What if Gun Control Laws were changed?

[graciegirl]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

[Taltarzac725]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

Depends on how you approach it. This looks like a very long term problem which can only be solved through long term strategies. CBS News on 10/01/2015 had a discussion on prevention through pediatricians in various programs who catch troubled teens in their development of these kind of sociopathic actions. Public health policies seem to be the answers.

It seems like what is needed here are more people involved with looking out for one another rather than technological changes like blocks on rifle chamber clips, etc.

This also applies to the Villages IMHO. Road rage and the like can be curbed by using the same kind of community development educational programs here in the Villages as well. Staying Safe Around Aggressive Driving - Driver Safety - AARP (http://www.aarp.org/home-family/getting-around/driving-resource-center/info-08-2013/aggressive-drivers-what-can-you-do.html)

We need more doctors and health professionals involved in addressing these kind of problems rather than lawyers and politicians IMHO. And more local based approaches rather than those coming from DC.

[Jimturner]

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

[outlaw]

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

We already have background checks. I still don't like the idea of having to be in a government database, fingerprints on file, just to achieve my 2nd amendment right. I have a CWP and I resent the government "allowing" me my right to self protection. That is a basic human right in my opinion. Requiring background checks, finger printing, license and license fee are "infringing" on my 2nd A right.

[Jimturner]

We already have background checks. I still don't like the idea of having to be in a government database, fingerprints on file, just to achieve my 2nd amendment right. I have a CWP and I resent the government "allowing" me my right to self protection. That is a basic human right in my opinion. Requiring background checks, finger printing, license and license fee are "infringing" on my 2nd A right.

I understand, but for your inconvenience of qualifying for concealed carry gives more in a way of protecting me from you. Again, if you failed to qualify to carry, l don't want you to own a gun. I want more qualified men and women to carry, but less that do not qualify.

[tomwed]

Road rage and the like can be curbed by using the same kind of community development educational programs here in the Villages as well. Staying Safe Around Aggressive Driving - Driver Safety - AARP (http://www.aarp.org/home-family/getting-around/driving-resource-center/info-08-2013/aggressive-drivers-what-can-you-do.html)

Staying Safe is a lesson in street smarts. It doesn't change the behavior of an aggressive driver unless I missed something. Some see street smarts as cowardice. That's the rub.

[Taltarzac725]

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show around November 2014. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish and other very violent movies. There are a lot of red flags here but my older brother and sister-in-law could not get the VA mental health laws to work for them.

[Taltarzac725]

Staying Safe is a lesson in street smarts. It doesn't change the behavior of an aggressive driver unless I missed something. Some see street smarts as cowardice. That's the rub.

I am talking about more community education to prepare family members and others and how to deal with the development of aggression. Lawyers and politicians in my experience usually cause more of this than lessen it. There are exceptions.

Case from my own experiences fighting for practical information for survivors/victims of crimes accessible in libraries. I was attempting to get links to the Florida Victim Services Directory in libraries across FL from 2000 through 2007 or so and beyond.

Instead of meeting my rather gentle suggestions about getting this link and keeping it the Palm Harbor Library Director Gene Coppola had the Palm Harbor Library General Counsel send me a 3-02-2004 Cease and Desist Letter about e-mailing people at the two Palm Harbor Libraries that there no longer was an active link to the Florida Victim Services Directory. Instead, there was on to the Lemon Laws. Coppola was acting more like some politician protecting his territory than an educator and person who is concerned about access to practical information in the community. This kind of politics made us want to get out of Palm Harbor, FL as soon as possible. We moved to the Villages about 16 months after this. I was certainly quite angry about the whole mess.

[tomwed]

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish other very violent movies.
i sent a pm

[Sandtrap328]

Look at the murder rate by handgun in countries where ownership of handguns is prohibited. They are much lower than here in the US.

However, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that private ownership of handguns is guaranteed by the Constitution, so it is law of the land.

Even we, who do not believe it is right, must respect that right.

Likewise, others who do not believe other Supreme Court decisions, have to respect those decisions also - same sex marriage, ACA, etc.

[Taltarzac725]

i sent a pm

Thanks, Jim was my brother-in-law. I did lose my younger brother Chuck to long term alcoholism on December 3, 2014. That's another problem but one that AA does provide some solutions for if the person is willing to take the 12 step program seriously. Chuck never really did always thinking that he could handle it himself.

AA does seem to be a very successful approach to the problem of alcoholism. The lawyers and politicians went balls up with their solutions in the Prohibition movement. Of course, many of the lawyers and politicians involved also got rich finding and taking advantage of loopholes in liquor laws.

[dirtbanker]

Gracie - I don't believe he, or anyone else, will be successful in getting gun laws changed to where citizens could no longer own guns. There are a tremendous amount of lawful gun owners that would revolt to their 2nd amendment rights being taken from them. It is just another waste of television air time, in which the discussion provides the perpetrator with the attention they desired.

I do believe the media and government / local officials have the power to curb some of these acts. It is more desirable to be known as a villain than a coward. These perpetrators that shoot unarmed (defenseless) people, should be portrayed as the coward they are! Take all the guns away, and these cowards would probably drive a vehicle into a crowd of people (possibly those standing in line for the next "new" phone at the Apple store) to get the recognition as a villain, installing fear in others, the attention they so desire.

[AJ32162]

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show around November 2014. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish and other very violent movies. There are a lot of red flags here but my older brother and sister-in-law could not get the VA mental health laws to work for them.

IMO, had your brother-in-law been committed and treated for his mental illness, he would probably still be alive. A more thorough background check may have prevented him from from acquiring a firearm, but it wouldn't have prevented him from killing himself one way or another. Sorry for your loss.

[redwitch]

I'm with JimT and the POTUS on this one. A better registry is needed. This is not an attempt to deny Second Amendment rights. There are far too many gun deaths here. Better screening might help. Statistics have repeatedly shown that those states and countries with stringent gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those that don't. Why are people willing to give up their rights for search and seizure and privacy to stop terrorists but scream when it comes to reasonable gun laws?

[Taltarzac725]

IMO, had your brother-in-law been committed and treated for his mental illness, he would probably still be alive. A more thorough background check may have prevented him from from acquiring a firearm, but it wouldn't have prevented him from killing himself one way or another. Sorry for your loss.

Actually, Jim was never treated for mental illness as far as I know. He never presented himself as a danger to himself or others under VA law. He was clever enough to never say something to authorities or others that would have had him needing treatment under the law. His rather nutty writings were not found until after he killed himself and the police were going through his things.

My younger brother Chuck on the other hand must have been in mental health facilities to deal with his alcoholism 15 times or more from 1998 onward. He never had any interest in guns, knives, etc.

[billethkid]

Look at the murder rate by handgun in countries where ownership of handguns is prohibited. They are much lower than here in the US.

However, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that private ownership of handguns is guaranteed by the Constitution, so it is law of the land.

Even we, who do not believe it is right, must respect that right.

Likewise, others who do not believe other Supreme Court decisions, have to respect those decisions also - same sex marriage, ACA, etc.

I would suggest the comparison include more than just gun ownership is or is not. I am not sure how one would measure some of the other factors, but I believe America is significantly more permissive about far too many issues than other countries. As a result of our permissiveness there is a much larger in your face, act like a movie tough guy/gal, drug affected culture than most other countries aided by a 24/7 media and entertainment business that thrives on violence....mostly gun based. Plus some others.

Guns have been readily avaialable in this country since it's beginnings. Many of us grew up never ever hearing about the kinds of shooting taking place today....because they did not exist. Another interesting analysis would be the frequency per year going back 100 years. I suggest without seeing the analysis the closer one gets to the present the more shootings.

I am not sure what it should or could be labeled, but I do not believe it is the availability of guns.....it is a combination of gun availability in a society that condones continuous exposure to unlimited violence, drugs and alcohol at earlier and earlier ages

[fred53]

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

[Uberschaf]

The guns won't be taken away.Just the ammo.

[redwitch]

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

While many other killings were not specifically mentioned, he did talk about all gun deaths, not just mass killings.

[Taltarzac725]

While many other killings were not specifically mentioned, he did talk about all gun deaths, not just mass killings.

How do you change the gun culture though here in the USA? Our country has a very unique historical connection to guns different than almost any other place.

I got rid of most of my guns etc when we moved from CA to FL in 1995 but I had grown up around shotguns and rifles in Reno, Nevada in the 1970s. There were a lot of hunters etc. in the families' whose kids I hung around with. I got shot in the pinky by one of these kids Tom H., when we were both around 15 with a pump BB gun. The kid was aiming it at my eye and I convinced him to try shooting between my fingers. He missed. There are going to be sociopaths among even the people who are carefully trained on how to use guns. Not sure what happened with the kid Tom H., who put the BB into my pinky. He seemed to be going down a dark road back then. He did go into some kind of mental health facility back around 1973-1974 because of what he did to me. But, I cannot recall what happened to him after that.

How do we stop some of these kids in 2015 in taking dark roads? All the media attention on these shootings seems to embolden people who want to do more damage the next time.

[billethkid]

How do you change the gun culture though here in the USA? Our country has a very unique historical connection to guns different than almost any other place.

