Third Party & Independents Archives

One More Time

Another mass killing at an education facility. This time in Oregon in a real rural setting, 65 miles to the nearest hospital, and so on - - -

Folks are trotting out the same old culprits; too many guns, lack of enforcement, need for tougher laws, etc.

Let's get right to the source of the problem, Corpocracy. The NRA could be the poster boy for Corpocracy.

Like immigration, border control, drugs and gangs, the culprit is embedded Corpocracy. The money is just too good for business to give up. Their interests are great, MONEY.

Immigration lowers wages for business, and keeps them low with recurring immigration. Drug money gets cycled thru the banks, bars, hospitals and a host of businesses that feed off the drug trade.

The moonshine business was rolled up to create the huge spirits industries and consumption outlets we have today, with all paying taxes. But, you can't do that with heroin or similar as the public, at this time, won't stand for gov't sanctioning of heroin.

I pin these problems on Corpocracy and that is correct in that it is gov't responsibility to regulate/control all this grey area crap.

But, the real problem lies with the citizens of this country. Since the Founding citizens have taken a hands off approach to gov't. Most expect gov't to do the right thing or protect their interest. Unfortunately, over time the system has been taken captive by Corpocracy and it won't be easy to kill off. It took a hundred years for citizens to get sufficiently upset over the mafia to clamp it down or clean it up a la vegas, and so on - - -

Look at the city of Miami, built with drug money. Not easy to stop such good business. Compare the number of deaths between terrorism and gang killings. Must be like 100 - 1 or close. Think of Mexico, all of central and south America, maybe a hundred thousand killings over the years. And, all to provide the juice for American party goers? No, all to keep the Corpocracy well lubricated.

Put all of these killings and destruction of families, communities into perspective and try to explain why citizens set on their hands and watch it on tv, and so on - - -

Some gun stores in Va. advertise that a background investigation is not required to purchase in their store. No enforcement is compliance - with Corpocracy, IMO.

Will take a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att to get any significant reform.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve - - -

Posted by Roy Ellis at October 2, 2015 9:32 PM
Comments
Comment #399088

Roy,
While I see your point about the effect of corporatism, personified by the NRA, the ultimate blame falls upon those who support gun ownership. It is a failure in moral development among those supporters. And really, it is that simple.

There could be exceptions for self-defense in a case of demonstrable and for hunting, of course, but in most cases, there really is no justification. This is a moral failure. We have failed as a country before. This is another example, and the failure has terrible repercussions.

Posted by: phx8 at October 3, 2015 12:04 PM
Comment #399090

“…the ultimate blame falls upon those who support gun ownership.”

Attacking our Constitutional rights is common among the lefties.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #399091

The Constitution does not excuse a person from behaving like a decent human being with a moral compass. A conservative can advocate for making weapons available to maniacs who are intent on committing mass murder, and even justify the murder of innocents as a constitutional right, but a morally decent person would advocate for using the constitutional amendment process to make changes.

Curious sense of right and wrong among Christians. Pope Francis sounded like the first decent Christian leader I’ve heard in a long time, but lest we need a reminder, the United States is not inhabited by the same kind of people as him. The version of Christianity in the United States is VERY different- quick to justify violence and the weapons of violence, and hatefully judgmental.

Posted by: phx8 at October 3, 2015 3:11 PM
Comment #399094

” A conservative can advocate for making weapons available to maniacs who are intent on committing mass murder, and even justify the murder of innocents as a constitutional right…”

Only a disgusting and disturbed mind would write such trash. We sure don’t need an atheist preaching morality to us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #399100

Royal Flush,

So what is the correct position? Should we pretend that the current status quo effectively keeps guns away maniacs? Should we shrug and say “stuff happens” as JEB did? Are we bound so much to words written 224 years ago that we are powerless to prevent the murder of innocents?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 4:59 PM
Comment #399101

Warren, Please tell us how you would prevent a person hell bent on killing by whatever means doing just that? Are you going to ban Knives, ball bats, tire irons, cars, planes, and an endless supply of items that can be used to kill?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #399102

I can partially agree with JEB. “Stuff happens” and there is no way to prevent it all without severing restricting liberty. That said, knives and other weapons operate in a manner very different than firearms. The wielder of a knife is more easily neutralized by unarmed bystanders than the wielder of a semiautomatic firearm with a high capacity magazine. What I said about knives also goes for non-automatic firearms with only a few rounds per clip. Scarcely any legitimate use of a gun requires anything more than that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 5:23 PM
Comment #399103

Are we bound so much to words written 224 years ago that we are powerless to prevent the murder of innocents?
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 4:59 PM

So sad, blame the gun, not the murderer. What other Constitutional rights should we forfeit?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 5:32 PM
Comment #399104

Warren, why is the murder rate so high in cities that have very strict gun laws?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #399105

Warren, suppose we ban all guns as we have illicit drugs. Would that stop guns from getting into the hands of maniacs and murderers? Please tell me how law abiding citizens would protect themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #399107
Please tell me how law abiding citizens would protect themselves.

With guns that aren’t semiautomatics that take clips with only 6 or 8 rounds.

We’ll never stop guns from landing in the hands of the malevolent. We can however limit the capabilities of the guns that do.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 8:48 PM
Comment #399108

How are you going to do that Warren since, as you call them, malevolent, do not care about the law and the limits that are put on them? They will get whatever they want and could care less about YOU! The only thing that what you propose to do is limit LAW ADIDING CITIZENS. Warren, CRIMINALS DON’T CARE ABOUT THE LAW, try to understand that.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #399110

Despite not caring about the law, criminals have not yet been able to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the fact that it is illegal for civilians to posses such devices contributes to this?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 9:46 PM
Comment #399112

Don’t bet on that Warren. It’s illegal for felons to own guns but I bet a lot of them possess one. It wouldn’t surprise me some radical nut case smuggles one in through our Southern border.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 9:59 PM
Comment #399114
It wouldn’t surprise me some radical nut case smuggles one in through our Southern border.

Obviously, you’ve watched too many conservative news reports overstating the porosity of the border. Smuggling anything across the border requires a level of sophistication out of reach of any lone nutcase. People and drugs flow across the border as a result of an organized conspiracy between thousands of people.

It’s illegal for felons to own guns but I bet a lot of them possess one
Probably because it is legal for non-felons to own a gun, thereby giving felons ready access to a marketplace of legal firearms. Conversely, it is illegal for anyone to own a nuclear weapon. There is no legal marketplace that a straw buyer can go to in order to convert a weapon from legal to illegal. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 11:11 PM
Comment #399116

Warren, OVERSTATING the porosity of our Southern Border?? You got to be kidding? 12 million illegals will tell you different and the drugs some of them came over with SOPHISTICATION LOLOLOL. Go back to your cartoons Warren. I used to think you were an intelligent person, not no more!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 11:47 PM
Comment #399119

From the Onion:

ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in southwestern Oregon in which a lone attacker killed nine individuals and seriously injured seven others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

The really awful thing is that The Onion prints the exact same article each time a massacre happens, changing only the location and the number of people murdered. The rest of the article stays exactly the same.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2015 12:41 AM
Comment #399120

And RF, calling someone names and hiding behind the Constitution does not excuse a person from their own moral culpability. Each of us is responsible for pursuing our own moral development- and that development includes rejecting violence and the weapons of violence, especially ones that serve no other purpose than to kill a lot of human beings in as short a time as possible.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2015 12:45 AM
Comment #399121

“Despite not caring about the law, criminals have not yet been able to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the fact that it is illegal for civilians to posses such devices contributes to this?”

Huh ?

It would appear our friends on the left have forgotten the reason the constitution protects our inalienable right to bear arms. So let me remind them. It is a last defense against tyranny in gov’t. An unarmed populace is helpless to stop gov’t officials from stripping them of their rights. So….no..we won’t register them or turn them in. How about you come and try to take them ?

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 7:42 AM
Comment #399122

dbs,

Maybe so. But it means that massacres are the inevitable price we pay in order to enjoy our freedoms. Let’s at least stop pretending that there isn’t a relationship between our gun culture and our high level of gun violence.

I would respect the Right 10x more if they at least had the balls to acknowledge that they support these sort of massacres. Libertarian-minded leftists who oppose things like the PATRIOT act readily acknowledge that increased terrorist attacks is a fine price to pay in order to safeguard liberty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 9:12 AM
Comment #399124

Roy

I disagree with your contention that the NRA represents corpocracy. They are a private organization funded through memberships and private donations. They represent the interests of those who choose to voluntarily fund their activities.

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 9:15 AM
Comment #399126

“Some gun stores in Va. advertise that a background investigation is not required to purchase in their store. No enforcement is compliance - with Corpocracy, IMO.”

ATF regulations require any FFL selling a firearm to complete, and submit a form 4473 DROS before completing the sale.

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 9:22 AM
Comment #399127

Warren

Guns are not the issue. The issue is the loss of moral compass in our society. I grew up in the 60s and 70s and guns were far easier to acquire, yet these types of things were almost non existent. Taking away freedom and handing over our safety to the gov’t is not the answer, and will in fact do more harm than good. Gov’t is not the answer it is the problem. Oh and your assertion the gun culture is somehow is responsible for these atrocities is BS. I bet if you were to do a study, you would find most of these young men had at some time been treated with some type of psychotropic drug for ADD.

So your answer is to leave the rest of us defenseless while we wait and hope the authorities will save us ? I don’t think so. The left and their push for this goal of a some nonexistent utopian society have created this moral sewer we find our selves living in, and are responsible for the this mess. I’ll be damned if I’ll let them take anymore of my rights or freedoms away.

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 9:45 AM
Comment #399130


Actually what it says it that the right isn’t interested in any sanity when it comes to these incidents.
Statistics show that you are more likely to be the victim of a gun crime than you are to be able to protect yourself with a gun.
Statistics show that more people have died since 1989 of gun violence in this country, than have died in our military in war since 1776.

Think about that

I don’t have a solution, but it’s quite obvious those on the right wouldn’t be interested even if I did have one.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 4, 2015 10:55 AM
Comment #399131

“Statistics show that more people have died since 1989 of gun violence in this country, than have died in our military in war since 1776.”

Bull$#it.

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 12:24 PM
Comment #399133

Each of us is responsible for pursuing our own moral development- and that development includes rejecting violence and the weapons of violence, especially ones that serve no other purpose than to kill a lot of human beings in as short a time as possible.
Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2015 12:45 AM

OH, Yes, Of Course. Those moral deficient founders of our country and constitution would certainly agree.

Disarm the public and tyranny has no opposition.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2015 2:12 PM
Comment #399134


How’s this for an idea;

http://twitter.com/ravivullman/status/650338519639048192/photo/1

That might, perhaps, cover everything.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 4, 2015 2:21 PM
Comment #399135

I don’t really know what to make of this post and the comments. How can one make the jump from a citizen membership NRA to a corporacy?

Then we have WP calling for the ban of magazines holding more than 6 or 8 rounds of ammunition. Does WP understand that a semi-automatic pistol holding 8 rounds, in the hands of a competent shooter, can be reloaded with another magazine almost without hesitation. What is the next step WP, should we limit the number of magazines that can be owned?

I want someone on the left to tell us what can be done to correct the problem. The American people can’t trust anything that comes out of the mouths of the left. Everything suggested leads to the violation of our 2nd amendment rights. If guns were completely banned in America, the criminals would still get them. WP thinks it’s magazine capacity, RM and ph believe in a complete ban on guns. It can’t possibly be background checks, because we already have background checks. Some of the left even believes the ATF is turning a blind eye to stores who do not do the checks. Which is rediculous, unless you believe the Obama administration is also telling the ATF and the FBI to not do their jobs?

The problems with violence can be laid at the feet of liberal policies. The loss of the moral high ground is the result of the Godless left, who’s hatred of Christianity has brought us to this point. When you tell kids in their early teens that a pregnancy is nothing more than a mass of flesh; why are we surprised to see young people so eager to kill. When we have a president who is so eager to politicize a tragedy, and yet ignores the massive murders of hundreds of his (own) people in the inner cities, where the gun laws are the strictest?

Obama has done more to promote gun ownership and CCW licenses than any other person in recent history. Every time he opens his mouth, gun sales jumps. The passing of more gun laws are out of the question. The answer to the left will be a resounding “screw you”.

Why not try what has successfully been tried in conservative areas; allow people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights an abolish the “gun free” zones.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #399136

“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.”

The Second Amendment was not written to protect “the people” from tyranny or the federal government. That is simply wrong. As the actual words clearly show, it was intended to provide states with “a well regulated Militia” in order to provide security. At the time, there was no standing army, the federal government was very poor, and the participants in militias were expected to provide their own firearms. The participants were expected to be “well regulated,” and not mere mobs or murderous individuals roaming the countryside killing others.

Since then, the federal government has established a standing army and each state has established a National Guard. For all practical purposes, militias ceased to exist at least a century ago. The need for “the people” to provide weapons for the security of a state came to an end, so the original justification became obsolete.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #399137

Blaine,

I don’t know about phx8’s feelings on the matter, but as far as I am concerned this;

“RM and ph believe in a complete ban on guns.”

is a lie, and is yet another one of the many you’ve thrown about lately in this thread and others.

I have never said, or even thought such a thing, and, as a matter of fact I own a gun.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 4, 2015 2:52 PM
Comment #399138

phx8

“The Second Amendment was not written to protect “the people” from tyranny or the federal government”

Sure, whatever you say.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #399139

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
phx8 is in total denial with regard to the 2nd Amendment.


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #399140

phx8 wrote; “The Second Amendment was not written to protect “the people” from tyranny or the federal government.”

He has most likely read most of all of the quotes provided just above by our founders which directly refute his assertion.

So, then; what is his game? Why would he oppose the very men who founded our country and delineated our individual rights?

Perhaps phx8 can tell why he wishes to destroy those rights which every American should hold dear?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 4, 2015 3:36 PM
Comment #399141

This is one of my favorites, and describes our liberal friends perfectly. Sorry oh enlightened ones, but you can take your good intention and jam them where the sun don’t shine.

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Daniel Webster

Posted by: dbs at October 4, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #399142

RM, the first thing every gun grabbing lefty says is “I even own a gun”, as they are reaching for yours. You say it’s a lie and you’re not for disarming the American people; but you’re a liberal and liberals do liberal things. If Obama called for executive action to ban all guns, you would be the first to agree with him. I have never ONCE heard you disagree with any action of Obama’s. You lied when you said you don’t know how ph feels on the subject; you know he is also for complete gun confiscation. Obama is for complete gun confiscation and you support Obama in all he does.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #399144

Blaine,

“You say it’s a lie and you’re not for disarming the American people; but you’re a liberal and liberals do liberal things.”

Dude just because you’re a fascist doesn’t mean you get to call me a “liberal”.

“I have never ONCE heard you disagree with any action of Obama’s.”

You have never once heard me agree with an action of Obama’s either.

“Obama is for complete gun confiscation and you support Obama in all he does.”

Really? Please feel free to show us all how that is even remotely true.

What a crock of sh**.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 4, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #399145

dbs, in my thinking I am bundling the NRA, gun lobbyists, manufacturers and sales outlets together in that they represent a large funding source for those politicians who are dyed in wool supporters of that group.

I don’t see that any differently than a corporation lobbying for their tomato ketchup product, and so on - - -

I don’t have any numbers or inside information but, IMO, there are a number of politicians who are pretty much assured tenure in office based on their continuous support on the gun issue.

This goes toward the premise of the article which is, why the public tolerates the same abuse year over year and nothing gets done, no change, no reform, just more populist blather around election time.

Suppose there was no gun lobby and the citizens just voted from office any politician who worked to put legislation defeating the 2nd amendment on the table. Why can’t people get off their dead ass and get informed and vote?

We need a 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att and so on - - - and a national communication system that would basically replace the town hall meeting. We need skype, email, party communications media involving the public in the workings of politics/gov’t.

If people came to believe their vote carried some weight against corpocracy they might get out an vote, for the right reasons, and so on - - -

why can we not enforce laws that are on the books? Why can we not have at least two armed individuals in a school building?

How can the President complain about the mass killings while his main bang, Raum Emanuel (?), has full authority over the city of brotherly love?

A real biggie for me is, why would a mother with an unstable son feel the need to surround him with guns? I mean, I’m a little leary of my wife having a gun. I do try to keep her ammunition hid, and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment #399146

phx8, our Founders put us on a course that gave us the longest living democracy. None has lasted more than 200 years. Rome wasn’t taken by an outside enemy but brought down from within.

Try to imagine some things: Suppose things went bad with Canada and Canada and Mexico got together to do us in. So, they send their armies across our borders where we can’t nuke them, or bomb them very readily. Our standing army, at present probably couldn’t manage the situation. So, what is left is the citizen soldier. Replace our neighbors with Russia or China or ISIS, or all three, and see if that helps your mindset re the 2nd amendment.

Of course, this only works when you can most people in this country pulling for the Republic. May be quite different in 30-50 years but, at present, to get my gun you’d have to ‘pry my cold, daid fangers’, and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 5:47 PM
Comment #399149

Rocky,

I enjoyed Comment #399134. The right to keep and bear arms and the right to an abortion ought to be given equal latitude.

Does WP understand that a semi-automatic pistol holding 8 rounds, in the hands of a competent shooter, can be reloaded with another magazine almost without hesitation. What is the next step WP, should we limit the number of magazines that can be owned?
1. Many of the people who commit this crimes are not competent enough shooters. They will fumble when reloading the magazine, which gives others the opportunity to subdue them. 2. I mentioned above that I supported the use of guns which aren’t semiautomatics.
What is the next step WP, should we limit the number of magazines that can be owned?
Don’t be ridiculous.
I want someone on the left to tell us what can be done to correct the problem.
Can we at least agree to allow funding to research the problem so that we can evaluate ideas properly?
The problems with violence can be laid at the feet of liberal policies. The loss of the moral high ground is the result of the Godless left, who’s hatred of Christianity has brought us to this point. When you tell kids in their early teens that a pregnancy is nothing more than a mass of flesh; why are we surprised to see young people so eager to kill. When we have a president who is so eager to politicize a tragedy, and yet ignores the massive murders of hundreds of his (own) people in the inner cities, where the gun laws are the strictest?

Yet the homicide rate has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years…

you’re a liberal and liberals do liberal things.
Except supporting gun control is an illiberal position.

RF,
Thank you for the quotes. It is quite apparent the founding fathers supported an armed populace. The question remains whether the changes in technology and society between the 18th and 21st centuries challenge that idea. Perhaps, the need for an armed population is just as salient today, but can we at least agree that these mass-homicides are a direct result of having an armed population safeguarding our liberty?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 6:32 PM
Comment #399152

Warren, an armed population safeguarding our liberty would mean, to me, having one or two gun totters at the front door of every school building. Kind of like what we see at most court houses and federal office buildings. Might be a good part time job for retirees, volunteers, etc.


One can’t help but notice since 9/11 we haven’t had many hijackings.

Blaine, your post has merit, IMO. We didn’t have school shootings way back when. Now people are comfortable with the tv violence, mass shootings, and horrendous neighborhood murders, etc.

Wasn’t long ago that religion was respected, for the moral high ground if nothing else. Today, there is a lot of sniping at anything trending religious.

As I posted earlier, this is the only democracy to make it beyond 200 years. Therefore, 300 years seems a stretch, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 8:16 PM
Comment #399153

Watching Stossel on FOX and his guest is saying some 1400 schools have some form of dating rules as it relates to sexual consent and rape.

There’s your Sign!!

The schools will throw you out of class for rape but a rapist should do some serious jail time.

AND, rather than 3 squares a day with a 1 hour exercise mandate there should be some serious rock busting time.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 8:27 PM
Comment #399154
Can we at least agree to allow funding to research the problem so that we can evaluate ideas properly?

Ah yes, why don’t we have another government run liberal bastion do another study? You mean like the scientific study on GW…the one that says any scientist who does not agree that GW is manmade is ostracized. One group of leftist recently called for the imprisonment of anyone not agreeing with the left on GW.

I mentioned above that I supported the use of guns which aren’t semiautomatics… It is quite apparent the founding fathers supported an armed populace. The question remains whether the changes in technology and society between the 18th and 21st centuries challenge that idea.

So WP, at what point in our technological history do you want to placed the well armed American? During the days of blackpowder muskets, or perhaps the invention of the Colt six shooter. What gives you the right to tell us what we can own? And speaking on that subject; I have a friend who is a firearms dealer. He recently told me that the reproduction 1858 Remington revolvers and the 1851 Colt revolvers are among the hottest selling guns in the liberal Eastern states. Reason; they do not have to be registered and they can be ordered by mail from anyplace. In states that have the type of gun control that WP and the left want, these 6 shot revolvers give citizens a way around the law and allow them to protect themselves and their families.

Yet the homicide rate has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years…

And what part does explosion of states issuing millions of CCW’s play in this 20 year drop?

but can we at least agree that these mass-homicides are a direct result of having an armed population safeguarding our liberty?

The old game of trying to trick conservatives into a debate using a false premise. Where is your proof that mass homicides are a “direct” result of having an armed population…….?

A professor from Purdue researched mass shootings from the 1950s on and discovered that only two of them occurred where guns are legal to be carried. This really blows apart liberal arguments that more guns means more mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2012, gun ownership increased by 61%. But since 2008, violent crimes decreased by 12.9%. Eric Dietz, Ph.D., the former director of Homeland Security for the state of Indiana and a 22-year Army veteran, and now a professor at Purdue University, set out to find out how armed citizens could prevent deaths. In order to examine the results, he chose to study the most common gun free zone in America, and also the place most mass shootings take place, (Outside of Chicago) public schools. Dietz outlined 4 scenarios and using statistical math, developed a model whereby he could estimate the results. He noted that since schools are gun free, they have to rely on the police, who on average take 10 – 12 minutes to respond to a live shooting. Given the fact that a mass shooter can kill a person every twenty seconds, the delay can costs a lot of lives. Here are the four scenarios Dietz used in his study: • Scenario 1: No access to control or security. • Scenario 2: Resource officer • Scenario 3: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry • Scenario 4: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry and a resource officer In study number one, it was determined that the most crucial aspect is time. The more time a shooter has, the more people he can kill. Moving on to the second scenario, that includes an armed resource officer, casualties dropped by a whopping 66.5% and response time was cut by 59.5%. In the third scenario, with 5%-10% of the workforce armed, there is a decrease in fatalities of when 5% of the workforce is carrying concealed weapons of 6.8% and response time is reduced by 5.4%. When 10% of the workforce is armed causalities dropped by 23.2% and response time was slashed by 16.8%. But the most amazing statistic is that when 5% of the workforce is armed AND they have a resource officer present, the fatality rate drops 69.2% and response time improved by 57.9%. With 10% armed and a resource officer, the fatality rate drops by 70.2% and response time by 62.7%.
Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #399155

49k claimed disability in 90. Near 200k for current period. This, as medicine and safety has gotten better.

There’s your Sign!!

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 9:02 PM
Comment #399156

I forgot something; the college in Oregon had a security officer…but he was not allowed to be armed. So the ideal of a security officer was mute. Kind of brings back memories of the terrorist shooting at the news outlet in France; one of the police officers was shot to death (as he begged for his life)…Oh, did I say, he wasn’t armed.

