Gun Control

[horses4courses]

With the horrible events in Newtown, CT this week, do you think we are about to see changes in US gun laws?

As a liberal, I won't dispute the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
What has always troubled me, though, is how civilians are able to obtain automatic assault weapons. That will never make sense to me.
Those guns are designed for nothing but killing and, in my opinion, should be legal for only active military and police force members to carry.

What are your thoughts?

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh gee, I wonder how this thread will go... :lol:

My thoughts on the topic have been expressed somewhat in the school shooting thread.

Before we eliminate video games, violent Hollywood productions the sale of assault weapons, or whatever it has been deemed that set this crazed killer off and made it easier to carry out his slaughter, let's instead have a serious discussion on how we deal with our population of mentally ill people in this country.

And really, do you think he would have killed less CHILDREN with two automatic handguns instead of an assault weapon? You don't need an assault weapon to carry out the evil acts he did Friday against CHILDREN. Therefore, there will be calls to ban automatic or semi-automatic handguns as well, and eventually, ALL firearms will be sought to be banned. I know, I know, slippery slope argument. But it's true. Why stop at assault weapons?

You don't need a freakin' assault weapon to kill a bunch of kids sitting in a kindergarten classroom.

And in fact, it was reported multiple times that authorities found the RIFLE sitting in HIS CAR. Now all of a sudden, it's being reported that he used the rifle for all of the murders. Something doesn't quite add up for me.

Why would he walk to the school door carrying a big ol' assault rifle? That would set off a big ol' red flag, don't you think, and possibly make it harder for him to gain entrance.

I know reports coming out of this tragedy were often inaccurate, so the reports of finding the rifle IN HIS CAR may indeed be incorrect, but I find these discrepancies a bit odd all around.

[horses4courses]

Sure, there will be those calling for the ban of all weapons.
That's totally impractical, and will never happen.

People will call for a ban on assault weapons, or a modification in their design (limiting clip size, etc.).
That's more realistic, but will not cure all problems.

Focusing on mental illness is just as difficult.
You're right, though, PA. It needs to be addressed.
Doctor/client privilege, unwillingness of families to disclose the problems of loved ones.
It's an extremely complex situation, and there is no perfect solution.

If change can occur, though, that saves lives, it's an accomplishment.
Let's hope we can take some steps in the right direction.

[PaceAdvantage]

There was a shooting at the Excalibur in Vegas Friday. A shooting at an Alabama hospital Saturday. 50 shots were fired outside a California mall Saturday. An Oklahoma student was arrested Friday for plotting to massacre his classmates. And just now, it's being reported a man with 47 guns in Indiana has been arrested:

Von I. Meyer allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire before saying he would 'kill as many people as he could' at a nearby elementary school. http://news.msn.com/us/ind-man-with-47-guns-arrested-after-school-threat

Fast and furious takes on a whole new meaning in terms of how anything related to guns is going to be reported as "BREAKING NEWS" in the short run.

[dartman51]

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday:

"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."

I second that thought. :ThmbUp:

[redshift1]

And in fact, it was reported multiple times that authorities found the RIFLE sitting in HIS CAR. Now all of a sudden, it's being reported that he used the rifle for all of the murders. Something doesn't quite add up for me.

Why would he walk to the school door carrying a big ol' assault rifle? That would set off a big ol' red flag, don't you think, and possibly make it harder for him to gain entrance.

I know reports coming out of this tragedy were often inaccurate, so the reports of finding the rifle IN HIS CAR may indeed be incorrect, but I find these discrepancies a bit odd all around.

Two rifles one left in car one used in classroom.

.

[OntheRail]

Let see ban and confiscate all guns.... then what? Ban all machining... and metals. Where do we stop?

More Laws will do nothing... enforce the laws we have now.

[Robert Goren]

Oh gee, I wonder how this thread will go... :lol:

My thoughts on the topic have been expressed somewhat in the school shooting thread.

Before we eliminate video games, violent Hollywood productions the sale of assault weapons, or whatever it has been deemed that set this crazed killer off and made it easier to carry out his slaughter, let's instead have a serious discussion on how we deal with our population of mentally ill people in this country.

And really, do you think he would have killed less CHILDREN with two automatic handguns instead of an assault weapon? You don't need an assault weapon to carry out the evil acts he did Friday against CHILDREN. Therefore, there will be calls to ban automatic or semi-automatic handguns as well, and eventually, ALL firearms will be sought to be banned. I know, I know, slippery slope argument. But it's true. Why stop at assault weapons?

You don't need a freakin' assault weapon to kill a bunch of kids sitting in a kindergarten classroom.

And in fact, it was reported multiple times that authorities found the RIFLE sitting in HIS CAR. Now all of a sudden, it's being reported that he used the rifle for all of the murders. Something doesn't quite add up for me.

Why would he walk to the school door carrying a big ol' assault rifle? That would set off a big ol' red flag, don't you think, and possibly make it harder for him to gain entrance.

I know reports coming out of this tragedy were often inaccurate, so the reports of finding the rifle IN HIS CAR may indeed be incorrect, but I find these discrepancies a bit odd all around. It has been reported that he shot his way in. It makes no sense that he would allowed into school any other way. Schools these days do not allow anybody into the schools unless they have a reason to be there for all sorts of reasons.
We all know how this poll is going to go.;) The anti-gun laws people make up most of the posters this board.
There is one thing for sure, it is not wise to a bunch of guns in the house with a kid that mental problems. The mother paid with life for that piece of stupidity.

[PaceAdvantage]

Two rifles one left in car one used in classroom.

.I had not read that. Thanks for the update.

[PaceAdvantage]

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday:

"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."

I second that thought. :ThmbUp:Pretty much common sense, but unfortunately, not very in tune with human nature and the "rubber necking" effect. People (for the most part) don't avoid looking at car wrecks, or other tragedies. There's a reason this kind of news "sells."

It's been this way forever...even before the Internet, and it's not going to change.

Bonnie and Clyde? Anyone remember their victims?

[Tom]

Let's focus on the guns and once again ignore the real problems.
But we will all feel good about things, and after all, isn't the the point of it all?

[PaceAdvantage]

Two rifles one left in car one used in classroom.

.BTW, I just read a very recent article that did not state this:

The rifle used was a Bushmaster .223-caliber, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation who was not authorized to speak about it and talked on condition of anonymity. The gun is commonly seen at competitions and was the type used in the 2002 sniper killings in the Washington, D.C., area. Also found in the school were two handguns, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.Lanza shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, to death at the home they shared Friday, then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in her car with at least three of her guns, forced his way in by breaking a window and opened fire, authorities said. http://news.msn.com/us/conn-gunman-shot-self-as-authorities-closed-in

[Robert Goren]

Let's focus on the guns and once again ignore the real problems.
But we will all feel good about things, and after all, isn't the the point of it all?Exactly what do you think is the real problems are?

