I figured I would start an Open Thread for everyone to discuss the latest mass shooting in the US that statistically isn’t the worse, but feels like the worst since the gunmen killed so many little elementary kids. So if anyone has ideas on what should be done please share them in the comments section.
Here are my thoughts on what I think should be done. The media so far seems to be grabbing on to the take the guns away argument which is about as useful as USFK and USFJ curfews. Such an approach is nothing more than making it look like something is being done when it is not solving the problem. Taking away assault rifles will not stop these shootings. Look at what Seung-hui Cho did at Virginia Tech with handguns which to this day remains the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Guns were not invented in the 1990′s when the majority of these mass shootings began. Likewise lunatics didn’t just start appearing in the 1990′s as well. The US has always had plenty of guns and lots of lunatics, so what did happen in the 1990′s to cause this explosion of mass shootings?
What did become prevalent in the 1990′s was the 24 hour mass media news cycle. The people committing these crimes are either just deranged copycats are psychos looking to make a name for themselves. If the news media didn’t make these lunatics famous than maybe less of them would commit these crimes? Look at Seung-hui Cho who sent pictures of himself holding his handguns in various poses to the news media. The news media should treat these people like the sports world does to people who streak across the television screen during a baseball game. They cut away from the act and do not make these people famous because they do not want to encourage more of this behavior. Likewise I would not be opposed to the news media not naming these killers or showing their faces. Let these people rot in history anonymously. I do not need to know who Jared Loughner or James Holmes is to know that they are both dirtbags rotting away in jail. Likewise I do not need to see pictures of Cho showing off with his handguns.
So what does everyone else think?
![[Valid RSS]](http://rokdrop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")
5:32 pm on December 14th, 2012 1
Pretty hard not to report on 30 dead bodies. Then we touch on the relatives, so that tacks on another 60 or so, then we branch out from there. No, you’re gonna have to report on killings of this magnitude, and we want details. We want to know all there is to know about these people because murder, just like sex, sells. Ever see the ‘true crime’ section at the bookstore? “In Cold Blood” by Capote? No, we want details. We want solid proof that this guy is all the way at the opposite end of the spectrum than we are. We NEED that mirror. What to do about gun violence? Obviously, remove the guns. But that’s never gonna happen, and you don’t want a more intrusive background investigation, do you? Want the gun shop knowing about that little bout of depression you had a few years back and the medications you’re currently taking? I didn’t think so. So, until such time as we either rid the world of psycho-killers or restrict their access to weaponry, we’re just going to have to live with it.
5:40 pm on December 14th, 2012 2
I have a question about the 2nd amendment. Why is there so little focus on the “well-regulated militia” part? My guess is that groups like the one in Michigan that seem frighteningly extreme have damaged the name “militia”.
I think the US has already released the ink into the pool and cannot filter through the pool to retrieve it. The US needs to work on weapons management because it is too late for weapons restrictions.
The 2nd amendment in song:
5:57 pm on December 14th, 2012 3
@1- who said not report it? I said do not glamorize these loons who commit these mass killings. We do not need to see pictures and names of these people.
6:18 pm on December 14th, 2012 4
@2- So why we’re these mass shootings not happening regularly like they are now prior to the 90′s if weapons management whatever that means is the issue? These crimes as Cho’s killings shows are easily committed by handguns. Making it more difficult to purchase an assault rifle which I am not opposed to is just as effective as the USFJ curfew. Is is an easy way to show the public the politicians are doing something while the crimes continue.
6:24 pm on December 14th, 2012 5
This didn’t take long…
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooti…
Bryan Fischer explains that the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school could have been stopped by God, but he has been kicked out of public schools and doesn’t go where he is not wanted.
If you believe in god, you should be celebrating these deaths you numbskull. They are in heaven with Jesus. You should pray for someone to shoot your children.
6:27 pm on December 14th, 2012 6
This dudes guns were legally purchased by the shooters own mother. Whom, he murdered today as well. Deranged people are gonna be deranged. No matter the tool they use to commit the crime, the crime will be committed.
More mental health services and treatment will probably help.
Less desensitizing horrible violent acts will probably help.
This uptick in mass murders isn’t new, it is just covered differently in the digital age. Makes it seem bigger than it is. That’s my personal opinion though.
6:31 pm on December 14th, 2012 7
We have many guns in Canada, but gun violence is relatively rare. You might want to look into that. It’s been extensively researched.
I put some of the blame on the American media, which sensationalizes violence. I was shocked by what I saw when we got cable TV when I was in high school and we started receiving TV stations from Detroit. Tabloid journalism at its worst, as far as I’m concerned.
6:43 pm on December 14th, 2012 8
@3: I am not sure what I meant by ‘weapons management’. I mostly meant that it is too late to restrict gun sales or too late for restrictions on gun sales to have much effect in my lifetime. As a Canadian, I see handguns about as problematic as automatic weapons.
The thing I am most curious about (and sincerely so) is why opponents of the NRA don’t emphasize the “well-regulated militia” aspect of the 2nd amendment.
6:45 pm on December 14th, 2012 9
If this man in China had a gun we would be hearing the same sad news we are hearing out of America. Why make guns so available in America?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
6:48 pm on December 14th, 2012 10
Here’s the deal, if you banned all gun sales in America right now what would you have? You’d still have tens upon millions of guns.
You cannot fix mass shootings with gun control laws. You simply cannot do that.
Not only that, those guns where obtained illegally. They where stolen from a victim.
6:58 pm on December 14th, 2012 11
Self-pimpage: Societal Necrosis
7:03 pm on December 14th, 2012 12
@ #8
It is acknowledged but, it isn’t the only thing the Amendment says. And, if you want to get down and dirty with it…the 1st Amendment has caused more violence and death than the 2nd.
Mentally I’ll people need treatment.
Less honoring the shooters in the media.
Stop making people numb to violence and violent acts.
Crazy situation we have here with 1st and 2nd Amendments we have here, no?
7:08 pm on December 14th, 2012 13
[...] why not just blame the entire media complex for the incident while we are at it. It’s a heart-rending history of violence America [...]
7:22 pm on December 14th, 2012 14
The Internet also become widespread in the nineties.
7:25 pm on December 14th, 2012 15
On a side note, the U.S. military is considering restricting gun ownership of services members as a means to deal with the suicide problem.
Since the military is not a democracy, it is free to curtail 2nd Amendment privileges in the same way it curtails the 1st Amendment ones. Yes privileges because in the military they are not rights. There probably can’t be any internal complaints, but I am sure the argument will be that the military is being used as a tool on the slippery slope to re-engineer national opinion and policies.
Back to the topic here. With our numerous outlets for information, I don’t think it’s advisable or possible to restrict any aspects of these stories. Any attempts to do so would only feed into public anxiety and conspiracy theories.
Personally, I believe a rational conversation needs to be had about people with known mental problems, such as Cho, the guys in Colorado and Arizona and so many others and their access to guns. I just don’t know where that conversation should start and where it should end.
7:32 pm on December 14th, 2012 16
I don’t think this issue can be fixed with more laws about gun control I do feel like paying more attention to mentally disturbed people though could. Let’s face the facts no sane person would walk into a school and kill 27 people for shits and giggles. Sure maybe they would kill one or two people they really hate, but not 20 students unless something was wrong with them.
7:33 pm on December 14th, 2012 17
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910
Also this is the 2nd attack today. 20 children in China where injured when a man came to their school.
7:35 pm on December 14th, 2012 18
17. But he did it without a gun! Unpossible!
7:56 pm on December 14th, 2012 19
NRA = Enablers of Mass Murder
40% of all guns don’t require background checks. Guns shows are exempt. The NRA says more guns are needed to save lives at places like movie theaters and elementary schools.
8:01 pm on December 14th, 2012 20
Hats off to the ROK Drop community for (so far) a very level-headed set of responses to what is often such an emotional and divisive topic.
I have a lot more to say, much of which echoes people on both sides here, but I just wanted to point out for now that the guy with the gun KILLED around two dozen children while the guy with the knife WOUNDED around two dozen children.
Thoughts and prayers out to everyone affected by this.
8:03 pm on December 14th, 2012 21
A man walks into a school in China and stabs dozens of children. All of them survive. A man walks into a school in Connecticut with a handgun and starts shooting…
At this point, I think we should just throw in the towel and let people buy grenades, cluster bombs, shoulder-fired stinger missiles, whatever.
8:04 pm on December 14th, 2012 22
Don’t let people with Asperger’s syndrome and personality disorders have access to your family’s guns?
8:13 pm on December 14th, 2012 23
Why is there a thread about an American criminal activity on a web site dedicated to the Korean Peninsula?
8:14 pm on December 14th, 2012 24
Go ahead. Take away guns from honest folks. Then the loonies won’t need to worry about incoming rounds…
Two or three armed staff could have been enough to stop the slaughter.
8:19 pm on December 14th, 2012 25
Hopefully, as I have been saying from the start…the ultimate outcome from this is better mental health practices and treatment.
As seen in China, all it takes is one deranged mind to harm children, adults, innocent bystanders, or anyone really.
This isn’t an argument about guns…it is an argument about Mental Health and treatment for such.
8:23 pm on December 14th, 2012 26
19, The NRA helped elect Harry Reid, too… And they certainly don’t condone parents of the mentally-ill allowing themselves to be murdered and their guns used to murder children, so shame on your parents.
This was about a divorced woman, a teacher’s aide, with a mentally-ill child she probably tried to be friends with instead of disciplining when he misbehaved. So his mood swings got worse as he got older; but she was lonely so she rationalized the situation and is, in fact the one who effectively should be blamed for the 28 dead including herself and her son.
And she was probably not an NRA member or a Republican. Mass-murderers tend to be Democrats. Look it up. And have a nice hot cup of STFU next time the urge to urinate on dead children soaks into your consciousness.
8:32 pm on December 14th, 2012 27
surprisesaplenty@2: ‘well regulated militia’ means ‘well equipped militia’. And, ‘militia’ means pretty much everybody. The law doesn’t change just because the common usage of words changes with time. The constitution has to be read such that the words have the same meaning as they did when the document was written. Otherwise all law could be rewritten simply by publishing a new dictionary and burning the old.
8:33 pm on December 14th, 2012 28
Setnaffa, you’ve obviously not had many interactions with children and adults with ASD and have no idea what it is like to raise these special needs children and live with them as adults, so why fon’t you serve yourself a nice hot cup. Pissing on woman murdered by her son. What a fine witness you are for your faith. And telling us to bother searching for proof of a claim YOU made?
8:36 pm on December 14th, 2012 29
If we banned all gun sales tomorrow in America you know what we would have? Millions upon millions of guns in private hands still. You can’t take away the guns, that’s NOT going solve problem.
Yes owning a gun makes it easier to kill someone, yes the man in China stabbed 20 who will live and the man in America with a gun killed 20. The point was not to be to improve gun patrol. But it was meant to show that things like this happen everywhere.
America simply cannot prevent incidents like this with more gun control laws, it won’t solve the problem. We need to focus on prevention.
My friend had a suggestion, create a new level of CCP. You will have two levels, level 1 and level 2. Level 2 will allow you to carry a gun in “gun free zones” however level 2 will require an increased level of training.
8:47 pm on December 14th, 2012 30
A couple of punks break into Sonagi’s house. Sonagi with a gun goes on with life. Sonagi with a knife becomes a statistic.
There is too large of criminal class and too many crazies watching glorified violence to think new gun laws will solve any problem. The easiest solution to stopping spree killers is for the media culture to change. The media must ridicule and belittle these killers at every chance. It needs to stop showing any sympathy by reporting excuses or rationalizations and needs to expose and amplify anything embarrassing. The media needs to redirect their rage and impotence by glorifying actions that only affect themselves. Potential copycats, which is what many of these killers are, will follow these new ways to express themselves, hopefully through suicide. Even gruesome and public suicide would be preferable to this.
8:53 pm on December 14th, 2012 31
# 23,
, even if it’s one day or so early.
It’s the weekly “Open Thread”
8:59 pm on December 14th, 2012 32
I can see that in my optimism I spoke too soon.
9:02 pm on December 14th, 2012 33
A couple of punks don’t break into Sonagi’s house, but Sonagi’s stressed-out husband or boyfriend ends up developing violent tendencies and one day grabs that gun out of anger, you know, the one he was going to use just in case punks broke into the house. Sonagi with a gun in her house becomes a statistic.
9:04 pm on December 14th, 2012 34
Apologies to Sonagi. I don’t wish anybody dead, but if I did have a list of people, she would not be on it.
9:04 pm on December 14th, 2012 35
33. Not if Sonagi has another gun and gets the drop on him.
9:07 pm on December 14th, 2012 36
Why don’t you share your brilliant solution to the problem of mass gun violence with CNN, NYT, and other national media? Don’t hold back, tell ‘em what they must do, Captain Obvious.
9:13 pm on December 14th, 2012 37
Yeah, LLP (#35), that thought did actually occur to me, but I tried to suppress it. You see, it came to me again the other day when that seven-year-old kid was shot to death by his father coming out of a gun store. I was really tempted to turn that frickin’ argument on its head and say that the kid would still be alive if he himself had been packing and had taken his dad out first.
I’m not a sick fu¢k by nature, but seeing these types of cases over and over and over again really pulls the dark humor out of me.
For now, I’m glad that the focus here at ROK Drop has turned toward the importance of getting our mental health problems under control. Interestingly, I see that a lot of the conservatives here seem to be of the same mindset that Michael Moore put forth in his movie “Bowling for Columbine.”
9:15 pm on December 14th, 2012 38
With @ #30 I am done with this topic here. He/she took it too far.
9:21 pm on December 14th, 2012 39
37. I’m just saying, she could keep a little derringer (perhaps a Hello Kitty model) in her garter belt and ambush the hypothetically locked and loaded husband/boyfriend/killer.
Also, many fathers tell their kids that they “brought them into this world and they can take them out.” Perhaps the little brat called the old man’s bluff and he found out the hard way that he was serious. Of course a 7 year old kid is usually only going to rate a BB gun which likely isn’t enough fire power to take on the old man. I like how the father played it of as an accident. Brilliant. And that’s one less punk Sonagi has to worry about breaking into her house.
9:24 pm on December 14th, 2012 40
Oh BTW, no matter how it seems things are same as they ever was…
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html
9:37 pm on December 14th, 2012 41
#23 It is related to Korea.
Gun lobbyists use Korean store owners during the LA Riots as an example of needing guns. Korean store owners with guns protected their stores from rioters, while those without guns had their stores burn down.
9:39 pm on December 14th, 2012 42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ
9:47 pm on December 14th, 2012 43
Over the course of a year at my last “office” job I watched and listened a lot to the young adults/kids. Even the good looking ones were somewhat nerdy, socially askew. Just something not right about them. I heard a lot of talk about online video games, wizard of warcraft, Call of Duty type stuff. I’d go for long jogs at night around several neighborhoods, even though the weather was nice and warm I very rarely saw anybody outside playing, heck I rarely saw anyone outside at all except for dog walkers.
What could they be doing inside all the time? I reminded myself of the constant talk of video games. That’s what they’re doing ALL THE TIME. NOBODY WAS OUTSIDE, EVER.
Ever since then, whenever there’s a young guy commiting mass murder I look for signs the kid was heavily into video games. I find out more often than not he certainly is. I’m not saying video games are the cause but you take a dysfunctional youth, doesn’t have a lot going for them, recently unemployed or away from their support group and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Violent or Fantasy video games could put that kid into an endlessly more dangerous mode.
9:48 pm on December 14th, 2012 44
Denny, the only Koreatown deaths, including that of the only Korean-American to die in the riots, were people defending the Korean stores shot by their own side mistaking them as looters.
http://www.monster-island.net/2012/04/rodney-king-riots-plus-20.html
9:50 pm on December 14th, 2012 45
And ever since 2007, any mass shooting is inextricably Korea-related because of Cho Seung-hui.
Not to mention that Korea’s worst mass shooting, one of the worst in the world I believe, is also inextricably tied up in the idea of the dangers of the mentally ill having access to guns.
9:56 pm on December 14th, 2012 46
41. That’s pretty tenuous.
How about just acknowledging that although this blog is primarily about Korea, there is no reason to let artificial constraints prevent posting about significant events no matter where they occur?
It’s silly, really.
I suppose since it is a Korean blog we should put on our blinders and earplugs and ignore everything non-Korean while immersing ourselves in the ROKDrop.
Or, perhaps there is always the possibility (no matter how remote) the original poster asking the question was just trying to be an ass.
10:10 pm on December 14th, 2012 47
Staying with a violent husband is a personal choice and it should have no effect on what the overwhelmingly vast majority of firearm owners who are neither criminal nor violent. If you have to fear the people in your household, you have problems far in excess of firearms availability.
While calls to restrict or ban firearms is an easy and emotional plea, it is a lazy and unworkable solution. Apart from the 100 million or so existing guns that aren’t going away, as we have seen with the War on Drugs, any War on Guns would empower professional criminals, both in their personal possession and use, as well as smuggling and underground manufacture.
The most workable solution to stopping this type of random spree killer is to make the media hype so distasteful to the perpetrator that potential copycats will see no glory, and will choose to express themselves in different ways.
A possible suggestion would be encouraging innovative suicides as a valid expression rather than mass murder followed by the almost-inevitable inglorious suicide that happens as it is. This sound heartless but it is pragmatic and preferable to the existing situation. One dead crazy in the middle of Times Square is preferable to one dead crazy surrounded by dead schoolchildren.
This is a low-cost and easy-to-implement program that requires no government enforcement agency or additional infrastructure. It just requires the media to cooperate with the government to push a new way of thinking, which they are all experienced with already.
Does anyone have a better solution that is realistic?
10:18 pm on December 14th, 2012 48
47. You may have something there. Really. Celebrate innovative and creative suicides. If anyone else is harmed in the attempt you are disqualified. I do not find this heartless at all. We call ourselves a free society. If someone wants to take control their life, up to and including ending it, they should be allowed to do so as long as it doesn’t harm others. We should remove the stigma from an honorable suicide (induced by superstition). It would be the most human thing we could ever do, I would imagine.
Of course the witch doctors and their blind tribes of followers would be up in arms over such a kind and human approach.
10:26 pm on December 14th, 2012 49
#47
“The most workable solution to stopping this type of random spree killer is to make the media hype so distasteful to the perpetrator that potential copycats will see no glory, and will choose to express themselves in different ways.”
I don’t understand why this suggestion is raised again. Can someone cite one example of where a mass or spree killer has gotten glorified press coverage except in fringe publications?
10:30 pm on December 14th, 2012 50
49. one mans glory id another man ignominy.
10:41 pm on December 14th, 2012 51
It takes a bit of work to kill someone with a knife usually. With a gun, it looks like a clean shot.
It isn’t, in reality, but in the movies when someone gets shot, they either fall down or they just flinch. If you see a wound, it’s usually a small hole.
No one normally sees the actual result of gun violence . Perhaps gun owners should be made to look at gunshot wounds the way that drivers are made to watch the films of traffic accidents. It could make gun owners more aware of the stakes involved when using a gun for defense…or offense for that matter.
10:48 pm on December 14th, 2012 52
I wonder whether the issue isn’t gun control as much as self control. There should be more education on gun use and abuse as well as increased access to mental health care.
12:49 am on December 15th, 2012 53
JoeC, spree killers aren’t exactly glorified, but they are excused. Concerned attention is given to their personal and emotional problems in a very public way. Their behavior is rationalized through family problems and/or mental illness and other factors that are generally indicated to be out of their control. This is a hopeless screw-up’s dream, and if you look at many of these spree killers, you will find they fit a pretty similar profile.
The media does not clearly define the narrative as the murderer being a worthless screwup which no amount of personal baggage excuses. Nothing good nor excusing should be said about them. This current killer is being labeled as smart but odd. He already knows he is odd and now he is getting internationally known as smart. This is not the worst way to be publicly remembered to someone who accepts their oddness and craves their intellegence to be recognized. It is likely, even now, speaking to others who are running out of options and screaming inside for whatever reason. If the media painted them all as not just outcasts but as low-intelligent and mentally-weak with their last act showing how powerless they are, they would serve as less of a roll model or inspiration to the next crop of spree killers who see current media attention as a form of admiration.
Instead, the media, as in Colorado, likened the shooter to the Joker for whom many have respect, even in failure. The media spent more time discussing his brilliant neuroscience study and the professional level of bomb construction in his bobytrapped apartment than it did emphasizing that only a loser would do what he did.
Some of you have made fun of my suggestion and some of you have hinted that guns are the problem, for which unworkable laws which have no effect on criminals is generally the proposed solution. None of you have come up with a better idea.
Jack, those who use a firearm to defend themselves would be delighted with a larger hole and more traura. Those who use a firearm for crime won’t care. The worst of them will also be more delighted.
1:39 am on December 15th, 2012 54
#53
The media is doing it’s job; informing the public. Giving them what they want and need to know. Painting a simplistic picture of these people is not helpful.
Very often the public is surprised to hear how friends, family, acquaintances and coworkers saw them as somewhat odd. But we also realize they are very familiar to us. They are not much different than the oddballs we meet at work or see in our neighborhoods. But not so odd that they immediately strike us as being rampage killer dangerous.
It wouldn’t be useful to believe these people are like cartoonish caricatures we see in movies. Seeing the true portrait of these guys should jolt us from our denial. The next one may be someone in our circle who just hasn’t reached the tipping point. We need to know that. Only then can we confront the questions about what to do about them.
As I said before in another thread some time back, maybe we have to consider involuntary evaluations, possibly detention and certainly, restrict their access to weapons.
1:58 am on December 15th, 2012 55
#10,
That’s a disingenuous argument if I’ve ever seen one. Look at the UK, South Korea, Japan…They banned guns…How many gun murders do they have per year? And stolen from a victim? Ignoring the not insignificant fact that that the victim in question was the shooter’s mother?
2:01 am on December 15th, 2012 56
150 gun murders per year in Canada as opposed to 9000 per year in the US. Think about it.
2:11 am on December 15th, 2012 57
56. Good point. We have eradicated drugs in America by making them illegal. It worked quite well with alcohol too.
I do not think Japan, Canada or South Korea already had over 100,000,000 guns to contend with when they banned them. How do you propose we completely disarm America? How many deaths will be acceptable in such a scheme? Because it will cause deaths, more than you can imagine.
2:15 am on December 15th, 2012 58
#55
Korea/Japan didn’t have 100,000,000 guns legally in civilian hands already.
How you expect us to make owning a gun illegal and then expect individuals from turning them in? Do you have any idea on how impossible that is?
Yes keeping guns illegal in Korea works, cause there are no guns in Korea. However it’s not going work in the states we need to change the culture.
2:29 am on December 15th, 2012 59
Leon LaPorte, how are alcohol and drugs similar to guns in terms of how and why they are manufactured, sold, purchased, and consumed?
While complete eradication would be nigh impossible, there are plenty of things we have reduced and/or otherwise controlled by appropriate legislation against it.
2:40 am on December 15th, 2012 60
59. Just pointing out that making things illegal doesn’t solve the issue.
My relatives are law abiding and are not far out wing nuts or radical in any way. As a matter of fact they are democrats. If someone came to their house demanding their guns there is going to be a very bad situation. Them along with probably the majority Americans would become criminals. The repercussions would be deadly. Do you understand this?
2:50 am on December 15th, 2012 61
I’m not sure where I advocated going door-to-door and confiscating all the weapons in the country. I don’t think that’s the solution, but neither is the nearly laissez-faire situation that we have in many jurisdictions in the United States.
Some opponents of gun-control legislation point out that we already have plenty of laws on the book. I do agree with that sentiment, but the difference is that I believe the laws we already have on the books need to be effectively enforced. Unfortunately many of the people who keep pointing out all the laws on the books we have now are not actually interested in enforcing them very much.
With more than a half-hearted attempt to enforce these laws, Cho might not have been able to get the guns that he needed to do what you did.
3:18 am on December 15th, 2012 62
# 46,
An “ass”
3:25 am on December 15th, 2012 63
Kushibo, comment no more. I have twice been to Pakistan and watched working machine guns being made under primitive conditions with hand tools and scrap steel. Ammunition can be manufactured easier than methamphetamine, with less equipment, less smell and with much more common and uncontrollable ingredients.
You do not want these people, and those like them, moving in to fill a demand for firearms that won’t go away so easily. They will do so. It will
Everybody needs to keep in mind that firearms are virtually illegal in Mexico yet the problems they have with them are apparent. Criminals have them and everyone else is at their mercy. Despite media sensationalism, most of these firearms come through military channels rather than American gun stores.
3:36 am on December 15th, 2012 64
So some would advocate USFK/USFJ style restrictions. 1 person misuses a gun and all guns gotta go! What about the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of gun owners who never have and never will commit a crime with a gun? If you make them illegal you have to take them. Not many are going to voluntarily turn them in. You haven’t answered that. What do you do? If they are illegal there will still be ways for a determined individual to acquire or make their own gun. John Smith is right – this is 19th century technology we are talking about.
It’s worth noting it was illegal for him to take those guns to that school. It was certainly illegal for him to shoot people. That didn’t seem to stop him, did it?
4:41 am on December 15th, 2012 65
#44 “The only Koreatown deaths, including that of the only Korean-American to die in the riots, were people defending the Korean stores shot by their own side mistaking them as looters.
http://www.monster-island.net/2012/04/rodney-king-riots-plus-20.html”
Exactly. The rioters didn’t dare approach stores with armed owners. That’s why they were little casualties around stores with armed owners.
4:59 am on December 15th, 2012 66
#64 yep.
People often forget that measures to confiscate weapons can turn deadly too. At Waco hundreds of federal agents used handguns, submachine guns, rifles, helicopters, bradleys, Abrams tanks, and CEVs armed with CS gas to disarm a group of people who were rumored to have illegal weapons, but had never threatened anyone before. Resulting escalation of violence to prevent hypothetical future violence led to 82 deaths, nearly three times the number of this massacre.
I don’t know what can feasibly be done in our country, as horrifying as this tragedy is. Nutters gonna nut.
6:48 am on December 15th, 2012 67
#29,
“If we banned all gun sales tomorrow in America you know what we would have? Millions upon millions of guns in private hands still. You can’t take away the guns, that’s NOT going solve problem.”
That’s what they did in the UK after that psycho killed 16 school children in Scotland a few years back. Results? 35 murders committed using firearms per year in the UK vs 9000 per year in the US.
I find it ironic that your media paints Mexico as if it’s the Wild West, and yet you have just as many murders per year as in that country.
6:55 am on December 15th, 2012 68
#63,
“You do not want these people, and those like them, moving in to fill a demand for firearms that won’t go away so easily. They will do so. It will.”
Right…
6:56 am on December 15th, 2012 69
Here are my suggestions, and I’m being serious here.
#1) Arm all elementary school classes with guns. Force all the kids to arm themselves so that they can defend themselves whenever a killer is on the loose.
#2) Deport all people of Asian desent whose name is Cho Seung Hee. But any white guy who has name Adam Lanza, can stay.
#3) Expect that these things will happen every six months like clock work. Try to predict where it’s going to happen next. My guess is the next city to be hit will be Seattle Washington.
#4) Don’t live in America, you’re going to get your head blown off by Rambo wannabe’s, that’s the way it is over there.
6:57 am on December 15th, 2012 70
#66,
You’re leaving out the part that it was a doomsday cult. Suicide by police.
6:59 am on December 15th, 2012 71
#69,
Here’s my suggestion to you. I’m being serious.
1) Stop sniffing gasoline fumes.
That’s all.
7:00 am on December 15th, 2012 72
Another suggestion.
Take all guns away from white males. Problem solved.
7:10 am on December 15th, 2012 73
#72,
Another suggestion: lay off the rubber cement, too.
7:35 am on December 15th, 2012 74
A lot of innovation could come up with more non-lethal weapons to immobilize an entire area. In schools, teachers and principals could be trained and have immediate access to these weapons. In shopping malls, security personnel and store managers etc. would have access. Give the citizens and leaders more ways to fight back than lock the doors and hide in the corner.
There are lots of things that can be done. As a matter of fact with all these recent shootings I bet there will be flurry of changes coming. There’s no other way to stop this violence.
I know one expert said this stuff started happening in the 60′s and has never stopped and done nothing but escalate over the years. I think he said the biggest cause was the role of the female changed in our society, something off the wall like that if you can believe it.
7:54 am on December 15th, 2012 75
#74 I like the idea of a nonlethal means of immobilization (maybe pharmacological, but that would be a sort of bioweapon which opens us up to that slippery slope….).
I don’t see the typical schoolhouse keeping an arsenal myself. Not sure that would be wise, really…would open them up to robberies and they’d probably have to keep the firearms so tightly secured it would be a real hindrance. Cost to gains wise I don’t think it’s a good plan. If the situation dictates we’ve come to the point the principal has to pack heat we should probably have auto-lock doors (like they have in bad neighborhoods at convenience stores at night, and hospital loony bin areas) and metal detectors.
8:42 am on December 15th, 2012 76
@61- For sake of argument lets pretend that Cho was prevented by the gun store from buying a gun due to his past mental issues. I have no doubt he would have still found a way to get a gun. Cho had his mass shooting all planned out and fantasized in his mind. If the gun shop did not give him the guns then he could have stole them like the latest shooter did or gotten them off the streets. Very rarely does any of these mass shooters just wake one day on the wrong side of the bed and decide to shoot people.
They usually have these things planned out and fantasized in advance before executing them. Guys like Cho and Eric Harris wanted to be remembered for their crimes because they were losers in real life. That is why I think removing their names and pictures from news reports would reduce the glorification in their own minds of the crime they are fantasizing about because no one will know who they are after the crime.
I don’t mind more stringent background checks and stricter controls on assault rifles, but I think people are fooling themselves if they think this will stop the problem.
8:50 am on December 15th, 2012 77
@57- I think for example if assault rifles were banned that authorities would not try gestapo tactics to take away these rifles because it would lead to the problems you states. I think that by letting people who already have them keep them and then offering a buy back program that pays a good fee for people turning in these weapons would reduce the amount of assault rifles in America over time.
Like I said before I don’t think banning assault rifles would reduce mass shootings, but I do think it may have an effect on homicide rates if it is harder for gangs to get access to these weapons.
10:29 am on December 15th, 2012 78
Strict gun control has worked in other countries because they didn’t try to disarm a heavily armed population. Banning assault rifles and regulating handguns and rifles by requiring strict background checks and waiting periods won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals but might prevent mentally ill people like Cho Seung-here from acquiring powerful weapons. If we want to disarm gangs, the best way to do that is to cut off their most lucrative source of revenue – the drug trade – by decriminalizing consumption and possession of small amounts. Effective enforcement of employment laws would reduce the second most lucrative source of money for drug cartels – smuggling of illegal immigrants, whose communities are embedded with gangs. Despite all the resources my community expends keeping kids out of gangs, we still have a problem because gang members are the brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of hard-working, responsible immigrants. Mexico will thank us when we no longer fund their cartels with our addictions to illicit drugs, and exploitable labor.
As a public school teacher, I see the future of America every day in my job, and folks, the future does not look bright. We have a growing number of chuldren medicated for ADHD and other mental disorders. The human brain rewires itself to adapt to drugs that treat attention/ hyperactivity and bipolar disorder. When the meds are not taken, the person displays erratic, uncontrollable behaviors. ADHD and bipolar are covered by Mediciad and SSI, so the only reasons why meds don’t get taken are the family forgot or the meds were sold on the street for money. The former problem we counteract by having kids take meds at school under the supervision of a nurse or other school personnel. The second problem we have no means to stop. As these children reach adulthood, we can expect more incidents of unprovoked public violence.
10:34 am on December 15th, 2012 79
Dictating to the media how to cover mass shootings in a country with free speech is realistic?
10:41 am on December 15th, 2012 80
Ban future sales. Don’t confiscate what people already have. After a generation all the old guns will be useless. No more guns. Ok, except the illegal arms market. Crack down on that. Too simplified, I know. Just trying to think of a starting point.
11:51 am on December 15th, 2012 81
Sonagi, the government frequently “dictates” to the media how to spin things. Usually, it is for less pure intentions than this.
An examples might be Julian Assange, who is neither a US citizen nor under any obligation to protect US interests, has been branded as Public Enemy #1 by the US media. The media postulates more on how he can be punished than how he simply published information leaked by an American soldier.
You are one of the smartest people here. Don’t ruin that by being silent on continuous media/government collusion on every level (such as in educational testing) which have no good intentions and then complain about a single example where the government could suggest to the media to make a truly positive contribution to society. They are not being asked to lie. They are being asked to shade their reporting, just as they already do in many, many different situations.