In 2013 Obama changed the stats for mass shootings. The new stats required at least 3 people killed to qualify for the title of “mass shooting”. Why would Obama do that??? Could it be that on any given night in the gun restricted bastions of Democrat controlled cities, there are 3 plus murders by blacks and gangs who didn’t get the memo, “Gun Free Zone”.

To the left there is always an evolution of facts. The Constitution is an evolving document (WP believes citizens have the right to bear arms, but only BB guns and muskets), GW evolves to Climate Change (to fit the needs); scenarios constantly change. Although Obama will not recognize Muslim terrorists as Muslim terrorists, and Obama will not recognize the black on black crimes taking place in the cities; but like the Constitution and GW, the murders evolve and Obama will recognize the mass murders of blacks in the cities, if he can include them in higher statistics of overall mass murders in the country.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #399157

Roy Ellison, when almost 1/3 of the American people are unemployed, with no hope of getting a job. When the unemployment runs out and the only jobs are part time, than you Obamacare. Then people will do what they have to do to survive…file for disability benefits. And there are many lawyers, with doctors in the pockets, to testify they are disabled.

But, what the heck, Obama and Hillary are telling us we are living the utopian life.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
Comment #399158
An unsettling labor report issued by the UCLA Labor Center finds that 57 percent of “young workers” are mired in low-wage jobs.

According to the report, earning $13.38 per hour or less qualifies as a low-wage job. Young adults—ages 18 to 29— in low-wage jobs in the county make a median hourly income of $9.04.

The data suggests that economic recovery and improved unemployment numbers, often touted as accomplishments by President Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown, overlooked many college graduates in the last eight years.

The weak earning power of young workers may also explain the ongoing student loan crisis spurred by the failure of many to pay back what they have borrowed. Hillary Clinton threatens to exploit this if she becomes president by forgiving student loan obligations, which she repeatedly hints at on the stump during her 2016 presidential campaign speeches.

Included in the report’s findings are a quarter of Los Angeles workers are young people. The young workers are more educated than any previous generation, but have experienced a 10.8 percent decline in income since 2000. Young workers experience a higher unemployment rate (16.8 percent) than other workers (9.2 percent). Young black workers experience the highest unemployment rate at 28.4 percent.

http://www.labor.ucla.edu/young-worker-snapshot/

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 9:19 PM
Comment #399159

roy,
“phx8, our Founders put us on a course that gave us the longest living democracy. None has lasted more than 200 years.”

Wrong. Not even close. Several nations can reasonably make that claim. And that assumes that the US can make the claim in the first place, when for most of its history a majority consisting of women, blacks, and Native Americans were not even allowed to vote.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2015 9:31 PM
Comment #399162
Ah yes, why don’t we have another government run liberal bastion do another study? You mean like the scientific study on GW…the one that says any scientist who does not agree that GW is manmade is ostracized. One group of leftist recently called for the imprisonment of anyone not agreeing with the left on GW./blockquote> Pure hyperbole.
at what point in our technological history do you want to placed the well armed American? During the days of blackpowder muskets, or perhaps the invention of the Colt six shooter.
The Constitution protects our right to own the firearms they had at the time. If you believe the Constitution is capable of evolving to accommodate more recent weapons within its definition of “arms” then by all means argue that point. I am perfectly comfortable with the ownership of weapons that lack the capacity to fire more than 6 or 8 rounds without reloading. If this means people by replicas of 19th century revolvers, so be it. If you think more advanced weaponry provides advantages to citizens in situations when those 19th century revolvers cannot, then please discuss them.
And what part does explosion of states issuing millions of CCW’s play in this 20 year drop?
Probably not that much considering that the drop in homocides has been nationwide and not just in states with “shall issue” CCW permits. I suspect the prohibition of some lead-based products 40 years ago is the primary cause, but that’s just me.
GW evolves to Climate Change (to fit the needs)/blockquote> What does this talking point even mean? Global Warming and Climate Change are basically synonymous and used interchangeably by mitigation advocates.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 10:21 PM
Comment #399163


Blaine, it’s no longer speculation, but evident that the US is trending closer to becoming a 3rd world country. Clinton was on the tube saying that some 20k W. Va. coal miners that lost their jobs in the 90’s are the basis for the anti-capitalist, anti-immigrant movement. He says the coal miners are isolated with no hope of finding other work and that we can’t go back to the days when jobs were more plentiful for all, or something to that effect.

What might a gov’t of the people do to begin to alleviate the disparity between the haves and have nots? A good start would be to implement a strong anti-trust law to break up the conglomerates/monopolies and get control of immigration.

But, trying hard not to sound redundant, that would take a new 3rd party w/a/dif - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 4, 2015 10:42 PM
Comment #399164

Global Cooling, Global Warming, and now Climate Change. We have been told that no single weather incident proves anything; but how long before the Obama spinster blames the flooding in the Carolinas on Climate Change…?

Roy, it’s not the number of parties we have; if we don’t vote out the ruling political class everything will stay the same. e send conservatives to DC and the establishment republicans become the enemy.

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 11:45 PM
Comment #399165

Can’t vote them out Blaine. Other than the ‘Donald’ the corpocracy pretty much owns the players and the playing field. Even if a newbie gets to congress the system will take them out pdq if they try to push non-corpocratic legislation.

Over some 225 years the corpocracy has created an ironclad system.

Glaring example; elected officials swear an oath that they will uphold the constitution, can be impeached for failure to do so. But, congress has refused to allow Article V Convention, part II, as they don’t want the folks having a role in governing.

Nah, it will take a new 3rd party w/a/dif - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 5, 2015 12:21 AM
Comment #399166
I want someone on the left to tell us what can be done to correct the problem. The American people can’t trust anything that comes out of the mouths of the left.

Seriously Blaine! Which one is it Blaine? I’m guessing A. you want someone to tell you, so….you wouldn’t know a truth if it came up and bit you on the a**. Your judgement is impaired.


It seems you have brought up the nonsense that guns weren’t allowed on the campus in Oregon but according to a student, well you are to conservative to believe me so here it is from the guy’s mouth to your ears.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=John+Parker+interview+with+MSNBC&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2015 12:43 AM
Comment #399168

The NRA is not why people reject further infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights. It is nothing but the political boogeyman being used for more anti 2nd Amendment gun control.
The left knows that they cannot attack 100 million individual gun owners, so they attack the largest org and try to lump everybody in with them with hyperbole and nonsense. SOP.

This “moral compass” argument is ridiculous, hypocritical BS. Just more of the same.
The vast majority of gun violence occurs in areas with stricter laws and fewer guns per person, but yet the left targets those in areas with more guns per person and almost no gun violence?

It’s not a corporate conspiracy and it has nothing to do with the “moral decency” of those who support our Constitutional rights. It’s a cultural problem and the failure to address it by the left for selfish political reasons.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 11:03 AM
Comment #399169

Warren,

I appreciate your argument: semi-automatic weapons with a magazine capacity of eight rounds or greater should become contraband. But try to implement it and you will see it would be impossible to do in the country.

The basic intellectual property of the semi automatic weapon in either pistol or long gun form is already in the public domain. Some of the most popular designs were by John Browning who died in 1926 so they have been around for a very long time. There are also millions of 1911, P-35, BAR’s and Auto-5’s (all Browning designs) already in the marketplace that could easily be reverse engineered by probably any kid at a local tech school who has taken a class in AutoCAD. The materials used to make semi-automatic weapons, mainly steel, brass and aluminum, are so common in the marketplace that you would have to shut down the entire manufacturing capabilities of the U.S. if you wanted to control it. It’s easier to make semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic ammo, and semi-automatic high capacity magazines than it is to make crack, cook meth, or grow pot.

Then you would have to have some voluntary buy back program like Australia did in the 60’s. Let’s say there are 50 million semi-automatics in country now (rough figure) and like Australia you manage a turn in rate of 30%. You would still have 30 million guns in circulation. If that’s not enough to support demand then new producers would immediately come into the marketplace based on the incentive of higher prices.

For these reasons I do not believe your ban is going to work.

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2015 12:35 PM
Comment #399174

George SC,

Those are all good arguments. In addition, 3D printing technology is improving by leaps and bounds every day. Very soon, we will have a whole new problem on our hands. Obviously, any such ban could be rendered purely symbolic very easily. Analogously, it is very easy for minors to get their hands on alcohol, yet we still enforce laws against underage drinking.

Ultimately, the purpose here is to change our cultural relationship with guns rather than actually limit our access to them. Today, guns are glorified in a manner that I believe is inappropriate. Ted Cruz cuts an ad where he cooks bacon attached to a rifle in order to signal his tenacity. Guns are sacred things and shouldn’t be used as political props like that.

Oftentimes, simply changing the defaults can engender changes in thought among the populace. Most people have no need to fire more than 8 rounds at a time, so they would not take the extra effort needed to acquire one that did. On the flipside, someone who did go through the extra effort to acquire such a weapon sends a message to his friends and families. If those friends and families trust that individual’s ability to handle the responsibility of such a weapon the so be it. And if they don’t, then perhaps it would be an impetus for a referral for a psychological evaluation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #399176

As a suggestion of a culture change what if our society valued a war on criminals with guns more than it did its war on drugs? Criminals with guns are the major source of gun violence anyway.

According to the Bureau of Prisons 48.4% of our inmates are incarcerated due to drug offenses while 16.3% are there for weapons, explosives, and arson. Flip those wars and watch our murder rate plummet (although I would expect an increase in prison shanking).

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2015 2:01 PM
Comment #399178

Be careful, those are stats for Federal Prisons only.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #399182

granted so take both state and federal and you come up with about 20% of the prison population there for drugs as their primary offense. It’s probably an even higher % of the “churn” in local jails.

Point remains, if we want to do something about guns, and we have limited incarceration capacity, then we need to decide which “war” is more important.

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #399184

“Change the cultural relationship with guns”, tell me WP, how do you do that? We live in a society where it’s not safe for parents to let their kids go to a playground, period. How many children are shot be drive by’ each year? We live in a society where the police are targeted for killing, an groups like “black lives matter” actually call for their murder. There is not one single Senator, Congressman, president, governor, state legislature, judge, mayor, movie star, or rich person that does not have armed guards surrounding them at all times. Why? If we live in such a safe society, why do they need armed guards? Sorry big boy, you can forfeit your rights, but I will protect me and mine.

Before your time; in the 50’s through the 70’s, when democrats forbid gun ownership in the cities, the gangs of the cities made zip guns. Very simple and easy to make, and was sufficient to kill someone. So when the gang member robbed or raped the victims, what did they have to defend themselves….nothing.

For the life of me, I will never understand the hatred the left has for the 1st and 2nd amendment. Shut up the opposition and disarm them.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #399187
We live in a society where it’s not safe for parents to let their kids go to a playground, period. How many children are shot be drive by’ each year?

Parents are more protective nowadays, but this not rational behavior. Children are far safer today than you were young.

We live in a society where the police are targeted for killing, an groups like “black lives matter” actually call for their murder.
BLM’s bark is louder than its bite. 2015 is currently on pace to be one of the safest for police officers in a long time.
There is not one single Senator, Congressman, president, governor, state legislature, judge, mayor, movie star, or rich person that does not have armed guards surrounding them at all times.
Jared Loughner proved that this is not true.
Before your time; in the 50’s through the 70’s, when democrats forbid gun ownership in the cities, the gangs of the cities made zip guns. Very simple and easy to make, and was sufficient to kill someone. So when the gang member robbed or raped the victims, what did they have to defend themselves….nothing.
Please see my comments to Georve in SC above where I discussed homemade firearms. Also, recall that I support the right of people to defend themselves with non-semiautomatic weapons that use magazines with a capacity of fewer than 8 rounds.
For the life of me, I will never understand the hatred the left has for the 1st and 2nd amendment. Shut up the opposition and disarm them.
I think you are hallucinating again. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #399194

“Children are safer today” BULLS**T Warren, 5 kids shot and killed by a drive by and gang fights within the last month on the Cleveland East side which is majority BLACK!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 4:14 PM
Comment #399197

Drugs bring guns to protect the business. Many mass murders are looking for fame. Stop with all the publicity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #399199

KAP,

Do you seriously expect me to take a recent anecdote from Cleveland as evidence that things are more dangerous today?

THE TRUTH

RF,
For once we are in agreement. Gun homicides rarely occur in a vacuum. However, we should not forget about the astonishingly high gun suicide rate in this country.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #399203

Warren, then try Chicago, or Baltimore

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 5:17 PM
Comment #399204

I suspect we agree on many diverse things Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #399206

If we lower our personal political persona I believe we are all very much alike.

Do we agree that our nation is unique in its founding documents which declare individual liberty and freedom to be the greatest goal of mankind.?

Do we agree that our government exists to to serve the individual citizen?

Do we agree that government must not become a source to favor one individual over another?

Do we agree that every citizen should be responsible for their own fate if physically and mentally able?

I have more in my list but would like to have your input.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #399210

Of course. I can even contribute a few more:

Our rights do not come from our government, but rather a higher power.

Every American deserves certain protections and privileges, such as: basic education, protection from foreign armies and justice when the victim of a crime.

Some people are impoverished as a result of their own poor decisions. Others are impoverished through no fault of their own.

The government’s cudgel is a powerful weapon that ought to be wielded sparingly.

Government policy ought to be regulated by public opinion.

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

People fundamentally have the right to determine their own lives so long as they do not violate another’s right to determine his own life.

The political liberalism espoused by John Locke and his contemporaries serves as the inspiration for the nation’s government.

My stepmother bakes the best tasting apple pie in the world. ;)

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 5:58 PM
Comment #399211

MMMMMMMMM, apple pie.

Diabetic for one year now and that is one of the things I miss most.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #399214

Three things necessary for happiness beyond basic human needs.

Someone to Love

Something to do

Something to look forward to

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2015 6:07 PM
Comment #399216

Reread the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 5, 2015 6:32 PM
Comment #399218

kctim,

“Diabetic for one year now…”

I was diagnosed 6 months ago with Type 2.

Make mine hot with a scoop of Vanilla…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 5, 2015 7:41 PM
Comment #399220

I have 2 replies:

1. J2, I read the link to John Parker; so he had a conceal carry permit and he is allowed to carry on the property, but not in the buildings. The buildings are gun free zones. Now let’s look at a hypothetical, he hears gunshots and goes after the perpetrators; would he be breaking the law by entering a classroom with a weapon? Would the college be able to at least, kick him out and at most, press charges against him? But the real question is, if the shooter had approached the veterans, who were armed; what would have been the outcome?

2. Regarding children safer today than 50/60 years ago; WP is talking out his butt, because his mouth knows better. He accuses parents of being overly cautious; which simply shows me he has no concept of parenthood. When you are a father, and you send your children out of the house to play or to go to school, we’ll see how you view the world. There’s a reason young people are liberals and they become more conservative as they get older. Whether we are talking about children in rural areas, who are apt to be kidnapped by sexual predators, or whether we are talking about children in urban areas, that are killed in drive by shootings; the idea that any chil is safer now than 50/60 years ago is ludicrous. If I’m a troll, the you are an ignorant child.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2015 8:13 PM
Comment #399222

Blaine,

Warren has already posted a link on homicide rates. Here is additional data regarding child safety. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2015 8:27 PM
Comment #399223
would he be breaking the law by entering a classroom with a weapon?

Multiple, contradictory laws were in play in Oregon. John Parker’s interview indicates that none of those laws affected Parker’s decision-making. He had his weapon with him at the time of the shooting even though he was in a classroom at the time. Nobody knows what the outcome would have been if the shooter had targeted Parker’s classroom rather than the one he actually chose.

WP is talking out his butt
Blaine, you are so full of shit right now. I linked to statistics from the CDC showing how youth homicide are at their lowest point in decades and you have the audacity to dismiss them simply on account of my age. Decades ago, crimes against children did not gain as much attention as they do nowadays, which is why you and many others suffer from nostalgic hallucinations of a safe childhood. But the truth is that children today are far less likely to be murdered than before. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 8:40 PM
Comment #399225

kctim, the mass shooting syndrome demonstrates several mitigating factors. This last shooter definitely was lacking in morals demonstrated by asking victims what religion they were and laughing after shooting them. Also, making a statement that ‘he’d always wanted to do this’.

Some corpocracy is involved in that mfctrs could take a position of working with the public and gov’t to address the sale of guns without a background check. Instead of being a rabid lobbyist against any gun control, perhaps support a law whereby a gun can’t be purchased on the internet unless the internet sales agent first obtains a copy of the investigation result from the proper authorities.

Huckabee was asked a question as to what to do re gun control this morning and I sensed he was near panic in trying to sound tuff without getting in hot water with the NRA/mfctr gun lobby.

A cultural thing as well. What parent would allow a son to keep a dozen or so guns around the house if, the son has mental issues, past trouble with law enforcement/courts, shows no interest in sport shooting, threatening, and so on - - -

This shooting thing is kind of like s person who drives a car into a crowd of people at high speed to ‘watch people fly’, etc.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 5, 2015 8:52 PM
Comment #399226

Warren and Rich, 50/60 years ago children were more apt to be playing outdoors then they are today. With game systems and the internet which could be the contributing factors to the decline of child homicides. Children today tend to stay indoors more.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 8:55 PM
Comment #399229

KAP,
Child homicide rates peaked in the early ’90s. Your hypothesis doesn’t account for that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 10:10 PM
Comment #399230

Warren, The fact remains kids tend to do more indoors today then they did 20, 30, 40, years ago. Internet and video games took over for games like tag, baseball and bike riding.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 10:24 PM
Comment #399231

I was a young child 20 years ago during the early ’90s. The trend towards more cautious parenting had already established itself by then; however, this is when homicides were at their greatest. Therefore, more cautious parenting cannot be blamed for the decrease in homicides because they are not correlated.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 1:10 AM
Comment #399233

Roy

Manufacturers sell to licensed dealers and are not responsible for whom the licensed dealers sell to. It’s not a corporate conspiracy, it’s how business works.

Internet sales are sent to an FFL and require background check.

I am not a rabid lobbyist against gun control, I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

When you condition people to be dependent, they do not believe they have any responsibility. They believe they are entitled to special treatment.


Rocky, Type 2 here also.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 9:18 AM
Comment #399235

“There’s a reason young people are liberals and they become more conservative as they get older.”

Only if you become cynical and allow yourself to wallow in self-pity. Other people realize the potential of all humans and welcome the contributions that they attempt to bring.

With regards to children being safer, it is relative to where the child lives and the environment that they exist in. There is no cookie cutter statistics that can display that reality.

Gun legislation that imparts greater restrictions on access will definitely be inevitable. It is the only civilized approach and it really doesn’t matter that there are groups that resist that. The inevitability of civilized action will overcome that resistance.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 10:21 AM
Comment #399236

Speaks, seeing how you believe greater restrictions are inevitable, do you see them coming sooner rather than later?
I ask because Hillary seems to now be making that a central part of her campaign and was wondering how you all on the left felt about her doing that.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 11:00 AM
Comment #399237

Just chipping in- I don’t think restrictive legislation is inevitable, but I am really glad to see HRC highlighting this in her campaign. An assault rifle ban would make a lot of sense, along with restrictions on magazines holding more than six bullets. The ultimate goal should be to allow hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting and home defense, but to get rid of weapons for other purposes, such as killing a lot of people in a short period of time.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2015 11:10 AM
Comment #399238

And you think now is finally the time to run on strict gun control?
I don’t know, Phx8.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 11:20 AM
Comment #399239

Do you really think a criminal is going to worry about what restrictions Hillary or any other liberal law maker puts on guns? The only people they will be restricting is the law abiding citizens. NEWS FLASH for you liberal thinkers CRIMINALS don’t care about the law or restrictions they will get what they want by whatever methods they want. How about this, Mandatory 25 years in Federal prison if you use a gun in a crime but no death resulting from that use. If death results from that crime Death Penalty with no appeals.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 11:27 AM
Comment #399240

I too was encouraged to see candidates come forward with ideas. Yes this issue will be part of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Restrictive gun legislation does not mean “We are coming for your guns”. It does mean common sense approaches to restricting individuals who should not be in possession of firearms will be inevitable. The young man in Oregon had access to 14 different weapons and ammunition. That is about 12 too many and in my abode it is 14 too many. I realize that not everyone holds the belief that I do. That still doesn’t compel me to abdicate my stance on guns and gun violence and I will not. We have laws against speeding and people still speed so that argument is nonsensical.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #399241

Speaks, as I asked Phx8, do you think now is the finally the time for a Presidential candidate to make anti 2nd Amendment legislation a central part of their campaign?

We all know that pro 2nd Amendment candidates have used “They are coming for your guns” very effectively in past elections.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #399242

There is no anti 2nd Amendment legislation that I am aware of. There is a definite movement to restrict access to weapons by people who should be prevented from accessing those weapons. The problem appears that any discourse that begins with attempting to formulate those restrictions through the legislative process is met with “You are coming to take my gun”. This will be overcome with diligent admonishment of that statement and a desire to move forward for the common good of this country. And yes this is the time for a Presidential campaign to address this issue. If not now when?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 11:52 AM
Comment #399243

Speaks, due to the lack of success for anti 2nd Amendment legislation in the past, and the success of those using “coming to take your guns,” I am just curious how those on the left feel about Clinton making it a central part of her 2016 campaign.

You and Phx8 seem to believe it will benefit her, and I thank you guys for your input.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 12:03 PM
Comment #399244

I will repeat, there is not any anti 2nd Amendment legislation that I am aware of. To me that would seem to express a want to change the actual wording of the Amendment, that is not happening. What I believe is happening is a movement to use the legislative process to impede possession of firearms by people who should not have firearms and a more rational approach to what type of firearms and weapons should be made available to the general public. I don’t know how I can type this any plainer but I believe that this will be an issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign and will support any candidate that uses a reasonable approach to that. Yes I believe that it is going to be beneficial to a candidate if they can tamp down the “They’re coming to take our guns” hysteria that is generated by some.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 12:13 PM
Comment #399245

“Yes I believe that it is going to be beneficial to a candidate”

Again, thank you for that input, Speaks.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #399246

WP, I ignore your links, because it is flawed results based upon flawed input.

But since kctim is actually trying to get the left to answer a legitimate question; I will ask one. Since all those on the left love to make the statement they support the 2nd amendment; exactly what could be done in the way of legislation that would be a guarantee to prevent the killings, such as in Oregon, and still not infringe on 2nd amendment rights?

I read an article yesterday, concerning on of the largest firearms retailers in NC or SC; the owner said that Obama’s recent comments have caused another boom in business. The article went on to say that 2013 was a historical record setting year for gun sales. That S&W and other gun manufacturers have seen their stocks rose by up to 70%. Who is rushing out to by these guns? We have a nation whet their is a gun for every person in the country. 350 million people an estimated over 300 million guns. Of course this number is estimated, considering most gun owners do not report to the government how many guns they have.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #399247

I forgot to add, 2015 is expected to be a better year than the record 2013 for gun sales.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 12:34 PM
Comment #399248

There are no guarantees in life. If someone told you that then they were trying to sell you something.

“What I believe is happening is a movement to use the legislative process to impede possession of firearms by people who should not have firearms and a more rational approach to what type of firearms and weapons should be made available to the general public.”

Your links are also ignored by many who read this blog.