[PaceAdvantage]

We all know how this poll is going to go.;) The anti-gun laws people make up most of the posters this board.Oh look...once again (so far), you are wrong. What a shock.

Who makes up most of the posters on this board again? I keep telling you guys you are clueless when it comes to KNOWING what you THINK those opposite you THINK, but you never heed my words.

[TJDave]

IMO, it should be much more difficult to buy weapons and ammunition. The background check is TOTAL BS.

[Robert Goren]

Oh look...once again (so far), you are wrong. What a shock.

Who makes up most of the posters on this board again? I keep telling you guys you are clueless when it comes to KNOWING what you THINK those opposite you THINK, but you never heed my words.The voting is far from over. There are 29 votes as I post this. I expect at least 5 times that many votes.

[nijinski]

Very difficult subject .

I would not want to take the rights away to arm for a responsible person
to acquire a gun for self protection .

I do believe we need to infringe on the privacy of regisrered gun owners
though . They really need to be psychologically sound .

My thoughts go hand in hand with what I see lacking in this country . A broken mental health system and a variety of problems facing the youth
who lack proper child rearing .

My feelings in view of the tragedy at Sandy Hook schools. If Adam were younger , he should have been removed from the home . The other case
scenerio , the arms did not belong in the home with a ticking time bomb residing there either .

It's tough to say right now . Six year olds were senselessly murdered as well as the school employees . It's way to emotional to to take it all in .
I can understand how people will point fingers at legal arms . Again , in this particular situation , firearms dd not belong in the hands of either of the Lanzas . The system does need to get tougher if it is to remain legal .

[elysiantraveller]

As a liberal, I won't dispute the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
What has always troubled me, though, is how civilians are able to obtain automatic assault weapons.

Here is what troubles me... people don't even know the current gun laws...

It is illegal to own and possess automatic assault weapons...

Futhermore I'd be curious to know what laws could have prevented this from happening? A law-abiding gun owner was murdered with her own weapons, they were then stolen, and used to commit a crime.

I find it funny people are quick to announce that the firearms were bought legally as if the person buying them committed the crime... That did not happen.

[Tom]

Exactly what do you think is the real problems are?

I don't know yet - the investigation is not over with. I suggest we wait until we know more of what happened, then look for commonalities among all the shootings.

Was this kid on some meds?
Were others on these same meds?

I don't know, Bobby. We need to start thinking about this problem, not reacting to ghosts.

Start simple -

the school had a special lock on the doors.
Why.
To keep people out.
Why?
Because sometimes people invade schools and shot people.
Why?
Because they have guns.


Doesn't fit. Need more whys.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why? Because they're nuts and need to be medicated or locked up. That's why.

The trick is finding them before they find the gun...or knife...or bomb...or whatever....

[TJDave]

It is illegal to own and possess automatic assault weapons...


Where did you hear that?

[fast4522]

If you are flush with money and have a CCW and are willing to go all in for class 3 and pay the Federal stamp tax not only can you go full auto but separate Federal tax stamps are there for almost anything you can afford. It is every Senators favorite tax on the rich. Every time a solder of fortune leaves the country with his machine gun a tax is paid, and when he and the gun returns another tax is paid. Every time someone travels to another state for a automatic weapons shooting event there is a Federal tax stamp paid and also upon return. If you are rich, its legal.

[elysiantraveller]

Where did you hear that?

You need to pay the state and fed tax. The weapon needs to be made prior to 1986 to be on the registry. You need a dealer with a Class III license to sell the firearm and the gun needs to be registered with the ATF who conducts their own background check. Weapons because of their few number typically start at or around $10,000 and go up.

I don't believe a single firearm on the ATF registry has ever been used in a crime, maybe once? I could be mistaken but the internet doesn't provide any examples.

If you go through all of the above then it is legal. If you want to play semantics... The average Joe can't just go buy one and accessibility is the key issue with gun control.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If people want to deal with guns and gun laws, then do it out of the context of this event. Whatever you come up with isn't going to stop this sort of thing, so if you are doing it principally to stop this stuff, then you are going to be disappointed and then need more laws when perps move on to the next most lethal available weapon. When you blame the weapon, you acquit the person, and if you are really serious about actually trying to stop this stuff, it is the person that needs to be dealt with. I'm not debating any argument that a different weapon yields a somewhat different outcome, but that's not solving the actual problem. Everybody gets all wound up and vows to make it all stop, but then most immediately go straight to easy solutions to problems that aren't even the problem that they supposedly object to. Simply, if you want to change gun laws, let's just approach it from some logical perspective about sensible balances of rights and needs and not pretend like it is a solution of any sort.

[Robert Goren]

Tom, school have locks on their doors not only to keep out nuts with guns, but also to keep out sexual predators. The schools here started locking doors after sexual predator snuck in and molested an eight year old in the boys rest room about 10 years ago.

[fast4522]

Gun Control


http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=415

[Tom]

Tom, school have locks on their doors not only to keep out nuts with guns, but also to keep out sexual predators. The schools here started locking doors after sexual predator snuck in and molested an eight year old in the boys rest room about 10 years ago.

Then you are telling me that the school did not do anything specific to percent a shooter from getting in?
Even worse.

Schools even go so far as to suspend students who make the old "gun" with their index finger and fists. What schools have done is create a zone whereby we send our kids to be sitting ducks in an area with no protection. The only ones armed in a school zone are the bad guys.

Not a good plan.

Violence has been with us since Kane and Able. And there were no guns. No matter what we ever do, we will never eliminate it and we never eliminate weapons. We damn well better learn to live with them amongs us and have plans on what to do in the remote event we need to.

[NJ Stinks]

I read the other day that there are around a million Floridians that have a concealed gun permit. My reaction was why the hell would I want to spend any more money to vacation in Florida? My idea of a fun vacation does not include worrying about being caught in a crossfire, accidently upsetting the wrong person, or hoping I don't run into a nut with a gun.

[PaceAdvantage]

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday:

"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."

I second that thought. :ThmbUp:It's being reported that this is a hoax...Freeman never said or wrote such a thing...

http://www.eonline.com/news/371928/morgan-freeman-blames-media-for-recent-shootings-not-so-fast

[johnhannibalsmith]

... My idea of a fun vacation does not include worrying about being caught in a crossfire, accidently upsetting the wrong person, or hoping I don't run into a nut with a gun.

Dude, relax. If you are really scared of something like that, you better quit driving in Joisey ASAP.

[Tom]

Yup.

[Rookies]

Oh look...once again (so far), you are wrong. What a shock.

Who makes up most of the posters on this board again? I keep telling you guys you are clueless when it comes to KNOWING what you THINK those opposite you THINK, but you never heed my words.

Uhhhh... he's neither right or wrong. The poll is not what people think it is.

It is ambiguous.

[Robert Goren]

aThen you re telling me that the school did not do anything specific to percent a shooter from getting in?
Even worse.

