical solutions to help minimize the loss of innocent life as much as possible. At the moment there is no such effort under way by anyone that has the power to do so. We all know why that event is not and most likely will not happen. That in itself is a shame and testament to just where our priorities and moral obligations lie. Until the issue is addressed it can only be assumed that we value the right to loosely regulated fire arms more than we value and respect human life.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #358928
A bomb is NOT as easy to use as an assault weapon, automatic, or semi-automatic. Attacks using bombs are very rare, although the ingredients are readily available.

As I stated, guns are a little more precise. But if you make them harder to get, bombs will be the choice of future killers. And instead of killing who they want to kill, they will be much more indiscriminate in who and how many people they kill.

In Britain, a gun owner belongs to a gun club and does hunting through that club. That seems like a very sensible solution to me. Gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense is allowed only if the citizen goes through a because of a serious threat. That seems sensible too.

The problem with your sensible solutions is that they create more problems.

Take England for example, since you brought it up. The reality is that while you think that the laws are working, they are in fact making things worse for citizens of Great Britain.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was “rocketing.” In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to “walk on by” and let the professionals handle it.

The fact is that gun violence was never a real problem in Great Britain UNTIL they outlawed them. Since then there has been a steady rise not just in gun violence, but all violent crime. It’s like the criminals now know they have nothing to fear, not even from the police, who are not armed as well. So there is less danger to them. No one is defending themselves anymore, they are relying on ‘the state’ to do that, something that is patently impossible to do.

The fact is that with 300 million registered guns in the US (statistic provided here as a reason for fear) there are actually VERY VERY FEW gun related violent actions that do not involve gangs and the prohibition of drugs.

Unfortunately, there are people who are scared that guns exist at all. Or that ‘just anyone’ can have one. That fear is irrational, but emotional. And we know what emotional thinking does to create worse problems than they fix.

—-

Often stated cliches are no answer to an issue that is long overdue a serious conversation.

You are correct, the immediate emotional demand for the clamping down of gun laws, that would have had no effect on this event, prevents us from talking about the REAL problem, why do some people think it is ‘ok’ to kill others. What is wrong with these people, can we fix them or identify them before they kill so that these things can be prevented. Keeping them from a gun is great, but it doesn’t solve the problem as there are many many other ways to kill, in great number, if one wanted to.

The problem is the desire and the rest of us not identifying it soon enough. Now THERE we can have a valid and needed discussion, one that will actually provide results. Not this incessant and inane demand that we ‘do something about guns’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #358929

So Rickil, your idea is creating more laws but the fact is we already have laws upon laws that are loosely regulated instead of enforcing them. You can regulate all you want but that dosen’t keep the person who wants to create mayham from getting what he/she wants to do his/her deed. IMO you lib/progressive types seem to forget that notion. You say hammers can kill but they are not the problem but in the wrong hands they are, just as a gun is, with that you can include an axe, knives, bows and arrows and other such things. So lets get to the real problem which is PEOPLE not some inanimate object because it takes a person to pull a trigger on a gun, or wield a knife, hammer or other such thing.

Posted by: KAP at December 15, 2012 6:46 PM
Comment #358930

Rhinehold wrote; “Yes, I’ve been dealing with my wife battling stage 4 ovarian cancer, diagnosed just before the election. I imagine I was very quiet about a lot of things for some time.”

How devastating for your wife, you and your family. Please accept my sincere sympathy and my hope that a miracle will happen in your life.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2012 7:02 PM
Comment #358931

There is no way of knowing how many lives have actually been saved by private gun ownership as how do we know when a criminal doesn’t perpetrate violence for fear of the proposed victim being able to defend themselves. Street crime is not usually perpetrated upon the strong, but rather, on the old or weak. Throughout the history of civilization men have used weapons to defend themselves.

Innocent lives are wasted daily by many causes such as disease and accident. Millions of would-be lives are ended yearly by abortion. Death thru hunger and negligence is rampant in parts of the world. All such deaths are lamentable and none are justified.

Terrorism, whether by organized groups or by an individual is abhorrent to all reasonable people. The world has not been successful in reducing or eliminating terrorism. The murders in Connecticut was an act of terrorism. Many rail against the preferred weapon of most terrorist but that fails to address the cause of the act.

We have many laws and most are not effective in controlling violence. We now hand out greater punishment if a murder is based on “hate rather than what…”love”

The world is becoming more immoral. Violence is increasing. We accept behavior today that would have been considered shameful just short years ago. We have become a society of victims with each of us deciding the proper redress for our victim-hood whether political or social. And unfortunately, some few choose murder.

There is a constant drumbeat from our political class and media that supports the notion that someone is harming us and telling us it is OK to pursue whatever our desires may be despite the harm it may bring to innocent others. Today the cry from most is…”we have rights” that protect our shameful actions and greed.

We have much that needs to be corrected in this society. The correct course of action must never be at the expense of another or our liberty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2012 7:41 PM
Comment #358932

“So lets get to the real problem which is PEOPLE not some inanimate object because it takes a person to pull a trigger on a gun, or wield a knife, hammer or other such thing.”

KAP,

Nobody dismisses the human factor in these gun violence rampages. It would be absurd to deny its primary importance. A maniac with any weapon is a dangerous person.

On the other hand, it would be equally absurd to dismiss the importance of the nature and availability of the type of weapons available to such maniac. High powered semi-automatic weapons kill at a much more lethal level and rate. Lets remember the old adage to not bring a knife to a gun fight. High powered guns escalate the potential lethality. The wide availability of guns escalates the probability of there use.

The argument that it is not the gun but the person is absurdly simplistic. It is both. We recognize in almost every other area that dangerous substances in the hands of mentally deranged or incompetent persons is a lethal combination. We attempt to regulate and manage both. Do we say, its not nukes but the person holding the button? No, we recognize that we may not always be able to control the person or nation with the button and work like hell to try to control their ability to obtain such weapons. Gun control is no different. It is simply the recognition that we may never be able to fully identify and manage the maniacal nuts in our society. However, we may be able to limit and reduce their opportunity to use highly efficient killing machines.


Posted by: Rich at December 15, 2012 8:02 PM
Comment #358933

Kap, we can and should do better in addressing the complicated issues that revolve around tools designed for quick and efficient killing. Avoiding the issue merely to protect against some sort of perceived attack on personal rights is just absurd in light of alternate consequences. Rights come with responsibilities and obligations. IMO we all have an obligation to insure that the right to keep and bear children is at least just as important as the right to keep and bear arms. The need is clear. How we deal with that need is complicated. We should not allow those complications to trump the need. It amazes me that we can go out of our way to willingly and aggressively complicate the voting process, but asking one to address a truly disastrous and horrific issue as this becomes a suddenly stuck in the mud no legs no will event. What in the hell is wrong with this country that we can be so stupidly blind and arrogant towards lfe and death issues that deserve our utmost and immediate attention?

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 9:01 PM
Comment #358934

phx8 still fails to understand assault weapons are full auto weapons and an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. His problem seems to be with the millions of Americans who either belong to the NRA or support the NRA.

In the State of Ohio, our county has a full time Sheriff’s Dept detective who’s sole job is to process conceal carry permits. My job is to train those who want a permit in the proper handling of a weapon. A Federal Judge just sided with the citizens of Illinois and said the state cannot prevent them from seeking a CCW permit. The left can whine and cry all they want, but an armed ciizenry is here to stay.

The example was given concerning Englands crime problem. The Brits have been fudging the crime stats for years. But perhaps we should look at the crime rate in Switzerland or Isreal, where gun ownership is mandated and every citizen is trained. I saw a picture on FB of an Israelie kindergarden teacher with her class and an M-16 over her shoulder. Sorry to say, this is the world we live in, and in all honesty, we can thank the left for many of our problems.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 15, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #358935

Thank you NRA Instructor for your service to our country. I also know that it is NRA instructors who train our law enforcement, as well as teach children gun safety.

“What in the hell is wrong with this country that we can be so stupidly blind and arrogant towards lfe and death issues that deserve our utmost and immediate attention?”

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 9:01 PM

Rickil, I know it’s a real problem for you to understand this; but your problem seems to be with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You remember, the documents on which our founding fathers saw fit to base the Republic. I know it’s inconvient. Perhaps ou could advise Obama to just issue an EO banning all rights to own guns? It’s a shame the left’s concern for the lives of children doesn’t also include the millions of babies slain every year, in the name of “vote your body parts”.

Posted by: Frank at December 15, 2012 9:13 PM
Comment #358936

C&J

I didn’t make the original asinine statement, phx8 did. Guns were far easier to obtaine 50 years ago. Why were these types of occurences less common ? A single teacher with CCW could have ended this tragedy sooner than the police. We have a feakin communist as a president and we wonder why things i this country are getting worse.


“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” - Economist Friedrich Hayek

This says it all. I am for one completely fed up with the leftist horses#!t in the country. It is the root of all or current problems.

Posted by: dbs at December 15, 2012 9:29 PM
Comment #358937

Rich and Rickil, We have laws regulating guns, inacting more laws is a total waste. Fully automatic weapons are already banned for sale to them public and only semi automatic weapons are legal. How many times does it take for you to understand that if a person who wants to create MAYHAM will get whatever they want no matter how many laws banning those said weapons they want are on the books. It takes regulating the nut cases, to many mentally challenged people are running around loose who should be in mental institutions.

Posted by: KAP at December 15, 2012 9:44 PM
Comment #358938

Rhinehold, I don’t think that anyone is declaring war on guns. There is no doubt the problems that surround the issue are wide ranging. However guns are at the core of the issue. They are the vessel that delivers the final result in the vast majority of these episodes. If anything we should be declaring war on those who stand in the way of finding common sense solutions that will reduce the likelihood of future episodes. I personally believe we are at a point in time that we as a nation must decide where our priorities lie when balancing worth of life against the ills or gains of weapons ownership. We can either accept the status quo and live with the results or address the issue. That is where we are. Do we take proactive action or do we simply live with the knowledge that innocent people dying in mass at the hands of nuts with guns is now part of life in everyday America?

You are probably aware that a federal court has declared Il must become a concealed carry state within six months. I am sixty one years old and have felt no need or desire to own a weapon since serving in Vietnam. The reason I mention this is that My instincts are telling me it would be wise to go through the certification process in order to purchase a weapon so that I will be on an even playing field should I stumble into a compromising situation. I know statistics indicate there are no significant changes in the amount of weapons related deaths due to CC. I suspect though that the potential for altercations is bound to increase. I am also guessing that the amount of deaths that are prevented are offset by the amount that are caused. I can’t say that I have a real issue with CC per say. It is the idea that I now feel a direct need to own a weapon that bothers me. I feel as though I have lost a bit of freedom. Common sense has always helped me avoid trouble. I now feel that common sense may not be as useful as it once was simply because escaping the damage of a firearm is much more difficult and potentially final than avoiding or dealing with alternate altercations.

I want to wish you and your wife well. I know from personal experience how difficult dealing with cancer can be for both the patient and the family. The best of luck to both of you.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 9:45 PM
Comment #358939

NRAinstructor,
You’ve done great evil, training people to use weapons to kill. Well, the past is water under the bridge, and an action done cannot be undone. There is no forgiveness, not in that sense, so you will have to carry the sum of that evil into the future. Consider your actions, consider compassion. As a famous song goes, there’s still time to change the road you’re on.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 9:53 PM
Comment #358940

Frank, I really see no value in injecting politics into the issue. It imo deserves serious attention. As I stated above we can address it or accept these sorts of events as just another day in everyday America. Which of those options carries more credence or makes more sense to you? Ignoring it will insure it continues. In that event I will at least have the peace of mind of knowing I recognized the issue and took a proactive approach to address it.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 9:54 PM
Comment #358941

phx8, Do you say the same for those same wepons instructors for our military? Your statements have been some of the most ignorant assined and moronic I have read.

Posted by: KAP at December 15, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #358942

Kap, IMO the mere recognition of existing laws as representing all that can be done is a cop out. It carries no more credence than the, guns aren’t the problem, cliche. Of course we can do better. All we need is the will desire and leadership to do so.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #358943

Kap, IMO the mere recognition of existing laws as representing all that can be done is a cop out. It carries no more credence than the, guns aren’t the problem, cliche. Of course we can do better. All we need is the will desire and leadership to do so.

Posted by: Rickil at December 15, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment #358944

Rickil, Better background checks would be a start. People like the one who shot Gifford and the one who shot up the movie theater are prime examples of those who fell through the cracks of our system. Yes we can do better by insurring idiots like those two never get their hands on a gun. As I mentioned to many people are ruinning loose who should be institutionalized.

Posted by: KAP at December 15, 2012 10:23 PM
Comment #358945

KAP,
Well, we all make choices, don’t we? As to whether a person should join the military or not, we each have to make our own decisions by our own moral lights. The same goes for teaching civilians to how to kill one another.

You can teach other people how to kill, or you can teach other people how not to kill.

Your choice.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 10:49 PM
Comment #358946

NRA instructor is correct that recent federal court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, have ruled against blanket prohibitions by the state against issuance of licenses to own or carry guns. It should be noted, however, that the issue in those cases was about the opportunity to apply for licenses. They did not rule that citizens had an unrestricted right to own or carry guns. The Supreme Court was quite clear, albeit in dicta, that the state has the right to regulate the type of weapons, criteria for ownership, possession, concealed carry, etc. It is the later issue that is of primary concern by gun regulation advocates.

Posted by: Rich at December 15, 2012 10:50 PM
Comment #358947

phx8
The media does over play stuff like this. News is news, report it, but don’t spend the whole day rehashing whats been said a million times over.
As for the shrinks the best thing they can do is keep their noses out of it and their mouths shut. By the time these nutcases get done psychoanalyzing the scum bag they’ve completely exonerated the puke bucket’s actions. At least in there sicko little pea brain minds. And they manage to get a whole heap of weak minded folks to fall for it.

A bomb is NOT as easy to use as an assault weapon, automatic, or semi-automatic. Attacks using bombs are very rare, although the ingredients are readily available.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree. All you have to do with a bomb is get it in the general area. With an assault weapon you have to be within your weapon’s range. I think one reason these sicko bastards prefer to use guns is because they can see the terror they’re causing. They get a thrill seeing the faces of the folks they’re murdering. Y’all don’t want to see gun ownership ‘severely limited’. Y’all want it completely ban. In order to get guns ban y’all are going to have to get the second amendment repealed. Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to go along with that. Or do y’all just plan to ignore the Constitution and pass an unconstitutional law banning them? I doubt very much that the bastards that go on a murder spree ever took lessons on how to use the weapons they choose. Instructors that teach folks to use weapons teach them how to be responsible with them. Do any of these murdering shit bags sound responsible to you? Rather a weapon it an assault weapon or defensive weapon depends on which end your on. It could be a gun, knife, bow, slingshot, ball bat, or a car. I know y’all want the guns ban. Do y’all want to ban the rest too? Used wrong they can be deadly. Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2012 11:18 PM
Comment #358948

Good points Rich, why do you suppose most states are now run by Republicans? However, DC lost it’s attempt to ban ownership of guns and then lost its attempt to regulate ownership by exuberant taxes and conditions to which firearms are stored in the resident’s houses.

Posted by: Frank at December 15, 2012 11:20 PM
Comment #358949

“A bomb is NOT as easy to use as an assault weapon, automatic, or semi-automatic. Attacks using bombs are very rare, although the ingredients are readily available.”

Tell that to the Israelis when a terrorist, with a bomb strapped to his chest, climbs on a bus full of kids on their way to school.

phx8, I have to agree with KAP. Your comments are asinine, and I’m glad people like you don’t make up the majority of Americans.

There are web sites that list the number of lethal confrontations that take place every week in America and how CCW permit holders have saved theirs or other lives. I know you would like us to believe we live in a world of “love” and “peace” and that the “government or the police can protect us”, but we don’t. The police will tell you, it is not their job to protect you. The police investigate the crime after it takes place. I would rather have a CCW and not need it, as to not have one and need it. Our founding fathers had a purpose for including the right to bear arms, in the Bill of Rights. When a despot takes control of any nation, the first thing he does is disarm the populace. I wonder why?

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 15, 2012 11:39 PM
Comment #358950

It takes regulating the nut cases, to many mentally challenged people are running around loose who should be in mental institutions.

And we have 537 of them up there in DC.:)
Seriously, I’ve come to the conclusion that the left doesn’t want to see that folks will still get guns if they want them. Even if they’re ban.
There is a saying the says ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ This is true because the law abiding folks will turn in their guns. The criminal element doesn’t care about the laws they’re breaking. Why should they care about a law saying they can’t have a gun. Fact is a whole heap criminals are already convicted felons. Evey state has a law prohibiting felons from having guns. But they still have them.
But a Federal law banning guns will make the criminals turn their guns in. And I have some Arctic Ocean front property in South Arizona I’ll sell ya. Real Cheap.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2012 12:10 AM
Comment #358951

NRAinstructor
Do you have a link to one of them web sites?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2012 12:14 AM
Comment #358952

“Y’all don’t want to see gun ownership ‘severely limited’. Y’all want it completely ban. In order to get guns ban y’all are going to have to get the second amendment repealed.”

Ron,

What’s the point of this discussion if you insist on misstating the position of those advocating gun regulation?

Posted by: Rich at December 16, 2012 1:34 AM
Comment #358953

Ron Brown,

The Gun Defense clock is one you can check out.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/gunclock_index2.html

Though it appears in need of a ‘visual’ makeover (dear god, please remember this site was first created almost 2 decades ago, my eyes!), the basics of the site are found in the research done by Florida State Criminologists. They found that:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender’s home.

No, you won’t hear about them on the national news, they are not ‘sensational’. In fact, Roger Ebert is reported to have said, when asked if Columbine was due to violence in movies, that the real culprit was the news media themselves.

“Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.” In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.”
— Roger Ebert

http://boingboing.net/2012/12/15/roger-ebert-on-how-the-press-r.html

So basically, over 2 million people every year successfully defend themselves from a violent crime with the use of a handgun. Taking those guns away from them could end up with thousands more dead and millions the victims to those crimes. It would also increase the occurrences of these crimes, as we can see in what happened to England, resulting in even more death and violence.

So let’s say we do prevent people from conceal carry or owning a handgun, etc. How do you expect these people to defend themselves?

Someone said ‘we should allow them to carry a gun if they can show that they are in danger’. Now, how is a grandmother walking down a street going to get a gun permit if she jumped by a guy with a knife demanding her money? Had she had a handgun she could have scared the guy off, but wait, she couldn’t get one ahead of time because she didn’t know the guy was going to attack her…

BTW, the problem with talking about this NOW (as some seem want to exclaim) is that NOW people are very emotional about the issue. They just saw a tragedy that they can’t wrap their heads around. Talking about it when you are emotional leads to BAD BAD decisions. As you can see by this thread. Facts and logic are thrown out the window and people just want ‘something done’, even though no one can say what, exactly to do.

Here is a good study on CCW http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/lott.pdf

You all can continue to discuss the topic, I find that I am tired of dealing with trying to explain why knowing that a person MAY have a means to defend themselves actually stops MUCH more crime than it begets, especially when people are so emotionally wound up about the topic that they can’t just look at the actual facts surrounding the issue and make the rational conclusion that doing much of anything ‘about guns’ is in no way the answer.

I sincerely appreciate the kind words about my wife as she is fighting her way through this horrible situation.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:36 AM
Comment #358954

One more I’ll leave you with…

According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, “In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Yet how many times did television networks report such acts? In the past two years, out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times. By making a blockbuster story out of several school shootings—while leaving out the millions of times citizens use guns to stop crime each year—they presented a very misleading picture to the average viewer that firearm use brings more harm than good, and thus should be limited or even banned.”

The study further went on to document that instead of reporting on firearms in anything approaching an objective manner, “In 653 gun policy stories, those advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to 36, or a ratio of almost 10 to 1, while 260 were categorized as neutral. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as pro-gun ones—412 to 209—while 471 soundbites were neutral. Gun control advocates appeared on the morning shows as guests on 82 occasions, compared to just 37 for gun-rights activists and 58 neutral spokesmen.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:38 AM
Comment #358955

BTW, if you want to really be outraged, read this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-westboro-baptist-church-planning-to-picket

Yep, those guys are planning on picketing the funerals of the victims of the CT school shooting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:46 AM
Comment #358956

And once again Morgan Freeman and I see eye to eye… Looks like we agree about 90% of the time.

“Turn Off The News.

You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.

It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:50 AM
Comment #358957

“Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” — Penn Jillette

Truth.