I don’t really care about gun sales, I am more concerned about the damage that gun violence has and will inflict.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #399249

Blaine, that expected ‘boom to business’ is one of the reasons I was curious about the lefts input on Clinton making it a central part of her campaign.

IMO, she seems to be putting too much stock in the number of votes she will get from the fear and pity control side of the issue.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 12:55 PM
Comment #399250

So what we have learned from the 45 school shootings this past year is that we have a problem in this country that doesn’t seem to be as severe of a problem in other countries. Yet we can do nothing about it. Those with the mindset to go and kill our children and themselves can do it with impunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-school-shooting_560d88bde4b0af3706dff6b8

We ask our political leaders to solve it, but the only thing they seem to be able to resolve is getting the money to run for reelection, perhaps rightfully so as this doesn’t seem to be a political problem we are facing. This is a problem only the people of this country can solve.

One of the common threads running through the whole go shoot up the innocent in the classrooms mentality is the inability of the shooter to find acceptance and love from his fellow human beings and the ability to easily purchase fire arms to accomplish the task. This guy had over a dozen! Yet despite all these weapons he couldn’t buy love and acceptance from those he sought it from.

I don’t know what our politicians in Congress can do to help those on the edge of sanity or how another law will prevent another lonely gun nut from shooting up the school house but I would think it will have to do with education not restricting research into gun violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

Posted by: j2t2 at October 6, 2015 1:48 PM
Comment #399251

Speaks history has proven that legislation that imparts greater restrictions on access will fail miserably. There was a reason why the Brady Bill expired, there’s a reason why prohibition failed, and there’s a reason why the war on drugs is failing.

Again I fault the leadership of our President. Instead of railing against the NRA and instead of imploring people to vote for Democrats so that we can enact “common sense” legislation (whatever that is), the President could have led the country on the thought that every American has a personal responsibility to ensure gun safety. This includes identifying people with mental issues who have obtained firearms or have access to firearms. This includes identifying convicted felons who have guns. This includes locked storage of firearms. Personal responsibility can’t be legislated because it can’t be enforced and the ACLU approach of civil litigation to try and force it just isn’t going to work. But Presidents before have used their office to reach out directly to the American people and impact meaningful change in society and without the need to pass a single law.

I have a convicted felon in the family and their guns are locked up at my house. I have a father with Dementia and while his guns are locked up at his house I have the key. That’s my responsibility. These last couple of mass shootings there were plenty of signs to family and friends that the person shouldn’t have a firearm. It doesn’t matter if he could legally obtain them or not, some people shouldn’t have guns. Mothers of gang members know this and friends of drug dealers know this too. It’s going to take a cultural change in our society to understand that these situations are not tolerable and instead of bringing up the “failed policies of the past” this President should choose to lead.

Posted by: George in SC at October 6, 2015 1:56 PM
Comment #399253

Btw, another obvious reform would be to make the sellers of gun and ammo responsible for their sales. If a sale is made to a mentally ill person, a person with a history of violence, or perhaps a person with an existing arsenal of, say, more than three guns, the seller would owe the victims compensation for injury and loss of life. Virtually every other product is already subject to this.

Will anything happen right now with legislation, as in today? Obviously not. It would take a change of control in the House and Senate, and a Democratic president. The presidency and the Senate are very doable in 2016. The House would be a stretch.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2015 2:09 PM
Comment #399254

George I don’t know what you hear when President Obama speaks about gun violence but it is totally different than what I hear, I expect this is a problem of perception. I have never once read a comment by you that gives President Obama credit for anything, anything at all. That is your prerogative, I don’t contest that. I know when I hear what he says, I hear “we need to do something about the epidemic of gun violence”. I support his views on that and will support any aspiring candidate that espouses the same demeanor.

If legislation that imparts restrictions is doomed for failure then why are we a nation of laws? Look you try something, if that doesn’t work you try something else. I agree that the failures of the “war on drugs” and prohibition were indicative of the failure to deal with what people want to satisfy their need for pleasure. Gun violence has no perception of pleasure perhaps aside from the exhilaration that one receives with being in possession of fire power. Gun ownership is not the same as drinking alcohol and using drugs although the addiction could be similar. I would agree that education on gun violence is important but needs to be carried out with the force of law in determining who is capable of responsible gun ownership and deterrents towards to much gun in the hands of the general public.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 2:16 PM
Comment #399255

Yes, education into the problem would definitely help many anti 2nd Amendment folks.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers-and-actual-solutions/

Unlike the Everytown propaganda where they are trying to pass off the gun violence of two adults in a parking lot at an Education and Conference Center, as the mindset of feeling free to go out and kill our children with impunity.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #399256

There is no anti 2nd Amendment legislation. That you intend to keep typing this is indicative of someone who wishes to use subterfuge to bolster their own opinion. Please cite the anti 2nd Amendment legislation that you perceive to be formulating in this discussion.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #399257

Interesting, Phx8
How exactly would the sellers of gun and ammo responsible know if they are selling to a mentally ill person, a person with a history of violence, or perhaps a person with an existing arsenal?

“more than three guns”

That’s an arsenal? I’m sorry man, but LOL!

“the seller would owe the victims compensation for injury and loss of life.”

Why them, rather than who conducted the background check you answered for the first question?

“Virtually every other product is already subject to this.”

No, they’re not.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 2:26 PM
Comment #399259
Do you really think a criminal is going to worry about what restrictions Hillary or any other liberal law maker puts on guns? The only people they will be restricting is the law abiding citizens. NEWS FLASH for you liberal thinkers CRIMINALS don’t care about the law or restrictions they will get what they want by whatever methods they want.

Access to fully automated machine guns has been severely restricted for decades. As a result, such guns are rarely used to commit crimes. Criminals have difficulty obtaining such weapons so they use semiautomatics instead, which are less useful to commit mass murder.

kctim,
I don’t believe gun control is politically viable today. I would be surprised if HRC or another front-runner made it a pillar of his or her campaign.

Blaine,

what could be done in the way of legislation that would be a guarantee to prevent the killings, such as in Oregon,

No constitutional legislation would ever guarantee that such killings would be prevented. In fact, it is the existence of such heinous crimes that reminds us that we are free to choose our own destines. Chris Harper Mercer chose his destiny and now he faces the consequences of that decision, whatever they may be.

I have already stated what legislation I would support: I would support replacing semiautomatic weapons and magazines carrying more than 8 rounds with single-shot weapons and magazine carrying 8 rounds are fewer.

George in SC,

It’s going to take a cultural change in our society to understand that these situations are not tolerable.
I absolutely agree that cultural change is the one true solution. I disagree with the assertion that legislation is unable to assist with that. Legislation has shaped culture and enforced personal responsibility before and it can do the same once again. Witness the dramatic cultural change in how we treat alcohol & cigarettes after the government began enforcing laws against underage consumption and driving while intoxicated.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 2:31 PM
Comment #399261

Warren, if the last few days are any indication, Clinton has already made this a central part of her campaign. Are you suggesting she is just playing lip-service?

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #399262

Yes. Lip service and nothing else.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 2:48 PM
Comment #399265

I can only hope that HRC’s comments are not “lip service”. While I don’t believe that she is proposing anything drastic (closing the gun show loophole, limiting ammunition magazines and better background checks and loophole closures there) it will be refreshing to see a start of the discussion regarding gun violence. Impatience can cause wise people to do foolish things and patience is the art of concealing your impatience. The Presidential campaign of 2016 will have an element of gun violence addressed during the process, we will have to wait and see if it really amounts to anything. I for one encourage it and will support any candidate that wants to speak to the problem of gun violence in our country. I can and will be patient especially if the rewards are a diminishment of gun violence in our country.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #399266

Speaks, there is no ‘gun show loophole,’ and many voters have already said magazine size and UBC are “drastic” actions.

I agree with you though, I also hope her comments are not just lip service. I really would like the issue to be at the forefront of the election and see where we stand as a nation.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #399269

I understand that the phrase gun show loophole is a contentious political phrase however I believe there is room for improvement on how gun shows disperse weapons, my opinion.

I expect that we don’t want this to be an issue for the same reason? That is OK with me, that is what elections are for. I hope there is a candidate that makes a strong case for gun control legislation and the ability to restrict gun ownership to responsible parties only. I support your ability to advocate what you wish but are unable to support your contention.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #399270

Warren, legislation is an uphill solution given a large and politically effective segment of the population against it and a specific right in the Bill of Rights that need not rely on the 9th Amendment.

Speaks you hear the President differently because you are not fearful of a legal liability from your free exercise of a right. When you listen from a position of a fear of being locked up or sued you will hear his message differently.

That’s why I put so much hope in this particular President’s ability to impact the culture and why I am so disappointed. When he ran for President Obama said, “So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true.” He has the ultimate ability to renew this position and take new legislation and regulation off the table for the balance of his Presidency. Instead he could take the moral high road in an argument against gun abuse and without the fear of new regulation, new laws, and/or Executive Orders I believe it would resonate.


Posted by: George in SC at October 6, 2015 4:19 PM
Comment #399271

“This campus was a gun free zone and yet somehow this individual got onto campus with not one gun but several guns. So, before we start calling for more laws I think we ought to consider why we don’t enforce the laws we have.” — Carly Fiorina

“it’s clear that gun free zones are sitting duck zones” — Gov. Mike Huckabee

“Wouldn’t they have been better off if somebody in the room, anybody, anybody, had a gun to at least help them out? It was a terrible thing. And these gun-free zones are a disaster. Everybody’s just a sitting duck.” — Donald Trump

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 4:20 PM
Comment #399272

Speaks, I most definitely want gun control to be an issue in the 2016 elections. A major issue.
Nothing brings out right leaning voters like more restrictive gun control.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 4:23 PM
Comment #399274

George, I do not live in fear and will not succumb to that. President Obama has done what he can with what he has available, do I wish he could do more? Emphatically yes, but I also know the limitations of the office of President. My hope is that the ground work laid during his term in office is used by those following in his footsteps to promote the changes that he spoke about during his campaigns. Time will tell but none of us knows for sure.

kct, and I would hope that those that have become disgusted with the gun violence become outraged enough to elect someone who will try to do something about it.

RF, so the answer to gun violence is more guns? Sorry but I can’t believe in that, it just sounds to simple and not effective, it would even lead to an increase in gun violence, in my opinion. But advocate for what you wish, that is what makes this country what it is.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #399277

Product liability for sellers of guns would involve doing background checks and a three day waiting period. Background checks are electronic and should be nearly instantaneous. The purpose of a waiting period is to discourage heat-of-the-moment purchases to commit spur of the moment murders.

The most common single cause of gun deaths are suicides. The most common murders involve arguments between two males. A background check and waiting period might reduce those kinds of gun deaths.

I can not think of a reason anyone would want more than three guns- a pistol for home defense, a hunting rifle, and a shotgun. More than that would not make sense, and possessing more than three suggests the possibility of mental illness in and of itself.

Growing up, I spent summers around guns. There was a gun rack over my bed. No one would have even considered owning automatic weapons or assault style rifles, or Glocks or whatever. There is no sane reason to even want to possess those kind of weapons because they’re no good for hunting. Generally speaking, pistols are fairly useless.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2015 4:44 PM
Comment #399278

phx8 this is why we don’t have kings or even kings for a day…

Posted by: George in SC at October 6, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #399279

Speaks asks; “RF, so the answer to gun violence is more guns?”

Hmmm…it works well for protecting the president and other big deal politicians, Hollywood types, national, state and local police.

Let us suppose Speak that you were in a situation with an armed person intent on killing you and many others. Would you like someone else in the room to be armed and possibly save your life and the life of others?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 4:56 PM
Comment #399280

Hypothetical solutions to a problem that isn’t really happening mean nothing. The problem is an epidemic of gun violence, the introduction of more guns, to me seems far fetched as a solution. Your supposition assumes far to many unknown variables for me to participate in the supposing. But I can understand that you would like someone else in the room to be armed. Can you understand my aversion of being in a room with someone armed whether there is a threat evident or not? This is the real problem. There are people that see guns as a solution and there are people that see guns as the problem. You advocate the former and I advocate the latter. Remember you are discussing this with someone who has lived gun free for over 35 years and has had much success in doing so.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #399281

“More than that (owning 3 guns) would not make sense, and possessing more than three suggests the possibility of mental illness in and of itself.”

I detect a mental illness in this comment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:04 PM
Comment #399283

Speaks writes; “Hypothetical solutions to a problem that isn’t really happening mean nothing.”

Isn’t that interesting. Proposed new gun laws are all hypothetical.

I know you refuse to answer my hypothetical as the answer would have to be “yes, I would like someone to defend me.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment #399284

RF, no you cannot answer for me as I already did but just to clarify, no I would not want another armed person in the room. But can you answer the question posed to you? Can you understand my aversion of being in a room with someone armed whether there is a threat evident or not?

You know for all of your “tough guy” talk I believe last year when I asked commenters to tell me if they have ever had to pull a gun on someone or had a gun pulled on them by someone you were silent. I have had both occurrences and did not find pleasure in either.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #399285

All laws are hypothetical in their formulation.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #399287

“Can you understand my aversion of being in a room with someone armed whether there is a threat evident or not?”

No, I can not. The most basic human emotion is self preservation. You claim not to possess that trait.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #399289

Phx8

Licensed gun dealers already do background checks that are nearly instantaneous, so I take it that you are speaking of private party sellers, which is unenforceable.

We will just have to disagree about a waiting period. As far as I know, none of these mass shooters just woke up one morning and buy a gun so they can go on a shooting spree.

“The most common single cause of gun deaths are suicides.”

Don’t care.

“A background check and waiting period might reduce those kinds of gun deaths.”

Wishful thinking. The type of people who settle arguments with guns already have them.

“possessing more than three suggests the possibility of mental illness in and of itself.”

This kind of extremist thinking is why your side can’t get any traction. Silly and close minded, Phx8.

“Growing up, I spent summers around guns. There was a gun rack over my bed.”

Growing up, my life was spent around guns. Gun cabinets, in dressers, the shed, racks in the truck, etc… Hmmmm? You slept with guns and I couldn’t fart without hitting a gun, but neither of us went on a shooting spree. Imagine that.

“There is no sane reason to even want to possess those kind of weapons because they’re no good for hunting. Generally speaking, pistols are fairly useless”

You really should understand what you are talking about before bringing it up.
Emotion causes people to say silly things.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #399290

I wonder if speaks would walk into a building that Obama was giving a speech in, see how there would be guns there?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment #399291

Emotion causes people to say silly things.
Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 5:22 PM

So sad, so true.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment #399292

KAP, I wonder if Speaks is fearful of police.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #399293

You cannot understand my aversion because you refuse to. You like to use this technique in discussions. As soon as a question is posed to you to ask you to understand you attack the individual asking the question. Hey how about the “tough guy” talk, you ever had to draw down on someone or had someone draw down on you? Now I’m not talking about that pretend hypothetical stuff that you like so much, I mean the real thing. I have been self preservating for over 68 years and sometimes in the most adverse situations. How about you? Or are you going to just throw out silly hypotheticals?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #399294

Does Speak avoid airports too? Lots of guns there.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:29 PM
Comment #399295

RF, KAP you guys can wonder all you want. Until you can tell me of an instance of your confrontation with gun violence in the real world you sound like a couple of teenage boys wondering what the grown ups are doing now.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #399296

Perhaps Speak will share with us how he survived all those armed threats.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #399297

LOL…Speak has lost it. Only those who have been threatened with gun violence can understand why it is important to NOT be armed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #399298

I have already and if your memory isn’t good enough I can refresh it. I have been robbed twice once with one person and a gun another with two people one with a gun and the other with a knife. Both instances they threatened and I relinquished money and in one instance a car too. I have had to draw a weapon in defense of my person and decided to no longer own a gun not to long after that confrontation as I could not see a good ending either way. How about you two rootin’ tootin’ gun totin’ bad asses?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #399299

Well now you are going into your childish accusatory mode. I see no productive discussion progressing here. C’mon tough guy I’m sure you have something you can claim to have experienced that would lead you to believe why you need that gun, or maybe not?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:38 PM
Comment #399300

Speaks, I myself do not own a gun, but in an instance that I am faced with gun violence to myself or people around me I do hope someone has a carry permit and has the opportunity to take out the perpetrator.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #399301

Disarm and live. Wow…what a strategy.

Should I ever have the “privilege” to live next door to Speaks I will post a sign in the yard pointing to his home with the notation that “That home contains no guns”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:41 PM
Comment #399302

” C’mon tough guy…”

Guns don’t make me tough Speak, just much safer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:43 PM
Comment #399303

RF & KAP well you two deserve to live in trembling fear. I however do not feel the need to want someone around me that is armed and in fact would rather they weren’t. You see, to me that is part of the problem with this gun nonsense. You have a group of cowboys that are all pumped up on the idea of guns and guns are good and boy I’ll show that bad guy with my big bad gun. Kind of silly isn’t it. RF, I believe there is a saying in your part of the country that best describes you, “All hat and no cattle”. Hah!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #399304

And if you think they make you safer that would be your opinion. You do want to deny me mine but I say you are welcome to yours. See any difference?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #399305

Good Grief Speak. From where are you getting all the “cowboy” nonsense. Speak is the tough guy. He goes unarmed and avoids those that are. When threatened he crumbles and hopes all that is taken from him is stuff rather than his life, or the lives of those he loves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #399306

RF, yes you have got that right. Nothing I posses materially is worth dying for. Now those that I love are a different story. No crumbling just a thoughtful approach to a difficult situation with a good amount of courage that ended up getting me out of that situation. How about you? You still haven’t provided any real reason you need your gun. At least KAP admitted to not owning one, which I can respect.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #399308

Sorry to break your fairy bubble Speak. You were lucky…many are not. Counting on luck to save your life and the life of those you love is not a sane position.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #399309

I’m glad the police in my city and state are armed, maybe they are not where you live Speaks. I’m not fearful Speaks but I’m glad that if me or my loved ones are threatened there may be someone out there to ease the situation. I hate to see anyone die needlessly when basic protections could have prevented it. No amount of gun control will end gun violence.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #399310

I haven’t done a search but I wonder if there have been any mass murders at a gun show.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 6:06 PM
Comment #399311

Perhaps Speak can enlighten us all as to why recent mass murders are done in places not likely to have armed people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 6:09 PM
Comment #399317

Speak writes; “You still haven’t provided any real reason you need your gun.”

It is quite simple to understand Speak. We have innocents murdered in gun free zones. We have assaults, muggings, thefts, and rapes occurring on a regular basis nearly everywhere, even in our churches and other places of worship.

I understand that there are people who will take what they want from me or others by force. They only way to confront that force is to be armed.

I understand that the police are limited in their ability to protect the populace and many police chiefs have called for citizens to arm themselves.

I don’t live in fear as I have the ability to protect myself and others from all manner of criminal activity at home or elsewhere.

The Constitution gives me the right to protect myself. Our founders in their papers urge citizens to be armed.

My religious beliefs do not require me to sacrifice my life or possessions rather than defend them.

I am ready and able to defend myself and the defenseless if need be. I consider saving myself or others to be a worthy act.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #399321

RF,

I’m glad to hear that you feel your firearms will protect you if need be. Would a non-automatic firearm with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds be any less effective?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 8:11 PM
Comment #399322

I am not aware of a single nation that does not have something similar to a police force. For those who do not tote they are being protected by some one who has a gun be it the armed forces, FBI, police or a good neighbor who totes.

Hinkly came close to getting Regan and the one guy did get RFK but, few attempts are made on people with protective services around them.

We have reached a new low in this country whereby there should always be two officers on patrol together. And, maybe two officers should case a bad guy into an alleyway as opposed to one. Need to protect the officers and also it’s nice to have a witness.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 6, 2015 8:26 PM
Comment #399323

Speaks is beginning to sound like one of the flower children of the 60’s. I personally don’t care if speaks owns a gun, or even knows how to use a gun. His comments are bordering on infantile.

I personally carry a concealed weapon at all times, my wife has a conceal carry permit. My friends all have conceal carry permits; the husbands and their wives. My permit is legal in 39 states and I don’t travel in any states in which I can’t carry. I don’t carry for the purpose of thinking I’m tough, because I’m not. I carry for personal protection; the old saying is true, “only an idiot brings a knife (or fist) to a gun fight”. I have been shooting since I was 4 or 5 years old. I bought my first rifle when I was 12 years old, it was a British Enfield 303 cal. I have built and shot guns all my life. My father was a gunsmith (as a hobby) and I followed in his footsteps.

I asked the question, what legislation could be passed that would prevent a shooting like the one in Oregon, and the answer I got from the left was “Zero”. Everything the left has said is based upon emotion. One of you are calling for the 3 day waiting period so that cooler heads might prevail; perhaps Obama should have waited 3 days before he turned a tragedy into politics. The politicians and people of Roseburg, OR have requested that Obama not visit their town. The quote from their spokesman was, “we don’t want Obama standing on the bodies of our dead for political gain”. I personally don’t care what Obama or Hillary does; they can politicize all they want. But, I will say, it only hurts the Democrat Party. There is nothing that fires up the US citizens (Dems or Repubs) faster than the talk of gun control. The left denies it is an attack on our 2nd amendment rights; but no one believes that… Liberals are sneaky…kind of like slimy snakes that crawl out from under rocks. The left would love nothing better than to turn America into Australia; they would love nothing better than to confiscate ALL guns from the American people. Speaks believes that all Americans should be just like him and own no guns. WP wants to pick a time in history and not allow any American to own a gun any newer than 1850. And the best one is phx8, who wants to hold the seller, public or private, responsible for who he sells weapons to:

Btw, another obvious reform would be to make the sellers of gun and ammo responsible for their sales. If a sale is made to a mentally ill person, a person with a history of violence, or perhaps a person with an existing arsenal of, say, more than three guns, the seller would owe the victims compensation for injury and loss of life. Virtually every other product is already subject to this.

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. What happened when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a couple of fudge packers? Oh, wait a minute, the bakery lost the case and had to pay reparations. So a gun dealer or a private citizen has a gun for sale; and the dealer or private citizen says to the buyer, “I can’t sell this gun to you because you may be mentally ill (or better yet, you look mentally ill), or “how many guns do you already have, if you have more than 3, I can’t sell you the gun”. Can anyone say lawsuit? Stupid idea.

WP wants to limit handguns to revolvers and not semi-autos. And what do we do with the millions of semi-autos that are already in the hands of Americans…should we confiscate them? The problem we have is that most of you on the left have no idea what you are talking about. For example WP, did you know the most popular conceal carry pistols for men are compact semi-autos, most not carrying more than 8 rounds; the most popular pistols for women are hammerless revolvers holding 5 rounds. The left talks about gun shows like it’s the most kept secret in America. It’s all bull; all gun dealers at gun shows are required to follow federal law and do background checks. But the little secret is that not all vendors at gun shows even sell guns. Most sell accessories; but that doesn’t stop Obama and the left from politicizing the gun shows. How many of you guys on the left have ever even been to a gun show? I have been to many and very seldom have I bought a gun, but I have bought reloading supplies, I’ve bought antique parts for old military rifles, I’ve bought scopes, and occasionally I buy a soft drink and a hotdog. 2% of gun sales at gun shows are done by private citizens who are not required to follow federal law. Perhaps one of you intelligent liberals (an oxymoron) could tell us, of all the mass shootings in America over the past 20/30 years; how many of the guns were bought at a gun show???