Schools even go so far as to suspend students who make the old "gun" with their index finger and fists. What schools have done is create a zone whereby we send our kids to be sitting ducks in an area with no protection. The only ones armed in a school zone are the bad guys.

Not a good plan.

Violence has been with us since Kane and Able. And there were no guns. No matter what we ever do, we will never eliminate it and we never eliminate weapons. We damn well better learn to live with them amongs us and have plans on what to do in the remote event we need to.What were they suppose to do? He shot out a window to get in. I suppose we could have a cop at every school. I don't think you like the cost of that and I am not too sure he would not just be the first victim. They could have a rent-a-cop, but I consider them useless. Somebody like the principal could have a gun in his desk. By the time he gets it out, he would be dead. Once a killer is in the school, it is too late.
Whatever we do, it will have to happen before the killer gets there. Sure there has always been killers and will always be. But that does not mean we can not reduce the number of victims.I am sure we can if we just set our minds to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Uhhhh... he's neither right or wrong. The poll is not what people think it is.

It is ambiguous.60 vs 36 is ambiguous? Really? In what universe?

[PaceAdvantage]

But that does not mean we can not reduce the number of victims.I am sure we can if we just set our minds to it.What kind of ****ing nonsense is this? Are you serious? Are you ****ing serious?

Dude, many have referred to you as a troll (yourself included, if you don't remember), but I never thought of you that way. But now..after THIS? You are indeed a troll, aren't you?

If we set our minds to it? Really? Is that what you're advocating? The power of positive thinking? As regards to a psychopathic murderous evil human being?

I've got news for you. There is NOTHING you can do to STOP a murderous PSYCHOPATHIC human being from carrying out his BLOOD LUST. NOTHING. You can ban guns. You can ban video games. Hell, you can even ban HOLLYWOOD. Not gonna CHANGE A THING.

The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you can join reality.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What kind of ****ing nonsense is this? Are you serious? Are you ****ing serious?

Dude, many have referred to you as a troll (yourself included, if you don't remember), but I never thought of you that way. But now..after THIS? You are indeed a troll, aren't you?

If we set our minds to it? Really? Is that what you're advocating? The power of positive thinking? As regards to a psychopathic murderous evil human being?

I've got news for you. There is NOTHING you can do to STOP a murderous PSYCHOPATHIC human being from carrying out his BLOOD LUST. NOTHING. You can ban guns. You can ban video games. Hell, you can even ban HOLLYWOOD. Not gonna CHANGE A THING.

The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you can join reality.

:lol: :lol:

Quite an impressive rant.

I think he was probably just advocating for legislation restricting certain weapons that people have concluded make mass killing easier. As in, if we put our minds to compromise on these gun laws, we can let people only shoot kids with revolvers or maybe muskets and perhaps only 6 or 7 would die instead of 20....

...unless he brings 10 revolvers and 20 muskets.

[Jay Trotter]

What kind of ****ing nonsense is this? Are you serious? Are you ****ing serious?Don't sugar coat it, tell us how you really feel! Sometimes, your so ambiguous!!! :faint:

[Rookies]

60 vs 36 is ambiguous? Really? In what universe?

In this one. The poll question does not necessarily refer to making Gun Control more or less stringent. It asks whether or not you believe there should be a change in Gun law.

Those who favour NO Gun Laws whatsoever (as some of this Forum surely advocate) would vote 'Yes' and be included with those of us who would want draconian change.

(p.s. I was shocked & appalled at Ralph's thread a couple of weeks back on those Sniper Assault Rifles and intended to respond. Then this unimaginable horror happened and I did not want to express multiple strong opinions there. I'm glad Jay established the new thread and refers to several conjoined themes I have an interest in.)

[PaceAdvantage]

Those who favour NO Gun Laws whatsoever (as some of this Forum surely advocate) would vote 'Yes' and be included with those of us who would want draconian change.Are you serious? Damn man, I thought I only had one of these types of replies to dish out tonight, but now I have TWO?

You can not actually believe that people who want NO gun laws WHATSOEVER would be intelligent enough to answer YES to this poll. You absolutely, can not, in no way whatsoever, with a STRAIGHT FACE, think this to be true...

[Rookies]

Are you serious? Damn man, I thought I only had one of these types of replies to dish out tonight, but now I have TWO?

You can not actually believe that people who want NO gun laws WHATSOEVER would be intelligent enough to answer YES to this poll. You absolutely, can not, in no way whatsoever, with a STRAIGHT FACE, think this to be true...

Mike, I'm not trying to gin up a devil's advocate position, especially on a topic as uber serious as this one, and one which will be front and center for a long time. I simply said it appeared ambiguous. When I first looked at it, it looked simple and you could infer intent. But, it certainly could be either way. There are sharp people here and after more than a first glance, could easily change their vote based on the "change" part which dominates the question. "Change" does not necessarily mean more control.

I just think the options (for this part of the entire issue) could have been framed more concretely.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is my last rant of the night.

Seriously. Mayor Bloomberg says gun control should be Obama's NUMBER ONE PRIORITY? Are you kidding me?

Senator Dianne Feinstein is making gun control her first maneuver when the new congress convenes in January? Did I hear that right?

I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but holy crap! I guess the economy is booming again.... :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is my last rant of the night.

...

Don't stop now! :lol:

I usually miss out on the David Gregory Show (once called Meet The Press), often by conscious decision when they announce which media whore legislators will be barking out party rhetoric. Today he had Bloomberg on for a GOOD long while. And Feinstein on later as part of the "round table".

I thought he did a very commendable job on your Mayor. You would have thought he was an actual journalist. Had him on his heels most of the show, even questioning why he even bothered to endorse the President if this was the top priority for him and yet Obama only loosened regulations. Really backed the Mayor down for the most part to only really being able to endorse doing away with "military style" rifles and large clips. He actually made the Mayor look pretty stupid just by asking general, logical devil's advocate questions.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, you do know that TECHNICALLY, Bloomberg is still a Republican (I think). That made it OK for Gregory to actually act like a journalist...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Went Indy in 2007, I think. Pretty sure he was going for the Triple Crown.

[PaceAdvantage]

Went Indy in 2007, I think. Pretty sure he was going for the Triple Crown.Damn...he's been Independent for 5 years now?

Shows you how much I know...even in my own backyard....

[johnhannibalsmith]

Bah, not that matters. About the only thing I respect about him is that he finally just stopped Party hopping and became what he is, Independent. I'd guess that 95% of people that live in NY just assume he's a Pelosiesque Democrat and have no clue that he's somewhere on the top ten wealthiest prick in the land list. Well, unless your one of those guys hanging out that is getting frisked all the time, then you probably assume he's a dirty racist Republican. :D

[hcap]

Whatever we do, it will have to happen before the killer gets there. Sure there has always been killers and will always be. But that does not mean we can not reduce the number of victims.I am sure we can if we just set our minds to it.
__________________Robert, you have it spot on. I posted this on the My next gun. Sniper accuracy....done easy thread

Yes the evidence supports gun control.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Homicide

citations for each study are listed


1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

....Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide..