I got rid of most of my guns etc when we moved from CA to FL in 1995 but I had grown up around shotguns and rifles in Reno, Nevada in the 1970s. There were a lot of hunters etc. in the families' whose kids I hung around with. I got shot in the pinky by one of this kids when we were both around 13. The kid was aiming it at by eye and I convinced him to try shooting between my fingers, He missed. There are going to be sociopaths among even the people who are carefully trained on how to use guns. Not sure what happened with the kid who put the BB into my pinky. He seemed to be going down a dark road back then.

How do we stop some of these kids in 2015 in taking dark roads?

From my post # 16:

"...Guns have been readily avaialable in this country since it's beginnings. Many of us grew up never ever hearing about the kinds of shooting taking place today....because they did not exist. Another interesting analysis would be the frequency per year going back 100 years. I suggest without seeing the analysis the closer one gets to the present the more shootings.

I am not sure what it should or could be labeled, but I do not believe it is the availability of guns.....it is a combination of gun availability in a society that condones continuous exposure to unlimited violence, drugs and alcohol at earlier and earlier ages...."

Your question is a good one. But until the violence exploitation and tolerance environment we allow changes there will be no impact.

[Bonnevie]

ok, the second amendment does allow for gun ownership. This gunman had:


Police say they have recovered four firearms including three handguns and one AR-type assault rifle from Umpqua Community College where a mass shooting took place on Thursday.

I will never understand the need for people to own AR-type assault rifles. The constitution does not specify that. and remember, back when the constitution was written it took a long time to fire and reload.

guns for protection are one thing, assault rifles are another. However, I don't expect any changes. If the killing of little elementary school children didn't change anything, this won't either.

[goodtimesintv]

A college/university campus having only one security guard--unarmed--is pure insanity.

Add the illegality of trained, licensed concealed carriers on campus, and it's beyond insanity.

But then, Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC is sure to have armed security forces plus Secret Servicemen, for good reason.

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

--Orwell

[leftyf]

Background checks are not needed, the US Government already knows who shouldn't own a gun but they refuse to do anything about it. These people have criminal backgrounds, mental backgrounds and violent backgrounds. A good place to start, don't you think? The government wouldn't have to hire thousands more government employees to do the checks either.

[dirtbanker]

Statistics have repeatedly shown that those states and countries with stringent gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those that don't. Why are people willing to give up their rights for search and seizure and privacy to stop terrorists but scream when it comes to reasonable gun laws?

Maybe those people also don't smoke as many cigarettes (584,811 deaths in a year from cancer), maybe they also eat healthy (611,105 deaths in a year from heart attacks), they also might not do drugs (40,393 deaths in a year)...Why are people willing to ignore something that takes so many lives, and focus on creating laws that take away the rights of so many, for something that takes fewer lives (Obama states 30 a day = 10, 950 a year)?

Driving drunk accounts for 10,076 deaths in a year, nobody is talking about making liquor illegal...

I will provide the links for the data I presented (unlike some who just spout off their opinions as fact):

FastStats - Leading Causes of Death (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

In 2013, the US lost 30 people a day to gun violence. Obama shouldn't let us forget | Ana Marie Cox | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/president-obama-gun-control-push)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEwQFjAHahUKEwjv593f_KPIAhUJmYAKHdyHAAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdef ault%2Ffiles%2Fondcp%2FFact_Sheets%2Fconsequences_ of_illicit_drug_use_-_fact_sheet_april_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGITvX8LQku9oN8uaMzHrdPfw_0Gw&sig2=lUMqKFJ1qp3s2LijTytQIQ&cad=rja

[Bonnevie]

Maybe those people also don't smoke as many cigarettes (584,811 deaths in a year from cancer), maybe they also eat healthy (611,105 deaths in a year from heart attacks), they also might not do drugs (40,393 deaths in a year)...Why are people willing to ignore something that takes so many lives, and focus on creating laws that take away the rights of so many, for something that takes fewer lives (Obama states 30 a day = 10, 950 a year)?

Driving drunk accounts for 10,076 deaths in a year, nobody is talking about making liquor illegal...

I will provide the links for the data I presented (unlike some who just spout off their opinions as fact):

FastStats - Leading Causes of Death (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

In 2013, the US lost 30 people a day to gun violence. Obama shouldn't let us forget | Ana Marie Cox | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/president-obama-gun-control-push)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEwQFjAHahUKEwjv593f_KPIAhUJmYAKHdyHAAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdef ault%2Ffiles%2Fondcp%2FFact_Sheets%2Fconsequences_ of_illicit_drug_use_-_fact_sheet_april_2014.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGITvX8LQku9oN8uaMzHrdPfw_0Gw&sig2=lUMqKFJ1qp3s2LijTytQIQ&cad=rja

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook students, Aurora, Virginia Tech, now Oregon......I'm sure it will be a comfort to them

smoking laws have been enacted to curb where smoking is allowed.

drunk driving laws have been toughened A LOT over the years. when the need arose, laws were changed.

[Bonnevie]

A college/university campus having only one security guard--unarmed--is pure insanity.

Add the illegality of trained, licensed concealed carriers on campus, and it's beyond insanity.

But then, Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC is sure to have armed security forces plus Secret Servicemen, for good reason.

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

--Orwell

oddly enough Oregon does allow people with guns on campus:

Students who have proper paperwork are allowed to carry guns on campus. Oregon is one of seven states where lawmakers have said people with concealed weapons permits must be allowed to bring concealed weapons onto campus.

[tuccillo]

The "AR" rifles are not assault rifles. They are semi-automatic (you have to pull the trigger once per shot) as are many other rifles, handguns, and shotguns. They may look like an M-16, which is a fully automatic rifle, but they are not functionally equivalent anymore than any other semi-automatic gun.

ok, the second amendment does allow for gun ownership. This gunman had:


Police say they have recovered four firearms including three handguns and one AR-type assault rifle from Umpqua Community College where a mass shooting took place on Thursday.

I will never understand the need for people to own AR-type assault rifles. The constitution does not specify that. and remember, back when the constitution was written it took a long time to fire and reload.

guns for protection are one thing, assault rifles are another. However, I don't expect any changes. If the killing of little elementary school children didn't change anything, this won't either.

[outlaw]

Staying Safe is a lesson in street smarts. It doesn't change the behavior of an aggressive driver unless I missed something. Some see street smarts as cowardice. That's the rub.

Welcome to the club. Some see CCing as bravado, Rambo complex, and cowardice.

[outlaw]

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook students, Aurora, Virginia Tech, now Oregon......I'm sure it will be a comfort to them

smoking laws have been enacted to curb where smoking is allowed.

drunk driving laws have been toughened A LOT over the years. when the need arose, laws were changed.

I hope you see the difference in a RIGHT to bear arms and a privilege to drive and smoke in public places.

[outlaw]

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show around November 2014. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish and other very violent movies. There are a lot of red flags here but my older brother and sister-in-law could not get the VA mental health laws to work for them.

Why do you think a gun show loophole allowed him to buy the guns? Did he have a record on file with the ATF showing he had been committed or a history of mental illness? If he didn't, then he probably would have passed the background check, assuming he lied on the form he had to fill out. Do you know that the vast majority of gun show sales require a background check? Any licensed dealer at a gun show MUST run a background check, period. In several states there is an additional waiting period after the sale for handguns, even at gun shows. The only guns that can be sold without a background check are personally owned guns an individual is selling to another individual. Yes. They show up at gun shows, but they could also run an ad in their local paper and sell it to someone without a background check.

[graciegirl]

Welcome to the club. Some see CCing as bravado, Rambo complex, and cowardice.





The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

[outlaw]

I'm with JimT and the POTUS on this one. A better registry is needed. This is not an attempt to deny Second Amendment rights. There are far too many gun deaths here. Better screening might help. Statistics have repeatedly shown that those states and countries with stringent gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those that don't. Why are people willing to give up their rights for search and seizure and privacy to stop terrorists but scream when it comes to reasonable gun laws?

Could you provide your source for the claim that those states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun deaths? I've read just the opposite. I'm equally surprised people would trade their freedoms for safety or the feeling of safety. It's a very disappointing trend with Americans.

[AJ32162]

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

IMO, that's kinda like saying, I only carry a spare tire for my car when I think that I'm going to need it.

[outlaw]

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

And I see your assumption that there is this protective place where it is "not needed" as naive. But I don't think you're a hoplophobe just because you don't think anyone needs to CC in TV and those that do are trying to "prove anything". You may not realize your bias against CC, but it is evident in your statements. That is not meant as an insult, so please don't read it that way.

[Sandtrap328]

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.
.

Absolutely right. It ridiculous to go out in The Villages with your concealed gun. Chances are that people carrying them regularly break the law by going into a bar area of a restaurant.

hotheads, too, with guns. How about the guy that got his motorcycle tapped by a car on 466 and he puts several shots into the occupied car? He is still free on bond, I believe.

Maybe carrying a gun would be okay IF you were walking late in the seedy area of Wildwood at night - but why would you be doing that?

As for the government taking your legal guns from you - ain't going to happen. The Supreme Court has made it's decision.

[gerryann]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

But that's just it.....you WOULD be able to have that gun in that high crime area because you would have passed the stricter gun laws.