You say, I support the 2nd amendment; but out of the other side of your mouths you say, the 2nd amendment is not talking about the individuals right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights says it is the right of individuals to bear arms, the founding fathers said it is the right of individuals to bear arms, and the SC has declared it is the right of individuals to bear arms. There is not a single politician (Dem or Rep), who is not from a completely blue district, who will touch gun control with a ten foot pole. The American people have had a taste of freedom; in the past 15 years millions of Americans have taken the training and received their conceal carry permits. There are more every day. In the past few years there have been reciprocity agreements between most of the states. The claims by the left of “America will become like the wild west”, and “there will be shootouts in the streets” were lies and exaggerations. The left is great at “the sky is falling”. No shootouts by conceal carry people, in fact there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases were people have protected theirs or someone else’s lives. Of course, you will never hear this in the liberal media. Over 300 million weapons and growing; and I say good. It has been a proven fact that an armed people are a safe people. That crime has gone down in areas where the people are allowed to be armed.

Unless you can figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people, then there is nothing politicians can do. The left created the immoral mess we are in, and now they want to blame everyone else. It’s liberals who have argued that America was not founded on Judeo/Christian values, it is liberals who removed the Bible from the public schools, it is liberals who have promoted sexual promiscuity which led to teen pregnancies, which led to liberals promoting the killing of babies through abortion, which has led to generations of kids growing up with no respect of life, it is liberals who have fought tooth and nail to destroy the Constitution, and I could go on and on. What Democrat controlled liberal state is successful, or what Democrat liberal city is safe…none. They are broke, they are crime riddled, they are corrupt, and they are run by liberals.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 9:28 PM
Comment #399324

Warren, 8 rounds of what? A semi-automatic is a system consisting of the gun, the magazine, and the cartridge, and it has many design parameters such as weight, size and firepower. John Browning designed the 1911 to have a single stack, 8 round magazine using .45acp. He designed the P-35 (Browning Hi-Power) using a double stacked, 13 rd magazine with a lighter and less powerful 9x19 cartridge (about .38). The Beretta P92 replaced the 1911 as the sidearm of choice; it’s thicker and heavier than both and has a 15 round 9mm magazine. Then polymer guns like the Glock became popular with police as you could get the 15 rounds with lighter weight for extended wear. .

Point is an 8 round magazine doesn’t take into account what the gun is designed to do or how lethal it is. It’s clear from Oregon and the fact that several survivors were shot multiple times (including the guy who rushed the shooter) that had the shooter used a typical 1911 or a revolver in .357 mag. instead of his Glock and Taurus 9mms there would have been more casualties.

Posted by: George in SC at October 6, 2015 9:34 PM
Comment #399325
RF,

I’m glad to hear that you feel your firearms will protect you if need be. Would a non-automatic firearm with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds be any less effective?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 8:11 PM

This is exactly what I mean by not knowing what you are talking about:

A non-automatic firearm (I’m assuming you are speaking of handguns), is a revolver or a single shot. Revolvers do not have magazines, the have cylinders. And with very little practice, a revolver can be reloaded as fast as loading a magazine into a semi-auto. WP, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I honestly doubt you have ever fired a revolver or a semi-auto. Most single shots are used for competition shooting.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #399326

You’re absolutely correct George. The 45ACP was designed to stop someone, no matter where they were hit. The 357 or 44 mag would not require more than one shot. WP is just spouting something he read on some liberal web site or heard on MSNBC.

By the way, a teenage plot to explode a bomb in his school was just foiled in Florida. If someone wants to mass kill people, they can find a way. What if a kid just decides to ram his car into a crowd of teens at a school parking lot. By WP’s thinking, teenagers should be required to drive a Mini, rather than an SUV. The Mini would kill less people.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 9:55 PM
Comment #399327

I have been saying for awhile now on this blog, If a person want’s to kill he/she will find a way to do it, if not by a gun.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 9:59 PM
Comment #399329

But we understand, it’s not about killing:

It’s about the left’s hatred of freedom. They were Torrey’s and the supported the King in the 1770’s, to day they are liberal Democrats.

It’s about power and control…control of the money and the idea that the common people are armed scares the hell out of the left.

If Obama’s outrage was about murder, he would be outraged at what is happening to his own race, by his own race in the inner cities. But it’s not about murder.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 10:13 PM
Comment #399330

Very good response, Blaine. My thoughts exactly.

Let me try. Instead of letting 46k druggies out of jail they should do a couple of years on a rock pile, no salt on their food and no AC. Talk about reducing recidivism!!

Saw somewhere in the media where they want to raise the legal age to 21 I believe. I think that would double or triple the number of young people in jail. Again, a couple of years busting rocks would help some by cutting down recidivism.

But, hey, an old, white, church goer. What would I know? Death penalty ain’t cool more more, etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at October 6, 2015 10:28 PM
Comment #399331

I wasn’t exclusively speaking about handguns, but I can gladly discuss them.

I already know about revolvers. Still, why not put yet another barrier in front of wannabe criminals and make them master the technique of reloading the cylinder. Again I ask, would revolvers significantly diminish citizen’s ability to defend themselves compared to the semiautomatic handguns they typically use today?

This is exactly what I mean by not knowing what you are talking about:
I admit this is not an area of expertise for me. I once shot a .22 caliber rifle when I a Boy Scout and that is the extent of my personal gun knowledge. You are very passionate about your firearm hobby and I commend you for that. I just want to open avenues to explore our options for keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill without infringing on the rights established by DC v. Heller.

Already, we have a system in place that successfully keeps fully automated machine guns out of the hands of criminals. Of course, the result is that such weapons are difficult for citizens to obtain. Still, there are very few law-abiding uses that demand these weapons be used.

There is a lot written claiming that limiting the number of rounds might reduce casualty rates at this massacres. A man protecting himself rarely needs more than 8, but the criminal needs plenty more. Some have suggested limiting the sizes of magazines. Obviously, there is also the problem of the huge reservoir of preexisting guns that would violate such a rule. Either we’d have to do an Australian style buyback program or tolerate this pool of grandfathered guns. Personally, I’d be fine with the latter option and let simple attrition take care of the rest. As I said to George, the goal is really to change our cultural relationship to guns rather than actually sever our access to them.

2% of gun sales at gun shows are done by private citizens who are not required to follow federal law.
Is there any good reason not to extend the law to cover these guns too? I understand the need for a loophole to permit the transfer of firearms within a family or perhaps between close friends. However, when selling something publicly, shouldn’t extra care be taken? This loophole has extra notoriety because the Columbine shooters exploited it to do their deed. Pages 34 & 35 highlight a dozen incidents in which criminals exploited the gun show loophole.

Of course, the greatest source of illegal guns are straw purchases. But nobody has made any suggestions regarding how we ought to clamp down on them.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 10:32 PM
Comment #399333
WP is just spouting something he read on some liberal web site or heard on MSNBC.
I plead guilty to the former. MSNBC sucks.
You’re absolutely correct George. The 45ACP was designed to stop someone, no matter where they were hit. The 357 or 44 mag would not require more than one shot.
Does it make sense to regulate the calibers that are available? I am aware that higher calibers are better for hunting as they are more likely to kill the quarry rather than merely maim it, which is far more humane. But handguns are not often used to hunt.

Would a gun with 8 rounds of a small caliber be enough to defend oneself? How small is too small? Would 9mm work? Obviously, this would lead to more criminals being injured rather than killed, but as long as they are prevented from committing their crime, does it really matter?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 10:44 PM
Comment #399334
They were Torrey’s and the supported the King in the 1770’s, to day they are liberal Democrats.

You have it backwards. The Tories in Parliament who opposed colonists demands in the 18th century eventually started calling themselves conservatives a few decades later. Pro-colonial MPs at the time (such as William Pitt the elder) came from opposition Whig party, which eventually became today’s Liberal Democrats.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 10:51 PM
Comment #399335
Converte gladium tuum in locum suum omnes enim qui tenere gladium gladio peribunt .

Matthew 26:52

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 3:22 AM
Comment #399336
By the way, a teenage plot to explode a bomb in his school was just foiled in Florida. If someone wants to mass kill people, they can find a way. What if a kid just decides to ram his car into a crowd of teens at a school parking lot. By WP’s thinking, teenagers should be required to drive a Mini, rather than an SUV. The Mini would kill less people

Oh puleeze Blaine these types of counter arguments are a waste of time. It detracts from the issue. Kinda like kctim did when responding to my previous post. It seems to me conservatives always point to mental health when it comes to these shootings yet they voted to forbid research into gun violence.

Seems to me ammosexuals need to accept responsibility for the blowback related to gun violence. Instead we get technical talk and finger pointing, blaming liberals for immorality, such an ignorant claim yet there you are moving on to cars.

But lets say you have a point, abortion and cars are part of the violence problem yet they are strictly regulated why not guns. Warren posted an abortion type regulation for guns earlier perhaps that is the answer.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2015 9:25 AM
Comment #399337

“It detracts from the issue. Kinda like kctim did when responding to my previous post”

You brought up education and not restricting research into gun violence. I provided a link with some research information from the Justice Department, CDC and FBI.

So tell me J2, just how did I detract from your post?

“Seems to me ammosexuals need to accept responsibility for the blowback related to gun violence.”

As I have said before J2, the problem anti 2nd Amendment people have is the fact that pro 2nd Amendment people are NOT responsible for the vast majority of that gun violence. You guys are targeting and attacking the wrong people with your hate and rhetoric.

“Instead we get technical talk”

Yeah, heaven forbid people actually know something about what they are talking about. Sheesh.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2015 9:57 AM
Comment #399338
Does it make sense to regulate the calibers that are available? I am aware that higher calibers are better for hunting as they are more likely to kill the quarry rather than merely maim it, which is far more humane. But handguns are not often used to hunt.

That is an excellent question Warren and it gets to heart of the problem that I was trying to make to you: it won’t work to take one feature of a the weapons system, limit it, then expect an improvement in public safety. There are just too many variables.

The.22 from you past is a prime example of why a restriction on calibers won’t work. Your Boy Scout rifle was probably a .22 long rifle and it’s one of the most common rile and handgun cartridges out there. It’s .22 inch caliber is also the same caliber as the .556x45 NATO used in most black guns (often referred to as assault weapons). Just as a firearm is a “system” so is the cartridge that it shoots. Force = mass x acceleration so you have to consider the weight of the projectile and the speed at which it is traveling at time of impact. Barrel length, bullet weight, caliber, accuracy and quantity of projectiles all determine the lethality of a weapon and you can’t just take one element out of the equation.

Posted by: George in SC at October 7, 2015 10:14 AM
Comment #399339
You brought up education and not restricting research into gun violence.

Read the link kctim and you will find I did bring up restricting research into gun violence.

As I have said before J2, the problem anti 2nd Amendment people have is the fact that pro 2nd Amendment people are NOT responsible for the vast majority of that gun violence.

Are you telling us the Oregon shooter wasn’t an ammosexual or as you say pro 2nd amendment type? According to him he was a conservative repub. Besides kctim, what makes you think that you and your fellow proammosexuals aren’t responsible for the gun violence when you support it by allowing the easy access to weapons, by refusing to bring forth legislation that would help solve the problem? It is the proammosexuals that wouldn’t allow research into the root causes of gun violence. Years ago!

Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2015 12:33 PM
Comment #399340

I read your links, J2. And then I provided some research information from the Justice Department, CDC and FBI that they were not restricted from obtaining.

“Are you telling us the Oregon shooter wasn’t a pro 2nd amendment type?”

Sigh. Read the link J2.
I said that pro 2nd Amendment people are NOT responsible for the vast majority of gun violence. Suicides and common criminals in urban areas are.

“what makes you think that you and your fellow 2nd Amendment supporters aren’t responsible for the gun violence when you support it by allowing the easy access to weapons”

Gee J2, probably because we live in areas with more guns per capita, less restrictive laws, and nowhere near the gun violence.

“by refusing to bring forth legislation that would help solve the problem?”

WE don’t have a problem, J2. Other than the rare nut, we live responsibly with our rights. You have to be willing to acknowledge the problem before you can solve it. Something you guys refuse to do for political reasons.

“It is the 2nd Amendment supporters that wouldn’t allow research into the root causes of gun violence. Years ago!”

So what kind of information would you want that research to reveal to you?

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2015 1:07 PM
Comment #399341

Would a non-automatic firearm with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds be any less effective?
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 8:11 PM

Why not ask the police in your area Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #399342

The United States ranks 91st in the world for murder rates in the most recent year rated (2012).

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 2:15 PM
Comment #399343

Unlike the police, law-abiding citizens don’t subdue fleeing criminals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 7, 2015 2:27 PM
Comment #399344

Most liberals, if asked, would declare Texas the gun capital of the nation. Just imagine, Plano, TX, only a stones throw from where I live comes in at 0.4 murder rate per capita.

Here’s just a few of the cities cited and their murder rates based on 100,000 per capita:

Austin – 3.7
Seattle – 3.7
San Diego – 3.5
El Paso – 3.4
Portland – 3.3
Santa Ana – 3.3
Mesa – 3.1
Henderson – 1.5
Lincoln – 1.1
Plano – 0.4


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/usa-first-world-gun-ownership-not-even-top-100-countries-murder-rate/#u464J3EGUKojstwh.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 2:28 PM
Comment #399345

Warren, pay attention. I wrote that you should ask the police what capacity magazine a citizen should carry.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 2:34 PM
Comment #399346
Still, why not put yet another barrier in front of wannabe criminals and make them master the technique of reloading the cylinder. Again I ask, would revolvers significantly diminish citizen’s ability to defend themselves compared to the semiautomatic handguns they typically use today?

WP, there are two basic reasons for buying handguns; one is for protection and the other is for collection. Some handguns are great for target shooting , but make terrible self protection guns. Most of the handguns purchased in today’s society are for conceal carry purpose. Like I said before, women usually purchase revolvers (do to the simplicity of the operation) and most men purchase semi-autos (and most of them are 8 rounds single stacked, due to weight); but before some liberal wants to change the subject and argue the point, I will say that there are always exceptions to the rule. You can’t seem to grasp the principle, it doesn’t matter if it is a revolver or a Semi-auto. The semi-auto requires a magazine change to reload; this takes only seconds, no matter the capacity. The revolver is reloaded with a speed loader, and this also takes seconds. The only difference is that most revolvers have a 6 shot capacity; but is a matter of seconds 12 shots, 18 shots, or 24 shots can be fired. Magazine capacity is a liberal straw man or talking point.

I just want to open avenues to explore our options for keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill without infringing on the rights established by DC v. Heller.

Magazine capacity, type of weapon, or caliber have nothing to do with your goal of keeping any weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Already, we have a system in place that successfully keeps fully automated machine guns out of the hands of criminals. Of course, the result is that such weapons are difficult for citizens to obtain. Still, there are very few law-abiding uses that demand these weapons be used.

The reason such weapons are difficult for citizens to obtain is the price and the intrusion of the federal government into the live of those who purchase them. What system is in place to keep fully auto weapons out of the hands of criminals? Aren’t all weapons illegal in the hands of all criminals? People purchase these weapons legally for the purpose of owning, collecting, and shooting them. Guns don’t have to have a use in order to be owned. Why do people collect anything? Jay Lenno collects cars; does he drive all of them…absolutely not. But he owns them because that’s what he collects. Some people collect stamps; some people even collect antique medicine bottles; are you saying they have no right, because they don’t use them.

There is a lot written claiming that limiting the number of rounds might reduce casualty rates at this massacres. A man protecting himself rarely needs more than 8, but the criminal needs plenty more. Some have suggested limiting the sizes of magazines. Obviously, there is also the problem of the huge reservoir of preexisting guns that would violate such a rule. Either we’d have to do an Australian style buyback program or tolerate this pool of grandfathered guns.

First, the Australian buyback was a confiscation. I discussed the magazine size earlier. As I said, most conceal carry weapons are of 8 round capacity, although there are exceptions. This is mainly done for weight and comfort purposes. The size of magazines was tried already and does nothing. There are literally millions of large capacity magazines in the country and they would be (and have been grandfathered in). As I said before, if the goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, then why argue for gun type and capacity. Regarding guns in the hands of the criminals, it is already illegal.

From the link you provided on gun shows, page 32:

Perhaps the most vocal of these licensed retailers was the late Bill Bridgewater, head of the National Association of Stocking Gun Dealers. In 1993 he wrote to the House JudiciaryCommittee‟s Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice:

“The BATF has established rules and regulations
for these things they call “gun shows.” The
opportunity for the black marketers is that the
BATF doesn‟t enforce those regulations and there
isn‟t anyone else to do so.”

So, there are already laws on the books, but the BATF has failed to enforce the laws. What good does it do to legislate more laws? As I have said, I have been to many gun shows and one thing you can always count on is the presence of BATF agents.

Of course, the greatest source of illegal guns are straw purchases. But nobody has made any suggestions regarding how we ought to clamp down on them.

It’s kind hard for the Obama administration to talk about straw purchasers, especially after his “Fast and Furious” buy that placed illegal guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartel, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including Americans.

Would a gun with 8 rounds of a small caliber be enough to defend oneself? How small is too small? Would 9mm work? Obviously, this would lead to more criminals being injured rather than killed, but as long as they are prevented from committing their crime, does it really matter?

The purpose of a self defense gun is to stop the criminal and a 22cal pistol will not likely do it. Most self defense guns are 9mm in the auto, some like 40cal or the 45ACP. Most revolvers are 38 spc, although some use 357mag or 44spc. It has to do with comfort and whether male or female. I would suggest you read up on self defense calibers, since your experience comes from reading.

You have it backwards. The Tories in Parliament who opposed colonists demands in the 18th century eventually started calling themselves conservatives a few decades later. Pro-colonial MPs at the time (such as William Pitt the elder) came from opposition Whig party, which eventually became today’s Liberal Democrats.

What they evolved into is not the point; the point is that todays liberals would have sided with the king rather than oppose him. And todays conservatives would have been throwing tea in the harbor.

Lastly, regarding j2, I would say he doesn’t have enough sense to hold a intelligent debate.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 2:52 PM
Comment #399347
Would a non-automatic firearm with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds be any less effective? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 8:11 PM

There is no such animal. non-auto firearms are revolvers, and revolvers don’t have magazines. And for all practical purposes revolvers hold either 5 or 6 rounds.

Why not ask the police in your area Warren? Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 1:54 PM

I think Royal is telling you to ask your local police dept which type of gun and which caliber would be best.

A policeman recently told my niece that she should get a 38spc revolver instead of the 22cal pistol she carried.

Royal, it would be interesting to know what percent of the murders committed in Texas are committed by illegals. Not only are they the gun capital, but I would imagine they are also the illegal alien capital.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 3:11 PM
Comment #399348

Well the keyboard kowboys are at it again I see. Ahm the rootinest, tootinest, six gun totinest hombre in these heah parts cause I say so. You two appear to be legends in your own mind only. I dare say most of us find your commenting humorous but banal. Your criticisms of other commenters proves your inability to express yourself without denigrating someone. You both do express the fear that you know is inevitable, there is a whole group of young people who are growing up without the gun fetish you both proudly display. I expect that if they were to observe your behavior they would learn a lesson regarding how not to present yourself in a discussion if you want to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 7, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #399349

Blaine, that would be interesting. In my county we have a very strict sheriff, police forces, and judges who give maximum prison sentences for any gun related offenses. Many of our citizens carry a concealed weapon. The criminal never knows who might be carrying. Some little old lady might shoot your ass if you try to steal her purse.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 3:17 PM
Comment #399350

Regarding youth; the NRA had a membership of 5 million in 2014 and the membership has been growing over the years. Why would you think the kids of these members would not have the same interests as their parents? Fact: NRA an gun owners are more involved in politics than non-gun owners. It would be interesting to know what % of NRA members kids grow up with the same ideologies.

But, maybe speaks just wants to continue talking silly?

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #399351

Some libs, when confronted with facts, attempt humor to disguise their inability to rebut.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #399352

It appeared to me that WP had some legitimate comments and concerns, and we had moved in that direction; but speaks, who has not commented in almost 24 hours, continues with his silly “tough guy” comments. Perhaps he believes, if we don’t agree with him, then the conversation is just a comedy.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 4:14 PM
Comment #399353
Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

The poll also found that 22 percent of Americans personally own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014.

Newsweek

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 4:18 PM
Comment #399354

http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

Evidently my link didn’t work, so try this.

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #399355

I like taking surveys like that.
I always answer NO.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2015 4:28 PM
Comment #399356

Cube, in your link is another link to Brietbart who offers evidence that the Obama administration had offered grants to organizations lik GSS, whose numbers cannot be trusted due to the anti-gun people who run the organization. The NRA also disagrees with the flawed results and Pew research cannot confirm GSS’s results. And lastly, logic does not support the findings, considering that 2015 is slated to be the new record year for earnings for the gun manufacturing industry, and there has been a large increase in FBI background checks for both gun sales and CCW license.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #399357

For the Xenophobic


They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798


Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #399358

Kctim, you’re correct, most gun owners would never tell some yahoo in a survey how many guns he owned. It is probably for this reason that Pew Research and other larger polling companies have ever desired to do this poll.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 4:59 PM
Comment #399359

This is interesting, since when I googled “Hispanics in prison “, I found an article in the huffington post that said Hispanics are the new majority in federal prisons, at 50.6% in 2011. Of course that may be down a little now, due to Obama releasing them.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #399360

Blaine, the worst part is that it’s not just “some yahoo” anymore.
My daughters High School emailed a survey at the beginning of the year and two of the questions were along these lines:

Is anybody in your household a military veteran?
Does anybody in your household own firearms?

Luckily, my wife and daughter know how to answer those questions.

My doctors office asked if firearms are present in my house and I said no. She looked at my hat - Glock - smiled and checked no.

Things are just way too intrusive nowadays, thank goodness I don’t own any guns.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #399361

kctim…I don’t own any firearms either…thank goodness.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #399362

“probably for this reason that Pew Research and other larger polling companies have ever desired to do this poll.”

I am assuming you meant “never”.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

You wanted facts, now they are inconvenient. I own a gun, and I do support the second amendment. I also believe that we do need some gun control. It is inevitable that it will come, and their will be fringe fanatics that will fight it tooth and nail.

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #399363

“The chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees warned Wednesday that lower federal sentencing guidelines under President Obama are expected to lead to the early release of more than 10,000 federal inmates this year, and possibly tens of thousands of others in the next few years.

“This includes inmates with violent criminal histories, who have committed crimes involving assault, firearms, sodomy and even murder,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a letter.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-warns-10000-prisoners-will-be-released-early-under-obama-this-year/article/2568751

Let us imagine a situation in which one of these early releases commits a mass murder. How do you suppose our glorious leader will respond?

1. Blame the gun

2. Blame conservatives

3. Blame Bush

4. Demand more gun control

5. Resign from office

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 6:19 PM
Comment #399364

I find it interesting that the Republican Party has one black, two Latinos, and one of Indian heritage running for office.

The Dems have an old white man and woman.