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide 1 study

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2nd) study


Also

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2009

I hate to tell you this guys, but it looks like there is a correlation between red states/more deaths by firearms and blue states/fewer death by firearms.

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control

[turninforhome10]

The part that I find most disturbing is that in all the recent cases except the AZ instance fear of death or prison was no deterent whatsoever. If you cannot punish those responsible for these atrocities, what will gun control help.
It would almost seem that some kind of sanity test or character test should be needed to purchase guns. In this case his mother had all the weapons.
Bottom line there is no easy answer. As our society gets more and more involved with our fascination with real-time displays of our lives, it seems as evil is becoming a popular topic. Pick a night on any network and there will be some of show that can teach you how to be a killer and then at 10 you can watch the results of the training on action news.
How much our society enjoys violence is deplorable.

[Tom]

This is my last rant of the night.

Seriously. Mayor Bloomberg says gun control should be Obama's NUMBER ONE PRIORITY? Are you kidding me?

Senator Dianne Feinstein is making gun control her first maneuver when the new congress convenes in January? Did I hear that right?

I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but holy crap! I guess the economy is booming again.... :rolleyes:

Never waste a good crisis. Or something to that effect.

[Robert Goren]

The part that I find most disturbing is that in all the recent cases except the AZ instance fear of death or prison was no deterent whatsoever. If you cannot punish those responsible for these atrocities, what will gun control help.
It would almost seem that some kind of sanity test or character test should be needed to purchase guns. In this case his mother had all the weapons.
Bottom line there is no easy answer. As our society gets more and more involved with our fascination with real-time displays of our lives, it seems as evil is becoming a popular topic. Pick a night on any network and there will be some of show that can teach you how to be a killer and then at 10 you can watch the results of the training on action news.
How much our society enjoys violence is deplorable.Which raise the question of how sane she was? Teaching a mentally ill person to shoot is not the act of a rational person.
I will agree with you that the punishment is no deterrent to an irrational person. Preventing them or at least limiting them in their ability to harm is the only answer. How to do that is now what is up for debate. I agree with the president that we can no longer standby and do nothing.

[delayjf]

According the FBI UCI stats - 82% of children Homicides did not involve a gun. The problem in this country is violence, drugs and alcohol.

[turninforhome10]

According the FBI UCI stats - 82% of children Homicides did not involve a gun. The problem in this country is violence, drugs and alcohol.
And the marketing of the above is stronger than ever. I recently moved into a very Hispanic and Indian population in Philadelphia. Thinking about it in the big picture school violence is a very American problem. The scary thought is that is seems to have become a contest of brutality and just when we think it cannot get any worse the bar gets raised.

[Robert Goren]

According the FBI UCI stats - 82% of children Homicides did not involve a gun. The problem in this country is violence, drugs and alcohol.There has no mention anywhere that alcohol or drugs in case. Why even bring it up? This was mentally ill person with access to guns who used them to kill a bunch of people at one time. This is not the first time this has happened this year. If you want address ways to prevent child abuse, you can, prehaps, in another thread. This is not case of child abuse at least not in the usual matter. It is case of mass murder like what happened in Colorado. Only this time, it involved 20 six year olds and 7 adults. Other than that, there is very little difference.

[Tom]

Who mention abuse?
He said homicides.

And we do not know if drugs were part of this yet or not.
You assume you have all the facts - you have very few.

[Johnny V]

We certainly do not know if drugs were involved here yet. His brother said he had a mental illness. It seems to me that many of these types of tragedies involved some type of mind altering prescription drug. Maybe as either a side effect, improper use or dose or the individual stopped taking his drug.

[Tom]

Guns are not the common denominator.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

[Tom]

http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/national/US-school-shootings-A-dark-history_8088935

Check the types of guns.....


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103186662

Not even a gun.

[Tom]

Why did he stop shooting Friday?
What event triggered him to stop the assault?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Why did he stop shooting Friday?
What event triggered him to stop the assault?

Allegedly, he became aware that police responders were about to engage him, so he put a handgun to his head.

*I'm kind of thinking the question was rhetorical, but I'll be the straight man. ;)

[Tom]

So-called "safe zone" at school.
No guns allowed, doors locked.
Shooter goes on a spree.

First sign of opposition, he kills himself.

What if the Principal and school psycologyst, who both charged him unarmed had been armed?

[hcap]

According the FBI UCI stats - 82% of children Homicides did not involve a gun. Do you have a link with numbers direct from the FBI?

Meanwhile direct FBI stats 2011 All murders
Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

Murder Total.....With firearms
..........12,664......8,583

If you go to table 11 you will see the breakdown by type of weapon.

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-11

Aso

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

And for 2009

Summary:

Murders total – 13636
Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

ALL murders and how committed is as important as number of children murdered statistically. Granted not as horrific.

[elysiantraveller]

And for 2009

Summary:

Murders total – 13636
Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

ALL murders and how committed is as important as number of children murdered statistically. Granted not as horrific.

That's really a interesting stat...

When people talk about banning "assault rifles" that's the one they are talking about.

[TJDave]

That's really a interesting stat...

When people talk about banning "assault rifles" that's the one they are talking about.

You mean "assault style rifles".

To my knowledge, no full-auto has been used to kill anyone in a very long time. I'm assuming there's a good reason for that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That's really a interesting stat...

When people talk about banning "assault rifles" that's the one they are talking about.

It is interesting, so more than 5x as many murders are accounted for by knives/other cutting instruments than rifles (including assault rifles)? Am I reading that correctly???

[elysiantraveller]

You mean "assault style rifles".

To my knowledge, no full-auto has been used to kill anyone in a very long time. I'm assuming there's a good reason for that.

I do actually.

It is interesting, so more than 5x as many murders are accounted for by knives/other cutting instruments than rifles (including assault rifles)? Am I reading that correctly???

Yes.

[TJDave]

I'm assuming there's a good reason for that.

Guess I need to use better bait. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Guess I need to use better bait. :rolleyes:

Okay, I'll play. :D

Is it nearly impossible for the average Shmedley to get one?

If so, didn't that action severely curtail mass killings so we could focus on other factors other than weapon choice?

[hcap]

It is interesting, so more than 5x as many murders are accounted for by knives/other cutting instruments than rifles (including assault rifles)? Am I reading that correctly???But murders by total firearm usage no matter which, is 5x more than knives and other cutting instruments.

Apple to apples

[johnhannibalsmith]

But murders by total firearm usage no matter which, is 5x more than knives and other cutting instruments.

Apple to apples

But all the floated legislative proposals are to eradicate the least offensive weapon, accounting for even less than half as many as deaths by human appendage. That's fairly fruit consistent logic too.