This is how we got things like the Patriot Act, remember? Let’s try not to do it again…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 2:00 AM
Comment #358958

This web site would be more interesting if it was possible to block trolls like phx8. I ignore his posts, but you people keep responding to his ridiculous comments. Just ignore him.

Posted by: Joseph at December 16, 2012 9:18 AM
Comment #358959

Rhienhold
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to read it later.
Looked at the one about those idiots from that so called church. I can assure everyone that no true church would even think of picketing the funeral of anyone. And certainly not the funerals of innocent 5 and 6 year olds who’s only crime was sitting in their school rooms.
There’s some folks that just flat deserve a real good………

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment #358960

Ron,

“Looked at the one about those idiots from that so called church.”

Are they any worse than this moron?

http://www.inquisitr.com/438879/afas-brian-fischer-says-ct-school-shooting-happened-because-schools-dont-allow-prayer-video/

“Newtown, CT – American Family Association spokesman Brian Fischer dedicated an hour of his radio program this morning to talking about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Among the highlights: God did not intervene in the tragedy because “God is not going to go where he is not wanted,” and if the school really wanted to protect their students, they should have allowed prayer in the school.”


Rhinehold,

If doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result is the definition of insanity, what then is allowing the same thing to occur over and over without doing anything?

Frank,

“I know it’s inconvient. Perhaps ou could advise Obama to just issue an EO banning all rights to own guns?”

You are living in a fantasy world fueled by your hatred of President Obama, and lunatic conspiracy theorists like Wayne la Pierre.
Perhaps you could show us all where the Presidential Powers as enumerated in Article 2 of the Constitution might allow for the suspension the 2nd Amendment.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 16, 2012 10:03 AM
Comment #358961

“and expecting the same result…”

That should be;

Expecting a different result.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 16, 2012 10:05 AM
Comment #358964

Columnist Gail Collins summarized the problem very nicely:

“When a gunman takes out kindergartners in a bucolic Connecticut suburb, three days after a gunman shot up a mall in Oregon, in the same year as fatal mass shootings in Minneapolis, in Tulsa, in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, in a theater in Colorado, a coffee bar in Seattle and a college in California — then we’re doing this to ourselves. …

Every country has a sizable contingent of mentally ill citizens. We’re the one that gives them the technological power to play god.

This is all about guns — access to guns and the ever-increasing firepower of guns. Over the past few years we’ve seen one shooting after another in which the killer was wielding weapons holding 30, 50, 100 bullets.”


Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #358965

Joseph, seems to me you are the troll. Phx8 has made comments whilst you have criticized him without adding to the discussion. Time to put yourself in check. Read the rules for participation.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 16, 2012 11:40 AM
Comment #358968

NRAinstructor,
You’ve done great evil, training people to use weapons to kill. Well, the past is water under the bridge, and an action done cannot be undone. There is no forgiveness, not in that sense, so you will have to carry the sum of that evil into the future. Consider your actions, consider compassion. As a famous song goes, there’s still time to change the road you’re on.
Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2012 9:53 PM

Rarely am I shocked by anything written on WB. To call the legal action of helping citizens protect themselves “great evil” is abhorrent to me. The comment by phx8 is simply disgusting and outrageous. Perhaps his intent is to terrorize with words, or…maybe he is just seeking some kind of sick attention.

In my post above I speculated that many lives may have been saved with citizens being armed against assailants; and others writing above have verified my belief.

Rhinehold and others have the best explanation for this type of violent terrorism. Whether by an individual or a terrorist group the goal seems to be to seek notoriety.

How can we convince our news media to focus on the victim(s) rather than the perpetrator(s)? Has one such violent act ever been avoided because we have given so much attention to a perpetrator? Does this type of reporting encourage or discourage such future acts?

I respect the freedom of the press just as I respect our right to be own and use firearms. We have laws limiting the purchase, possession and use of firearms, is it not time to also have laws that limit the aggrandizement of mass murderers?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2012 12:49 PM
Comment #358969

Rhinehold, regardless of statistics that were compiled 16 years ago they do not change the fact that a trend seems to be in the making. High powered precision killing tools are at the epicenter of that trend. Innocent unsuspecting Americans are being murdered in mass at fairly regular intervals at the hands of humans via the use of those killing tools. In a perfect world the removal of those weapons from the equation would be the quickest and most complete solution. We all know that is not going to happen. 300 million weapons are not going anywhere and trying to remove them from the hands of their owners would surely result in some sort of revolt. I think that covers the extremes of the situation. I think we all should recognize that working those extremes will only continue the status quo. Meaning nothing will change.

All that said allowing the trend to escalate is simply unacceptable to me personally. I can not imagine how we can in good concience continue to avoid the problem. The only viable approach IMO has to start at center ground with the idea that we can and will do better in regulating the use of weapons across the entire spectrum ranging from procurement methods to containment standards and mental health issues. Level headed balanced approaches must rule the day.

It seems to me that as each new event happens it strengthens the case for those who want to abolish the second amendment. Would it not be in everyone’s best interest to actively pursue common sense regulatory solutions now?

Posted by: Rickil at December 16, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #358970

Royal Flush,
Well, you can be on the side of life, or you can be on the side of death. Look at a firearm, think about what it is for, and then tell me which side you choose.

There is violence in the world, and of course death is inevitable. That doesn’t mean you have to support it.

And if you side with the evil made possible by the people at the NRA, people who make so much of this mass killing possible, so be it. But remember, that makes you part of the problem. Those maniacs with weapons can only do what they do because of the NRA and its supporters make the weapons accessible in the first place.

Personally, I would advise people to affirm life and shun those who kill, and shun the weapons they use to do it. But like I said. You choose.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the example of Israeli society, as if it were something we should emulate. I cannot imagine a worse idea, and why anyone would want to see the US become as violent as the Israelis is simply beyond me.

By the way, suicide bombers are usually not lone wolves. The bomber is a foot soldier. Someone else recruits, another is the bombmaker, and yet another selects the target. It’s organized violence, asymmetrical warfare. Oddly enough, the Palestinian bombers feel justified in what they do. So do the Israelis. I would simply observe that it is not working out very well for either side.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 1:11 PM
Comment #358972

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by the police: 18.25

Average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by civilians: 2.2

“We’ve created a ‘gun-free zone,’ a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth,” said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. “We’ve given them an open killing field, and we’ve made the children of this country the victims.”

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/halt-the-massacre-of-innocent-children-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in-

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Comment #358973
Look at a firearm, think about what it is for, and then tell me which side you choose.

The gun, as we can tell by history, is most definitely a tool for protecting life.

2.5 MILLION people are protected from violent crime attempted against them every year.

And I know you wont watch it, but for everyone else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhHgnPHKUE

170 MILLION PEOPLE dead because they did not have access to a weapon to defend themselves against those who wanted to hurt them.

phx8, I know you are a lost cause, you have an irrational fear of guns for some reason, that’s something might suggest counseling for, so much so that you ignore the obvious facts of the case FOR the use of guns by a society…

I’ve shown you what happens to a society that does what you suggested (England).

I’ve shown you the statistics on how guns are used for protecting the lives of innocents on a daily basis.

I’ve shown you the history of how guns have been used as a tool to destroy because only one group of people had access to them.

And still, you want to point to the gun as an evil, as the problem.

When you want to discuss the topic with logic and reason, let me know. If you want to keep going on with emotion and ignorance, you can do so to an empty chair.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2012 1:28 PM
Comment #358974

phx8 writes; “And if you side with the evil made possible by the people at the NRA, people who make so much of this mass killing possible, so be it. But remember, that makes you part of the problem.”

Access to firearms is not by virtue of the NRA, but rather, by our founding documents. It is asinine to hate and despise a group that is attempting to defend the Constitution and those citizens who wish to exercise their rights under that document.

The hate filled language that some are using in an attempt to cast responsible citizens as criminals because they exercise their rights is something I condemn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2012 2:32 PM
Comment #358975

Rhinehold,
Your reasoning is ludicrous.

“The gun, as we can tell by history, is most definitely a tool for protecting life.”

You laughed when you wrote that, right? I mean, you are kidding, aren’t you?

Let’s take the first point:

“2.5 MILLION people are protected from violent crime attempted against them every year.”

Some quick thumbnail math, and we must conclude that over the years, each of us has personally known dozens of people who have been “protected”. Dozens. Every single one of us.

And of course, that is not the case.

I’ve personally only known one case where someone was “protected” by owning a gun. A black kid attempted to steal the car stereo out of a car parked in the front of a house of a guy I used to work with, a white guy. He went out front with his gun to confront the kid. He claimed the kid brandished a screwdriver at him, so he shot the kid dead.

Nice.

I’ve personally known a person who killed himself with a gun.

So you can cite obviously bogus statistics, throw up NRA propaganda, and write absolute howlers like this:

“The gun, as we can tell by history, is most definitely a tool for protecting life.”

And I’ll make my case. It’s an emotionally charge topic, but not the ability of people to reason through it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 2:44 PM
Comment #358977

That is, “not beyond the ability of people to reason through it.”

Royal Flush,
At the time of the Constitution, society was much different; indeed, we can hardly even make sense of the phrase in the Second Amendment about “a well-regulated militia,” since the need for that disappeared a century ago. Some associate the militia phrase with the National Guard. Whatever.

The Constitution was a product of its time. For example, some people were assigned 3/5 of a vote because they were considered property. Over time, many changes and a great deal of moral development have allowed us to improve ourselves and the Constitution.

The Constitution allows you the freedom to do good things. It also allows you to do terrible things. That doesn’t mean you should do them.

Today, the Second Amendment is used as a justification by the NRA to promote terrible evil, especially when it comes to the ownership of varieties of assault weapons.

So, you have a choice. The Constitution does not relieve you of your personal responsibility to make that choice. You can support the NRA, its lobbyists opposing any and all legislation, and its promotion of gun ownership. The NRA is responsible for the wide availability of horrendous assault weapons which enable slaughters such as Sandy Hook. There is right and there is wrong, and whether it is a matter of religious belief or merely moral conviction, when it comes to guns, we each have to make that choice.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 3:20 PM
Comment #358979

phx8 gives us a lesson in the meaning of Constitutional rights according to himself. Sadly, for him, his interpretation is not upheld by our highest court.

The prevention of crime is difficult, yet…we are not yet required to surrender our rights to accomplish it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #358981

Sounds like Royal Flushes’ conscience is pleading the 5th.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment #358982

RF,

“…we are not yet required to surrender our rights to accomplish it.”

By the same token it is totally insane to consider that 12, 6 and 7 year old children would be collateral damage in the fight over gun rights.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 16, 2012 4:13 PM
Comment #358983

It sounds to me like phx8 believes the Constitution is an evolving document.

Rhinehold is correct, Royal Flush is correct, and NRA Instructor is correct; but as usual phx8 is wrong, Rick in Illinois is wrong, and Rocky Marks is wrong.

They will use a tragedy to push their socialist/communist agenda; they claim reasonable “gun laws” are called for, yet have no answer for the laws already in place and yet ignored. They say they support the 2nd Amendment, yet their goal is the complete ban on all weapons. And they continue to defend an anti-militia right to bear arms, even after the SCOTUS has determined these rights belong to all Americans. They are haters of America, and traitors to the laws that govern this country. If these 3 are ex-military, then they are traitors to the oath they took when entering into the military. I am 75 years old, and I have seen this battle taking place ever since the killing of JFK. Immediately, the Democrats came out with gun control laws and they have pushed them ever since.

Evidence has been presented, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that weapons in the hands of citizens save lives, and yet these on the left are in complete denial. I was reading the link that Rhinehold provided and found this article written by an anti-gun zealot:

“Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police … What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. [“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. …I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. … the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. … The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html

Posted by: Frank at December 16, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #358984

Frank,

“It sounds to me like phx8 believes the Constitution is an evolving document.”

Did the founders leave a way to change the Constitution?

Yes, or no.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 16, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #358985

Interesting bit of military trivia… Most people are very unwilling to kill another human being, even when their lives are directly threatened. This was a big problem for the US military right through WWII: only about 15-20 % of all soldiers were willing to aim at an enemy soldier, even when their lives were in peril.

It’s a fascinating study by General S.L.A. Marshall of American rifle companies in the Pacific during WWII. Most soldiers would not kill the enemy, even when faced with banzai charges. It took a revolution in training methods to attempt to change this.

Just food for thought…

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #358986

“Frank,

“It sounds to me like phx8 believes the Constitution is an evolving document.”

Did the founders leave a way to change the Constitution?

Yes, or no.

Rocky”



Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 16, 2012 4:52 PM

Well it depends; are we alking about a Constitutional Amendment, requiring State approval? Or ar we talking presidential executive order or the use of activist liberal judges?

Posted by: Frank at December 16, 2012 8:41 PM
Comment #359000

You see, the problem with leftist socialists is that they cannot accept the Constitution as written. They believe the founding fathers were ignorant and the documents they wrote were all wrong. The truth is, if these socialist liberals had lived in those days, they would have either served the crown and fought against the colonialists, or been hung by the patiots as traitors.

Posted by: Frank at December 16, 2012 9:23 PM
Comment #359002

What Rheinhold’s article doesn’t highlight is that Great Britain has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world, vastly lower than the US. It also doesn’t point out that Great Britain’s gun violence and deaths has been steadily declining since the early 2000s. It also doesn’t mention that violence with air guns and imitation guns are included in the statistics and inflate the numbers.

Lets also look at how Israel, the nation most under constant violence and threat of violence from its neighbors handles gun control. You would think that it would encourage civilians to arm themselves to the teeth. But, it does not. In fact, it has some of the world’s most restrictive laws for civilian ownership and possession of guns. Only former defense officers, former elite troops and some civilians engaged in potentially dangerous activities (transportation of money, multiple passengers, etc.) can even apply for a license to purchase and possess a gun. Further, they are allowed to own only one gun and only a handgun with 50 rounds of ammunition per year. Perhaps, their experience with extensive gun violence has informed their regulations.


Posted by: Rich at December 16, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #359011

Rich,
Thank you for taking the time to address other links and stories from Rhinehold. In addition to the facts you mention, there is an interesting article in the NYT discussing successful efforts at gun regulation in Australia.

“In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.”

Frank,
I’ve never heard anyone, from the right or left, describe the Founding Fathers as ignorant. However, their perceptions were framed by their era. Part of their genius was in leaving the document open to change in several ways: by amendment; by using vague, expansive, open-ended words and phrases; and through interpretation by the branches of government, especially the SCOTUS.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2012 10:29 PM
Comment #359012

Rocky
I don’t set any store about what comes from American Family Radio. Their grasp on what God allows and doesn’t and why is usually out of left field somewhere.
Brian Fischer is wrong and it’s comments like that, that gives Christianity a bad rap. I find his remarks idiotic and I don’t blame anyone, specially the parents of those dead babies, for being offended by them. But I have to rank them morons up there in Iowa higher than Fischer. He’s just running his mouth about something he has no clue about. That makes him a fool. Them idiots up there in Iowa are causing more pain to the families that have lost a loved one. That makes them just about as low as someone that hurts innocent children.
If they go through with their plans to picket the funerals of those children I hope that Newtown has some good old fashion rednecks in it. They’d most likely end up thinking twice before pulling another stunt like that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2012 10:33 PM
Comment #359014
You see, the problem with leftist socialists is that they cannot accept the Constitution as written. They believe the founding fathers were ignorant and the documents they wrote were all wrong.


Frank the second amendment says
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps the answer is to have all gun owners sign up for the state national guard where they learn to use and store weapons and be a part of the security of a free state. Kinda like Switzerland where everyone owns a gun and are part of the military.

Frank your nonsensical rhetoric does little to solve the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 16, 2012 10:53 PM
Comment #359015

Royal Flush
I don’t think someone that would shoot up a theater, shopping mall, or school need the media’s sensationalism on other crime of this type. Just like a sexual predator doesn’t need pornography to commit his crimes. Both have warped minds, and act out their sick fantasies.
What our friends on the left don’t seem to understand is the sick bastard that will go into a public place and shoot it up ain’t gonna be stopped just by passing more gun laws. They don’t seem to understand that if someone is set on causing mayhem they’re going to find some way of doing it.
The easiest way to keep these sick bastards from committing their acts of violence is to lock them up. But them the left most likely scream about their rights being violated.

BTW, a couple from my church have grandyoungins that go to Sandy Hook. Fortunately they’re all OK. But anyone that’s a grandparent can imagine what these folks were going though until they found out their grand kids were OK.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2012 11:17 PM
Comment #359021

phx8
Has the NRA trained any of these mass murderers?
Has the NRA sold weapons to any of them?
Did the NRA tell any of them to go out and commit any of these crimes?
Did the NRA make any of them crazy?
If you answer yes to any of the above you better come with irrefutable proof.
I only know of one mass murderer that had any kind of training. That was Charles Whitman. The boy that shot 47 people in 1966 from the tower at the University of Texas killing 16 of them.
He was trained by the US Marine Corps. Reckon we need to take guns away from the military?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 17, 2012 12:44 AM
Comment #359022

Ron,
The NRA promotes making all guns widely available and accessible to as many people as possible, with as few checks and as few restrictions as possible. They are one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States, deriving financial support from their members.

The NRA is responsible for their part in contributing to these massacres. At the insistence of the NRA, these assault weapons have been made available to the public. And it’s time to call the NRA out on the evil they enable, and put the people who attempt to justify it on the spot.

Posted by: phx8 at December 17, 2012 1:21 AM
Comment #359025

Rich

Re decline in gun violence in UK since 2000 - Gun violence deaths in the U.S. have declined since 1994. Statistics are weird like that.

Posted by: C&J at December 17, 2012 4:46 AM
Comment #359032

The NRA promotes our rights under The Constitution of the United States of America. The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that any law controlling the sale, ownership, or carrying of a weapon is unconstitutional.
You do know what the Constitution is don’t you? It’s that piece of paper y’all turn to when y’all want something like flag burning, or shouting fire in a theater protected under freedom of speech. But want to ignore the rest of the time.
Well I’ve got some shocking news for ya Bucko, the Constitution is still the law of the land. And is still as relevant today as it was when it was written. All other laws have to fall in under it’s guidelines. Even if y’all don’t like it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 17, 2012 8:46 AM
Comment #359033

phx8, you seem to have a real problem with the NRA. You do realize the NRA is not a political party? It is an organization made up of American citizens, which promotes gun safety, training, Constitutional gun laws, and hunting. The NRA gives gun owners of America a voice in government.

It has just come out that the shooter in CT was infatuated with violent video games, and played them continuously. He was a loner, with no social skills. In fact, he fits the profile of many mass murderers. Do you also believe the government should ban all violent video games because they create the atmosphere of violence? Hollywood actors, as a whole, are the first to stand and protest in favor of banning all guns in America, and yet the make their money promoting gun violence. Should the government ban all movies that promote gun violence?

The left is outraged at a violent culture that they have created over the past 60 years; beginning with the push to remove all reference to God, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and prayer from the schools. The left has pushed their humanistic theology requiring personal responsibility to be removed from the lives of children. As a result, we have generations of young people who are numb to taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

I would venture to say that many of the younger liberal posters on Watchblog fit the profile of this killer. Loners, without social skills, spending their hours playing violent fantasy role playing video games, and who hide behind a PC screen and become someone else when they write. In fact, I would be interested to know, of those who promote gun control, how many of you can say “I do not play violent video games”?

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 17, 2012 9:35 AM
Comment #359034

“That means that any law controlling the sale, ownership, or carrying of a weapon is unconstitutional.”

Ron,

That is simply not true. The Supreme Court recognizes that government has the right under the Constitution to regulate and even prohibit the sale or ownership of certain types of weapons, i.e., machine guns, etc. and to certain types of persons, i.e., felons, mentally ill, children, etc. The ban an semi-automatic assault weapons was never even challenged by gun advocates, i.e., NRA, on Constitutional grounds. It would have failed.

“What our friends on the left don’t seem to understand is the sick bastard that will go into a public place and shoot it up ain’t gonna be stopped just by passing more gun laws.”

Your “friends” on the left fully recognize that gun control will not eliminate gun violence. They fully recognize that the primary focus should be on keeping weapons from those most likely to use them to kill innocent persons. That is why one of the priorities of gun regulation advocates is for closing the gun show loophole.

It is not just about restricting availability of guns. It is a much more complex problem than that. The bottom line is indeed that we probably can never simply legislate away gun violence. As C&J points out in a recent post about the “obesity epidemic”, it is a cultural problem that will require a massive attitudinal change in the US.