12:15 pm on December 15th, 2012 82
So you think the media “shading” their reporting will reduce mass shootings? Let’s take a look a China and its tightly controlled media. China has experienced a wave of school stabbings in recent years. In the Chinese-language stories I’ve read, the killers were not glorified or excused, yet the mere existence of the stories in the press may plant the idea in the mind of a deranged person. A total media blackout on coverage of mass killings is not feasible, and besides, we also have movies and TV shows, which do glorify violence. Where did Anders Breivik get inspiration for his rampage? Certainly not from Norwegian news reports of similar attacks in a country with a very low violent crime rate. He did participate in several fringe online forums, which do not collude with the government to shade content. The debate over the influence of media and entertainment on human behavior remains unresolved.
12:30 pm on December 15th, 2012 83
Sonagi, please don’t be angry at me. I am offering a very partial solution to a large problem. It is easier and more practical than most other suggestions.
I can make a good case that the glorification of previous spree killers has influenced or encouraged the next generation of spree killers. You will find that the glorification of the Columbine killers in terms of publicity and aura of a “glorious exit” has influenced this current killer. Wait for the next news cycle and you will see.
Glorified violence needs to be targeted glorified violence. In some respects, this is happening. Zero Dark Thirty comes to mind.
12:34 pm on December 15th, 2012 84
I’m not angry with you. I don’t know why you would think so. So far you have not made a good case with your generalizations. Targeted glorified violence? I’ m afraid to ask what that means.
12:37 pm on December 15th, 2012 85
You want the media to change how it covers mass murderers? Fine, but don’t ask the rest of us to rely on this as a principal strategy in reducing mass shootings and other gun violence.
12:45 pm on December 15th, 2012 86
You must understand the meaning of “glorified violence” as you have used it yourself.
“Targeted glorified violence” is where the government and media collude to show that violence is acceptable when used against certain groups or nationalities. Examples are only a YourTube away.
12:53 pm on December 15th, 2012 87
Did I say government and media show that violence is acceptable? I meant government and media show that violence is admirable, correct, necessary, honorable, etc, when used against the manufactured enemy of the day.
I am not asking the media “to change how it covers mass murders”. I am suggesting that the default attitude of ridicule over glorification would be a small step in reducing mass shooting and gun violence. The government-colluding “media” has traditionally used this tactic against everyone from “reefer smokers” to protesters who refuse to enter the “free speech zones”. I am suggesting this abuse be used for the purposes of Good, for once.
12:57 pm on December 15th, 2012 88
77. First let’s get off the “assault rifle” bandwagon. There is no “assault rifle.” There are semi-auto rifles and that is what we are talking about in this case. All semi-autos are mechanically and functionally similar. Some look “meaner” or more military inspired in design but guess what? No difference between the “assault rifle” and grandpa’s semi-auto deer rifle. It just looks sexier.
What everyone seems to be missing, according to reports, the shooter did not us the “assault rifle” in his crime. The “assault rifle” was left in the car. The “assault rifle” assaulted no one. So we are back to talking about handguns.
1:10 pm on December 15th, 2012 89
Do you mean that the media should change from a tone of glorification to one of rididcule? Sounds like changing how these incidents are covere to me. How media covers mass murderers = language, details, and images that comprise media stories.
Do you mean that the media ridicules drug users? If so, well, that has certainly proven effective in reducing the number of illicit drug users, hasn’t it?
1:32 pm on December 15th, 2012 90
#86
I think you believe there is some monolithic institution called “the media” that the government can call and come to terms on how stories should be reported. Maybe you are referring to what is now derisively called the Main Stream Media ((MSM)? Well countless alternative to that exist specifically because some people believe the MSM is part of some grand conspiracy to deceive and mislead the country.
How would your plan work exactly? Would anyone who personally knew the shooter be censored from saying anything about them? Would all the social media sites with references to them have to be scrubbed?
I personally go to many sources to find information on subjects I am interested in. Sources that I know are not likely to be manipulated. Then I try to piece together what I think is going on without anyone’s spin. That’s how I prefer to get my views. Then, after I form my opinion, should I be censored because my opinion doesn’t fit with the government sanctioned (politically correct?) narrative?
1:51 pm on December 15th, 2012 91
BTW. My take on many of these psychologically disturbed mass shooters is they form their alternative views of reality in part after delving into alternative and fringe sources of information.
2:00 pm on December 15th, 2012 92
90 & 91. Are you saying you are at risk?
2:10 pm on December 15th, 2012 93
#93
Hmmmm?
I think I am fairly mentally stable. But maybe that’s my delusion.
2:15 pm on December 15th, 2012 94
GI Korea wrote in response to me:
From my understanding, if the laws on the books had been reasonably enforced, Cho would have failed the background check on the gun that was shipped from Wisconsin to the gun store in Virginia. Other laws may also have prevented him from buying magazines from Idaho through eBay, but I’m not sure.
But I don’t necessarily agree with you that “he would have still found a way to get a gun.” I do agree that he would have TRIED to get a gun. And he may have succeeded; he also may have failed. This is relevant precisely because such laws have no realistic possibility of eradicating gun violence, but they do serve to put up roadblocks and speed bumps and red flags that can cause someone like Cho or the Aurora shooter to get caught in the planning stage or, at worst, mitigate the crime by reducing the number of victims from, say, 20 to 8.
And these mass killers are only one component of gun violence. There are plenty more single victim incidents that could be dramatically reduced with more effective gun control enforcement.
I am all for the notion of working with our current gun control laws, as long as they are effectively enforced. That requires money (for things like maintaining no-buy lists for the mentally ill or people with restraining orders out on them, etc.) and will. The latter is lacking sometimes.
Let’s get to the point where we’ve actually tried that, or we see that those in positions of power aren’t willing to try that, and then we can work on new laws that plug the holes in our system.
I think you are right that the media tends to inadvertently glorify these killers in the minds of people on the fringe* but at the same time I think it is difficult to impossible for the wide swath of media outlets to follow this with anything above, say, 90% effectiveness. The big news outlets might work, but the TMZ-type outlets will find a way to get the photos, and possibly make it even more sensational.
Still, I think what you’re saying is worth a shot. My primary news outlet is NBC News, which I try to watch daily on my computer or iPad. They devoted an entire news program to the shooting but they never showed a picture of the killer (or his mother). So maybe people are catching on to that idea. The Aurora shooting may have given them the impetus to do so.
I am not one of those people. Just as we can look at places like Canada to see the gulf between Canadian gun violence and American gun violence, we can also take away the lesson that even a place like Canada (or the UK, etc.) cannot completely eradicate gun violence.
2:16 pm on December 15th, 2012 95
What happened to the edit function? I somehow have a hanging tag.
2:18 pm on December 15th, 2012 96
What I meant to say in #94 that Cho would have tried to get a gun but might have failed is that he could have been caught or his actions put on law enforcement’s radar in the process of stealing guns. There actually have been a lot of incidents prevented through diligent law enforcement activity.
2:20 pm on December 15th, 2012 97
JoeC wrote (#93)
Maybe my comments list is screwy, but I have you responding in comment #93 to yourself in #93. That’s the cyber equivalent of talking to yourself.
[kushibo slowly backs away]
2:25 pm on December 15th, 2012 98
Leon LaPorte wrote:
My grandpas did not hunt deer with semi-automatics.
Neither did my dad.
And I learned to hunt squirrels with a simple .22 that is either in our garage or one of the bedroom closets back in OC. (My dad owns a handgun he used for protection when he went on fishing/hunting trips up to NoCal by himself, but I think he let me handle it once; I saw him fire it once and it was just too danged loud for me or my siblings to really want to try it ourselves.)
3:25 pm on December 15th, 2012 99
98. My point remains, independently of your personal experiences.
Thanks for sharing!
3:39 pm on December 15th, 2012 100
#57,
“56. Good point. We have eradicated drugs in America by making them illegal. It worked quite well with alcohol too.”
Slippery slope.
“I do not think Japan, Canada or South Korea already had over 100,000,000 guns to contend with when they banned them. How do you propose we completely disarm America? How many deaths will be acceptable in such a scheme? Because it will cause deaths, more than you can imagine.”
Right, the same way there have been more deaths in the UK since they banned handguns? (35 gun related deaths by gun every year in the UK)
Besides, guns haven’t been banned in Canada. How do you think we hunt moose? With spears and arrows?
3:41 pm on December 15th, 2012 101
Sonagi and JoeC, I think you are intentionally pretending not to understand the point.
Sonagi, to hit closer to home, do you feel the media has any successful influence on society in promoting one female body type over another? While men have many different preferences, the tall and thin ideal is promoted by the media as the standard of beauty and perfection. From personal experience, I can say that some men I know who preferred a shorter/thicker/flatter woman sought a taller/thinner/bustier woman as their companion because they felt society would view them as inferior if they were seen socially with something other than the media-promoted ideal. Some of these men secretly cheated on their “ideal” wives/girlfriends with what they really wanted.
I believe the same media that has successfully promoted this “ideal” image of a woman can promote an imperfect image of spree killers. Despite your opposition to this idea, it is neither immoral nor inaccurate. Spree killers are, in fact, mostly losers. This fact need to be accentuated. Their “intelligence”, debatable based upon their actions, should be marginalized.
JoeC, there IS some monolithic institution called “the media”. It feeds off itself and promotes the same ideas from every perspective. It is another topic entirely, but if you understand the ownership of the MSM and its relation to government, lobbyist, big business, Hollywood, military-related industry, big finance and politicians, you will have a better idea.
Most of the “alternative” media you speak of is composed of links to main stream media sources which happen to agree with the ideological leanings of the alternative source. There is very little original reporting from credible alternative media because it is expensive and time consuming and institutions give easy access and favorable treatment to reporters who are superficially positive while stonewalling reporters who actually seek the dirty truth.
Hard copies sold and web hits make money. The media has a vested interest in sensationalizing stories and creating/maintaining interest. In terms of spree killers, saying that he was a crazy loser is a single news cycle. Dragging it out with revelations, and more than a little speculation, as to why he was a loser adds to the 15 minutes of fame. That may be attractive to future spree killers.
The government has a long history of getting voluntary assistance from the media to promote various agendas. Many of them have been well-meaning and some of them have been self-serving. Demeaning spree killers to discourage their actions is not the worst thing the government/media could do to influence the direction of society.
I’m rather appealed by both Sonagi and JoeC and their sour and aggressive opposition to the idea of discouraging spree killers through media-influence pop culture, being that this type of thing is common, yet frequently not with such pure intentions.
3:46 pm on December 15th, 2012 102
#88,
My grandpa hunted with a bolt-action, not a semi-auto.
And since you brought it up. Many Canadian soldiers during the Korean War “lost” their Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles and got themselves a .30 cal carbine or a Thompson (they were rationed alcohol, but US soldiers weren’t…). Why? You can easily kill a group of people with a semi-auto or a fully auto, but not with a bolt-action.
3:49 pm on December 15th, 2012 103
#101,
Watch CBC or BBC news on TV. What’s missing that is always there on US TV news? Sensationalized stories of murder.
3:51 pm on December 15th, 2012 104
#99,
I wouldn’t be bragging that my grand-father was such a lousy shot that he needed a semi-auto to hit something as big as a deer if I were you.
4:19 pm on December 15th, 2012 105
Teadrinker, if you think you can “lose” your weapon and use another one from a foreign military and you can arrange a constant supply of entirely different ammunition, you have obviously never served a day in the military, despite your “I was Canadian special forces” claim.
4:34 pm on December 15th, 2012 106
I wrote this for Ask a Korean website. I hope I’m not being rude to repost it here since it applies to the topic and counters some of the misinformation which has been spread here. The topic was gun ownership in South Korea.
…..
I greatly respect the Korean but I am profoundly disappointed with the lack of knowledge displayed on this topic.
I am further disappointed in how this lack of knowledge has led to false conclusions on the relationship between guns and crime.
There is a lower rate of violent crime in Korea, as there is in almost every category of crime, but there are actually many, many, many privately owned firearms in Korea.
Some have been smuggled into Korea in household goods by returning Koreans. Some have been lost or stolen from Korea’s military. Some have been lost by Korean hunters (who may own shotguns but not “hunting rifles”). Some have been brought in by foreign sailors for quick and easy cash. Some have come from the US military, mostly through 50+ years of slicky boys. Some have been manufactured out of curiosity or feelings of craftsmanship by a highly industrialized population with countless technically-capable small machine shops. Some vanished into the population during the Kwangju riots. And many of them were left over from the Korean war and packed away by a nervous population poor enough to collect anything of value.
A big difference is that it is culturally unthinkable and socially unproductive to use, or even display, a firearm in anger; and legally unthinkable to display it secretly to anyone but the closest and most trustworthy friends.
Even gas guns, which are relatively common and easily available with a license, are rarely-if-ever used or displayed as a threat.
For this reason, there is a myth that privately held firearms do not exist in Korea, much like, not too many years ago, there were no homosexuals in Korea. In the same way, privately held firearms are neither openly displayed nor openly talked about. But they do exist in great numbers.
I would hope the Korean recognizes the vast cultural difference between Korea and America which permeates every social interaction including violence; and likely outweighs the availability of firearms in determining the rate of violent crime. One could speculate the Confucian-influenced crazy Korean might tend to harm himself more than the hiphop/Hollywood-influenced crazy American, making violence more of a complex cultural issue than a simplistic firearms issue in which all problems can be solved by “banning guns”.
As for knowledge of America, I would encourage the Korean to study the actual FBI gun crime statistics where, along with suicide being considered a “gun crime” by those who manipulate those statistics, he will find the VAST majority of gun crimes are committed primarily in low-income urban neighborhoods rather than distributed across the general public.
While the Korean is intelligent and knowledgeable, it seems as if his political view on gun ownership has influenced his “facts” rather than actual facts influencing his opinion.
But this is just a minor disappointment in a long history of admiration and it is easily corrected with objectivity, study and further consideration.
4:35 pm on December 15th, 2012 107
Sonagi touched on an interesting point above: “We have a growing number of chuldren medicated for ADHD and other mental disorders. The human brain rewires itself to adapt to drugs that treat attention/ hyperactivity and bipolar disorder. When the meds are not taken, the person displays erratic, uncontrollable behaviors.”
I wonder if the relatively recent push to solve “problem behaviors” via medical intervention rather than the traditional (discipline, behavior modification, ect) is a recipe for crazy.
4:52 pm on December 15th, 2012 108
#101
If my point appealed to you, you’re welcome. If it appalled you, don’t take it personally.
5:06 pm on December 15th, 2012 109
I call BS on #106. Where is this information coming from? Are you KCIA?
5:14 pm on December 15th, 2012 110
John in NY – the beauty of facts is that they exist whether you believe them or not. I am not KCIA but I do have knowledge of what I wrote.
5:20 pm on December 15th, 2012 111
Captain Obvious, you seem to have misunderstood the gist of my disagreement with you. First, let me repost a closing remark made in an earlier comment:
“The debate over the influence of media and entertainment on human behavior remains unresolved.”
Media culture wars have been going on since way before Elvis’ gyrating pelvis was censored on the Ed Sullivan Show. H,L. Mencken’s wry remark about menacing hobgoblins is one of my favorite quotes. I would love to see less violence on TV, in the movies, and more importantly, in neighborhoods across the country and in our prisons, tool. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen unless the audience turns away. If a sensational murder story gets millions of ad revenue-generating clicks, wouldn’t a news company have a financial incentive to publish similar stories? Let’s go back and revisit your claims about the media and Julian Assange. You seem to assume that the US government covertly influenced media coverage. Audience interest may explain US media coverage of Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange is an Australian who exposed too-secret diplomatic and military information that allegedly endangered informants overseas, which might explain why Americans might choose to read stories about his legal troubles.
Like so many other societal problems, people debating US gun violence are like the blind men feeling up the elephant. Everyone focuses on his or her pt cause and ignores or dismisses other causes. Our high level of gun-related violence owes to a constellation of factors from lax gun control to cultural behaviors to our foreign wars to the failed war on drugs to the world’s largest prison population assaulting and raping each other while guards look the other way.
5:55 pm on December 15th, 2012 112
A child diagnosed with ADHD is eligible not only for Medicaid but also monthly SSI payments of hundreds of dollars, but only if the parent agrees to medicate the child. SSI benefits were originally intended to help children with severe disabilties such as cerebral palsy or blindness but now cover mild problems like ADHD and speech delay.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/specials/New_Welfare/
Increasingly, adults who cannot take care of themselves having and raising kids. many of these adults are substance substance abusers, it is a current “best practice” to keep families together, which means parents do not lose custody of their children, except in cases of severe neglect and abuse. A perfect example is the case of the young parents who taped their toddler’s sippy cup to the wall, took a picture of him crying, and then taped the poor kid’s hands to the wall, took more pictures, and shared with friends, which led to their prosecution when someone reported them to authorities, the dad got a few years in prison while the mom got just ten days in jail and kept custody of the child:
http://gawker.com/5652804/mom-boyfriend-sentenced-to-jail-for-taping-toddler-to-wall
There are kids like him in public schools all over the US.
5:57 pm on December 15th, 2012 113
Please restore the editing function,
6:11 pm on December 15th, 2012 114
Huckabee’s at it again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248582/Mike-Huckabee-Fox-commentator-weighs-debate-Connecticut-massacre-happened.html#comments
6:14 pm on December 15th, 2012 115
Yes, the edit function was a beautiful thing. If the edit function is outlawed, only outlaws will have an edit function. Or something like that.
7:02 pm on December 15th, 2012 116
Not going to spend the time to read all the comments. The first few seemed to be on the right track. GI Korea, as usual sounds like a (social type) person.
Sonagi had some good points. First off, stop medicating the kids. Spankings worked very well, but that was not PC. So now we drug them. So much better.
How do you “manage” gun ownership? Hummm. What to do? What to do?
Well Israel has zero gun laws and they aren’t killing each other. Switzerland issues guns to her people. I like that idea myself! Gun control didn’t work too well in England or Australia. Crime has gone up.
Chicago has gun control and crime is outrageous there. So. Gun control (management for GI Korea) just doesn’t work! I know it’s hard to understand. More guns make life in America safer. However it is the truth.
I have a new Face Book friend. A Liberal. She was my Psychology teacher last semester. Dense like you wouldn’t believe. She refuses to admit that she has a “liberal agenda”. I don’t think she really knows about her own movement. I’ve almost gotten her prepared to buy her own pistol. But not yet. She needs more educating on the subject. But there are cracks in her armor. It made me laugh when I asked her what “controls” she wanted for owning a gun. Every suggestion she made, already exist.
If one of those six Teachers that died had been a trained and armed gun owner, there would have been far fewer deaths. That is just a fact.
Killers attack “gun free zones”. Soft targets. It doesn’t get any softer than a Grad school.
When was the last time you heard of a gun store massacre? I never have.
When was the last time you heard of a “gun show” massacre? I never have.
Oh and the last time I went to a gun show, I bought an SKS. Mint condition. I had two offers to sell it before I got to my car, which would have been against the law of course. The reason I mention it is because they ran my drivers license on the spot. I’m clean.
I’ve owned guns since I was a small boy. Never shot a person. Simple training tool. As my Father told me, “don’t point it at anything you don’t plan on killing”. Oh, and it is always loaded, even if you just unloaded it.
People accidently shot themselves or others because they forgot the rules.
As for murdering nutjobs like in CT…I’m reminded of an ole saying: “meet fire with fire”.
Until America learns that, there will be more of these from time to time, whenever some nutjob figures he has had enough and decides to take people with him.
1:19 am on December 16th, 2012 117
The mental health issue is HUGE in the States. And getting that way for a while now. For another angle on this problem, read the “Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill: The Crisis That No One Talks About,” at: http://www.claytoncramer.com/speeches/mental.htm
3:01 am on December 16th, 2012 118
Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, there is one thing we have to admit: Owning guns didn’t make Nancy Lanza any safer.
5:37 am on December 16th, 2012 119
I have no “realistically enforceable” solutions to offer and as Sonagi mentions, “the future does not look bright,” and that says nothing about all those adults and children who self-medicate with large amounts of alcohol and illegal drugs; however, this post at another website trying to tackle the same subject matter by screminmimi brings up a lot of questions than answers when dealing with the mentally ill and their rights as human beings:
“Schumer would also require colleges and universities that receive federal funding to implement a mental health assessment plan to identify students who pose a safety risk to themselves or others.
I have a feeling that this little piece of legislation would run right into an illegal alien’s civil rights brick wall. And what are you going to do when you identify someone as being a safety risk to themselves or others? Are you going to just kick them off the campus and wait for them to mass murder civilians? Are you going to force them into a treatment program against their will? Are you going to say that the public good trumps their free will?
Are you going to allocate billions of dollars we don’t have to allow the government to pay for mental health treatment for those who are diagnosed, or are you going to force relatives to pay for it even though they don’t want to? If the mental deficient is an illegal alien, are you going to deport them even though they initially qualified for deferred deportation?
How big is the maze under the rabbit hole?”
5:50 am on December 16th, 2012 120
Nobody’s going to cite Col. Grossman’s research in _On Killing_ to support claims that video games lower the normal person’s aversion for firing at other people? His extrapolation of those implications for unstable kids that finally decide to take justice for their rage into their own hands?
5:56 am on December 16th, 2012 121
Col. Grossman’s analysis.
6:03 am on December 16th, 2012 122
Okay, this might actually work as schools would no longer be soft targets. Of course, those in the on the left and in the media will not even like this partial solution that seems to work (for the most part) for Israel. Yet, on the issue of the mentally ill and their rights as human beings, I can’t even begin to fathom a partial solution.
6:52 am on December 16th, 2012 123
Safety is an illusion. Security provided by someone else who is physically remote from the site requiring security isn’t.
Evil exists. We pretend that it isn’t and that others can protect us from it at our own peril.
7:21 am on December 16th, 2012 124
Sadly, I have nothing positive to contribute in my own name. Gun violence is just one of the hazards of life in the USA.
“Our Moloch” is a comment by Garry Wills at NyrBlog.
7:37 am on December 16th, 2012 125
#105,
Dude, you don’t have a clue. I have dozens of pictures of Canadian soldiers with US M2 carbines, M1 Garands, and Thompsons. On top of that, I was repeating what a friend of mine said. He’s a Korean War veteran.
Still don’t believe me? Fine. Here, have a look:
http://theroyalcanadianregiment.ca/images/hill187/PPCLI_with_Lee_Enfield_M2_Carbine.jpg
9:11 am on December 16th, 2012 126
Thank you for the link, Glans. Best commentary read so far. Sadly, I must agree that gun violence is a problem that isn’t going to go away. In fact, I expect it may get worse owing to unfavorable behavioral and physiological trends in our population.
11:08 am on December 16th, 2012 127
…and that says nothing about all those adults and children who self-medicate with large amounts of alcohol and illegal drugs…
I’m not sure why you included this. When was the last mass shooting involving a drunk and or high shooter? Furthermore, if these folks were on any kind of drugs, they were legally prescribed. You are half right. There is a drug problem in the US. You know why all these stars are dying from overdoses on pharmaceuticals? It is a microcosm on the nation. Legal drugs are a huge problem and this problem is largely ignored in favor of demonizing illegal drugs, usually along racial lines.
On a side, I never heard of anyone with attention deficit, or many of the other problems we seem to have these days. Ass whoopings were free, plentiful, non-addictive, and seemed to work just fine.
3:03 pm on December 16th, 2012 128
Teadrinker, besides the media climate, what differences in gun laws themselves, including their enforcement, create the gulf of difference between the amount of gun violence in gun-owning Canada and gun-owning US?
3:15 pm on December 16th, 2012 129
Most people get out of marijuana and alcohol use mostly unscathed, but even pot can trigger schizophrenia in a small percentage of people who start in adolescence or earlier. Even legal drugs may have effects we’re fully unaware of, as Sonagi suggests. Whether legal or illegal, drugs (including alcohol) may be wreaking havoc on the brain of some fringe individuals that will lead to more and more violence later in their lives.
3:53 pm on December 16th, 2012 130
Louie Gohmert voted against the removal of the word “lunatic” from our laws. He now offers some carefully considered words about guns and schools. Here’s a ThinkProgress story with a Youtube video of him on FoxNews.
4:02 pm on December 16th, 2012 131
129. I’m lost. What do marijuana and alcohol have to do with this incident?
4:05 pm on December 16th, 2012 132
#128,
Well, the most obvious difference is that certain laws will vary from state to state in the US, whereas it’s strictly and solely a matter of federal law in Canada. But, to answer your question more directly, the new law requires people to get a possession and acquisition permit before getting a gun, and all guns must be registered. Well, most people don’t like this new law and so most guns remain unregistered. No big deal, though. Cops really don’t care about law-abiding citizens with a deer rifle that they take out once in a blue moon when the win the hunting permit lottery. Besides, it’s killed the demand for guns. There are fewer and fewer guns in circulation because of it. When I was a kid, you could get a gun at the hardware store. Now, the closest gun dealer to my home is 2 hours away.
However, it’s the attitudes towards guns that is probably the most marked difference. Canadians generally see guns as tools for hunting, and nothing more. Most have no use for handguns (actually, there might be a bit of a stigma attached to owning handguns, people will think of you as a gun nut). Besides, it’s illegal to hunt with a handgun (I think it’s illegal to hunt with a barrel that less than a certain length, 18 inches long or something like that). But, you can own handguns with a special permit. It’s also possible to get a permit to carry a handgun at all times, but you need a damned good reason to get one (paranoia is not an acceptable reason).
Guns for home protection? Nah.
Besides, I believe you can be charged with a crime if you use a gun to defend yourself, but that’s a reflection of Canadian attitude towards firearms: they are for hunting, and nothing more.
4:18 pm on December 16th, 2012 133
“Most people get out of marijuana and alcohol use mostly unscathed, but even pot can trigger schizophrenia in a small percentage of people who start in adolescence or earlier.”
Yes, I know one schizophrenic whose use of marijuana in his early teens might have triggered the illness (it runs in his family). Annoying as hell when he’s off his meds, but harmless nonetheless.
4:18 pm on December 16th, 2012 134
Plus, Canadians are thought to be generally much more polite people than we are.
And Americans much less civil. 
4:33 pm on December 16th, 2012 135
134. Canadian criminals are much more polite and docile hence guns are not necessary for defense. A stern rebuke generally suffices.
4:48 pm on December 16th, 2012 136
#135,
Actually, we’ve had gang wars Canada. There’s one going on in Vancouver over the drug trade and about 10-15 years ago it was a problem in Montreal (that quickly came to an end when a gang set off a car bomb in the hopes of killing a rival gang member but instead killed a kid that was playing across the street).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
4:51 pm on December 16th, 2012 137
…but, besides that, crime rates are low. The would be lower if we didn’t have the US next door.
4:58 pm on December 16th, 2012 138
#137
I suspect Mexicans would say the same thing.
4:59 pm on December 16th, 2012 139
#134,
The crime rate in the US is insane when you consider that supposedly have freedom. The all too easy access to guns, the media which sensationalizes violence and the prison industrial complex are probably some of the contributing factors.
A friend of mine argues that it’s the American foreign policy. People take cues from their government on how to resolve conflict. He may be on to something.
4:59 pm on December 16th, 2012 140
Republican Congressman Louie Golmert says Sandy Hook principal should have had a machine gun ready to blast the killer. Guess which state he represents?
A. Florida
B. Arizona
C. Texas
Tough choice,isn’t it? Could be any one of the three. Click here to see the answer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248582/Mike-Huckabee-Fox-commentator-weighs-debate-Connecticut-massacre-happened.html#comments
5:01 pm on December 16th, 2012 141
#138,
Maybe so. Drug cartels in Mexico exist to supply the US.
5:33 pm on December 16th, 2012 142
Together, they’re acronym is FAT.
I guess all the surly Canadians get exiled to lands in need of English teachers.
5:40 pm on December 16th, 2012 143
they’re acronym is FAT
–> their acronym is FAT
Siri needs more context and ROK Drop needs the editing function.
6:15 pm on December 16th, 2012 144
When a gun is used to stop a mass shooting there is little or no press.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.kr/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html?m=1
6:36 pm on December 16th, 2012 145
Bob, that’s eight in twenty years. How many have died from mass shootings in the meantime?
I’m sympathetic to the argument, though. A killer came into one of our family churches in Los Angeles when I was visiting it and proceeded to shoot the chief pastor and assistant pastor, the latter of whom was counseling his estranged wife. He killed one and permanently maimed the other, and he himself was shot and killed by an off-duty County Sheriff who happened to be there.
It was a crowded church, though. A less skilled person might have inadvertently shot other parishioners who were in the crowded sanctuary.
6:50 pm on December 16th, 2012 146
Boundaries gentlemen!!!! Teach some damn boundaries to the kids in the schools …… A gun doest not kill … it’s the action of a perverted that kills.
In Switzerland people are required to keep machine guns and bullets at home for eventual war but they don’t shoot each other…..
Today’s American values, wich are preserved in the federal constitution from the colonial era, are dated from a time when Americans had to fight against the British Empire and local inhabitants … that`s why values like freedom and self protection were regarded soo important, however you are not in the same situation now ….. Its time to evolve ….
6:56 pm on December 16th, 2012 147
No, Kushibo, that is 8 that got any sort of media attention. Your story makes it 9. Barring any sort of improbable coincidence that you are statistically special, there are probably more, many more.
When citizens use firearms to successfully stop criminals, it seldom makes the news. If a citizen inadvertently shot bystanders, it would be on the front page. The absence of this news should rest your concerns.
Living in a wild west society is not ideal but it is preferable to being a helpless victim in a society where violence is glorified through movies, music and video games. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not change anything.
7:32 pm on December 16th, 2012 148
Gun Free School Zones started in the 1990s (the first federal law was 1990, California passed one in 1995, etc.). Schools in the USA have been notoriously disarmed for 20 years. I can’t think of a better place for a crazy person to go and start shooting. The rest of the USA is not nearly as notoriously disarmed. Personally, I would prefer to have ex-military, responsible hunters and others with good gun safety training, who are teachers or staff at schools have the right to have arms at schools (with appropriate permitting, etc.). Why do we not want there to a be a right of self defense at schools?
7:37 pm on December 16th, 2012 149
Additionally, there needs to be better mental health training, a push on media to be less pro-violence and a better teaching of values to kids. I know, the “which values” or “whose values” becomes an issue but I would venture to say that there are certain values, such as personal responsibility, honesty, respecting life, etc. that are about as universal as possible. I still think the gun free school zones make schools targets — I would like to see a publicly supported exception for well-trained staff who volunteer to have weapons on the school. Something like the “well trained militia” of old — citizen soldier/posse concepts come to mind. Allow the schools to protect themselves.
7:41 pm on December 16th, 2012 150
Gun violence has been on the decline in the US for some time. Mass shootings obviously grab our attention, but you have more chances of being hit by a car than get shot by a gun. And guns occasionally do save lives.
I’m not a gun owner, but what will gun control accomplish? Cho Seung Hee killed 37 people with 4 hand guns. If you’re only limited to weak caliber guns, then you’ll makes sure to target victims are even more helpless. Or you’ll get an accomplice. If you’re deranged enough, you may develop bombs and other makeshift weapons. Or just buy them off the black market.
I’m kinda reminded of how every time an illegal alien murders someone, the conservatives will scream “Secure the borders” – which is just about impossible. You can’t stop deranged individuals with a suicide mission from shooting up people, as long as the second amendment is active. It won’t go away, America has to do some soul searching on their culture.
8:23 pm on December 16th, 2012 151
Maybe it’s time to bring back the insane asylum?
I’m not joking. Asylums went away after several were found to be abusing their patients (Willobrook, Danvers, Athens), but not all of them were. What about those that didn’t?
Between the 1950s and the 1980, 80% of the asylums in the US were shut down to save money. Where did the patients go? Home, then the streets. Not exactly a good solution.
Some folks can be treated with medications and behavior modifications, and some can’t. A group home, or a place set up like a comfortable prison (Norway’s prison systems work amazingly well, if your goal is to stop criminals from remaining criminals. The US system? Not so much…)
“But MTB Rider! Won’t people try to game the system like Jack Nicholson? did in One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest?” Sure, maybe. Now days, we have people robbing banks for $1 so they can get medical care they otherwise could not afford.
I read the “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother” article, and all I can see is another Lanza shooting waiting to happen. I’m sure that Adam Lanza’s mother tried to “straighten him out,” but some people just can’t be fixed.