[hcap]

More than assault weapons need to be controlled.
Legislation is hampered by a hoist of issues. Maybe this shooting will shake up the populace.

[PaceAdvantage]

What if the Principal and school psycologyst, who both charged him unarmed had been armed?That's a ridiculous notion.

The moment a school principal or psychologist must walk around school armed, is the moment you can kiss all sense of rationality goodbye.

[PaceAdvantage]

The voting is far from over. There are 29 votes as I post this. I expect at least 5 times that many votes.31 more votes and pretty much the same spread.

You're still wrong.

[Robert Goren]

31 more votes and pretty much the same spread.

You're still wrong. I could not be more happy to wrong. If almost 60% of the posters here think we need to change our gun laws, maybe we will actually get it done this time. But I am not holding my breath though.

[Tom]

That's a ridiculous notion.

The moment a school principal or psychologist must walk around school armed, is the moment you can kiss all sense of rationality goodbye.

There was nothing rational about Friday.
There are places where teachers are allowed to carry.
The Batman shooting took place in the only theater in town showing the movie that also prohibited concealed weapons.

The only way I can see to ever stop one of theses attacks is to be able to react with deadly force immediately.

[Robert Goren]

Every bank used to have an armed guard. Now must don't. There has to be a reason for that.

[PaceAdvantage]

Every bank used to have an armed guard. Now must don't. There has to be a reason for that.The liability of having an armed guard probably outweighs whatever amount of money that could be stolen at any given time.

[Tom]

Every bank used to have an armed guard. Now must don't. There has to be a reason for that.

No money in the banks anymore! :lol:

[TJDave]

Okay, I'll play. :D

Is it nearly impossible for the average Shmedley to get one?


What if it were nearly impossible for the average Schmedly to get a AR-15?

And, it was only available in bolt action?

[Robert Goren]

The liability of having an armed guard probably outweighs whatever amount of money that could be stolen at any given time.That would be my guess. Just think what the liability of having an armed guard at school, let alone the cost. I used to hire off duty policemen for one my garages on Friday and Saturday nights. They were very costly but they paid for themselves in reduced vandalism by the drunks. They also come with an attitude which you have to put up with. I never had any problems with them, but my up-tight successor did.

[Tom]

If everyone is so sure tougher gun laws will do anything ( they won't) then why don't they go ahead and use the legal process we have in place to change them - amend the Constitution? Surely, with the great mandate Obama now has, the left can't be afraid of not getting the votes nationwide?

Talk is cheap - follow the rules and get 'r done.
If you can.

[Valuist]

Now we have idiots like Vince Neil trying to preach gun control. Mind you, this is a guy who killed someone while driving drunk.

Vince just remember this: cars don't kill people. Drunk driving a$$holes like you do, Vince.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What if it were nearly impossible for the average Schmedly to get a AR-15?

And, it was only available in bolt action?

You know, I think, I really don't care one way or the other if that happens. I made the only case that even remotely makes much sense to me for why people want them, the simple paranoid patriot theory, but I'm not a shooter. I see people here that use them for sport and while I don't get it, I don't want to be the one to tell them that they can't go shoot coyotes or water rats just because it seems to me that these weapons are probably doing only harm to the image of gun ownership in general.

That said, to follow your line of reasoning and getting back to what I posted earlier in the initial reply as my devils avocado reply - we banned fully automatic (for all intents and purposes) for the same/similar reason that we now want to ban semi-automatic "assault style" weapons, and yet here we are moving on down the line to the next likeliest successor because the full auto limitations didn't appear to actually stop anything.

Again, I don't care what you ban, I really don't. I just wish it was out of the context of these sorts of events, which really just don't have all that much to do with guns, in my opinion. I understand all of the rationalizations for thinking fewer people would have died had he used a handgun. But, considering if he had killed 16 with a handgun because he couldn't get an AR-666 or whatever, we'd be talking about banning handguns because he would have only killed 8 with a machete.

I'm fine with whatever everyone else decides to do, I just want to keep the two issues separate. On this side - what kind of weapons do ordinary Joes really need to have - we already have limitations, so we aren't breaking any new ground with that debate. On the other side - what can we BEST do to prevent mass murder rampages by people that have established behavior and conduct that is clearly consistent with what have been identified as precursors to other such episodes now that we have a significant compilation of data and biography to analyze.

I'll ask you - why do you think that banning these AR style weapons is good policy? Is it related to Sandy Hook and Aurora and everywhere else? Since I know you are vastly more aware of projectile weapons than I am, what about the automatic "ban", or amending the available "action" on the other weapons, makes the case for good policy in this context?

As I really have no strong opinion, just skeptical reactions to the opinions and theories of others, I'm fairly persuadable on the subject.

[Tom]

Interesting article.....

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm



The argument is that hunters and their guns are good, but assault rifles and their owners are bad. One is normal, the other is kooky.

That’s what the Democrats are selling.

And that’s what some gun owners are buying.

And that’s too bad, because it’s a bunch of crap.

[elysiantraveller]

You know, I think, I really don't care one way or the other if that happens. I made the only case that even remotely makes much sense to me for why people want them, the simple paranoid patriot theory, but I'm not a shooter. I see people here that use them for sport and while I don't get it, I don't want to be the one to tell them that they can't go shoot coyotes or water rats just because it seems to me that these weapons are probably doing only harm to the image of gun ownership in general.

How do you figure? Statements like these convince me lack of education regarding firearms is a key culprit. I'm not intending to offend you.

[johnhannibalsmith]

How do you figure? Statements like these convince me lack of education regarding firearms is a key culprit. I'm not intending to offend you.

How do I figure that they do harm to the image of gun ownership?

If that's the question, I implore you to think like most of the general voting public - which shouldn't be too hard considering the election we just endured. These weapons become symbols of "gun culture", like the most extreme outliers of a party becomes a symbol to opponents. Most people that don't own weapons can't possibly imagine any use for these things that look like something Rambo would have except for carnage. You've read it right here, even those that know literally nothing about guns are willing to mock the use of these for sporting endeavors. You can educate those of us here, but that's not going to change public opinion at large.

Simple people see it as a killing machine and see it as a symbol of American gun violence, justified or not. They then make the convenient leap in their own minds that gun supporters must be completely insane to defend the right to accessibility. Ergo, gun owners and supporters of gun rights are completely bonkers and care more about being able to having killing machines than protecting our poor children.

I'm sorry, I'm about to leave to make a wager and get some grub so I'm not illustrating my reply as well as I'm sure I want to in haste. Feel free to shoot holes in it (bada-bum) and I'll be back to either accept to defeat or fire back with more accuracy.

[OntheRail]

I think I'm going to invest it these...

http://www.fortebrace.com/images/neoprene-knee-brace.jpg

With all his Knee Jerking going on seem like a sure thing...