Hmmm….is this the diversity liberals like to talk about?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #399365

Blaine,

Thank you for your comments. This is a topic you are passionate about and I am glad to see you arguing with facts rather than your usual malarkey. You collect guns, which is great. It is good to pay homage to the history of American firearms.

Like I said before, women usually purchase revolvers (do to the simplicity of the operation) and most men purchase semi-autos (and most of them are 8 rounds single stacked, due to weight)
Fine, but I think it is clear that there are many factors that go into a gun purchase, not just the suitability for self-defense. Otherwise, men and women would be using the same firearms.
You can’t seem to grasp the principle, it doesn’t matter if it is a revolver or a Semi-auto. The semi-auto requires a magazine change to reload; this takes only seconds, no matter the capacity. The revolver is reloaded with a speed loader, and this also takes seconds. The only difference is that most revolvers have a 6 shot capacity; but is a matter of seconds 12 shots, 18 shots, or 24 shots can be fired. Magazine capacity is a liberal straw man or talking point.

Firstly, we are not shackled to current gun designs. I don’t really care about whether a gun is a revolver or fed by a magazine. What I think is important is to make sure each gun requires a manual action before the next round enters the chamber. This is what I mean when I say “guns that aren’t semiautomatics”.

You boast of how easy reloading can be, but keep in mind that the pauses needed to reload have saved many lives in recent mass shootings. For instance, Jared Loughner accidentally dropped his magazine in Tucson as he tried to reload and was tackled. Eleven children at Sandy Hook successfully fled from a classroom while Adam Lanza stopped shooting to reload.

What system is in place to keep fully auto weapons out of the hands of criminals? Aren’t all weapons illegal in the hands of all criminals?
Fine, you want to split hairs. Current law has successfully kept fully automated weapons out of would-be criminals who have not yet committed a crime but plan to do so.
The reason such weapons are difficult for citizens to obtain is the price and the intrusion of the federal government into the live of those who purchase them.
Absolutely. Imagine if we regulated semiautomatics and high capacity magazines similarly.
The size of magazines was tried already and does nothing.
When were high capacity magazines banned unsuccessfully?
As I said before, if the goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, then why argue for gun type and capacity. Regarding guns in the hands of the criminals, it is already illegal.

I have multiple goals here, namely:
1) Prevent would-be criminals and mentally ill people from owning guns
2) Make law-abiding gun-owners liable for negligent handling or storage of their firearms.
3) Severely restrict the circulation of guns and accessories that are only useful in a criminal context (High capacity magazines, large caliber handguns, etc)

why argue for gun type and capacity. Regarding guns in the hands of the criminals, it is already illegal.
Straw purchases are the #1 source of illegal guns and current law does a woeful job preventing them. Waiting periods and universal background checks would make it more difficult to complete a straw purchase.
So, there are already laws on the books, but the BATF has failed to enforce the laws. What good does it do to legislate more laws? As I have said, I have been to many gun shows and one thing you can always count on is the presence of BATF agents.
How about we make firearm vendors liable for straw purchases they conduct? All too often, dealers have willfully ignored obvious cases of straw purchases such as when the person paying for the gun is not the one purchasing it or when the person who chooses the gun isn’t the one purchasing.

I’m pretty sure the ATF people do the best they can to prevent straw purchases, but the law as currently written doesn’t do enough to prevent them.

The purpose of a self defense gun is to stop the criminal and a 22cal pistol will not likely do it.

I found this. The author complains that the .22 is rarely able to physically stop an attacker. However, his data indicates that more often than not, the .22 does induce a “psychological” stop. Because the number of people crazy enough to continue attacking after being injured by a .22 round is astonishingly small, I feel comfortable putting restrictions on larger caliber handguns. Long guns are another story.

There is no such animal. non-auto firearms are revolvers, and revolvers don’t have magazines. And for all practical purposes revolvers hold either 5 or 6 rounds.
Sorry if my ignorance of proper terminology is causing confusion. How do we classify guns that require manual action to place the next round in the firing chamber (such as cocking the hammer on a revolver). I was under the impression that semiautomatics need no such actions and that the next round is placed into the chamber automatically so that it only takes another squeeze of the trigger to fire it.
My doctors office asked if firearms are present in my house and I said no. She looked at my hat - Glock - smiled and checked no.
Not to be a snob, but it’s actually quite important to tell your doctor if you have firearms in the home. Your physician is someone who knows your mental state better than most and it is important for him or her to know how easily you could commit suicide if you so desired. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 7, 2015 6:56 PM
Comment #399366
You wanted facts, now they are inconvenient. I own a gun, and I do support the second amendment. I also believe that we do need some gun control. It is inevitable that it will come, and their will be fringe fanatics that will fight it tooth and nail.

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 5:50 PM

There is nothing inconvenient about your facts; close to 70% of NRA members have no problem with background checks.

Cube, I will ask you the same question as I asked others…with no answer: what form of gun control legislation can guarantee that mass shootings will not occur? We, on the right, know exactly how to fix the problem. Do away with gun free zones; it is an invitation for the killers to kill with impunity.

Obama is trying to create more gun free zones. I suggest you read this article, it’s for certain you will never hear of it from Obama:

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/maniac-tries-to-shoot-up-church-congregation-stops-him-with-this/

WP, I’m not sure we are on the same subject. I have been assuming you are talking about handguns, since this is the choice weapon of criminals.

Fine, but I think it is clear that there are many factors that go into a gun purchase, not just the suitability for self-defense. Otherwise, men and women would be using the same firearms.

I said there are 2 basic reasons for buying a gun; first, for self defense, and second, for recreational shooting. Most, but not all, women purchase a handgun for self defense. Men and women do NOT use the same weapons for self defense. I’m not going to hash it over again; just read my previous remarks.

Firstly, we are not shackled to current gun designs. I don’t really care about whether a gun is a revolver or fed by a magazine. What I think is important is to make sure each gun requires a manual action before the next round enters the chamber. This is what I mean when I say “guns that aren’t semiautomatics”.

I’m not sure what “shackled to current gun designs” means. There are only 2 handgun designs (disregarding the single shot, which none use); there is the revolver and there is the semi-auto. Some semi-autos require cocking the hammer before firing the first round (1911 45ACP, Browning HP), after that the rounds are automatically loaded, and other models are double action (meaning the trigger can be pulled to fire the first round, without cocking the hammer like the Beretta Cougar 9mm; then there is the hammerless Glock style that can be fired as soon as the grip is made and the trigger pulled (many police use this one). The revolver has 2 types; the single action requires cocking the hammer each time its fired (these are mainly for target shooting or collecting, like the Colt SSA), the other is a double action, meaning the hammer can be cocked or not cocked, when the trigger is pulled it cocks and fires (S&W and Colt made these and they were popular with the police many years ago. For all practical purposes, a double action revolver operates just like a semi-auto; there is no difference, you just point and pull the trigger until it’s empty.

You boast of how easy reloading can be, but keep in mind that the pauses needed to reload have saved many lives in recent mass shootings. For instance, Jared Loughner accidentally dropped his magazine in Tucson as he tried to reload and was tackled. Eleven children at Sandy Hook successfully fled from a classroom while Adam Lanza stopped shooting to reload.

And you keep in mind that the terrorist shooters like the one in Fort Hood was well trained in the use of a handgun. We are not just talking about crazy teenagers who want their 15 minutes of fame. There are literally hundreds of Americans (Islamic) who have had training with Al Qaida and ISIS in the middle east and have fought with them. These are well trained in the use of handguns. The future of America is terrorists, not teenagers.

Current law has successfully kept fully automated weapons out of would-be criminals who have not yet committed a crime but plan to do so.

No, it hasn’t. There are shootings in inner cities every day, by gang members and criminals. You are correct, there are laws, but their not enforced. NYC had a very successful policy of stop and frisk, which was preventing crimes; but the left cried foul…it was profiling or racists. So, NY stopped and crime climbed. The left has no problem with infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, but it’s a violation of civil rights to stop gang members and frisk them.

Absolutely. Imagine if we regulated semiautomatics and high capacity magazines similarly.

This is already done in cities like Chicago and NYC…what is the result…taking away the ability for the honest law-abiding citizens, to afford to be able to protect themselves.

When were high capacity magazines banned unsuccessfully?

The ban was for a limited time and anyone who owned large capacity magazines prior was grandfathered in. There is no way of enforcing it. Do you honestly think gun owners will turn over their magazines to the government?

I have multiple goals here, namely: 1) Prevent would-be criminals and mentally ill people from owning guns 2) Make law-abiding gun-owners liable for negligent handling or storage of their firearms. 3) Severely restrict the circulation of guns and accessories that are only useful in a criminal context (High capacity magazines, large caliber handguns, etc

Number 1 is already a law.
Number 2 is already a law.
Number 3 is a general liberal talking point and means nothing.

Straw purchases are the #1 source of illegal guns and current law does a woeful job preventing them. Waiting periods and universal background checks would make it more difficult to complete a straw purchase.

As you said, there are already current straw purchase laws. Are you telling me that the FBI background checks can’t pick up on bulk straw purchases? Waiting periods would do nothing that an instant background check can’t do. We live in the age of instant information.

The author complains that the .22 is rarely able to physically stop an attacker. However, his data indicates that more often than not, the .22 does induce a “psychological” stop. Because the number of people crazy enough to continue attacking after being injured by a .22 round is astonishingly small, I feel comfortable putting restrictions on larger caliber handguns.

First rue of using a weapon to protect yourself or family; shoot to kill, never shoot to warn. When a person goes through CCW training, they are told, don’t pull the weapon unless you intend to use it. The 22 may “induce a psychological” stop, or it may get you killed. There are millions of people who have gone through CCW training and are told to shoot to kill; and we have WP who believes you should just scare them….who’s right?

And lastly, my doctor absolutely has no use for Obama or Obamacare; therefore he has never asked me if I have guns or how many.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 8:27 PM
Comment #399367

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/us/us-to-release-6000-inmates-under-new-sentencing-guidelines.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/21/us/politics/obama-downsize-prisons-mass-incarceration.html

Here are two links discussing the Federal non-violent prisoner’s release that will take place. The second link may be of interest to Blaine, comparing Federal prisoners to State prisoners. The first link may alleviate Royal’s fears of a boogeyman, or being sodomized.

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 8:38 PM
Comment #399368

Warren the terms are:

Single action- you must cock the hammer or cocking mechanism each time. A bolt action rifle or a “cowboy” style gun would be examples. Very few of those would be used for self defense.

Single action semi-Automatic- like the 1911 and Hi-Power the trigger only fires the weapon, however the recoil is used to return the hammer to the ready position AFTER the first round.

Double action- each pull of the trigger both cocks the action and fires the weapon. The most common would be a revolver.

Double/single action- The Beretta 92 is one of these. The first pull both cocks and fires the weapon (like the revolver), but subsequent rounds are chambered by the recoil and the gun becomes like the 1911 for subsequent rounds.

Double Action Only- many of the self defense guns that look like semi-auto to you, and have magazines, operate this way. Each pull both cocks and fires the weapon and it is the same for subsequent rounds.

Glock “Safe Action”- Kind of in it’s own category. It’s double action only but the mechanism is “pre-cocked” to reduce the pull needed for subsequent shots. To make this pre-cocking safe they include a safety in the trigger.

So as you can see it’s again very difficult to ban one particular feature as there are so many ways to design a gun to go bang. Any ban you can imagine can be designed around and all components can be easily reproduced using simple metal working tools. The difference between a magazine and a high capacity magazine is a a little extra metal and a longer spring. You can buy an extender kit for most weapons for $15 or so.

Most murders are done with small caliber semi-automatics or revolvers by the way. In those cases the criminal needed concealment to get the gun into position to kill. The number one choices are cheap revolvers, the Hi Point .380 and 9mm Double Action Onlys, and the Jennings .25 pocket pistols. The salient feature on all three is price. Street price is $100 to $200 each.

Posted by: George in SC at October 7, 2015 8:41 PM
Comment #399369

Warren

It’s interesting watching you learn about guns in this forum. Full background checks, even for private sales will certainly be important. Restriction of calibers I believe for the most part will be a non-starter. As mentioned before, the force a bullet has is a combination of mass and speed. You can have the same caliber of bullet, but with different amount of powder, for example 22 shorts versus 22 longs.

For hunting I preferred a bolt action rifle, but I understand some people’s preference to a semi-automatic. Automatic rifles of course should be banned.

It is interesting that the first solution to gun violence is always to restrict members of society that have mental illness. These people have rights too, not that I am advocating this shouldn’t be looked into, but it is a question that will be eventually raised. At one time we could commit mentally ill people, not allow them to marry and or propagate. That is no longer the case.

I think technology will be our eventual savior. We could require that all new guns can only be fired by the owner – fingerprint identification on the gun. We can enforce gun free zones by utilizing GPS, so that new guns would not be able to be fired in certain areas. We could also modify the firing pin on new guns to id which gun fired which bullet.

We would have to eventually not allow the resale of older guns, so they would eventually be removed from society. Since it seems that mass shootings are the province of the young in our society, these proposed new guns could restrict them from carrying out future carnage.

I am sure the right will have a lot to complain about my suggestions. But I don’t plan on doing anything illegal with guns, so I wouldn’t have a problem with them.

Posted by: Cube at October 7, 2015 8:52 PM
Comment #399370

As for why the automatic ban worked, when it was enacted back in 1934 there weren’t many of them in circulation. You’ve got to remember we were in the Great Depression and a fully auto would be considered a luxury item by any standards. The gangsters used them but they had money thanks to PROHIBITION! I think I’ve said before this country has never had any luck prohibiting anything.

Fast forward today and full auto still doesn’t have many fans. A converted MAC-10 or TEC-9 can be found with the gang bangers sometimes, but they seldom kill anyone. If you are “spraying” 9mm out of a short barrel you are doing it mostly for terror reasons. A full auto rifle has the same problem as any rifle in that they are not concealable. That’s why rifles are seldom used in violent crime.

Posted by: George in SC at October 7, 2015 8:53 PM
Comment #399371

Those used to be called Saturday night specials and I can remember when the left was trying to ban their sale as well.

WP has no concept of what he is talking about. I don’t say that to be mean, but he has been indoctrinated with the talking points that sound good, but don’t mean diddly squat.

I watched a film several years ago where a local sheepherder was building AK-4’s in a mud hut. Sheet metal and a pipe. Magazines are made of sheet metal or plastic.

The left is hung up on magazine capacity and caliber. They can’t comprehend the idea of an armed citizenry who can protect. My brother-in-law was a cop, my neighbor is a cop; and I can tell you without reservation that most cops support CCW’s 100%. They believe that one day, one of the armed citizens might just save their life. The only cops against CCW is the inner city political police chiefs who are bought and paid for by the democrats.

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 8:56 PM
Comment #399372

Cube, I have no problem with technology. The problem is, we live in a capitalistic society, which means supply and demand. Obama has tried his best to switch America over to battery powered cars and how’s that working out? The technology will happen when Americans are willing to buy it; but who’s going to spend $5k on a laser powered space gun, when you can spend $350 on one that will work much better?

Posted by: Blaine at October 7, 2015 9:08 PM
Comment #399374
Gee J2, probably because we live in areas with more guns per capita, less restrictive laws, and nowhere near the gun violence

kctim, up until a few days ago the Oregon shooter was a law abiding proammosexual. So was the Aurora shooter right up until he wasn’t. In fact kctim, I don’t recall a common criminal doing a mass murder this year, do you?

This is what I mean when I say “it detracts from the issue” kctim. You proammosexuals run all over the place with statistics yet the school shootings still happen. meanwhile serious research is forbidden by the NRA and its paid representatives in Congress. Why not stop the smoke screen and get to the fire? This nonsense that we don’t have a problem is just plain foolish guys. Why so much denial? Why not a bit of integrity from the proammosexuals, why not step up and deal with the issue instead of the finger pointing BS you linked to. 45 school shootings this year and you argue not all of them were schools or whatever instead of admitting there is a problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2015 1:12 AM
Comment #399375

J2, why not offer a solution that guarantees no more mass shootings, while not infringing the rights of the law abiding citizens. Something other than your silly little attempts at comedy.

I haven’t heard anyone say we don’t have a problem, we just differ on the solution. Every shooting has been in an area controlled by liberals and under liberal rules. The definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 8:47 AM
Comment #399376
Every shooting has been in an area controlled by liberals and under liberal rules./blockquote>

Whoa! It’s hyperbole like this that impedes a useful discussion. Many of these shootings have occurred in places with liberal gun law such as Arizona, rural Oregon and even Kileen, Texas. Note that most liberals in this country generally oppose liberal gun laws (I know it is confusing, but this is an issue that cuts against the grain).

why not offer a solution that guarantees no more mass shootings
No solution will ever guarantee no more mass shootings. Stop demanding the impossible.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 8, 2015 9:57 AM
Comment #399377
Very few of those would be used for self defense.
Why is single action not suitable for self defense? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 8, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment #399378

Because Warren, if a shooter has a semiauto you will be dead before you can get 2 shots off if you miss with the 1st. You have to manually cock the gun for each shot.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 8, 2015 10:10 AM
Comment #399379

There are no guarantees in life, period. Attempts are made at finding a solution to a problem in order to obtain results and if that doesn’t work another attempt is made. The problem occurs when any attempt is thwarted by “they’re coming for our guns” nonsense. No one is coming for the guns, as much as I might wish they would. I have no use for guns, I have no use for being around people that have guns, but I also respect any individuals right to own a gun if they so desire and can meet the current requirements for responsible gun ownership. I look forward to improvements in that respect that will limit the gun ownership to responsible people but there are no guarantees.

“The future of America is terrorists, not teenagers.”

Now who is being silly? And I might add hyperbolic.

Good to hear an admission that we recognize a problem but differ on a solution. That is encouraging.

Technology will be a part of finding a solution but not until we can identify the problem better. Restricting any data collection regarding gun violence does not help us to identify and resolve the problem. I repeat there are no guarantees.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 10:27 AM
Comment #399380

J2

No, I don’t recall a common criminal doing a mass murder at a school either, so I wonder why the left and Everytown uses them as if they are the same?

“You proammosexuals run all over the place with statistics yet the school shootings still happen.”

Sticking with the childish name calling, eh? Sigh.

Seeing how you provided us with a link to statistics from Everytown, I find your condemnation of statistics to be kind of funny, J2.

“meanwhile serious research is forbidden by the NRA and its paid representatives in Congress.”

So, again, I ask what kind of research are you looking for?

“why not step up and deal with the issue instead of the finger pointing BS you linked to.”

Because you guys do not wish to address the actual issue and are instead are demanding a ‘one size fits all’ solution, like you always do.

“45 school shootings this year and you argue not all of them were schools or whatever instead of admitting there is a problem.”

They are different animals that require different tactics.
Like it or not, J2, school shootings are rare and are nothing like personal disputes, suicide or common criminal activity that make up 99+% of the gun violence you guys use in your statistics.

You’re not going to stop suicides with background checks. You’re not going to stop drive-by’s with mental evaluations. You’re not going to stop school shootings with registration.

So, J2. Are you ready to admit there are problems? Or are you going to keep on saying facts are distracting?

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2015 11:10 AM
Comment #399381

“It’s interesting watching you learn about guns in this forum.”

Nicely said, Cube. I would like to add that it is also refreshing and very welcomed.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2015 11:15 AM
Comment #399382

Warren, the main reason is that the other actions are safer for carrying on a person.

From the time you put a single action into ready mode the gun is considered hot. Condition 1 for a 1911 is “cocked and locked” and relies on a mechanical safety to hold the hammer in place against accidental fires. Glock as I mentioned allows for carry in a pre cocked position but added a mechanical safety to the trigger. Most self defense guns today, however, have adopted double action or double action only without any additional safety. During carry the gun is not cocked and the extra long pull of the trigger is an additional passive safety feature.


Posted by: George in SC at October 8, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #399384
You proammosexuals run all over the place with statistics yet the school shootings still happen.”

Sticking with the childish name calling, eh? Sigh.

Not name calling kctim, framing, as you do, framing the discussion. You see IMHO this pro and anti 2nd amendment framing is name calling just as you tell me ammosexual is. So you use 2nd amendment and I use ammosexual, easy as that.

Like it or not, J2, school shootings are rare and are nothing like personal disputes, suicide or common criminal activity that make up 99+% of the gun violence you guys use in your statistics.

Rare! at the least, the very least 17 school shootings this year kctim. That is by no stretch rare. Hell kctim 4 mass killings this year alone and it is only October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

You’re not going to stop suicides with background checks. You’re not going to stop drive-by’s with mental evaluations. You’re not going to stop school shootings with registration

So we can’t do anything about anything because we can’t stop drive by’s! We claim there is no problem case solved because most killings are suicides! Yes there is a problem and it seems to be your choice of facts and the relevance the facts have towards the issue. Hell listen to yourself, we don’t have a problem because we can hide behind criminals and mentally ill people shooting themselves! This doesn’t make the problem go away kctim.

The sad thing is we as a country have the ammosexuals denying funding to help come up with answers to these problems and you gloss over it as if we should keep our heads buried in the sand. Yet your team doesn’t have any answers other than not me!

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2015 12:40 PM
Comment #399386

Nobody is claiming “we can’t do anything about anything,” J2. Nobody is claiming there are no problems that need to be addressed. That is nothing but hyperbole from those with a political agenda.
You guys are so wrapped up in your fear and hate that you have tossed any and all common sense to the side.

Look at the big picture, J2.
We the people have a Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms. It has been that way since our founding, 200+ years. The vast majority of gun violence does not affect those who respect that right the most, but they are the one’s you target with laws that infringe on their rights, and who you call childish names.
How’s that been working out for you so far, J2? Not very well at all.
It’s way past time for you guys to start respecting others and work with them.

“The sad thing is we as a country have the ammosexuals denying funding to help come up with answers to these problems and you gloss over it as if we should keep our heads buried in the sand.”

And yet, I have now asked you multiple times for examples of research you think would be helpful, and still have not gotten any answer.
It is not me who is glossing over things or who’s head is buried in the sand, my friend.

“Yet your team doesn’t have any answers other than not me!”

No, you just don’t like the question we are answering because it is different than the one you ask.

You ask: How do we stop gun violence?

We ask: How can we stop the different types of gun violence AND still respect the Constitutional rights of individuals.

Because we don’t offer the knee-jerk reaction to ‘get rid of all guns,’ you say we offer nothing.

People aren’t going to roll over and let you infringe on their rights without a fight, J2. Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to force them to?

“So you use 2nd amendment and I use ammosexual, easy as that.”

Yeah, except for the pesky fact that the 2nd Amendment is real, and ‘ammosexual’ was created by leftists to avoid facts and detract.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2015 1:22 PM
Comment #399387
J2, why not offer a solution that guarantees no more mass shootings, while not infringing the rights of the law abiding citizens. Something other than your silly little attempts at comedy.

Blaine, we will have to go back to the previous thread on this issue for my position on the subject of firearms in our society. Although many thought I was to extreme I think that the situation today calls for laws that require all citizens to be armed and loaded and ready for action. By that I mean trained and qualified unless they are a conscientious objector. A militia that includes everyone from the age of 18 and up.

As far as answers I don’t have one other than we go to one extreme or another, with the other extreme being weapons confiscation, which I don’t support. I look to those that do not want any further erosion of their perceived rights threatened for the answers. I put the problem on them. With rights comes responsibility.