It is not possible to take away everyone’s guns. It is possible to issue guns to everyone, but having been a small arms instructor, I would say that is also not a good idea. While most folks can be trained to be safely armed, some folks should only be given a Safety Whistle.
What needs to be done is something that can’t be legislated into place. American culture needs to change. Many places in the world have few guns, and low violent crime rates (Japan, Korea). Some places have many guns and low crime rates (Switzerland). Some places legally have few guns, but high crime rates (Chicago, New York City), and some places have many guns and high crime rates (Somolia, Brazil). Access to weapons and the willingness to use them to settle disputes do not correlate. The cultural attitude towards each other does.
10:50 pm on December 16th, 2012 152
If we could only be kept in safe and controlled compounds and fed rationed nutrients by a wiser race….
12:17 am on December 17th, 2012 153
At 152, the masterminds of the world are planning on your proposal, via UN Agenda 21, etc. I’m sure it would be such a paradise, an utter utopia…
12:54 am on December 17th, 2012 154
Come Half Blood Prince! Save us! Bring us Safety! We cannot handle it!
2:01 am on December 17th, 2012 155
What nobody has discussed, either here or in the media. is that America has spent $635.9 billion dollars on Homeland Security since 2001 and there is no capability, or even plan, to protect the most appealing targets of terrorism, in this case from a semi-retard with a couple of handguns.
You cannot rely on the government to protect you. They can only come and inspect the after-action mess. Many times, even that response is inadequate due to disorganized bureaucracy or unfamiliarity with the local situation.
People need to take responsibility for their own safety and security, and be prepared to assist others in an emergency situation. This not only means self defense, but also basic emergency medical training and a mindset conditioned to evaluate and act in unforeseen situations.
Banning guns is an impossibility and changing the culture to one of non-violence is a generational project, much like the decades-long social deterioration that brought us to this point.
Even though fingers are pointed at guns, media, movies and video games, the real blame for these problems lie primarily with the last generation or two of parents who have not encouraged disciplined and honorable behavior, and have not spent the time and effort necessary to build a relationship with their children from an early age that allow open and honest discussion about sex, drugs, smoking, drinking, violence and other potential vices that may or may not have their place when approached with understanding and moderation.
The educational system also has a small amount of blame, not because teacher are bad or uncaring, but because politically-inclined administrators have allow political correctness and forced tolerance of inappropriate behavior to subvert basic moral concepts and traditional values that have a history of success in building good citizens.
I am pleased that much of the discussion here has centered around the cultural problem rather than the gun violence symptom.
2:49 am on December 17th, 2012 156
I listened to a news podcast today (I think it was from PBS) and a reporter said he spoke to a child that was in the school. The child said they heard some banging noises then there was an announcement they were on lock-down. The reporter said he was struck that such a young child should understand lock-down.
Hearing that reminded me that when I was that age we were trained that when the civil defense siren went off we should get under our desks. We were taught that it was for our safety in case of a nuclear attack. Even at that age, I recall that I felt it was nonsense. Who are they kidding?
Unfortunately for kids from now on. Lock-down drills will be taken very seriously.
6:55 am on December 17th, 2012 157
This could’ve been much worse. A high school student in Tulsa Oklahoma was planning to massacre students in the gym the same day, but was nabbed when others turned him in. http://nbcnews.to/R1SD8M
7:08 am on December 17th, 2012 158
#157 Wow.
Well, if deterence works at all for this sort of thing we should think up some creative and effective punishment for an individual like that.
1:01 pm on December 17th, 2012 159
Bob wrote (#147):
Mine was a little more than twenty years ago, so I didn’t count it. And yes, it did get media attention. There were two people dead and a third who nearly died (and what I graciously left out is that it was never made entirely clear whether the severely injured guy was shot by the shooter or the off-duty sheriff).
The shooter was mentally unstable and violent and shouldn’t have had a weapon, which iirc from what we were told (second hand, which makes it less reliable) he legally possessed.
Again, the Michael Moore message in “Bowling for Columbine.”
I have never advocated “taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.” Flat out, that’s something I oppose. But it’s a false depiction to paint that as the only gun control argument or even the dominant one. We need more effectively enforced, more comprehensive, and more consistent regulation to ensure, as much as possible, that reasonable firearms are only in the hands of law-abiding and that they are only used for lawful purposes.
But that goal is nearly impossible not because of any impracticality but because of political opposition to any regulation on the basis of the “slippery slope” argument.
1:52 pm on December 17th, 2012 160
Regulation is, of course, key.
The more we have, the better we’ll be.
1:56 pm on December 17th, 2012 161
156- Yeah- it’s a sad commentary on the human condition that we’d ever have to teach a kid something like that, but at some point in his life, he’s going to find out that the world is a dangerous place.
We’ve been doing all the feel-good stuff for years now, and it’s gotten us stacks of dead people.
Better to be aware of one’s surroundings at as early an age as possible. If a few more grown-ups would see the world as it really is rather than a unicorn ranch…
4:45 pm on December 17th, 2012 162
#60, if regulations will stop gun violence, we should make littering, speeding, and theft illegal, too.
Meanwhile, what part of “shall not be infringed” has you confused?
4:46 pm on December 17th, 2012 163
I must say I am impressed. No one (at least on ROKDrop) seems to have jumped in to defend Brian Fischer and Mike Huckabee. There may be hope for us yet! Merry Christmas to all of us, every one.
4:52 pm on December 17th, 2012 164
ONLY honest people obey gun laws. “Gun Control” just disarms honest people. Yeah, it would be nice to hope we could prevent it; but our borders are 100% porous to all kinds of smuggling–including guns–and there are plenty of people who illegally possess firearms who only give ‘em up when the police arrest them. And they buy/steal new ones when they get out.
Gun-free zones create target-rich killing zones for evil and/or loony shooters. All they do is make sure no one can defend themselves.
4:55 pm on December 17th, 2012 165
@163, I don’t know anything about Brian Fischer except what has been posted here. The Huckster is a defrocked televangelist who dropped the Bible in the mud and picked up a job with Fox News. OTOH, Chuck Norris likes him.
5:06 pm on December 17th, 2012 166
#165
Speaking of Fox News …
6:04 pm on December 17th, 2012 167
Here in lies the age old argument of the gun owners rights vs the rights of the populace. While the average joe deserves to be safe, the fact of the matter is that the police can’t be everywhere in this day and age of gangs and drug violence. People have the right to be armed IF THEY WISH and UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. We all know that felons are not allowed to have a gun, however go into any metro area and one can pick up a gun off the street fairly quickly if they know where to go. No stores or forms to fill out, just a cash transaction and you walk away with a gun.
Many areas are now designated as no gun zones and yet how many people have died at the hands of killers which carried guns into these hereto “safe” areas? Gee, didn’t that sign just cause the fear of GOD and make them go away or drop their weapons to the ground before entering the no gun zone?
Important saftey tip: CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW!
All of these gang bangers have guns and where did they acquire them? We just have to go and look at all of their firearm forms and track them down, right?
Saftey tip: CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW!
A statement Morgan Freeman made was on Facebook the other day:
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
…It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
6:11 pm on December 17th, 2012 168
167. I did like that Anderson Cooper would not allow the gunman’s name to be mentioned on his broadcasts. This is a good idea and everyone in the media could voluntarily do this.
6:21 pm on December 17th, 2012 169
#168, I agree.
6:42 pm on December 17th, 2012 170
@168 – I haven’t watched the news as I’m pretty sure what they will be saying about the shooting and it’s the same crap everytime.
They believe that guns are the cause of all the problems.
I have yet to see any weapon, get up, BY ITSELF, WITH NO HUMAN INTERVENTION, AND SHOOT SOMEONE!
Until that day happens, I’ll put the blame one the human who fired the weapons!
9:40 pm on December 17th, 2012 171
At 114, Huckabee’s at what again? You and your echoes comments might be considered by some as evidence of intelligence but perhaps not wisdom. This is more or less a trend in the world as well, as the news on any day shows.
9:58 pm on December 17th, 2012 172
Be careful, Morgan Freeman and Anderson Cooper. I suggested the same thing and Sonagi and JoeC responded as if my solution was eating babies.
It is a good observation that we, as a society, can name so many spree and serial killers but can name no victims. The losers that go on these spree killings will be remembered for a long time. They will be admired and inspiring to the next generation of spree killers just as the previous generations were for them.
10:33 pm on December 17th, 2012 173
The Morgan Freeman statement was a hoax.
10:40 pm on December 17th, 2012 174
Be careful, Morgan Freeman hoaxer and Anderson Cooper. Care to discuss the actual topic?
5:12 am on December 18th, 2012 175
Gun manufacturing is one of the few manufacturing jobs that hasn’t been outsourced to China. Eliminating gun manufacturing will hurt the American economy.
5:17 am on December 18th, 2012 176
#164,
You’ve got 4 times the murder rate per capita than in Canada, where there is stricter gun control. Explain that.
6:03 am on December 18th, 2012 177
#176, ASSUMING your statistics relating to GUN murders are true is a big if. And I don’t know that the methods used for collecting those statistics are similar or valid.
Our big population centers are controlled by Democrats who have disarmed large segments of our population. Chicago has had gun bans for years and yet more people are shot there, per capita or otherwise, than the infamous State of Texas.
I do not own firearms; but I know MANY folks with more than four weapons. And all of them together–with their literally hundreds of guns–have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car.
So you have a point that drug gangs cause more deaths than folks who have other jobs. Maybe we should ban the sale and distribution of heroin, meth, cocaine, etc.? Or were you being raaaacist?
Blacks and Hispanics in America have higher per-capita crime rates than those of Whites and Asians. Is it because they are more urban, more susceptible to crime, or because the cops are raaaacist?
6:05 am on December 18th, 2012 178
I already gave my opinion about “media glorification” in comment #94.
6:10 am on December 18th, 2012 179
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”–Ben Franklin, 1775
6:20 am on December 18th, 2012 180
Larry Pratt is more eloquent than I, published in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/16/gun-free-zones-larry-pratt/1773473/
“A gunman whose name we do not need to memorialize took advantage of our gun-control laws to slaughter 20 children and six adults in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman…”
Naturally, the Editors at USA Today urge people to disarm and trust the Government…
6:29 am on December 18th, 2012 181
“Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. When I was there in the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.
The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?”
6:32 am on December 18th, 2012 182
As a hakwan worker, Teadrinker isn’t very good with statistics.
Intentional Homicide (murder) Rate
United States: 4.2/100,000
Canada: 1.6/100,000
That is 2.6 times, not 4.
If you want to see the real, but not politically correct, difference between America and Canada’s murder rate, this chart explains it well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg
6:35 am on December 18th, 2012 183
We should think about those marijuana killers, too… http://www.kptv.com/story/20368360/driver-charged-with-dui-marijuana-after-deadly-crash-in-vancouver
6:36 am on December 18th, 2012 184
And pretty much not follow this guy’s actions (regardless of whether this week is the end of time or not): http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=129248&sid=38463132&con_type=1
9:32 am on December 18th, 2012 185
If the media hadn’t glorified Truman, Stalin would never have wanted a nuclear bomb of his own.
9:33 am on December 18th, 2012 186
NRA’s page goes dark, hey it matches the dark people who belong to the association.
10:41 am on December 18th, 2012 187
Suck on this T-bone, Glans, and the rest of you ant-gun serf-wannabees: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/
One shot. That’s all it would have taken to save those 26 people at the school. But they died because of folks like you.
12:46 pm on December 18th, 2012 188
Setnaffa (#187), I’m not sure what all you can take away from that story, especially since it’s not quite as clear-cut as you made it out to be. It was four shots, not one, and the person who made the shots was an off-duty sheriffs deputy (interestingly, the same kind of person who shot and killed the shooter in our church).
Moreover, what probably contributed most to a massacre being averted was that the shooter’s gun had jammed. In other words, this doesn’t seem to fit into your fantasy scenario that if a bunch of armed law-abiding citizens were running around, gun violence like this would not occur.
It took several shots, not just one, coming from a skilled and well-trained person, with the tremendous good luck that the would-be lil let’s gun had jammed. These things do not add up to a situation where armed citizens can easily take down just the right person who needs to be taken down.
Maybe the solution is elsewhere, looking for that sweet spot where law-abiding citizens can own reasonable firearms for their protection, but we don’t have a bunch of loose guns floating around all over the place because we have a manufacturing sector and a regulation system that are out of control, to the point that criminals and the mentally ill can easily just grab one when it floats by.
2:02 pm on December 18th, 2012 189
# 187,
Hey I know the answer to gun violence, instead of less guns how about more guns Wehahahahaha
3:10 pm on December 18th, 2012 190
The NRA is shocked, saddened and heartbroken. They’re prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again. Here’s their statement on CNN.
4:50 pm on December 18th, 2012 191
# 190,
You mean they’re going to lighten up and agree to check those 40 some % who go unchecked when buying assault weapons at gun shows? We’ll see!
4:56 pm on December 18th, 2012 192
Tbonetylr, I agree with you that background checks should be extended to gun shows. There is no practical reason (but plenty of political reason) for that huge of a loophole.
5:03 pm on December 18th, 2012 193
# 183 Setneffa,
“Police say the victim(pedestrian) was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault.”
I say innocent until proven guilty. People like you want to lock the driver up and throw away the key already. Even on my best day I could hit a pedestrian if one were to walk out in front of me while I was behind the wheel. Are you going to tell us Adam Lanza was innocent? Comparing guns and marijuana
5:06 pm on December 18th, 2012 194
If only Adam Lanza had sat down for awhile in front of the TV to take some bong hits.
8:18 pm on December 18th, 2012 195
Kushibo, you make no sense. He was shot and stopped by an armed bystander. You say the gun jammed so it doesn’t fit a “fantasy scenario”? You must understand that without an armed bystander, the shooter clears his weapon and keeps on shooting. It doesn’t end there. This perfectly fits a situation where a crazed killer starts shooting in a public place with unknown intentions, a bystander stops him with a concealed carry firearm and the incident is over.
Also, in shootings such as this, police and civilians show the same results. That sounds counterintuitive to those pushing an ideal over reality but there are many good reasons for it. Civilians who conceal carry and willing to use in defense generally have more experience shooting than you, and the media, give them credit for. In encounters such as this, the advantage lies with the defender buried anonymously in a group while the attacker is easily identified with his attention spread out. Those who lack the sense or long-term thinking skills and start criminally shooting in public frequently also lack the ability to care for their weapon. In many spree killings, a gun has been abandoned because it “jammed”. Law-abiding citizens who choose to carry in public generally maintain their firearms. Also, while law enforcement does a lot of firearms training, this type of scenario is just a single page in a large book.
Shooting a rampaging killer is not rocket science and it does not require any specialized long-term training. It simply requires familiarity with the weapon, an observation of what is behind the target and a mindset to do what needs to be done without hesitation. As the advantage is with the (armed) bystander, success is high. You are welcome to search for examples where the criminal won in this type of encounter. If you can find any, as they would certainly be well-publicized, we can compare them to the number of times a bystander successfully stopped a crime.
While your ideal world is beautiful, we must live in the world we have and not the world you want.
8:34 pm on December 18th, 2012 196
Murder statistics from 2000-2010 from the Wall Street Journal:
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all
9:19 pm on December 18th, 2012 197
Those statistics are very clear and it leads to an obvious conclusion. To reduce murders, banning black people would be more effective than banning firearms. Any guesses when that suggestion will get traction?
9:45 pm on December 18th, 2012 198
Every time there is a shooting incident where the debate starts about whether it could have been mitigated if there were more armed people present, I remember a shooting incident that occurred near the end of my first tour in Korea. My recollections were based on the GI hearsay going around at the time and not on anything I read.
The incident happened on Camp Casey on the small arms range in 1981. The story went that during the live fire shooting a crazy guy got up and started shooting people. Other soldiers on the line got up, not knowing what was going on, and what started it started to shoot at each other. Several people ended up dead.
So that’s the picture that goes through my head of what would generally happen in such a surprise shooting incident when everyone is armed.
I’ve tried to research that incident over the years, particularity whenever there is another mass shooting incident in the States, but hadn’t found anything … until today.
This document (the link brings up a PDF file) is actually a military public affairs thesis on the role of Public Affairs in reporting the incident out to the public, so it takes a while to get to the incident itself. But Chapter 5, at the 61th page of the document and the page numbered 55, gives a detailed description of the circumstances of the incident.
Needless to say, what actually happened was very different from what I had been led to believe all these years.
12:28 am on December 19th, 2012 199
#198
Shooting on a target range? That’s scary.
Actually read the portion. So Malcom X is partially is responsible for the deaths of 4 men…
Back to the shooting, gun control is just not possible. Too many already out there and too much fierce opposition. I believe what we really need is a real mental health care system.
I hear (from older people) that the US’s mental health care system was pretty much dismantled under Reagan, mainly to cut expense (to lower tax). Who knew such a victory by GOP would later turn out to be the cause of the nightmare GOP (mainly because gun rights people are mostly GOP) is facing now.
5:28 am on December 19th, 2012 200
You could reduce murders by three or four times that amount if you banned males.
6:05 am on December 19th, 2012 201
I was going to argue banning unknown race and unknown gender from having other arguments based on the statistics actually.
6:17 am on December 19th, 2012 202
You are all not only racists and sexists, you are very poor at analyzing statistics with true scientific accuracy. To reduce homicide in America, it is clear that 18 to 39 year-olds should not be able to have friends or acquaintances.
6:31 am on December 19th, 2012 203
#195 is exactly correct.
6:33 am on December 19th, 2012 204
Kushibo, I hope you and your family hang out in those gun-free zones you love…
6:47 am on December 19th, 2012 205
http://pjmedia.com/blog/air-marshals-armed-teachers-and-gun-free-zones-are-you-consistent/
7:50 am on December 19th, 2012 206
@198- Great find that was an interesting read. I had never heard of that incident before.
7:54 am on December 19th, 2012 207
Do not know if other people have noticed this but more people in the media are coming around to my point of view that glamorizing these killers is creating incentive for other lunatics to commit copycat crimes. No one has yet to offer a counter argument on why we need to know the killers name and see his face? The story can still be reported without these details.
8:04 am on December 19th, 2012 208
As far as the assault weapon ban it will be as effective at stopping mass shootings as the curfew is at stopping major crimes from happening. As Cho showed everyone these mass killings are easily committed by handguns. The assault weapon ban did not stop Columbine and I doubt if it was still in effect that Lanza would not have committed his crime. The ban is simply something to show that the politicians are doing something while ignoring the larger issues that lead to these mass shootings.
What I think the assault weapon ban will do is slightly reduce homicide numbers because it will be harder for criminal gangs to get these weapons to kill each other with. To respect the rights of responsible gun owners a new assault weapon ban should allow people to keep these weapons stored in a gun safe at a certified shooting range. This allows people to keep their weapons they just have to comply with federal laws in regards to storing them.
9:50 am on December 19th, 2012 209
- To respect the rights of responsible gun owners a new assault weapon ban should allow people to keep these weapons stored in a gun safe at a certified shooting range.
And to respect the rights of gang bangers, drug smugglers and assorted hoods, there will be no effect.
Criminal gangs will continue to be able to get these weapons, or even supply them, just as they have done with drugs, prostitutes, gambling, loansharking, prohibition-era alcohol, knockoff bags/jerseys/watches and fake handicapped parking stickers.
And don’t say any more about how the media shouldn’t glamorize spree killers. JoeC and Sonagi will jump your case, even if it is starting to be a conclusion a lot of people are coming to as a cheap, easy and effective step in reducing spree killing.
10:35 am on December 19th, 2012 210
I think we are all suckered into talking about gun laws etc etc. But what we really need is change in the mental health care system. We need to bring back the mental asylums.
Almost all of the mass shootings in recent decade were done by people who should’ve been put in mental hospital or at least on forced medication. Putting mentally ill people (even ones showing obvious signs) in hospital is way too hard.
11:09 am on December 19th, 2012 211
@209- Yes gangbangers and other criminals can still buy the guns through the black market but it will cost them much more money to do so then now. Especially when it will be much harder for them to steal these weapons from private citizens because the guns are secured at licensed shooting ranges.
This will likely cause the low level criminals to use handguns instead of assault weapons for their crimes. Instead of knocking off 1 or 2 rivals in a driveby maybe they only kill one and wound another instead due to using a handgun. That is how I could see a slight dip in the homicide rate from such a law.
However this does nothing to address the underlying issues that cause mass shootings and gang violence in the first place. Once again gun control is just a convenient excuse to overlook the real issues causing these problems.
11:19 am on December 19th, 2012 212
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1004/guns-gun-demotivational-poster-1271288280.jpg
2:22 pm on December 19th, 2012 213
Could you please provide a link to the data, Captain Obvious?
5:01 pm on December 19th, 2012 214
The principal should be the commander of the militia on her campus. If necessary, she can delegate that job to her vice-principal for security, but she must still supervise him. Appropriately vetted and trained teachers would be members of the militia; they would have guns and radios. Each classroom should have a secure door, remotely operable from the principal’s and vice-principal’s offices. When trouble arises, the principal would view the monitor for each room and make the tactical decision – should this room be locked down or left open? She would then direct her militia members to liberate the classrooms she sees occupied by offenders. If the incident lasts more than five minutes, the principal could call for help from the police, national guard, or regular army.
If she makes the painful decision to sacrifice a classroom, she must be immune from nuisance lawsuits. This could happen, for example, if the offender has already killed several children but seems intent on attacking another classroom. She may decide that fewer kids will be killed if she locks him in where he is, lets him tragically finish off that one room, and not start in on any others. Likewise, if some children fall to friendly fire, armchair generals wouldn’t be allowed to inflict further grief on a militiaman/teacher who risked his life for the kids and now must forever bear the burden of his error. But in cases of egregious misconduct, a commission of teachers, police officers, and soldiers could meet out justice.
5:17 pm on December 19th, 2012 215
Glans, that Chickenhead quality humor there. Unfortunately there are probably people who think this would be a great idea.
6:14 pm on December 19th, 2012 216
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/18/real_realism_on_gun_control_116446.html
6:25 pm on December 19th, 2012 217
THE SAME PEOPLE that want to disarm honest folks are the same people who demand we take it easy on criminals. They are the same people who see the greatest evils as “prayer in school” and “nativity scenes on public land”. But they’re okay with the slaughter of 40+ Million unborn.
Glan can make up strawman argument that no one actually supports–it is, after all, a typical tactic of the left–but that doesn’t bring back the 20 dead children nor make the other children going to schools labeled “gun-free zones” any safer. It just helps him score points with those of you who respect someone who takes a virtual dump on dead children who have yet to be buried.
Making the principal responsible would not have helped the Sandy Hook kids. She was one of the first to die.
A couple of armed, trained staff–teachers, janitors, security guards, whatever–could have saved those 20 kids.
But the people you elected share your view that a ban on guns will save them. In spite of years and years of evidence to the contrary.
Look up what happened in Beslan. That’s coming. And the blood will be on your hands.
6:50 pm on December 19th, 2012 218
10:22 pm on December 19th, 2012 219
I don’t get the either/or of this argument. Why must one side defend the position that everyone must be armed even if it means ignoring that this kid should not have been allowed to have a gun?
Apparently, from reports, his mother was a gun enthusiast, whatever that means. Her pastime was taking her boys out to the range to shoot. Then we divert to video games and whatever else this kid may have seen on TV. I’ve seen countless violent movies and played many first person shooter video games. None of those came close to bringing to mind the purpose and intent of killing than actually holding and shooting and M-16.
A Bushmaster is not a hunting or home defense weapon. It’s a replica of an offensive weapon of war. What was that mother thinking, entertaining her disturbed child with that?
3:58 am on December 20th, 2012 220
Captain Obvious wrote:
You seem to be laying out the case that the solution to gun violence, particularly mass shootings, is for nearly every adult to be armed, or at least a preponderance of adults such that it would deter a would-be shooter.
Therein lies your fantasy. You are taking an ideal scenario and suggesting it could be expanded to the whole adult population with equal success, and that is a false assumption. It doesn’t take into account that the armed heroes are people who are frequently around guns, typically well trained, and usually very comfortable with them.
If we were to expand not just gun ownership but gun carrying, would the quality of the gun carriers remain? Almost certainly not, largely because those who desire to carry and are skilled marksmen are already able and willing to do so in 2012, at least in states with concealed weapons permits.
By way of analogy, let me talk to you about declining SAT scores. You may be aware that SAT scores are on the decline, and a lot of people think that means American youth are less intelligent. That certainly is the Jay Leno analysis of SAT scores, because it’s a facile understanding that’s good for a laugh.
What is actually at work with a lot of the declining SAT numbers is an expansion of SAT takers, an increase in the number of college-bound hopefuls. The people taking the SAT who might not have been inclined to do so ten, twenty, forty years ago are not typically from the cream of the crop but those with lower academic skills, which drags down the average (and has nothing to do with a rise or drop in overall academic skills).
In other words, expansion of this practice brings in people with a lower skill set.
Now take that and apply that to an expansion not just in gun ownership but gun carrying. Would the new gun carriers be as skilled as the off-duty sheriff’s deputy who prevented the shootings in the theater (and who was aided by the gun malfunctioning), or the off-duty sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed the shooter at our church when I was a kid?
Probably not. And therein lies the faultline in your fantasy. Universal gun carrying would not solve the problem but simply create more chaos. We’d have people who can’t shoot shooting at people they think are shooting them. We’d have myriad gun accidents (like the guy who shot and killed his seven-year-old son) and gun thefts because some people would just not be as good at keeping those things locked up as they should (like Adam Lanza’s mother, who was killed by her own weapons, which were then used to kill a couple dozen more).
What is my point here in calling out your fantasy? Like its opposite extreme (i.e., the elimination of legal gun ownership), it is embedded in an idealistic notion that doesn’t play out in reality. Simply put, that is not where the solution lies, just as the solution is not in trying to ban all privately owned firearms.
4:03 am on December 20th, 2012 221
Mike Morgan wrote:
I don’t think they’d let us, being as how we have at least four firearms (one gun and three hunting rifles) in our home; I doubt they’d let us live there.
But then again, I don’t think I advocated for gun-free zones. I have pointed out some of the problems with arming teachers and principals from a school-based armory as a solution, but I see little wrong with having armed guards (assuming they are well trained) in schools.
6:45 am on December 20th, 2012 222
Kushibo, I never suggested everyone carry a gun. You have constructed a straw man and perfectly destroyed him. Your argument with yourself has done nothing to change the fact that an armed citizen is better than an unarmed citizen when confronting a spree killer. With a few minutes of research, you will find an armed citizen is better than an unarmed citizen when confronting any sort of criminal, both in stopping a criminal act and acting as a deterrent.
I would never suggest that nearly every adult be armed but I would encourage those who have the interest and ability to do so. As a deterrent, an unknown number of armed civilians works almost as well as a majority. In an incident, one or two armed citizens is probably safer for everyone.
This does not paint a complete picture by any means but here is some well-presented raw information about gun violence. Some of it can be misinterpreted to support any number of views. Much of it clearly suggests that nothing good will come from law-abiding citizens giving up their guns.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
12:12 pm on December 20th, 2012 223
Captain Obvious, even if you yourself do not advocate that every adult be armed, it is in that direction that you find your solution.
Yes, if there is a killer in the movie theater, I’d rather be armed (and a good shot) or have someone else like an off-duty sheriffs deputy who is armed and a good shot be in the theater with me. Given that choice.
But ultimately, I’d prefer to choose for the killer himself not to be armed in the theater in the first place. I’d like to get to that point, and having more armed adults and more guns in the school armory and more gun-toting principals and teachers, does not appear to be the answer.
12:15 pm on December 20th, 2012 224
Israel and Switzerland may not be the gun-toting societies they are made out to be by the pro-gun side:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089893
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
12:25 pm on December 20th, 2012 225
Also, before you make claims about straw men, can you clarify whether you agree or disagree with my description of your viewpoint:
A preponderance of law-abiding adults being armed would deter would-be shooters (i.e., both those involved in a shooting act at the time and those who are considering such attacks)
1:08 pm on December 20th, 2012 226
Once again, Kushibo, you have created a straw man by claiming that my solution was in a direction I never pointed it. If you wish to discuss this with me, please stick to the statements that have been presented instead of creating your own imaginary ones and attributing them to me. You may certainly quote anything I actually write and respond to it. You may not make reaching presumptions and introduce them as part of the discussion.
It seems we are both in agreement that having armed citizens present or being armed ourselves is preferable to the killer being the only one armed.
It seems we are also both in agreement that it is even more preferable for the killer not to be armed at all.
There are around 300,000,000 privately-owned firearms in America. There is no magic wand to make them vanish. Regardless of any new law, killers and troublemakers will seek them out at a higher rate than those who have jobs and white picket fences and no desire to bother others.
Would you agree that any true gun control would affect well-intentioned citizens more than criminal, especially career criminals? Would you agree that strict gun control measures would trend toward more armed killers and fewer armed citizens? Would these outcomes be counter to what you have stated to be the best?
Now let’s discuss gun-free zones. Apart from schools/courts/etc. with metal detectors and checkpoints, most gun-free zones are very inviting soft targets. After all the money spent on tanks/drones/other advanced anti-terror systems and training for podunk police departments for imaginary terrorists under Homeland Security grants, this is an amazing oversight and an obvious target for true terrorism even more than crazy spree killers.
I have never suggested, as your strawman did, to have school armories, but any adult who can be entrusted to guide, educate and mentor our children certainly should be responsible enough to carry a tool which can protect those same children. They are certainly trainable in both skill and judgement or they should never be teachers to begin with.
Or, we can do nothing. It seems more people are killed by lightening than spree killers and lightening kills more people than school shootings. So it is an emotional but statistically trivial event and not worth of affecting the lives/freedom/security of 70-80 million.
As has been stated before, the answer is not in gun control. The answer is in better mental healthcare and a cultural shift, especially among urban blacks, if the FBI’s crime statistics in some of the above links are to be believed.
Since it is likely that most gun control measures will disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens over criminals and they are likely to be far less effective at solving any problems, it is frustrating to hear them focused on again and again while real solutions are ignored.
Once again, I am happy to discuss this with you but if you find yourself in disagreement, please quote exactly what I have written and state your countering opinion rather than making biased paraphrases and attacking them instead.
3:26 pm on December 20th, 2012 227
Huckabee blamed godlessness for the shootings in Aurora, too:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/transcript/huckabee-039we-have-sin-problem039
And no, Pops, blaming godlessness for acts of violence isn’t a world trend. Monotheists have been dong so since an ancient Jewish writer penned a graphic tale of two cities,one of which would come to denote a certain type of sexual intercourse, to the contrary, modern humans in North America, Europe, and Asia tend to believe that deities and supernatural beings do not manipulate human actions or natural occurrences.
3:46 pm on December 20th, 2012 228
Capt. Obvious, that link is rather long, and if it contains comparative data on private citizens versus law enforcement gunning down mass shooters, then please provide me with a shortcut link as I don’t care to wade through 95% irrelevant content to find that particular statistic.
4:44 pm on December 20th, 2012 229
Like most schools across the US, Sandy Hook had no security guards. During a potential violent intrusion, the first job of teachers and staff is to put children in a safe place. That usually means locking classroom doors and barricading them, it possible. Unfortunately, the teachers in the classrooms attacked by the gunman did,not lock their doors after huddling the children inside. It is an understandable oversight in an extremely chaotic and totally chaotic situation. A janitor walking around the corner with a handgun would have gotten the same barrage of bullets that that killer used to blast open the locked front doors. If we school employees wanted to protect the lives of children with weapons, we would have joined the military or law enforcement, I am shaking my head in disbelief and disgust at my fellow Americans who seriously think turning schools axross the country into fortressees is a viable solution.
4:50 pm on December 20th, 2012 230
That will soon change:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-deaths-outpace-traffic-deaths-2015-report-article-1.1223721
5:21 pm on December 20th, 2012 231
230. Obviously guns need to come with airbags.
5:54 pm on December 20th, 2012 232
” The answer is in better mental healthcare and a cultural shift, especially among urban blacks, if the FBI’s crime statistics in some of the above links are to be believed.”
Please. Pointing the finger at “urban blacks” is a thinly veiled ploy to justify you’re own unwillingness to change.
The cultural shift is happening. Get ready for stricter gun control laws and less of an emphasis on sensationalizing of violence in the American media…solutions to your problems that foreigners, people who have the benefit of viewing the US from a different perspective, have been suggesting for years.