We need stricter laws and stricter background checks. As you say Grace, some of the criminals will still get guns....but think about it.....if we can keep just a small percentage of guns out of wackos hands....we will possibly save a few lives, not all; but even one life is worth it.

Also, just as with car use.....once you reach a certain age, there should be testing......a shooting range to prove you are still capable in the use of a firearm.

[manaboutown]

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, started the week with 14 shot in the first 15 hours. Chicago Starts The Week With 14 Shot In 15 Hours (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chicago-shootings-gun-violence_560af0bfe4b0dd8503099034)

BTW, Mexico has extremely tough gun control laws but its populace experiences a terrible number of deaths by gunshot.

The problem, of course, is that criminals and mentally unstable individuals will still be able to acquire guns no matter the law.

My greatest concern is that folks need to be able to protect themselves, especially in areas where the nearest law enforcement officer may be a half hour away. My second concern is that one of the first steps totalitarian governments take is to deprive their citizens of their guns. I would not like to see that happen in the USA.

[Bonnevie]

The "AR" rifles are not assault rifles. They are semi-automatic (you have to pull the trigger once per shot) as are many other rifles, handguns, and shotguns. They may look like an M-16, which is a fully automatic rifle, but they are not functionally equivalent anymore than any other semi-automatic gun.

I stand corrected. However, apparently all semi-automatic requires is to just re-pull the trigger--the quickest part of re-shooting I would think. So as long as there's enough ammo....they can fire away pretty quickly.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic, as well as automatic and selective-fire actions, are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle it after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic or a selective-fire firearm set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired).

[AJ32162]

But that's just it.....you WOULD be able to have that gun in that high crime area because you would have passed the stricter gun laws.

We need stricter laws and stricter background checks. As you say Grace, some of the criminals will still get guns....but think about it.....if we can keep just a small percentage of guns out of wackos hands....we will possibly save a few lives, not all; but even one life is worth it.

Also, just as with car use.....once you reach a certain age, there should be testing......a shooting range to prove you are still capable in the use of a firearm.

How many murders do think occur because the perpetrator lacked the proper firearms safety training?

[rubicon]

Here we go again. This gun control farce is getting old and its proponents are reactionary to a fault. Its premises fits politicians who reach for ineffective but quick fixes for every solution.

The causes surrounding such tragedies are much more complex . This latest tragedy is going to turn out to be a result of radicalism. Those involving the mentally ill are caused because the mental health laws can't protect the mentally ill against themselves. they exclude any chance of a family support
and our mental health system and its professionals are wanting.

a person intending to do harm can use any number of instruments. As I recollect a man in china wounded several people with a knife

This nation needs to reassess its moral imperatives. Hollywood who is quick to admonish such acts and call for gun control promote violence, vile acts, etc for profit

the best offense is good defense

[Taltarzac725]

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/)

Would like to see some more current information about gun control laws in the US in 2015. Anyone have up-to-date resources?

[Bonnevie]

the thing is, I don't think anyone here has said people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But like everything, there's a responsible way and this way where people can buy guns that kill many people in a short period of time.

and I will tell you having worked with mentally ill people for many years, it's not them I'm afraid of. True schizophrenics usually are too disorganized to do something like this. It's the undiagnosed, and less apparent, personality disorders that scare me. The person who has become angrier and angrier over the years because life hasn't gone his way. Think road rage or the movie theater incident where the guy shot someone for texting. The kids who are bullied. Think Columbine. This Oregon shooter who apparently lamented he had no girlfriends ever-- but had 4 types of guns available to him. The Sandy Hook kid who should never been left alone with access to guns--but hey his mother was a gun enthusiast so she has her rights--too bad she didn't realize she also had a responsibility by owning them.
What's the answer--more armed guards at all campuses--even community colleges that don't have dorms. then it will be somewhere else and the gun lobbyist will be calling for armed guards there....playgrounds, movie theaters, the squares of the Villages...anywhere people gather. or we can take an honest look at how this can be regulated to better protect everyone while still guaranteeing peoples right to protection.

[Cedwards38]

What we know for sure is that doing nothing will change nothing, and, as it relates to the American epidemic of mass shootings over the past 20 years or so, I think most people are not satisfied with that.

[tuccillo]

This is mostly semantics. Strictly speaking a double-action revolver is not "semi-automatic" but in practice it acts like a semi-automatic as each trigger pull results in a shot being fired. Single action, pump action, and bolt-action are fundamentally different in that more than a trigger pull is required. There are many semi-automatic guns out there and most do not look like AR-15s. For example, any clip-based pistol is a semi-automatic: just chamber the first round and each trigger pull fires a shot.

I stand corrected. However, apparently all semi-automatic requires is to just re-pull the trigger--the quickest part of re-shooting I would think. So as long as there's enough ammo....they can fire away pretty quickly.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic, as well as automatic and selective-fire actions, are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle it after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic or a selective-fire firearm set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired).

[gerryann]

How many murders do think occur because the perpetrator lacked the proper firearms safety training?

Probably none. But if gun laws can possibly change than there needs to be testing after a certain age. Someone who bought a gun at age 50 needs to be tested when he reaches 70.....or if they are showing signs of.....dimentia, unsteadiness, anything that will diminish their use of a firearm.

Just saying that if gun laws change, this is something that I think would also be beneficial.

[tuccillo]

As tragic as these shooting are, are you ever troubled by the fact that they seem to get all the press? In reality, about two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. The over whelming number of gun deaths of blacks are by other blacks. The reality is that there are mental health issues involved and you can not legislate these away. Family and friends must take action when people they know are having issues.

What we know for sure is that doing nothing will change nothing, and, as it relates to the American epidemic of mass shootings over the past 20 years or so, I think most people are not satisfied with that.

[jebartle]

We have SOME police that should not CARRY!....Right? I don't know WHAT the answer is to this problem but the US has MORE problems with mass killings than any other country. How is this possible, that the United States has the MOST problems with mass killings? Where do we start???



I understand, but for your inconvenience of qualifying for concealed carry gives more in a way of protecting me from you. Again, if you failed to qualify to carry, l don't want you to own a gun. I want more qualified men and women to carry, but less that do not qualify.

[tomwed]

Has anyone ever heard a compelling argument that changed their position?

[billethkid]

We have SOME police that should not CARRY!....Right? I don't know WHAT the answer is to this problem but the US has MORE problems with mass killings than any other country. How is this possible, that the United States has the MOST problems with mass killings? Where do we start???

A good start is when it is recognized the gun issues are a function of our society.
We allow the movies, television and the media to train our young that it is OK to murder, rape, dismember and create mayhem. Nurtured by a more than permissive society that is paranoid about doing or saying something or anything that might offend somebody or anybody. And a court and legal system that exploits those that may see or say something that wasn't exactly just so-so.

The gun is just a convenient means to a brutal environment. If guns were not available the next easiest methods would take it's place. The USA is a violence tolerant country with insufficient enforcement of existing laws.
Until some of the other variables change the gun issue remains nothing more than a politically driven emotion!

[gomoho]

Has anyone ever heard a compelling argument that changed their position?

No, but I've made a few that have changed other's positions!

[tomwed]

No, but I've made a few that have changed other's positions!
You have open minded friends. There's hope.

[Bogie Shooter]

oddly enough Oregon does allow people with guns on campus:

Students who have proper paperwork are allowed to carry guns on campus. Oregon is one of seven states where lawmakers have said people with concealed weapons permits must be allowed to bring concealed weapons onto campus.

How do the police handle the situation of guns on campus.
Do they just shoot anyone running around brandishing a gun? How do they tell the good guys from the real shooter?

[Bogie Shooter]

As tragic as these shooting are, are you ever troubled by the fact that they seem to get all the press? In reality, about two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. The over whelming number of gun deaths of blacks are by other blacks. The reality is that there are mental health issues involved and you can not legislate these away. Family and friends must take action when people they know are having issues.

You are mixing mass shooting with everyday shootings. Apples & oranges .

[tuccillo]

No they aren't. People is favor of changing the gun laws always quote the total number of deaths by guns as part of the justification. Two-thirds of those are suicides.

You are mixing mass shooting with everyday shootings. Apples & oranges .

[big guy]

:agree:I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

:agree:

[Jimturner]

Thanks big guy. I would love to have one of these cowards walk into my man cave with gun in hand.

[borjo]

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

That's what he needs to address! I bet he doesn't know what to do, hasn't said anything that I heard to address the violence in the cities. That's an on going problem with more fatalities than the occasional mass shooter.

[Taltarzac725]

the thing is, I don't think anyone here has said people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But like everything, there's a responsible way and this way where people can buy guns that kill many people in a short period of time.

and I will tell you having worked with mentally ill people for many years, it's not them I'm afraid of. True schizophrenics usually are too disorganized to do something like this. It's the undiagnosed, and less apparent, personality disorders that scare me. The person who has become angrier and angrier over the years because life hasn't gone his way. Think road rage or the movie theater incident where the guy shot someone for texting. The kids who are bullied. Think Columbine. This Oregon shooter who apparently lamented he had no girlfriends ever-- but had 4 types of guns available to him. The Sandy Hook kid who should never been left alone with access to guns--but hey his mother was a gun enthusiast so she has her rights--too bad she didn't realize she also had a responsibility by owning them.
What's the answer--more armed guards at all campuses--even community colleges that don't have dorms. then it will be somewhere else and the gun lobbyist will be calling for armed guards there....playgrounds, movie theaters, the squares of the Villages...anywhere people gather. or we can take an honest look at how this can be regulated to better protect everyone while still guaranteeing peoples right to protection.