My personal opinion is that guns for self defense should be available to responsible citizens who have been thoroughly vetted as well as sport and hunting weapons. That leaves plenty of room for reasonable regulation without impinging on the Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment. I also believe that while guns may be a necessary evil, they are an evil nonetheless and we as a society would be well served to eliminate the culture of guns and violence in the US. Guns serve only one purpose: to kill.

Posted by: Rich at December 17, 2012 10:13 AM
Comment #359036

First of all let me say that own multiple guns both long and handheld. As a concealed carry permit holder I’ve self subjected myself to a background check and spent the time with my local Sherrif’s office to take trainging (that I received from the NRA years ago) and pass a test. All of this has been supported by the NRA over the years in one form or the other. I am, however, no longer a member of the NRA.

To me the NRA has gone overboard on the “slippery slope” issue. That is they oppose any legislation, state or local, that further restricts the freedom of gun ownership. Their position is that there is enough legislation out there, and to some extent they have a point. How many laws did this guy break last Friday? Laws are pretty much meaningless to someone who kills their Mom sleeping in her bed then heads to the nearest elementry school.

But to take that position means they no longer support ideas that have merit. I doubt the NRA of today would support the something like the instant background checks that they championed in the 80’s (and that were apart of the Brady Bill). To say you are not even going to discuss them, in my opinion, is wrongheaded in so many ways.

As an individual I am more than happy to discuss any proposal that relates to this trend of mass murder/suicide and that includes gun legislation. I’ve just yet to see any idea worth supporting, and that’s probabaly because they are written by people who are anti-gun. If the NRA would step up and engage it wouldn’t be a sign of weakness or a step off the slippery slope. It would be step in the right direction.

My prayers have been and will continue to be for the people of Newtown CT.

Posted by: George in SC at December 17, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #359038

NRAinstructor,
“… you seem to have a real problem with the NRA.”

Bingo.

We both know why the NRA assumes some of the responsibility for these massacres. It’s not just a matter of providing a forum for gun enthusiasts, or safety training; it’s the NRA lobbying and the NRA votes that make massacres like Sandy Hook possible. If the NRA lobbied for strict gun control and banning assault weapons, that would be to their credit. But that’s not what they do, do they? And you know it.

Violent video games and violence in the Media are probably factors. Inadequate mental health care too. But there will always be crazy people, and those lunatics are not beating people to death with video cartridges; they’re using assault weapons. It’s the assault weapons that make these horrendous massacres possible. These weapons have one purpose: to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. And we have the NRA to thank for their prevalence.

So when it comes to blame for the Sandy Hook massacre, the finger is pointing at the killer; then at his mother, who had a large store of weapons and ammunities; and then the finger is pointing at the NRA and its members, including you. So wear a picture of a dead first grader around your neck, and explain to everyone that you’re an NRAinstructor. See how they react.

Posted by: phx8 at December 17, 2012 1:02 PM
Comment #359039

Rich
The Supreme Court has been known to by wrong a heap of times. And this is one of them. But then when courts stop ruling according to what the Constitution says, and start making law from the bench, what more can you expect?

I also believe that while guns may be a necessary evil, they are an evil nonetheless and we as a society would be well served to eliminate the culture of guns and violence in the US. Guns serve only one purpose: to kill.

And by eliminating the gun culture do you mean a total ban on guns? See I have a habit of reading between the lines. You can learn a lot that way. And by reading between the lines I have to believe that a total ban on guns is the goal of the left.
I agree, the only purpose of a gun is to kill. Not only are they used by the military to kill the enemy. But they are used to kill food, and those trying to harm someone. It’s only the cops that claim that a gun is for anything else. They claim that they’re made to intimidate and kill with.
The only purpose of bows and arrows are to kill. Anyone over 18 years old can buy one with no back ground check. Why ain’t y’all as hot on ‘regulating’ them as ya are on guns?
For argument sake let’s say that your walking down the street minding you own business when about 5 or 6 street thugs jump you. They are beating you unmercifully, I happen to come by and see what’s going on. I use my gun to stop them, and maybe I end up killing one or two of them in order to stop them from possibly killing you.
Would you be glad that someone with the means to stop them came along?
Or would you jump all over me because I had a gun and used it?
Which would you rather I do?
Use my gun and stop them from killing you?
Or call the police and hope they get there in time to stop them from killing you?
In a lot of places the police response time is 4 to 5 minutes.
It can only take 2 or 3 minutes for 5 or 6 thugs to beat you to death.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 17, 2012 1:24 PM
Comment #359040
“The gun, as we can tell by history, is most definitely a tool for protecting life.”

You laughed when you wrote that, right? I mean, you are kidding, aren’t you?

No, I usually don’t laugh when I post verifiable facts…

“2.5 MILLION people are protected from violent crime attempted against them every year.”

Some quick thumbnail math, and we must conclude that over the years, each of us has personally known dozens of people who have been “protected”. Dozens. Every single one of us.

Not sure where you leaned math, phx8, perhaps a public school? But no, your ‘math’ has nothing to do with reality, statistics, etc. It’s an interesting try to refute meticulous research that experts from both sides of the discussion agree upon, but hey, you’re smarter than they are, right?

Even better:

I’ve personally only known one case where someone was “protected” by owning a gun. A black kid attempted to steal the car stereo out of a car parked in the front of a house of a guy I used to work with, a white guy. He went out front with his gun to confront the kid. He claimed the kid brandished a screwdriver at him, so he shot the kid dead.

Nice.

Sooo, you do know someone then, right? Interesting…

BTW, here’s some video of a ‘justified’ shooting of a person supposedly wielding a knife at them. If it is ‘justified’ in the case of this officer, isn’t it also justified in the case of the person you knew? (Oh, and race has something to do with it because…?)

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/supporters-join-family-of-killed-manteca-man-after-release-of-dash-cam-video/

I’ve personally known a person who killed himself with a gun.

So do I. And I also know that had he not used a gun, he would have used something else. The point you are making is irrelevant, invalid and idiotic.

So you can cite obviously bogus statistics

Hmmm, peer reviewed studies done by industry leading criminologists are ‘obviously bogus statistics’ these days? Ok, so I can just ignore the global warming stuff then, right?

not beyond the ability of people to reason through it.

The second you start applying reason to the discussion, the sooner we can have an actual reasonable discussion…

Most people are very unwilling to kill another human being, even when their lives are directly threatened.

phx8, a very salient point. Of course, this just backs up the suggestion that most gun owners are responsible and wouldn’t take another’s life unless completely necessary instead of your otherwise fantastical view that if we didn’t have guns we wouldn’t have dead kids in CT… I’m not sure how to meld the two views…

BTW, I have a bit of trivia as well.

When was the largest mass killing at a school in the United States?

The answer: 1927.

http://qz.com/37069/the-deadliest-school-massacre-in-us-history-was-in-1927-why-its-aftermath-matters-now/

In the end there were 38 children dead at the school, two teachers and four other adults.

I’m not talking about the horrific shooting in Connecticut today. I’m talking about the worst school murder in American history. It took place in Michigan, in 1927. A school board official, enraged at a tax increase to fund school construction, quietly planted explosives in Bath Township Elementary. Then, the day he was finally ready, he set off an inferno. When crowds rushed in to rescue the children, he drove up his shrapnel-filled car and detonated it, too, killing more people, including himself. And then, something we’d find very strange happened.

Nothing.

No cameras were placed at the front of schools. No school guards started making visitors show identification. No Zero Tolerance laws were passed, nor were background checks required of PTA volunteers—all precautions that many American schools instituted in the wake of the Columbine shootings, in 1999. Americans in 1928—and for the next several generations —continued to send their kids to school without any of these measures. They didn’t even drive them there. How did they maintain the kind of confidence my own knees and heart don’t feel as I write this?

They had a distance that has disappeared. A distance that helped them keep the rarity and unpredictability of the tragedy in perspective, granting them parental peace.

Will this new layer of fear and security make our children any safer? Probably not, but for a reassuring reason: A tragedy like this is so rare, our kids are already safe. Not perfectly safe. No one ever is. But safe.

That’s a truth the folks in 1928 America understood. We just don’t feel that way now.

Not when there’s no distance between us and the parents in Newtown.

SO, the largest school massacre, in 1927, was committed with a bomb. A bomb made of materials that can be acquired today with little effort and are legal…

BTW, phx8, how do we know that the re-institution of the assault weapons ban would not have prevented CT? Simple, because it didn’t.

You see, after the federal ban expired, the state instituted one just like it. And those weapons you call ‘assault’ (a made up word by lawmakers, defined by them, therefore not open to ‘misinterpretation) were not assault weapons. They were not ‘automatic’ weapons and were not illegal under such a ban.

Which means, you want an even STRICTER gun ban than has been in place in the United States ever. Please stop saying you don’t, you have just made the case that you do.

Part of their genius was in leaving the document open to change in several ways: by amendment; by using vague, expansive, open-ended words and phrases; and through interpretation by the branches of government, especially the SCOTUS.

Again, must be that public school learnin’, but no, the constitution is only amendable in one way, the amendment process. The language is not nor has ever been ‘vague’, it was not meant to be ‘reinterpreted’ and especially not by the SCOTUS.

In fact, the people who wrote the constitution did not see the SCOTUS as the arbiter of what was constitutional and what wasn’t. That is something that has evolved over time. The constitution was clear and had no need to be ‘interpreted’.

Of course, it helps that, unlike the bible, we have the written recorded views of the people who wrote the constitution and why they wrote what they wrote. Perhaps some time you could look into that if you want to not come off sounding so ignorant on the topic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2012 2:56 PM
Comment #359041
What Rheinhold’sRhinehold’s article doesn’t highlight is that Great Britain has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world, vastly lower than the US.

Kind of irrelevant, don’t you think? The point is that now that the citizens are no longer ‘armed’, citizens don’t bother worrying about needing to shoot at anyone with a gun because the mere presence of it by the criminal and none by the victim means the crime hardly be stopped.

The facts bear this up:

England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

So yes, there is less ‘gun violence’, but there is far more VIOLENCE. It just doesn’t involve a gun.

Sort of what we have been saying, isn’t it?

It also doesn’t point out that Great Britain’s gun violence and deaths has been steadily declining since the early 2000s.

You are right, the article was written in 2002, so the data from 2002 to 2012 isn’t in there, but the rate of VIOLENCE hasn’t decreased that much. Because the criminals have nothing at all to fear…

It also doesn’t mention that violence with air guns and imitation guns are included in the statistics and inflate the numbers.

And is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the violence acts are committed with baseball bats (there are plenty) or air rifles or fully automatic tommy guns. The fact is that the violence perpetuated on the citizens by criminals has increased and is one of the highest in the civilized worlds.

But, I guess that is ok, as long as they weren’t killed by guns, right?

Like the statistics show, in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2012 3:13 PM
Comment #359042

BTW, what you fail to mention is that the vast majority of ‘gun violence’ is from our prohibition-era laws. Drug dealing and gang violence as a result of that prohibition is why our numbers are so inflated. It was the same way during the previous prohibition when crime syndicates used fully automatic weapons (and lead to a fully automatic weapons ban still in effect today) to fight over turf.

Once prohibition ended, most of that violence did too. That is, until we started it back up again in the last 70s… One of the reasons our gun violence has decreased so much in recent years is the lessening of the hands of prohibition, though this president still has no problem with innocent people being gunned down in the war against drugs, especially in states that have legalized the stuff…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2012 3:18 PM
Comment #359043

It’s been a few days and I’ve had some time to think about this tragedy and all the crap that I have seen on the internet and the media makes me sick. First, we don’t need to know everything about this douchebag’s life. He was mentally ill and probably lived a pretty tortured life before his demons drove him to commit this horrible act. I don’t care to hear about his final hours, I don’t care to hear his name, I don’t want to see his picture. The media making 24/7 news sensations of these incidents probably has as much to do with the rash of these mass shootings as anything else. This insatiable appetite for every salacious detail makes these murders famous and while they are not around to gloat, it gives them what they are looking for and plants seeds in the minds of other tortured individuals that they might do the same. We don’t need shooting theme music, we don’t need motion graphics, all that just feeds this frenzy.

We don’t need more guns. I’m not one to go out banning guns but it is folly to think that if we armed teachers, students, or janitors that they would have been the heroes to step up and take out the bad guy. That doesn’t happen. Statistically you are much more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than a bad guy. The military has problems with friendly fire due to the chaos and fear that surrounds firefights, these are the best trained soldiers in the world. People without this training are likely to make any tragedy much worse than coming out the hero. Lie to yourself all you want but more guns only equals more death and more innocent death. Though I support acts like the Brady Bill, I am not for taking guns away. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment protects manufacturers and see no reason for 30 round clips or assault rifles but I think that it’s Americans attitude towards guns not the actual guns that is the core of the problem. It’s those that think that they are safer because they carry a gun, keep one loaded in their house, or hide one under the seat of their car who are a danger to the rest of us. People use that weak argument that guns don’t kill, people kill. While in a superficial way that is right, however, guns make it much more convenient to kill and when arguments escalate they become a way to settle a score. Also, it makes these mass killings possible. Compare this shooting with the mass stabbing in China. We have 27 dead from the use of an assault rifle in the US and 22 people wounded in China. While those Chinese kids are likely to be traumatized, they will get to go home and hug their parents. The kids in the US will not.

My family has been touched by mass killing and gun violence. My wife managed a small pizza shop on the Virginia Tech campus and 3 of the 18 people who worked for her were murdered in the 4/16 shootings. I knew one of them and one of the teachers who was murdered. I was sickened by the media frenzy that engulfed my town. I was sickened by all the bravado of, “if I was there with my gun I would have stopped that guy” crap. I just wish someone from the NRA would be honest and say that guns don’t statistically make you safer but we still think that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea despite this fact. I wish the media would, for once, not make a celebrity of a mass murderer.

Posted by: tcsned at December 17, 2012 3:54 PM
Comment #359044

Rhinehold is correct about the term “Assault Weapon”; it first came into use by liberal democrats in the early 90’s, as a term used in conjunction with gun control. In reality, there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are referring to any weapon that is used to assault someone, i.e. knife, ball bat, etc.

Ruger makes a little 22 caliber rifle called a 10/22. Many parents buy this little rifle for their children for target shooting. Not many people would call it an “Assault Weapon”. But the Ruger 10/22 has a myriad of accessories that can be bought to “spruce” it up. You can build a competition target rifle by adding a bull barrel and competition stock and trigger assembly. You can also buy accessories to make it look just like an AR-15. But it’s still just a 22 caliber rifle.


Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 17, 2012 4:10 PM
Comment #359045
In reality, there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are referring to any weapon that is used to assault someone, i.e. knife, ball bat, etc.

NRAinstructor if you go to about any online gun shop they sell what they call assault rifles. 30 round magazines pistol grips etc. are typical features of these rifles. I haven’t seen these types of weapons under hunting columns in these shops. So I would have to disagree with you when you tell us their is no such thing.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 17, 2012 4:38 PM
Comment #359051

j2t2, you seem to miss the point. A Ruger 10/22 is a simple 22 caliber rifle. I’m not quite sure how these links will turn out; but the first picture is a simple 10/22 carbine and the second is a 10/22 that has been spruced up. One looks like a 22 rifle and the second looks like what you would call an assault rifle; but they are both the same gun. A so-called assault rifle ban would make one legal and the other illegal, but both guns are the same.

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/models.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kx9zs9QllUA7A1XNyoA?p=ruger+10%2F22&fr2=sb-top&fr=sfp&type_param=

The popular definition of an assault rifle is a select fire rifle, meaning semi-automatic and full automatic. There are not sporting goods stores that sell these types of rifles to the general public. It requires a class III firearms license to own a full auto rifle.

The assault weapons ban of several years back did nothing to ban full auto weapons. There is a difference between assault weapons and assault rifles; which do you want to ban?

It appears you, like most liberals, have no knowledge of firearms.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 17, 2012 9:32 PM
Comment #359052

This link might work better:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=sfp&va=ruger+10+22+conversion+kits

Posted by: NRA instructor at December 17, 2012 9:36 PM
Comment #359053

Sure, there are .22LR “look alike” assault weapons. But, they don’t fire the same cartridge. The AR-15 fires a .223 cartridge designed initially for military use and has much greater velocity, penetrating power and the bullet itself can be manufactured to do more damage upon entry. I am not an expert in this area, but the AR-15 is not just a mean looking basic .22LR target rifle in disguise.

Posted by: Rich at December 17, 2012 10:35 PM
Comment #359054
No, I usually don’t laugh when I post verifiable facts…

“2.5 MILLION people are protected from violent crime attempted against them every year.”

Not sure where you leaned math, phx8, perhaps a public school? But no, your ‘math’ has nothing to do with reality,

Ok, let’s check reality. The FBI website reports that .4% of US residents are subjected to violent crimes. A violent crime is defined as “those offences involve force or threat of force.” They include murder, manslaughter, robbery and aggravated assault.

Gun ownership in the United States is down to approximately 32% of our populace. You have to be over the age of 18 to purchase a gun.

Therefore, to support the suggestion that there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year is also to suggest that a gun owner is 10 times more likely to find themselves in a violent situation than the average citizen.

This adds creedence to the counterclaim by those that rebuke the report Rhinehold cite, where they believe that a large number of incidences where people claim defensive use of their guns are actually incidences where the claimants are the provocateur.

I too am a gun owner, and once but no longer a member of the NRA. The NRA no longer reflects my opinions on gun ownership. I use to love to hunt and shoot, but I no longer feel the need to do either, being outdoors is enough for me. I continue to respect those that continue to find enjoyment in hunting and shooting.

But it is time we took a hard look at all aspects of this most recent event, from guns to video games, from mental illness to school security, and strive to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Posted by: Cube at December 17, 2012 11:20 PM
Comment #359055
It appears you, like most liberals, have no knowledge of firearms.

I know enough to know when someone like yourself is blowing smoke up my ass, NRAinstructor. You claim “In reality, there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are referring to any weapon that is used to assault someone, i.e. knife, ball bat, etc.” When in fact most gun shops sell what they call assault rifles. In fact most assault rifles come with at least 20 round clips and pistol grips as I said before. Converting a carbine, as you show us, into an assault rifle kinda proves that they are a breed apart from hunting rifles.

Your examples of converting the Ruger carbine 10/22 into an assault rifle seems misleading to me NRA. When the carbine is converted the intended use of the firearm changes,IMHO. The issue is the number of rounds they can hold, the ability to bump fire them and the intended use of the weapon. You are no longer hunting varmints when you convert the 10/22 to assault weapon, you are going to war, hunting people.

I have been frustrated here in Colorado as we have a ban on the higher volume clips (when out plinking targets with friends), as it seems I spend more time reloading than I do shooting. But that is also why these crazies use these assault weapons they don’t need to reload as often.

Writing legislation to keep the assault weapons restricted while allowing other rifles and such shouldn’t be all that difficult IMHO. The problem is the number of assault weapons already out there.

Rich, Yes the .223 is bigger and faster but the .22 will also do the job when you have the ability to fire 50 rounds in seconds. The example of the 10/22 Ruger is given to show the problem with identifying what is an assault weapon (that doesn’t really exist according to NRA) and what isn’t. It adds to the confusion surrounding the issue but if a hunting rifle can load a 50 round clip and clear it in less than a minute it really doesn’t matter what it is called.

How many of those here on WB own assault type weapons? What do you use it for? Would you want to defend your self and others against it out in public with a concealed hand gun that has a 6, 8 or 10 round clip? Do you guys carry extra clips to the store with you? It seems to me the idea to arm teachers, janitors etc. would lead us to arming security guards at the mall, or clerks and ushers as well, which would just cause an arms race, an escalation, as they all want the firepower the crazy guy has.

We have problems now with unwarranted use of force by authorities using assault weapons, just wait till this arming the mall staff starts happening.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 18, 2012 1:16 AM
Comment #359066
Therefore, to support the suggestion that there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year

No one suggested that… I think you aren’t reading the study right (or not at all I suspect).

2.5 million people were defended by the use of a gun, there are times when multiple people are defended. Violent crime also includes rape and home invasion, I’m not sure if the FBI statistics (which only follow instances reported to them) include home invasion, assaults that involved weapons other than guns, etc…

If you want to refute the study, feel free. But at least know what the study is saying and how they came to their conclusions. Your ‘fuzzy math’ based off of what you don’t understand doesn’t result in very solid numbers…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 8:52 AM
Comment #359067

Also, remember that the study was done in the 90’s, violent crime in the US has decreased, so that number of 2.5 million may be closer to 1.8 million or 1.5 million, etc. Still large numbers (which the news media will never report because they are not, by definition, news or sensational) but most likely the number is a bit lower than the original study because of that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 8:55 AM
Comment #359068

“Sure, there are .22LR “look alike” assault weapons. But, they don’t fire the same cartridge. The AR-15 fires a .223 cartridge designed initially for military use and has much greater velocity, penetrating power and the bullet itself can be manufactured to do more damage upon entry. I am not an expert in this area, but the AR-15 is not just a mean looking basic .22LR target rifle in disguise.”