6:52 pm on December 20th, 2012 233
For people who want to ban guns, you may want to look at the murder rates in places like:
Washington DC
Ney York City
Detroit
Chicago
Los Angeles
These are just a few places where we have very strict gun laws and the murder rates are higher than the national average.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
Note that in 2004 and 2005 some tiny place took the top honors with more than a 35% murder rate.
The following link comes from the FBI and shows the number of murders that involved weapons, listed by type:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
You can ban the living crap out of guns, but as I have said before…
CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW!
In order to LEGALLY purchase a handgun at a gun show, you DO have to under go a background check. Rifles and shotguns are exempt.
Strange, I have yet to see ANY firearm load itself and shoot people……
8:10 pm on December 20th, 2012 234
Teadrinker, as I have neither criminal intent nor do I affect the lives of others by owning benign tools or machines, why should I be the one expected to change? Is it not more reasonable for calls for change be directed at those causing the problems?
8:41 pm on December 20th, 2012 235
Sonagi, I see where you are coming from. When given the chance to become educated on this topic you refuse out of laziness or a fear that reality will conflict with your preconceived ideology. Nothing at that link is irrelevant to an educated discussion of this topic unless you choose to keep it in the realm of emotion rather than fact, in which case your uninformed opinion does not matter.
5:31 am on December 21st, 2012 236
According to the FBI, the murder rate with hands/fists/feet is consistently about double the murder rate with rifles. I will give up my rifles when gungrabbers give up their hands and feet. Blunt objects are also a bigger killer at almost double. Knives and other cutting objects are about FIVE times bigger killers than rifles.
Check it out for yourselves and then stop foolish talk about banning military grade semi-automatic assault rifle machine-gun carbines.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
6:08 am on December 21st, 2012 237
“Teadrinker, as I have neither criminal intent nor do I affect the lives of others by owning benign tools or machines, why should I be the one expected to change? Is it not more reasonable for calls for change be directed at those causing the problems?”
That’s what most murderers in the US would say when they go their guns. Yes, most murders are committed by someone who knew the victim. The notion that guns are mainly to protect you from some burglars is quaint and unrealistic. You’re more likely to use your guns to kill a family member, on purpose or accidentally, than you are to shoot a burglar.
6:09 am on December 21st, 2012 238
#233,
Nice try. Compare those stats with those of other countries, like Canada, Japan, and South Korea.
6:12 am on December 21st, 2012 239
#236,
You need to look at the big picture: the murder rate in the US is ridiculously high, and that’s in part because its so easy to get firearms.
1:31 pm on December 21st, 2012 240
Neither does anthrax pour itself out of a container. Following your logic, any weapon should be legal to manufacture, sell, and own.
Capt, Obvious,, your username is well-chosen. Gun control has been an issue for decades, I listened to and wrote many persuasive speeches and papers on the subject in high school and college. The arguments that appeared as I scrolled down they page were familiar to me, so that i why I scrolled past them in search of validation of an familiar claim you made about civilian versus law enforcement accuracy in shooting mass killers. Is that data even on the page? If so, don’t expect me to spend several minutes looking up and down the long page to try to prove YOUR claim. Persuasion doesn’t work that way. The person who makes the claim supports it or the claim remains unproven. If you learned differently in high school speech class, then on behalf of your teacher, I apologize for you being left behind in learning persuasive argumentation 101.
1:47 pm on December 21st, 2012 241
Following Sonagi’s logic, hands, feet and fists should be outlawed.
Following Teadrinker’s logic, Americans and Japanese have the same culture of violence so the fault all lies with the guns.
1:54 pm on December 21st, 2012 242
Which statement are you referring to, Joker?
4:14 pm on December 21st, 2012 243
Methinks a lot of the data in there was current when you were back in high school.
I’m against forcing law-abiding citizens to give up weapons they reasonably own for the purpose of self-protection and/or hunting, but at the same time we need effectively enforced regulations and restrictions in place to reduce as much as possible the numbers of accidental or unintentional shootings, and the prospect of firearms getting in the hands of criminals and people with mental health issues (including those who would harm themselves).
Where that sweet spot lies is not entirely clear. I enjoy reasonable arguments about gun ownership and gun control one way or the other, but a bunch of data from 1982 doesn’t do much to bolster an argument. With a blog post or comment we might not do as much homework, but whoever put that together meant it to be persuasive and seen by a lot of people.
That link could be much improved with updated data.
4:57 pm on December 21st, 2012 244
Here is part of Forbes’ response to the NRA’s proposal yesterday.
… and some other statistics for those interested in that sort of thing.
5:01 pm on December 21st, 2012 245
Actually, some of the data is less than ten years old, Kushibo In any case, data can still be cherry-picked and ignore other factors that may explain statistical changes. I’m happy to invest time reading and evaluating information of interest to me, and am still waiting patiently for a link to data comparing outcomes of mass shootings involving civilian counter fire versus law enforcement.
5:02 pm on December 21st, 2012 246
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t think it would work either.
5:03 pm on December 21st, 2012 247
The NRA has a ‘plan to develop a National School Shield Emergency Response Program, a “multifaceted” education and training program “available to every school in America free of charge.” [Wayne] LaPierre said the NRA had selected former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) to lead the effort, and serve as its national director.’
Eric Lach gives a little background info at TPM.
5:25 pm on December 21st, 2012 248
Pistol Pete (x2)
I’m a son of a gun who’s really neat!
Pistol Pete (x2)
Everybody loves Pistol Pete
Pistol Pete (x2)
I’ll give you the scoop straight from the street
Pistol Pete (x2)
Everybody loves Pistol Pete
Pistol Pete (x2)
Pull my trigger and feel my heat!
Pistol Pete (x2)
Everybody loves Pistol Pete
He’s not a bad guy
Pete:
I’m just a tool
I don’t kill people
Who does?
We do!
Pete:
That’s Right!
5:41 pm on December 21st, 2012 249
You’re right, Sonagi (#245), a portion of the data is within this century, and I did not mean to make it sound like it was all from the early 1980s. And as a rule of thumb, I would consider the arguments laid out with 2005 data more currently valid than that from 1982.
And Columbine did have an armed guard on campus. He was brave and he was skilled and his actions may have meant fewer deaths in Littleton that day.
There are two main things to take away from that: Skilled armed guards can be effective at reducing death and injury in a firefight at a school. Many schools should consider this, though a lot of them can’t really afford it.
Second, even the presence of an armed guard will not necessarily deter a determined killer. Columbine was not chosen as a soft target, and the killers were not deterred from acting by the presence of an armed guard. They chose Columbine because that was their school and that was where they wanted to wreak havoc.
The sweet-spot solution cannot lie just with putting armed guards in schools. That clearly is inadequate as a primary response, though it may play a reasonable role as a comprehensive response, at least for now.
5:42 pm on December 21st, 2012 250
You’re right, Sonagi (#245), a portion of the data is within this century, and I did not mean to make it sound like it was all from the early 1980s. And as a rule of thumb, I would consider the arguments laid out with 2005 data more currently valid than that from 1982.
And Columbine did have an armed guard on campus. He was brave and he was skilled and his actions may have meant fewer deaths in Littleton that day.
There are two main things to take away from that: Skilled armed guards can be effective at reducing death and injury in a firefight at a school. Many schools should consider this, though a lot of them can’t really afford it.
Second, even the presence of an armed guard will not necessarily deter a determined killer. Columbine was not chosen as a soft target, and the killers were not deterred from acting by the presence of an armed guard. They chose Columbine because that was their school and that was where they wanted to wreak havoc.
The sweet-spot solution cannot lie just with putting armed guards in schools. That clearly is inadequate as a primary response, though it may play a reasonable role as a comprehensive response, at least for now.
5:49 pm on December 21st, 2012 251
Captain Obvious wrote:
I respect your opinion and your frustration. It is a burden of the hard-working and the law-abiding that they should have to follow rules and regulations in place to protect against the less hard-working and those who break the law, and the less skilled.
This is the thing, though. I believe you that YOU have no criminal intent, and I believe you that you know how to handle weapons safely. But how do we know that? How do the authorities, tasked with protecting the public, know this? Based just on your word? Based on the word of people when they walk in? As Sonagi noted, a criminal will walk in and say, with a straight face, that he/she has no criminal intent.
We need background checks and other procedures to try to weed out the law-abiding from the non-law-abiding, the mentally sane from the non-mentally sane, those who would not do harm to themselves and others from those who would do harm to themselves or others.
Given what’s at stake, as long as the law-abiding and the non-threatening are able to get the firearms they need for reasonable self-protection and hunting, I don’t think it’s onerous to expect the kind of safety, regulation, and licensing — and consistency — we would have for other potentially deadly weapons, like a car.
10:21 am on December 22nd, 2012 252
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/violent-movies-avoid-scrutiny-following-mass-shootings/?intcmp=trending
In the wake of last week’s Connecticut school shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets.
Yet, there’s another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize: Hollywood, though many argue the movie and video game industry also bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence.
Not unlike the NRA, lawmakers fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies. Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democratic politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced violent films.
“Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo,” Isett said.
Since 1998, America’s five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA. The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Congress off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.
10:30 am on December 22nd, 2012 253
Sonagi, here is the information you requested handed to you in an easy-to-read format for those with a short attention span and more interest in voicing their emotional opinion rather than developing one based on the facts.
“Don B. Kates Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law, found that while police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68 percent of the time, private citizens did so 83 percent of the time. Moreover, 11 percent of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents mistaken for criminals, while only 2 percent of those in civilian shootings were so misidentified. Private citizens in urban areas encounter and kill up to three times as many criminals as law enforcement personnel (“Gun Control and the Subway Class,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 10, 1985.) The reasons are simple: Private citizens who carry firearms are far more likely to know who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are, since they have generally witnessed the situation from the beginning. Police, called to the scene well after trouble has started, don’t have that advantage. ”
Another common myth can be put to rest with:
“A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. “Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.” Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) (“The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun ‘kept in the home where the shooting occurred,’ 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police [p. 252].”) (Kleck, Gary. “Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner’s Chances of Being Murdered?” Homicide Studies 5 [2001].) ”
The truth is that the statistics are very clear yet the media perpetuates a number of myths that are repeated over and over again.
Debating gun control is mostly pointless because no matter what the statistics say, gun control isn’t really about guns. It is about control.
12:17 pm on December 22nd, 2012 254
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for providing a reference name and quote for that claim. To put the quote in greater. On text and see what sort of comparative data was used, I did a searched and located this:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html
It appears that Kates’ data set is mostly crimes against individuals at home or at their businesses. Kates’ data and his citation of the Warren V. District of Columbia court case support allowing handgun ownership and concealed carry permits. I am not opposed to either, and most gun control advocates are not opposed to handgun ownership for adults who pass background checks and demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills needed to be a responsible gun owner. However, Kates’ data does not specifically compare outcomes of mass shootings, and therefore does not support the claim I challenged. (claim in boldface)
Though your berating words were harsh, I did reflect on them and realized that you are right about me being lazy and not wanting to learn and having a short attention span, I realize now that unlike other adults, I am not capable of exercising free speech by choosing what to read. You seem to know better than I what is worth reading, so could you please post a list of things you want me to read and note how mnay minutes I should spend reading them? Also, could you please write the correct conclusions I should draw after reading them? It is about control isn’t it, Captain Obvious?
1:40 pm on December 22nd, 2012 255
Corrections: in greater context, did a search.
2:49 pm on December 22nd, 2012 256
Sarcasm is the last defense of those who push their opinions while intentionally remaining ignorant of facts they don’t wish to acknowledge. You are certainly free to choose what you read and how much you research a topic you publicly write about but if you voice an opinion yet proudly refuse to read information that contradicts it, do not become indignant at ridicule.
You may also draw any conclusion you want, but if you refuse to acknowledge clearly presented information that contradicts your preconceived notions by calling it irrelevant, don’t get your feelings hurt when you are called on it.
I was wrong, though. In an armed response against criminals, police and civilians do not show the same results. Police shoot an innocent person 5 and a half times more often while killing only a third as many criminals.
A problem with calculating the statistics for spree killers and armed civilians is that they only draw media attention when the spree killer is successful. When they are stopped, they are not newsworthy and not a spree killer. Here is one example of many, if you can spare less than a minute to read something that doesn’t support your anger at those wishing to be armed.
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
Sonagi, your observations and comments about drugs, illegal alien smuggling, gangs, medicated children, the state of the education system and other points seem to come from someone who is very well versed in what they speak of. Not only do I respect that, it leads me to consider things I have not considered and it pushes me to research situations and concepts I am unaware of. After doing some further reading on those topics, I find myself fully in agreement with you and appalled that issues like gun ownership are getting more attention that these serious and growing problems with a much larger affect on society.
As for your desire not to see schools become fortresses, I can agree. As an educator, what is your solution? Disregarding worn out talking points and hyperbole, what is your professional suggestion to make schools safer? Or, since the problem is emotionally charged but statistically trivial, should there be any change at all?
I am interested in your opinion on that.
4:32 pm on December 22nd, 2012 257
Would you please quote the opinion and preconceived notions you are referring to?
5:05 pm on December 22nd, 2012 258
“…most gun control advocates are not opposed to handgun ownership for adults who pass background checks and demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills needed to be a responsible gun owner…”
Bovine Scatology.
The proof is in the VAST amounts of tax dollars they spend to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
If you’re going to support people who are against Americans exercising their Constitutional Rights, don’t try to act like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago don’t exist or are not related to the whole gun control debate.
Just look at how Senator Schumer tries to frame every argument. His speeches are easily accessible. He hates guns in the hands of anyone not in his retinue.
5:07 pm on December 22nd, 2012 259
And I respectfully submit that Israeli schools have been remarkably free from internal and external violence since they armed their staff.
5:17 pm on December 22nd, 2012 260
“At this point, I think we should just throw in the towel and let people buy grenades, cluster bombs, shoulder-fired stinger missiles, whatever.”
You repeated one of the mindless talking points of overused hyperbole by those pushing the anti-gun agenda. Please post a link to any reasonable gun owner or gun group calling to own such things. Confusing a personal rifle and a cluster bomb is foolish and ignorant. Gun ownership is not about having a private military. It is primarily about protection and potential protection from those who look to do harm, and gangs of them.
“‘Strange, I have yet to see ANY firearm load itself and shoot people’ – Neither does anthrax pour itself out of a container. Following your logic, any weapon should be legal to manufacture, sell, and own.”
Again, you have repeated an anti-gun talking point which shows ignorance of the vast majority of gun owners as well as the guns themselves. Around 299,999,975 guns didn’t hurt anybody yesterday. None of them shot themselves. You also must be unaware of biology since, unlike guns, anthrax kills a few people every year without any human intervention.
You are perfectly free to spout this mindless nonsense but don’t get your feelings hurt when someone expects you to take responsibility for your opinion.
5:17 pm on December 22nd, 2012 261
I am not a fan of the NRA, as I consider them to be, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU, a bunch of thugs whose political views support positions that are harmful to the majority of Americans.
I would rather be forced to buy a gun (no, I do not own any firearms) and join a local militia than live within a mile of a gun-free zone. I’d rather all of the murderers, rapists and other armed thugs went straight to Perdition without harming any more children; but that’s not the way the real world works.
As they say, “Wish in one hand and ____ in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.” So build a quick fix, figure out what’s broken, and start repairing the root cause.
Blaming lawful gun ownership while allowing violent criminals back on the streets is hypocrisy. If it’s too expensive to house them, it’s too expensive to let them hurt others, track ‘em down, and re-house them.
5:20 pm on December 22nd, 2012 262
I lean toward pro-second amendment and pro-gun BUT without taking sides, I hate falsehoods and bullshit. This is just as bad as the “Female Israeli Combat Soldier” meme.
There is a picture going around the Internet that I have seen about a dozen times today that claims that Israeli teachers are packing heat. Well, are they? The answer is “NO.” There may be some exceptions in dangerous areas like the West Bank (where five percent of Israelis live), but in general, Israeli teachers are not walking around like it’s the Wild Wild West, strapped with a six shooter. No, our teachers are not focused on shooting, but educating. That doesn’t mean, however, that we don’t protect young students.
In the picture, the students are on an outing. While it appears that the teacher is holding a rifle, I have never seen such a thing in ten years of living here. Rest assured however, they are under armed protection. In most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. And my guess is that the woman with the gun is a security guard, not a teacher.
Secondly, they are not armed in the classroom. Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds? (That would be Hamas) On the other hand. I have never seen a school in Israel that was not fenced in. You must go through a locked gate that is guarded by an armed shomer, a security guard. He or she, on the other hand, is not concerned with educating, but protecting. He or she will ask you why you are there? “What is your child’s name?” “Show me your I.D. card.” And he or she would not let you bring a weapon inside.
These types of massacres don’t seem to happen here for other reasons as well. Despite the stereotype of Israel being a violent nation, it is a million times (slight exaggeration) easier to get a weapon in the US than it is in Israel. Gun Control laws are very strict here.
Two types of people have guns in Israel: Soldiers and those with licenses. Mentally unstable people don’t have guns—and thus, don’t shoot people. And it is not as easy to steal a gun as it is in the US. When you are drafted you go through mental tests to see if there are any red flags. If so, you will be discharged or placed in an area where you would never see a rifle.
Only those with the rank of Captain or Lieutenant Colonel for at least two years can qualify to own a gun after the army. And those who do have guns are taught to guard them carefully. For soldiers who take their weapons home, it must be on their persons at all times or under lock and key.
Losing a weapon will get you a jail sentence, as my wife’s childhood friend, Moti, found out two decades ago. He left his gun in his car because he was just running into a mini-mart. He came back and the gun was gone. He spent six months in jail and God only knows where that gun ended up.
Hunting is not popular in Israel, so it would be rare to see someone with five or six hunting rifles and therefore, neither would their son, who spends ten hours a day playing mortal combat, have access to them.
We are fond of saying Guns don’t kill people, people do… But we could also say that Mentally unstable people who can’t obtain assault rifles or even pistols are far less likely to commit mass murder.
Assault rifles are banned in Israel, except in areas where there is a security risk such as the West Bank.
I don’t think that those who drafted the Second Amendment imagined that those who feel rejected at school or who were bullied would have access not merely to a musket that fires one bullet at a time before reloading, but to an arsenal of pistols, assaults rifles and more, such as in the case of James Holmes, the Joker who killed 12 people earlier this year during a screening of Batman.
I think the amendment was for people like Israelis who live in the West Bank and are under the threat of attack all the time. I am far too ignorant concerning the ‘Gun Control’ issue to give much of an educated opinion. But I don’t like people using Israel as an example, as we make it very difficult to own a gun.
However, I think we should be an example of a country that makes sure that the right people get guns and the wrong people don’t. In 2008 an Arab terrorist opened fire in a Yeshiva (school for religious boys) killing eight young men. An off-duty IDF officer grabbed his gun, just as he was putting his kids to bed. He ran out of the house and into the Yeshiva, where he hunted down the terrorist, shooting him before a security guard also put two bullets in his head.
In another incident not long afterwards, a Arab worker went berserk with his bulldozer turning it into a killing machine. Oron Ben Shimon, an armed civilian, jumped onto the bulldozer along with a soldier. Ben Shimon struggled with the terrorist, while the soldier, at Ben Shimon’s urging, shot him dead, saving many lives.
Israel’s successful gun ownership laws both serve to make sure upstanding, brave and mentally sound citizens have access to guns, and that those who present even a minor threat are prevented from possessing one. It would be a mistake to use Israel as the poster child for more weapons in the US, as our success here is much more connected to limiting weapons and enabling strategies such as gates, fences and armed guards (not armed teachers), to protect our children. Sorry to disappoint, but the truth is important.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx
6:04 pm on December 22nd, 2012 263
I just thumbed through about half the comments since I was here last. It was painful. #187 was correct. There may have been others, but I simply cannot endure reading all of them. 208 from GI Korea made my head hurt! To paraphrase; so I can keep my guns IF I keep them in a storage building, located at a gun range. You Sir are a fool, or you believe gun owners are. They belong with those who own them. At least ONE should be with you at all times. To repeat myself, if the Principle at the CT school had been armed, she could have saved those kids rather than only succeed in getting herself killed. I can only assume that is such a simple concept that it is impossible for many here to understand. As for #192 and the supposed lack of background checks at gun shows. You either did not read my comment, failed to understand English, or willfully ignored it. To repeat, I bought a rifle, they ran my drivers license. They found no warrants. Not complete enough? Someone said something about “machine guns”. I forgot what it was, but isn’t that NOW called a fully automatic gun. Someone else said it was time to “evolve” from the days when the “Constitution” was written. I can only assume they meant that it was time for us to turn to Communism and disarm the people. The entire purpose for the 2nd amendment is to insure the people are armed against their Government. It has nothing to do with shooting ranges or hunting. Those arguments from the left and GI Korea are only meant to placate the supposed ignorant and backward thinking gun owners. Not going to work.
Those kids that everyone is so upset about, would be ALIVE today, if not for a law that made it illegal to defend them.
I know I wasted my time by adding this comment. It is beyond the understanding of most here. It is a simple answer to a simple question. Too simple.
Q: Should we defend ourselves and our children?
A: Of course, by whatever means necessary.
6:05 pm on December 22nd, 2012 264
#258,
Right to bear arms, as in flintlock muskets.
6:06 pm on December 22nd, 2012 265
@Setnaffa:
Gun control advocates nclude anyone who actively supports legal restrictions on gun ownership. My generalization is based on conversations with left-leaning friends, family, and acquaintances and recent posts and comments in social media like Twitter and Facebook.
@Captain Obvious:
The first statement was purely sarcastic. No lib I know personally or.online has expressed the belief that anti-gun control advocates want to legalize private ownership of military weapons. The second statement you have misinterpreted. My comment about anthrax was to correct the favorite meme that guns don’t kill, people do. It is more accurate to to say that people kill with guns (and many other weapons). None of your data dispute this. Comparisons of gun deaths with bathtub drownings and the like are ridiculous because bathtubs, knives, hammers, fists, etc. all have alternate uses. Guns are weapons with no primary alternate uses, and as I’ve already noted in comment #254, I am not opposed to private citizens owning them as long as they pass background checks and demonstrate they know how to use them safely in keeping with the “well-regulated militia” phrase in the Second Amendment.
6:20 pm on December 22nd, 2012 266
Someone else said it was time to “evolve” from the days when the “Constitution” was written. I can only assume they meant that it was time for us to turn to Communism and disarm the people.
I’m not sure what gun control laws have to do with communism. There are many free capitalist societies that have gun control. It seems every time someone is faced with an argument they do not agree with they bust out communism. Yes, many communist governments restricted guns however, not every government which restricted guns is communist.
Many communist governments also require citizens to have a drivers license to operate a vehicle and have made marijuana illegal. They also have a rigged political system to guarantee on the power elite are elected, sounds like the US. By your definition, the US is already communist and has been for at least the last 100 years.
6:37 pm on December 22nd, 2012 267
“Guns are weapons with no primary alternate uses”
Guns are not just for killing people. Guns DO have a primary alternate use. Their existence acts as a deterrent which keeps the barbarians at bay.
“Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
7:53 pm on December 22nd, 2012 268
An object such as a gun is classified as a weapon because of its lethal potential. Whether that potential is realized (killing) or not (deterrent). It is still a weapon. The deterrent effect of possessing a gun owes precisely to its power as a weapon. To provide you with an analogy that might help you understand, consider your automobile, which is a vehicle not only when you drive it but also when it is parked in your garage.
8:26 pm on December 22nd, 2012 269
Since the purpose of the right to bear arms is to enable citizens and states to resist federal oppression, it includes military arms — all kinds of military arms.
8:35 pm on December 22nd, 2012 270
#267,
And a grenade can be used as a nutcracker, and a bayonet can be used for spreading peanut butter on toast, and a 500 pound bomb can be used as a doorstop…
8:35 pm on December 22nd, 2012 271
There are many military arms which are forbidden to posses (or are possessed by a very small number who have hard to get special licenses). So what is the difference?
The federal government divides firearms into two categories; title 1 and title 2. Title 2 guns are machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns (barrels shorter than 16“/18“), destructive devices (rifles greater than ½” bore, bombs) and AOW’s (any other weapons; pen guns, cane guns, smooth bore pistols). The National Firearms Act of 1934 controls the possession of machine guns and other title 2 firearms. Title 1 guns are ordinary rifles, handguns and shotguns that you can buy at Walmart or other gun stores without ATF authorization.
Title 2 guns are not banned, but in order for an unlicensed person to buy or make them, they have to pay a $200 tax ($5 to buy AOW‘s) to the ATF and have the required ATF form 4 (to buy) or ATF form 1 (to make). Approval of the forms is routine and they are easy to fill out. There are hefty fines (up to $500,000) and jail time (10 to 25 years) for those who do not follow the rules though.
The ATF form 1 and 4’s are not permits or licenses; just proof the tax was paid. The only people who need a federal firearms license (FFL) are those retailers that deal in title 1 or 2 firearms. For title 2 firearms, they also pay the special occupational tax of $500-$1000 a year to import (class 1), manufacture (class 2) or deal (class 3).
In May of 1986 Reagan signed a bill into law that prohibited the registration of new machine guns for civilian use. Those FFL/SOT’s that make machine guns now can only sell them to other dealers or government agencies (FBI, US Army etc). Machine guns registered before May 1986 can be sold to anyone that lives in a state where they not banned and is 21 years or older. Since all parts can be replaced except for the auto-sear and the receiver, the machine guns are very durable and command very high prices; $4000 and up. Check out http://www.subguns.com for more info. This website also has state law summaries.
9:08 pm on December 22nd, 2012 272
Teadrinker (#270) wrote:
I was going to make the exact same point, but I had trouble finding a still of Chief Wiggum, Springfield’s finest, using his police-issue revolver as a nutcracker.
“Let that be a lesson to you… nuts!”
1:14 am on December 23rd, 2012 273
# 263 Retired GI,
“To repeat myself, if the Principle at the CT school had been armed, she could have saved those kids rather than only succeed in getting herself killed.”
So a new job skill requirement for principles should be to buy a gun, learn to use/proper training like that of a police officer, and practice regularly? Nonsense
Guns at schools/kids don’t match. There would be 26 accidental deaths per year if you let principles carry/conceal weapons. 
The good news is that investment/pension funds and State(Connecticut) Treasurer may dump investing with gun makers.
Heart disease, cancer, and lung disease research is conducted every year by the feds to find ways to reduce deaths, so why not do the same on gun related deaths
Follow the money:
‘Gun Deaths Cost U.S. Tens of Billions Each Year While Firearms Makers Thrive(nearly 1 billion per year)’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html
“Guns were the most common means of homicides and suicides, the latter of which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the deaths. Suicide by firearm was the leading cause of violence-related injury deaths in 2010, followed by homicides with firearms, the CDC reported. Together, they made up 57 percent of violent deaths.
Gun-related fatalities are on pace to surpass deaths from automobile collisions by 2015, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.
Combining the direct medical costs of treating fatal gun injuries with the economic damage of lost lives, firearms-related deaths cost the United States $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which a CDC estimate is available. Non-fatal gun injuries cost an additional $3.7 billion that year, according to the agency.
UNLIKE FOR OTHER MAJOR CAUSES OF DEATH — heart disease, cancer and and lung disease, for example — FEDERAL MEDICAL RESEARCH AGENCIES ARE FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO FINANCE STUDIES THAT AIM TO finance studies that aim to reduce the harm from guns or, as the law phrases it, “advocate or promote gun control.”
…according to a report issued by the market-research company IBISWorld. Revenues have grown 5.7 percent since 2007, the report says, and the murders in Newtown have sparked a surge in gun sales in recent days.
The Freedom Group, Colt Defense and other large gun makers are privately owned and don’t have to disclose financial information, but publicly traded firms do. According to their most recent annual reports as compiled by Yahoo! Finance, Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. earned $58.5 million in profits on $501 million in sales; Sturm, Ruger & Co. had $61.4 million in profit from $443.4 million in revenue; and Winchester manufacturer Olin Corp., which also is in the chemicals business, had profits of $133.7 million on $2.04 billion in sales.”
2:32 am on December 23rd, 2012 274
These comparative crime statistics about Teadrinker’s great white Canadian paradise sure are interesting.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
Highlights are:
- 92% more assaults in Canada
- Double the number of rapes
- percentage of the population as a victim of a crime is 13% higher
- 9%-18% more suicide
How is that possible without all those guns?
6:03 am on December 23rd, 2012 275
#274,
Your source is garbage.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm
http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/m/mfc/41-240.nsf/0/10ff8b04ff3a317885256d88005720f6/$FILE/ATT8BNDV/0110185-002-XIE.pdf
7:10 am on December 23rd, 2012 276
Leon 271, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those federal laws which you discuss are major infractions. If freedom-loving states and citizens are to resist federal oppression, they’ll need everything the Pentagon has.
10:14 am on December 23rd, 2012 277
The Joker, the highlight would also be 144 gun deaths in Canada versus 9,369 in the United States, 64 times higher.
Did I miss it, or was homicides in general not listed?
11:10 am on December 23rd, 2012 278
Teadrinker don’t give 12-18 year old statistics and then say modern statistics are garbage.
Canada is the rape capital of the English speaking world. Maybe the French world too.
http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1055%26context%3Dundergrad_rev&sa=U&ei=rkXXUIjKFMT8iwKK1oDwDg&ved=0CDMQFjABOAo&usg=AFQjCNFlJ8BcwfpLRAEP4g4Cl_D7dIH69g
11:19 am on December 23rd, 2012 279
Rape rates rely heavily on how they’re compiled. Ironically, a country that emphasizes reporting to help reduce it ends up looking like it has a lot more than countries that don’t, or at least aren’t as aggressive on it. Compare Korea or Japan with the United States, for example.
I’d put more stock in a suggestion that rape actually happens twice as much in Canada than the US if I could compare how the stats were compiled.
11:19 am on December 23rd, 2012 280
Kushibo I am not black, I don’t live in a low-income neighborhood and I don’t have a criminal record. Without the big three, I am as safe from gun crime as a Canadian.
12:49 pm on December 23rd, 2012 281
The Joker, neither were the kids in Connecticut.
1:05 pm on December 23rd, 2012 282
Great soundbyte. Poor logic.
1:39 pm on December 23rd, 2012 283
Poor logic? You’re the one bagging on urban Blacks after a White guy shot up two dozen suburbanites.
What is the number of gun-related homicides involving only White people?
5:04 pm on December 23rd, 2012 284
I would say let Americans have their toys. Let them kill themselves off. It’s always amusing to read the news of the mass shoot up in the mornings. I can start off with the chuckle of the day.
8:27 pm on December 23rd, 2012 285
Half of people killed by guns are black. Something like 75% of all gun murder victims have a criminal record. The majority live in cities. Most have the wrong friends and acquaintances. Almost all spouse shootings have a history of domestic violence involving the police. I fit none of these categories of which almost all gun victims fit into except the very few touched by random violence. As tragic as it is, it is very few.
Of 300, 000, 000 people, the chances of me being affected are higher than having a big win in the lottery but much, much less than a car accident or death by fall. Anybody with math skills will spend their effort keeping cars away from young and old people or campaign against high fructose corn suryp.
8:41 pm on December 23rd, 2012 286
If the chance of getting killed if you’re not one of those groups is so narrow, it sounds like you’ve made the case that having guns for protection (if you’re not one of those groups) is unnecessary.
8:47 pm on December 23rd, 2012 287
Oh, and by the way, if half of all the murder victims are Black, then if you take the number of non-Blacks in America (a population more similar in make-up to that of Canada) and calculate in the number of murders by guns, it’s still some 3 to 4 times higher than in Canada.
I, on the other hand, would rather not write off the victims of gun violence just because they’re Black. I suspect that more important than being Black, it’s a function of being in a low socioeconomic status (i.e., middle-class and upper-class Blacks are less likely to be killed by guns, and poor Whites are more likely to be killed by guns).
And if that’s the case, even if the racial makeup were similar to that of Canada, but given the guns and culture that exist in the United States, the rate of gun deaths would remain much higher than in Canada, as it already is with non-Blacks in America.
8:49 pm on December 23rd, 2012 288
Tom (#284), you really shouldn’t be so glib. You should read the writing on the wall and note that your beloved China is reaching meltdown point, and you see a lot of crazies running around committing violence on each other. Worse, when you see things like that decapitation that happened to that foreign exchange student from China by another student from China, some of that violence from China is reaching North America.