Good input. How do we improve the situation of angry men and women like this?

[dotti105]

One thing I know, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are only a few of the many countries having a lower rate of violent crime than the US. They all have laws which call for registration of handguns and possession of firearms are limited.

Assault rifles are only for the military, not for paranoid citizens

We live in the greatest country in the world. But that does not mean than we can't learn from other countries.

The gun related deaths in our country, especially those in schools, is the highest in the world. Folks there is something wrong with our system. We are NOT safer because we "we have the right to bear arms". If fact if there is a gun in your home, the likely hood of a family member dying from a gun death increases dramatically.

The system is broken, and we are doing nothing to fix it. Unless we do, more innocent children will die. Guaranteed. I hope none of them are your grandchildren.

[njbchbum]

If the President is as outraged and offended by mass shootings and the need for stricter gun control laws - why has he not stayed on top of a project re background checking that he ordered?

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/)

[Jima64]

Bad guys would still get them when they need them. Two ladies in Folkkston Ga. Are glad they had theirs.

[tuccillo]

You can't buy an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons are essentially illegal.

One thing I know, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are only a few of the many countries having a lower rate of violent crime than the US. They all have laws which call for registration of handguns and possession of firearms are limited.

Assault rifles are only for the military, not for paranoid citizens

We live in the greatest country in the world. But that does not mean than we can't learn from other countries.

The gun related deaths in our country, especially those in schools, is the highest in the world. Folks there is something wrong with our system. We are NOT safer because we "we have the right to bear arms". If fact if there is a gun in your home, the likely hood of a family member dying from a gun death increases dramatically.

The system is broken, and we are doing nothing to fix it. Unless we do, more innocent children will die. Guaranteed. I hope none of them are your grandchildren.

[JoMar]

We already have background checks. I still don't like the idea of having to be in a government database, fingerprints on file, just to achieve my 2nd amendment right. I have a CWP and I resent the government "allowing" me my right to self protection. That is a basic human right in my opinion. Requiring background checks, finger printing, license and license fee are "infringing" on my 2nd A right.

And, of course, this whole argument is about you right? Nobody else does or should matter if it conflicts with you. So, am I right in assuming that you believe anyone should have access, even the drug users or the mentally ill. Am I right to assume that people that have committed prior violence or have broken the law should have access. Am I right to assume that fully automatic rifles, machine guns or any caliber that will ever be made should be available to everyone. I'm a gun carrying vet, with a concealed weapon permit that is for my self protection and I will fight for my 2nd amendment right to do that. But I will fight against those weapons that aren't for self protection and to keep them out of the hands of those that have a history of violence, are drug users or mentally ill. If you have a better way than government to accomplish that then put it out there. Remember the environment when the 2nd amendment was adopted, they couldn't imagine the weapons we have today. IMHO

[applesoffh]

And, of course, this whole argument is about you right? Nobody else does or should matter if it conflicts with you. So, am I right in assuming that you believe anyone should have access, even the drug users or the mentally ill. Am I right to assume that people that have committed prior violence or have broken the law should have access. Am I right to assume that fully automatic rifles, machine guns or any caliber that will ever be made should be available to everyone. I'm a gun carrying vet, with a concealed weapon permit that is for my self protection and I will fight for my 2nd amendment right to do that. But I will fight against those weapons that aren't for self protection and to keep them out of the hands of those that have a history of violence, are drug users or mentally ill. If you have a better way than government to accomplish that then put it out there. Remember the environment when the 2nd amendment was adopted, they couldn't imagine the weapons we have today. IMHO

The voice of reason among us. I came from a big city (9 million plus) and it never would have occurred to me to have a gun. My husband had a gun, and a permit, because of his job, but as soon as he moved into a different job for the same employer, he turned in the gun.

Now that I live here, we are considering purchasing a gun, legally, of course, to protect ourselves from those around us who feel the need to carry a concealed weapon. Where does any of this make sense? The problem isn't the 2nd Amendment (times were vastly different in the 1700s), it's the ability of the mentally ill to purchase guns, drug runners to purchase guns, and folks with evil hearts to purchase guns. It seems to me the problem is two fold - the ability of just about anyone who wants a weapon to purchase a weapon, and the proliferation of illegal guns. Common sense, yes, but how do we get control of illegal weapons in this country? Anyone who can come up with a real answer to this problem, regardless of political party, will get my vote.

[tomwed]

Now that I live here, we are considering purchasing a gun, legally, of course, to protect ourselves from those around us who feel the need to carry a concealed weapon.
With a legal gun you would protect yourself from concealed weapon carriers in case they are shooting at you by mistake.
I hear there's water on mars.

[fred53]

We already have background checks. I still don't like the idea of having to be in a government database, fingerprints on file, just to achieve my 2nd amendment right. I have a CWP and I resent the government "allowing" me my right to self protection. That is a basic human right in my opinion. Requiring background checks, finger printing, license and license fee are "infringing" on my 2nd A right.

a person who has no consideration for others rights feels it's his right...blah, blah, blah...I to believe in a CWP, but unlike you I don't feel it harms me in any way possible for the gov't to have my prints, ssn, background info, blood type, dna chart or anything else...why? Because I've nothing to hide and unlike some not so law-abiding citizens(wink-wink, nod-nod, you know who I mean)I'm not afraid of them coming for me in the dead of night or broad daylight....

It's all well and good to profess your freedoms, but you sing a much different tune when you infringe on others freedoms eh?

As for "basic human right"? Seriously...no one is that naive...or are they? A basic human right is not to have to fear being assaulted by others..."ahem"...that'd be those who force others to listen to blaring noise that is illegal and dangerous...

If you want your basic human rights then it's only right you allow others theirs...or are those that force obscene noise on others just giving lip service?

[goodtimesintv]

THIS, not the guns, is the elephant in the room!


"The past decade lays out tragic evidence of the thread uniting mass shootings and mental illness:

* Seung-Hui Cho. As a child, Cho was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder and placed under treatment. On December 13, 2005, he was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization. On April 16, 2007, he killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at a University in Virginia.

* Jiverly Wong. In a letter dated March 18, 2009, Wong expressed his concerns to a local television station that undercover police officers were changing the channels on his television, making the air “unbreathable,” and had figured out a way to play music directly into his ear. On April 3, 2009, Wong walked into the American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York and killed 13 people, wounding four others.

* Maj. Nidal Hasan. In early 2009, the mental health officials who worked alongside Hasan held a series of meetings where they discussed his bizarre and paranoid behavior. Some openly wondered whether Hasan was psychotic. On November 5, 2009, Hasan opened fire at an army base near Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others.

* Jared Loughner. On September 10, 2010, Loughner was asked to leave Pima Community College in Tucson on mental health grounds – a psychologist who reviewed his journals believes he showed symptoms of schizophrenia. Four months later Loughner unloaded his 9mm Glock pistol into the parking lot of a Tucson shopping mall, killing six and injuring 13.

* James Holmes. Between March 16th and June 11, 2012, the psychiatrist who treated Holmes, Dr. Lynn Fenton, wrote in her notes that Holmes "may be shifting insidiously into a frank psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.” On July 20, 2012 Holmes walked into an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and killed 12 people, injuring 70 others.

* Aaron Alexis. On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him.” On September 16, 2013, Alexis fatally shot 12 people and injured three others at the Washington Navy Yard.

In the case of Newtown, Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza, the warning signs of a severe mental health issue were right out in the open for everyone to see.

Adam, who was diagnosed as a child with Sensory Perception Disorder, a condition that made made bright lights, loud sounds and certain textures unbearable, secluded himself in his bedroom for weeks at a time. While left to himself he covered his windows with dark garbage bags to block the light out, and spent his time played violent video games and studying mass killers, compiling an extensive database that read like a scorecard.

A Yale psychiatrist who briefly treated Lanza says he "displayed a profound autism spectrum disorder with rigidity, isolation and a lack of comprehension of ordinary social interaction and communications.”

Lanza never accepted his diagnosis and refused to take medication or undergo further treatment. Since he was over the age of 18, his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was acutely aware of his severe mental health issues, could only hope for the best.

This severely mentally ill young man, obsessed with violence and surrounded by automatic weapons, who had cut off almost everyone he cared about, made a series of terrifying posts all but telegraphing the future violence on a public on the mass-killer website.

In December 2011 he posted. “It goes without saying that an AK-47 and enough ammunition could do more good than a thousand 'teachers,' if one is truly interested in reforming the system…[the children] are already dead.”

On December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook elementary.....

http://www.newsweek.com/charleston-massacre-mental-illness-common-thread-mass-shootings-344789

[buzzy]

One thing I know, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are only a few of the many countries having a lower rate of violent crime than the US. They all have laws which call for registration of handguns and possession of firearms are limited.