Posted by: Rich at December 17, 2012 10:35 PM

Rich, the .223 cartridge is the same caliber as the .22LR. Many sources say there are more people killed by .22LR’s than any other caliber; of course that could be because .22’s are much more popular.

The point I make about the Ruger 10/22 is that it can be made to look like an AR-15. What should be banned; the Ruger 10/22 carbine, or the Ruger 10/22 Ar-15 lookalike? As far as the large capacity mags; it has often been proved, the larger the mag capacity, the greater the chance of jamming. I can fire a Glock 9MM with 3 ten round clips almost as fast as firing a 30 round clip in another weapon. So the capacity of the mag does not mean that much. If a person is intent on killing people, they will just carry more mags. The problem with the defunct assault weapons ban was that it did nothing to solve any problems. It indiscriminately targeted different types of guns that were no classified as assault weapons. In fact, if you remember, John Kerry (when running for president) went hunting (as a photo opt) with a shotgun, that had been banned under the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban targeted stocks, mags, and numerous other accessories that meant nothing. The ban did nothing to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and was allowed to expire. It was nothing more than window dressing for politicians.

J2t2 said:

“I know enough to know when someone like yourself is blowing smoke up my ass, NRAinstructor. You claim “In reality, there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are referring to any weapon that is used to assault someone, i.e. knife, ball bat, etc.” When in fact most gun shops sell what they call assault rifles. In fact most assault rifles come with at least 20 round clips and pistol grips as I said before. Converting a carbine, as you show us, into an assault rifle kinda proves that they are a breed apart from hunting rifles.”

J2t2, perhaps you could give us the definition of an assault rifle. You use three different names in your comments; you say “Assault Rifles”, “Assault Weapon”, and you say “Assault Type Weapons”. All three are different and yet you lump them together. The legislation passed a few years ago was an “Assault Weapons Ban”; which, as I commented was ludicrous. My comment was that a “knife, ball bat, etc” can all be considered an assault weapon. The Bill was not classified as an “Assault Rifle Ban”, because if it had been, it would have created a legal mess. The Congress and the President would then have been forced to identify an “Assault Rifle” to the SCOTUS, but it can’t be done. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. It is a word created by the left to identify some types of weapons as evil. The assault weapons ban was an attempt to use a broad brush to paint many guns as assault weapons. You go on to say:

“Your examples of converting the Ruger carbine 10/22 into an assault rifle seems misleading to me NRA. When the carbine is converted the intended use of the firearm changes,IMHO. The issue is the number of rounds they can hold, the ability to bump fire them and the intended use of the weapon. You are no longer hunting varmints when you convert the 10/22 to assault weapon, you are going to war, hunting people.”

Whether a weapon (using your words) is used for target shooting, hunting, or for just collecting is irrelevant. And you inability to swap out a mag is also irrelevant. I shoot completion, and as I said, I can shoot 3 ten round clips as fast as a 30 round clip.

“I have been frustrated here in Colorado as we have a ban on the higher volume clips (when out plinking targets with friends), as it seems I spend more time reloading than I do shooting. But that is also why these crazies use these assault weapons they don’t need to reload as often.”

“Writing legislation to keep the assault weapons restricted while allowing other rifles and such shouldn’t be all that difficult IMHO. The problem is the number of assault weapons already out there. “

If it wasn’t difficult, it would already have been done. The problem is, the left wants to pass legislation during a time of national grief; as per Rahm Emanuel’s “never waste a crisis”. There are many Democrats from blue collar fly over country, which are not willing to jeopardize their jobs by ramming through legislation that does nothing except pass feel good laws.

Then you conclude with this statement:

“How many of those here on WB own assault type weapons?”

Once again, we have a problem; what is an assault type weapon? There is no such thing as an assault rifle, so how can we identify an assault type weapon. Here is an interesting definition of the origin of assault rifle:

“The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally “storm rifle”, as in “to storm a position”). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today’s modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
• And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term “assault rifle” is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.”[7]

“Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons
In United States politics and law, an assault weapon is a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

• a folding or telescoping stock
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• a bayonet mount
• a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
• a grenade launcher
The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Now here is the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994:

“United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Main article: Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[5] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.[5]

Although the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, several states have their own assault weapons bans, which sometimes differ from the former federal law. For example, in California, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 bars a number of specific firearm models as well as firearms that have one of a number of features.[6] Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other fully-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to ban full auto weapons. These guns are already regulated by the Feds under a Class III license. The sale of machine guns has been heavily regulated since 1934, when the National Firearms Act made it illegal for private citizens to own one without the hard-to-obtain permission of the Treasury Department. So the Assault weapons ban was simply meant to deal with “Look” of the weapon, hence your “Assault Weapon Type” comment. Either a weapon is an assault rifle, or it’s not. Since when do we ban look a likes?

The result of the ban: some believe it led to the shift in Congress in 1994. “Regardless of one’s position on gun control, it is evident that the so-called Assault Weapon’s Ban did nothing to curb violent crime. Indeed, in many ways it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The ban did not help to eliminate crime, it did not get weapons currently on the open market out of the hands of any criminals, nor did it even target the types of firearms most commonly favored by miscreants and lowlifes. In a study done by the Florida Assault Weapons Commission, it was found that between 1986 and 1989 assault weapons were used in only 17 or .23% of the 7,500 gun crimes committed. [5]”

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/sunsettheban.htm

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 18, 2012 10:49 AM
Comment #359069
The assault weapons ban targeted stocks, mags, and numerous other accessories that meant nothing. The ban did nothing to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and was allowed to expire. It was nothing more than window dressing for politicians.

And remember, after the ‘assault weapons ban’ expired, CT put an identical one in place to replace it. The weapons that were used in the shooting last Friday were legal under that ban (and would have been legal under the federal ban).

“The rifle he used, a .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. Both laws, in addition to listing specifically prohibited models, cover semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.”

The assault weapons ban was an attempt to use a broad brush to paint many guns as assault weapons.

And they want to change the term now to mean any gun…

New York Daily News reporter Douglas Feiden suggests one option for the new legislation that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised: Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.” There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

Feiden also claims that “military-style assault weapons” are “favored by spree killers like the gunman in Newtown, Conn.” He overlooks the point that the rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday was not, legally speaking, an “assault weapon,” because otherwise it would have been banned under Connecticut law. In any event, the gun nuts at Mother Jones report that mass shooters are far more likely to use semiautomatic handguns than “assault weapons,” which by their count were used in about one-third of mass gun homicides since 1982. Those handguns, of course, would fit the new definition of assault weapon proposed by Feiden, since they 1) pierce flesh, 2) fire just as fast as the guns currently classified as “assault weapons,” and 3) kill people.

So, the desire is to basically ban guns without coming out and saying it. Change the definition to include nearly every gun made or in existence.

The problem is, the left wants to pass legislation during a time of national grief; as per Rahm Emanuel’s “never waste a crisis”.

Interesting statistic, earlier this year a poll was taken and only 25% of Americans wanted the lapsed federal assault ban re-instated.

I wonder what that number is today?

What will that number be in 9 months?

*THAT* is the reason that the left is saying that “NOW” is the time to do something, because they know they can get just about anything they want through.

Just like the right did after 9/11 in passing the Patriot Act.

I seem to remember many on the left (rightfully) saying we should not overreact and act out of emotion and grief at the time… Yet now they want to use the same tactics in order to get their political way.

Hypocrites.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 12:09 PM
Comment #359070
Yes, Guns Are Dangerous. But They Also Save Lives and Secure Civil Rights

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/18/yes-guns-are-dangerous-but-they-also-sav

But it’s important to also remember that privately-owned guns have often been a tremendous force for good in American history. For evidence of this, look no further than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, where the right of armed self-defense played an indispensable role in the battle against Jim Crow.

“I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous non-violent sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. Writing in 1994, Salter noted that he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the Deep South. “Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine,” Salter wrote. “The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay.”

Another prominent civil rights activist who championed the right to keep and bear arms was T.R.M. Howard of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, a surgeon and entrepreneur who was at the center of the trial and investigation into the shocking 1955 murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till. Here’s how I described Howard’s role in the Till case in a 2009 review of David and Linda Beito’s masterful biography Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard’s Fight for Civil Rights and Economic Power:

In the aftermath of Till’s murder, Howard put his considerable talents and resources to work. Recognizing that local officials had little incentive to identify or punish every member of the conspiracy that took Till’s life, he spearheaded a private investigation, personally helping to locate, interview, and protect several important witnesses. He also made his large, lavishly provisioned home available to the various out-of-state observers gathering in town for the trial, including Cloyte Murdock of Ebony magazine and Rep. Charles Diggs (D-Mich.)….

In addition to bankrolling and assisting the investigation, Howard served as a sort of chief of security, escorting [Till’s mother Mamie] Bradley, Diggs, and other witnesses and supporters to and from court each day in a heavily armed caravan. In fact, the Beitos write, security at Howard’s residence “was so impregnable that journalists and politicians from a later era might have used the word ‘compound’ rather than ‘home’ to describe it.” To put it another way, guns were stashed everywhere, including a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of Howard’s bed and a pistol at his waist. Howard understood all too well the deep ties between white supremacy and gun control. The first gun control laws in American history arrived during Reconstruction, when the former Confederate states attempted to deny emancipated blacks the right to acquire property, make contracts, vote, freely assemble, and keep and bear arms.

The left say that they are not the same Democrats from that era… But, they sure sound like them today.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 12:14 PM
Comment #359071

Rhinehold,
Will we be hearing anything from the people who were killed by guns?

Posted by: phx8 at December 18, 2012 1:05 PM
Comment #359072

phx8, your comments continue to be ignorant and illogical. I don’t really know why NRA instructor and Rhinehold continue to converse with you. It is evident you don’t have the mental capacity to carry on a logical conversation. Perhaps is we just banned assault liberals.

Posted by: Frank at December 18, 2012 1:27 PM
Comment #359073

I’ve been too busy to comment recently, but I still want to share my two cents:

Firstly, some have shown examples where a firearm may have been used to save lives. This may be true, but laws restricting firearms have done the same. I owe my own life to gun control: a student attempted to commit a massacre at my high school in 2007, but he was unable to obtain a gun. He ended up using a knife instead, so he only killed one person instead of dozens before he was subdued. I was in the adjacent room when this occured, so if this kid had a gun instead of a knife, there’s a good chance I would have been targeted.

Firearms can be used to either commit crimes or to prevent them. The difficulty is crafting a law that inhibits the former while leaving the latter alone. It may be impossible to craft such a law; this seems to be the position of many Watchblog Conservatives & Libertarians.

I don’t think it is productive to argue about what constitutes an “assault weapon” and what doesn’t. However, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to craft legistlation that respects the second ammendment while at the same time prevents criminals from accessing weapons that enable them to commit these sorts of massacres. I would like to know people’s opinions regarding a proposal from Robert Wright. Essentially, his idea would be to prohibit weapons capable of firing more than 6 rounds without reloading. His idea would also ban magazines carrying more than 6 rounds. I think he raises a good point: that there are no lawful reasons for someone to fire 6 rounds without reloading. The only exception I can think of are collections of historical weapons.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 18, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #359074
Will we be hearing anything from the people who were killed by guns?

I don’t know, phx8, maybe the 200 children we’ve killed in drone attacks (because of this president who you support) could go over to the 20 who died on Friday and ask them if they want to respond?

At least 176 children have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in nearby Pakistan alone, with more than twenty more in Yemen and at least one in Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/18/americas-war-on-children-abroad#fold

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 4:11 PM
Comment #359075

Warren Porter remarked, “I owe my own life to gun control: a student attempted to commit a massacre at my high school in 2007, but he was unable to obtain a gun.”

So this was a student in High School who was trying to get a gun and commit murder, and he wasn’t able too. I guess the existing laws worked, so what is your complaint? We need another law, because the first one worked?

“I don’t think it is productive to argue about what constitutes an “assault weapon” and what doesn’t.”

It certainly does matter; the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban included guns that never came close to being assault weapons. The left cannot be trusted. What they say and what they do are two different things. You must remember, the ultimate goal of the left is the total abolishment of 2nd amendment rights.

“Firearms can be used to either commit crimes or to prevent them.”

So which one goes to the sporting goods store to buy a legal gun? Is it the law abiding American citizen, or is it the criminal? I have never heard of a criminal buying a gun at a sporting goods store for the purpose of commitng a crime. But there are many Americans who buy legal guns for protection.

Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #359076

I wonder how many liberals are as concerned for the millions of babies murdered by abortion every year as they are for the ones who died in CT?

Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 4:27 PM
Comment #359077

Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, yet he killed 168 innocent people, killed 19 children under age 6, injured 680 innocent people, you can still buy fertilizer, you can still buy racing fuel, and you can still rent box trucks. The 9/11 terrorist didn’t use a gun either yet they killed over 3000 innocent people yet we still fly planes. People who want to kill will with or without a gun, guns are not the problem PEOPLE ARE!!

Posted by: KAP at December 18, 2012 4:35 PM
Comment #359079

Rahm Emanuel, “never waste a crisis”. I say, let’s shut down violent video games and movies. What say you lefties??? Let’s do it right. In fact, let’s ban armed guards for politicians, movie stars, and even Obama.

Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #359081

Scratch a liberal and you will always find a person who advocates “group rights” over individual rights. They must change or discard our founding documents to accomplish this goal and it doesn’t bother them to do it. They have stretched the Bill of Rights and our Constitution to embrace their aberrant behavior.

When a few abuse firearms with their criminal actions they wish to punish the law-abiding as well. I find liberals abuse our right of fee speech, free exercise of religion, and even our right to assemble. Yet, I do not wish to take those rights away from anyone or everyone to correct their abuses.

Taking the liberal thinking to its extreme would have the US unilaterally disarm to prevent world violence. Surely, the UN could protect us they believe; just as they believe the police are capable of protecting all of us all of the time.

Liberals are anxious to place their peace and security in the hands of government mainly because they are not willing to do so for themselves. When a citizen believes they are responsible for their own ultimate safety and purchase firearms the liberal balks because they can not tolerate an individual acting to protect themselves and their families. It diminishes the power of government and for them that is intolerable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 18, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #359082

Lets assume that gun supporters and the NRA are completely correct when they say “it is not the gun but the person.”

What are their proposals, then, to address the problem of mass killings with guns? I would be interested to know how they intend to keep high powered rapid firing weapons out of the hands of persons intent on mass killings.

Posted by: Rich at December 18, 2012 5:31 PM
Comment #359083

You can’t Rich, If a person wants a gun of any kind he/she will find it no matter what LAWS are created. Not only guns but any kind of weapon if he/she has the funds to get them. I can go to the inner city of my area and probably get most any kind of gun I want. So any LAWS that will be inacted will only keep guns out of LAW abiding citizens NOT criminals. As stated it’s a people problem not a gun problem.

Posted by: KAP at December 18, 2012 5:44 PM
Comment #359084

Rich

The best way to prevent a tragedy is to be prepared to respond to it as it is about to unfold. Making any place a “gun free zone” only guarantees that the good guys will be unarmed. A teacher with CCW and the ability to use that weapon would have had an exellent chance of stopping it cold, or at least greatly reducing the death toll.

Posted by: dbs at December 18, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #359085
What are their proposals, then

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/18/did-sandy-hook-killer-adam-lanza-fit-the

I agree with President Barack Obama that “meaningful action” should be taken prevent future schoolhouse carnage. Meaningful action in this case would be fashioning schools that respect all of their students; protect them from bullying; foster enough mutual trust to curtail “no snitch” teenage culture; and offer students proactive counseling on how to handle their emotional challenges. But that’s a whole lot harder than grandstanding about banning assault rifles or violent video games.
Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2012 5:53 PM
Comment #359086

Guns were far easier to get prior to the 1980s, and I don’t remember these types of incidents occuring much when I grew up in the 60s and 70s. IMO the biggest reasons for this problem is a society that has become callous to the value of human life. The other factor would have to be the 24 hour news cycle which drills things over and over again. If you’ve ever noticed copy cats come out of the wood work after a mass murder. Giving a perp the ability to become instantly infamous is another draw back to the over publicizing of tragedy by the modern media.

Posted by: dbs at December 18, 2012 6:09 PM
Comment #359088

“Lets assume that gun supporters and the NRA are completely correct when they say “it is not the gun but the person.”

What a silly statement. When was the last time a gun walked down the street and said, “I think I’ll shoot someone today”. Let’s just assume the gun is in the hand of the bad guy.

It has been brought up several times concerning the violence of Hollywood movies and Video games, and yet the left seems to be eerily silent. Could it be that a lot of the liberals on WB, like Adam Ducker and Stephen Daugherty, are hooked on these games? Just wondering…

Posted by: Frank at December 18, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #359089

Look, the question I posed has no easy answers from either the left or the right. I support gun control simply because there is no reason to allow an escalation of fire power when we cannot control access to guns by certain persons. It is in essence a default position. It is what the Israelis did after the assassination of Rabin in 1995. Only those thoroughly vetted by test and need or experience (former IDF officers) will be allowed a civilian permit and only for a pistol with a limited supply of ammunition.

The suggestion that carry permits or on premise guns for employees would have provided some protection in this situation or similar is remote. It is fantasy to think that the principal or any other employee would be able to access the gun(s) in such a situation is highly unlikely unless they were actually carrying the weapons on their person. These are stunning, unexpected attacks. It would not have been possible in this situation to get to the guns in a reasonable time. He was in control of the office area and the main corridor.

Rhinehold’s suggestion that more attention be paid to the needs of students and fostering a concerned environment by both students (eliminating “no snitch” culture) and with faculty by greater attention to bullying and other student problems has merit. However, those were not issues in this case. If anything, the school system was extremely sensitive to this young man’s problems, aware and concerned about his difficulties and cooperative in attempting to resolve them. There was no bullying by students. If anything, his fellow students attempted to engage him without success.

In my opinion, we really have only one choice: accept the Israeli default position and simply restrict access to guns by anybody other than highly vetted civilians and limit the guns to pistols (or sport and hunting rifles) if we are serious about eliminating this type of carnage. The burden of proof has to shift to the applicant to prove his or her ability to manage guns in a safe and responsible manner. We also need to recognize that even the most robust screening procedures will result in some slipping through the screening process. In that regard, limiting the type of guns available (pistols or sporting rifles) provides a default backup.


Posted by: Rich at December 18, 2012 9:14 PM
Comment #359097

george,

So this was a student in High School who was trying to get a gun and commit murder, and he wasn’t able too. I guess the existing laws worked, so what is your complaint? We need another law, because the first one worked?

This student could have easily skirted the law if he went to a gun show, which would have allowed him to purchase a weapon without a background check.

“I don’t think it is productive to argue about what constitutes an “assault weapon” and what doesn’t.”

It certainly does matter; the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban included guns that never came close to being assault weapons. The left cannot be trusted. What they say and what they do are two different things. You must remember, the ultimate goal of the left is the total abolishment of 2nd amendment rights.

My point is that the ambiguity behind the word “assault weapon” makes the 1994 ban pretty dubious. I don’t think I could support such an action. If people were serious about gun control, they’d worry less about “assault weapons” and more about high capacity magazines and clips. I am still uncertain whether or not it is prudent to legislate more prohibitions, but I think proposals such as that presented by Robert Wright (which I linked in my earlier comment) deserve to be discussed. Perhaps the discussion leads to the decision that no further laws are needed, or that we need to encourage more people to carry concealed arms, but the recent tragedy at least requires us to examine ourselves for a moment.

So which one goes to the sporting goods store to buy a legal gun? Is it the law abiding American citizen, or is it the criminal? I have never heard of a criminal buying a gun at a sporting goods store for the purpose of commitng a crime. But there are many Americans who buy legal guns for protection.

All the recent high profile massacres were committed with legal firearms. In any case, any illegal firearm begins its life as a legal firearms so any regulations regarding legal firearms will eventually filter into the black market as well. This would be especially true if a gun buy back program were initiated.

I wonder how many liberals are as concerned for the millions of babies murdered by abortion every year as they are for the ones who died in CT?

Off topic, but if you remain around here long enough you will surely get a debate regarding abortion sooner or later.

KAP,

Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, yet he killed 168 innocent people, killed 19 children under age 6, injured 680 innocent people, you can still buy fertilizer, you can still buy racing fuel, and you can still rent box trucks.
It’s actually quite difficult to construct a bomb like McVeigh did, which is a good enough deterrent to prevent most people from even attempting.