9:35 pm on December 23rd, 2012 289
My chance of being a gun crime victim is very low but I still keep a gun. The chance of my house burning down is very low but I still have fire insurance.
You make your personal choice about gun ownership and I will accept that. I will make mine and you will accept that. Go hassle crazy people, poor people, black people, gang people, drug selling people or any of the people known to be a problem. Don’t hassle the 100, 000, 000 Americans who are not.
9:53 pm on December 23rd, 2012 290
I’ll do that. I’m going to also hassle White people and Asians who might engage in mass shootings or have an arsenal that allows other dangerous White people to engage in mass shootings. You seem to have left them off your list, even though the only ones involved in the mass shootings we’re talking here are White people and Asians.
In the meantime, since we’re talking about devices that are designed to kill, I’m going to advocate “hassling” by requiring full and consistent licensing, registration, and education until I can be sure which of the 100 million Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are the ones who are going to commit the 9000 or so gun homicides each year. But not so much that law-abiding people who do not pose a threat to others are not able to get reasonable weapons for self-protection and hunting.
1:52 am on December 24th, 2012 291
Your suggestions sound good from an emotional standpoint.
Except the total number of victims for ALL school shootings in American history (~134) is around two or three months of bicycle fatalities (600-800/yr).
It might even be less because the statistics were for “List of rampage killers: School massacres” which weren’t all done with guns.
The total number of victims in rampage killing in US history, including schools, is under 600. That is less than a year of bicycle deaths.
Your priorities are misguided because you are poor at math or your motives are dishonest. Six hundred deaths by less than 20 people throughout history are not enough to hassle 100,000,000 Americans who have done nothing.
If you want to save lives or do it for the children, take away bicycles.
1:55 am on December 24th, 2012 292
Got it. We don’t need to worry about restricting firearms to prevent school shootings because it’s really not that many people, and we don’t need to worry about gun violence in general because it’s mostly just Black people and urban people getting killed.
2:11 am on December 24th, 2012 293
289. I’m pro-gun but let’s not d!ck dance around the facts. Simply owning a gun raises the likelihood of being involved in gun violence. For myself, living in Korea, the chances of being victim of gun violence is essentially nil.
4:01 am on December 24th, 2012 294
#293, Everyone I know owns a gun but I never hear of Swiss citizens committing a crime using a gun. If America wants people armed then make it mandatory for all males to carry a firearm and take mandatory training to use it. I can attest that an issue and train system works, gun crimes are usually committed by foreigners and usually end in the criminal being apprehended.
5:26 am on December 24th, 2012 295
294. Victim of the fiction, eh? Be careful spouting off about Israel and Switzerland. It betrays your lack of knowledge and you just might get what you ask for.
Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
My post “12 facts about guns and mass shootings” included a mention of Israel and Switzerland, societies where guns are reputed to be widely available, but where gun violence is rare. Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School, has actually researched this question, and she wrote to tell me I had it wrong. We spoke shortly thereafter on the phone. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Ricky Carioti — The Washington Post
Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.
Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.
EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.
JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.
EK: I was surprised by one statistic in your article: You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.
JR: That’s a requirement. I don’t know a great deal about the ballistics issue there. But that is in the regulations.
EK: Israel and Switzerland are both small, highly cohesive countries. So some say that the difference in gun crime shows that there’s something about American culture that’s leading to these atrocities. Do you buy that?
JR: Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and punching type of violence. I don’t know that Switzerland has that reputation. But Israel does, and it seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward peacefulness and cohesion. That cohesion may or may not exist, but not having guns prevents guns from being used in violence. People do still commit homicide and suicide but they do it with less lethal means. The most common form of suicide in Israel is strangulation, which is striking, because it’s not that common elsewhere.
EK: Not to derail the conversation, but given that most industrialized countries have quite strict gun laws, if they don’t use strangulation, what do they use?
JR: I don’t know what other countries have, but I’ve read about suicide in Israel, and it’s striking there, because there’s an age discrepancy. Between ages 18 and 21, when people are in the army and have access to guns, firearm suicide is very common. At other ages, strangulation is very common. So it does seem to suggest that people commit suicide with what they have access to even in the same society.
7:02 am on December 24th, 2012 296
Piers Morgan opposes gun rights. Therefore, deport him. AP has the big story.
7:25 am on December 24th, 2012 297
#295, I was born and raised in Switzerland, my two brothers and I have legal to own SIG Sauer hand guns. In a few years I have to return my weapon to be altered to maintain my ownership. Why do you spend so much time trying to refute someones origin? The story you included in your last post was BS, my country does the best job in the world at teaching people to be responsible with firearms, America should follow some of our ideals when it comes to owning a weapon. It isn’t the weapon that is the problem it is education and mentality that keep us from acting like we are in the wild-wild-west.
7:29 am on December 24th, 2012 298
295. Are we reading the same thing?
7:38 am on December 24th, 2012 299
Scanned the comments again. It is amazing out little confidence you have in your fellow Americans. I recall that Bloomberg said recently that he knew of no 19 year old that was responsible enough to own a gun. I can’t help but wonder what is/was wrong with him, and it seems also, some of you fine people.
How can I trust a school system to educate my kids, when I can’t trust them to protect my kids. Someone stated that if educators where allowed to carry a weapon, there would be more accidental shootings. A sad statement about American Teachers indeed. It seems they cannot follow a simple safety briefing. How can I expect someone so stupid to educate my kids? I can’t.
I have been around guns my entire life. There is a loaded pistol in the next room as I sit here. It seems I’m able to follow instructions a great deal better than American Teachers. Quite a sad statement about Teachers! Speaking of Teachers, six of them would still be among the living if one of them had a pistol on them that day. That is simple logic. If you fail to agree, it is because you do not wish to, as it is a logical statement. Guns are like any device. They do what the one in control of them uses them for.
Guns in the home increase gun violence? Rubbish. Those who are educated on gun use do not go around shooting up the place as anti-gun nuts wish to believe.
The real danger are the zones they call “gun free”. There are evil and crazed people out there. As we saw in CT, one who wises to do evil will find a way. The only way to stop them is to meet force with force. Gun free zones do not work as some of you wish they would. That is a simple fact.
Now, please continue with the hair pulling and teeth baring. The simple truth is that guns are as safe as the owner is. Just as cars are.
9:15 am on December 24th, 2012 300
Be careful, Leon. There is quite a bit of misinformation out there. Some of it goes one way and some of it goes the other.
9:44 am on December 24th, 2012 301
I have an idea about gun registration.
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?gcheck=1
Since there is no privacy once companies or government get your information, I have a better idea.
FARK OFF.
10:30 am on December 24th, 2012 302
Wow. To those of you who wish for more gun registration, regulation and restriction, be advised the level of trust between citizens and government is probably the biggest roadblock. This is a perfect example. Good job, registration. It is a roadmap for criminals to steal guns.
10:31 am on December 24th, 2012 303
The same way we expect someone stupid enough to shoot his friend in the face during a hunting trip is smart enough to be vice-president. Only dumb people injure or kill people in firearms accidents, right, Retired GI? George Bush picked as his vice-president a guy dumb enough not follow a simple safety briefing, and you voted for both of them. Twice. What can we infer about your intelligence and judgement?
Apparently you scrolled past the posts noting that teo armed guards failed to stop two teenaged boys slaughtering their classmates at columbine. The VT police dept. couldn’t stop Cho Seung-hee. Ft. Hood is a frickin’ military base! Adam Lanza blasted his way into a locked school with the same kind of high-powered weaponry that repelled an armed security guard at Columbine, a school staff member armed with a pistol would have stood little chance against Lanza’s superior firepower. That is simple logic supported by facts. If you fail to agree, then I will breathe a sigh of relief that you are no longer paid to defend our country.
2:04 pm on December 24th, 2012 304
Crazy right wingers move from PSY petition to Piers Morgan petition
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-gains-internet-fame/
A petition asking President Obama to deport CNN anchor Piers Morgan gathered more than 33,000 signatures in just three days.
The petition on the White House’s “We the People” website posted Friday has crossed the 25,000 threshold needed to solicit a response from President Obama. But unlike the petitions to reduce gun violence that Obama addressed last week, this one isn’t likely to receive a favorable response.
The petition takes aim at Morgan for his impassioned defense of proposed gun control legislation on air this week. It accuses him of launching “a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment.”
2:09 pm on December 24th, 2012 305
Retired GI, you might be interested in this account of the Sandy Hook shooting by a teacher who survived:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252911/Becky-Virgalla-Reading-consultant-tells-heroic-Sandy-Hook-principal-psychologist-saved-life-confronting-shooter.html
According to you, these staff members could have killed the gunman if they had had guns, the principal and the psychologist did not know what kind of situation was occurring when they left a meeting to venture into the hallway. The only staff member who would have had access to her weapon is the one whose office was hosting the meeting to were you thinking that school personnel should all wear our guns in holsters like law enforcement? Americans like you are exactly why the rest of the world thinks we’re f*cking nuts.
2:32 pm on December 24th, 2012 306
We don’t THINK you’re f*cking nuts, we KNOW you’re f*cking nuts.
2:34 pm on December 24th, 2012 307
Firefighters may also need armed security details.
2:44 pm on December 24th, 2012 308
P.S, The shooter in this incident @307 was a convicted felon, so he shouldn’t have been able to obtain the guns he had legally. If they can trace the source of those guns it may help identify and nail down a crack that others may be exploiting in the system.
4:03 pm on December 24th, 2012 309
A pistol in a holster might not be enough. A teacher, and now a firefighter, should have a carbine on a sling. A principal, and a fire captain, should have a .50-calibre machine gun in the office. No, that would be dangerous. The machine gun should be in a secure arms room.
When Cheney had his little accident, he should have been impeached and removed. See? It wasn’t his gun’s fault, it was his fault.
4:59 pm on December 24th, 2012 310
300. Bingo!
5:08 pm on December 24th, 2012 311
304. Look on the bright side. We now know we have 33,000 morons running loose and the government knows where they are.
5:50 pm on December 24th, 2012 312
You know we have way more than 33,000 morons running loose, Leon.
6:02 pm on December 24th, 2012 313
312. No doubt. I’m still waiting to see if any of the people with clearances who signed the succession petitions will lose their security clearances. They certainly should.
6:27 pm on December 24th, 2012 314
#233,
Nice try. Compare those stats with those of other countries, like Canada, Japan, and South Korea.
Teadrinker, why should I? The US is how big compared to those countries? The population is higher than all 3 of them combined. US 300 Milion+ Canada, South Korea, and Japan roughly 200 Million.
I too have heard many arguments and one I keep hearing is that we should ban guns. So how goes that enforcing the gun laws that were passed back in 1969 going? The law enforcment authorities can’t enforce the gun laws WE ALREADY HAVE! What makes anyone think they can enforce new gun laws? We have a government that sells ILLEGAL weapons to Mexican drug smugglers and the SAME ADMINISTRATION that can’t figure who was in charge of that program, wants to pass new gun laws? How about actually ENFORCING the gun laws we already have in place?
DC, LA, and Chicago already have some of the strictest gun laws and how many illegal guns are in the hands of criminals? Just how many gangs are in those cities and yet law enforcement can’t put those people away in jail?
The argument that the best solution to the gun violence is to ban guns has been saying that very same argument for more than 40 years now and every time they pass new laws, more deaths occur. Does anyone ever wonder why? Because the goal of these laws is to disarm the average citizen and to keep guns in the hands of the criminals. It must be because if law enforcement ever actually took to enforcing our current gun laws, we should have every criminal locked up behind bars…
6:30 pm on December 24th, 2012 315
Error message:
Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home/rokdropc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in /home/rokdropc/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990
chefantwon
6:27 pm on December 24th, 2012 314
Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home/rokdropc/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in /home/rokdropc/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990
6:58 pm on December 24th, 2012 316
Keep hearing from where? Commenters on this thread and national leaders in the media have called for a ban on machine guns and other automatic weapons, not guns in general. There is a national push for requiring background checks on all gun buyers, including those at gun shows.
12:22 am on December 25th, 2012 317
Machine guns and other automatic weapons have been virtually banned since the 30s. A big problem with those calling for more regulation is they know very little about firearms, except what they learn from Hollywood.
For those of you pushing more registration schemes, I would like some sort of comment on the personal information for registered gun owners being made public. This is a disservice to gun owners and non-gun owners alike. It not only acts as a map for acquiring black market firearms, it also acts as a guide to what houses are potentially safe for criminals acts.
1:09 am on December 25th, 2012 318
John Smith (#317), I am uncomfortable with the idea of making gun registration information public in the way that you presented earlier, for the very reasons that you stated in the second half of your comment.
1:13 am on December 25th, 2012 319
Sonagi, the NRA’s idea to put armed guards in schools is so stupid that only 1/3 of American schools already do it according to that conservative rag, The New York Times.
“Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days.”
Speaking of comments, why is there no comment on the dangers of bicycles. They kill many more people in a year than rampage killers have killed in the history of the United States? Come on, let’s ban bicycles to save lives. Let’s do it for the children.
6:19 am on December 25th, 2012 320
Is that right, John Smith?
http://www.internationalpolicesupply.net/ownmg.htm
Joker, those armed police are there to deter students who might hide pistols in their backpacks, not lunatics with assault weapons.
7:24 am on December 25th, 2012 321
#314,
1) The US is smaller than Canada in terms of territory.
2) Don’t get what “per capita” means?
3) Are you sure you want to make that argument? I can think of several countries with a larger population than the US that don’t have the same level of problem with firearms.
#319,
Bring up bicycles is a slippery slope argument unless people start using bikes as weapons, Mad Max style.
7:35 am on December 25th, 2012 322
That is right Sonagi. You certainly noticed I said “virtually banned”. I did not say banned and I did not say illegal. Please argue with what I said and not with what you want to believe.
I am also unclear what impact banning “machine guns and other automatic weapons” would have on crime considering the link you supplied mention that there has only been one crime since 1934, “and the user was a police officer”. I will again state that “A big problem with those calling for more regulation is they know very little about firearms, except what they learn from Hollywood.”
It is possible there would be more cooperation from gun owners if the anti-gun movement would rely more on facts than emotion and would make some sort of guarantee that registration could never turn into confiscation. The ease with which private information about registered gun owners was released to the public should set back any calls for registration by years and will certainly reduce compliance.
There is very little trust between a large percentage of law-abiding gun owners and the government. This will have to be overcome through legal protections and some years of moderate and trustworthy behavior on the government’s part if there is any chance of a registration system to be successfully implemented. As for it being effective, probably not. Criminals will not cooperate under any circumstances.
Your suggestion that armed police are only there to check for pistols in backpacks is ridiculous. There is no need to be armed if your job is looking in backpacks. Your views on professional security and law enforcement is both disrespectful and illogical. None of the “lunatics” have had any sort of firearms combat training yet you suggest they are more capable than a trained professional. If you think the size of the gun is the deciding factor, you once again show your ignorance of firearms.
I believe you are a teacher. Stick to educating children and let the firearms and security decisions be made by those with training and experience.
8:02 am on December 25th, 2012 323
What a trash third world country
Not only police, but also teachers, fire fighters, kids, and little old grannnies need to pack a punch in their pants. Give the gun to everyone and make it a law for everyone to carry one at all times.
Now all we need here is someone to come in here and mass shoot up this place and clean up all the white rednecks.
Only in America.
8:35 am on December 25th, 2012 324
Since the 30s? Well, that certainly explains why the federal government passed a law in 1986 banning the sale of NEWLY manufacturers machine guns to civilians while allowing transfers of ownership in states where it is lawful.
I do not think the size of gun is as important as its capabilities. As already noted multiple times on this thread, two teen boys managed to repel a security guard at Columbine, so disrespectful and illogical, isn’t it? That security guard was a trained professional, John Smith, so I don’t understand how this could happen.
Tell that to Retired GI and other nuts who want to arm school teachers.
9:04 am on December 25th, 2012 325
Merry Christmas. And all you liberals should stay in gun-free zones where it’s safe.
9:10 am on December 25th, 2012 326
#316 is frankly scatology. The push is to ban >>all<< private firearms. Stop being disingenuous or naive. And stop trying to limit anyone's Constitutionals rights, whether or not they choose to exercise them. I don't tell you to "shut up", just don't spread misinformation. Look at the legislation actually being pushed, not just the public speeches. The definitions being put into bills will ban every privately-owned firearm.
9:47 am on December 25th, 2012 327
Give it up. Gun owners and those who want to take them away speak two entirely different languages. One language understands guns and one does not. On the bright side, people get what they ask for. If guns are banned for everyone but criminals, those who believed the strongest in the bans and have no off-the-books firearms will suffer the most. Those pushing the bans the loudest often have plenty of security and armed guard in their children’s schools. They also frequently are found to own private firearms. I didn’t expect to change anyone’s mind but I didn’t expect gun supporters to be so quiet and gun grabbers to avoid a lot of the interesting statistical information that has come up here and arguing in the most insincere way possible on every point. Good luck.
10:09 am on December 25th, 2012 328
Which local, state, or federal bills would you like me to look up, Setnaffa? Browsing the list of bills in Congress, some of which restrict firearms ownership while other loosen egylations, I could not find a single bill banning all private firearms. Quit spreading disinformation, Setnaffa. Even DC does not ban guns. It only requires registration and restricts where an owner may possess them.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/district-of-columbia.aspx
4:39 pm on December 25th, 2012 329
This should put a little humor into this. Guns don’t make you a killer, being a killer makes you a killer. You can kill a person with a car or a baseball bat, but no one is trying to take your car away from you so you can’t drive to the baseball game!
5:00 pm on December 25th, 2012 330
Sonagi 316, you missed MY post where I attempted to educate you on the fact that there is not a “gun show” loophole. Must be one of those facts you don’t want to know.
There is a ban on fully automatic weapons and Machine guns NOW Sonagi. Look it up!
What Obama is talking about is SEMI-automatic. You should look that up also. If you wish to actually sound INFORMED.
The Principal was killed when she confronted the supposed gunman. It doesn’t take much intelligence to know she would have been much more effective if she had been armed, now does it. So that leaves you Sonagi as not only being uninformed on gun laws but also with an anti-gun agenda.
When you add up the “Fast & Furious” operation, the Benghazi mistake, and now this high profile/low facts event in Sandy Hook, I starting to see a much larger picture of Obama attempting to damage the Constitution with these events. To inflame the ignorant to rise up against private gun ownership. Either to push his anti-gun agenda or to take attention away from his failed economy and numerous + obvious mistakes as President.
Now you go ahead and try to be clever Sonagi, but before you try, at least look up the gun laws already on the books.
9:34 pm on December 25th, 2012 331
Tom wrote:
Tom –
I see you are still dodging the question. How about humoring us with a response.
So here goes for the fourth time: Have you ever spent ANY time in Korea as an adult??
If so, when/for how long?
9:38 pm on December 25th, 2012 332
I thought TOM and Tom were two different commenters.
11:14 am on December 26th, 2012 333
The libertarian organization FreedomWorks was unable to resist an armed coup by Dick Armey. To get rid of him, they had to promise him eight million dollars. Why did FreedomWorks have to submit? Because they failed to exercise their second-amendment rights: he brought a man with a gun, and they had no guns. Read the sad story by Amy Gardner at WashingtonPost.
11:14 am on December 26th, 2012 334
I submitted a comment, but it disappeared.
11:33 am on December 26th, 2012 335
Don’t trust the gun grabbers when they say it’s only simple registration or a ban on some unsporting rifle. Their strategy is death by a thousand cuts.
First it’s universal registration and licensing, then they leak your address, then your guns are stolen, then more restrictions or bans because registration is not enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It could also be one of many other scenarios.
Before you laugh this off as impossible, this same government intentionally sold “high power military style assault rifles” to known criminals, drug runners, gangsters, human traffickers and murderers who are known to do violence on both sides of the border. They had no plan to track them except if they happen to be left lying around AFTER some tragedy.
2:55 pm on December 26th, 2012 336
I don’t trust comment grabbers.
4:25 pm on December 26th, 2012 337
334. You mean like the smoking rules…
4:57 pm on December 26th, 2012 338
Glans, I pulled your comment out if the spam trap. It is posted now.
5:23 pm on December 26th, 2012 339
The accused has become the accuser, funny how this type of thing comes back around.
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/samsung-seeks-us-sales-ban-on-some-ericsson-products
5:42 pm on December 26th, 2012 340
Glans, regarding Di¢k Armey and FreedomWorks, the former is a joke that writes itself, and the latter reminds me of the German expression “Arbeit macht frei.”
6:11 pm on December 26th, 2012 341
By the way Glans I read your link. Wow
Regarding the super PACs Frontline had a good program recently about them, Big Sky, Big Money:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
4:52 am on December 27th, 2012 342
Tom Horne, the attorney general of Arizona, has proposed that the principal (or other designee) of each school should have a firearm in a secure place. Has Mr Horne been reading ol’ Glans’s comments at the ROK Drop? Here’s the CNN story with contributions from Greg Morrison.
7:29 am on December 27th, 2012 343
Looks like things are getting progressively worse along the border, no matter what Obama says to the contrary (and the criminals are better armed than what little Border Patol there is along the actual border): http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/26/16047580-faced-with-gun-toting-drug-smugglers-arizona-ranchers-demand-security-at-the-border
10:16 am on December 27th, 2012 344
John 343, yes, the federal government should do more. The State of Arizona should do more. The counties should do more. And the ranchers should form a well-regulated militia.
Also, marijuana shouldn’t be illegal.
By the way, this news report shows that NBC News isn’t in the tank for Obama. Just in case you ever thought so.
10:51 am on December 27th, 2012 345
Well I sure don’t reckon I know what to make of all this. Seems like every one of them shooters is taking some sort of pills.
Now Glans Im thinking a shooting iron in a secure place aint going to be real easy to get to when you find you have yourself a use for one.
After reading every single comment here it looks like we gots ourselves three choices. We can do nothing or we can get us some guards or we can let teachers carry guns.
1 It looks like getting shot down at school aint near as common as suicide or drug overdose or even getting yourself killed in a school bus accident. Maybe doing nothing is just as good as doing something.
2 A security guard might stop some crazy or he might be the first target once he gets comfortable and stops paying attention. Plus he is real expensive compared to them other choices. Them chances of needing him are real low so if I was to get out my calculator Im betting it aint worth it. Unless of course its your kid that gets shot. One other thing about that, most teachers I know are a heck of a lot smarter than most of the security guards I met. I think Id trust a teacher with a gun a lot farther than some guy that they wouldnt hire at the mall.
3 Now that Sonagi gal dont seem to think teachers are capable of using a gun or being trained to use one. What the heck kind of teachers they got in her school? Lots of teachers is ex military and lots more got themselves a gun or three. Why not train them up on school security real good on their own time and let them carry concealed if they want. Heck, just knowing there might be a teacher or two ready to shoot back might discourage a whole lot of crazy. Like that theater shooter who went out of his way to a farther theater that happened to be the only one posting a sign not allowing concealed guns. He knew which side his bread was buttered on.
Im thinking if I was mathematically inclined I do nothing. If I was wanting to do something Id arm them teachers. If wanted to make a show Id hire me some guards. I dont know enough about it to make up my mind right now.
I heard a lot talk here but I aint heard nobody give their clear idea about these here choices and any others I didnt think of. Lets hear from school teachers and police bout their idea real clear on all three of them choices. Matteroffact label them 1 2 3 so it dont get all mixed up where I cant make no sense of it.
2:06 pm on December 27th, 2012 346
Bobby Ray, I said the .50-calibre machine gun should be in the arms room. The pistols should be in holsters, and the carbines should be on slings.
I could add that the school should have a cupola where reliable kids could watch out for bad people trying to infiltrate the campus. Give the young uns some experience of responsibility for their own safety.
3:25 pm on December 27th, 2012 347
An update to 333: Mr Armey’s side of the story, from MotherJones.
3:26 pm on December 27th, 2012 348
GI Korea, I submitted an update to 333. Please retrieve it from the spam trap. Sorry.
5:50 pm on December 27th, 2012 349
John Smith, please take a look at the gun legislation that was enacted back in 1968. Part of that law covered the sale of automatic weapons (machine guns to you folks from Loma Linda). Part of the regulation covered that people who sold firearms had to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) of which there are several types. Just a reminder, here is a section of the 1986 gun laws some of you may for usefull:
Clarification of prohibited persons
Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state.
Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[10]
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
If you know anyone that falls under the above catageories, please notify your local police or the BATF. For certain folks, (gang bangers) they may need several thousand busses. To take them all to jail.
5:57 pm on December 27th, 2012 350
Another snippet, this one about the famous Brady law:
From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent.[17] For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.[18] In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal.[17] In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.
Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[19]
So, why are not people going to jail????????
11:22 pm on December 27th, 2012 351
Why don’t they go to jail? The government likes cherry picking. They will viciously hunt down and ruin average citizens who are easy to find with something to lose over trivial or victimless crime. The door of justice easily revolves for career criminals who are hard to convict, a hassle to deal with and a burden to the system in general. These criminals have little to lose that can’t be quickly replaced with more crime.
2:24 am on December 28th, 2012 352
346. That doesn’t sound like America. More like Mad Max or the Turner Diaries. WTF? Is that really the best we can do? Is that our legacy to future generations?
8:07 am on December 28th, 2012 353
Glans sir you are a child. We are trying to have ourselves an adult conversation about serious things. The future of our country. You rattle on with a heap of childish nonsense and then Leon takes you seriously and goes and makes himself a comment on it. Nobody done even bothered to give their serious thinking on what to do here. Them folks that were spilling all sorts of hateful poison about Americans and gun owners got themselves real quiet too when it got down to brass tacks. But if that scoundrel Tom goes and says all Americans should just go and shoot each other with bazookas everybody suddenly has something real smartsounding to say. What the heck is wrong with you people?
10:45 am on December 28th, 2012 354
Bobby Ray, homeland security begins with household security, then continues through schoolyard security and workplace security. Up to now, you’ve given this blog some serious analysis, colorfully expressed. Please don’t descend to insults.
1:19 am on December 29th, 2012 355
Hey Sonagi!
Here are the first 500 cuts of the death by a thousand cuts. This will be introduced by Senator Feinstein in January and comes from her website. You probably don’t know enough about guns to recognize how strict this will be on tough looking weapons and how ineffective it will be on deadly weapons. Without the real problems being looked at, the next school shooting will involve something not on this list and there will be calls for the next few hundred cuts. It will also be a hassle and expense for law-abiding citizens and of no consequence for criminals. This isn’t a total gun ban but it certainly heads down that slope. The definitions are overreaching and can be used to affect guns that aren’t presented at the target. The 900 exempted guns mostly have little use for defense, especially in a home setting or if there is more than one attacker. The grandfathering sounds great until you realize the gun has to be turned over to the government upon death of the owners as it cannot be transferred. This makes it a gun ban that simply goes into effect after a generation.
A reasonable prediction based on history is the compliance rate will be low and the government will spend a lot of money chasing down law-abiding but distrustful gun owners in a War on Guns which will be about as effective as the War on Drugs and Prohibition. Guns will just be another big moneymaker for cartels as they bring them into America. More effort will be spent chasing down average citizens who possess off the books gun than will be spent chasing down the criminals who use guns. It will be like curfew enforcement or underage drinking in Korea where there is more worry about the rules than the reasons the rules were made.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02
When Senator Feinstein felt threatened she got a concealed carry permit and armed herself. You can google the video from 1995 of her bragging about it. She said, “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.” As usual, gun control only applies to everyone else.
2:03 am on December 29th, 2012 356
Pen caps cause 100 deaths a year.
These deaths occur when people play with pen caps in their mouths and the cap slips in too far, creating a choking hazard. Though it could seem a little far-fetched that so many deaths could be caused annually by choking on such a miscellaneous object, let’s not forget that a choking hazard almost took the life of our 43rd president.
You might be wondering how there are so many deaths if most pen caps have holes in them. Those holes actually exist to prevent choking and allow a passageway of air. Before most pens began using them, the number of choking deaths was actually higher. Still, most of these deaths are from small children choking, and since toddlers put objects in their mouths to examine them, the pen cap isn’t always the direct culprit.
/the future is uncertain and the end is always near
//the world is a dangerous place
///the universe is indifferent
////happy new year
5:13 am on December 29th, 2012 357
Dianne Feinstein also supports Barack Obama’s destruction of the Fourth Amendment. Glen Greenwald explains at the Guardian.
Silly people who think the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is part of Obama’s base should definitely click that link.
10:38 am on December 29th, 2012 358
Say there Glans that aint quite on topic there but its close. Now what do you make of someone who supports doing away with that due process and probable cause and all that other legal stuff thats supposed to keep the government from abusing the people and then turns around and supports disarming the public with anything more than a pop gun that has to be in government database.
Now if I was to hear this story in North Korea or some communist country Id just nod my head and say sure. But this here is America and the exact same thing that got drilled into my head about why America was better than them Soviets is now being taken away. You think they at least could wait till my generation died off.
And it is just icing on the cake to learn that Feinstein broad got herself a concealed pistol.
5:12 am on January 2nd, 2013 359
The “authorities” in New York had a search warrant because of “possible credit card fraud”. They found that a couple, not even accused of any violent act, were keeping arms. They also had a “terrorist encyclopedia”. They supposedly had “drug problems”. The lady was nine months pregnant, so she gave birth in custody. Read the big story and weep for your Bill of Rights.
4:43 pm on January 3rd, 2013 360
I wept when I read this related story published in a foreign newspaper (of course):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy
5:05 pm on January 3rd, 2013 361
Sonagi, Air Strip One isn’t really foreign territory.
5:08 pm on January 3rd, 2013 362
Sonagi, this is who you are suggesting good-intentioned, law-abiding American citizens register their firearms with.
This is exacty why average American citizens need to own military-grade weapons that cannot be easily confiscated. Somewhere, there is a line the government dares not to cross. That line seems to be in different places when dealing with the Tea Party and a group of liberal anti-gun Occupiers.
Please take a moment to reconcile your two opposing views on the relationship between citizens and government and let us know your conclusion. I am not trying to trip you up here but I am sincerely interested in your thinking.
9:03 am on January 4th, 2013 363
Sonagi, I am still interested in how you want everyone to trust the government to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own registered firearms but you weep at not being able to trust the government to allow law-abiding citizens to peacefully protest true social injustice.
9:56 am on January 4th, 2013 364
Joker, maybe you could register your guns with the local well-regulated militia.
10:26 am on January 4th, 2013 365
I’m starting to think almost everyone here is a dipshit. The topics are interesting and should promote compelling discussion and debate. Instead most of the conversations pander to obvious trolls or stupid comments that aren’t even funny. The few people who introduce facts and put some effort into using them to express an opinion just get a lot of baseless hassle but no rational or thoughtful response.
If the reasoning skills and intelligence level demonstrated here is any indicator of today’s military or today’s voters, America is close to done.
5:53 pm on January 4th, 2013 366
365. By looking at congress I would have to say the intelligence level is much lower than what is demonstrated here.
11:48 am on January 5th, 2013 367
Hey Sonagi! Where is your comment about how we should register our guns and trust the government not to violate our 2nd amendment rights even when you weep at how they were quick to violate, at least, our 1st and 4th?
Kushibo? JoeC? Glans? Anybody?
12:36 pm on January 5th, 2013 368
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/files/2012/12/430857_544483025579943_1565669591_n.jpg
1:02 pm on January 5th, 2013 369
Joker:
A. Since the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent federal tyranny, the people have the right to keep and bear all kinds of arms. All kinds. Get it? All kinds.
B. If you don’t want to register your guns with the government, you can register them with your well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia is explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment, unlike the purpose of this amendment, prevention of federal tyranny, which is left implicit.
1:31 pm on January 5th, 2013 370
I don’t think you are stupid. I think you are indoctrinated and ignorant, a tool of the government and corporations even as you weep over the ease at which they will illegally oppress anyone who stands in the way of power or profit.
Your link was very cute but it only appeals to shallow thinkers and the uninformed. For over a decade, the United States has been using all of that advanced weaponry in an attempt to subdue ill-equipped fighters in the desolate lands of Afghanistan with more liberal rules of engagement than might be used against angry American citizens on American soil without a total breakdown of the nation. How has that been working out?
With roughly 100,000,000 gun owners and 300,000,000 guns, there are not enough soldiers and policemen in the nation to stand up to a population angered at a government willing to cluster bomb American cities as you suggest. Many soldiers and policemen would resist the use of those weapons against American people and join the fight against them, making them even less effective.