That has been my whole point on this thread, the CDC and others had funding cut by the NRA in the 90’s that could have resulted in some answers. Time to rethink what the NRA congressional cronies did in the 90’s and fund some research for answers. At the least we can modify different weapons to not be able to fire in gun free zones with a wee bit of electronics.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #399388
And yet, I have now asked you multiple times for examples of research you think would be helpful, and still have not gotten any answer.

So we have come full circle it seem kctim. Go back and read the link that explains the funding cuts to the CDC kctim , that has been the point from my first post on this thread.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

People aren’t going to roll over and let you infringe on their rights without a fight, J2. Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to force them to?

You seem to be confused kctim, I am not infringing on anything. It is the NRA that has been working to get science out of the equation as the emotional arguments you present work to prevent progress on solving the problem.

Yeah, except for the pesky fact that the 2nd Amendment is real, and ‘ammosexual’ was created by leftists to avoid facts and detract.

While the 2nd amendment may be real the use of the 2nd amendment to allow mass killings of innocent people isn’t a right. Framing the argument around the 2nd amendment instead of the solution to prevalent mass killings/school shootings of innocent people is what causes others to use terms such as ammosexuals. We both agreed law abiding citizens have been the ones doing the mass killings/school shootings right? With legally obtained weapons, for the most part,no less. Certainly that isn’t the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2015 1:50 PM
Comment #399392

I fear it is impossible for any of us to explain to WP the use, safety, or comfortable carry of any weapon. Unless he is able to hold the weapon or fire it, he can’t understand.

j2 links to huffpo quoting a former republican congressman who now wishes he hadn’t introduced an amendment. This means nothing; congressmen represent their constituents and he was doing so when in office. It’s easy to say what he would do now, after he’s out of office.

Regarding funds to the CDC; what expertise does the CDC have when it comes to gun control. And believe me, this is all about gun control. The CDC is a government agency, who when receiving government funds, seeks to do one thing, and that is to grow government. The goal of a government agency, when paid to do research, is to place more rules and regulations on the American people, which will require more government agencies.

At long last, every liberal on WB has declared that there is nothing that can be done to guarantee the safety of people from mass shootings; which means that all the liberal laws, rules, and regulations imposed by liberals in liberal cities and states, do nothing to make their people safer. Schools and businesses who have imposed gun free zones, have done nothing to. make people safe. Yet, even after these facts and failures, the answer from the left is “we need more rules and regulations”. As usual, the left would impose the failed rules and regulations on 99.9% of Americans who don’t break the rules, for the sake of the.09% who do. This is what is meant by the one size fits all approach.

I might ask another question; there used to be mental institutions in this country, where the insane were kept, what happened to them?

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 3:11 PM
Comment #399394

“At long last, every liberal on WB has declared that there is nothing that can be done to guarantee the safety of people from mass shootings;”

There. Are. No. Guarantees. In. Life. But there are plenty of suggestions that can be used to work towards attempting to help try to protect people from “mass shootings”. Better background checks with no loopholes, at least a start to compile data regarding gun violence, more education on responsible gun ownership, just to name a few.

Ronald Reagan?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #399396

Speaks, this is nothing but generalized talking points. We have background checks, what are the loopholes?

You guys on the left have spent all your time at tacking the NRA; and yet this organization has done more to train and promote gun safety than any other organization in America. The NRA trains police and military, and has an excellent youth training program.

Data is already collected on crimes. What else do you want exactly. Do you want to keep collecting data until you get something that supports total gun confiscation?

Your side has been establishing the rules and regulations for years, and where has that got us. You say there is no guarantees, yet you would continue to impose new restrictions on law abiding Americans.

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 3:55 PM
Comment #399397

Ronald Reagan?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #399398

The Charleston shooter was able to obtain his weapon when the background check took longer than 3 days. This should be changed.

I have not once attacked the NRA. This is the problem with your arguments, you lump everyone together. Please learn about parsing people and their comments.

Lots more data, enough so that we can determine if there could be something that could be done. And no for the umpteenth time nobody wants your stupid guns.

New restrictions is the only way to find out what works. What do you propose? Do nothing and hope for the best?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment #399399

RF

“I haven’t done a search but I wonder if there have been any mass murders at a gun show.”

Funny you should mention that. I was at a gun show just this last Saturday, and wouldn’t you know it not a single shooting. Imagine that. Of course had there been a bad guy I would guess plenty of those patrons including myself would have had the ability to defend ourselves. Why ? Glad you asked. Because we were all armed.

Posted by: dbs at October 8, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #399400

From your Ronald Reagan link:

The fight over involuntary commitment during the 1980s was in some ways separate from the Reagan agenda. But it was fortuitous since it coincided with the administration’s desire to dismantle the liberal era reforms. However to understand why groups made committment an issue in the 1980s, we have to take a step back and look at reforms that occurred during the 1960s.

During the early 1960s a series of initiatives designed to reform the mental health system were passed. At issue was the system of state run hospitals for the mentally ill, which were increasingly perceived as inhumane and, with the help of new medicat ions, rather unnecessary for large portions of the patient population. In 1961, the Joint Commission on Mental Illness released Action for Mental Health, calling for the integration of the mentally ill into the general public with the aid of Commun ity Mental Health Centers. In 1963, the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers instituted the centers, but due to the financial drain of the Vietnam War during the 1960s and the financial crisis of the 1970s, the program was not fully funded.1 The result was the release of patients into an environment lacking the Community Mental Health Centers to adequately treat them (Becker and Schulberg, 1976; DeLeonardis and Mauri, 1992; Hollingsworth, 1994; Rachin, 1974; Rachlin et al, 1975; Saathoff et al, 1992; Shwed, 1978, 1980; Talbott, 1992; Worley and Lowery, 1988;).

The Democrats controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of government from the beginning of the Vietnam War until Reagan was in office. The article bases the problems back in the 60’s and the article says involuntary commitment was separate from the Reagan agenda. But even at that, Reagan’s agenda was first approved by a Democrat congress.

Who is in control of doing background checks? Isn’t it Obama’s FBI?

You have not attacked the NRA, but I don’t see where you defended it; since your goal is firearms education and since the NRA educates. What is the difference between attacking the NRA or refusing to defend them, when the comments are false?

Regarding “don’t want your guns”; tell us why Obama in his politicization of the Oregon shooting, referred to Australia and Britain; two countries which have confiscated the guns of their citizens. With prison time for those caught with them?

The answer is simple, let people protect themselves.

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #399401

The failure of Mental Institutions should be assumed by many politicians and citizens. Ronald Reagan cannot be the only person to blame, but his austerity and cutback measures did not help.

I don’t defend the NRA because I do not believe they need any defense. To satisfy your needs I would laud them for educational objectives.

Perhaps President Obama wanted to cite examples that have produced results? He did not propose to use their same methods though. You are damn right he politicized the Oregon shooting, he said so himself. Very astute of you to realize the words that come out of his mouth. We as a country need to politicize gun violence and any possible solutions to that problem.

I don’t worry about you protecting yourself, you seem quite capable of doing that. I would be more concerned about protecting people that do not have your ability. For instance a bunch of school children in Newtown?

Gun Show Shootings

Oooh, oooh, I know how about Police Station shootings? Nobody would be crazy enough to do that, would they?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 5:15 PM
Comment #399402

The standard operating rules for the left is not to deal with the issue; but rather, attack or denigrate. The NRA, although not needing the support of the left, could use those on the left to correct false statements. But I’m sure that would be hard to do.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about m politicians, it’s that they are very careful of the words they use. Obama was very careful to use Australia and Britain, because they are countries that have banned ownership of guns. If Bush had blatantly announced he was politicizing a tragedy, the left would have gone nuts. How many times was he accused of politicizing 911? Politicizing is based on emotion, and emotion negates logic.

There’s no school in America that should have to worry abou children being shot. Israel has been dealing with this problem a lot longer than us…what do they do? They arm their teachers. Israel certainly does not call for “gun free ” zones.

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 5:47 PM
Comment #399403

Excuse me, you keep speaking about this “left” as if it is some organized group of people seeking to control their message. No, that would be institutions like the NRA.

So Obama didn’t say anything about using Britain’s and Australia’s methods but you are just so sure that he wants to do that because you know better? You are being delusional.

I don’t care what Bush did or didn’t do, water under the bridge. I have always maintained that he tried to do a difficult job to the best of his abilities.

President Obama on the day of the Oregon shootings said, “people will say I am politicizing this issue, they are right I am politicizing the issue. That is the only way this will change is through the political process”.

Israel is a lot smaller country with a wonderful healthcare system run by the government. Their ideas of defense are questionable at best.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 8, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #399405

Speak; ” But there are plenty of suggestions that can be used to work towards attempting to help try to protect people from “mass shootings”.

To PROTECT people requires force, not studies. Perhaps that’s why police carry weapons.

We can work to understand the mind of potential killers and perhaps intervene. Force will still be needed to protect the innocent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 8, 2015 6:36 PM
Comment #399409
Warren, the main reason is that the other actions are safer for carrying on a person.

From the time you put a single action into ready mode the gun is considered hot.


So why not keep the gun from being put in ready mode?

Just because the single action guns of today don’t have safeties doesn’t mean the single action guns of tomorrow cannot.

if a shooter has a semiauto you will be dead before you can get 2 shots off if you miss with the 1st. You have to manually cock the gun for each shot.
If this is going to be a problem, you don’t have enough training to be “a good guy with a gun”.
I fear it is impossible for any of us to explain to WP the use, safety, or comfortable carry of any weapon. Unless he is able to hold the weapon or fire it, he can’t understand.
The Constitution protects your right to bear arms. It doesn’t protect your right to be comfortable while exercising that right. Single action guns satisfy the desire for self-protection, which means anything more than that can be mothballed and stored away in a collection.
First rue of using a weapon to protect yourself or family; shoot to kill, never shoot to warn. When a person goes through CCW training, they are told, don’t pull the weapon unless you intend to use it. The 22 may “induce a psychological” stop, or it may get you killed. There are millions of people who have gone through CCW training and are told to shoot to kill; and we have WP who believes you should just scare them….who’s right?
By all means, aim for the head and try to kill with the .22, but if you end up missing the head and only injure the attacker, you are more than likely in the clear anyway. Nobody is going to let themselves get shot a half dozen times just so they can take your wallet.

Can you cite an instance where someone attempted to defend themselves with a .22 and couldn’t because the attacker continued to advance despite being shot?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 8, 2015 7:24 PM
Comment #399411

Speaks, when we hear the liberal media, from one channel to the next, say the exact same thing, can we assume there is a concerted effort by the left wing media to control the message?

WP, it is difficult for me to respond due to the fact I am on an iPhone and do not have access to a laptop.

The single action firearm is not carried in the cocked (hot) position. It would be dangerous. Police would advise against the single action revolver, due to the fact, it would be almost impossible to use in a threatening situation. Especially for a woman. It is my opinion that money will never be spent to improve the single action revolver as a self defense weapon. Training has nothing to do it; the majority of single action revolvers are used for target (recreational) shooting or for collecting. If you remember the old westerns, where the gunslinger draws his gun and fans the hammer with his other hand…this is a single action revolver. You need to also remember, the people with CCW, means the have to carry the handgun concealed. A single action would be difficult to conceal.

There’s no training official or police officer who would recommend carrying a .22cal pistol for self defense. Most confrontation occur when the attacker and the victim are only a few feet apart. First, deadly force can only be used when the victim believes his life to be threatened. Hence, they are close to each other. Secondly, the idea that the victim is going to try to take aim and shoot the attacker in the head is nonsense. The goal is a caliber large enoug to take out the attacker with a body shot. Many times it takes several shots to take someone down. You ask if I know of any incident where someone tried to protect himself with a .22cal and the attacker kept coming. I would venture to say it has happened many times. When adrenaline is pumping, there have been cases where soldiers and police have been shot with larger caliber weapons and never knew it until later.

You are trying to find some way to change the rules, but you’re fighting a losing battle. Some things just don’t work.

Posted by: Blaine at October 8, 2015 9:06 PM
Comment #399418
It is my opinion that money will never be spent to improve the single action revolver as a self defense weapon.
If semiautomatics and double action revolvers were prohibited by law, then innovation with single action guns is bound to happen. It will be the free market in play.
it would be almost impossible to use in a threatening situation. Especially for a woman.
If your intention is to impress your friends show off how tough you are, sure the single action is inadequate. But for deterring a would-be criminal, I believe it can do the job well enough. I don’t understand why a woman’s reaction time would be less than a man’s.

Most criminals would honestly cease their attack merely upon seeing that the would-be victim is armed.

You ask if I know of any incident where someone tried to protect himself with a .22cal and the attacker kept coming. I would venture to say it has happened many times. When adrenaline is pumping, there have been cases where soldiers and police have been shot with larger caliber weapons and never knew it until later.
Criminals are not the same as police and soldiers. Police and soldiers do not choose their battles and are pressured to fight on regardless of circumstance. The criminal, on the other hand, preys on those who are perceived as weak. Upon confrontation, nearly all criminals would withdraw and seek a weaker quarry.

Remember, we are talking against self-defense against crime, not assassination.

You are trying to find some way to change the rules, but you’re fighting a losing battle. Some things just don’t work.
With gun deaths much higher here than the rest of the industrialized world, you can be damn sure that I want to change the rules. Instead of actually taking action to reduce gun violence, we have small-minded people like you declaring attempts to be hopeless before they are even tried. You are too loyal to the current gun culture, which is the root of our problem. Changing the law ought to change our relationship with guns. Just like how the law changed our relationship to tobacco, which is still legal but far less pervasive than it was 60 years ago. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 8, 2015 11:49 PM
Comment #399425

Let me try to be frank with you WP:

First, you are out of your area of expertise and you have no idea what you are talking about. Obama and the left would love nothing better than a complete gun ban in America. Proof: Obama and the left have continually used Australia and Britain as examples of how gun control should work, both of which have confiscated and banned all guns. Also as proof are Democrat controlled states and cities, who have instituted gun bans, but have been over ruled by the SC. The left would love to replace a conservative SC justice with another liberal, who would overthrow the 2nd amendment as we know it.

Secondly, semi-autos and double action revolvers will never be banned. It’s a pipe dream of the left.

Regarding a woman and a single action revolver; it has nothing to do with how tough you are. You and speaks are hung up on the macho image of conservative men with guns. The majority of women could not physically pull a single action revolver, cock it with their thumb and fire in time to protect themselves. Since you have never fired or even held a large caliber handgun of any type, I would suggest you ignorant of what you speak.

The idea that a gun will scare the attacker, just by sight, is also ignorant. Why not just give a water pistol or a pellet gun to the victims. You are saying a 200lb 6 ft man will be scared of a 125lb woman just because she’s trying to pull a hog leg out of her purse…rediculous.

So, with your medical experience, that the adrenaline rush of a criminal is not the Sam as an adrenaline rush of a soldier or cop? I believe that is debatable.

Your last paragraph is based upon flawed data. With flawed results.

Posted by: Blaine at October 9, 2015 9:37 AM
Comment #399426

Blaine, you can assume anything you want about “left wing media”. I am not a part of that and honestly believe that you are using my comments in a manner that they were not intended, that would be as a statement for anyone who supports gun control legislation. It just doesn’t work that way. J2t2 has suggested mandatory gun ownership for citizens of a certain age. He knows I completely disagree with his views on that but respect his position of attempting to suggest a solution in a pragmatic method. My contention is that it is much easier to pry a gun from someone’s cold dead hand than it is to force someone to hold and defend themselves with that same gun. I am not advocating removing guns but just trying to depict the argument that you cannot really force someone to use a weapon against their will. As far as my displaying “left wing media” sentiments you might be correct but it is more by coincidence then it is by design. Probably a lot like your own sentiments. You cite Limbaugh, Brietbart and other right wing media pundits because you gravitate towards their interpretations, I don’t doubt I could be doing the same.

You seem to be somewhat indicative of a majority of NRA members. From what I understand they understand the problems of gun violence but perhaps differ on solutions to that from advocates for stricter gun control legislation. I understand how they can interpret it that way. My only hope is that through competent and thoughtful addresses to this issue that the “slippery slope” fears can eventually be allayed but it make take a generational change to bring that about. The current mistrust of government does not lend itself to a rational use of government restrictions well at all. I can still advocate for that though. Please stop using your hypothetical ideas to express President Obama’s stands on this, it is not helpful to the discussion. Try to stick to what he has said and not what you think he is doing through subterfuge, if you can.

RF, force is necessary now but what about 50 years from now. Not that protection will not be necessary but that force might be considered something to work as an advantage and not the cudgel of government restrictions. Just a thought but that’s why I come here to read and express thoughts.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 9, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #399429

“My only hope is that through competent and thoughtful addresses to this issue that the “slippery slope” fears can eventually be allayed but it make take a generational change to bring that about. The current mistrust of government does not lend itself to a rational use of government restrictions well at all.”

Speaks, in my almost 70 years of living on planet earth, I can tell you that trust of government has decreased and not increased. What could possibly make you think there will come a time when Americans will all come together and universally trust government?

Your side is the one that worships the ground Obama walks on; your side is the one that believes every word that comes forth from his mouth is the gospel. He has lied and deceived the a American people numerous times, he has made it plain that he hates the 2nd amendment, and your side has made it plain that you believe “a well regulated militia ” is not referring to American citizens; yet you continue to say it is not your goal to disarm the American people. Sorry, but I don’t buy it, and I will continue to expose your goal.

Posted by: Blaine at October 9, 2015 12:55 PM
Comment #399430

Blaine, you are full of shit. Stop with your idiotic interpretation of President Obama, your fevered imagination is not to be regarded as anything a rational human should consider. I believe that there are young people today that will not bring the hatefulness that you have formulated over you almost 70 years. I find your comment despicable.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 9, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #399432

And I find your emotional response typical of those on the left. You’re beginning to sound as shrill as Hillary. You can’t handle the truth of what Obama really is; an evil person, full of himself.

Posted by: Blaine at October 9, 2015 1:23 PM
Comment #399433

Your comments are displaying nothing new here. You seem to be a person who has not accomplished much in life and yet have the audacity to assault an individual that has attained the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, that’s rich. You can’t really think people could take you seriously, could you? Wait a minute, since you display a bitter, hateful depiction of someone who regularly displays self-deprecating behavior, that would explain your demeanor. Thoughtful discussion is out of the question with you. The only solace I can find in encountering your political beliefs is to know that you are among a dying breed of individuals that really never appreciated this great country and certainly don’t deserve the bounty that can be gained from it. The sooner people like you depart this life and allow the next generation to forget your hatred, the better.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 9, 2015 2:20 PM
Comment #399434
First, you are out of your area of expertise and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sure, but that doesn’t absolve you of the obligation to demonstrate that your “expertise” is grounded in fact rather than groupthink.

Weighing against your claim to expertise is your repeated reiterations of complete falsehoods. For instance:

Australia and Britain as examples of how gun control should work, both of which have confiscated and banned all guns

Rather, millions of Australians with genuine reasons enjoy the use of firearms. People there don’t need to arm themselves to defend against crime because gun homicides are so rare there.

Secondly, semi-autos and double action revolvers will never be banned. It’s a pipe dream of the left.
I’m not going to argue that what I propose is political feasible. However, that isn’t my fault. That is the fault of the Right. Also, we know that gun homicides would be a lot less if the US had a lot fewer legally owned guns and if the guns that were legally owned were regulated and restricted like they are in Australia. Thus, when Americans get killed by guns at higher rates than Australians or Europeans, conservatives must take responsibility for that.
You are saying a 200lb 6 ft man will be scared of a 125lb woman just because she’s trying to pull a hog leg out of her purse.
When that man gets shot by a .22, he’ll definitely be scared.
So, with your medical experience, that the adrenaline rush of a criminal is not the Sam as an adrenaline rush of a soldier or cop? I believe that is debatable.
You are basing your argument on anecdotes from noncriminals being shot at. It is the job of a soldier or a cop to put his or her life at risk in order to help others and that means advancing forward even when under fire. That is not the job description of a criminal. Unlike the police or a solder, a criminal is a survivor, not a fighter. Does this mean there is a physiological distinction? I don’t know. But there is certainly a psychological one. The 200 lb man seeking to steal the purse of a 125 lb woman isn’t going to tolerate getting shot at with .22 caliber rounds no matter how much epinephrine is flowing in his veins.

A .22 may be ineffective for defense against an assassin, but against a common criminal, it will do the job well enough.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 9, 2015 2:22 PM
Comment #399439

Warren, if you shoot some 200+ 6ft+ person with a 22 cal. you better hit him in a vital spot because if you don’t all you are going to do is PISS HIM OFF.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 9, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #399442

Exactly, he’ll be so pissed off that he runs away.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 9, 2015 2:56 PM
Comment #399443

No Warped he’ll be so pissed off he’ll probably take the gun away from you and beat you to death with it. You are showing your ignorance about fire arms 22 cal are fine for small game such as Rabbits and squirrels and Rats but not a 200+lb man hell bent on robbing or killing you.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 9, 2015 3:07 PM
Comment #399444

Warren, put your “stupid” hat back in the closet.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 9, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #399448

Is this 200lb an assassin or a petty criminal interested in my wallet? If the latter, he’ll definitely flee and seek easier quarry.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 9, 2015 4:18 PM
Comment #399455

Hundreds lined the streets today in Roseburg, Oregon…in protest of Obama coming to town. This had to be a real blow to Obama’s narcissism. “Go home Obama” was the cry, “quit using these deaths for your political gain”; but that lying piece of shit said “I came here for the families, not to politicize”. But just a couple of days ago he claimed he would politicize whenever he could.

Speaks continues to be emotionally upset that anyone would speak evil of Obama, yet when I Googled “Obama has lied to the American people”, I was amazed at the links that came up. From Factcheck to news publications, Obama was given one Pinocchio nose after another for confirmed lying. His numbers are in the “untrustworthy” category for both Republicans and Democrats.

And lastly, WP you aren’t just wearing your “stupid” hat. You are possibly one of the most twisted ignorant liberals I have ever held a conversation with. The only gun experience you have is shooting a 22 rifle when you were in the boy scouts; yet you have all the answers and you are now a firearm expert. You must be a true legend, in your own mind. Without any experience in either the military or weapons training; without any knowledge of ballistics; you have become the expert on what weapon CCW holders should carry. Wake up call…you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Blaine at October 9, 2015 7:49 PM
Comment #399460
he claimed he would politicize whenever he could.
Whenever he could? No, Obama said he would politicize it on the day he made the speech. He said nothing about today.
yet you have all the answers and you are now a firearm expert.
Did I claim this? No, I didn’t.
You must be a true legend, in your own mind.
No, I am a naive but curious 25 year old just interested in learning about the world he lives in.

And Blaine, I’m sure you would never claim expertise in a discipline in which you have no training? Right? You would simply place your trust in a WatchBlog contributor who actually had the training to understand things like a trusting person should, right?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 9, 2015 8:09 PM
Comment #399465

My comments are now being held for approval. Good to know.

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2015 8:57 PM
Comment #399466

Warren


“Single action guns satisfy the desire for self-protection, which means anything more than that can be mothballed and stored away in a collection.”


It’s obvious you know absolutely nothing about reality when it comes to using firearms in a defensive situation.