[Tom]

Maybe Obama could do something about gun control right now - like STOP distibuting them to himself! Another death on his hands.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/

A gun found at the scene of a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers where a beauty queen died was part of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation, CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57559809-10391739/fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-mexican-crime-scene/) reports.

[elysiantraveller]

How do I figure that they do harm to the image of gun ownership?

If that's the question, I implore you to think like most of the general voting public - which shouldn't be too hard considering the election we just endured. These weapons become symbols of "gun culture", like the most extreme outliers of a party becomes a symbol to opponents.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I'm not really debating with you anyway its just a discussion.

My key issue with gun control/culture in America is the lack of education on firearms and your response basically agrees with me. People simply don't know... if the gun is black its a assault weapon if not its fine. As a society we need to have more education about this things so when issues like gun control come up reasonable discussions can be had with knowledgeable people. Unfortunately the anti-gun people have no willingness to start there. Creating gun laws that sound simple to the average American are a lot harder than most people think. Here I'll show you.

http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ruger-1022.jpg

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg

That gun is the Ruger 10/22. It is a 10 shot semi-automatic gun. The bullet it shoots is on the left. This was the first gun I got, still have it, when I was 12 or 13 when my grandfather bought it for me. It is the most common round in the world and the one basically everyone learns how to shoot with. For use its great for removing pesky varmints and not much else. Not very scary right?...

http://www.zimmermanarms.com/images/stories/Precision-Elite/rz-pre-e-mz.jpg

Looks scary right? Obvious assault rifle...

Nope. This is the exact same gun as the one pictured above. It shoots the same round, has the same mechanics, and it no more deadly or less deadly but it sure looks scary.

You can't make one of these illegal without the other. The problem is we are conditioned by the media to believe if a gun is black and looks dangerous it must be a assault rifle. My AR looks nothing like the one pictured by RF earlier in a thread and just looking at it you would think its just another gun.

I'm personally not against "gun control." I just think when we have this discussion people need to be educated to know just because a gun is black doesn't make it "deadlier" and that by simply banning something it does affect the peaceful law-abiding hunters and those concerned with defense.

This is a tough discussion to have but it certainly isn't helped by pre-formed bias' on both sides.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
This is a tough discussion to have but it certainly isn't helped by pre-formed bias' on both sides.

I'm pretty squarely on your side here in just about every way. I had the great fortune of spending many, many years in a state with some of the toughest gun laws. Two of them, in fact, New York and Mass. I was fairly brainwashed that guns were evil at that point. Oddly, I knew a LOT of people that owned guns - they rarely used them, but they had them - and the vast majority were obtained and owned illegally to the best of my knowledge. It never really occured to me at the time how silly the laws actually were.

Then of course, I move out to the wild west a while back. I see someone just about every time in town at the market or wherever strapped with a gun. Nobody even notices. It doesn't bother me in the least anymore. If anything, I feel a whole lot safer here in public than I did when I lived back east - specifically, safer from gun violence, because there is an element of MAD that governs ordinary interaction. I used to somehow be in the middle of a road rage incident about, oh, often enough back there... laf... here, hell, people don't even flip the bird like would happen back there much less jump out of a car and want to find out who has the better draw... laf.

Ah hell, I just feel lucky that I've sort of been a part of both extremes. The people I know back there can't believe what it's like here. I know that mentality that I described because a lot of those that I was close to were just like that, and they represented general opinion for the most part. I got lucky and started to figure out it just sounded good, but wasn't really all that bright or better than another way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Speaking of my hometown, the local rag is running its own poll with slightly different options than those in the other polls getting a lot of attention:


Reader Poll



Poll Result

What do you think about regulation of gun and ammo sales?

34%
There should be absolutely no regulation at all.

27%
There should be prudent, aggressive regulation.

3%
Private gun ownership should be outlawed.

18%
There should be some additional regulation.

17%
The only additional regulations should involve mandatory licensing and training.

**********************************

One-third believe there should be NO regulation at all, while three percent vote for an outright ban. This is for those of you that live in the civilized world and don't understand why we can't just make it all stop today by becoming the UK.

**********************************

[TJDave]

Nope. This is the exact same gun as the one pictured above. It shoots the same round, has the same mechanics, and it no more deadly or less deadly but it sure looks scary.

You can't make one of these illegal without the other. The problem is we are conditioned by the media to believe if a gun is black and looks dangerous it must be a assault rifle. My AR looks nothing like the one pictured by RF earlier in a thread and just looking at it you would think its just another gun.


That's actually a mild mod for a 10/22. I've seen bullpup designs that effectively make it a concealed carry rifle. You can get high capacity AK style magazines. Hell, you can even make it look exactly like an AK47.

You might ask...What's the point? and What kind of person would find a gun like this appealing?

Hmm...I wonder? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

and What kind of person would find a gun like this appealing?

An American, exercising his rights.
Would you ask this question of someone who chooses gay marriage?:rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

That's actually a mild mod for a 10/22. I've seen bullpup designs that effectively make it a concealed carry rifle. You can get high capacity AK style magazines. Hell, you can even make it look exactly like an AK47.

You might ask...What's the point? and What kind of person would find a gun like this appealing?

Hmm...I wonder? :rolleyes:

Your missing the point. I don't give a shit what it "looks like" that's exactly why making gun legislation is not nearly as easy as it sounds. For a self-proclaimed gun nut you should know that.

You can also buy air soft guns that look exactly like Ak-47's. Shall we ban those as well? Banning "looks like" is a helluva lot more difficult than banning function.

[TJDave]

Your missing the point. I don't give a shit what it "looks like"

But those who buy them, DO.

Like you, my first gun was a .22--Winchester 67. Not the kind of weapon one can easily conceal.

I wonder how many kids you could kill with one of those?

[Actor]

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, 45 years before Colt patented his six shooter. The founding fathers could not have anticipated today's weapons technology.

I think the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear a firearm in which you pour powder down the barrel, followed by wadding and then ram the bullet home with a rod, fire and repeat the process. Full metal jackets and repeating mechanism are not covered.

[sammy the sage]

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

[Robert Goren]

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas JeffersonI wonder how Jefferson felt about the rights of people with black skin to bear arms.:rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I wonder how Jefferson felt about the rights of people with black skin to bear arms.:rolleyes:

If they were his arms, he was more than cool with it.

[HUSKER55]

just heard it that somebody is designing a backpac that converts to a bullet proof vest for children

[Greybase]

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, 45 years before Colt patented his six shooter. The founding fathers could not have anticipated today's weapons technology. I think the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear a firearm in which you pour powder down the barrel,..
Exactly. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment was MODIFIED in 1934 when the Federal Goverment banned all full auto Machine Guns ("tommy guns" etc.) without a Federal license. It is ALREADY a criminal offense for the average citizen to possess many types of weapons.