The 9/11 terrorist didn’t use a gun either yet they killed over 3000 innocent people yet we still fly planes.
Yet in response to 9/11 we passed a whole lot of laws that transgressed constitutional protections regarding privacy, all in the name of “security”.
People who want to kill will with or without a gun, guns are not the problem PEOPLE ARE!
People will still kill, but they may kill fewer people. The student I cited earlier only killed one classmate instead of dozens because he had to use a knife rather than a gun.

RF,

Scratch a liberal and you will always find a person who advocates “group rights” over individual rights. They must change or discard our founding documents to accomplish this goal and it doesn’t bother them to do it. They have stretched the Bill of Rights and our Constitution to embrace their aberrant behavior.

This has never been my belief.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 18, 2012 10:09 PM
Comment #359114

Warren, The point that went totaly over your head was that there are other ways to Kill as was the example of Mcveigh and the 9/11 terrorist. Guns are NOT the only tool. A bomb is quite easy to make with a few household products which can cause quite a bit of damage and placed right with such things as glass, nails, marbles can kill many people. Also as I said I can gfo to the inner city of my area and with enough money buy any kind of gun I want.

Posted by: KAP at December 18, 2012 11:09 PM
Comment #359115

Warren Porter

“This student could have easily skirted the law if he went to a gun show, which would have allowed him to purchase a weapon without a background check.”

Let me ask Warren, have you ever been to a gun show, or are you just quoting liberal talking points. First of all, the dealers at gun shows run the same instant background checks as any other sporting goods store. Secondly, the same state laws apply at gun shows as any sporting goods store. If the state requires registration of a weapon, the registration is done at the gun shows. Then we have the fact that you can’t buy a gun in any state in which you don’t live unless you have a FFL license. Now you may say, it’s not just dealers that sell guns at gun shows; and you would be right. Private individuals can sell guns at gun shows, just like they can advertise in the newspaper and sell them, or sell them at garage sales. Do you next propose we ban the selling of guns by private individuals in their own homes? See Warren, this is the slippery slope everyone is concerned about. But if a nut case wants a gun bad enough, all he has to do is go into the inner city and buy a gun from the same guy that sells drugs. Which is also illegal.

“If people were serious about gun control, they’d worry less about “assault weapons” and more about high capacity magazines and clips.”

Warren, you’re not listening; this was tried under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, it didn’t work and there was so much pressure on the Congress to let it die…it ran out, and no one wanted to renew it. Do you have any idea how many Americans own guns and want the politicians to keep their hands off. Obama has done more to increase gun ownership than any other politician. Obama may have won the presidency, and he may have the blue collar union support, but wait till he starts messing with their 2nd Amendment rights.

“Perhaps the discussion leads to the decision that no further laws are needed, or that we need to encourage more people to carry concealed arms”

Evidently American ingenuity has preceded your idea:

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged school districts to review their plans to ensure they are prepared to respond to incidents such as the horrific shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday.

David Thweatt, superintendent of the tiny Harrold school district in northwest Texas, believes his staff is ready.

Besides special locks and security cameras, an undisclosed number of staff members and teachers carry concealed handguns.

Thweatt said the “guardian plan,” which drew international attention when it was implemented in 2008, definitely enhances student safety.”


http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html

“All the recent high profile massacres were committed with legal firearms. In any case, any illegal firearm begins its life as a legal firearms so any regulations regarding legal firearms will eventually filter into the black market as well. This would be especially true if a gun buy back program were initiated.”

So Warren, the truth comes out; the banning of all guns. Since all guns that begin legal, will end up illegal; then just ban all of them. The buyback program like Australia; which is a gun ban.

Abortion…the only thing that separates the children of CT from aborted babies is 6-7 years and two lungs full of oxygen. The ones crying the most for gun control are the same ones calling for more babies to be killed…this is called hypocrisy.

Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 11:37 PM
Comment #359117

I wonder how many liberals are as concerned for the millions of babies murdered by abortion every year as they are for the ones who died in CT?
Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 4:27 PM

Absolutely none. And I hate to say it, but I don’t think some of them are as concerned about those 26 innocent people murdered Connecticut as they are about getting guns ban.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 19, 2012 12:23 AM
Comment #359119
Let me ask Warren, have you ever been to a gun show, or are you just quoting liberal talking points. First of all, the dealers at gun shows run the same instant background checks as any other sporting goods store. Secondly, the same state laws apply at gun shows as any sporting goods store. If the state requires registration of a weapon, the registration is done at the gun shows. Then we have the fact that you can’t buy a gun in any state in which you don’t live unless you have a FFL license. Now you may say, it’s not just dealers that sell guns at gun shows; and you would be right. Private individuals can sell guns at gun shows, just like they can advertise in the newspaper and sell them, or sell them at garage sales. Do you next propose we ban the selling of guns by private individuals in their own homes? See Warren, this is the slippery slope everyone is concerned about. But if a nut case wants a gun bad enough, all he has to do is go into the inner city and buy a gun from the same guy that sells drugs. Which is also illegal.

At gun shows many “private individuals” are such in name only and function as if they are dealers, but without the regulations associated with them. Leftist media has branded this “the gun show loophole” and I am concerned by its implications. If there is a way to close the loophole, then I am willing to listen to suggestions, but being obstinate is not the correct response. Maybe you could argue that it would be impossible to regulate such transactions without limiting law-abiding citizens’ rights instead of creating a silly “slippery slope” argument.

Nevertheless, do you think it is intolerable to require all purchases of firearms to be brokered by a licensed gun dealer? Or does this infringe on personal liberty too much?

But if a nut case wants a gun bad enough, all he has to do is go into the inner city and buy a gun from the same guy that sells drugs. Which is also illegal.
Just because it is possible to overcome an obstacle, doesn’t mean that it will be overcome. The student at my high school could have purchased a gun at a gun show from a “private owner”, but he elected not to. I can easily imagine certain people who may be willing to attend a gun show, but who’d be unwilling to venture into the inner-city. Actually, I confess that I find the thought of a socially awkward guy with Asperger Syndrome wandering around the inner city to be somewhat comical. This sort of person has a good chance getting conned or mugged instead of obtaining a weapon.
Do you have any idea how many Americans own guns and want the politicians to keep their hands off. Obama has done more to increase gun ownership than any other politician. Obama may have won the presidency, and he may have the blue collar union support, but wait till he starts messing with their 2nd Amendment rights.

I understand that firearms have had a significant role in our nation’s history going all the way back to its founding. The minutemen at Concord and Lexington fought with private muskets. The great expanses of our country have made owning a firearm a necessity for most people living in rural parts of the US. It is perfectly understandable for these people to safeguard rights that are protected by the second amendment to the Constitution.

this was tried under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban

Maybe, I’m misinformed; in which case, I would gladly read any source that would enlighten me. However, I believe high capacity magazines remained legal during the duration of the ‘94 law. Some on the Left want to revive the law, but I don’t think that is a good idea; the evidence does not seem to show a clear reduction in any sort of crime when the ban was in place. Please read the article penned by Robert Wright that I linked to in Comment #359073.

So Warren, the truth comes out; the banning of all guns.

Huh? This isn’t what I said at all. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Since all guns that begin legal, will end up illegal
This is actually the converse of what I said. Please take care when reading what I wrote before you make such fallacious statements.
The buyback program like Australia; which is a gun ban.
Please read the Robert Wright article before you make anymore ill-informed comments.
there are other ways to Kill … guns are NOT the only tool.
Guns remain the easiest and most effective tool. Without a gun, a criminal must rely on other tools which are either less reliable, less effective or more difficult/expensive to implement. While we can never eliminate these sorts of crimes, we may be able to reduce their severity and frequency. Maybe I’m naive and such violence is an inevitable consequence of an armed populace, but I remain unconvinced so far. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 19, 2012 2:21 AM
Comment #359130

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc

Posted by: dbs at December 19, 2012 5:39 AM
Comment #359131

KAP,

“A bomb is quite easy to make with a few household products which can cause quite a bit of damage and placed right with such things as glass, nails, marbles can kill many people.”

You keep mentioning this as if it actually means something. A bomb made with fertilizer isn’t easy to conceal. It takes lots of planning and perhaps you weren’t aware of this 2011 memo to stores from the FBI;

http://abcnews.go.com/US/page?id=12992118

Were you aware that more than 200 people on the “terror watch list” bought guns legally in 2010;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/fbi-247-people-terro-watch-list-bought-guns-2010/

A bill written to close this loophole died in committee because the NRA opposed it.

The idea that your guns will protect you from a government takeover is a fantasy.

I own a gun. I don’t want to give it up either. However reasonable people should be able to come up with solutions to these issues without the hyperbole now surrounding them.

Frank,

“It has been brought up several times concerning the violence of Hollywood movies and Video games, and yet the left seems to be eerily silent. Could it be that a lot of the liberals on WB, like Adam Ducker and Stephen Daugherty, are hooked on these games? Just wondering.”

Art imitates life Frank. You could lock yourself in a room and play violent video games till your hands were bloody, but if you don’t have access to guns and large magazines, you are not going to be able to do what the guy in Connecticut did.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 19, 2012 5:42 AM
Comment #359135

Rich,

It is fantasy to think that the principal or any other employee would be able to access the gun(s) in such a situation is highly unlikely unless they were actually carrying the weapons on their person.

Except it has happened in the past… Are we calling history fantasy now?

“A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html

Warren,

It’s actually quite difficult to construct a bomb like McVeigh did, which is a good enough deterrent to prevent most people from even attempting.

The kind of bomb that McVeigh and his gang put together was not designed to kill a few dozen people, they were designed to take down a building.

Taking a homemade bomb into a schoolroom and killing a couple dozen kids is technically very easy to do. I was going to post one of the many recipies but… If you are interested so a simple search on the internet.

And don’t forget, the largest mass murder of children in a school took place in 1927 and involved no firearms, just dynamite, a car full of shrapnel and the willingness to use it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 19, 2012 9:27 AM
Comment #359136

I still don’t get the ‘fascination’ with ‘large magazines’… You do realize it takes about 5 or 6 seconds to reload a clip, right? It takes on average 5 to 6 MINUTES for a police response… So if we were to limit someone to a 6 bullet magazine and they bring a few extra clips… They could kill 30 or 40 people in under a minute.

Why do people think that the extra few seconds it takes to reload is somehow going to same some lives?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 19, 2012 9:29 AM
Comment #359137

“At gun shows many “private individuals” are such in name only and function as if they are dealers, but without the regulations associated with them. Leftist media has branded this “the gun show loophole” and I am concerned by its implications. If there is a way to close the loophole, then I am willing to listen to suggestions, but being obstinate is not the correct response. Maybe you could argue that it would be impossible to regulate such transactions without limiting law-abiding citizens’ rights instead of creating a silly “slippery slope” argument.

Nevertheless, do you think it is intolerable to require all purchases of firearms to be brokered by a licensed gun dealer? Or does this infringe on personal liberty too much?”

Warren, you failed to answer the first question; have you ever been to a gun show, or are you just quoting liberal talking points? If private citizens are selling guns, it’s legal; if a dealer is selling guns, he has to abide by the laws. Simple as that, or do you want to put the Feds in charge of another aspect of our lives? Do we then say the FDA can shut down children’s lemonade stands, or that people cannot sell produce from their gardens in their front yards? That garage sales are illegal? Yes I believe it infringes on personal liberty.

I love the way liberals like you and Rocky Marks love to say “I have a gun” BUT, there is always a “But”, it’s like the white guy who says “I have a black friend” BUT, I’m not a racist. I support the troops, BUT, they are torturing and murdering civilians.

“Frank,
“It has been brought up several times concerning the violence of Hollywood movies and Video games, and yet the left seems to be eerily silent. Could it be that a lot of the liberals on WB, like Adam Ducker and Stephen Daugherty, are hooked on these games? Just wondering.”
Art imitates life Frank. You could lock yourself in a room and play violent video games till your hands were bloody, but if you don’t have access to guns and large magazines, you are not going to be able to do what the guy in Connecticut did.
Rocky”

Frank has a good point and you failed to answer it. Are you are saying, “It’s ok to create an atmosphere where movies and violent video games destroy the morality of a young person; but as a result, the millions of normal American people have to pay the price of freedom”?

Violent movies and games are now protected under the clause “Art” by the left. You just can’t bring yourself to agree that the violent games and movies encourage violence, can you. So do you play them too?

Re/a bomb; bombs can be made of other household materials besides fertilizer.

dbs, great video, it says it all. I love the look of pure hatred on Schumer’s face as he was forced to listen, especially when she said our second amendment rights were to protect the American citizen from the likes of those on the panel.

Posted by: george at December 19, 2012 9:56 AM
Comment #359138
j2t2, perhaps you could give us the definition of an assault rifle. You use three different names in your comments; you say “Assault Rifles”, “Assault Weapon”, and you say “Assault Type Weapons”. All three are different and yet you lump them together.

Sure NRA I just look at the gun shops online under assault rifles and there they are. Defined for us. Look lets at least be honest about what we have to deal with here. It is tough to legally define them perhaps because of the 2nd amendment but to believe they don’t exist doesn’t solve the problem. Do you have a tough time telling an assault rifle from a hunting rifle by visual inspection? They exist they are not just a name invented by liberals.

In fact the glorification of these assault weapons by gun manufacturers, sellers and enthusiast is a part of the problem.


Whether a weapon (using your words) is used for target shooting, hunting, or for just collecting is irrelevant. And you inability to swap out a mag is also irrelevant. I shoot completion, and as I said, I can shoot 3 ten round clips as fast as a 30 round clip.

No it is not irrelevant NRA. Take away the high volume clips and leave the rifles and the whole definition of what is an assault rifle becomes moot IMHO. Regulating the clips like we regulate the weapon is a start to solving the problem of mass killings by lone gunmen at schools and malls.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 19, 2012 9:57 AM
Comment #359139

Rhinehold, I hate to say this, but most liberals have no concept of how a gun works. In the video provide by dbs, the young woman testified how fast the shooter swapped out a magazine. The high capacity magazine is the 500 pound gorilla in the room of the liberals. It’s a liberal talking point; something the left can sensationalize.

Posted by: george at December 19, 2012 10:05 AM
Comment #359140

Rhinehold,

In the incident you cited, nine students had already been shot, two killed, before the assistant principal could retrieve his gun. The gunman wasn’t using a rapid fire, high magazine capacity rifle or pistol. If he had been, many more people would have been shot and killed in the incident.

There was a reason that the first ordinances passed in the old “Wild West” towns were gun control. Check your guns at the town entrance or be arrested. That simple wisdom appears to escape today’s pro-gun advocates.

Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2012 10:10 AM
Comment #359142

Rhinehold first of all sorry to hear about your wife. Our sympathies to you and your wife.

The bombing in Bath Mi in 1927 was the work of a school custodian who had months to wire the building with explosives and the vehicle he drove to the school after the explosion.

This example seems to make the case against arming school staff.

Using bombs as a justification for firearms just doesn’t work for me.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 19, 2012 11:45 AM
Comment #359143

Rocky, As I said to Warren it is an example of what a person hell bent on killing people will do. You can enact laws banning guns all you want but to a person who wants to get a gun will, legally or illegally and a person who wants to kill will do it any way he can. Also as I stated guns are not the problem PEOPLE are.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #359146

It’s a shame Obama can’t do the same for the rest of the stock market. Maybe the feds should take over gun companies instead of cars:

“Smith & Wesson was up 5 percent as of noon Wednesday when President Barack Obama started speaking about new gun control initiatives his administration will pursue. However, shortly after Obama declared that Vice President Joe Biden would lead a commission to look into remedies to the rash of school shootings, the stock began to spike.

By the end of Obama’s press conference, Smith & Wesson was up 8.34 percent for the day and Sturm, Ruger & Company was up 6.03 percent.”


http://freebeacon.com/obama-shooting-blanks/

Posted by: Frank at December 19, 2012 2:11 PM
Comment #359147

Finally, someone of authority with some common sense and not political strategy:

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/sheriff-to-add-patrols-suggests-to-put-guns-in-sch/nTYXm/

My kind of sheriff.

Posted by: Frank at December 19, 2012 2:20 PM
Comment #359149

A message from Ronald Reagan on the assault weapons ban:

“Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.’

Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2012 4:19 PM
Comment #359152

So, why was the Bill allowed to die after 10 years. Could it have been…it did’nt work? Could it have been, “I won’t vote for you” if you support this Bill.

Neil Cavuto, on Fox News, is interviewing Daniel Greenburg, IGDA (International Game Developer Association) Anti-Censorship Commitee Chairman, and he is defending the gaming industries right to create violent games. It so happens that Senator Rockerfeller of WV is calling into an investigation into the violence of video games on America’s youth.

I want to hear some of the youth on WB admit that violence in movies and video games creates the atmosphere for today’s murdering youth.

Posted by: george at December 19, 2012 4:57 PM
Comment #359154
Also as I stated guns are not the problem PEOPLE are.

It’s not an either/or KAP, the problem is crazy people with guns. Guns they usually stole from the legal owner or guns they bought legally. Your right wing talking point does us a disservice IMHO. In fact judging from all the comments on this thread the solution is not one simply change to the law. If it were the crazies would have stopped killing en masse long ago.

The problem with the conservative approach is the required escalation in fire power and protective body armor that would be required for most of us that venture out into public. Arming teachers with handguns to defend against crazies with assault weapons seems to warrant hazardous duty pay IMHO. Even if the handguns have the 50 round clips the assault rifles have.


Look at where we have already escalated to since Whitman fired from the bell tower in Texas. From hunting rifles and pistols to multiple assault rifles and semi auto handguns along with body armor. Where will we be a decade from now?

Of course the conservatives will tell us the school having guns will be the deterrent that keeps the crazies at bay but if they are looking for death by teacher or cop why should we think they would stop because some teachers at the school are armed?

On the other hand some liberals want a ban on assault weapons or guns in general. Or more restrictive laws on purchasing guns in general. The crazies ignore the laws we have so until we have a law they cannot get around they will violate the new ones as they have the old ones. So any new laws must be very good or they won’t solve the problem.

Some on both sides suggest less violent in the films and TV shows and in he general culture of us Americans. Others suggest more long and short term mental health help to identify and treat potential problems early on. Both have merit but will take time and money to implement as well as some laws that will put individual liberty in question.

So my point KAP is that IMHO it is a complex problem that will require a complex solution, an all of the above. We need to be prepared to spend tax dollars on school security, perhaps this is how we start.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/school-security-one-schools-extraordinary-safety-measures/


Myself I would prefer to see classrooms beefed up with bullet resistant glass, doors, locks and walls and safe rooms for students to get into in case of attack. Sally port type hallways that enclose and confine shooters in small sections of hallways as well as gas canisters to knock out shooters in these areas. But who wants to pay taxes to stimulate the economy right?

Or perhaps another approach would be volunteers organized by the NRA to serve as armed patrols at all schools when in session. Of course with the insurance and liability issue surrounding this type of solution, especially if it degenerated into a neighborhood watch security patrol situation like George Zimmerman is facing….

I would also like to see the shooters name removed from the history books and replaced with a number.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 19, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #359155

Rich writes; “In my opinion, we really have only one choice: accept the Israeli default position and simply restrict access to guns by anybody other than highly vetted civilians and limit the guns to pistols (or sport and hunting rifles) if we are serious about eliminating this type of carnage.”

Ah yes, the default position. Simply eliminate a constitutional right for all because of the criminal actions of a few. What other rights in our founding documents would you consider defaulting?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 5:24 PM
Comment #359156

Rich

Having one or several people on the property with a gun on their person is not unreasonable. Lots of people have concealed carry permits, and if you live in a state with a “shall issue” law you more than likely come in cotact with them on a regular basis and never know it. when you let go of the “guns bad” mentality you will be able to look at the problem from a entirely different perspective.


“The gunman wasn’t using a rapid fire, high magazine capacity rifle or pistol. If he had been, many more people would have been shot and killed in the incident.”


If the teacher had been allowed to have that gun on his person, so he was able to react immediately the type of weapon would have made little difference, because it would have been stopped as it was about to start.

Posted by: dbs at December 19, 2012 5:31 PM
Comment #359157

To whom it may cocern

The second amendment was designed to protect the very type of weapons our friends on the left are now once again trying to ban.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)


What typrs of weapons are best suited to this purpose?