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3b6DuiXEf0

Open your mind Warren.

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2015 8:58 PM
Comment #399467

https://www.youtube.com/user/reidh81181/videos

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #399468

Warren, you don’t have to trust me. dbs has linked to some excellent videos on gun choice and use. There are 2 guns you won’t find; the 22 cal pistol, in fact they recommend not to use a 22; and the single action revolver. The purpose of conceal carry is to protect yourself, so I suggest you watch a few of the videos if you want to learn something.

Posted by: Blaine at October 9, 2015 10:23 PM
Comment #399472

All of this “advice” is proven only through anecdote. Never have I denied that the gun community recommends differently. However, the gun community has not demonstrated any hard proof for its claims.

dbs,
I viewed all of those links. Look, I understand there is a whole culture set up around this with trainers and manuals and everything else. However, all this is prefaced not on cold facts (such as crime statistics), but rather on conjecture, speculation and opinion. Now, is the conjecture of someone who carries firearms everyday better than the conjecture of someone who does not? Despite all the experience you, Blaine, Royal Flush and kctim may have with firearms, I think I am safe guess that you folks and I have fired a gun in a self-defense situation the same number of times. I am not the only ignorant person here.

Again I ask, is there an example when someone was armed with a .22, shot his or her assailant, but still fell victim to a crime because the gun did not physically stop the attacker? None of those hyperlinks contain anything of the sort.

Lastly, I must say that I disturbed by the general sense of dogma surrounding self-defense armament. There is a hyper-vigilant focus on worst case scenarios, which is in turn used to justify ever more armaments. One of reidh81181’s videos is devoted entirely to having a backup gun, just in case the misfortune of being attacked happens to coincide with one’s gun malfunctioning. Seriously? Honestly, if you aren’t willing to take any risks in life, life simply isn’t worth living. That’s my philosophy.

At this point, I think it is pretty clear that most of you are not owning a gun merely as a safety precaution. You own it because owning a gun is something you enjoy. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a gun in such a manner. But understand that you are owning it for the emotional value, not the practical value.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 10, 2015 12:08 AM
Comment #399474

Warren

“Again I ask, is there an example when someone was armed with a .22, shot his or her assailant, but still fell victim to a crime because the gun did not physically stop the attacker?”

A 22 does not hit hard enough. Most handguns will not stop a determined attacker in one shot. Handguns in general lack power. Barring a central nervous system hit, an attacker can still live long enough to kill you or do serious damage.

http://www.ballistics101.com/

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 8:25 AM
Comment #399475

Warren

Keep in mind that the military, and law enforcement don’t use 22LR. Why do you suppose that is.

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 8:31 AM
Comment #399476

Warren

Here’s an article about stopping power. It also may help to understand why you should have more than 7 or 8 rounds.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/stopping-power-one-doctors-point-view/

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 9:51 AM
Comment #399477

So two more school shootings since the Oregon shooting and we are still being told, by the proammosexuals, that it is a rare occurrence! We have watched Blaine turn the conversation into tripe about government!

Lets face it guys we have a problem, the conservatives refuse to let science get involved with foolishness like “Regarding funds to the CDC; what expertise does the CDC have when it comes to gun control. And believe me, this is all about gun control. The CDC is a government agency, who when receiving government funds, seeks to do one thing, and that is to grow government.”.

Blaine these shootings are a disease my friend and the Center for Disease Control would be a logical place to start funding to study the problem. The guy who led the charge to defund this research even says it was wrong! Instead you allow fear and anger to turn it into a ammosexual fantasy of anti government hysteria.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2015 10:07 AM
Comment #399479
Keep in mind that the military, and law enforcement don’t use 22LR. Why do you suppose that is.

Bad comparison. The military and law enforcement aren’t just interested in self defense against petty criminals.

an attacker can still live long enough to kill you or do serious damage.
I don’t care about “can he”, I care about “will he”. Making ridiculous worst case assumptions is not a rational way to live one’s life. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 10, 2015 10:33 AM
Comment #399480

Warren

“Bad comparison. The military and law enforcement aren’t just interested in self defense against petty criminals.”

Actually it is an accurate comparison. Your use of the term petty criminal shows you don’t have an understanding of why a firearm is used. Let me fix that. A firearm is used to defend against a violent attacker who has the ability and opportunity to inflict serious bodily injury or death. You need only search the internet to understand the damage that can be done to an innocent by a violent attacker. The gun chosen needs to be able to end that attack. This can also involve multiple assailants.

“I don’t care about “can he”, I care about “will he”. Making ridiculous worst case assumptions is not a rational way to live one’s life.”

That is your choice to make for yourself, but not for others. You don’t know when or where the worst can happen. Assuming it never will is your choice. I don’t need to train for the best case scenario. I need to train for the worst. If it never happens that is the best possible outcome. If it does I don’t want to have to rely on the police being there in time or on the good will of the person who means to do me or members of my family grave bodily harm.

You also need to understand why the founders chose to protect the right to bear arms in the first place. It has and always will be about deterring tyranny in gov’t.

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 11:31 AM
Comment #399481
A firearm is used to defend against a violent attacker who has the ability and opportunity to inflict serious bodily injury or death.

Now, you are talking about an assassin, not just a mere criminal.

You don’t know when or where the worst can happen. Assuming it never will is your choice. I don’t need to train for the best case scenario. I need to train for the worst. If it never happens that is the best possible outcome.

Statistically, a gun is much more likely to shoot its owner dead than anyone else. So, if “worst case scenario” is what you are preparing for, then getting rid of your gun ought to be one’s first priority. Note that this argument is merely an attempt at personal persuasion. I do not think it is a suitable defense of gun control.

But let’s face it: You own a gun because owning a gun is something you enjoy. That is nothing to be ashamed of. If extending your lifespan was your highest priority, you’d ditch the gun and make other changes to your life. People own guns because they gladly accept the extra risk to their lives in exchange for the joy firearms bring.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 10, 2015 11:43 AM
Comment #399482

The point where they were kicked in the master bedroom door is the point where I personally would have ended them. You want to trust others will be there in time to save you, that’s your choice. Not one I choose to make, and very good chance 8 rounds of 22 wouldn’t have done the job If they were determined. I’ll will always err on the side of my, and my families safety first. That means at a minimum a handgun that hold at least 15+1 rounds of 9mm or better, including at least one spare magazine. A better option is an AR, AK, or a 12 gauge shotgun.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/4234046473001/violent-california-home-invasion-caught-on-camera/?#sp=show-clips

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 11:48 AM
Comment #399483

“Now, you are talking about an assassin, not just a mere criminal.”

No I’m talking about being attacked by a violent criminal, not the kid down the street stealing my flat screen TV. Shooting someone over stuff is unethical. I’d call the police, and let then deal with it.

“Statistically, a gun is much more likely to shoot its owner dead than anyone else.”

Sorry this is bullshit.


“You own a gun because owning a gun is something you enjoy.”

I own and carry guns for the primary purpose of having the ability to defend myself. I train for the fight, not to shoot bullseyes in some game or competition. The two skills are very different.

Posted by: dbs at October 10, 2015 11:57 AM
Comment #399484

One other thing that we have failed to enter into the equation is drugs. I would say, although I have not looked up the facts, that drug use plays a large part in attacks. If you but watch the news, the police, using a 9mm or 40cal sometimes have to shoot multiple times to bring down a criminal who is high on drugs. How many attacks on people are the result of drug users wanting to steal to feed their habit?

WP is not interested in knowing the facts; he is simply looking for a reason to disarm American law-abiding citizens. How much evidence and testimony does it take to answer his question of “why can’t a person protect themselves with a 22 revolver”? He as hopped from double action to single action, and to single action 22’s. Now he has told us, the criminal or attacker is not our problem, he’s told us our greatest threat is the weapon we carry. I have come to conclusion that WP is a flaming liberal, who’s goal is to disarm Americans. At least phx8 say it outright, WP is sneaky, he pretends to want to know about the use of handguns, but in reality is no different than ph or speaks. For someone who is insistent on facts, WP has made several quotes that are outright lies. If WP wants to know anymore, he can just google it. I had no problem last night finding cases where intruders had to be shot 8 or 9 times with a 22cal, before they were stopped. It is ridiculous to even try to explain to someone who has no interest in learning. Do your own searches…

j2 says:

Blaine these shootings are a disease my friend and the Center for Disease Control would be a logical place to start funding to study the problem.

No, this is more liberal talking points; it’s not about a disease, it’s about crime. The left is always on the wrong side of the conversation. When a terrorists act occurs, Obama will not call it terrorism, he calls to crime; and not we have crime (remember…the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, isn’t this what the left wants to do), but now the left calls it a disease. Government agencies have only one goal, to grow government and put more people of government payroll.

Example: Global Warming; it has become a fact based upon government agency computer models. Government agencies are growing and expanding to prove GW, not based upon facts, but based upon computer models. The media lapdogs of the left are more than willing to expand the lie. Here is the latest on Global Warming, it refutes the government agency “facts” as being wrong. Have you heard this on the liberal lapdog media? How many millions have taxpayers paid into a government agency, whose agenda is to prove GW to be manmade, and to gain control of billions of dollars.

On Saturday, conservative Australian columnist Miranda Devine revealed that an Australian engineer claims to have “fixed two errors” in “the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.”

The person making this claim was a “climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office,” and has “six degrees in applied mathematics.” What he found is that “the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.” While some U.S. blogs have begun to relay the news (examples here, here and here), the nation’s establishment press is ignoring it.

Ms. Devine reports the following:

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he (Dr. David Evans) says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

… So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity.

Imagine that. The sun might actually be involved in changes in the earth’s temperature.

Let’s also give Dr. Evans credit for implicitly admitting that he was incorrect in an assertion he made seven years ago. Specifically, he wrote in a 2008 column:

So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you’ll find they have none, nowadays.

Evans’ latest findings acknowledge that carbon emissions are a factor, though a very small one.

Thus, Evans, unlike the “settled science” zombies pushing “global warming” aka “climate change” while shouting down and threatening to prosecute and imprison those who dare to doubt them, is willing to alter his position when he believes that the facts and science point in that direction.

Searches on “David Evans carbon” (not in quotes for relevant news at the Associated Press and the New York Times early this morning came up empty. A search at Google News on the same strong returned only three relevant items. Besides Devine’s column, which accounted for two of those three results, there was an Australian New Daily item by Rose Donohoe asserting that Evans “claims to have de-bunked the popular mathematical equation used to model climate change.”

If, as expected, the nation’s and the world’s establishment press fail to give Evans’ work the notice it deserves, it will confirm something we really already know: They’ve taken sides, and it’s not the side which genuinely believes in following the science. The more rabid among them already consider Evans a “denier,” even though in his positions, accurately stated, “Evans has moved from (being) a ‘warmist’” earlier in his career to now being a “skeptic.”


- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/07/press-ignoring-news-global-warming-true-believers-will-find#sthash.AvXf1IWq.dpuf

So the question is; does government agency seek the truth, or do they seek to expand and control?

So the left says we should put the research of gun crimes in the hands of the same organization who would destroy the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: Blaine at October 10, 2015 12:44 PM
Comment #399487

Sometimes “science” is fickle. We read eggs, bacon, milk, coffee etc. are bad and then later we read they are good. It is much the same with MMGW.

Guns aren’t bad or good…just an inanimate object until a human puts one to use. The human can have good intentions or evil intentions…the gun doesn’t differentiate.

Gun control controls only the gun…not the human.

Creating artificial scarcity unusually only increases demand.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #399492
No, this is more liberal talking points; it’s not about a disease, it’s about crime. The left is always on the wrong side of the conversation.

Blaine your hatred and fear blind you to the basic facts. I know you want to switch the argument to suicides and criminals but when it comes to the mass/school killings the lack of any criminal record tells us you are wrong.

Denying funding to research was a mistake and it is time to correct the mistake.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2015 8:03 PM
Comment #399493
No I’m talking about being attacked by a violent criminal, not the kid down the street stealing my flat screen TV. Shooting someone over stuff is unethical. I’d call the police, and let then deal with it.

How does this square with your comment, “The point where they were kicked in the master bedroom door is the point where I personally would have ended them.” That video was of a 17-year-old burglar. By all means have a gun drawn and ready to fire if they kick in the bathroom door, but you are saying you’d shoot a fellow just for trying to nick the TV in the master bedroom.

You want to trust others will be there in time to save you, that’s your choice. Not one I choose to make, and very good chance 8 rounds of 22 wouldn’t have done the job If they were determined.
How many people are so determined to steal a TV that they’d put up with 8 rounds from a .22?
I’ll will always err on the side of my, and my families safety first.
Your guns are much more likely to be used to commit suicide than to stop an intruder. Rationally speaking, it would be much safer to live without them, but you choose otherwise. Your decision to choose owning arms over your family’s safety is perfectly fine. Being armed probably makes you happy and it might even soothe certain anxieties, but these are emotional things. And besides, the Constitution still protects one’s right to own items that provide emotional support, even guns.
“Statistically, a gun is much more likely to shoot its owner dead than anyone else.”

Sorry this is bullshit.


Gun suicides outnumber homicides 2 to 1.

Blaine,

I had no problem last night finding cases where intruders had to be shot 8 or 9 times with a 22cal, before they were stopped.

You are so full of shit.


Posted by: Warren Porter at October 10, 2015 8:10 PM
Comment #399494

Now this was hard:

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. — An intruder who was shot and killed after a confrontation with a Duluth woman in her shower was likely stalking her for days and may have other victims, Gwinnett police said. Police: Woman Shot Intruder 9 Times In Self Defense School Counselor Shoots, Kills Home Intruder

The 53-year-old woman, who is also a veteran private school counselor, was alone at the time of the Wednesday morning attack. She lives on East Mount Tabor Circle in Duluth.

The woman was getting out of the shower when she was met by a strange man with a kitchen knife, police said. They said there was a struggle in the bathroom, and she fell in the tub. Police later identified the man as Israel Perez Puentes, a Cuban national who lived in Alpharetta.

“The male was armed with a kitchen knife, a struggle ensued between the two of them. She fell in the bathtub injuring herself,” Gwinnett police spokesman Edwin Ritter said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower a rod, and he forced her into her bedroom, police said. They said she told her attacker she had money in the room. But she grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times, police said.

Police said the man ran out of a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at the Gwinnett Medical Center.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-woman-shot-intruder-9-times-in-self-defense/nFB7g/

Posted by: Blaine at October 10, 2015 10:25 PM
Comment #399495

“That video was of a 17-year-old burglar. By all means have a gun drawn and ready to fire if they kick in the bathroom door, but you are saying you’d shoot a fellow just for trying to nick the TV in the master bedroom.”


Yes of course because two 17 year olds armed with knives are of no threat to anyone. And we know the teenagers never commit violent crimes like murder. If they were there to “nick” a TV as you say, then why did they kick the in the door to the master bedroom after hearing people in there ?

“How many people are so determined to steal a TV that they’d put up with 8 rounds from a .22?”

What kind of bubble do you live in, that you are so completely fixated on the idea of the “petty criminal” that you are completely oblivious to the acts of violent crime that are committed against innocent people every day in this country ?


“Your decision to choose owning arms over your family’s safety is perfectly fine.”

Lol…..sorry that won’t work.

” Being armed probably makes you happy and it might even soothe certain anxieties, but these are emotional things.”


Nothing emotional about choosing to take responsibility for my own safety. I have a fire extinguisher as well.

“And besides, the Constitution still protects one’s right to own items that provide emotional support, even guns.”


What????? It protects the inalienable right to self defense.
Don’t know where the emotional support clause is. You’ll have to show that to me.


Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 7:24 AM
Comment #399496

Blaine

“Police: Woman Shot Intruder 9 Times In Self Defense School Counselor Shoots, Kills Home Intruder”

Good thing she had more than 8 rounds. Guess she didn’t realize that gun was more likely to be used to kill or injure a family member. Lol

To Warrens credit she used a 22, but I’ll continue to use substantial calibers as they are more reliable for stopping violent attackers.

Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 7:32 AM
Comment #399497

Warren, my purpose in discussing the technical aspects of guns with you was to show that there is no way you could ban or eliminate one particular feature of a gun (caliber, size, magazine capacity, etc) and have any impact on violent gun use. That plus your admission that none of it is political feasible should be enough to end the “what if’s”.

J2 I agree we have a problem, but finish the sentence. We have a problem that can’t be impacted by any legislation, confiscation or ban given our laws and given the existence of 300m + guns in country. So now where do we go? Sit here and throw insults at each other? I guess that’s what the political process in this country has come down to, and I’m sure you would say it’s the right’s fault.


Posted by: George in SC at October 11, 2015 9:19 AM
Comment #399498

England has had gun control for decades. During WWII the US sent American donated guns to the British citizens to be used in case of a land invasion. After the war, they were confiscated. The Australian’s had a government buyback and then confiscated the rest. There are a known 330 million guns in America, but my guess is that number is lowball because there are people in America who do not trust government (lol) and would never tell a government pollster how many guns he has. The number could be 500 million; but the point is, America is not Australia or Britain and Americans would never give their guns. Whoever tries to institute a ban, whether congress, presidential executive order, or SC mandate…there would be civil war. The left might as well start working with conservatives to find a solution that would work, that doesn’t include a ban.

Obama not only uses Australia and Britain as examples in his speeches, Obama also said we should pattern our gun laws after these countries. And yet we have liberals on WB still denying the left is trying to confiscate Americans guns.

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 10:21 AM
Comment #399499
J2 I agree we have a problem, but finish the sentence. We have a problem that can’t be impacted by any legislation, confiscation or ban given our laws and given the existence of 300m + guns in country. So now where do we go? Sit here and throw insults at each other? I guess that’s what the political process in this country has come down to, and I’m sure you would say it’s the right’s fault.

George I don’t know of any legislation at this time that would solve the problem. I would blame the right for stopping the CDC from funding grants that would help to solve the problem. I think we need an answer to the mass/school shootings that take place all to often. Even now we have the Blaines of the world afraid to give the CDC a chance, to give science a chance, to figure out a solution that works. This type of paranoia is is detrimental to all of us and can only lead to answers we don’t like,IMHO.

As far as the insults let me reiterate my position. Framing the issue as pro second amendment against the anti second amendment is wrong. That is why I use the term proammosexual and ammosexual. If that offends then so be it as I am offended by the 2nd amendment schtick some hide behind.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 11, 2015 11:24 AM
Comment #399500
Obama not only uses Australia and Britain as examples in his speeches, Obama also said we should pattern our gun laws after these countries.

Also recall that those countries’ laws were passed with consensus throughout the political spectrum. We don’t have such a consensus in this country. This is why the Left isn’t proposing such laws and why the Left isn’t going after your guns.

That doesn’t stop us from speculation regarding the consequences should such a consensus form. Undoubtedly, reducing the number of guns in this country reduces the number of gun deaths. That is the experience of Australia & the UK. It is up to us to decide which is more important, our guns or our loved ones’ lives.

America is not Australia or Britain and Americans would never give their guns. Whoever tries to institute a ban, whether congress, presidential executive order, or SC mandate…there would be civil war. The left might as well start working with conservatives to find a solution that would work, that doesn’t include a ban.
Absolutely. It is very clear the BATF is unable to enforce laws against straw purchases. Even though the law says otherwise, we live in a nation where straw purchases and sales to criminals or mentally disturbed individuals is a de facto legal phenomenon. Universal background checks are a part of that solution.
two 17 year olds armed with knives are of no threat to anyone.
Those knives were taken from the victim’s own kitchen. Also, last time I checked, knives are useless for hurting someone behind a locked bathroom door.
What kind of bubble do you live in
Twice in my life I have had my life threatened by a criminal. In 2007, a mentally ill student stabbed a fellow student in my high school’s bathroom as I studied in the room across the hall. If that mentally ill student had been able to bring a gun to school, I’d be dead today. I am alive today because my school was a gun-free zone.

In 2008, a group of thugs attempted to mug me at gunpoint. I lied to the thugs and told them I had nothing of value and that they should rob someone else. Figuring that a dead freshman college student was too much of a mess to cleanup, the thugs dispersed and I called the police.

Was my choice in the latter case a risky one? Certainly. But it fits my philosophy. If those thugs were that committed to murdering me, then so be it. I believe in a higher power that decides such outcomes.

I’ll continue to use substantial calibers as they are more reliable for stopping violent attackers.
Again, zero examples have been cited of people shooting a would-be murderer with a .22 and failing to prevent their own .22.
Good thing she had more than 8 rounds
Any evidence that the 9th round was actually necessary and the attacker wouldn’t have ceased that attack after the first 8?
Don’t know where the emotional support clause is. You’ll have to show that to me.
Check out the 9th & 10th Amendments.
the inalienable right to self defense.
Self defense has no explicit mention in the Constitution. Rather, the right to self defense was established by the Supreme Court in the case DC v. Heller. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 12:38 PM
Comment #399501

Warren writes; “Your guns are much more likely to be used to commit suicide than to stop an intruder. Rationally speaking, it would be much safer to live without them, but you choose otherwise.”

The fallacy of your argument is readily apparent. Many American citizens own arms and criminals know it. Take away the arms and the incidence of criminality would certainly rise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2015 12:53 PM
Comment #399502
The fallacy of your argument is readily apparent. Many American citizens own arms and criminals know it. Take away the arms and the incidence of criminality would certainly rise.
This does not reflect the experience of Canada, Australia, Japan or Western Europe. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment #399503

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2015 1:22 PM
Comment #399504

“Those knives were taken from the victim’s own kitchen.”

How is that relevant?


“Also, last time I checked, knives are useless for hurting someone behind a locked bathroom door.”


Sure, until it is kicked down. Then what? Just rely on their good nature, and hope they don’t hurt anyone?


“If those thugs were that committed to murdering me, then so be it. I believe in a higher power that decides such outcomes.”

Have you ever heard the old story about the guy stuck on his roof in a flood?
A guy comes by in a boat and says, get in I’ll save you. The guy says no, I trust in god and he’ll save me. Next comes a guy in a helicopter who drops a ladder and says, climb up I’ll save you. Same response. So the guy drowns, and as he stands in front of god he asks him, I believed in you, why did you let me die? God says well, I sent you a boat and a helicopter what else did you want.

We have free will, and that includes the will to survive. To sit around and wait a miracle is foolish.

Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #399505

Warren

There are basically 3 three types of people, Sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. You are a sheep, and that is nothing wrong with that, but don’t expect others who are not, to be sheep as well. Live your life however you choose, but don’t try and force others to live by your rules. Without sheepdogs wolves will feed on the sheep mercilessly.

Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #399506
We have free will, and that includes the will to survive.
I have much better things to do with my life to spend the money, time and effort acquiring guns, learning how to use them properly. That is how I choose to live my life. What is the point of free will if fear of death is so compulsive?
Without sheepdogs wolves will feed on the sheep mercilessly.
Sheepdogs are useless at making the wool that makes life worth living.
don’t try and force others to live by your rules.

Trust me, I won’t. Gun control won’t work if half of the country is hostile to it. However, rational people should be able to sit down and agree that the high gun death rate in this country is a direct consequence of our peculiar gun culture. As a nation we must decide what is more important, human lives or guns? It is quite apparent that a very vocal minority is devoted very much to the value of guns over the value of human life and at this rate, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Honestly, it may be for the best. After all, it may be better to die a freeman than to live as a slave.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #399507
Then what? Just rely on their good nature, and hope they don’t hurt anyone?