..................

I would bet that in countries like these the laws are enforced, and the citizens have more respect for others. Here, the laws are selectively enforced, lawyers get the bad guys off, and everybody looks the other way to be politically correct. We don't need more gun control, we need more people control.

[fred53]

I would bet that in countries like these the laws are enforced, and the citizens have more respect for others. Here, the laws are selectively enforced, lawyers get the bad guys off, and everybody looks the other way to be politically correct. We don't need more gun control, we need more people control.

they don't have more respect for others...just more fear of gov't...they also have enormously fewer freedoms than we do...yup...even places like Great Britain and Switzerland have fewer liberties...there's a very good reason why most people who visit here want to move here....

I agree mostly with the rest of what you say...

[Bonnevie]

[QUOTE=goodtimesintv;1123364]THIS, not the guns, is the elephant in the room!


"The past decade lays out tragic evidence of the thread uniting mass shootings and mental illness:

* Seung-Hui Cho. As a child, Cho was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder and placed under treatment. On December 13, 2005, he was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization. On April 16, 2007, he killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at a University in Virginia.

* Jiverly Wong. In a letter dated March 18, 2009, Wong expressed his concerns to a local television station that undercover police officers were changing the channels on his television, making the air “unbreathable,” and had figured out a way to play music directly into his ear. On April 3, 2009, Wong walked into the American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York and killed 13 people, wounding four others.

* Maj. Nidal Hasan. In early 2009, the mental health officials who worked alongside Hasan held a series of meetings where they discussed his bizarre and paranoid behavior. Some openly wondered whether Hasan was psychotic. On November 5, 2009, Hasan opened fire at an army base near Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others.

* Jared Loughner. On September 10, 2010, Loughner was asked to leave Pima Community College in Tucson on mental health grounds – a psychologist who reviewed his journals believes he showed symptoms of schizophrenia. Four months later Loughner unloaded his 9mm Glock pistol into the parking lot of a Tucson shopping mall, killing six and injuring 13.

* James Holmes. Between March 16th and June 11, 2012, the psychiatrist who treated Holmes, Dr. Lynn Fenton, wrote in her notes that Holmes "may be shifting insidiously into a frank psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.” On July 20, 2012 Holmes walked into an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and killed 12 people, injuring 70 others.

* Aaron Alexis. On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him.” On September 16, 2013, Alexis fatally shot 12 people and injured three others at the Washington Navy Yard.

In the case of Newtown, Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza, the warning signs of a severe mental health issue were right out in the open for everyone to see.

Adam, who was diagnosed as a child with Sensory Perception Disorder, a condition that made made bright lights, loud sounds and certain textures unbearable, secluded himself in his bedroom for weeks at a time. While left to himself he covered his windows with dark garbage bags to block the light out, and spent his time played violent video games and studying mass killers, compiling an extensive database that read like a scorecard.

A Yale psychiatrist who briefly treated Lanza says he "displayed a profound autism spectrum disorder with rigidity, isolation and a lack of comprehension of ordinary social interaction and communications.”

Lanza never accepted his diagnosis and refused to take medication or undergo further treatment. Since he was over the age of 18, his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was acutely aware of his severe mental health issues, could only hope for the best.

This severely mentally ill young man, obsessed with violence and surrounded by automatic weapons, who had cut off almost everyone he cared about, made a series of terrifying posts all but telegraphing the future violence on a public on the mass-killer website.

In December 2011 he posted. “It goes without saying that an AK-47 and enough ammunition could do more good than a thousand 'teachers,' if one is truly interested in reforming the system…[the children] are already dead.”

On December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook elementary.....


just as you don't want gun rights restricted, in these cases the people at the time did not meet the current criteria for commitment, which is they did not appear to be a danger to themselves or others. So with mental health, the slope is just as slippery. When is someone just "odd" or when are they possible mass murderers? do we commit every person who is different...and what constitutes difference? in the case of Lanza, the person who should possibly be held more accountable is the gun owner....who, while knowing of her son's mental health, left him alone without properly securing her large quantities of weapons. just as there are millions of responsible gun owners, there are millions of people who have been treated for mental disorders who will never be mass murderers.

What all these people do have in common is the ability to arm themselves with weapons capable of shooting many people, very quickly.

This latest shooter had:

Investigators found 13 firearms connected to shooter, Celinez Nunez of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.

maybe the shear numbers of one's weaponry should be a flag. I realize that some people collect them, but what would be wrong for more stringent checks on people owning certain kinds of weapons and that many.

[billethkid]

I would bet that in countries like these the laws are enforced, and the citizens have more respect for others. Here, the laws are selectively enforced, lawyers get the bad guys off, and everybody looks the other way to be politically correct. We don't need more gun control, we need more people control.

And you would win that bet.
We TALK about the law of the land........ Wink, wink!

[outlaw]

And, of course, this whole argument is about you right? Nobody else does or should matter if it conflicts with you. So, am I right in assuming that you believe anyone should have access, even the drug users or the mentally ill. Am I right to assume that people that have committed prior violence or have broken the law should have access. Am I right to assume that fully automatic rifles, machine guns or any caliber that will ever be made should be available to everyone. I'm a gun carrying vet, with a concealed weapon permit that is for my self protection and I will fight for my 2nd amendment right to do that. But I will fight against those weapons that aren't for self protection and to keep them out of the hands of those that have a history of violence, are drug users or mentally ill. If you have a better way than government to accomplish that then put it out there. Remember the environment when the 2nd amendment was adopted, they couldn't imagine the weapons we have today. IMHO

First, when I wrote "I" in my comment, it was as a representative of the American citizen. "I" is much shorter. I should have said American citizens right should not be infringed. If you want to restrict an American citizen's right to bear arms, then you should work to change the amendment, not make laws that violate the amendment. Or better yet, work to have the government enforce the already onerous laws on the books. If you really want an in depth understanding of the 2nd A, I recommend you read this analysis A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html) . It's pretty long, but if you really are interested in understanding the meaning of the 2nd A words and intentions of the authors, I think you will enjoy it.

[outlaw]

That's what he needs to address! I bet he doesn't know what to do, hasn't said anything that I heard to address the violence in the cities. That's an on going problem with more fatalities than the occasional mass shooter.

A good start would be to enforce the laws on the books. Most of these Chicago shooters have a rap sheet, yet are still out on the street. They would not be doing drive-bys in prison, which is where they belong.

[outlaw]

How many of you that think we need "reasonable" gun laws would be in favor of a law to restrict driving privileges to just those people who don't drink alcohol? Most posters on here would agree that drunk driving is a problem in this country, and there are too many tragic DUI rated fatalities. So why not just issue driving licenses to people with no history of drinking alcohol and require them to state this under oath, for which the penalty for lying is 5 or 10 years in prison. Better still, safe driving requires one to be responsible and law abiding. Those who have demonstrated their lack of respect for the law, such as convicted felons, should not be allowed to drive, ever. Or those with a history of violence, should not be allowed to drive, and their car confiscated. Most people would say that is unreasonable. Yet there are 1000s of deaths each year from car accidents. But when it comes to scary black guns, and your most sacred human rights, many are willing to trash the constitution.

[outlaw]

Mass shootings in America
By decade:[4]
1900′s:0
1910′s:2
1920′s:2
1930′s:9
1940′s:8
1950′s:1
1960′s:6
1970′s:13
1980′s:32
1990′s:42
2000′s:28
2010-2013:14

Worst Years:
1991: 8
1999,2012:7

[Taltarzac725]

[QUOTE=goodtimesintv;1123364]THIS, not the guns, is the elephant in the room!


"The past decade lays out tragic evidence of the thread uniting mass shootings and mental illness:

* Seung-Hui Cho. As a child, Cho was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder and placed under treatment. On December 13, 2005, he was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization. On April 16, 2007, he killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at a University in Virginia.

* Jiverly Wong. In a letter dated March 18, 2009, Wong expressed his concerns to a local television station that undercover police officers were changing the channels on his television, making the air “unbreathable,” and had figured out a way to play music directly into his ear. On April 3, 2009, Wong walked into the American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York and killed 13 people, wounding four others.

* Maj. Nidal Hasan. In early 2009, the mental health officials who worked alongside Hasan held a series of meetings where they discussed his bizarre and paranoid behavior. Some openly wondered whether Hasan was psychotic. On November 5, 2009, Hasan opened fire at an army base near Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others.

* Jared Loughner. On September 10, 2010, Loughner was asked to leave Pima Community College in Tucson on mental health grounds – a psychologist who reviewed his journals believes he showed symptoms of schizophrenia. Four months later Loughner unloaded his 9mm Glock pistol into the parking lot of a Tucson shopping mall, killing six and injuring 13.

* James Holmes. Between March 16th and June 11, 2012, the psychiatrist who treated Holmes, Dr. Lynn Fenton, wrote in her notes that Holmes "may be shifting insidiously into a frank psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.” On July 20, 2012 Holmes walked into an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and killed 12 people, injuring 70 others.

* Aaron Alexis. On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him.” On September 16, 2013, Alexis fatally shot 12 people and injured three others at the Washington Navy Yard.