Posted by: dbs at December 19, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #359158

Interesting thought dbs. I have a friend who owns a gunshop. I recently bought a Walther semi-auto pistol for my wife, who has a CCW permit. He told me that in the northeast states, like NY, who have very strick gun laws, Colt and Remmington cap and ball pistols are very popular. These people have to arm themselves and protect their families with weapons that were used 150 years ago, because of the stupidity of the left. These guns can be ordered on line with no background check and no FFL. But now that this is out, the left will be wanting to ban cap and ball muzzleloading pistols too.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 19, 2012 6:06 PM
Comment #359159

j2, PEOPLE are the problem, as you said crazy people who steal guns or get them legaly. Case point the crazies who shot Gifford and killed 6 others and the one who shot up a movie theater neither one of them should have never been alowed to pick up a toy gun let alone a real one. Now we have another crazy who stole his mothers gun and killed her and 26 others mostly innocent children. So you just agreed with me that guns are not the problem PEOPLE are. Your right that it is a complex problem that needs a complex solutuion, not a liberal one nor a conservative one.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2012 6:08 PM
Comment #359160

NRAinstructor, my son gave me a Navy Colt Replica .44 cal. cap and ball black powder revolver for Christmas last year. I love to shoot it at our American Legion Pistol range along with my other handguns.

It does take time to load the six cylinders and cleaning it is a chore I could do without. Yet, what great fun to shoot it as it is very accurate with little kick. And, I love the smell of black-powder. I always think of our ancestors when I shoot it.

I purchased 100 rounds of 9mm ammo a few days ago at Walmart and paid a little over $25 for the box. That’s outrageous.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 6:24 PM
Comment #359161

Royal Flush,

The Supreme Court has said in recent opinions that the 2nd Amendment is subject to government regulation as to the type of weapons, persons restricted (felons, mentally ill, incompetent, etc) and commercial trade in guns.

In terms of type of weapons under the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court, even conservatives justices, have defined that to mean the type and character of weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution. That is why there was no court challenges initiated by the NRA and other organizations to the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban law.

What many are simply asking for is reasonable regulation. Even a long time champion of the 2nd Amendment, Ronald Reagan, recognized the need for such regulations. He was an ardent supporter of the Brady Bill requiring background checks and waiting period, the assault weapons ban law and signed into law in California the Mulford Act.

Perhaps the Israelis, the Bits and the Australians went too far after their massacres but we can certainly do better in preventing high powered rapid firing killing machines from getting into the wrong hands. Improve background checks and licensing requirements. Close “gun show” and private sale loopholes. Make all license holders subject to reasonable renewal requirements to determine their current status. Establish safe standards and regulations for storage of weapons in a home and elsewhere. Limit long guns to those suitable for hunting and ban assault military type weapons with large removable high capacity clips. An interesting aside from many gun advocates is that the AR-15 is not a desirable weapon for hunting and is even banned from use for hunting in many states, and is not a very good self defense weapon. So, what is it good for? Killing little children and movie goers?

Gun control measures alone will not solve the problem. We are not going to solve the consequences of a culture of violence by simply banning some type of guns. The role of video games, movies, mental health options, etc. require careful investigation.

Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #359162

Rich, you use an interesting phrase…”culture of violence”. Frankly I believe we do quite well as a citizen-armed nation. Every year millions of hunters enter our forests and fields hunting deer and birds and other game. The per capita accident rate is miniscule.

Millions of Americans own legal handguns and it is rare when any one of them uses it for a criminal purpose. Honestly, I do not have a problem having to reload my clip after nine shots. What I fear is the old “camel nose in the tent” ruse.

How often have we heard liberals tell us that they just want a small change. And, then another change and soon they want the whole enchilada. Each time this happens we lose another piece of our freedom.

After decades of attempts to eradicate, and billions of tax dollars spent, we have an increasing illegal drug problem in this country. Some wish to solve the “problem” by legalizing it. Why is it popular to legalize what we can’t seem to stop in the case of illegal drugs, but when it comes to weapons some believe that making them illegal will work?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 7:38 PM
Comment #359167

Royal Flush,

Thank you for your reasonable response. I don’t think that anyone should fear the “slippery slope” argument. The assault ban law of 1994 didn’t lead to “taking the whole enchilada.” In fact, the political reality was that it was allowed to sunset.

I think that reasonable people can come to some agreement as how to regulate availability weapons that have limited utility other than as mass killing machines as well as storage of legitimate weapons in homes, etc.

I also think that reasonable people can come to some agreement as to more effective vetting procedures to reduce the probability of mentally unbalanced and incompetent persons obtaining guns.

None of these measures by themselves will prevent mass killings by determined individuals. But, they might reduce the opportunity for access by deranged individuals. Criminals will certainly get whatever is on the street regardless of its legality. However, do you really think that this shooter in Ct. would have been able to get an AR-15 if it wasn’t legal for his mother to have obtained it? Imagine him negotiating a purchase from a “gangsta” in a dark alley in NYC.

As for the culture of violence, I was not talking about hunters, sportsmen, competition shooters, collectors, etc. They respect the power of a gun and the consequences of misuse. I was referring to our society that is all to enamored with violence. Look at the popular video games advertised for this Christmas. I don’t think that chess is at the top of the list. Ask yourself, who were these mass shooters emulating? They dressed up in combat outfits like they were cast from the most popular recent Hollywood movie. They chose high velocity, high capacity “assault” weapons. They were living out a fantasy. They were going to solve a problem or get revenge just like in the movies.


Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2012 8:57 PM
Comment #359187
Thank you for your reasonable response. I don’t think that anyone should fear the “slippery slope” argument. The assault ban law of 1994 didn’t lead to “taking the whole enchilada.”

Rich, here’s the problem. The 1994 assault ban law would not have prevented this from happening. CT has in place an assault ban that is identical to the 1994 one. The weapons were legal under that ban as they would have been under the 1994 ban. So the 1994 ban would have to be changed to include a more narrow allowance, the language I’ve seen floating around lately includes basically any gun on the market…

See, that ban didn’t work, we need to make it tougher. That one didn’t work so we need to make it even tougher. That is how it would go, after every tragedy, more calls for stricter laws emerge, until it is a defacto ban. Other than maybe 6 shooters (with quickloaders outlawed, because apparently it’s the extra few seconds of loading that is the cause of the problem according to many here).

Finally, the Supreme Court said that the 2nd amendment can be regulated. But, it would regulate it like the 1st, meaning any limiting of those rights would have to be very narrow and very specific and be backed with evidence, not emotion, which the gun control lobby cannot supply. They just don’t have the evidence on their side. That is why they use emotion and tragedies like this to push their agenda. And many who are not aware of what they are doing will fall for it.

And the water will get closer to boiling.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 19, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #359189

Royal Flush, I have a reproduction Colt Navy .36 cal that my dad gave me years ago. I also love to shoot it.

Rich and other liberals keep talking about AR-15 style weapons not being used for anything but killing. First, it’s none of their business what kind of guns people own and for what reason. Some people like to shoot military style rifles. I have several styles of rifles; including WWI and WWII bolt action weapons. Secondly, Rich is again incorrect about hunting weapons; there are a multitude of hunters who use AR-15 style rifles to hunt everything from small game to large. I tried to explain earlier, but evidently the anti-gun crowd does not have the capacity to understand; the left is basing their argument on the cosmetic look of a gun. The Ruger 10/22 rifle can look like a kid’s .22 cal carbine, or it can be cosmetically changed to look like an AR-15 of AK-47, but it’s still the same gun. They comment about the magazine capacity; but what’s the difference…a 30 round mag that has a tendency to hang up, or 3 ten round mags that can be swapped out in a matter of seconds? Both guns unload 30 rounds in a short period of time. The left base their assumptions and conclusions on raw emotion. There is never any thought given to acts.

Rhinehold is correct; the laws of CT were the same assault ban laws as the 1994 law, but the lawmakers, president, and media have failed to say anything about that. Again we see the left and the media running on pure emotion.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 19, 2012 10:39 PM
Comment #359190

Rhinehold,

Lets cut to the chase about “assault rifles.” They are not good hunting rifles and are even banned for hunting in many states. They are not the best or even a good second choice in self defense (handgun and shotgun much more manageable and effective). So, whats the point of a high velocity, high capacity magazine, military style, semi-automatic rifle? To play soldier? To kill as many people as possible in a murderous rampage?

So, I don’t have any problem at all with an assault weapons ban for all semi-automatic “assault weapons” firing military grade cartridges.

I don’t care about imitation assault weapons using .22LR cartridges but limited to 10 cartridge fixed magazines. Let people have their fantasy life at the range. They, however, would no longer be a choice for a determined killer.


Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #359191
So, whats the point of a high velocity, high capacity magazine, military style, semi-automatic rifle?

Self Defense, fun, shooting water bottles in your back yard, etc…

Just because YOU don’t think anyone should have one doesn’t mean that you have the right to make that decision for everyone else. What you find deplorable, apparently, is the ‘large magazines’, and I have yet to figure out why. You make the point again when you say:

but limited to 10 cartridge fixed magazines

What is the point of this limitation? A determined killer can pop the mag and put a new one in in less than 5 seconds, usually less. So, what do you gain other than making yourself feel better or have done something about an awful event? Is it worth authorizing the government to put their large magazine (filled with hollow point bullets I might add) to the heads of otherwise peaceful law-abiding citizens just so you can ‘feel better’? It wouldn’t have made any difference in this situation at all, or any other situation that I can think of…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2012 12:08 AM
Comment #359194

Rhinehold,

If magazines were limited in capacity and required to be fixed as opposed to detachable, a determined killer will not be able to simply pop a new magazine into the weapon. It will take substantially longer than if he had a high capacity detachable magazine. The killer in Arizona was stopped when he was required to reload his semi-automatic pistol. Attempting to re-load a semi-automatic rifle would present much more difficulty and opportunity for escape or counter-attack.

Besides, what’s the big deal anyway. If the AR-15 is nothing more than a glorified 22 varmit rifle as NRA insists, then gun advocates should be happy restricting the “assault rifles” to .22LR configurations. It will even save them a ton of money.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 1:11 AM
Comment #359195

He was stopped not because he had to reload, but because when he did reload (after exhuasting 30 rounds) he dropped his magazine and it was picked up by another bystander, rendering him impotent. Had he not dropped his magazine, the people who stopped him would have had to make a decision to put themselves in harms way and apprehend him or duck for cover.

and required to be fixed as opposed to detachable

Ah, there we go…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2012 2:02 AM
Comment #359196
So you just agreed with me that guns are not the problem PEOPLE are.

No KAP I didn’t agree with you. Without the guns the crazies would not have shot up the theatre, shot Gifford and killed the others nor would 20 kids and 7 adults have died in Newtown. The problem is people with guns.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 20, 2012 3:01 AM
Comment #359197

Royal Flush

Try a local gun show there are usually companies there selling bulk new as well as factory reloaded ammo for very reasonable prices. I used to buy 9mm, and 45ACP for @ $100 per 1000 for reloads, and had great luck with them. Also cheaper than dirt has some good deals.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/AMM-4212

Posted by: dbs at December 20, 2012 5:44 AM
Comment #359202

No j2 they would have used something else. As I said if a person wants to kill they will find a way. The 9/11 terrorist used planes so that proves the point if someone wants to kill they will find a way.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2012 9:12 AM
Comment #359203

Thanks for the ammo suggestions dbs. Merry Christmas

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2012 10:00 AM
Comment #359204

Let me show an example of the ignorance of the left; well, it is ignorance, or it is the ultimate plan. Rich makes this comment about ammo:

“So, I don’t have any problem at all with an assault weapons ban for all semi-automatic “assault weapons” firing military grade cartridges.”

What is military grade ammo? Almost every popular rifle or handgun uses military caliber ammunition. .45 colt, 9MM, 30-06, .223; these are all military calibers and yet used in civilian rifles and pistols. To ban this ammo or to claim that any weapon using this ammo should be made illegal would virtually make all guns illegal. Is that the goal of the democrats?

Rich goes on to make this statement:

“If magazines were limited in capacity and required to be fixed as opposed to detachable, a determined killer will not be able to simply pop a new magazine into the weapon.”

Many of the military calibers spoken above by Rich are used in fixed magazine rifles, like the M-1. Secondly, Rich’s proposal to only allow fixed mags would make all semi-auto handguns and most rifles, owned by all Americans, illegal.

“If the AR-15 is nothing more than a glorified 22 varmit rifle as NRA insists, then gun advocates should be happy restricting the “assault rifles” to .22LR configurations.”

That is not what I said…I said the left is only concerned with the cosmetics of the weapon. Democrats do NOT want correct any problems with violence in America. They simply want to create a false problem and a false answer to the problem. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban did NOTHING to curb violence. This is the reason it was allowed to sunset. As Rhinehold pointed out, CT had the same law, and it did nothing.

Read the 1994 Assault Weapons Bill and see if anything the politicians did actually correct the culture of violence in America. Mags (irrelevant), folding stocks (irrelevant), pistol grips (irrelevant), bayonet lugs (irrelevant). In fact, for anyone who wants to take a look at the effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, here is good article. The law was a waste of time and money; it was a CYA moment for politicians, and unless done like Australia, it had no effect on crime. The politicians could not pass a law like Australia because to would not pass the 2nd Amendment, and would not be upheld in the courts.

There is a culture of violence in America, and this culture must be dealt with and banning guns does nothing to for this culture. Ban violent video games and movies. These two things do more to create the violent mindset in children than American gun ownership.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 20, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #359205

Sorry, here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 20, 2012 10:38 AM
Comment #359210
No j2 they would have used something else. As I said if a person wants to kill they will find a way. The 9/11 terrorist used planes so that proves the point if someone wants to kill they will find a way.

Airplanes and Bombs, equating Al Qaeda to these lone gunmen KAP that’s quite a stretch. The bombs and airplanes aren’t covered by the 2nd amendment yet and are not the real issue. They are used to confuse the issue KAP, don’t be fooled. The fact is the easy availability of semi automatic rifles and handguns make them the weapon of choice for mass murders at schools and malls and such. It’s crazy people with guns that are our biggest problem to solve. Denial doesn’t make it go away.

If some ones wants to kill they generally can find away to do so. The real issue is can they find a way to kill so many in so short of a time frame without the assault rifles and such. Going on line to find bomb recipes is one thing, making and deploying them is another. Ask yourself how many times bombs have been used to attack schools here in the US since 1930. Or knives for that matter. Lets focus on the problem not the myriad possibilities that could happen.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 20, 2012 2:56 PM
Comment #359211

j2, I’m not going to argue with you because it is futile. If we use your version we would have to eliminate the 2nd amendment and I doubt that will happen.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment #359212

j2t2 writes; “It’s crazy people with guns that are our biggest problem to solve. Denial doesn’t make it go away.”

Let’s take away the crazy people and leave law-abiding citizens their guns. I know, it’s much easier to take away the guns so that is the option some advocate.

We have laws that protect the crazy and a constitutional right that protects the citizen’s right to own weapons. I just don’t see one trumping the other. The left wishes to attack the gun owner. Where are their ideas about detecting and protecting us from the crazies?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2012 3:36 PM
Comment #359215

Royal, They have no ideas about the crazies. It’s like it’s always Bush’s fault, now it’s the guns fault.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #359217
j2, I’m not going to argue with you because it is futile. If we use your version we would have to eliminate the 2nd amendment and I doubt that will happen.

KAP you miss the point I am making. I am not in favor of eliminating the 2nd amendment. Using the “guns don’t kill people people,kill people” rational just doesn’t work, as I have been saying. To continue to use this because you believe the 2nd amendment will be eliminated does us all a disservice. We need to develop answers that will solve the problem but we have to identify the problem correctly first, don’t we.

Let’s take away the crazy people and leave law-abiding citizens their guns. I know, it’s much easier to take away the guns so that is the option some advocate.

I would prefer that approach as well Royal. The question is how to you identify and restrain the crazy guy in time to prevent these attacks? How do we keep from escalating the arms race we as Americans have been engaged in the past decade? Assault rifles and semi auto hand guns are the choice of the crazies, how do we stop them from using them? They have shown us they will kill to get them if they cannot obtain them legally.

What is the answer? Well for one more mental health help for those that suspect their children may be a future shooter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

For another perhaps we can look at measures that would make it harder for these guys to get these assault rifles so easily. Registering high volume clips/magazines? Tighten loopholes in gun show laws? Better means of gun storage?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 20, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #359218

j2, I have never seen a gun walk up to someone and shoot them, but I have seen people with a gun shoot someone. I do think we need sensible laws towards guns not emotional laws and that is what I’ve seen from the left bloggers.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #359219

How do we separate the crazies from guns?

Well, we could start by eliminating the gun show, private sale loophole. All gun sales should be conducted by licensed commercial dealers in order to assure proper compliance with background checks and waiting periods.

We could require all purchasers of guns to first obtain a license to own and possess a gun. In order to obtain a license, a person should be required to pass certain mental health screening testing, demonstrate proficient safety and operational practices and demonstrate adequate knowledge of gun laws. A renewal of the license within a reasonable period with a new background check could be required to determine if the person is still fit to possess a gun.

We could initiate a gun registry in order to properly trace firearms.

We could improve and increase funding for mental health intervention for persons exhibiting self destructive and aggressive tendencies. Today, there is little that can be done in a practical sense for persons who are not an immediate threat to themselves or others. There is no intermediate ground. We have strong mandatory intervention programs for alcoholism and drug abuse. But, not for mental health. Go figure! These shooters had problems that well known to family, school and others. But, nobody intervened with appropriate intervention. The families didn’t know what to do.

We could initiate a national awareness campaign, similar to the anti-smoking campaign, to educate and encourage not only effective gun safety practices but to provide information to families about mental health danger signs and intervention/treatment options.

We could intensify our policing of the black market in gun trafficking. The plea of responsible gun advocates to simply enforce current gun laws makes sense. It is not the mentally disturbed, it is also the sociopaths roaming our streets with high powered weapons. Somehow, we have gone from the odd homemade zip gun or old revolver to assault rifles in our inner communities.

We could encourage responsible hunters, competition shooters, collectors, etc. to step up to the plate and lead a discussion on responsible gun laws. Royal Flush, in an earlier post, said that he didn’t need a high capacity, quick change, magazine to pursue his sport of hunting. It is not needed for home self defense either. He was concerned about the “slippery slope” if he and others supported the types of assault weapons bans proposed or previously enacted. But that fear is clearly remote. There is the Constitution, after all.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #359220
j2, I have never seen a gun walk up to someone and shoot them, but I have seen people with a gun shoot someone.

KAP I have never seen a man without a gun walk up to someone and shoot them which leads me to believe it takes people and guns. Not just guns, not just people.


I do think we need sensible laws towards guns not emotional laws and that is what I’ve seen from the left bloggers.

Well then KAP what sensible laws seem to be kissing from the existing federal gun laws? Why not enlighten us emotional beings with this information. The discussion I have seen to date on this thread has been emotional on both sides IMHO. Suggesting a law curtailing assault rifles has some screaming about the loss of second amendment rights, isn’t that a bit emotional? Or that it is to complex so we are better off without it, that doesn’t seem logical to me, KAP.
Personally I don’t think a ban on assault rifles will work with someone that is intent on dying themselves as part of the process. Assault weapons have proliferated our society to a point we will not get rid of those that are out there. SO I believe we need to look at different approaches as well as keeping the weaponry out of the hands of the hands of the bad guys. But that costs money, are conservatives willing to go hat route?

Logical would be to De-escalate the arms war we seem to be having here in our Country. The thinking that tells us we need assault rifles because we have the 2nd amendment seems to me to be one of rights without responsibilities.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 20, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #359227

Rich, who is going to oversee the licensing and registration of all these guns and owners? The same people who bought guns with the tax payer’s money and gave them to the drug cartel in Mexico, which were later used to kill Americans? If the government can’t keep track of their own gun dealings, how do you expect them to keep track of millions of Americans?

Now this is a real “Go Figure” moment.

Posted by: george at December 20, 2012 9:24 PM
Comment #359228

j2 everytime there is a shooting there is an outcry of emotion to stricter gun laws and crys from left wingers to ban all kinds of guns. I agree that we need to look at different approaches to existing gun laws. Phsycological profiles would be a good start especially when a person is trying to by an AR-15 style weapon, longer wait periods to get more of a background check. finger printing and maybe an in home check to find out how the weapon will be stored. This may be a bit extreme but 20 kids killed is a bit extreme.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2012 9:31 PM
Comment #359229

George,

Well, I guess if we can’t trust our federal, state and local governments to properly manage licensing and registration of guns, then we are pretty much screwed. We all better just arm ourselves to the teeth because “they” certainly are. Its an arms race with no hope for disarmament.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 9:58 PM
Comment #359234

I know this might go against some conservative myths but it is worth reading as we search for answers to the ongoing school attacks this country has been subjected to the past 2 decades.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Posted by: j2t2 at December 21, 2012 2:13 AM
Comment #359238

Rich

I wonder if you would have the same blind trust of the federal gov’t if the republicans were in the driver seat.
Registry, and licensing will eventually lead to a ban followed by cofiscation. This is after all what the liberals ultimately want. It will start with all gas operated rifles with detachable magazines. Next it will be handguns, and so on.