You can post your funny links and you can actually believe them to be true but it does not change the reality that a well-armed population serves as a deterrent not only to thuggery of the common man but also to thuggery in government.
Over-registration and over-restriction weakens the checks and balances between citizens and a government that has frequently shown it has no problem to violate the Constitution and the law when it serves its own interest or those of chosen corporations.
Is this cute but irrelevant link the best response to the question I posed to you? Have you been unable to reconcile your ideologies which you now find in opposition to each other?
A problem with both liberals and conservatives is how they push to ban what they don’t like but neither realize a government willing to restrict one thing to protect itself will easily restrict all things to protect itself, be that guns, peaceful protests, public speech, air travel, privacy and everything else which is right and trustworthy in the hands of 99.999% of the population.
By the way, at least one of the silhouettes shown is a Soviet weapon, making a rather ironic yet unintended point.
2:42 pm on January 5th, 2013 371
We distrust our government, We distrust our fellow citizens even more. Most people who purchase guns for protection are arming themselves against their fellow citizens and not the government. If I am ever injured or killed by a discharged weapon, odds are close to 100% that the attacker will not be working for law enforcement.
5:01 pm on January 5th, 2013 372
Sonagi yet again is WRONG. She tries to speak of thinks that she knows nothing about.
The gun stores are booming! I had to wait a week for my 2nd AR-15, this week. Ammo is being sold out as well. Obama and Feinstein are the best gun sales people ever know.
WE are not buying guns and ammo in record numbers because we fear some petty criminal Sonagi. What a stupid thing to say.
We fear our Federal Government. Our very own Government is attempting to destroy our Constitution. Oh, the 2nd amendment will still be there, in name only.
Anyone remember Katrina? American soldiers and police actually DID disarm law abiding citizens. The had orders to shoot any who resisted. They are not TRAINED to wound Sonagi. I was never trained to WOUND. I was trained to aim CENTER MASS. You know: heart, lungs.
You know NOTHING about this subject Sonagi. You are all emotion and zero information. Didn’t I tell you to educate yourself? Yes I did. You failed to do so.
The odds are that you will be a simple teacher with no knowledge or experience outside the class room, for the rest of your days Sonagi. Actually, I would not trade places with you!
Those that understand and have some KNOWLEDGE about guns, are able to follow the SIMPLE instructions that allow them to be handled safely.
I have been around guns my entire life and the only ACCIDENT I ever heard of was when one of my troops dropped his unloaded rifle and cut his hand on the bayonet when he tried to catch it.
Handling guns is simpler than driving a car.
Make no mistake. Guns are flying off the shelf TODAY, because Americans fear their Government.
I was at a gun show this morning. Place was packed. I will be at the one on the 12. I am sure it will be packed. The one in February will be packed.
Not because we fear some piss aunt little criminal. My 22 pistol is more than enough to handle him or her.
Go back and actually STUDY this time Sonagi. You clearly know nothing on THIS subject.
5:31 pm on January 5th, 2013 373
I don’t own any firearms; but among my friends there are at least 500 firearms that have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car.
In fact, the odds of getting shot by a Republican are MUCH smaller than those of being shot by a Democrat like Mr Zimmerman, the guy who shot Obama’s love child. Or that other “joker” who shot up the Colorado threater. Or the mentally-ill guy who murdered the school children in Connecticut.
Just sayin’…
5:48 pm on January 5th, 2013 374
Now, Sonagi. I don’t think you’re ready to volunteer for your campus militia, so I’ve thought of another way to get you into the swing of things. Could you volunteer to be the responsible adult in the schoolhouse cupola? Training the kids to scan the horizon for mass murderers and out-of-control federal agents. When you build up a certain comfort level with the concept of self-defense, you can enroll in martial-arts training. After that, you could think of firearms training. Before you know it, you’ll qualify as vice-principal for security. That will brighten up your resume’.
6:57 pm on January 5th, 2013 375
After reading Retired GI’s post, I’ll rephrase my earlier statement. Everyone I know who owns guns bought them for hunting or personal protection against home invaders, Retired GI and his circle of family and friends are stockpiling guns in anticipation of armed conflict with the federal government.
7:24 pm on January 5th, 2013 376
The Playmobil Security Checkpoint is fun and educational. From Digby’s blog, which has two pictures, you can click to Amazon.
7:33 pm on January 5th, 2013 377
Love it, Glans. Will suggest the idea to my kindergarten teacher colleagues on Monday.
8:36 pm on January 5th, 2013 378
Run, Hide, Fight – a public service message from Alabama Homeland Security for those who have no survival instincts whatsoever:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0
9:23 pm on January 5th, 2013 379
9:25 pm on January 5th, 2013 380
Those of you who are anti-self protection, it is my sincere hope that you get to see The Beast up close and personal soon.
It won’t change your mind- yours is wired differently than a sane person’s. But you need to be in a position to need a means of self defense right then, right there. When you have a flat tire, you need certain things, when you have a first aid emergency you need certain things, and when you are about to be assaulted or robbed you need certain things.
You want to go without- fine. Don’t expect me to. And don’t expect me to put myself at risk to protect you. Deal with it yourselves. Maybe you can appeal to the Bad Guy’s sense of human decency or something.
What condescending sanctimonious hypocrites you are.
Take your numbers and ram them where the sun doesn’t shine.
As for me, I didn’t bother writing the cahck-suhcks in DC… I stocked up on more practice and self defense loads.
In 1994 it was panic buying. Now, this is America getting ready for a war. You drew the line and put us in the same category as sex offenders and other convicts. Reap the whirlwind.
I truly hate you all.
9:32 pm on January 5th, 2013 381
I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns.
It was called Schindler’s list.
10:48 pm on January 5th, 2013 382
Sonagi stop misrepresenting the intentions of others to push your own misguided agenda. Retired GI is not stockpiling guns in “anticipation” of armed conflict with the federal government. He is stockpiling guns to prevent it. There are few anarchists seeking the end of civilization. There are many angry Americans distrustful of a government which has evolved to place the power and profit of large corporations and cash-dispensing lobbyists over the good of the citizens. The 200, 000 or so AR15s sold every year, as well as other military style weaponry, remind government of their limitations in oppressing the population or ignoring their well-being. Some in government would love nothing more than to take this away so that further agendas can be persued without fear of disruption or reprisal.
Sonagi look at all the injustice in society, needlessly drugging kids with tax money to support big pharmacy, encouraging an underclass of low-wage Mexican workers to supply big business, healthcare that does more for the profits of the medical industry than it does for taking care of the sick, regulations designed by food producers that allow dangerous additives in food while promoting health on the labels, energy policies that help only energy companies and politicians, monetary policies that bring record bonuses to Wall Street while taxpayers pick up the tab or lose their homes, free speech zones, no fly lists, indefinite detention, tourture,execution of American citizens by presidential order, and more. Watch how every boundary is pushed and every line is crossed and consider what would happen if the public had no recourse. Look at what happens in cases where they have no recourse.
11:37 pm on January 5th, 2013 383
I saw a movie once where not just the police and the military, but also a bunch of citizens who listened to conservative propagandists had guns.
It was called Hotel Rwanda.
1:02 am on January 6th, 2013 384
Sonagi stop misrepresenting the intentions of others to push your own misguided agenda. Retired GI is not stockpiling guns in “anticipation” of armed conflict with the federal government. He is stockpiling guns to prevent it. There are few crazies seeking the end of civilization. There are many angry Americans distrustful of a government which has evolved to place the power and profit of large corporations and cash-dispensing lobbyists over the good of the citizens. The 200,000 or so AR15s sold every year, as well as other military style weaponry, remind government of their limitations in oppressing the population or ignoring their well-being. Some in government would love nothing more than to take this away so that further agendas can be pursued without fear of disruption or reprisal.
1:04 am on January 6th, 2013 385
Sonagi look at all the injustice in society, needlessly drugging kids with tax money to support big pharmacy, encouraging an underclass of low-wage Mexican workers to supply big business, healthcare that does more for the profits of the medical industry than it does for taking care of the sick, regulations designed by food producers that allow dangerous additives in food while promoting health on the labels, energy policies that help only energy companies and politicians, monetary policies that bring record bonuses to Wall Street while taxpayers pick up the tab or lose their homes, free speech zones, no fly lists, indefinite detention, torture, execution of American citizens by presidential order, and more. Watch how every boundary is pushed and every line is crossed and consider what would happen if the public had no recourse. Look at what happens in cases where they have no recourse.
You should be thankful and vocally grateful to Retired GI and those like him, former military indoctrinated in American values, the protection of the American people and upholding the ideal of America rather than the twisted version that now exists.
Now please tell us exactly why the government should be trusted with protecting 2nd amendment rights when they easily violate so many of the others.
As for not trusting our fellow citizens, you are correct. Too many violent career criminals are back on the street to make way for the mandatory sentences of minor drug offenders in for-profit prisons. Education, welfare and social policies encourage this underclass of unskilled and incapable workers whose best chance of legitimacy and stability is taken away by lower-paid foreign workers, the gangs of which would prey upon unarmed Americans just as they do to unarmed Mexicans. This is an entire topic of discussion in itself.
2:30 am on January 6th, 2013 386
#381: Actually, it wasn’t just a “bunch of citizens who listened to propagandists” who had guns. Rwanda was a case of well-organized killing sponsored by government, and the government issued the weapons for Hutu use only. The Tutsis were not permitted to own firearms.
It’s pretty good example of gun control measures (unilateral disarmament) directly enabling genocide (though the majority of killings were with government-issued machetes, not guns).
3:55 am on January 6th, 2013 387
Liz don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good holier-than-thou gun control rant. Several people here have expressed clear and rational opinions backed up with links to good evidence supporting them. The gun control advocates simply ignore it and try to approach from a different angle or they shift the conversation from facts to emotion.
9:36 pm on January 6th, 2013 388
This link reveals an important point of the gun control debate, trust in government. The position of the gun rights side is pretty clear. The gun control side is less eager to voice their opinion, as they have generally been more trusting in government, yet that trust is being eroded with abusive policies under Bush that have only increased under Obama.
Sonagi, Kushibo, JoeC and others who promoted trust in government and more restrictions on gun ownership by average citizens are very quiet when confronted with evidence that the government is no longer trustworthy.
As this link points out, the old liberal/conservative view of government is increasingly invalid as government and corporate interests merge.
It would be a pleasure to see thoughtful comments on these ideas from all sides.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/theres-one-thing-both-sides-in-the-gun-control-debate-can-agree-on.html
4:45 am on January 7th, 2013 389
In Texas, a highway patrol officer thought he saw two women throwing cigarette butts out their car window. He pulled them over. He thought their car smelled like marihuana. The driver denied using marihuana, explaining that this wasn’t her car, she borrowed it from a friend. The officer called a female colleague to search the two women. She publicly searched their anuses and vaginas but found nothing.
Gun advocates and gun opponents: would these women have been right to resist this search with guns?
Thw DailyMail report has the complete dash cam video.
4:58 am on January 7th, 2013 390
#389: That is not an example of state-sanctioned tyranny.
It is an example of individuals, acting as state agents, violating the law…for which there is legal remedy (in this case the victims are suing the state).
It makes a very good case for the right to hold arms for self defense purposes though. These are the folks we’re supposed to call on to defend us?
7:34 am on January 7th, 2013 391
Americans, never give up your guns – English Pravda.ru
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
7:37 am on January 7th, 2013 392
This is not exactly state-sanctioned tyranny but the current state-sponsored thuggery in law enforcement culture allowed this to happen. Standard training by a benevolent government, even without mentioning this specific situation, should have prevented it from ever happening. In a properly run government, this action should be as abhorrent as eating babies.
It may or may not go to court but there will be an undisclosed settlement which the taxpayers will cover, as is the standard resolution for such incidents. There may or may not be criminal charges or even loss of job for the perpetrators. Depending on their social connections, they may be hired by another department once the publicity dies down.
If the departments will not properly train officers to respect the rights of citizens, or even train them in legally correct and productive procedures, there are some checks and balances which can deter this kind of (growing) thuggery and disrespect for rights, law and Constitution by those entrusted to enforce it.
Indiana has a law that “authorizes people to protect themselves or their property by using deadly force in response to “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant.”" This applies to both home and vehicle. There are plenty of links on Google.
In this case, a felony sexual assault and assault with a deadly weapon (2 people’s anus and vagina searched with one set of gloves) may be sufficient to use deadly force in stopping, though not without expense and hassle.
I am not advocating this response here, as allowing a cop to feel you up for a large amount of money is preferable to losing everything to defend yourself against murder charges. But this law may act as a deterrent against (growing) aggressive illegal law enforcement where individual departments fail in their attitude, training or respect for the law.
When a police officer violates the law, especially in a felonious way, they are no longer a law enforcer, they are a criminal and there is no ethical or legal obligation to treat them differently than an average citizen who acts as a criminal. Penalties should actually be stronger when law enforcers act as criminals.
Sonagi, Kushibo and JoeC are welcome to respond but after realizing their wonderful and benevolent utopian government isn’t really looking out for them, it is hard for them to rationalize gun control, and they are conspicuously silent on the matter.
8:28 am on January 7th, 2013 393
I remember many people here stating that Obama was not anti-gun. Those individuals were so very wrong. As most Obama defenders always are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENBVyOF2FKs&feature=player
8:37 am on January 7th, 2013 394
I interpret Liz 390 and The Joker 392 as answering yes to the question in Glans 389: these women would have been right to resist with guns.
I don’t say Liz and The Joker mean that such resistance would be prudent in this case; but on the question of right and wrong, I think they’re saying yes, the women would have been right. They may confirm or reject my interpretation, and other commenters may wish to answer the question.
8:46 am on January 7th, 2013 395
Army manual outlines plan to confiscate weapons during national emergency
The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.
Given the imminent introduction of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.
In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/07/obama-blueprint-disarming-americans#ixzz2HIyFMlPa
8:55 am on January 7th, 2013 396
#394: Morally, yes, the women would have been justified in using the amount of force necessary to prevent assault on their person. The fact that assailants were acting as state agents during the assault is an ethical irrelevancy. Morality does not equal legality (necessarily).
8:57 am on January 7th, 2013 397
http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/2013/01/retaining-our-freedoms-is-possible-but.html
Also: Capitol Switchboard (202)224-3121. Hope I got that right. Call your Reps and Senators.
9:06 am on January 7th, 2013 398
Retired GI, what would be your answer to Glans 389?
9:10 am on January 7th, 2013 399
DHS buys 200,000 More rounds of Ammunition for domestic use.
http://marketdailynews.com/2013/01/04/dhs-buys-200000-more-rounds-of-ammunition/
This is in addition to the staggering figure of 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition already secured over the last nine months alone.
Sounds like America is about to be invaded by Amerika.
9:18 am on January 7th, 2013 400
Glans, they would have been within their rights to resist. However, I wasn’t there. I cannot make any further judgment.
You should always be respectful to law enforcement Officers. They have a difficult job and work with fear on a daily basis.
9:51 am on January 7th, 2013 401
Glans, authority of the state to enforce the law does not give a state’s representative the right to violate the law and sexually assault a citizen, especially in such a way it can be a danger to their health.
There are very clear rules and procedures that allow the state to detain and search someone which follow due process and protect both the citizen’s necessary rights and the state’s obligation to protect society.
If a law enforcement official is committing a felony, even on-duty, they may be treated no differently than if an average citizen committed the same felony. Sexual assault is an act which may be stopped with deadly force.
I wonder if Sonagi would use deadly force against someone sexually assaulting her, be it someone with a badge on a dark road with no traffic or someone breaking through her bedroom window at 2am. I wonder the same about Kushibo and JoeC.
Shooting a rapist, badge or not, rather than “taking it like a man” would be my first instinct, but hey that’s just me and my silly aversion to being punked. I cannot speak for them.
You are correct in your interpretation that deadly force was not the proper response here in my opinion. As of now, there are enough checks and balances in law enforcement, such as the video recording system, that very few situations would require it unless one was truly in fear of their life or serious bodily harm.
Rather than shooting a cop, I would take the finger-probe to never work again, but that decision is based on personal greed and practicality rather than ethics, morals or justice.
The majority of police support the law and the Constitution. They do not approve of this type of action and will assist in its exposure. At this time, the court system generally recognizes justice in both criminal and civil procedures and proper resolution is the rule rather than the media-fueled exception.
This is changing as the police become militarized and a younger generation joins law enforcement for reasons other than to protect and serve. They are backed up by a federal government which is becoming increasingly goal-oriented rather than procedural through due-process. More effort is put into anti-terrorist training than the much more common basic police procedures, such as when and how to search.
After watching the full video, this incident appears to be due to an institutional lack of training, extremely poor judgement and an attitude that every citizen is a criminal until proven otherwise. There is also a possibility that the female officer received sexual gratification, especially after noticing her prolonged vaginal search of the younger woman. Her history of searches will likely be part of the court case.
After searching the anus and before searching the vagina, she touched the woman on the arm to turn her around. Without police training, most of you can find a couple of things wrong with that procedure.
10:01 am on January 7th, 2013 402
I’m looking forward to hearing Glans 389′s answer/explanation to Glans 389′s question.
11:06 am on January 7th, 2013 403
Liz, I think both women had the right to threaten both officers with death, and to carry out that threat if necessary. Yes, they could have used guns to resist the search. That’s my answer to the right and wrong.
Practically speaking, resistance was not an option. If they had resisted without guns, they would have bean beaten, tazed, and arrested. If they had used guns, they would have been shot right there, or, if they won the shoot-out, the State of Texas, supported by the United States of America, would have pursued them. They might then have been shot. They would also have risked severe punishment.
11:41 am on January 7th, 2013 404
#403: I am in 100 percent agreement. And here I was thinking I would have to come up with a counter-argument. What am I going to do with this competitive energy now?
I’ll have to go find someone to henpeck….
7:15 am on January 8th, 2013 405
Here is what happens to unarmed women.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20500750/woman-shot-during-violent-home-invasion
8:10 am on January 8th, 2013 406
Guns are useful against criminals. But after our discussions in this thread, I’m starting to get the idea that guns can’t help us against an oppressive federal government. If you try to oppose the government with armed force, it will smash your gonads.
9:35 am on January 8th, 2013 407
#406: Well, guns can help against oppressive governments too. That’s what revolutions are.
It’s nothing to go into lightly though, for reasons you’ve alluded to. Here’s a look at what can be expected:
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR3BBJ0#a=1
10:40 am on January 8th, 2013 408
Firearms prevent revolution.
The government does not want social, economic and national breakdown any more than the citizens want it.
While it wasn’t an armed revolution, the people power of Occupy Wall Street scared both the government and the big companies. They worked hard to shut it down, blatantly violating the law and the Constitution to accomplish their goals.
When the weather warms up, if the economy is bad and Wall Street is still getting big bonuses from taxpayer bailouts, while the middle class grows increasingly angry over the larger taxes coming out of their paychecks, there might be a bit of armed protest, new gun laws or not. It won’t be open armed conflict. It will be a dead cop here and a dead banker there. For over a decade, these tactics worked well against the United States military in Afghanistan.
Nobody quite knows why government agencies are buying unbelievable numbers of bullets. Maybe they do a LOT of target practice with high-end bullets, or maybe they are worried.
Every government agency has a militant wing now. Even Sonagi’s beloved Department of Education purchased 27 SAWED OFF SHOTGUNS a few years ago.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb68cf9f3fa2fe18a83d1c3dee0039b2
In this environment, the last thing anybody needs to do is register or give up their firearms.
Sonagi, Kushibo and JoeC are emotional and dishonorable. They ran their mouths instructing others with what they needed to do with their guns but after real numbers and actual situations came into the conversation, they refused to rejoin the discussion. That is called losing the argument in such an epic way there is nothing to do but slink away with the tail tucked firmly between the legs. Shameful, unintellectual people.
2:09 pm on January 8th, 2013 409
Grow up people and act your age, Afghanistan General McChrystal says what’s up with all the M16′s and M4 carbines etc…on the streets?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mcchrystal-says-serious-action-needed-gun-control-174328785.html
“The general added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”
5:23 pm on January 8th, 2013 410
@409, Thankfully I am able to think for myself and don’t give a rats ass what McChrystal says. I have known enough Officers to know that they don’t always know what they are talking about. Past the rank of Captain, they are mostly Politicians anyway.
“but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population.”
The best way to protect the kids is to arm the schools. You know, Like rich people do.
Last I checked, the police existed to protect US! But if they need help (they usually arrive AFTER it’s over anyway) I can best help them when I’m armed.
The best way to protect the population is to arm the population. If they don’t want to be armed, that is fine with me. I am armed and trained in their use.
Does the General have armed guards when in public? I bet he does. Does he own a gun himself? I bet he does.
Will criminals turn in their guns? I bet they won’t. So why should I? I shouldn’t!
We do still have a 2nd amendment.
5:24 pm on January 8th, 2013 411
Now if my above post is considered “childish”, then so be it. That is my “mature” look at it.
5:42 pm on January 8th, 2013 412
Just a thought, there are those people who would want ONLY the military to be allowed to use guns and no one else. Those same people must not remember American history when the Brittish soldiers first tried to round up all the guns and ammunition from the people.
Dictator 101 states that one should disarm the populace as they can rise up and use those weapons against you.
7:39 am on January 9th, 2013 413
Finally some sense even if we did have to wait for the hiatus to end…
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-gun-control-nra-fox-news-daily-show-2013-1
“Stewart said that the time for discussion is now. He went off on various pro-gun advocates — LaPierre and the NRA, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and, finally, Alex Jones and his appearance on Piers Morgan’s show.
By the end — touching on Jones’ fear of government confiscation of weapons — Stewart addressed what he thought was the problem in getting anything done on gun violence.”
“Now I see what’s happening,” Stewart said. “Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.
“We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of Imaginary Hitler.”
9:03 am on January 9th, 2013 414
When someone uses the number 30,000, they immediately discredit themselves. We have been over this several times here.
Most of those deaths are suicides. Most of the remaining gun deaths are composed of gangsters, hard drug users/sellers, those with a criminal history, and other non-average citizens. If you are not a hard drug user, don’t live with someone who has a criminal record and aren’t in a gang, there are plenty of things more productive to worry about than getting shot.
John Stewart is funny and insightful but, like most gun grabbers, he relies on mythical statistics and cute saying instead of discussing actual facts.
His little word play cuts both ways. The government is currently making a big deal about “assault rifles” but their paranoid fear of tough looking weapons prevents us from addressing the true danger of hands and feet which kill more people than ALL rifles and shotguns put together. It also prevents us from addressing the failure of them mental health system, drugged up children and the acceptance of violence among a large part of the population.
Solve those issues with criminals and troubled people before coming after the benign possessions of productive, hard-working and law-abiding citizens.
2:53 pm on January 9th, 2013 415
Show of hands– how many here have been in an armed confrontation?
How many have been in a violent confrontation in which you were not armed? How did it turn out?
How many have taken it on themselves to train with firearms outside of the McDonald’s of firearms training in the military? Describe it.
Just curious. I have found that some of the most outspoken anti defense people have never been in a serious situation which required quick and potentially violent action.
5:32 pm on January 9th, 2013 416
#415 “How many have taken it on themselves to train with firearms outside of the McDonald’s of firearms training in the military? Describe it.”
A boatload of shooting at the firing range utilising somewhere near 5,000+ rounds of ammunition. Practicing various firing positions and types grips in order to determine which handgun and shooting position is best for me.
Also having to recertify more than at least twice a year on 4 different weapons while in the military.
5:55 pm on January 9th, 2013 417
# 414,
“Jon Stewart discredited”
You missed the point, that is that you and others don’t want a meaningful discussion or would rather everyone just shut up about “gun” control. Your Fenchmen LaPierre sure ain’t talking about it and neither is Fox News, Mike Huckabee, and Alex Jones. “Gun” control is simply out of the question and everything is being done to divert attention away from “guns.”
Jon Stewart has a lot of credit even though you hate to admit it, since you read my # 413 comment please read it again and then look at ‘Retired GI’s comment below -
# 381,
“I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns.
It was called Schindler’s list.”
FEAR MONGERING and IMMATURE? Yes! Or, a “paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future”? YES
6:45 pm on January 9th, 2013 418
You are wrong. I want meaningful discussion on how to solve the problems of criminals and crazies killing other people. That is the real problem. Everything else is emotion and politics.
If you wish to have an honest discussion, address the statements on gun violence I made in my previous comment instead of whining “but John Stewart said.”
As per the FBI website, hands and feet cause more deaths than all rifles and shotguns combined. If your goal is to save lives, why is banning semiautomatic rifles the topic of the conversation?
When every mass shooter has been on medication with known side effects, why is firearm registration and regulation for average, non-medicated citizens the topic of conversation?
Why is mass punishment for 100,000,000 law-abiding citizens the primary political solution for the actions of a few crazies and chronic criminals?
Yes. Let’s have a discussion. Let’s have a discussion about facts instead of clever soundbites designed to appeal to an emotional and dumbed down audience discouraged from critical thinking.
Answer the above questions. Comment on disagreeable statements from my previous comment. Have a discussion.
7:15 pm on January 9th, 2013 419
tbonetylr – You forget your history, dictator’s the world around disarm their people “for the good of the country, and to keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys” However, the bad guys never obey the law, that’s why they are called criminals.
I’ll tell you what, lets publish a list of all of the “good, law abiding people” who DON”T own guns, and lets see which group gets robbed more. The gun owners or those with out guns.
Lest we forget, the gun laws of 1969 have YET to be fully enforced. Ya think we should enforce those laws FIRST, before trying to enact new ones?
7:41 pm on January 9th, 2013 420
“FEAR MONGERING and IMMATURE? Yes! Or, a “paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future”? YES
” @tbonetylr, ah and there it is. The liberal Left calling the Conservative gun owner names. How old are you. You sound like a pre-teen. Usually when a Liberal resorts to such tactics, it is because they know they have lost the argument. But putting that aside, You obviously have forgotten your History, if indeed you ever learned any. I recently had a Liberal tell me that she hated history and didn’t learn anything. You must have been her classmate.
At least Sonagi had the good sense to exit the conversation when Her ignorance of the topic was shown. Where as you continue butting your head against it either not understanding or not knowing how foolish you look.
Now don’t get me wrong, I know the liberal in you is strong and therefore it really isn’t your fault. You can’t help thinking that if you say it over and over again and attempt to minimize those who really do understand, that you might win a following of sorts. Not going to happen Dude. It is quite clear that you do not know history. Which is a shame when you have such easy access. The only conclusion that can be made is that you wish to remain uniformed and undereducated. Like I said, it isn’t your fault. That liberal mind set has a strangle hold on you.
It is SO bad that you don’t even know that Fox has been talking about the gun issue non stop. Jeez Dude, at least watch it before you talk about it. Then you won’t sound like such a fool.
Oh and I stopped being immature at around 50 and that was a few years ago.
I’ve also had guns ALL THOSE YEARS, and never had an “accident”.
I’m very sure I could teach you a thing or two, and not just about safe gun handling.
10:50 pm on January 9th, 2013 421
# 420,
I’ve already used the “immature” comment and you know exactly where it came from so stop acting like I called you a name since I quoted the comment which was immature and fear mongering.
# 419,
There are adequate laws to protect people from “hands and feet” but there aren’t to control M16′s and M4 carbines etc…common sense
Whose “hands and feet” can kill 30 people in 30 seconds? Certainly not the average person or one with mental issues. Are you really trying to compare “hands and feet” with M16′s and M4 carbines. Nonsense
11:48 pm on January 9th, 2013 422
New York Governor(Cuomo) says “Stop the Madness” but the NRA’s Frenchman LaPierre, Fox News, Mike Huckabee, Alex Jones, etc…don’t want to consider his plan to limit magazine capacity etc…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/new-york-cuomo-gun-plan/1821145/
“Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand, and we know painfully,” said Cuomo, who owns a Remington shotgun. “We must stop the madness, my friends, and in one word, it’s just enough. It has been enough.”
Cuomo’s plan calls for a ban of all magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets. Currently, high-capacity magazines are banned in New York unless they were manufactured before 1994.”
11:58 pm on January 9th, 2013 423
- There are adequate laws to protect people from “hands and feet” but there aren’t to control M16′s and M4 carbines etc
Is that so? Registration of fingers? Banning of martial arts? Check in your limbs when you enter a nightclub? Surrender your hands after a domestic violence incident? Give some examples of laws that are more strict for hands and feet than for rifles. Since more people die from hands and feet than rifles, it looks like we DON’T have adequate laws for hands and feet.
No matter how you twist the logic, the facts remain. Many more people are killed with hands and feet than rifles and shotguns. More people are killed with blunt objects such as hammers and bats than with rifles and shotguns. These are not contrived figures. They come strait from the same government that looks for any excuse or rationalization to limit firearms ownership.
Since you are indisputably much more likely to be killed by my hands or feet, why are you worried about my rifle? Are you stupid? Can’t do math? Are you a paranoid psycho? Are you a fearful little man worried about a scary black rifle and unable to grasp the real dangers around you? Are you a pawn of those with a bigger agenda?
Your entire though process is based on emotion and hyperbolic visualization rather than facts. Is your goal to limit the number of deaths or is your goal to ban firearms? Be honest.
As for fear mongering, why don’t you look up how many mass killers have killed “30 people in 30 seconds” here in America. I will help you. The answer is one, our Korean friend Seung-Hui Cho. It took longer than 30 seconds to kill 32 and he didn’t use an “M16 or M4″.
Sonagi, Kushibo and JoeC have left the conversation to reevaluate their beliefs, they have left in shame, they have left over worries of their progressive psuedo-intellectualism being exposed or they have left in fear of being forced to face reality. You, at least, are principled enough to stick around and promote your beliefs, so that is admirable. Discussing the facts instead of emotion would be even better.
12:29 am on January 10th, 2013 424
The Joker wrote:
I think you missed it in #318:
Firearm registration should be privacy-protected, like the Census, automobile registration, and driver license.
1:34 am on January 10th, 2013 425
Kushibo the problem with registration is how it allows easy confiscation. This is not hypothetical. History supports it. American history supports it.
The government ie quick to infringe on the 1st Amendment with the break up of legitimate peaceful protest and free speech zones, the 4th Amendment with illegal data collection, warrantless search, indefinite detention and the bypassing of due process with secret courts, secret charges and executive orders to kill US citizens (on foreign soil for now). The list is longer than this. Based on this growing record, the government is not trustworthy with the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
When combined with the reality that guns are not as dangerous as the government is trying to scare us into believing based on actual facts, it becomes difficult to trust the motives.
Of course current registration information should be kept private. This is another reason not to trust the system. Like XBox passwords, DMV records or insurance records, there is always a hacker or insider willing to sell information. From identity theft to burglary, a record of firearms ownership has no benefit to the honest citizen. It simply empower a government to violate the rights of honest citizens and creates a new income stream for professional and organized criminals such as Prohibition and the War on Drugs as done.
We have clearly established that military style rifles are not the problem. We have established that a very small percentage of firearms are used in mass killings but a very high percentage of mass killers are being medicated and have a known history of psychological problems. Yet the topic always comes back to the control of average citizens rather than how to control a minority of criminals and crazies.
There can be no debate if the gun grabbers will neither acknowledge reality nor discuss facts.
2:16 am on January 10th, 2013 426
# 423,
Okay, how about 30 people in 45 seconds, is that better?
4:20 am on January 10th, 2013 427
Cute, but not really an intelligent comment.
Bicycles kill more people far less than a year than have EVER been killed by your scary rifles.
Do you want to save lives or do you want to ban guns?
6:28 am on January 10th, 2013 428
Conan Spoofs Alex Jones’ Crazy Piers Morgan Appearance (VIDEO)
Actually, this is how I envision some of the pro-gunners while commenting here -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/conan-alex-jones-piers-morgan_n_2441231.html
6:59 am on January 10th, 2013 429
The gun grabbers found the biggest nutjob they could, fired him up and try to push him off as representative of the hundred million gun owners in America. You must he smart enough to see through this.
What you can’t seem to do is answer any of the reasonable questions I asked or counter any of the points I made.
7:13 am on January 10th, 2013 430
There is an app for the pro-stoking gunners to relieve your stress in these tough economic times, all you have to do is go clink your guns and…
‘Arianna Talks Gun Control, GPS For The Soul On ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/arianna-on-piers-morgan-tonight-gun-control-gps-for-the-soul_n_2445408.html
“There is something that happens … that when we are living in tough economic times that makes people irrational about security. And that’s also what we are facing at the moment,” Arianna said. “I mean, there is a lot of fear in this country, and a lot of it is fear of the future, fear of unemployment. And in moments like that we often see that kind of desire to cling to something — like guns — as a way to guarantee some kind of safety in the future.”