In the case of Newtown, Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza, the warning signs of a severe mental health issue were right out in the open for everyone to see.

Adam, who was diagnosed as a child with Sensory Perception Disorder, a condition that made made bright lights, loud sounds and certain textures unbearable, secluded himself in his bedroom for weeks at a time. While left to himself he covered his windows with dark garbage bags to block the light out, and spent his time played violent video games and studying mass killers, compiling an extensive database that read like a scorecard.

A Yale psychiatrist who briefly treated Lanza says he "displayed a profound autism spectrum disorder with rigidity, isolation and a lack of comprehension of ordinary social interaction and communications.”

Lanza never accepted his diagnosis and refused to take medication or undergo further treatment. Since he was over the age of 18, his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was acutely aware of his severe mental health issues, could only hope for the best.

This severely mentally ill young man, obsessed with violence and surrounded by automatic weapons, who had cut off almost everyone he cared about, made a series of terrifying posts all but telegraphing the future violence on a public on the mass-killer website.

In December 2011 he posted. “It goes without saying that an AK-47 and enough ammunition could do more good than a thousand 'teachers,' if one is truly interested in reforming the system…[the children] are already dead.”

On December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook elementary.....


just as you don't want gun rights restricted, in these cases the people at the time did not meet the current criteria for commitment, which is they did not appear to be a danger to themselves or others. So with mental health, the slope is just as slippery. When is someone just "odd" or when are they possible mass murderers? do we commit every person who is different...and what constitutes difference? in the case of Lanza, the person who should possibly be held more accountable is the gun owner....who, while knowing of her son's mental health, left him alone without properly securing her large quantities of weapons. just as there are millions of responsible gun owners, there are millions of people who have been treated for mental disorders who will never be mass murderers.

What all these people do have in common is the ability to arm themselves with weapons capable of shooting many people, very quickly.

This latest shooter had:

Investigators found 13 firearms connected to shooter, Celinez Nunez of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.

maybe the shear numbers of one's weaponry should be a flag. I realize that some people collect them, but what would be wrong for more stringent checks on people owning certain kinds of weapons and that many.

Good input again. Nosey neighbors might be part of the solution. And more data mining by the FBI and other groups of Facebook pages and the like. I have no idea what the FBI is doing now about threats of Facebook but you would think that some of these people had Facebook pages which should have set up various warning signs.

I have lived in some places though where the neighbors hardly pay any attention to one another unlike the Villages.

[Taltarzac725]

First, when I wrote "I" in my comment, it was as a representative of the American citizen. "I" is much shorter. I should have said American citizens right should not be infringed. If you want to restrict an American citizen's right to bear arms, then you should work to change the amendment, not make laws that violate the amendment. Or better yet, work to have the government enforce the already onerous laws on the books. If you really want an in depth understanding of the 2nd A, I recommend you read this analysis A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html) . It's pretty long, but if you really are interested in understanding the meaning of the 2nd A words and intentions of the authors, I think you will enjoy it.

Thanks for posting that. Not sure if I would call that an in-depth understanding though of the history of guns in the US and the laws that control them. It is more about what the US Supreme Court and a few Founding Fathers said about the 2nd Amendment. I see the US Constitution as a living document and not a dead one. Considerations about 2015 should be the main analysis not what was going on in 1789.

Better reading might be-- American Gun: A History of the U.S. in Ten Firearms (P.S.): Chris Kyle, William Doyle: 9780062242723: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/American-Gun-History-U-S-Firearms/dp/0062242725) and other books about how people using guns have shaped US history.

[cologal]

Here in the United States we have the right of Free Speech and also to own a gun. That being said even Free Speech has been regulated example, You can't stand up in a Movie Theater yelling Fire.

Allowing people with mental health issues to own a gun, to me, is the same as allow someone to yell Fire in a crowded room. Bad things are bound to happen.

I haven't heard the statement from the NRA yet but some of their usual statements cannot be used.

1. This school was NOT a "gun free zone". There was an armed guard on the grounds. And there were student packing on campus....legal in Oregon.

2. A good guy with a gun could have stopped a bad gun with a gun. Nope one student with a gun decided not to engage the bad guy for fear of being caught in a crossfire.

I do favor background checks which include the mental health history of the purchaser.

[outlaw]

FYI. This in USA Today:
According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

James Alan Fox is the Lipman Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University

[outlaw]

Thanks for posting that. Not sure if I would call that an in-depth understanding though of the history of guns in the US and the laws that control them. It is more about what the US Supreme Court and a few Founding Fathers said about the 2nd Amendment. I see the US Constitution as a living document and not a dead one. Considerations about 2015 should be the main analysis not what was going on in 1789.

Better reading might be-- American Gun: A History of the U.S. in Ten Firearms (P.S.): Chris Kyle, William Doyle: 9780062242723: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/American-Gun-History-U-S-Firearms/dp/0062242725) and other books about how people using guns have shaped US history.

I never said it was an analysis of any kind regarding the history of guns and gun laws. It is about the 2nd A. Did you even read it, all of it?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Look at the murder rate by handgun in countries where ownership of handguns is prohibited. They are much lower than here in the US.

However, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that private ownership of handguns is guaranteed by the Constitution, so it is law of the land.

Even we, who do not believe it is right, must respect that right.

Likewise, others who do not believe other Supreme Court decisions, have to respect those decisions also - same sex marriage, ACA, etc.

Honduras, which does not allow it's citizens to own guns, has the highest homicide rate in the world.

Switzerland which has a very high rate of gun ownership has a very low homicide rate.

We have more gun control laws on the books now than at any time in our history yet the problem of mass shootings has grown over the past fifty years or so. It seems that the more laws we pass the worse the problem has gotten. I'm not claiming cause and effect, but I do believe that all of the laws we have passed in an effort to control this problem have not worked. What makes people think that passing more meaningless laws will work.

In this most recent case, as in many of the cases, took place in a gun free zone. I believe that if this had happened in The Villages, the shooter would have been taken out by one of the many people who choose to arm themselves here. Gun free zones could be renamed "Safe Hunting Area".

This crackpot was only stopped when a police officer with a gun showed up and stopped him. If several of these students or teachers had been armed, I believe that there would have been fewer casualties. In fact if the shooter knew that there were several armed people in that school, he might have been dissuaded from going there.

[Taltarzac725]

FYI. This in USA Today:
According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

James Alan Fox is the Lipman Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University

James Alan Fox: Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/)

Here is a link to his article. I would be more interested though in what the victims of these many shootings have to say.

This comes from another source but does probably include drug deals gone bad and the like-- Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015)

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Approximately 33,000 people die from gun related causes (including 21,000 by suicide) in this country each year. I would say that many of those who decide to kill themselves would find other means if a gun were not available.

On the other hand approximately, 88,000 deaths are caused by consumption of alcohol.

Why do we not have a movement to better control alcohol? Why are there no calls for more alcohol control laws?

[Taltarzac725]

I never said it was an analysis of any kind regarding the history of guns and gun laws. It is about the 2nd A. Did you even read it, all of it?

I read it. Kind of boring law review analysis designed for law professors and other academics. He seems to be influenced quite a bit by the thinking of Thomas Kuhn and his various models and the like. Kuhn's field was the history of science and paradigms. I doubt if many Congressmen and women are thinking about paradigms though not would the Founding Fathers have been writing in terms of these but probably based on their readings of English, Roman and Greek history while not trying to make a living in 1789 America.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment The debate is about who has that right-- people, a militia, a standing army, etc.

This also from 1995-- A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html) Quite a lot of important events in the gun debate from then to now.

[Taltarzac725]

Approximately 33,000 people die from gun related causes (including 21,000 by suicide) in this country each year. I would say that many of those who decide to kill themselves would find other means if a gun were not available.

On the other hand approximately, 88,000 deaths are caused by consumption of alcohol.

Why do we not have a movement to better control alcohol? Why are there no calls for more alcohol control laws?

There are a lot of alcohol control laws especially if you have had a drunk driving conviction.

[Cedwards38]

Approximately 33,000 people die from gun related causes (including 21,000 by suicide) in this country each year. I would say that many of those who decide to kill themselves would find other means if a gun were not available.

On the other hand approximately, 88,000 deaths are caused by consumption of alcohol.

Why do we not have a movement to better control alcohol? Why are there no calls for more alcohol control laws?

Well, there probably is a movement, but a big difference I see here is that I can't buy alcohol and decide to drink somebody else to death.

[cologal]

Lisa Booth, Fox News, just lied on National Television about the Oregon shooting.

She stated the shooting site was a "Gun Free Zone"....it was NOT! Oregon law allows concealed carry at secondary education site, there was an armed guard and several students were packing.

Hardly a "GUN FREE ZONE"!!!!

Tell the truth......

[Cedwards38]

Just food for thought. I don't know what to do, but I think we have to do something.

[Taltarzac725]

Lisa Booth, Fox News, just lied on National Television about the Oregon shooting.

She stated the shooting site was a "Gun Free Zone"....it was NOT! Oregon law allows concealed carry at secondary education site, there was an armed guard and several students were packing.

Hardly a "GUN FREE ZONE"!!!!

Tell the truth......