I think Obama will have a problem getting his gun control agenda through congress. Unlike budget issues the gun control issue will not shut down the country, and there are democrats who will not go along with it.

Posted by: dbs at December 21, 2012 4:56 AM
Comment #359240

Royal Flush

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

Posted by: dbs at December 21, 2012 4:58 AM
Comment #359246
This may be a bit extreme but 20 kids killed is a bit extreme.None of the suggestions put forth would have done anything to prevent the death of those 20 kids…
I wonder if you would have the same blind trust of the federal gov’t if the republicans were in the driver seat.

Well, we know that one for a fact… As the election drew near, the Obama Administration looked to put down in law the limits that could be placed on the use of drones by a sitting president, fearing that Romney would get elected. Once he won the election, those plans were put on ‘hold’.

Basically, power is ok if WE use it but we have to put limits on it for when THEY have it.

Or, as is more succinct, HYPOCRITES.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2012 12:09 PM
Comment #359262

j2t2 asks; “I would prefer that approach as well Royal. The question is how to you identify and restrain the crazy guy in time to prevent these attacks?”

This is a quote from today’s Huffington Post.

“FBI Gun Background Check Database Missing Millions Of Records On Mentally Ill”

“Federal safeguards meant to keep guns out of the hands of potentially violent individuals have a huge shortcoming: the database used for background checks may be missing millions of records about people with mental illnesses who are forbidden to own firearms.”

“National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre on Friday called for the government to establish a registry of everyone in America with a mental illness.”

“Advocates for people with mental illnesses object to characterizations of such individuals as inherently dangerous and argue that broadening restrictions against gun ownership by including more people in the background check database encourages unfair stereotyping. Requiring people with mental illnesses to essentially register with the FBI could discourage them from seeking treatment, the National Alliance on Mental Illness contends.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/gun-mentally-ill_n_2346162.html

The article appears to place the blame on state governments who fail to submit records. As you read in the quote above, the NRA approves and the National Alliance on Mental Illness disagrees.

Surely, a national database would help, but is it unfair to folks with mental illness?

And yet, if it does in fact save future lives is it worth pursuing?

Many questions…few answers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #359265

Correction…”Many questions, some answers, no consensus.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2012 6:30 PM
Comment #359270

Rhinehold


“Well, we know that one for a fact… As the election drew near, the Obama Administration looked to put down in law the limits that could be placed on the use of drones by a sitting president, fearing that Romney would get elected. Once he won the election, those plans were put on ‘hold’.”

Wow it also sounds eerily similar to the democrats objections to the patriot act. That is until they were in control.

Posted by: dbs at December 21, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #359273

KAP

haven’t talked to you in awhile, but Merry Christmas to you and yours. Good luck digging out after Fridays storm. We only got about 6 inches down here in Logan county. LOL ! I imagine you guys in Cuyahoga got a bit more.

Posted by: dbs at December 21, 2012 9:21 PM
Comment #359274
“National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre on Friday called for the government to establish a registry of everyone in America with a mental illness.”

LaPierre’s speech was sad IMHO Royal. He wants to put the onus onto the government for this tragedy and the many others that have preceded it by pointing his authoritarian finger towards laws that govern thought. The thought police the NRA head wants to establish seems to me to be fraught with problems. He pointed many fingers but didn’t mention the ability of these crazies to kill so many so quick because of the weapons they can get with ease.

He seems to me to be shilling for the gun manufacturers whose best interest is served by convincing the average Joe he needs an arsenal to go target hunting. Does he get a commission off of each and every gun he helps sell? Police at every corner to protect ourselves and our children is his answer to the problem. I fear this poor response from the gun industry will only lead to more restrictive laws for all of us.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 21, 2012 9:32 PM
Comment #359275

dbs, Merry Christmas to you and yours. In my part of the county only got a couple inches, I live in a western side of the county, in Lakewood. Don’t really get the lake effect here.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #359277

It wouldn’t matter what Wayne LaPierre said in his speech; he would have been wrong. Wayne LaPierre dumped the problem right in the lap of the government, where it should be. I listened to his whole speech and he was dead on.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 22, 2012 12:00 AM
Comment #359285
It wouldn’t matter what Wayne LaPierre said in his speech; he would have been wrong.

Poor poor pitiful me, you guys pick on me, whaaa! Really NRA where is the individual responsibility hiding? He could have said something about the part guns play in the process of these killings, how easy they are to end up in the hands of the crazies. But he didn’t accept any responsibility but instead shilled for the gun manufacturers. He took the easy way out and scapegoated the government. Be honest guys, quit making excuses.


So NRA you seem to be saying guns don’t kill people government kills people, kinda avoiding the whole guns issue. How dishonest. LaPierre would rather develop a huge “thought police” bureaucracy and blame government for the actions of the individual.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2012 1:55 AM
Comment #359293

j2t2


“So NRA you seem to be saying guns don’t kill people government kills people,”


Actually gov’ts that confiscate guns kill people, and have killed far more than any mass murderer could ever dream of.

Funny how you guys on the left continually talk about hunting and target shooting, but forget the real purpose of the second amendment. To protect us from tyranny in gov’t. This is what justifies the civilian ownership of AR15s, AK47s and the like. Even if Obama was successful in banning them. Compliance would be almost non existant. Most people will not register or turn in their guns. Canada tried the registry and that is exactly what happened.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2012 8:26 AM
Comment #359294

NRAinstructor

Anything the NRA, or republicans say short of what the left wants will be wrong. Why we would waste our time or compromise our principles to appease these people. If republicans compromise principle and give the democrats what they want they will have givin up control of the house with out ever losing an election. If you are not going to win either way, then why compromise priciple.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2012 8:36 AM
Comment #359295

j2t2, the Syrian government has killed over 40k of their citizens. This is a drop in the bucket for the number of people who have been killed by governments in history. dbs is correct, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizenry to protect themselves from the government. The goal of the left is a complete ban on guns. The Democrats say “laws”, but they mean “bans”; we have laws and the laws are no enforced. George included a good link that shows he true mentality of he left’s beliefs of the 2nd Amendment:

“New York governor Andrew Cuomo says the state of New York is serious about gun confiscation. The Democrat and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told an Albany radio station he plans to propose a package of draconian legislation during his State of the State address next month…

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.”

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov-mandatory-gun-sale-to-state-and-confiscation-are-options/

The left says “Reasonable Laws”, but Cuomo’s comments are an example of the left’s reasonable laws.

Tell me j2t2, do you have a problem with providing armed security for school chldren? this is what banks have, politicians have, movie stars have, the president has, and even America has, in the form of the military. The whole argument of the NRA is to provide protection for children NOW. I don’t have a problem with that, however I believe the States will have to move forward with this because DC politicians can’t be trusted. The death of 26 people in CT is adventagous to the left’s call for gun control. Some states, like Texas, have already moved forward to provide armed protection. Bully for them. It’s a shame we have to do this, but this is the world we live in and there is evil in the world. The more evil the world becomes; the louder the cries from Democrats to do away with the2nd Amendment.

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 22, 2012 9:23 AM
Comment #359297

LaPierre would rather develop a huge “thought police” bureaucracy and blame government for the actions of the individual.
Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2012 1:55 AM

I really don’t know how you can use both crazies and guns to blame for needless death but choose to ignore the mentally ill. Didn’t you read the headline…

“FBI Gun Background Check Database Missing Millions Of Records On Mentally Ill”

As I wrote above…”Many questions, some answers, no consensus.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 22, 2012 4:31 PM
Comment #359300

“FBI Gun Background Check Database Missing Millions Of Records On Mentally Ill”

Royal Flush,

Of course there should be concern and attention to the problem of an inadequate data base. Virginia paid the price with the Virginia Tech massacre. The shooter had been adjudicated mentally ill, but the state did not forward the record to the data base and he was allowed to purchase the gun used in the massacre. Virginia is now very vigilant in providing the information.

However, in researching this issue, I was astounded to learn that state reporting to the data base is entirely voluntary due to a Supreme Court ruling in Printz vs. United States. Perhaps, new legislation addressing the Constitutional issues should be passed by Congress. Otherwise, there could be more incidents resulting from inadequate reporting.


Posted by: Rich at December 22, 2012 6:06 PM
Comment #359301

Thanks Rich…I too am astounded. Perhaps obama can use his bully pulpit to encourage the states to participate in reporting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 22, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #359305


In 2010 there were over 16 million “background checks” done by the FBI. Of those 16 million less than 1/2 of 1% were turned down for a gun.


I find that statistic startling.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 22, 2012 8:47 PM
Comment #359306

RF, why would Obama want to encourage states to report the mentally ill. The way things ar done now gives good fodder for gun control laws.

Posted by: Frank at December 22, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #359308

You know, Frank, your attitude is one of the reasons that this country is in gridlock. As much as “liberals” on this site try to explain that they agree that the issue is complex involving more than simple “gun control”, you insist that their recognition is nothing but a cover to take your guns away. Your paranoid fears of some liberal conspiracy to confiscate all guns in the US stands in the way of meaningful measures to prevent the tragedies we have experienced over the past year.

I have tried to point out that none other than Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Was he some wacky leftist?

Posted by: Rich at December 22, 2012 9:34 PM
Comment #359309

You see Rich, you say it is a complex problem and you say the left don’t want totke away guns; but I’m having a real problem with what you say.

In the above comment, we see Cuomo (Gov of NY) is calling for confication of all guns, and in a state that has some of the strictest gu laws in the country.

Or perhaps this article in Reuters:

“In a shocking article that seems to completely toss the Constitution out the window, Reuters announced President Obama’s official dictatorship in a story it published yesterday, “Even Without Congress, Obama Could Act to Restrict Guns.”

The subheading begins, “Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action…” Because he has won a second term, the story points out that, “Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights” and that he can, “press ahead without lawmakers” to pass executive orders restricting our 2nd Amendment rights.”


Then we have the mouthpiece for the democratic party, none other than the Rev. Jessie Jackson:

“Rev. Jesse Jackson Wants a Ban on All Guns Aside From ‘Bolt-Action Rifles, Shotguns & Revolvers”

Then we have the lefty fruit cake Ed. Shultz:

” Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”

“The Ed Show” host wasn’t done his attack on gun rights. “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he claimed. And after that, he told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.” That last bit is surely a surprise to both gun owners and Congress which didn’t include handguns in its previous assault weapons ban.

Ultimately, Schultz talked of changing the Constitution to one person on Twitter. “We are the Constitution and we as a people can change whatever we want. Get ready Dude !” he wrote.”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation#ixzz2FqboSuzq

And on and on; so tell me, what is the sand of the left?

Posted by: Frank at December 22, 2012 11:53 PM
Comment #359310

Rocky

“In 2010 there were over 16 million “background checks” done by the FBI. Of those 16 million less than 1/2 of 1% were turned down for a gun.


I find that statistic startling.”


Do you believe that more than 1/2 of 1% of all gun purchasers are mentally ill?

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2012 7:59 AM
Comment #359311


No, dbs, I find it startling that, with only less than 1/2 of 1% turned down for their guns we still have people like Frank still carrying on the fantasy that Obama has made it hard to purchase guns.

Were you aware that there were more licenced gun stores in this country than McDonald’s restaurants, or grocery stores?

Would you be surprised if there were nearly as many licenced gun dealers as gas stations in this country?

Will the right be satisfied when there is a gun dealer on every corner, across from the Church, and the liquor store?

Personally I don’t feel the need to carry a gun, and I don’t understand why others feel that need, but I don’t want to take the right of competent people to do so.

LaPierre has suggested that we put an armed guard in every school.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to put a psychiatrist in every gun store.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 9:16 AM
Comment #359312

Rocky

It appears that in many of these cases there were signs these people were not right in the head. I believe most schools already have counselors. There is IMO adequate opportunity for observation with in the schools. Teachers, students, can report bizzare, or unusual behavior. The key is that people speak up, and the information is shared with parents, and others who should be involved.

When the perp is someone outside the institution detection is more difficult. We allow people to carry concealed with training and a license. There is no reason these same people should be barred from carrying when they enter schools. This should include teachers who are also licensed CCW holders.

Making schools gun free zones only insures that nuts will go unchallenged when they enter. Schools can have a list of staff with permits. There is no reason the gun needs to be visible or any student or outsider know who is armed and who isn’t. In most cases uniformed armed gaurds would not be needed IMO.


Regarding the number dealers. There is no reason to worry about the number of licensed dealers so long as they are regulated and monitored by the ATF. Less dealers does not equal less sales. If someone wishes to purchase a gun they will find a seller.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2012 10:26 AM
Comment #359313

dbs,

“We allow people to carry concealed with training and a license.”

The States of Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont all allow “concealed carry” without a licence or even training.

In Arizona all you need is to be 21.

So much for competence.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 10:37 AM
Comment #359314

dbs,

“Teachers, students, can report bizzare, or unusual behavior. The key is that people speak up, and the information is shared with parents, and others who should be involved.”

In the cases of Virgina Tech and Sandy Hook, everybody knew these guys were nuts, yet nothing was done.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 11:03 AM
Comment #359315

Rocky

The bad guys are going to carry guns anyway. License or no license. I believe Arizona required no license for open carry before the license for concealed carry was eliminated. Is this correct? If so I don’t see any difference. Unless there is a rash of shootings by these individuals it really isn’t an issue. If there is then the policy needs to be re examined.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2012 11:06 AM
Comment #359316

Rocky

“In the cases of Virgina Tech and Sandy Hook, everybody knew these guys were nuts, yet nothing was done.”

This IMO is the root of the problem. Not the guns. Why have these incidents become more common in the last 30 years, yet guns were far easier to purchse prior to that ? What has happened to our society that has created this lack of respect for human life ?

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2012 11:14 AM
Comment #359317

dbs,

“I believe Arizona required no license for open carry before the license for concealed carry was eliminated. Is this correct?”

Actually, no it’s not correct. The law was changed in 2010, and Arizona is the only state with a large urban population to have such a law.

CCW permits are still available in Arizona for reciprocity with other states, and Arizona recognizes most of the other States CCW permits.

Arizona has had an “open carry” law since the days of the Old West.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 11:23 AM
Comment #359319

BTW,

Don’t take this personally, but for the last few decades the right has been deriding teachers as incompetent nincompoops, and now they want them to carry guns.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 12:07 PM
Comment #359320
2t2, the Syrian government has killed over 40k of their citizens. This is a drop in the bucket for the number of people who have been killed by governments in history.

This proves nothing NRA. Taking the cheap shot of blaming the government is asking for much more stringent laws, both from the thought police and the anti gun people. They would be right to do so as the NRA has ran and hide from one of the problems, the easy access to high volume clips and weapons Americans have. Not just the crazies but all of us, if we look beyond the school shootings.

LaPierre has let us down when be doubled down on the NRA position of “more hair of the dog that bite you” as being the answer. It is time for the NRA to do more than train armed security guards to put in schools as that hasn’t proven effective at Columbine and other places. LaPierre has a point to say we must do something about the mentally ill but it must be more than just not allowing them to but weapons as they get weapons as this latest shooter did, by killing and stealing them.

I am considering two routes right now, Licensing as we do drivers and vehicles and/or a weapon is automatic enrollment into the National Guard/Militia for all Americans. Local training and certification by the Militia prior to owning assault weapons and high volume clips and well as semi auto handguns and assault pistols. Storage of high volume clips in the local armory, weeding out of those that are not be mentally able to be trusted with assault weapons, are some of the pluses to these approaches, IMHO.

Tell me j2t2, do you have a problem with providing armed security for school chldren? this is what banks have, politicians have, movie stars have, the president has, and even America has, in the form of the military. The whole argument of the NRA is to provide protection for children NOW.

As a last resort or maybe short term, as I think it is a band aid and didn’t prove successful at columbine. I would prefer to provide the country with a construction stimulus by hardening the schools with bullet resistant glass and the other security measures I have mentioned before in this thread. These measures are also employed to protect the president, banks, politicians and the military as well, not that protection of the children in public schools is a comparable issue to protection of these other entities.

The NRA is short sighted as you note in that they are suggesting a short term partial solution to the problem, I will agree. We need to employ more than one approach, both short and long term solutions, and must fund the solutions as well.

I am just disappointed that the NRA didn’t accept responsibility for reviewing the current gun laws and providing solutions in the arena they have the most experience in, but instead chose to point fingers elsewhere. Such a sad day for those that use firearms legally IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 23, 2012 12:30 PM
Comment #359321

Rocky

I don’t think it’s the teachers. It’s the unions representing them that protect the subpar teachers in the name of maintaining their membership rolls. This subject is entirely different issue so I’ll leave it that.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2012 12:59 PM
Comment #359322

dbs,

“It’s the unions representing them that protect the subpar teachers…”

So do you really want to give a sub-par teacher a gun?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 1:42 PM
Comment #359323
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

J.D. Tuccille, Managing Editor of 24/7 News, says he doubts he ever would have gone to the black market to purchase an illegal assault weapon if it wasn’t for New York’s annoyingly restrictive gun control laws. Like millions of people around the world, when faced with barriers to the lawful access of a firearm, he acquired one unlawfully rather than acquiesce. Historically, given a choice between complying with restrictions on firearms ownership and defying the law, a clear majority of people in most jurisdictions have chosen rebellion. The tighter the law, the more obvious the rebellion, to the point that the vast majority of firearms in civilian hands in Europe are owned outside the law.

So, just like the moronic drug laws, we will see more and more people who have done nothing wrong being put into jail…

“we have to take your rights to protect your rights”, the lunacy of the left.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2012 2:58 PM
Comment #359324

Rhienhold,

“So, just like the moronic drug laws, we will see more and more people who have done nothing wrong being put into jail…”

So we are now comparing gun ownershhip to drug addiction.

That has to be the lamest excuse ever.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 3:28 PM
Comment #359344

“Perhaps it would be cheaper to put a psychiatrist in every gun store.”

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 9:16 AM

Rocky is assuming it the criminal who is buying guns at the gun stores.

Comments by j2t2:

“This proves nothing NRA. Taking the cheap shot of blaming the government is asking for much more stringent laws, both from the thought police and the anti gun people.”

Please show me in the Constitution where it was the desire of the founding fathers to create a government that’s goal was to put more stringent laws on the American people?

“I am considering two routes right now, Licensing as we do drivers and vehicles and/or a weapon is automatic enrollment into the National Guard/Militia for all Americans. Local training and certification by the Militia prior to owning assault weapons and high volume clips and well as semi auto handguns and assault pistols. Storage of high volume clips in the local armory, weeding out of those that are not be mentally able to be trusted with assault weapons, are some of the pluses to these approaches, IMHO.”

And just how much support will you get for this idea in the Congress?

“As a last resort or maybe short term, as I think it is a band aid and didn’t prove successful at columbine.”

You just lied j2t2.

“So we are now comparing gun ownershhip to drug addiction.
That has to be the lamest excuse ever.
Rocky”

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2012 3:28 PM

How did prohibition work out for the county?

Posted by: NRAinstructor at December 23, 2012 10:14 PM
Comment #359348
So we are now comparing gun ownershhip to drug addiction.

Can you point out where I compared ANYTHING or even mentioned ‘drug addiction’?

figure out what is being talked about before making ‘lame deflections’.

BTW, some facts for you…

* 99.9% of all guns in America are not used in violent crimes

* 99.8% of all guns are not used in crime at all

* Guns are used 4 times as often in self defense as in crime and 98% of the time, it is not even fired

* Only 1% of the time when a gun is being used in defense does the criminal take the gun from the defender

* After guns were banned in the UK and Australia, the armed robbery rate spiked over 40% in the UK and 44% in Australia. Now, in Britain most robberies happen when people are home (50% vs America’s 30%)

* Only 4% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 12:52 AM
Comment #359369
Please show me in the Constitution where it was the desire of the founding fathers to create a government that’s goal was to put more stringent laws on the American people?

Article 1 of the constitution, NRA. If they thought the constitution was enough to run the country why would a legislative body be needed.

You make it sound as if it were the desire of the founding fathers to have our children attacked and killed in school by anyone with the firepower to do do. You guys on the right seem to leave responsibility out of the equation when you talk about rights.