In this incident, that is precisely what happened. Nobody was hurt because the intruders never attempted to enter the bathroom. Those intruders were petty thieves, not violent criminals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #399508

Sorry for the triple post:

Have you ever heard the old story about the guy stuck on his roof in a flood?
Yes, but that isn’t analogous to what we are talking about. What would be analogous would be those 3 men offering to sell me a contract to be rescued in a boat/helicopter/whatever in the event a flood should happen in future. That’s not something I would do.


Of course, if I happened to be carrying a gun at the time and had the proper training, I would have used it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #399509

Great link Royal on post gun homicide rates. I read an article several years ago that the Brits fudge the numbers on crime. They lump rapes, stabbings, and physical attacks into one lump sum. I know the numbers are not what they appear.

Also recall that those countries’ laws were passed with consensus throughout the political spectrum. We don’t have such a consensus in this country. This is why the Left isn’t proposing such laws and why the Left isn’t going after your guns.

Wrong WP, the people of those countries had no say in what their leftist politicians passed for laws. Those laws were imposed on the people.

Regarding the left proposing, BS; the left would love nothing better than for politicians to pass a complete ban on guns. Why do you guys on the left continue this lie that your not trying to take people’s guns? Sure you are… Here’s your very next statement:

That doesn’t stop us from speculation regarding the consequences should such a consensus form. Undoubtedly, reducing the number of guns in this country reduces the number of gun deaths. That is the experience of Australia & the UK. It is up to us to decide which is more important, our guns or our loved ones’ lives.

Would you support the Democrats if the had the majority and tried to do away with the 2nd amendment? Sure you would…

“Reducing the number of guns reduces the number of gun deaths”; you’re playing with words. Reducing the number of guns does not reduce the number of deaths. Your side has already said the murder rate in America is mental problem. Aren’t you, j2, ph, and speaks calling for more money to research mental health or disease as the reason for gun murders. If that’s the argument, then the gun or no gun, plays no part in the reason for murders. If a person is intent on killing, a gun or no gun, isn’t going to stop them.

Of course, if I happened to be carrying a gun at the time and had the proper training, I would have used it. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 3:54 PM

I’m assuming you are talking about your mugging situation. But in any case this comment nullifies all your bullshit comments about your life being in the hands of higher power. Place a gun in the hand of Warren Porter and threaten him with loss of life, and he will shoot. It turns out, you’re no different than any other gun toting American.

George I don’t know of any legislation at this time that would solve the problem. I would blame the right for stopping the CDC from funding grants that would help to solve the problem. I think we need an answer to the mass/school shootings that take place all to often. Even now we have the Blaines of the world afraid to give the CDC a chance, to give science a chance, to figure out a solution that works. This type of paranoia is is detrimental to all of us and can only lead to answers we don’t like,IMHO.

As far as the insults let me reiterate my position. Framing the issue as pro second amendment against the anti second amendment is wrong.

It is a pro 2nd amend and anti 2nd amendment issue. The politicizing of the issue by Obama and others on the left has made it so.

So, the funding of science on climate change has resulted in lies and false deductions and now you think we should trust government funded science again? I don’t think so.

We have a simple solution for the mass shootings at schools and colleges; arm the teachers, allow college students who qualify to have CCW’s, or place armed guards in the schools. Simple…do you suppose there are armed guards at the schools of our politicians? Why yes…

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #399510

“Sheepdogs are useless at making the wool that makes life worth living.”

You’re right, they just protect the lives of the sheep from the wolves that would feed on them indiscriminately.

Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #399511

Blaine

They’re not interested in solutions.

Posted this earlier in the thread but in case you hadn’t seen here it is again. It’s a quick read.

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/

Posted by: dbs at October 11, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #399512

Some of the words from your link need to be quoted. Never were truer words said. And the article ends with conservatives are wise to the lying ways of the left. The left loves to condemn the TeaParty movement, they love to blather on about the conservatives in congress who have created chaos; yet the liberals are to blame for al of the conservative movement. The left has pushed and bullied until soft spoken conservatives have had enough. Enough of lying democrats, lying RINO’s, and lying Obama.

The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 7:12 PM
Comment #399513

Here are a few mass shootings prevented by armed citizens:

12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

By Hunter Roosevelt on June 23, 2015

1. Pearl High School, Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.

2. Parker Middle School, April 24, 1998
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.

3. Appalachian School of Law, Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students.

Gross and Bridges lost valuable response time accessing their handguns because of the law school’s standing as a gun-free zone.

4. New Life Church, Dec. 9, 2007
2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire, Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards. According to 5280 Magazine:


She fires five quick shots. Murray falls backward. Assam moves to the middle of the corridor and rushes forward. She’s a few dozen feet from Murray now, exposed in the middle of the hallway. “Drop your weapon, or I will kill you!” she yells. Murray sits up to face her. He’s still holding the rifle. Boom-boom-boom. Bullets rip past her and pepper a wall. While Murray shoots, Assam fires three times.

Through the haze of gun smoke, Assam sees the man struggling on the floor. He props his head against a wall. Her weapon is up, trained on the man. She sees his hands moving near his shoulder. He’s trying to pull the pin on a grenade. He’s going to kill everyone around here, Assam thinks. She instinctively steps back and fires two more shots.

5. New York Mills AT&T Store, May 27, 2010
A 79-year-old man entered an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York carrying a .357 magnum revolver in his hand and a list of employees he planned to kill in his pocket. Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he could complete his plan. One employee was wounded in the shooting.

6. Sullivan CentralHigh School, August 30, 2010
When a 62-year-old man armed with two handguns forced his way into Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee, he was immediately engaged by School Resource Officer Carolyn Gudger. Gudger put her body between the gunman and a student and started what would turn out to be a more than 10 minute gun-to-gun encounter. Gudger used the time to slowly move the man to a less crowded part of the school. When other officers arrived on the scene, a brief gun battle erupted ending with the gunman mortally wounded.

7. Freewill Baptist Church, March 25, 2012
Aaron Guyton was inside the recreation building of his grandfather’s church when he saw Jessie Gates, a member of the congregation, pulling a shotgun from his vehicle. Guyton leapt into action, locking the doors to the church where services were going on. Gates kicked in the door and pointed the shotgun at Rev. Henry Guyton and several parishioners. Drawing his concealed handgun, the younger Guyton held Gates at gunpoint while two members of the church took him to the ground. Rev. Guyton then took the shotgun from his hand.

8. Clackamas Town Center Mall, Dec. 11, 2012
Two people were killed and a third was seriously wounded at Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Oregon when a rifle-toting gunman opened fire in in the busy food court. Nick Meli, a shopper in the mall, drew a personally owned firearm on the gunman, who immediately retreated to a service corridor and killed himself. Meli did not fire his weapon for fear of striking bystanders yet authorities say his actions caused the gunman to cease his attack and end his own life.

9. Mystic Strip Club, January 11, 2014
After being refused entry to the strip club for belligerent behavior and racist comments earlir in the night, Thomas Elliott Hjelmeland returned carrying a handgun and wearing a Halloween mask. As soon as he entered the club, Hjelmeland opened fire, striking bouncer Brian Rizzo, a patron, and a waitress. Another bouncer, Jonathan Baer drew his concealed handgun and shot Hjelmeland, killing him.

Following the attack Baer posted to Facebook: “I did what I felt was right to stop the shooter…I carry every day, and will continue to, and will so with the hope that I will NEVER have to pull it out again.”

10. Austin, Texas Construction Site, April 30, 2014
An irate former employee came to a construction site and opened fire on his co-workers. The site’s foreman, a Concealed Handgun License holder, drew his firearm and opened fire. Both men were wounded in the exchange of gunfire but the foreman’s actions ended the attack and no one else was wounded.

11. Cache Valley Hospital, May 16, 2014
Armed with two handguns, a man entered the Cache Valley Hospital emergency room and began making demands. After demanding to see a doctor, he racked the slide on one of his handguns and told hospital employees “someone is going to die today”. While a security guard tried to keep the gunman’s focus on him, two corrections officers who happened to be at the hospital on an unrelated matter engaged from another direction. The gunman was shot three times and no other people were harmed.

12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, July 25, 2014
A patient at a psychiatric clinic killed his case worker at point blank range and then turned his gun on his doctor, Lee Silverman, striking him several times. Before the gunman could leave the office and continue his rampage, Dr. Silverman drew his own concealed handgun and pumped three rounds into the gunman’s torso, mortally wounding him. Police and hospital staff hail Dr. Silverman as a hero and credit him with saving dozens of lives.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/#ixzz3oJAzQaD5

Today and yesterday:

On October 11, a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an alleged armed robber inside Cafe Azzurri in Waterbury, Connecticut.

The incident occurred around 2:30 a.m.

According to NBC Connecticut, police spoke with witnesses who said “the would-be robber had come into the cafe wielding a gun and tried to steal from the business and the customers.” A patron who was “carrying a legally registered handgun confronted the suspect and fired his gun at least once, fatally shooting the man.”

Police took the patron’s handgun and “aren’t releasing his name” until the investigation into the shooting is over. No charges have been filed against the armed citizen.

News of the concealed permit holder stopping the Cafe Azzurri robbery comes just one day after a concealed permit holder stopped the robbery of Waffle House in Charleston, South Carolina. Breitbart News previously reported that police praised the concealed permit holder who intervened at the Waffle House, stopping an armed robbery at about 5:00 a.m. on October 10.

A uniformed officer who responded to calls of “shots fired” at the restaurant said, “It says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.” And a Waffle House employee who was at the restaurant when the alleged robbery was attempted said the concealed permit holder saved lives. According to The Post and Courier, the employee said, “He saved us, that’s what he did.”

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 8:30 PM
Comment #399514

I’d like to know which of the dozens of lives that were saved by armed citizens would Warren Porter say “they should have died, for my beliefs that guns are evil”?

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 8:33 PM
Comment #399516
Wrong WP, the people of those countries had no say in what their leftist politicians passed for laws. Those laws were imposed on the people.

How many times are you going to lie to my face, Blaine?

Both Australia and Britain were controlled by centre-right parties at the time those laws were adopted. Those parties were were elected democratically. The laws do not pose a lingering controversy and I imagine it would be political suicide for an MP to propose repealing them in either place.

Your side has already said the murder rate in America is mental problem.
Another lie. Nobody said the murder rate was a mental problem. Mental illness has played a role in a few particular mass-murders and it is disturbs some people how easy it is for a mentally ill person to obtain guns without having to resort to the black market.
If a person is intent on killing, a gun or no gun, isn’t going to stop them.
That’s not how things work. Sometimes a murder or a suicide is just a matter of impulse. A gun in one’s hand makes that impulse fatal. A different weapon gives that individual an extra moment to reconsider that impulse. Or it limits the carnage once the decision to kill has been made, as was the case at my High School 8 years ago.
I’m assuming you are talking about your mugging situation.
Finally, a truthful statement! Keep up the good work, Blaine and maybe you’ll earn a gold star.
But in any case this comment nullifies all your bullshit comments about your life being in the hands of higher power
No, it doesn’t. My philosophy guides my decision not to carry a gun. My decision guides my reaction to a violent confrontation when I am unarmed.
It turns out, you’re no different than any other gun toting American.
No. I don’t own a gun and do not carry them around, which is different than the “gun toting American”. “Gun toting” Americans derive beneficial emotions from the possession of their firearms. They feel much more secure with their gun even though they haven’t actually done something that significantly enhances their life expectancy. Others might enjoy the recreational activities that guns facilitate such as target shooting or hunting. Still others might enjoy amassing a collection and preserving the history of firearms and their manufacture. All of these are great things, but they do not represent who I am or who I aspire to be.

No rational person owns a gun for the sole purpose of personal defense. As I already showed, all guns are more likely used to facilitate the suicide of their owners (or the owner’s loved ones) than they are to kill an attacker. The decision to bear arms must overcome this basic statistic and must either be a result of ignorance, irrationality or a desire to bear arms that goes beyond the basic right to safe protection.

This was illustrated on this very page when several commentators rejected the efficacy of a .22 because they imagined hypothetical doomsday scenarios where someone would continue to attacking despite having been hit by multiple .22 rounds, yet simultaneously dismissed the much less remote chance that their gun be used to commit suicide.

We have a simple solution for the mass shootings at schools and colleges; arm the teachers, allow college students who qualify to have CCW’s, or place armed guards in the schools. Simple…do you suppose there are armed guards at the schools of our politicians? Why yes…

Here’s a deal: No more gun-free zones, but only permit the use of .22 caliber single action handguns in conjunction with concealed carry. Larger caliber long guns remain legal at home, on private property and on public property where hunting is permitted.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 11, 2015 10:05 PM
Comment #399518

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

Posted by: Rich at October 11, 2015 10:54 PM
Comment #399520
Here’s a deal: No more gun-free zones, but only permit the use of .22 caliber single action handguns in conjunction with concealed carry. Larger caliber long guns remain legal at home, on private property and on public property where hunting is permitted.

Silly boy, your side would never agree with this comment.

But I am glad to see that after 2/3 days on WB, you have gone from a novice with only the experience of shooting a 22 rifle as a boy scout, to a full fledged firearms expert. That is what we might call a miracle.

But you do sound a little silly with your continued emotion theory. A gun is no different than any other tool i.e. hammer, drill, coffee pot.

False premise; you have not shown that most gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than to have the need to protect themselves. By your own statements, you stated you would have used a gun, if you had had one, when you were accosted. Or perhaps you are special, and just an exception to the rule. Perhaps you can guarantee to the rest of your audience in WB land, that you were the only one attacked and it won’t happen to anyone else. Or perhaps you can guarantee that if anyone else in cyber land is attacked, they won’t have to be the slick talker you were by deceiving your attackers.

My personal belief is that you just keep talking silly because you can’t stand to not be the last one standing. If so, then I will submit, you have out talked me. Once again the slick talker… As dbs’ link infers, it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a liberal on gun rights. Your mindset is already logged in on gun control/gun confiscation is the only way. So I bow to your superior knowledge of guns.

Posted by: Blaine at October 11, 2015 11:39 PM
Comment #399522

J2

“So we have come full circle it seem kctim.”

Actually, I would still like to know what research J2 thinks would provide beneficial information. Not the words of others or the same old ‘evil NRA’ rhetoric.

“Framing the argument around the 2nd amendment instead of the solution to prevalent mass killings/school shootings of innocent people”

Yeah, that’s the ‘bad’ thing about individual rights, J2. You have to respect them while searching for solutions.

“is what causes others to use terms such as ammosexuals.”

Um, no. Weak people use the term because they cannot argue facts against the 2nd Amendment and its history. Because of that, you attempt to deflect from the fact that it is a Constitutional right by associating it with a sexual perversion.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2015 10:05 AM
Comment #399525
Actually, I would still like to know what research J2 thinks would provide beneficial information. Not the words of others or the same old ‘evil NRA’ rhetoric.

kctim, there are many different fronts to explore when it comes to stopping mass/school shootings. We know the other countries that solved it by removing firearms from the equation but do we want to go there? We cannot get anything from you guys but “well s**t happens” and “the same guns we tell you don’t kill people do save people” logic kctim.

We need to look at other options hence the research grants. Lets look for ideas that will solve the problem whether it is behavioral,cultural or technological or a combination remains to be seen IMHO.

The NRA is a problem because they actively interfere with research as the link shows. They were wrong to do it and need to change their ways IMHO.

Um, no. Weak people use the term because they cannot argue facts against the 2nd Amendment and its history.

The killing of innocent people isn’t a right protected by the constitution kctim. The right to bear arms doesn’t include shooting innocent people.

Because of that, you attempt to deflect from the fact that it is a Constitutional right by associating it with a sexual perversion.

Not deflect kctim reframe the issue, this isn’t a second amendment issue to me and to call me anti 2nd amendment because I want to find a way to solve the ongoing mass killings of innocent people doesn’t mean I am against gun ownership or the intelligent use of weapons in our country.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 12, 2015 1:45 PM
Comment #399526

Liberals intent upon restricting our gun rights with scare tactics are no different than the MMGW alarmists. It is all about money and power.

Nobel Prize Winning Scientist: Obama is “Dead Wrong” on Global Warming!


Read more at http://eaglerising.com/20702/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#eEgu0WSEEktA8zB1.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #399527

“…the Global Warming Petition Project, which bears the signatures of over 30,000 scientists, over 9,000 of whom hold PhDs.
The petition states, in part:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

http://lastresistance.com/14125/ted-cruz-nails-lying-sierra-club-president-to-the-wall-on-global-warming/

No doubt tomorrow night’s democrat debate will include questions on MMGW. Listen to the lying politicians. It will be fun.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #399528

Royal, you must remember that the left blames all the ills of planet earth on human beings. The biggest producers of CO2 is humans exhaling. So if we could just do away with humans, the earth would be perfect.

Posted by: Blaine at October 12, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #399529

Blaine, the MMGW alarmists consists of two groups. The gullible puppets and their manipulating masters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2015 5:30 PM
Comment #399532

This protest organized by a UT Austin student is indicative of the reception given to gun advocates by the majority youth of our nation, Hilarious!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 13, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment #399533

Not hilarious, but degenerate. These college girls know all about dildos, but as most “man on the street ” interviews with these girls goes; maybe 1% might be able to name the three branches of government, or the name of America’s first president.

Posted by: Blaine at October 13, 2015 4:19 PM
Comment #399534

It is in the perception to some extent, I see it as very effective protest. When asked what her general background was and whether she was an activist she replied:

“I am a UT alumni and I graduated with a violin performance degree last year. I am the typical millennial with too much access to information, too strong of a sense of morality, and too dry of a sense of humor. I’d never before considered myself an activist, more than a concerned citizen. This began as a satirical knee-jerk reaction to current events, but the popularity of these sentiments, and the strength of the reactions it has provoked, has said volumes about what a crisis our country has reached over gun control.”

Seems like she is very articulate and knowledgeable from this interview conducted by the Houston Chronicle.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 13, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #399535

Yes, I’m sure she has made her parents very proud to see her with a dildo sticking out of her backpack.

Posted by: Blaine at October 13, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #399537

She is making a statement and attempting a form of protest. That you don’t approve is of no matter. Her point is, a toy is prohibited but something as dangerous as a gun is OK.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 13, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #399538

Here’s a study done by the prestigious liberal bastion of Harvard University in 2007, but conviently overlooked until now. Surprise; increase gun ownership and decrease crime.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1

Posted by: Blaine at October 13, 2015 6:18 PM
Comment #399539

Are we all ready for the Dem debates tonight? Do my liberal friends on WB have their clown hats on?

Heard an interesting comment from a caller on a talk show today. He said how ironic it would be if another black man beat Hillary for the presidency.

The Dem party has hardly any diversity in their candidates and I wonder why since they hail themselves as the Big Tent party.

The Big Tent consists of an old white man and woman as leading candidates who appear to be in a bidding war over who can promise to tax and spend the most.

The debate will be well scripted with no real debating allowed and just soft-ball questions being asked.

We are all aware of the huge interest in the Republican debates that attracted an awesome viewing audience. Even OObama’s spokesperson indicated that HE would probably be watching ballgames rather then the debate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 13, 2015 6:49 PM
Comment #399540

Thank you Blaine for the very interesting link to the Harvard study on guns.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 13, 2015 6:55 PM
Comment #399541

Royal, the funny thing is, it’s a Harvard research and nothing has been said about it. It’s like the debate on climate change, when the left does the research and it doesn’t turn out like they want, it’s buried.

Regarding the debate; it will be DOA. CNN has been hyping the debate, but then said it wouldn’t draw the interest the republican debates drew. Anderson Cooper is the moderater of the debate…the same Anderson cooper who is part of the Clinton global initiative. Do you reckon there’s a conflict of interest? It will be boring and the audience will b a typical CNN audience…a couple of hundred people.

Posted by: Blaine at October 13, 2015 7:35 PM
Comment #399550
your side would never agree with this comment.
Do you really think the guy upset with HRC’s private email serve gives a whit about what “my side” might agree to?
to a full fledged firearms expert. That is what we might call a miracle.

I still don’t know much about firearms. No need to patronize me.

By your own statements, you stated you would have used a gun, if you had had one, when you were accosted. Or perhaps you are special, and just an exception to the rule. Perhaps you can guarantee to the rest of your audience in WB land, that you were the only one attacked and it won’t happen to anyone else. Or perhaps you can guarantee that if anyone else in cyber land is attacked, they won’t have to be the slick talker you were by deceiving your attackers.
Believe me, I’m not special. I will continue to not carry a gun and I will continue to not bend to extortion. If I end up dead because of that, so be it. However, I am confident my behavior is the most rational response to the world around me. The chance I ever find myself in a situation where I need a firearms is far smaller than the chance I might find myself temporarily depressed enough to commit suicide.
False premise; you have not shown that most gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than to have the need to protect themselves.

That wasn’t my claim. Here is what I wrote:
“Guns are more likely used to facilitate the suicide of their owners (or the owner’s loved ones) than they are to kill an attacker”

Clearly, all available statistics demonstrate that suicides outnumber all other gun deaths 2 to 1. You cannot spin that away.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 14, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #399553

Again, false premise; your comparing oranges to apples.

Let’s try this link again, I see you failed to comment on it:

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1

The more guns carried, the less chance of someone being killed; therefore by default any suicides committed will add to your false premise.

Posted by: Blaine at October 14, 2015 8:49 PM
Comment #399560

Blaine,

First of all. You clearly didn’t read the study because you, didn’t even link to it. You instead rely on some brief summary on a right wing site.

Second of all, the study does not have the conclusions you think it does. The authors write,

“Once again, we are not arguing that the data in Table 2 shows that gun control causes nations to have much higher murder rates than neighboring nations that permit handgun ownership. Rather, we assert a political causation for the ob‐
served correlation that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow
guns. The political causation is that nations which have vio‐
lence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do
not reduce violence, which is determined by basic socio‐
cultural and economic factors.

Regarding suicide, the authors found no statistically significant relationship between the rate of gun ownership and a nation’s suicide rate. However, that wasn’t my point. I said that a gun in the US is much more likely used to kill its owner than it is to kill an attacker. The fact that over 60% of all gun deaths are suicides backs up my claim. Nothing in the Kates & Mauser study contradicts that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 15, 2015 10:05 AM
Comment #399575

WP, I understand what the report says and I also understand the report was based upon the research of one of the most liberal anti gun universities in America. They are most certainly going to include their anti gun sentiments in with the facts. What happens when we throw out the politics and stick to just the facts?

You comments about suicide an killing an attacker cannot be compared to each other. The more guns in a society shows a decrease in crime. This is a fact based not only upon the Harvard study, but dozens of other studies. Which means the only part of the equation to remain the same is the suicides. Your comment is illogical. Suicides will always remain the same when the crime rate decreases. Your own study says that gun control does not lower crime. Crime is not a head problem, it’s a heart problem. People who want to commit a crime, rape, or suicide will not be stopped, even if they don’t have a gun. The events this very week in Israel, how many people have been stabbed to death. Have the lack of guns stopped the murders of countless people. But it is interesting that people with guns have saved countless lives.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 1:44 PM
Post a comment