Debate, and Confusion, Over Oregon'''s Gun Rules After Deadly Shooting - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/debate-confusion-over-oregons-gun-rules-after-deadly-shooting-n437966)

There seems to be a debate about the words used in the Oregon tragedy.

[cologal]

My bad....

I heard a report that the college in Oregon had an armed guard upon further review they had reviewed that however ruled out this option.

My statement that student were packing on campus is true.

[Bonnevie]

You can't buy an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons are essentially illegal.

again, semi-automatic weapons can create multiple fatalities in very little time. what's being questioned is the need for anyone to own these weapons? You can own other types of guns for personal protection.

[outlaw]

I read it. Kind of boring law review analysis designed for law professors and other academics. He seems to be influenced quite a bit by the thinking of Thomas Kuhn and his various models and the like. Kuhn's field was the history of science and paradigms. I doubt if many Congressmen and women are thinking about paradigms though not would the Founding Fathers have been writing in terms of these but probably based on their readings of English, Roman and Greek history while not trying to make a living in 1789 America.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment The debate is about who has that right-- people, a militia, a standing army, etc.

This also from 1995-- A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html) Quite a lot of important events in the gun debate from then to now.

Thanks for reading it. But the debate is NOT about WHO has that right any more than a debate about who has the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It is the individual. Your dismissal of the constitution as being outdated (written in 1789; it's 2015) is unfortunate.

[newguyintv]

One thing I know, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are only a few of the many countries having a lower rate of violent crime than the US. They all have laws which call for registration of handguns and possession of firearms are limited.

Assault rifles are only for the military, not for paranoid citizens

We live in the greatest country in the world. But that does not mean than we can't learn from other countries.

The gun related deaths in our country, especially those in schools, is the highest in the world. Folks there is something wrong with our system. We are NOT safer because we "we have the right to bear arms". If fact if there is a gun in your home, the likely hood of a family member dying from a gun death increases dramatically.

The system is broken, and we are doing nothing to fix it. Unless we do, more innocent children will die. Guaranteed. I hope none of them are your grandchildren.


Unfortunately the right to bear arms advocates are to stupid to understand that what you are saying is absolutely correct. Simply stated, doesn't require much brainpower to understand that significantly more rigid gun control cannot help but to reduce the number of random and mass killings.

[Bonnevie]

all I know is that several families in Oregon are hurting right now, just as those at Virginia Tech did, and Sandy Hook, and Aurora, etc. because people could buy semi-automatic rifles and guns and huge amounts of ammo for an amendment written when muskets were the guns available. Gun owners have the right to bear arms but everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, I agree people have a right town guns, but do they have the right to have private arsenals?

but don't worry gun aficionados, if the death of little elementary school children didn't cause change, this won't either.

[outlaw]

James Alan Fox: Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/)

Here is a link to his article. I would be more interested though in what the victims of these many shootings have to say.

This comes from another source but does probably include drug deals gone bad and the like-- Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015)

Yes. Let's keep emotion at the forefront of discussing policy. Let's have victims determine their assailants' punishment. I have a feeling there would be a lot more executions of DUI manslaughter.

[dirtbanker]

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook students, Aurora, Virginia Tech, now Oregon......I'm sure it will be a comfort to them

smoking laws have been enacted to curb where smoking is allowed.

drunk driving laws have been toughened A LOT over the years. when the need arose, laws were changed.

I did not present that information with the intent that it would comfort anyone. Your suggestion for me to contact parents that lost their children at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Oregon is rude.

Sort of like; why don't you contact the parents of children that have died from cancer or a drunk driver and let them know you are in favor of nobody having guns.

Current smoking laws do not protect the children of smokers, but possibly the media is not dramatizing that enough for you to care about the 41,000 deaths per year, the 150,000+ lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, the 15,000 hospitalizations each year, or the 430 infant deaths ("oh she loves her baby, she cracked the window of the car while she smokes").

Current smoking laws do protect the tobacco companies though! They can put any chemical they want in the cigarettes to make them more addictive than opium, and the consumer has no legal recourse due to the states settlement of class action suit in your behalf (remember the $1 tax credit you got) and the warnings on the side of the packaging.

Even with those "toughened" drunk driving laws there were 10,076 killed in a year. I assume those laws ease your mind and make you feel safer.

Yes, lets prioritize taking guns away from everyone due to the few cowardly killers (plus give them fame and attention via the media. Heck, the president even called a press conference to address this villain's act!) and lets ignore the masses being killed by smoking and drunk drivers...we are a dumb breed of animals.

CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/)

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke | American Lung Association (http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html)

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

[Bonnevie]

I just want common sense brought to this divisive issue.

[Taltarzac725]

Thanks for reading it. But the debate is NOT about WHO has that right any more than a debate about who has the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. It is the individual. Your dismissal of the constitution as being outdated (written in 1789; it's 2015) is unfortunate.

I did not say that the US Constitution is outdated just that 1995 Law Review article about it is. People still have the same failings that they did in 1789 and checks and balances are needed in 2015 just as they were in Rome in 69 AD, Jerusalem in 33 AD, etc.

And reading the US Constitution it is not clear who had the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Some scholars think it is the militia, others the people, others an individual. Others the National Guard or some kind of standing army.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm)

I did find this which is very interesting about why James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment as he did. VPC - Second Amendment History (http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm) It is just a theory though IMHO.

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

[outlaw]

My bad....

I heard a report that the college in Oregon had an armed guard upon further review they had reviewed that however ruled out this option.

My statement that student were packing on campus is true.

Apparently, they weren't packing where the shooter was. And how would you feel if someone accused you of lying, when you misspoke?

[billethkid]

all I know is that several families in Oregon are hurting right now, just as those at Virginia Tech did, and Sandy Hook, and Aurora, etc. because people could buy semi-automatic rifles and guns and huge amounts of ammo for an amendment written when muskets were the guns available. Gun owners have the right to bear arms but everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, I agree people have a right town guns, but do they have the right to have private arsenals?

but don't worry gun aficionados, if the death of little elementary school children didn't cause change, this won't either.

Not a very appropriate or neighborly snipe! Have an opinion or preference but lobbing snipes only devalues any intended contribution.

By just reading the posts it is easy to ascertain there are many who do not understand the types of weapons and how they function.

A semi automatic one has to pull the trigger each time to fire the gun.
A non semi automatic one has to pull the trigger each time to fire the gun.
A non semi automatic can be fired just about as fast as a semi automatic.

Why more than one gun.
Personal preference.
Just like having different golf clubs there are different applications.
Different sports requiring different guns.
Different guns requiring different ammunitions.
Some simply collect...no different than collecting stamps.

It is unfortunate that for the most part gun education of the public is limited to what they see in the movies or on television. And worst of all from what they hear on the 24/7 media (mostly anti gun).

As for actions to be taken or change as snipped above;
> how about writing to the lawmakers to ENFORCE the existing laws on the books?

> how about having folks worry less about offending someone by saying something when they see something.

> how about the incensed public require the movie industry and hollywood and television produce STOP producing carnage training films reffered to as movies or entertainment.

Just to name a few that will most definitely have an impact.

From years of experience I KNOW I am wasting my time!

[tomwed]

Why more than one gun.
Personal preference.
Just like having different golf clubs there are different applications.
Different sports requiring different guns.
Different guns requiring different ammunitions.
Some simply collect...no different than collecting stamps.

Many believe agree with you and have for hundreds of years. And what's the difference between the clubs that were made 300 years ago and the guns that were made 300 years ago? The club is still a crooked little stick that can only hit one ball at a time. You can't aim it much better and the ball maybe goes 200 yard further.
You can make a better argument.

[cologal]

Apparently, they weren't packing where the shooter was. And how would you feel if someone accused you of lying, when you misspoke?

I corrected stated the campus was not a gun free zone as a more than one student was packing. I corrected my mistake as soon as I could, I will await the correction from the Fox News spokesperson.

Have a good day!!

[Bonnevie]

[B]From years of experience I KNOW I am wasting my time![/QUOTE][/B

oh, dear, was that a not very neighborly snipe? :)

I'm out of here. Apparently all the things I said regarding common sense approaches and the inability to predict who will snap are overlooked to jump on some little aside. But then the best defense is an offense.

btw, I come from a family of law enforcement and so I'm very aware of the need for protection from certain elements. They may feel as the sheriff of the Oregon town still feels that there is no need for anything to be done. I disagree as is my right.

and my comment about nothing being done was just that--an observation, not an indictment.

[outlaw]

I did not say that the US Constitution is outdated just that 1995 Law Review article about it is. People still have the same failings that they did in 1789 and checks and balances are needed in 2015 just as they were in Rome in 69 AD, Jerusalem in 33 AD, etc.

And reading the US Constitution it is not clear who had the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Some scholars think it is the militia, others the people, others an individual. Others the National Guard or some kind of standing army.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm)

I did find this which is very interesting about why James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment as he did. VPC - Second Amendment History (http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm) It is just a theory though IMHO.

Yes, the 2nd A is racist. That's the ticket. That should do it. BTW, the militia, people, individual, are all the same. There was no National Guard back then! The purpose of the 2nd A was two fold; self protection, and to rise against an oppressive government. Guess who would have a "standing army". That's right, the government. You didn't really read it, did you?