But you side step the issue NRA when you divert attention with these old talking points. The issue here is why did the NRA make it necessary for the government to have to step in to deal with the arms race we Americans have got ourselves into. LaPierre had the chance to lead the way in correcting any gun laws to make it much harder for crazies to get their hands on assault weapons. He didn’t, putting those laws up for debate by all of us. The experts punted, to busy shilling for the gun manufacturers to try to solve the problem they have the expertise in.

You just lied j2t2.

How so NRA?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 24, 2012 9:23 AM
Comment #359370

Rhinehold,

”* 99.8% of all guns are not used in crime at all”

The fact that yer boy in the link bought a gun illegally and therefore technically used a gun in the commission of a crime sort of skews your statistics.

You are the one that brought up the drug laws. (Honest officer, just one more and I will go into rehab)

And, oh BTW, there are people all over this country that are actually fighting, and winning, to overturn the “moronic drug laws”.
We have been provided a means of overturning laws, be it through the ballot box or through the courts.
The author of the 6 page tome you linked to seems more interested in whining about the laws than changing them. It is his choice to live in New York. That he is able to write the article without fear of persecution is where his comparisons to Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union ends.


NRAinstructor,

“Rocky is assuming it the criminal who is buying guns at the gun stores.”

Do only criminals seek out psychiatrists?

Do you understand the meaning of the word sarchasm? (It is the crevasse between the person that is being sarcastic and the person that didn’t get it.)

I assume nothing.

The irony of this topic is overwhelming. For years the right has bitched and moaned about the attempts of “liberals” to pass laws that would “save the children”, and now there is a knee jerk reaction from the right to arm teachers (probably one of the most hated unions in the country) and principals in every school in the country because of an incident that, while horrifying, is a statistical anomaly.

There are nearly as many registered gun dealers in this country than there are public schools. That is a fact.

“How did prohibition work out for the county?”

The law was changed by the means I pointed out to Rhinehold above.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 9:56 AM
Comment #359371

j2t2

“If they thought the constitution was enough to run the country why would a legislative body be needed.”

The constitution was put in place to limit the power of gov’t. It is a line in the sand the founders believed gov’t should not cross.

“You make it sound as if it were the desire of the founding fathers to have our children attacked and killed in school by anyone with the firepower to do do.”

You again don’t seem to understand the actual purpose of the second amendment.

“You guys on the right seem to leave responsibility out of the equation when you talk about rights.”

Giving up rights to gain safety ? Is that your definition of responsibility ?

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin


Posted by: dbs at December 24, 2012 10:06 AM
Comment #359373

dbs,

“You again don’t seem to understand the actual purpose of the second amendment.

This is the ratified text of the 2nd Ammendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Are you a member of a “well regulated militia”>/strong?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 10:28 AM
Comment #359378
You are the one that brought up the drug laws. (Honest officer, just one more and I will go into rehab)

Drug Laws != Drug addiction… If you want to try to make a point, try to at least use language that helps make that point clear.

Now, was I comparing drug laws with gun laws? YES. Is that ‘lame’? Definately not. Well, not if you understand the difference between defending individual rights and supporting a complete lack of them.

And, oh BTW, there are people all over this country that are actually fighting, and winning, to overturn the “moronic drug laws”.

Yes, I know, I am one of them. As I am for overturning moronic GUN laws.

We have been provided a means of overturning laws, be it through the ballot box or through the courts. The author of the 6 page tome you linked to seems more interested in whining about the laws than changing them.

Wow, do you even realize who that ‘author of the 6 page tome’ is? He’s the MANAGING EDITOR of Reason Magazine and has been working (at much less than he could make in the ‘real world) for many years trying to bring reason to the political debate in this country…

It is his choice to live in New York. That he is able to write the article without fear of persecution is where his comparisons to Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union ends.

LOL, so, basically, if you don’t like it, get the fuck out? That’s usually what the left has to deal with when the right starts talking about laws they don’t like… I see that you agree it is a viable tactic. BTW, he did ‘get the fuck out’ as he lives in Arizona now…

“How did prohibition work out for the county?”

The law was changed by the means I pointed out to Rhinehold above.

Rocky

After thousands of people died, organized crime was able to take root and remain in effect long after, more in lost revenue, the ruining of individual’s lives, the overall effect it had on helping create the great depression issues, etc.

Oh, and the only reason it was possible to have prohibition (the actual details of which most people don’t even understand since we don’t actually teach people anything these days) was to amend the constitution beforehand.

Something we don’t seem to need to do these days, when talking about gun laws or drug laws (or search and seizure, free speech, etc).

Apparently, all we need to do now is just ignore the part of the constitution we don’t like. When did this change exactly?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rocky, I’m not sure where you learned english, but it must have been a public school…

The qualifier that you want to latch on to as having some meaning has none. Let me rephrase the sentence in modern english since you don’t seem to get the language of the time.

“Because we need to make sure our citizens are ready at a moment’s notice to defend the country against those that would harm it (external and internal), no law will be allowed to limit the ability of any citizen from owning a gun”.

Now, a little further understanding of the constitution and how it (used) to work. The ‘rights’ in the bill of rights existed even without the bill of rights. Along with many other rights. Because (again something that isn’t taught anymore) the constitution was NEVER a list of rights that the citizens had, it was a list of LIMITS placed on the federal government. That was the purpose behind the 9th and 10th amendments, to ensure that even if some morons later on (yes, you) start thinking that the only rights that people had were the ones that were enumerated in the constitution, they would be stopped in their tracks.

Unfortunately, they didn’t count on people being SO dense that they would just pretend the 9th and 10th amendments didn’t exist and therefore make the constitution be the exact opposite of what it was intended…

You see, the right to ‘bear arms’ exists without a 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment were to disappear from the constitution today, the way the constitution was written (not how it is being ‘reinterpreted’) the right to own guns STILL EXISTS. Since there is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the right to limit gun ownership, it doesn’t have that power.

Unless, as we did with prohibition, we amend the constitution to give them that power.

So, you can take your ‘snark’ somewhere else where people are less understanding of the constitution, law and logic… Maybe you should go back to posting on moveon.org?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #359380

Rhinehold,

“Maybe you should go back to posting on moveon.org?”

Perhaps if I had ever actually posted at “moveon.org” I suppose you might have a point.

“Wow, do you even realize who that ‘author of the 6 page tome’ is? He’s the MANAGING EDITOR of Reason Magazine and has been working (at much less than he could make in the ‘real world) for many years trying to bring reason to the political debate in this country…”

I had never heard of “Reason” magazine before your link. I did read the complete text you provided and nowhere in the article did the author mention that he was actually fighting for his right to buy a certain type of gun in New York, nor did he mention that he had moved to Arizona, where there are probably more guns than people.

You see I actually live in Arizona, and I own a gun as well, and I went through the process of buying it legally.

“Since there is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the right to limit gun ownership, it doesn’t have that power.”

So then we should allow convicted felons and the mentally disturbed to buy all the guns they want because, oh BTW, that isn’t in the “Bill Of Rights” either?

Since you seem to love statistics so much here is one published by the Guardian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

“The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - there are 89 guns for every 100 Americans, compared to 6 in England and Wales.

And the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.”

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 12:11 PM
Comment #359386

Rocky,

I had never heard of “Reason” magazine before your link. I did read the complete text you provided and nowhere in the article did the author mention that he was actually fighting for his right to buy a certain type of gun in New York

So, without doing ANY research or even looking at a wikipedia article on the news magazine reason, you just made a whole bunch of assumptions and then acted as if you knew what as going on?

Yep, I can tell you are progressive…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_magazine

Violent crime skyrocketed in England after their gun bans went into effect. And yes, they are less REGISTERED LEGAL guns than the US. Criminals know that English citizens are unarmed and as a result, it is one of the most dangerous countries to live in re: violent crime.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was “rocketing.” In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to “walk on by” and let the professionals handle it.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Yes, less people die because a) most deaths by guns in the US are because of the illegal drug war’s prohibition and b) there is no way to defend against violent in the UK. As a result, less people die because of ‘guns’ in the UK, but far more people are robbed, physically attacked, raped and have their homes invaded…

If we were to eliminate the need for criminals to use guns to run drugs and fight for territory control due to drugs in the US, the gun death rates would be less than that of England AND our other violent crimes would be less too…

But, that is of no consequence to the anti-gun people, is it? I’ve had arguments with people in England in 2000 that I worked with because they said no one should have a gun ever. I said ‘what if 5 thugs show up to your house and demand to come in and just start taking things and otherwise just take over the place’, their response was ‘well, you let them’.

If there is a difference in mindset between England and the US, is that we actually care about our personal safety and feel responsible for taking care of it ourselves. Is that what you want to change, really?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #359389

Rhinehold,

“But, that is of no consequence to the anti-gun people, is it?”

But I am not anti-gun and I never have been. I don’t want to take your guns from you though I would like to have a reasonable conversation with people that aren’t so soaked in the hyperbole.

“So, without doing ANY research or even looking at a wikipedia article on the news magazine reason, you just made a whole bunch of assumptions and then acted as if you knew what as going on?”

Sorry I didn’t know I needed to do any research to understand that he was whining about a law that has been on the books in NY since 1911. I don’t think I am going out on a limb here to say that I would bet that 75-80% of NY residents don’t know or don’t care about the law either.

“Yep, I can tell you are progressive…”

Whatever… Oh, and there’s no snark in your posts either.

Have a day.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 1:54 PM
Comment #359391
Sorry I didn’t know I needed to do any research to understand that he was whining about a law that has been on the books in NY since 1911.

You kinda do if you are going to say that the writer has not been trying to change the law, just whining about it.

Oh, and there’s no snark in your posts either.

My ‘snark’ is indeed there, but it is backed up with facts and logic.

Here’s the problem, Rocky. You say you just want to have a ‘reasonable’ discussion about guns. Ok, but you can’t DO that unless you are willing to accept the facts about guns, the reason we have guns and try to actually understand the laws surrounding the issue.

You display ignorance of the Constitution, why people have guns in the first place and the great benefit that guns have on a society.

I am one of the few libertarians that sees no problem with granting a license to carry a gun after you have passed a ‘gun’ test, being able to show that you can responsibly use the gun. If we did that and did not discriminate against who could or couldn’t carry guns then I would be just fine with that. However, the way it is set up now it is all politics, police departments get to determine who can and can’t carry a gun, in direct violation of the constitution. They can say no one can have a gun even though there is a gun carry law on the books that allows it, because most of them rely upon the police to determine ‘who can and can’t’ carry a gun. Get someone who feels that guns are ‘bad’ and they can put a pocket gun ban in place. I’ve seen this happen in several areas.

I’ve posted overwhelming evidence of the GOOD that guns do, the bad that not having them in the population do and why they are integral in protecting the lives of millions of Americans every year. So, if you are going try to come off as someone who is ‘just wanting to have a discussion’, at least try to cater to both sides and accept the facts as they are… Otherwise, you come of as something you pretend not to be.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment #359392

Rhinehold,

“You display ignorance of the Constitution, why people have guns in the first place and the great benefit that guns have on a society.”

I do understand that there is a great amount of misinformation on the Internet, and that most of what is posted is mere speculation. I do question what benefit owning what could be considered other than personal firearms.
And saying “because we can” seems just ignorant. You want to protect you and yours, I get that, but you don’t need a howitzer, or a “RPG”, or a .50 caliber machine gun to protect your family.

Let me back up and change the subject for a minute.

I work at a factory construction site. One stupid mistake by myself or one of my co-workers could kill dozens, perhaps scores of people both at the construction site and in the surrounding area. I have, in the past, used recreational drugs, but I have been clean for quite a while.
I don’t want to work beside anyone that comes to work stoned, drunk or whatever. I am not against drugs when used by “responsible” adults in a controlled setting per se, but you can see that, under the circumstances, I would have to report anyone I knew that was high on the job site.
It would be irresponsible not to do so. Whether we like it or not, there has to be some laws governing drugs.

Back to guns. I am all for competent, responsible, adults owning guns, however there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I have known people that I would consider to be “gun addicts”. With these people it was an obsession to own every gun possible, whether it was responsible to own them or not.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #359393

Rocky

“I have known people that I would consider to be “gun addicts”. With these people it was an obsession to own every gun possible, whether it was responsible to own them or not.”

So long as they are not misusing them it shouldn’t be an issue, or anyones elses business for that matter.

Posted by: dbs at December 24, 2012 4:09 PM
Comment #359394
you don’t need a howitzer, or a “RPG”, or a .50 caliber machine gun to protect your family.

No one is trying to make those ‘legal’, even though some of them are for collecting. I know people who own cannons, yet they pose no danger because they are owned by responsible people.

And as I pointed out, 99.8% of all guns are owned and maintained responsibly, involved in no crimes. How much better do you think we can do without becomming authoritarian?

We even know that had the lapsed federal gun laws been in place, it would not have affected the guns used by the CT killer…

It would be irresponsible not to do so. Whether we like it or not, there has to be some laws governing drugs.

? No one is suggesting there being no laws… What is being suggested is that the government has no constitutional authority to regulate or outlaw at home recreational use of drugs.

Remember this and see if it fits in with that. “People should be free to live their lives as they choose unless they are infringing upon the rights of others to the same”.

If we follow that original intent of this country (as well defined by Jefferson and Madison in their writings) then the Constitution makes much more sense and we actually have a free society.

We currently limit when people can consume alcohol, they have to be a certain age, they can’t drive a car (or operate any heavy machinery) under the influence, etc. Alcohol is legal, yet if someone from your job site was operating machinery ‘under the influence’, would that be ok? Of course not, but we don’t make it illegal for those people to use at home, do we? You would report anyone who was drunk, right?

So, I don’t see why you are trying to deflect the point, no one is suggesting anything you are talking about.

I am all for competent, responsible, adults owning guns, however there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

It’s simple, as long as you are responsibly and competently owning a gun, no one should be able to tell you anything about it. The minute you endanger others with your gun use, you are violating their rights and should be jailed. Anything else is just not a free society. Having a high volume clip is not dangerous. Pointing your gun at another IS.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 4:22 PM
Comment #359395

So here’s a question. My wife is currently a chemotherapy patient. Marijuana is known to have a positive effect on dealing with the nausea and hunger issues associated with the chemo as well as be an effect pain management drug. However, it is currently illegal, both in my state and at the federal level, to use that drug.

So… should I allow her to suffer while going through this horrible time or should I allow her to break the law and get some Marijuana to ease her suffering, knowing that as a result we could be raided with a full SWAT team, our dogs killed and be hauled off to jail?

And before you suggest that won’t happen, I have a mountain of evidence and video showing that very thing happening.

What do you think I should do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ

http://reason.com/reasontv/2011/06/16/swat-no-knock-raid-lindy

Consider only the most recent raid to cause a national outrage: On May 5, 2011, 26-year-old Jose Guerena, who survived two tours in the Iraq War, was shot and killed during a raid on his house by a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team that fired dozens of bullets through his front door. Guerena, married and a father of two, had just finished a 12-hour shift at a local mine. Law enforcement sources claim he was involved in narco-trafficking but have yet to produce any evidence supporting that claim. Officers involved in the death have been cleared of wrongdoing.

Guerena’s death is not an isolated incident. As USA Today reports, an astonishing 70,000 to 80,000 militarized police raids take place on a annual basis in America, many of them on mistaken suspects and many of them ending with injury or death for police and citizens alike.

As Reason Contributing Editor Radley Balko and others have documented, the militarization of standard police practice is a direct consequence of the modern-day War on Drugs, started 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon - and perpetuated by every administration since. (For a comprehensive report on the failure of the drug war to achieve any of its stated goals, read “Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred,” by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.)

You want to end ‘gun violence’? Start here, with the police…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 4:36 PM
Comment #359396

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAuO0tYJGE

71 shots, 22 hits, over 70 exit wounds, no medical treatment.

No evidence of any drugs was found, a bag of marijuana was found in a storage locker. Some of his family were beleived to be part of a ‘drug ring’, but no evidence other than an ‘informant’ that Jose had anything to do with any of that.

And they were using HOLLOW POINT ROUNDS. Why the FUCK are the police using hollow point rounds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Maybe, just maybe, we have gone a LITTLE overboard on this ‘war on drugs’, creating a militarized police force and dangerous environment that allows deaths like this to happen?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #359397

Home of the free, my ass.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 24, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #359398

Rhinehold,

“…yet if someone from your job site was operating machinery ‘under the influence’, would that be ok?”

I’m not even talking about machinery. I am working at a new Intel microchip factory. We have been told to consider it a chemical plant.
A dropped hand tool in the wrong place could do catastrophic damage.

“Marijuana is known to have a positive effect on dealing with the nausea and hunger issues associated with the chemo as well as be an effect pain management drug.”

I have a friend with HIV. He lives in San Francisco where they at least have an enlightened attitude about such things. He takes the “cocktail” and uses pot to fight the same symptoms. I have sympathy for your collective suffering.

There was a time in the ’60s when we believed America was actually on a road to enlightenment.

We got lost somewhere along the way.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #359399

dbs,

“So long as they are not misusing them it shouldn’t be an issue, or anyones elses business for that matter.”

I my life I have always assumed that nobody else will be responsible.

It may sound cynical, but it has worked for me

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 24, 2012 5:29 PM
Comment #359418

Giocattoli in commercio fatti per citarne alcuni si abercrombie milano as presentano sotto forma di topi più tipicamente di giocattoli, palline di plastica, novità e sito abercrombie milano so alcuni possono includere erba gatta, una pianta nota per avere un effetto http://www.abercrombiemilanora.eu/c_uomo-largepolos.html temporaneo sul comportamento dei gatti, che li rende più eccitato, più vocale, ecc Molto gattini giovani non sarà effettuato Abercrombie Paris was da esso e si dovrebbe evitare di giochi per gatti contengono catnip se il vostro gatto si sviluppa un comportamento aggressivo dopo essere stato esposto ad esso. Verificare che i giocattoli che si acquistano sono abbastanza forti e non hanno piccole parti che potrebbero staccarsi e può essere ingerito.

Posted by: qiuhong at December 25, 2012 3:29 AM
Comment #359424

Rocky

“I my life I have always assumed that nobody else will be responsible.”

That’s actually a good personal philosphy, just not a good one for governing in a country that is based on individual liberty. I don’t believe those who govern will always act responsibly, and niether did the framers. That is why we have a constitution.

Posted by: dbs at December 25, 2012 9:08 AM
Comment #359425

dbs,

“…just not a good one for governing in a country that is based on individual liberty.”

At the end of the day though we are all our brother’s keeper or we’re not.

“I don’t believe those who govern will always act responsibly, and niether did the framers.”

The framers put down what they thought would work based on what came before them. Perhaps they saw a nation that spanned coast to coast, though they didn’t know just how much land mass was here. Perhaps they foresaw a country that had 300 million people, though there were probably less than 4 million “American citizens” when the Constitution was ratified.
I will give you that the framers were bright, earnest men that wanted to do the best they could for a young country that surely would become a power on the planet. They allowed for the citizens to be the government, but only allowed “white, male, landowners” the right to vote for the government. Blacks got the vote before women did.

My point is that the framers were no more perfect than the rest of us.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 25, 2012 10:30 AM
Comment #359434
Maybe, just maybe, we have gone a LITTLE overboard on this ‘war on drugs’, creating a militarized police force and dangerous environment that allows deaths like this to happen?

Maybe just a little! The police have escalated the arms war as much as the drug gangs have Rhinehold. Now we want to put them in the schools or if not them their under trained counterparts in the security industry as a solution to the crazies attacking the schools and malls of this country. Just think of the body count then. Hollow points for a raid on a home shows the level of fear the police have when then raid the drug dealers and/or their neighbors.


I’ve posted overwhelming evidence of the GOOD that guns do, the bad that not having them in the population do and why they are integral in protecting the lives of millions of Americans every year.

It’s kinda funny how guns do good but according to conservatives people do bad not the guns themselves. I have to wonder Rhinehold in all your figures have you deciphered how many times the good gun that saved a life or a person from a crime upon their person was an assault weapon with a high volume clip?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 25, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #359437

Rhinehold, You have been giving us statistics yet one has tro wonder how accurate they are if we cannot get all the information.

“Yet we seem to turn a blind eye to guns that can fire more than 10 rounds in an instant. The NRA has lobbied so well that one of its key mouthpieces, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) passed a series of legislative amendments to various bills (“pork”) that prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), from even releasing the statistics it tracks on gun violence using high-round weapons.[4]”

http://truth-2-power.com/2012/12/26/in-guns-we-trust/

Posted by: j2t2 at December 26, 2012 12:39 PM
Post a comment