Arianna also took a few moments to discuss GPS for the Soul, a new iPhone app that tracks stress levels and shares tips on how to lower them.”
7:16 am on January 10th, 2013 431
# 429,
You need a good foot slapping.
Guns and bicycles?
7:37 am on January 10th, 2013 432
#430: A “lot of fear in this country”. Yes, I agree.
Freaking out about the one in ten thousand gun murders per year to the point any attempt at constructive dialogue turns into an abusive, condescending one-sided diatribe from gun control advocates is definitely a sign of irrational fear.
Especially when the likelihood of being a victim of robbery, already 60 times the likelihood of being a victim of homicide doubles and/or triples in similar societies (aka: much of western Europe) with strict gun control measures.
7:59 am on January 10th, 2013 433
Once again, Tbone, you have provided no evidence for your beliefs and provided no response to the statements counter to them.
You have provided pointless links and cute, but empty, statements.
Are you a pro-gunner troll just trying to make anti-gunners looks stupid and ignorant?
8:01 am on January 10th, 2013 434
Liz, review this thread. I think you’ll see two-sided condescension and diatribes.
Here’s my conclusion:
Gun ownership is a deep part of American culture; it’s not going away. Magazine limits are nonsense. Mass shootings are an unhappy side-effect of wide-spread gun ownership; they’re going to happen now and then.
Guns are useless against government oppression. They can do good work against criminals, but they also put their owners and their owners’ friends at risk.
If you choose to own guns, be safe.
8:43 am on January 10th, 2013 435
# 434,
Your American gun culture can be better described as an American war culture.
The Joker,
While you and others have babbled on about hands, feet, bicycles, etc… there has been more than 400 + deaths because of guns since Newtown, CT little kid massacre – Are you happy now?
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-has-averaged-more-18-gun-deaths-every-day-newtown-school-shooting
8:47 am on January 10th, 2013 436
For every comment on Gi Korea = One Gun Death
9:35 am on January 10th, 2013 437
Glans, powerful guns in the hands of average citizens are not useless against government oppression. Primarily, they serve as a deterrent against oppression.
Secondarily, if through government action, conditions for average citizens become intolerable, they allow citizens to take direct action against government.
While it is cute to point at tanks and stealth bombers and claim the armed citizen is no match for the government, we all know that is not true. For over a decade in Afghanistan, those tanks and stealth bombers have been stalemated by a rag-tag force of lightly armed fighters using a large number of improvised and homemade weapons with education and infrastructure far below the average American. Just 4 American states have enough hunters each year to qualify as the largest military in the world.
It is a myth that guns put their owners and friends at risk. The “it is more likely to be used on you” myth comes from the 60%+ of gun deaths being suicides.
In the cases where it is used on a spouse, the vast majority of shooters have a history of domestic violence. Virtually nobody just “freaks out” one day. It is also already illegal for individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse, to have a gun.
Almost all other killers who are a danger to family and friends have a criminal record, a history of violence and/or psychological problems. The failure of the mental health system is to blame more than the guns. If they were managed properly, the gun would cause no harm but if the gun is gone, they can still cause harm.
Gang connections are the other high-risk factor for danger to family and friends.
The myth that criminals are using people’s guns against them (though it is seldom phrased that way to obscure the suicide angle) and the myth that normal people are freaking out and killing their family and friends are just that, myths.
Glans, if you look at the top 8 spree killers, only #5 (Seung-Hui Cho)was in America. The other nations, including Korea and Japan, have very strict limitations on firearms ownership. What is more interesting is that America has 16 spree killers in the top 50 with freedom of firearms ownership while the European union, with proudly few firearms, has 12.
Every fact and every statistic shows there is a problem but it never comes back to guns being the main problem and it clearly shows average citizens are perfectly responsible to own guns. The best argument anyone has come up against gun ownership is some talking head on TV made a joke.
If someone chooses not to own a gun, it is their choice. If they don’t want them around, there are places they can move to where guns are rare and mostly illegal, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New York City, for example. They do not have the right to tell me what shape a chunk of metal can be in my home, on my property, in my vehicle and, in most cases, upon my person.
If loss of life is the issue, there are many more productive things to focus on to save lives without forcing baseless ideals upon 100-200 million Americans.
10:29 am on January 10th, 2013 438
I’m glad to hear there are 18 gun deaths every day, Tbone. Since you are clearly ignorant of the world around you, I will tell you why.
Assuming none of those are suicides, 18 times 365 is 6570 gun deaths per year. That is a fantastic reduction from previous years. In a country of 300+ million, that is nothing. 30 people die in drunk driving accidents every day. 101 people kill themselves every day. 188 people die of diabetes with many of them bringing it on themselves through poor lifestyle choices. 323 people die each day in various accidents, around 30 of which are caused by other people and their fully licensed and registered cars. 1555 people die of cancer each day, of which far more than 18 people acquired it through exposure to chemicals in legal processed food. Almost 2 people die on bicycles. 68 babies die every day for various reasons. 6 babies die in their cribs of SIDS. 10 to 20 are confirmed/suspected of being shaken to death.
No matter what number you quote or what statistic you parade, it can be shown as trivial, because it actually is trivial in the big picture. If you want to save lives, campaign against chemicals in food, campaign against drugs and gangs, campaign against drunk drivers. If you want to make enemies of 100-200 million American who mostly just want to be left alone, campaign against guns.
10:44 am on January 10th, 2013 439
Joker, I like you, so I’m giving you some friendly advice. Do not attempt to deter federal agents with your powerful weapon.
11:34 am on January 10th, 2013 440
The Joker (#438), you seem to be laying out the political philosophy that however many deaths per day due to gun violence is okay because it’s the cost of (your interpretation of) the Second Amendment’s maintenance of a free state.
Is my assessment of your position fair and accurate?
At any rate, you are correct that gun deaths are not only one way in which people die in America, but also that they pale in comparison to the numbers of some other deaths. But you are mistaken that medical practitioners, physical and social scientists, politicians, epidemiologists, laypeople, etc., etc., look at any of this as an either/or proposition. That is, they don’t simply look at the numbers as if they can resolve only one or two of these problems and then give up on the rest.
There are billions upon billions of dollars spent reducing the number or these premature deaths of which you speak. There are associations armed to do battle against groups that are promoting from deadly chemicals or foods or lifestyles. They, too, have nemeses who callously view the numbers with reckless indifference.
But that shouldn’t stop them.
Despite mischaracterizations of my position, I am not someone who believes in taking away everyone’s firearms. I believe that law-abiding people who are not a threat to themselves or others should be able to own a reasonable number of firearms appropriate for hunting and self-defense. I also believe that a country of people armed in such a way makes it difficult for tyranny to take hold domestically or for a foreign power to successfully invade because the existence of so many guns in the hands of so many law-abiding and conscientious citizens would slow them down considerably.
I don’t think that ability to hunt, conduct self-defense, or maintain the security of a free state is adversely impinged by having well regulated ownership. Universal registration and background checks, licensing with safety build-ins, elimination of certain types of weapons, etc., are reasonable for possession of a deadly object, and such laws and regulations are consistent with other potentially deadly weapons such as automobiles, where there is universal registration, background checks, and licensing.
I don’t think this will eliminate gun deaths. I’m not even sure how much it will reduce them. But I don’t accept that deaths numbering “18 per day” are so minuscule that the problem need not be addressed because it’s a small price to pay to ensure we are well armed against, say, a future Hitler or Obama trying to make himself president for life.
12:14 pm on January 10th, 2013 441
The link to the “average 18″ that tbonetylr itself links to is no longer correct. The updated information provides links to 695 deaths in the 25 days the Sandy Hook Massacre, which puts it at 28 deaths per day. The data is “necessarily incomplete,” so the real number is higher.
Also, I would like to add that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to include homicides by gun in the gun death statistics. Insofar as a suicide attempt would not have “succeeded” in the absence of a firearm, it is a gun death. That is, for many people thoughts of suicide are transient but the existence of a firearm is, in the moment, (a) an attractive tool that typically provides (b) an irrevocable “solution.”
In finals week last semester, I was directly involved in the situation of two people who tried to kill themselves, one with pills and an undisclosed sharp object and the other with a very sharp pair of scissors. The former was taking medication for a psychiatric condition and, typical of many when they’re feeling better while on the meds, decided he didn’t need it because he felt fine. The latter was showing signs of needing psychiatric counseling, which she is now getting.
Had guns been accessible to them, one or both might be dead right now. These are anecdotal cases, but they are similar to all the cases I personally know of that involve suicide attempts.
Also in December, before Sandy Hook, my preteen cousin “was looking for something” and found his dad’s shotgun that had been well hidden but was still accessible in case of home invasion. While “looking at it,” the gun “accidentally went off” and blew a hole through the mirror of the bathroom and right through the wall to the outside of the house.
It was lucky no one was standing in front of the barrel. Some might say, no, it was unlucky it was found in the first place, but that was not related to luck but poor planning. A court apparently “recommended” gun safety training for the entire family, lest CPS decide the environment was unsafe. I actually wanted to join them (they had to attend it while I was visiting) but it would have cost an extra $80. Maybe if I own a gun in Hawaii in the future, I’ll go through such a course (I haven’t fired a weapon since I was in high school). This accidental shooting happened, I think, just a few days after that father accidentally shot and killed his seven-year-old son in the parking lot of a gun store.
My family story is something I’m throwing out there simply because it happened recently to people I’m close to on the Mainland and I saw the hole in the wall. Whenever we go some place in the car, this cousin and his brother compete for who will get the front seat. “Shotgun!” they yell. Now it comes with a parade of jokes when the younger one says it. “Is that a threat?” or “And he’s gonna use it!” That was the tone all the way to the Grand Canyon and back.
They are apparently taking it seriously, but we do joke that shooting the mirror was “a Polish suicide.”
4:45 pm on January 10th, 2013 442
Violent Crime:
Gun control activists go after the problem from the supply side.
Pro-Gun people go after the problem from the relative combat power side.
5:35 pm on January 10th, 2013 443
Anyone I have ever heard babbling about gun control and “high capacity clips”, “assault weapons” etc. have generally been persons who simply didn’t know what the hell they were talking about, but were pretty emotional about it.
Having been in confrontations which involved firearms and violence or the threat of violence, I am here today because I was appropriately equipped for those particular social interactions.
I then decided it would be good to actually be able to fight with a gun, instead of merely operate a firearm.
I think my vote counts. Those who chatter about “barrel shrouds…that thing that flips up from the back…” or classify TEC-9s as a military weapon… not so much….
6:39 pm on January 10th, 2013 444
kushibo, I don’t have a problem with reasonable actions that keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them. That being said, there are quite a few laws already on the books that are simply NOT BEING ENFORCED! Until the federal and state governments get their collective act together and enforce the laws we already have, any additional restrictions on my rights to legally own a gun should not even be mentioned.
Just to remind you a few things that have been said about some of the laws already on the books:
Background checks would lower the number of criminals who get guns.
Background checks would ONLY take 24 hours
Felons, would be unable to purchase guns
Gun deaths would be reduced
We are only banning……which has led to more of the same
Just a note: the last Bill Goodman’s Gun and Knife Show I attended had numerous calibers of rifles that were made in the style of AR-15′s. Those ranged from a .22 caliber to a 7.62mm.
BTW: the high capacity magazines effect such massive killers as the Marlin model 60 .22 LR, Ruger .22 LR, AR-7 Survival riffle, and most of the police type shotguns. (10 round+ internal magazines)
PS: if they are hell bent to get rid of the guns, why hasn’t every gang banger been thrown in jail? and I’m the bad guy here?
6:28 am on January 14th, 2013 445
Even blondes(Miss America) know best…
‘Miss New York Wins 2013 Miss America Crown’
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/01/14/2013011400327.html
“Hagan captured the pageant’s top prize after tap dancing to James Brown’s “Get Up Off of That Thing” in the contest’s talent competition.
She also answered a question about whether armed guards should be placed in schools in the wake of last month’s deadly shooing spree in Newtown, Connecticut.
Her reply was violence should not be fought with violence.”
7:41 am on January 14th, 2013 446
#445:
Yeah, next time a killer comes to the school to shoot people they should buy the gun from him and then he can’t use it. (hope he’s also a blonde)
12:55 pm on January 14th, 2013 447
Lead and race – today Kevin Drum proposes that the high incarceration rate for black males resulted, in part, from lead in gasoline and paint. He’s at Mother Jones.
4:53 pm on January 15th, 2013 448
I can’t wait for Wednesday and that will be so cute watching the kids in the background as President Obama talks about how he will make their days at school safer. I’m glad we have a common sense President but I wonder what those racists in Mississippi are saying about Obama now?
‘Obama to Make His Move on Gun Control’
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100382334
“NBC News reported that House Democrats were told Monday that the vice president and his staff have developed 19 specific areas where President Obama could use executive orders to make gun control policy. One member of Congress said it wasn’t clear that the president would embrace the 19 proposals. And a participant in that meeting said the White House did not outline the specific executive order proposals.
In a press conference Monday, President Obama said his starting point for his proposals is to focus on “what makes sense.”
“We’re going to have to vote based on what we think is best,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to come up with answers that set politics aside.”
That makes sense to me.
I don’t think anyone who owns a gun should be allowed to sell/give it to just anyone, if you want to sell your guns then you should have to resell it back at the place you originally bought it or at some established place who can conduct a background check.
5:06 pm on January 15th, 2013 449
‘NY State Passes First Gun Control Bill Since Newtown’
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100382151
“This is a scourge on society,” Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. “At what point do you say, `No more innocent loss of life’?”
The measure, which passed the Assembly 104-43, also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns.
“This is not about taking anyone’s rights away,” Democratic Sen. Jeffrey Klein said when the bill passed the Senate late Monday. “It’s about a safe society … today we are setting the mark for the rest of the county to do what’s right.”
Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two “military rifle” features such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal reduces that to one feature and includes the popular pistol grip.
Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.
Ammunition magazines will be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines will have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine will face a misdemeanor charge.”
7:03 pm on January 15th, 2013 450
Removal of that bayonet lug sure makes the weapon less deadly. Reducing bullet capacity from 10 to 7 is a great idea. If crime doesn’t go away, lets make it 5 next time. Buying assault weapons over the internet is already impossible. All such transactions must go through a licensed gun dealer ever since Lee Harvey Oswald’s mailorder rifle.
This is just more chiseling away at the rights of legitimate gun owners without any real action to stop criminals or the criminally insane.
There may be balance as Wyoming and Texas have introduced legislation making it a felony to enforce any new federal gun laws. Firearms and marijuana may be the two issues that encourage states to retrieve their rights and power from the federal government and their one-size-fits-all policies.
8:39 am on January 16th, 2013 451
Lead and Crime Linkfest. Kevin Drum makes it easy for you to check his work on lead at Mother Jones.
What about graduation rates? Depressed by lead, elevated by removal of lead? Hard to say. But Kevin took a look.
10:05 am on January 16th, 2013 452
Wow Glans, you are a chap of one idea with the transition/non-transition metals on this thread!
I don’t really buy it. Lead paint was basically ubiquitous in homes and buildings from the 1920s through the 1960s during times of higher and lower crime rates, and lead is a pretty heavy particle. More likely to spread via dust particles from chipped paint than aerosol gas fumes (toxic enough to cause organic brain damage alone in large doses), though a welder might encounter such fumes (are there a lot of criminals who are welders? don’t know…).
10:33 am on January 16th, 2013 453
Read the links, Liz. Crime rose and fell with use in paint, after a twenty-year delay. Same with gasoline. In different cities, in different countries. A car’s fuel tank used to contain two grams of lead, which got sprayed into the air.
Adults like welders getting exposed to lead is one thing. With kids, it’s worse, because it messes up the development of the brain.
Read the links.
1:37 pm on January 16th, 2013 454
well said tbonetylr
5:04 pm on January 16th, 2013 455
“Ammunition magazines will be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines will have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine will face a misdemeanor charge.” – and they are going to enforce this part of their law, how?
“Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.” – Again, HOW do they plan to enforce this piece of BS? BTW, when are they going to start throwing gang bangers in jail for violating these laws? Or is it just for the average Joe with no criminal history?
“This is a scourge on society,” Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. “At what point do you say, `No more innocent loss of life’?” – how about that WAR on drugs? How many people do those kill every year?
5:22 pm on January 16th, 2013 456
A gun ban is rather short sighted.
has anyone looked into these things:
alcohol
medication
illegal drugs
alcohol has been the cause of many deaths, not just on drunk drivers but as well the victims of drunk drivers yet no alcohol ban.
many people, which included celebrities have died of medication overdose yet there is no stricter monitoring of the the doses that doctors and pharma recommend. just go to your local drug store and pharmas recomment 1000 grams of OTC medication of which in long term, will damage your LIVER at such dosage
Besides, legal gun ban will lead to the increase of ILLEGAL guns…more profits for cartels…
6:23 pm on January 16th, 2013 457
Jake (#456), We are approaching 500 comments, but the only person who has actually proposed banning guns is one person, John in NY. Nobody else has proposed it, so why do you guys keep arguing against gun bans? It is not being proposed or even suggested by the vast, vast majority of people here. Instead of arguing against some phantom position, how about dealing with what’s actually being proposed.?
9:12 pm on January 16th, 2013 458
People argue with gun bans because they see these registration schemes, that do nothing to address gun violence by crazies and criminals and only affect law-abiding citizens, as groundwork for outright gun bans. This is not paranoia since those pushing these schemes the loudest have openly called for gun bans and expressed the idea that every further limitation is a milestone in that direction.
9:48 pm on January 16th, 2013 459
457. Feinstein has proposed it in her bill. That is why.
9:54 pm on January 16th, 2013 460
Obama just today is doing executive orders to limit some actions that concern the 2nd amendment.
I remember quite well that many of you once said that Obama isn’t coming after guns. They were wrong.
It will be difficult and first will be the small executive orders. Whenever he feels he can, he will come for the gun ban that Feinstein wrote. (It is already written) Obama is only waiting to see what he can get away with. 2013 is the year! He must get support this year. After 2014, he belongs to history and will not be able to do much.
10:27 pm on January 16th, 2013 461
#456,
You forgot water. If you drink too much of it, you can die.
11:18 pm on January 16th, 2013 462
Retired GI, I’m a bit pressed for time to look for what it is you’re referring to. Can you show me a news link where Feinstein proposed a gun ban in her bill or where Obama is taking away guns? I’d prefer to respond to something particular.
I would vehemently oppose a bill that prevents law-abiding adults without mental issues from owning a reasonable number of handguns for personal protection or a reasonable number of hunting rifles for that purpose.
11:54 pm on January 16th, 2013 463
What is a “reasonable number”. This is why gun grabbers, especially those who mask themselves as pro gun, are not trusted. That concept makes no sense. Am I going to carry my “arsenal” to a crime scene? Am I more deadly with two rifles instead of one? Does any experience, training or historical event indicate that a gun in each hand is more effective than a single gun in two hands?
Why does it matter how many guns I own. There is no difference between 3 and 300.
When the gun grabbers start talking sense, gun owners will be able to have a meaningful dialog over what reasonable limitations, if any, should apply to gun ownership.
But if gun grabbers truly understood the topic, and made decisions based on reason instead of ideology, they would no longer wish to grab o many guns.
4:27 am on January 17th, 2013 464
There Goes the Boom – ATF
An amendment limiting the law enforcement powers of the ATF couldn’t be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves — which it did.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom—atf
Fox News is complaining because there hasn’t been a director for the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives(ATF) dept. for 6 years. Surprisingly, the senate needs to confirm someone for the job but hasn’t done so yet. But why does such a position need senate confirmation when it’s not a cabinet level position or supreme justice? In Feb. 2006 Wisconsin senator(R) James Sensenbrenner made a “move” to make the ATF director subject to senate confirmation which was inserted into the Patriot Act. Later that same year Sensenbrenner(R-WI) received the NRA’s “Defender Of Freedom” Award. COINCIDENCE?
Former Kansas congressman Todd Tiahrt(R), has recently been saying mayors should not actively trace where illegal guns have been coming from. He said “When crimes are committed or when guns are sold illegally we have the ATF which has agents totally assigned to go after them 24/7.”
But…
There are 100 thousand gun dealers in the U.S. but only 2,500 ATF agents and has been only that many agents for 40 years or since 1972. Does it sound impossible to police 100 thousand gun dealers with so few agents? Here’s the good news, 18 years ago a professor analyzed FBI tracing data and found that 57% of the guns(illegal) used at crime scenes could be traced back to only 1% of the gun dealers.
So a small number of gun dealers are ruining it for all the others. All that needs to be done is for the Feds to have some sort of Federal registry of gun transactions which can be traced back to the bad dealers. This can all be stopped easily right? Not, the ATF is prohibited to have such a gun transaction registry or to share it with anyone other than the police and a specific criminal investigation. We don’t want to make it too easy for the ATF to police guns, so why not tie the ATF’s hands behind their backs and see if they can do it?
DOJ and ATF commerce in the U.S. in 2011 says the ATF can inspect a licensee(gun seller) once every 12 months(only), but in reality inspections are done at an actual rate of about one every 17 years because there aren’t enough ATF agents.
How about relying on self-reporting by gun dealers? NOT, the ATF was barred from requiring gun dealers to take inventory. The ATF can’t even prohibit gun dealers from selling guns to drunk people.
Let’s get back to the Former Kansas congressman Todd Tiahrt(R). Did you know he has an amendment named after him? It’s called the Tiahrt amendment from about 10 years – it’s purpose? – “To protect those who protect us” or in doing so has basically castrated the very same people(ATF) Tiahrt has recently suggested we all rely on to handle the enforcement game even if he’s responsible for castrating the ATF in the past. The Tiahrt amendment is an obstacle opposed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition as well as numerous police organizations. That Frenchman LaPierre from the NRA should just write amendments for the USA right?
4:41 am on January 17th, 2013 465
So what you’re saying, tbonetylr (#464), is that right-wing gun advocates are saying we should be enforcing existing gun control laws instead of making new laws, but at the same time they’re undermining the enforcement of existing gun control laws?
Why, that’s just silly. That would be like…well… trying to keep information about contraception away from teens and young adults, while limiting access, and then whining that there are too many people getting abortions.
6:07 am on January 17th, 2013 466
Kushibo, politically Obama wins. Pro-Gunners and their pee-pee buddy defend at no cost have silenced politicians in the past but our great leader has shown leadership in favor of the masses in America
‘Obama, Biden will hit the road to win gun control fight’
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/50487257/#50487257
Martin Bashir reports
NRA uses President Obama’s children as pawns.
The White House plan to go on the road to campaign for its new gun measures – as well as its response (“cowardly and ugly”) to a new NRA ad featuring the Obamas’ two children.
Next, the NRA will be calling for everyone to be able to veto bills and command an army like the President of the USA.
6:23 am on January 17th, 2013 467
#464
Jon Stewart is a master at shining the light on and making clear and obvious the issues that our “legitimate” news organization make seem to be completely opaque and incomprehensible.
The same people who complain most about how ineffective and incompetent government is seem to always have a hand in making sure it is so.
6:29 am on January 17th, 2013 468
# 465,
The Tiahrt amendment restricts the ATF from what the NRA “says” it wants the ATF to do…
1) Enforce existing gun laws.
2) Gun dealers can ignore police requests for assistance.
3) Denied congress of formerly primed down data.
4) Ended oversight of used firearm sales.
5) Required the destruction of background check records within 24 hours (so if there were any mistakes they can’t be corrected).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/17/1179688/-Must-see-Jon-Stewart-exposes-how-the-NRA-GOP-PREVENT-the-ATF-from-enforcing-current-gun-laws
6:37 am on January 17th, 2013 469
JoeC, I spoke to one American military higher up in S. Korea who can’t stand him. I’d guess the majority of military members feel the same if they care much about or follow politics.
8:45 am on January 17th, 2013 470
#463,
Unless you’re a dealer, if you’ve got 300 guns, you’re most probably a hoarder and therefore you’ve got mental problems, which means you shouldn’t own any at all.
9:22 am on January 17th, 2013 471
The rhetoric is catchy and it sounds reasonable on the surface but it really doesn’t reflect reality. Of course the gun grabbers don’t really understand the reality of the gun culture, the gun business and the relationship with BATFE (aka ATF).
When they speak of “facts”, like plastic guns and Teflon bullets or how the gun business functions, it rings of Reefer Madness. Their grand proclamations don’t clarify reality, they simply reinforce their group anti-inanimate object paranoia while alienating sensible gun owners, the VAST majority of which have never, will never and have never considered committing a crime.
I started to refute each point but realized that no matter how many facts back by primary sources I site, they will be ignored and some new topic become the issue without bringing closure to any existing question, just has been going on in this entire chain of comments.
Teadrinker, as usual, your comment is like the know-it-all on the elementary school playground. Some people “hoard” coins, others hoard stamps. Some hoard paintings or pre-Columbian pottery. There are hoarders of Star Wars action figures, My Little Pony and Cabbage Patch Children. Some women hoard jewelry, shoes and clothes. The technically inclined hoard watches, cars, motorcycles, firearms and even aircraft. Or maybe they just collect them and you are full of yourself, as usual.
10:01 am on January 17th, 2013 472
Correction: from my # 468 comment – 3) Denied congress of formerly public gun crime data.
1:08 pm on January 17th, 2013 473
The only “catchy rhetoric” I see in the gun control debate is the idea that a little bit of regulation is really the first step down a slippery slope. “Slippery slope! Slippery slope!”
Well, that “catchy rhetoric” and “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” or “gun control means hitting your target.”
I guess we have some new contenders. One right-wing site has declared, in the wake of the president’s gun announcement that, “President Barack Obama Just Declared Civil War Against the American People!”
1:15 pm on January 17th, 2013 474
tbonetylr (#468), the question I asked in #465 was rhetorical, but I do appreciate the link you provided. You underscored in #464 a point I’d been making elsewhere about this, especially after the NRA French guy (
) started talking out his arse following Newtown.
1:24 pm on January 17th, 2013 475
Speaking of LaPierre talking out his arse, I’m trying to find a link to him saying something I’d overheard from him in an interview where he justified putting Obama’s daughters in an ad because he didn’t mention them by name. Like that makes it all okay and doesn’t make them less of a target by some loon.
The now infamous ad that asks,”Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” should also ask, “Are there more nutjobs plotting to kill the president or his kids more than you and yours?”
How many jobs are there where 1 in 11 has been killed on duty? Obama holds one of those jobs. And that’s not even counting the dozen or so assassination attempts that failed.
As recently as November 2011, someone managed to fire on the residential quarters of the White House.
I don’t have any kids so far, but among my nephews and nieces and young cousins, I don’t think anyone’s gunning for them like that. It’s not a matter of importance but threat-based need.
Oh, and the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have prevented the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place.
2:31 pm on January 17th, 2013 476
Nice, Kushibo, but I have not said any of those things. Why don’t we discuss the questions I asked or the issues I brought up instead of repeating quotes from the radical fringe and trying to pass it off as mainstream thought.
Those people are not setting policy. The radical anti-gunners are, however.
Once again, there IS a slippery slope because those pushing the gun control agenda the loudest have made no secret that they want a total ban on guns, and this total control of guns in a incremental process.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it.”
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS “60 Minutes”
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!”
– Rep. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News
There are lists of quotes (some of which are bogus, many of which are true) that clearly explain the position of former and current politicians, especially in the 90s before the assault weapon ban caused 20 of them to lose the next election and everyone became more careful of openly criticizing something the majority of American households willingly possess.
The slippery slope exists because we all know magazine limits and universal registration will solve nothing. The solution will be, as it was in the 30s, 60s, 80s and 90s, to move a little farther down the slope with more laws, regulations, restrictions, requirements and new legislative goals pre-written for the next incident that can be leveraged into support.
Every time there is a shooting, they want to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it. The VAST majority of guns and gun owners will never be involved in a crime. Mass punishment treats them like children or subjects. They resent it. It is insulting and unnecessary, especially as it comes from those who know nothing about guns other than what they see in movies.
One other issue I didn’t want to return to, but perhaps I should, is your story about “my preteen cousin “was looking for something” and found his dad’s shotgun that had been well hidden but was still accessible in case of home invasion.”
What is wrong with your family? Who keeps a bare electric wire, a fan with no guard or a rabid animal in the house? This is not the fault of a gun. This is the fault of poor parenting and an ignorant, undisciplined and seemingly untrustable child.
To counter this, I can give a few handfuls of anecdotal cases where children knew exactly where the loaded household guns were kept from the time they first had memories, myself included, yet never had any incident. In my case, I simply knew not to touch them. If I was curious, as happened time to time, I simply asked my father who unloaded one and handed it to me with information and instruction while I inspected it. Why would my father not trust me and why would I violate my father’s trust? What kind of dysfunctional family operates in a different manner? Long before I was a teenager, a gun held no more mystery or special consideration than the stove. They were simply different tools for different jobs and both required a certain amount of caution when handling.
The gun grabbers will never grasp this concept because they were brought up a different way, and in cases where this ignorance did not cause injury, that’s fine. Some people fear electricity and that doesn’t make them bad people. But those values should not be pushed onto everyone else because they are neither enlightened nor superior.
Don’t like guns? Don’t own one. Afraid of crazy people with guns? Worry about crazy people. Guns are not the problem. Normal people with guns are not a threat to you. They might even be of assistance.
2:44 pm on January 17th, 2013 477
Normal, trustworthy, responsible, mentally healthy, citizens can be trusted with unlimited amounts of:
revolvers
semi-automatic pistols
shotguns
fully automatic rifles
belt-fed machine-guns
rocket-propelled grenades
mortars
landmines
all types of ammunition
gunpowder
high explosives
cattle prods
Tasers
tear gas
well-regulated militias, or high-net-worth individuals can be trusted with:
armored vehicles
artillery
military aircraft
lethal gas
pathogens
nuclear bombs
3:13 pm on January 17th, 2013 478
The Joker (#476) wrote:
Hold on, weren’t you the guy that said that, even though no one here was really proposing banning guns, it was okay to argue with gun bans “because they see these registration schemes… as groundwork for outright gun bans”?
So what’s wrong with me looking at those “fringe” voices and assuming they actually represent the true nature of the people on that side of the argument?
Anyway, I’m not so sure how “fringe” they are anyway, the oft-repeated “cold, dead hands” comment was from the president of the NRA (Mr Heston). The “slippery slope” is so often used from all over the political spectrum (including “pro-gun” Democrats) that it cannot be called a “fringe” argument.
The link I provided is Tea Party, so it’s up to you to decide if the Tea Party really is a fringe group even while they have the GOP’s cojones in a vice, but the sentiment in the link is some of the same sentiment uttered at ROK Drop a number of times: Obama’s coming after our guns and that’s going to lead to a lot of dead people trying to get my guns.
Typical (i.e., not “fringe”) opposition to gun control legislation, such as the type put forward by Obama the other day, falls primarily into a small number of arguments: (a) it’s wrongheaded because it won’t work or hasn’t worked [and thus may be feel-good cosmetic action], (b) the problem of gun violence is not the average gun owner, (c) it puts us on a slippery slope toward total gun bans, (d) it’s an attempt to control the population by disarming them first.
How many of those do you agree with?
3:32 pm on January 17th, 2013 479
The Joker wrote (#476):
Nice try, The Joker, but it’s obvious from the actual video in the 1990s that she is referring to weapons covered under the assault weapons ban, which had to (owing to political reality) allow for weapons manufactured prior to its enactment to still be legally bought and sold.
She is not talking about handguns. You are participating in a deception if you present her comment as being about something other than those “assault weapons.”
6:49 pm on January 17th, 2013 480
Kushibo, it is obvious that you care not about the 2nd amendment. You could have found this in half the time that I did. So here you go:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/feinsteins-new-gun-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22/
Now if I didn’t get that right, you will have to look for it yourself.
I have no hope of you seeing the danger to the 2nd amendment. It is clear from your above comments that you are looking for any reason to not understand. Like all Liberals…
7:01 pm on January 17th, 2013 481
Well, it didn’t work. I don’t know what I’m doing it seems. Anyway: On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, ”I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/feinsteins-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22/#ixzz2IHwNYa7p
7:02 pm on January 17th, 2013 482
Ah good. That worked.