The question NOW, is how the BATF can go about collecting all the so-called Assault Weapons... in circulation... after they have defined what that is. Should be interesting. I say let's just declare ALL .223 rifles to be illegal. That should take care of all the right-wing gun nuts who hate Obama, and are currently stocking up.

I say let's go house to house and round 'em up!!! Just make sure the TV cameras are rolling... :lol:

http://www.oxfordsuitesportland.com/images/evg_1310408175.jpg

[nijinski]

just heard it that somebody is designing a backpac that converts to a bullet proof vest for children

At about $400.00 to $450.00 for the childrens backpack .

[classhandicapper]

First let me tell you where I'm coming from and then I'll give you my thoughts.

1. I have never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and never even held a loaded gun in my life.

2. I think hunting for sport is intrinsically immoral and a few hundred years from now people are going to look back at us and think we were savages for sport hunting.

All that said, I think the government should not prevent citizens from owning any firearm that is also commonly owned by criminals. In other words, if they have pea shooters, that's what I need to defend myself. If they have automatic weapons, that's what I need to defend myself.

This country has been on a slippery slope for decades. It's now is a moral, ethical, and social cesspool.

IMO, during very hard economic times (like a depression, currency crisis, banking system collapse etc..) all hell is going to break loose in this country and the government is NOT going to be able to protect people and their possessions (homes, business, etc...). So you have to have equal firepower to the criminals to protect yourself.

It's that simple.

If you want to get certain weapons out of the hands of the general population, you have to attack it from a different direction than just making illegal for law abiding citizens to own them.

[Tom]

Excellent speech from the NRA today.
Refreshing after having to listen to the Idiot N Chief yapping all week.
Nice to have intelligent discussion for a change.

MSNBC will be scurrying to find a translator.:lol:

[Tom]

http://www.ibtimes.com/nra-speech-newtown-school-massacre-full-text-959036


Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

[Tape Reader]

Excellent speech from the NRA today.
Refreshing after having to listen to the Idiot N Chief yapping all week.
Nice to have intelligent discussion for a change.

MSNBC will be scurrying to find a translator.:lol:

I couldn't agree more. I may be joining the NRA.

[ceejay]

Armed guards at all schools? Maybe we can pay for that with an ammunition And/or firearms tax. ;) :lol:

[hcap]

I think Pierre is goona get roasted. The nation is not in the mood for rationalizati1ons.

[TJDave]

I think Pierre is goona get roasted. The nation is not in the mood for rationalizati1ons.

Not one of the NRA's (gun manufacturers lobby) brighter moments. They'll probably get a ton of cash from the membership. As a life member I'm done, though. Stupid s**ts. :faint:

[Actor]

Armed guards at all schools? Maybe we can pay for that with an ammunition And/or firearms tax. ;) :lol:Good idea! The tax to pay for it that is. I have reservations about putting guards in all the schools.

[Robert Fischer]

it seems like these guys hate society and hate themselves and kill themselves at the end of their tragic outbursts.

Arming teachers sounds more logical when you think of a rational person who may be more deterred.

[Robert Fischer]

a couple weeks ago a football player murdered his girlfriend with 15? shots in a rage after he found out she was leaving/taking their baby... he later killed himself at the stadium(unrelated commentary to the above post - although his rage/loss may have had him in a similar state of mind).

I think it was Costas? who went on the knee-jerk reaction of blaming guns.

What I was curious was whether gun lobbyists have tried to make the ridiculous case that "if only she had been armed..." ??

where does it all end?
At some point in all political debates, the economic system in place that is affected by the current laws and possible changes has to be laid out in transparent fashion for both sides. Too often there is a heart wrenching story, or a patriotic story, but behind the stories there is an industry.

[jk3521]

The Archie Bunker mentality has taken over the NRA.There was one episode in which Archie said that the only way to stop gun violence is to give everyone a gun.Pretty much what was suggested today .Of course "Good Guys" have been known to blow people away too. Just don't get them mad ! :mad:

[Actor]

it seems like these guys hate society and hate themselves and kill themselves at the end of their tragic outbursts.Seems? ... Nay, it is. I know not "seems." Hamlet ACT IPrecisely. They hate themselves and see suicide as the only solution to their problems. But unlike most suicides, they see society as the cause of their problems and strike out at that society, knowing that they will be beyond punishment afterwards.

If this person had had a viral disorder, and then had walked into the school and sneezed, infecting others and eventually causing the deaths of 28 people it would have been no less tragic, but we would have dealt with it. The religious among us would say "It's God's will." But since this person had a mental illness, a behavioral disorder, and committed an act that a completely sane person (albeit an evil one) might commit had he adequate motive, we are horrified.

[PaceAdvantage]

Among the "outrage" being reported at comments made by the NRA CEO was this quote from a family member of the Aurora shooting:

For Dave Hoover, whose nephew A.J. Boik was killed in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre, the time for talk is over.

“Nobody wants to come in and take your gun away from you, but I don't think it's too much for us to ask that if I'm an individual who has lost their mind and wants to go wreak havoc in a mall or at a church or at a theater -- for the love of God we should be able to stop that,” Hoover told NBC affiliate KUSA. How? How do you stop someone who has lost their mind? The only way is to get them help BEFORE they cross that line. Once they have crossed that line, only a miracle will stop them. No matter how many rights and how many guns you take away, you won't be able to stop a person who has lost their mind and is bent on wreaking havoc.

[Tom]

When all else fails....you stand there naked in front of the gunmen.
Tell you libs what when you get ALL the drugs of the streets, come tell me you are ready to prevent anything with gun control.

Listen, hcap, your idiot-boy intentionally put gins on the street - he KNEW where they were, and now he can't find them!

And you thing THIS idiot can control anything???:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[boxcar]

Good idea! The tax to pay for it that is. I have reservations about putting guards in all the schools.

What about heavily armed cops, with assault tactical weapons, throughout every school building? Would that work for you?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

IMO, it should be much more difficult to buy weapons and ammunition. The background check is TOTAL BS.

And your solution is to do what exactly? The government should hire every self-professed fortuneteller and psychic to perform forwardground checks?

Don't forget the more difficult you make it for the good guys does not impact the baddies.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Well guys, Lucky LaPierre even lost Rupert's Rag The NY POST and The New York Daily News. Lucky Pierre has got to be rethinking his stupid press conference right about now.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/new-york-post-daily-news-blast-nra-speech

[Tom]

hcap, when you fail to identify and stop the .0001%, and they show up at the school.....what liberal feel-good remedy do you have in mind?
Or is that shooting acceptable fallout?

[hcap]

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, 45 years before Colt patented his six shooter. The founding fathers could not have anticipated today's weapons technology.

I think the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear a firearm in which you pour powder down the barrel, followed by wadding and then ram the bullet home with a rod, fire and repeat the process. Full metal jackets and repeating mechanism are not covered.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
Posted by Jeffrey Toobin


Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”



.

[Tom]

The court once held that Negros were property.
They later got it right.
Are you suggesting we go back in time on all court rulings, or just those that suit your agenda?

You seem to think you have this huge mandate, that the country has changed and us righties are out - so go ahead and wield your might and change the damned amendment to say what you want it to say.
Surely, you have the votes, both in Congress and among the 50 or 58 states?

All talkie, no walkie.

[Robert Goren]

The court once held that Negros were property.
They later got it right.
Are you suggesting we go back in time on all court rulings, or just those that suit your agenda?

You seem to think you have this huge mandate, that the country has changed and us righties are out - so go ahead and wield your might and change the damned amendment to say what you want it to say.
Surely, you have the votes, both in Congress and among the 50 or 58 states?

All talkie, no walkie.Maybe we are not there yet, but the tide has changed. You and some others are where the segregationists were in 1956. You still hold enough power to slow change, but everytime there is another nut uses a gun to murder a lot of people, more people come to our side of the issue. Just like segregation, the ownership of guns by some elements of our society can not stand the light of day. We will do what is necessary to keep guns out the hands of the mentally ill, even it means a few people who aren't mentally have give up their guns. The cost of not doing so is too great.

[Rookies]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/shooter-opens-fire-webster-n-y-house-fire-article-1.1226541

There is a deep psychosis raging in America, with guns at its focal point.

It is Christmas Eve however and time for a pause. Back post Christmas to offer my opinion.

[Tom]

The cost of not doing so is too great.

What is your plan to get ALL the guns out there off the streets?
Ever thought that far ahead?
What good is a law when we know that laws are broken all the time?
What will be different, other than only law-abiding citizens will not have access to guns?

You argument, IMHO fails to take into account much reality.
You have a feel-good knee jerk reaction and nothing else.

[Tom]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/shooter-opens-fire-webster-n-y-house-fire-article-1.1226541

There is a deep psychosis raging in America, with guns at its focal point.

It is Christmas Eve however and time for a pause. Back post Christmas to offer my opinion.

Holy Crap! That is my area.
I'll see what I can dig up today on this.
Local radio is playing Christmas music all day and no news!

[Tom]

Holy Crap! That is my area.
I'll see what I can dig up today on this.
Local radio is playing Christmas music all day and no news!

Getting some news now - in this area where the shootings took place, there is a bridge that swings open during the summer to allow boat traffic. It is only open in the winter. That is the route the fireman took to escape - had this been summer, they would have been trapped.

Going to be a press conference in a couple hours.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... everytime there is another nut uses a gun to murder a lot of people, more people come to our side of the issue....

I'm not sure how to evaluate whether you think that is a good thing, so I'll just wonder if this is just a stab in the dark. Polling may show in vague terms that people support some goofy kneejerk policy that may have some effect on guns, but not the effect that is implied during the context of all this "conversion". I'd figure that while a lot of people wince and cower at the thought of a gun after a mass shooting and poll acceptably to the story makers, quite a few probably also say, "you know what, today's the day that I go down to the range and sign up for some lessons and find out about owning a handgun."

Get it passed quickly. They aren't really on "your side". They are just falling over themselves to interact with the television world. It's hip to hate guns this week, even if there's no logical explanation in the context of the motive being put forth for such approved weekly hatred to support scapegoating weapons. "Your side" would have to be outright ban of private weapons if we're really trying to pass a gun law that MIGHT have changed an outcome in this event being sold as a catalyst. All this banning of certain weapons that account for very little damage overall obviously isn't going to deliver us to an acceptable result of our legislative work.

"Never Again!" is a long ways from "Yeah, well, if he had brought an AR instead of three handguns, he may have killed 15 instead of 10!"

If you and some of the others really care, why encourage some hokey, meaningless token law that will only flood the streets with more of this weapon in the interim, and then grant at least several years of sitting back watching nothing change while congratulating ourselves for "gun reform"?

The only position I really understand from the "anti-gun" side is an outright ban on private ownership. All of this other cockamamie restrictions and whatnot just seem like pissing into the wind while waiting for a chance to hollar and yell about more restrictions and whatnot when the previous round didn't seem to make a difference.

[Dahoss2002]

I've got news for you. There is NOTHING you can do to STOP a murderous PSYCHOPATHIC human being from carrying out his BLOOD LUST. NOTHING. You can ban guns. You can ban video games. Hell, you can even ban HOLLYWOOD. Not gonna CHANGE A THING.

The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you can join reality.
Thats a fact. Good example, the Oklahoma City bombing. Where there is a will, there'a a way. Murder, mass murder can be carried out in many ways.

[Tom]

This shooting is a lot worse than that article sounds.
One of the victims was a volunteer and full time cop.
Several houses burned to the ground.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121224/NEWS01/312240026/2-firefighters-killed-2-wounded-Webster-blaze

[Robert Goren]

Thats a fact. Good example, the Oklahoma City bombing. Where there is a will, there'a a way. Murder, mass murder can be carried out in many ways. And how many mass shooting since that happened?

[PaceAdvantage]

The cost of not doing so is too great.I vehemently disagree. The cost of not doing so is NOT too great.

On an individual case-by-case basis, of course the cost is incalculable. The life of any one innocent person, especially a child, is too much to pay.

However, taken on the whole, the number of people who die due to being innocent victims of crime is TINY when compared to all the other ways there are to die innocently in this world.

Therefore, the cost of not doing so is NOT too great. In fact, infringing on a person's constitutional right to bear arms (and of course, that in itself continues to be debated) is perhaps the greatest potential cost of all when dealing with these ever-constant knee-jerk reactions to specific incidences.

[PaceAdvantage]

And how many mass shooting since that happened?No mass shooters have taken down more than the guy with the bombs back in 1927...odd, don't you think?

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

[Robert Goren]

No mass shooters have taken down more than the guy with the bombs back in 1927...odd, don't you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster True enough! However bombing are pretty rare. The reason for that it is lot easier to learn to shoot a gun than it is to make a a bomb that will do lot a damage. I learned to shoot at age 12 and I have no doubt that if I would have gone a murdering spree back then I could have killed as many people as the school shooter did if I had his weapons and I was, in my dad's words, a terrible shot. Now making a bomb is different story and I am sure you know that.
You can make bomb out of fertilizer and kerosene, but it is not easy or more people would try it. There have been a couple attempts since the OKC bombing and they failed because the bombers did not know how to do it. Remember OKC duo were trained explosive experts thanks to the special military training they had. Also remember most explosives such as dynamite as highly regulated, far more than guns.

[PaceAdvantage]

All this talk about how dangerous these "assault rifles" are, and yet nobody has been able to top a guy with circa-1927 bombs...

Perhaps the threat is a little overrated, don't you think?

[fast4522]

Some moron in China figured out there was no waiting period for the car he already had so he plowed 20. Once a moron gets a idea it does not matter what feel good law does not work.

[fast4522]

This should warm the cockles of some hearts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJ2rtOpJc4