7:33 pm on January 17th, 2013 483
Retired GI wrote:
Why would I be looking for that? I was looking for the context of the quote that The Joker provided, which turned out to be quite different from the handgun ban he’d depicted it as.
As for your link, it is speculative future news that hasn’t happened yet, so let’s wait until January 22 to see if it actually bans handguns. But I doubt it will.
7:39 pm on January 17th, 2013 484
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/226/text?q=h.r.%20226
Here’s what certain gun control supporting Congresspersons want gun owners to voluntarily give up, so tons of definitions of future so-called “assault weapons” that gun control solution based parties may attempt to ban.
7:49 pm on January 17th, 2013 485
This does includes semi-automatic/automatic large magazine carrying machine pistols:
(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates
thereof:
“(i) Calico M-110,
“(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
“(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
“(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or
AB-10, or
“(v) Uzi.
7:57 pm on January 17th, 2013 486
#485,
They should also make it harder to get all types of handguns. It’s not as if you can use them for hunting (or at least you can’t legally do in Canada).
8:05 pm on January 17th, 2013 487
“What did become prevalent in the 1990′s was the 24 hour mass media news cycle. The people committing these crimes are either just deranged copycats are psychos looking to make a name for themselves. If the news media didn’t make these lunatics famous than maybe less of them would commit these crimes? Look at Seung-hui Cho who sent pictures of himself holding his handguns in various poses to the news media. The news media should treat these people like the sports world does to people who streak across the television screen during a baseball game. They cut away from the act and do not make these people famous because they do not want to encourage more of this behavior. ”
I agree. But, it’s not only these mass killings that make the news. The US media is obsessed with violence, so much so that I’d switch channels when the 6 o’clock news would come on while watching American TV on cable in Canada. I’d lose my appetite and I’m not the squeamish type.
Have a look at CBC news if you get a chance. Night and day.
12:18 am on January 18th, 2013 488
Hold onto your seats! Yet another outspoken libreal Democrat gun control advocate gets caught with a gun. Bonus points awarded for skirting legal requirements to have it in Chicago by having a no-show job as a security guard, even though he is a state senator.
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130117/chicago/case-against-sen-donne-trotter-moves-forward
There is lots more info on the internet. It is all cringe worthy. When they take my guns, as they have in Chicago, only criminals and gun control advocates will have guns, as they do in Chicago.
Anybody asking why so many are against any form of gun control are sending up a great big dummy flag as the answer is obvious.
2:11 am on January 18th, 2013 489
I’ve never heard of this Donne Trotter, so I guess I just don’t listen much to “outspoken liberal Democrat gun control advocates.”
What was he advocating exactly that makes him a hypocrite?
Precisely what does Chicago do to “take my guns”? Is it illegal to own a gun in Chicago?
I’ve heard that California has really strict gun laws, but it hasn’t affected (as far as I’m aware) any of the guns or rifles my parents have had in their home since before I was born (with some replacements afterward). Of course, I haven’t tried to buy any since then, so maybe that’s just impossible for all I know.
8:07 am on January 18th, 2013 490
Kushibo, that was a condescending remark to rival even Teadrinker.
Your lack of awareness on gun control issues, events and personalities is usual for those pressing to control guns. Many gun owners, who are frequently under attack, are much better versed in what is going on. This is another reason there can be so little real dialog.
To answer your questions,
“Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas.” (This has been ruled against by a federal appeals court but Illinois intends to fight it to the Supreme Court).
This anti-gun politician skirted the gun laws HE pushed for everyone else by getting a fake job as a security guard which allowed him to carry a gun on duty as well as traveling to and from his job. His excuse when getting caught was that he was traveling from his job as a security guard. He is a state senator and there is no evidence he ever worked as a security guard. He has never reported any income from this company. His gun was not registered in Chicago. It is a .25 automatic, which is about the LAST firearm a security guard would carry, but a reasonable choice for a law-abiding citizen having to make the choice of secretly carrying an illegal pistol VERY discretely or being unarmed in a high-crime environment.
His voting record shows he voted NO for a concealed carry law in Illinois, but he has found a way to skirt that law and carry a concealed weapon personally.
That makes him a hypocrite, Kushibo. Hopefully you can see that without trying to argue some small point.
What does Chicago do to “take your guns”?
Until the Supreme Court struck it down, Chicago was the last city in the United States to ban handguns. They then allowed handgun possession but required a number of hoops to jump through and charged high registration fees, essentially continuing the ban for poor people and neighborhoods where the overwhelming majority of gun crime is concentrated. The program only involved those not engaged in crime but it produced a revenue stream for the city.
Kushibo, you have repeatedly asked why gun owners don’t want further regulations and I have answered, yet you never comment on those answers.
In this case, you should understand Illinois and Chicago mentality, arbitrary and overrestrictive gun laws that have no effect on criminals and (obviously) gun crime. Understand where President Obama and many of his advisers and ideological soulmates are from.
Now, you should understand yet another reason gun owners don’t want more meaningless restrictions from people with a history of meaningless restrictions. If you cannot understand this, there is nothing more to say to you.
4:52 pm on January 18th, 2013 491
To appreciate Amendment II, we have to understand its history. Article I section 8 of the new constitution gave the federal government the power to “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, … .” The southern states, in particular Virginia, worried that the federal government might not always want to organize, arm, and discipline state militias which would prevent and suppress slave insurrections. Therefore, says Thom Hartmann, they wanted an amendment that would guarantee their right to organize, arm, and discipline their own well-regulated state militias. Hartmann’s discussion is at Smirking Chimp.
5:26 pm on January 18th, 2013 492
Kushibo, you need to do a bit more reading on the players of this fight. Look at the legislation they have proposed and voted on and you will start to see a touch more of the far bigger picture here.
Like ‘em or not, the NRA does one hell of a job showing people the way their politician’s have voted on the issue of guns. Legislators have to be REAL carefull on what and where they say anything about gun control or there will be some hell to pay once the voters find out what their true feelings are on the subject. Only the staunchest of Democrats in the most secure seats in the nation, will ever hint at what they want to do. (ban guns)
To get an idea of what people really want to do on the subject of guns. Might I suggest these places:
Huffington post
NRA
sarah brady’s various web sites
new york city’s gun laws
Los Angelos gun laws
Chicago’s gun laws
“You can’t know the players if you don’t have a program”.
2:55 am on January 19th, 2013 493
Glans, your link is cute race baiting but it is extreme revisionist history hoping to link gun ownership with *racism*, the accusation that always comes out when facts fail and emotional pleas are all that is left.
The author of that article needs to spend more time reading the clearly documented Federalist Papers instead of discussing sourceless quotes from a few of the dozens of delegates, many of which had no relationship with slavery.
9:17 am on January 19th, 2013 494
Texas Attorney General advert: “WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities.”
http://news.yahoo.com/yall-come-texas-state-official-tells-york-gun-223149333.html
A Texas resident confirmed dead in Algerian hostage crisis. If only they had more guns in Algeria
10:15 am on January 19th, 2013 495
Tobone I reckon they got enough guns over there in Algeria they just aint in the right hands. They got some laws against foreign workers having themselves a gun for protection. They probably got laws against them islamic criminals having them too but they dont listen cause they are criminals.
Good on you tbonetylr for pointing that out. Some of the thinking I seen here is shameful dumb so maybe if they see some example of how that gun control only controls guns for the people that dont mean no kind of harm they will smarten up or maybe they wont. Glad you see the light.
12:30 pm on January 19th, 2013 496
When a former Washington DC prosecutor who enforced their gun ban says that “a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime,” you should listen, as he has inside experience.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LatestHeadlines
1:00 pm on January 19th, 2013 497
Thought I’d share this link. Larry Correia offers a very comprehensive and informed opinion here:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
7:24 am on January 20th, 2013 498
If you choose to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, be responsible and be careful. Five people were injured in separate negligent-discharge incidents on ‘Gun Appreciation Day’. Evan McMorris-Santoro reports for TPM.
After Sonagi trains with firearms, she will never, never, never have a negligent discharge.
11:12 pm on January 23rd, 2013 499
Glans, even gun owners don’t know what they’re doing with guns. They should apply to protect our children in schools to keep them safe aye
http://www.inquisitr.com/488366/two-additional-gun-show-accidents-reported-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Inquisitr+%28Inquisitr%3A+All%29
“The Inquisitr recently reported on three accidental gunshots at a show celebrating gun appreciation day. In that piece we detailed the events at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the NC State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, North Carolina. Now, two additional gun show related incidents have since been declared.”
“These incidents all happened on the first “National Gun Appreciation Day,” a promotional effort encouraging firearm enthusiasts to attend gun shows and visit local gun stores and firing ranges.
WKYC of Cleveland reported the first accident in Medina, Ohio. Around 3:30 pm an exhibitor shot his partner as he sat next to him. An unidentified man previously sold the firearm to the exhibitor during the gun show. While opening a box containing the firearm, the weapon discharged, striking the other man. He sustained non-life threatening injuries to the arm and leg and was taken by LifeFlight to MetroHealth Medical Center. Police are officially calling the shooting accidental.
State police report that in Indianapolis 54-year-old Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic gun when he shot himself in the hand. Cozee was hospitalized and will likely not face charges according to authorities. The victim was in the process of leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds when the shooting occurred. Loaded personal weapons are not permitted at the show.
Firearms expert Greg A. Danas tells NBC News while it’s up to a gun show owner to determine safety rules, he recommends measures like inspecting guns and ensuring firing pins are disabled.
“Even people with the best intentions, screw up, and occasionally make mistakes.”
7:35 am on January 24th, 2013 500
“Loaded personal weapons are not permitted at the show,” says one of the news items quoted by tbonetylr 499. Just wait till the psychopaths find out about that. They’ll massacre defenseless gun owners.
7:56 pm on January 25th, 2013 501
Does anybody have an opinion on the Obama administration moving to limit guns for law-abiding American citizens while supplying guns to criminal Mexican gangs (which were then used to kill law-abiding American citizens)?
So far, nobody has made a case (or even tried) for why legitimate gun owners should accept any further restriction or trust a government that has repeatedly shown to be untrustworthy in safeguarding any rights.
7:09 pm on January 27th, 2013 502
Crime is declining in England and Wales. Kevin Drum explains that they adopted unleaded gasoline in the 1980s.
4:25 am on January 29th, 2013 503
NRA etc..adverts to children(8-17)gun marketing…donga via NYT Sunday article titled “Selling a New Generation on Guns” they are targeting younger “junior shooters” and want to lower the age for hunting licenses ~
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2013012915808
The Boy Scouts of America holds marksmanship training called “Junior Clinic” for members aged 8 to 17 in every autumn. Military shooting coaches provide personal attention from the proper posture to aiming.
The training is sponsored by firearms lobbying groups such as the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, as well as gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson.
Here is a quote from the NYT article(2nd page of 4)
“Trying to Reverse a Trend
The shooting sports foundation, the tax-exempt trade association for the gun industry, is a driving force behind many of the newest youth initiatives. Its national headquarters is in Newtown, just a few miles from Sandy Hook Elementary School, where Adam Lanza, 20, used his mother’s Bushmaster AR-15 to kill 20 children and 6 adults last month.
The foundation’s $26 million budget is financed mostly by gun companies, associated businesses and the foundation’s SHOT Show, the industry’s annual trade show, according to its latest tax return”…
“In an interview, Mr. Sanetti said the youth-centered research was driven by the inevitable “tension” the industry faces, given that no one under 18 can buy a rifle or a shotgun from a licensed dealer or even possess a handgun under most circumstances. That means looking for creative and appropriate ways to introduce children to shooting sports.
“There’s nothing alarmist or sinister about it,” Mr. Sanetti said. “It’s realistic.”
Pointing to the need to “start them young,” one study concluded that “stakeholders such as managers and manufacturers should target programs toward youth 12 years old and younger.”
4th page of 4…
“The Weapon of Choice
The AR-15, the civilian version of the military’s M-16 and M-4, has been aggressively marketed as a cool and powerful step up from more traditional target and hunting rifles.
Given the gun’s commercial popularity, it is perhaps unsurprising that AR-15-style firearms have worked their way into youth shooting programs. At a “Guns ’n Grillin” weekend last fall, teenagers at a Boy Scout council in Virginia got to shoot AR-15s. They are used in youth competitions held each year in Ohio, and in “junior clinics,”some of them sponsored by gun companies or organizations they support.
ArmaLite, a successor company to the one that developed the AR-15, is offering a similar rifle, the AR-10, for the grand prize in a raffle benefiting the Illinois State Rifle Association’s “junior high-power” team, which uses AR-15s in its competitions. Bushmaster has offered on its Web site a coupon worth $350 off the price of an AR-15 “to support and encourage junior shooters”…
Military-style firearms are prevalent in a target-shooting video game and mobile app called Point of Impact, which was sponsored by the shooting sports foundation and Guns & Ammo magazine. The game — rated for ages 9 and up in the iTunes store — allows players to shoot brand-name AR-15 rifles and semiautomatic handguns at inanimate targets, and it provides links to gun makers’ Web sites as well as to the foundation’s “First Shots” program, intended to recruit new shooters.
Upon the game’s release in January 2011, foundation executives said in a news release that it was one of the industry’s “most unique marketing tools directed at a younger audience”…
“The confluence of high-powered weaponry and youth shooting programs does not sit well even with some proponents of those programs. Stephan Carlson, a University of Minnesota environmental science professor whose research on the positive effects of learning hunting and outdoor skills in 4-H classes has been cited by the gun industry, said he “wouldn’t necessarily go along” with introducing children to more powerful firearms that added nothing useful to their experience.
“I see why the industry would be pushing it, but I don’t see the value in it,” Mr. Carlson said. “I guess it goes back to the skill base we’re trying to instill in the kids. What are we preparing them for?”
8:00 am on January 29th, 2013 504
Today, kevin Drum links to Rick Nevin’s study which tries to show that, in the case of lead and crime, the correlation is so strong that it equals causation. Here’s Drum at Mother Jones.
For me, when it gets confusing, I remember that lead really is poison. Just like carbon dioxide really does absorb infrared.
12:26 pm on January 29th, 2013 505
The number of murders in South Korea seems to have peaked in 2009.
2001: 1051
2002: 957
2003: 998
2004: 1084
2005: 1061
2006: 1074
2007: 1104
2008: 1109
2009: 1374
2010: 1251
2011: 1204
I found these numbers at the Korean National Police Agency web site.
I went to Statistics, then to Criminal Investigation, then to Status for occurrence and arrest of 5 major crimes.
It will be interesting to see the number for 2012 and the next few years. If leaded fuel was banned in 1993, and if leaded fuel contributes to violent crime, this number should continue to fall off.
2:05 pm on January 29th, 2013 506
It’s an interesting hypothesis, Glans (#505), but one should also look at other violent crime to get a more accurate picture. It might also support it, but we’ll have to see. South Korea banned tetraethyllead as an additive in 1993. It used to be common to see “무연 휘발유” (unleaded gasoline) signs popping up. (I’m sure Tom remembers.
)
tbonetylr wrote:
Texas? Phht… They should move to Somalia!
2:49 pm on January 29th, 2013 507
kushibo, with other violent crimes, changes in the rate of reporting could swamp the change in the crime rate. Among the four other major crimes, rapes went way up, maybe just because women are more willing to report it. Other crimes kind of bounced around. I figured murder was very likely to be reported, so I went with that.
8:05 am on February 3rd, 2013 508
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL and the author of “American Sniper” was shot and killed at a gun range. Another man was killed, too. Tasia Tsiaperas reports for the crime blog of Dallas News.
2:29 pm on February 6th, 2013 509
David Greenburg of NYU thinks New York City’s 75% drop in violent crime since the early 90s is a mystery. He considers possible explanations, and they all fail. But that’s only because he ignores lead. Here’s Kevin Drum.
4:55 pm on February 6th, 2013 510
Here the peaceloving DPRK shows a video of blowing up NY and no one is upset?
7:50 am on February 8th, 2013 511
A seven-year-old found a loaded .38 revolver in his backpack, so he told his teacher. The Philadelphia police are investigating. Here’s the big story.
h/t TPM.
8:08 am on February 8th, 2013 512
In LA there’s a big manhunt for a former cop gone bad. Police officers mistook a seventy-one-year-old Latina for the thirty-three-year-old black male suspect, so they shot her in the back. “Street justice?” Ari Bloomekatz has the story at his LA Times blog.
h/t Eschaton.
10:39 am on March 2nd, 2013 513
Lead paint damages children’s brains. Helen Epstein reviews Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner, “Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children” in NY Books. I haven’t read the book, but this review gives a good summary of the lead-paint problem.
It begins with an account of an ethically dubious study of various lead abatement programs, in which children were left exposed to lead by abatement methods known to be inadequate. It gets into the politics of lead, and finds no significant movement supporting abatement. Obama is no better than Bush here.
Can you believe this? Dutch Boy lead paint, a dangerous poison, was advertised as good for childrens’ rooms because it was so colorful. Yes, you believe it. It’s disgusting, but not shocking at all.
One misstatement I noticed:
“In 1922, the League of Nations proposed a worldwide lead paint ban, but at the time, the US was the largest lead producer in the world, and consumed 170,000 tons of white lead paint each year. The Lead Industries Association had grown into a powerful political force, and the pro-business, America-first Harding administration vetoed the ban.” As a non-member, of course the US couldn’t veto it. Harding simply declined to participate in the ban. The US government didn’t act till the 1970s.
So here we are, with crime down because we don’t use leaded fuel and paint any more, but still too high because of all the lead left lying around. Naturally, the slum buildings with peeling lead paint are more likely to be the homes of poor and minority families.
4:12 pm on March 24th, 2013 514
Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown Connecticut on Dec. 14th, 2012 – 98 days ago or about 14 weeks – there has been + 2,243(and counting) gunshot killings and accidental deaths. See an interactive map of all deaths in each city/state plus stories of some of the victims below:
‘One Nation Under The Gun: Thousands Of Gun Deaths Since Newtown’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-us-newtown_n_2935686.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
In the first week after the Newtown, Conn., massacre on Dec. 14, more than 100 people in the U.S. were killed by guns. In the first seven weeks, that number had risen to at least 1,285 gunshot killings and accidental deaths. A little more than three months after Newtown, there have been 2,243. The Huffington Post has recorded every gun-involved murder and accidental shooting death reported in U.S. news media since Newtown, revealing an epidemic that shows no signs of abating. The horrors cannot be contained behind yellow police tape or find resolution in a courtroom. For the victim’s families, the grief deforms all it touches. There’s the fear that the radio will play her favorite ballad. An airplane overhead, like the kind he flew, will strike panic. Home is not safe. One month, two months, two years, nine years since those fatal shots — the grief never leaves.
Mapping the Dead
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths
5:06 pm on March 24th, 2013 515
That’s a darn good article Tbone and the lesson is clear. Stay away from criminals and crazies and druggies and gangs and keep a gun around for protection in case they come to you.
6:49 pm on March 24th, 2013 516
Try again! You obviously didn’t read the article. One woman was shot while driving her son home from school as was her 4th grade son who was shot and killed in the head, no gun would’ve helped.
7:20 pm on March 24th, 2013 517
@ 15 JoeC,
“On a side note, the U.S. military is considering restricting gun ownership of services members as a means to deal with the suicide problem.
Since the military is not a democracy, it is free to curtail 2nd Amendment privileges in the same way it curtails the 1st Amendment ones.”
I agree, restricting gun ownership of servicemembers would be smart. It would reduce suicides and soldiers killing each other…
‘Quantico Shooting: Marines Identify Gunman, Two Victims’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/quantico-shooting-gunman_n_2941984.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl16%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D288445
“QUANTICO, Va. — A Marine who shot two of his colleagues to death and then killed himself was a tactics instructor at a school that tests Marines who want to become officers, military officials said Saturday”
“Lopez was an instructor at officer candidates school, known for its grueling 10-week program that evaluates Marines on physical stamina, intelligence and leadership. The candidates must complete obstacle courses, hikes of up to 12 miles in full combat gear and take classes on navigation and tactics that help them in the field, according to the school’s website.”
7:47 am on March 26th, 2013 518
Neither harshness nor leniency has solved the problem of violent crime. At Democracy Journal, Mark A.R. Kleiman proposes smarter policing and supervision, with modern technology. And what else does he propose? Obviously, lead abatement.
1:28 pm on April 5th, 2013 519
One out of thirty-eight American kids have five or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. Lead levels tend to be higher for poor and black children. Government funds for lead abatement have been cut. Mike Stobbe has the big story.
3:48 pm on April 5th, 2013 520
Glans, you can blame 0bama for that… Not Bush/Cheney/Halliburton…
3:49 pm on April 5th, 2013 521
How many gun laws would have stopped Major Hasan from killing GIs at Fort Hood?
4:29 pm on April 5th, 2013 522
Coach, Obama has done nothing about the lead problem. Boehner and McConnell have done nothing about the lead problem. Pelosi and Reid – nothing. Bush and Cheney – Nothing.
Beyond sad.
5:40 pm on April 5th, 2013 523
GOP only has the House and only since 2010. Democrats had all Congress between 2006 and 2010, White House since 2008.
Meanwhile, 0bama managed to reduce the number of people in the work force, increase our national debt, reduce border patrols, reduce health inspectors, reduce our credit rating, reduce the number of people around the world who like America (even below how they felt with Bush in office), and enrich his campaign contributors (with grants to their companies that then declared bankruptcy with no need to pay the money back).
He also played more golf in his first four years than Bush did in eight. I wouldn’t say _that_ was “nothing”…
5:45 pm on April 5th, 2013 524
And no, I’m not trying to defend ANY member of the Bush family… They’re basically just amateur versions of 0bama…
10:40 am on May 1st, 2013 525
A 2-year-old girl has been accidentally shot and killed by her 5-year-old brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift. Here’s the Big Story.
11:16 am on May 1st, 2013 526
This could’ve been prevented by arming the 2 year old.
12:19 pm on May 1st, 2013 527
Guns-r-bad, mmmkay?
No one needs them.
If we make guns illegal, crime will go *POOF* and be gone.
Bad people will be good.
Dumb people will be smart.
1:50 pm on May 1st, 2013 528
I really like how some of you pervs think that making a joke out of the death of a two year old for political points seems okay.
Why the parents left any firearm–loaded or not–around unsupervised children and are not in jail surprises me a little. But maybe that’ll be revealed later. Along with the “demographics” of the affected family (as in did ANY of them have a high school education).
2:02 pm on May 1st, 2013 529
Glans its real nice for you to point that out and I agree with you that the government has to do something about irresponsible parents.
I can understand leaving that there rifle in the corner but I cant see not checking it for a live round and not teaching them youngsters that its best to consider all guns loaded even if you think they aint and you never go and point it at nobody you aint intending to kill anyway. Thats about the first darn thing most of them kids round there learn.
Of course we want to take care of the children above all so Im with you in pushing to stop the senseless death of youngsters. That’s why I think we need more regulation and maybe even a ban on swimming pools. Why I was looking at the CDC website and I was simply amazed how many little kids are dying right there in their home swimming pool. I cant imagine what kind of parents would keep a deathtrap like that in their own back yard. Specially when its full of water.
Glans I reckon you fancy yourself a smart guy and you can probably cast away all them womanly emotions that so easily cloud the reason of lesser men who are unable to comprehend how little harm the great number of guns do to children compared the the harm a much fewer number of swimming pools do.
I reckon I dont need to say more do I.
2:20 pm on May 1st, 2013 530
Forty-four percent of Republicans agree with this: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” Among Democrats, it’s eighteen percent, independents twenty-seven. Overall, twenty-nine percent of Americans agree. These numbers come from a Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll related to the debate on gun control.
h/t TPM
2:23 pm on May 1st, 2013 531
I just submitted an informative comment, but it disappeared. I don’t know why. Maybe GI Korea and friends can retrieve it.
Be that as it may, the Founders did not give the federal government the power to teach the principles of gun safety. That power is reserved to the states or to the people.
3:28 pm on May 1st, 2013 532
Glans, that’s right.
7:46 pm on May 1st, 2013 533
Glans you is right again. Them founding fathers didnt give the federal government the power to teach the principles of gun safety. One could add the founding fathers went out of their way to take away the power of the federal government to control gun ownership.
I sure hope that comment of yours turns up as I reckon you expounded on this here concept.
3:43 am on May 2nd, 2013 534
Forty-four percent of Republicans agree, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” Among Democrats, it’s eighteen percent, independents twenty-seven. Overall, twenty-nine percent of Americans agree. These numbers come from a Fairleigh Deckinson University Public Mind poll related to the debate on gun control.
h/t TPM
[Let's see if the misspelling (Deckinson) is enough to get this here comment through the filter. The 'e' is supposed to be an 'i'.]
4:43 am on May 2nd, 2013 535
I reckon the real story there is that about a fifth of Democrats think an armed revolution might be a coming. I ain’t seen numbers like that since the Weatherman were preparing for the Days of Rage and yelling “The Elections Don’t Mean Shit—Vote Where the Power Is—Our Power Is In The Street”.
I reckon if things keep up the way they are a going by taxing the workers to give to the lazy and the foreign and the terrorists and regulating all them little businesses out of business and building tanks instead of schools and taking away the guns but not providing no more police except for SWAT teams playing cowboys and not giving us nobody to vote for except two losers with bad intentions and mostly the same ideas. Well I reckon there could be a few folks voting in the streets. And I reckon them democrats is going to wish they had themselves a gun when time comes to need one and I reckon them republicans is going to wish they had one of them government funded social safety nets when it ain’t there no more. Only people that will be happy are lowest of the low who will treat it like one big loot party.
6:43 am on May 2nd, 2013 536
Glans is quoting from such a reputable source, there is nothing more to say… I’m sure they were every bit as honest as the President and Joe Biden…
BTW, since Democrats in academia are now threatening themselves with rape and blaming conservatives, do we have any doubt where the violence will be coming from? http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4731
9:11 am on May 2nd, 2013 537
The weapon was designed, made, and sold specifically for children by Keystone Sporting Arms. Travis Loller and Dylan Lovan have the Big Story. Nobody’s too young to learn the principals of gun safety. And these kids may need to resist federal oppression some day soon.
9:46 am on May 2nd, 2013 538
It’s about tasty, yummy deer. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is all about. We kicked the British out so we could protect that right.
Some people shouldn’t have guns. Or kids. Or cars. Or oxygen.
Guns, like pea nisses, cause crime.
9:52 am on May 2nd, 2013 539
Glans you are a rather sarcastic fellow who sure has a lot of snide little comments to make but the moment anyone starts to take you seriously and try to have a real conversation with facts and all you run like a scalded dog and come up with snide little comments about something else while pretended you didnt never have the last conversation. There aint much you can do with a fellow like that cept set him on fire and nod your head while you watch him burn.
I cant say them kids will be needing to resist any federal oppression but I reckon gun safety is a pretty good thing to teach since there are about as many guns as there are people in America and chances are they will run across one some day and its a pretty good thing to know which end not to point at your sister.
There was a time when folks made these same little snide comments about the dangers of electricity and motor cars and all sorts of things that aint dangerous unless someone who dont know better goes and makes them so.
Glans I reckon you would better serve yourself and whatever ideas you is promoting if you stuck to one thing and argued it out to the end. Worst that could happen is you change your thinking and leave a better man and the best case is you win someone over to your side. As it sits now with the way you is running things you just keep looking more foolish and well on your way to the likes of the Onezine-Teadrinker thing and that scoundrel Tom.
2:17 pm on May 5th, 2013 540
Violence is declining, says Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at Harvard. He had a conversation at the 2013 GET conference, just days after the Boston Marathon bombing. He notes that North Korea poses a risk of serious violence, with its narcissistic marxist system and its nuclear bombs. Here he is at fora.tv.
3:33 pm on May 5th, 2013 541
#537: I agree no one is too young to learn the principles of gun safety.
Safety rule number one: Don’t touch a gun without a parent.
My sons each got a rifle when they were nine.
5:21 pm on May 5th, 2013 542
Adam Kokesh will lead a march on Washington with loaded rifles if one thousand people will join him.
“On the morning of July 4, 2013, Independence Day, we will muster at the National Cemetery & at noon we will step off to march across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge. This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event. We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.”
Alex Seitz-Wald reports for Salon.
h/t DigbysBlog
3:36 am on May 8th, 2013 543
Gun violence in the United States has decreased over the past twenty years. The National Institute of Justice has the statistics.
6:31 am on May 8th, 2013 544
#542, Salon is surely THE right place to go to find the thoughts of conservatives and NRA leadership… Or maybe the LA Times or HuffPo, eh?
7:24 am on May 8th, 2013 545
Gun Crime Is Down But People Think It Is Up
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story
Because that’s how politicians and the media portray it…
9:28 am on May 8th, 2013 546
You all see that 3D printed gun thats all up in the news? Somebody here done said it dont matter none if they ban them guns cause the criminals will just be making them. Heck now anybody can make one. But that dont matter none cause when I was a kid we was hunting ducks with homemade shotguns made of pipe and match heads. I reckon if there wasnt no guns and there wasnt no bullets folks that had a mind to could gin them up a pretty nice shooting iron all by themselves if they wanted to knock off a liquor store or do some kind of home invasion. Theyed have to ban a whole bunch of common chemicals and indoor plumbing if they wanted to keep a fellow from making a gun. But you can bet them congressmen that dont understand nothing about guns or 3D printing will be making all sorts of crazy laws that dont do nothing but make normal law abiding folks into accidental criminals.
9:50 am on May 8th, 2013 547
If “they” could just make a law which made criminal acts like assault, murder, rape, robbery, etc. against the law, this would all be solved.
10:01 am on May 8th, 2013 548
setnaffa (#544):
I don’t know why you’re deriding Glans for using a left-of-center source for “the thoughts of conservatives” when he included a lengthy quote from the group (i.e., “their thoughts”) straight from their Facebook page.
Their thoughts on the matter:
These are the folks who are planning to walk armed by the thousands into Washington DC.
10:06 am on May 8th, 2013 549
setnaffa wrote:
Wow. You just quoted Michael Moore, who had essentially the exact same message in “Bowling for Columbine.” He started out with the assumption that the problem was too many guns in America, but seeing how Canada had the same number per capita he eventually concluded it was the media and politicians creating a state of fear.
3:24 pm on May 8th, 2013 550
As the entire ROK Droppin’ community understands, the reason why gun violence is falling is that leaded fuel was phased out beginning in the 1970s. Little ones who grow up with less lead develop healthier brains. They’re more likely to finish school and qualify for good jobs, less likely to go around hurting people.
I think the entire ROK Droppin’ community also understands who benefits from fear of violent crime – the gun makers. Therefore the gun makers’ lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association, promotes this fear.
4:07 pm on May 8th, 2013 551
Glans (#550), I have appreciated your information that you’ve been giving us on the connection between lead and violence, and I read up on a lot of the material that you sent. I think it is a very intriguing and even convincing theory, and I have presented it to other people who would find it interesting.
4:43 pm on May 8th, 2013 552
Thanks, kushibo. I’m glad you’re looking at lead and spreading the word. I hope the general public becomes aware of it.
7:13 am on May 18th, 2013 553
The murder rate is approaching a historic low. Kevin Drum had a cool chart from Rick Nevin a couple of days ago. Lead exposure of children rose when lead paint was introduced, fell when it was withdrawn. The same up and down was repeated for leaded gasoline. The murder rate rose and fell twice, twenty-one years later. This coincidence of two-humped curves is very convincing evidence for lead as a cause (not the only cause) of crime. Kevin writes for Mother Jones.
4:14 pm on May 18th, 2013 554
The murder rate is higher in places that ban honest people from having guns… Like Chicago, NYC, DC, etc…
12:55 am on May 19th, 2013 555
#554
That looks like a popular assumption that should be easy enough to prove or disprove.
I went to the table on this page based on FBI data and sorted by the Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter column. DC came out in 14th position and Chicago was 16th. New Orleans, Louisiana was #1.
According to the Guns and Ammo rankings for the Best States for Gun Owners in 2013, Louisiana was ranked the 17th best state. The #1 state in the G&A ranking was Arizona and New York was ranked #50 (DC was #51). Yet, back in the murder rate table, Tucson and Phoenix Arizona had the 29th and 36th highest murder rates respectively. NYC was at 46th.
Numerous other discrepancies from what you claim can be found by comparing those two lists. Obviously, murder rates must be based on much more than how liberal or restrictive the state’s gun laws are.
8:21 am on May 19th, 2013 556
#555 I think you need to factor in certain non-pc truths about the modern US urban environment population demograhics.