[dirtbanker]

I just want common sense brought to this divisive issue.Just this issue, as you do not want to address bigger issues. Lets put our heads in the sand and believe more gun laws will fix what the media has made us feel outraged about...common sense solution there.

[Taltarzac725]

Yes, the 2nd A is racist. That's the ticket. That should do it. BTW, the militia, people, individual, are all the same. There was no National Guard back then! The purpose of the 2nd A was two fold; self protection, and to rise against an oppressive government. Guess who would have a "standing army". That's right, the government. You didn't really read it, did you?

The Minute Men were a standing army of a sort. Going against that of the UK.

The Founding Fathers probably were afraid of Native American attacks as well as those by the British and other foreign powers as there was a history of such attacks in 1789. And, a slave uprising would also be on the minds of anyone familiar with Roman and Greek history as well as the story of Moses and the Exodus out of Egypt. That is a revolt by Jewish slaves against their Egyptian masters. The Five Greatest Slave Rebellions in the United States | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/did-african-american-slaves-rebel/)


The man Alexander Hamilton looks like he was fighting with his own conscience about slavery and was for its abolition. The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute: Alexander Hamilton and Slavery (http://wjmi.blogspot.com/2012/06/alexander-hamilton-and-slavery.html)

The Roman and Greek slaves were often conquered people of many ethnicities and I do not think race entered into the thinking of the Founding Fathers. In 1789 and later, some slaves were probably similar in appearance to their masters but were still slaves.

Roman history a subject very much of interest to the Founding Fathers also had a lot of stories of government factions fighting other government factions like the Year of the Four Emperors in 69 AD.

The US Civil War was a fight involving rival governmental interests-- slavery being one of the most important issues of this conflict.

[Taltarzac725]

ConSource, (http://blog.consource.org/post/44715278749/carl-cecere-second-amendment-and-right-of-insurrection)

Here is a better discussion of the Founding Fathers and their fears put into why they wrote and passed the 2nd Amendment like it read in 1791.

The Second Amendment did not, however, protect private ownership of military-grade weapons. Then, as now, weapons that people kept for self-defense were very different than those used by fighting forces. The militia, of course, utilized a variety of heavy cannons that bore nothing at all in common with personal firearms. But even the hand-held weapons favored by soldiers were very different than their civilian counterparts. The citizen soldier in the 1780s usually used a heavy, large-caliber smoothbore military musket with fixed bayonet, like the Brown Bess carried by British Regulars. This was far different from the types of small-caliber private arms available at the time like the more common fusil or fowler. As different, in fact, as an M-16 is from a common shotgun.
These military-grade weapons came with military-grade restrictions, because the militia was not a mob. When the militia reported for muster, they became a single fighting force—the “well-regulated militia.” They acted under color of state or federal authority. The militiaman did not obey his own individual conscience. He followed orders from commissioned officers, or he faced military discipline. And the militia stood on the side of order and authority, to preserve the state’s monopoly on the use of force. As noted above, the “well-regulated” militia was most often used in the post-Revolutionary period to dispatch angry mobs, not support them.

[billethkid]

N/A

[billethkid]

Just me being me and commenting, in general....NOBODY in specific......as a result of my experience.....Not intended as a snipe at all.

[Taltarzac725]

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php)

Here is a good link for current information about the 2nd Amendment. If someone finds more recent and credible information please post it.

[Cedwards38]

Just this issue, as you do not want to address bigger issues. Lets put our heads in the sand and believe more gun laws will fix what the media has made us feel outraged about...common sense solution there.

I don't need the media to make me outraged at the level of gun violence, and the frequency of public massacres in America. In other countries in the world, gun regulation has resulted in the decrease of gun violence. I'm not talking about sportsman's guns, but rather about guns whose purpose is solely the taking of human life. So, if that won't work here, then what is a common sense solution, because I'm embarrassed, heartbroken, and through only offering prayers and condolences. Certainly, doing nothing will accomplish nothing.

And to clarify, my tone is calm here. I'm not screaming with moral indignance. I really address this to anyone and everyone who might have a workable fix for this all to common problem.

This is not the fault of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, Wall Street, immigrants, rednecks, or any other group. I point my finger and say this is your fault.......as I look into the mirror, because I don't absolutely demand of my government that something be done right now to stop this senseless loss of life.

[justjim]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

From the proposals to change the gun laws that I saw, they would not keep any good person from purchasing a gun. However, the NRA would make some to believe that. Honestly, I don't know what it will take to get gun laws to change so at the least background checks are taken and elimination of gun shows selling guns without any background check.

Would this eliminate all bad guys from buying a gun on the "street". No, but it likely would save some lives. It would be a start toward perhaps getting assault weapons eliminated from being sold to someone with a documented mental problem.

[tuccillo]

Please stop referring to semi-automatics as assault weapons. They aren't. You can't legally buy assault weapons in this country (some collectors excluded, I believe). I can't speak for all states, but where I moved from background checks were mandatory.

From the proposals to change the gun laws that I saw, they would not keep any good person from purchasing a gun. However, the NRA would make some to believe that. Honestly, I don't know what it will take to get gun laws to change so at the least background checks are taken and elimination of gun shows selling guns without any background check.

Would this eliminate all bad guys from buying a gun on the "street". No, but it likely would save some lives. It would be a start toward perhaps getting assault weapons eliminated from being sold to someone with a documented mental problem.

[justjim]

Please stop referring to semi-automatics as assault weapons. They aren't. You can't legally buy assault weapons in this country (some collectors excluded, I believe). I can't speak for all states, but where I moved from background checks were mandatory.

The gun that killed 26 at Newtown was called an Assault rifle by the Police but some want to call it a semi-automatic---Bushmaster XM-15 Rifle---you certainly don't need this type of weapon to kill a deer or anyother animal. With all due respect, it is the type of weapon that should be banned no matter what type you want to call it IMHO.

However, first we need at the very least, background checks on every gun legally sold to the public in every State. The only way to do that is with a Federal law. Given the NRA lobby and Congress this is highly unlikely. I recently read that the majority of Americans want mandatory background checks and the type of gun used to kill 26 innocent at Newtown banned for sale.

What can be done? "when you're going through hell, keep going" Churchill
The friends and parents of all the victims are sure going through hell.

[FosterMomma]

Although I don't truly understand owning a gun, I'm wondering if anyone could explain the need for a citizen to own a rapid fire weapon. Wouldn't you assume trouble was brewing if someone you knew bought one?

[rjm1cc]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.
The question for any politician that is addressing the subject what changes have you proposed since you have been a politician, would have your proposal help in this situation etc.

[AJ32162]

Although I don't truly understand owning a gun, I'm wondering if anyone could explain the need for a citizen to own a rapid fire weapon. Wouldn't you assume trouble was brewing if someone you knew bought one?

Someone you know probably does own one, however, not knowing about it probably helps you sleep better a night.

[tuccillo]

Many guns sold today are semi-automatic. For example, all clip based pistols are semi-automatics. Many shotguns are semi-automatics. Many rifles are semi-automatics. You can call double action revolvers semi-automatics. Assault weapons are fully automatic. You can't buy those. Using the term "assault rifles" is a an attempt to politicize a tragedy caused by a mental health issue.

The gun that killed 26 at Newtown was called an Assault rifle by the Police but some want to call it a semi-automatic---Bushmaster XM-15 Rifle---you certainly don't need this type of weapon to kill a deer or anyother animal. With all due respect, it is the type of weapon that should be banned no matter what type you want to call it IMHO.

However, first we need at the very least, background checks on every gun legally sold to the public in every State. The only way to do that is with a Federal law. Given the NRA lobby and Congress this is highly unlikely. I recently read that the majority of Americans want mandatory background checks and the type of gun used to kill 26 innocent at Newtown banned for sale.

What can be done? "when you're going through hell, keep going" Churchill
The friends and parents of all the victims are sure going through hell.

[dirtbanker]

I don't need the media to make me outraged at the level of gun violence, and the frequency of public massacres in America. In other countries in the world, gun regulation has resulted in the decrease of gun violence . I'm not talking about sportsman's guns, but rather about guns whose purpose is solely the taking of human life. So, if that won't work here, then what is a common sense solution, because I'm embarrassed, heartbroken, and through only offering prayers and condolences. Certainly, doing nothing will accomplish nothing.

And to clarify, my tone is calm here. I'm not screaming with moral indignance. I really address this to anyone and everyone who might have a workable fix for this all to common problem.

This is not the fault of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, Wall Street, immigrants, rednecks, or any other group. I point my finger and say this is your fault.......as I look into the mirror, because I don't absolutely demand of my government that something be done right now to stop this senseless loss of life.

Not sure why you felt the need to quote me if you just wanted to talk about yourself...?

Please present your source for "other countries in the world, gun regulation has resulted in the decrease of gun violence".

Love the line "This is not the fault of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, Wall Street, immigrants, rednecks, or any other group". What about Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or just Dramatized Idiots?

What do you want your government to do? Maybe they can find a cure for mental illness (the kind of mentally ill that want to take the lives of others for nothing more than the recognition, and they don't care if they have to shoot them or drive over them to kill)...

[billethkid]

Although I don't truly understand owning a gun, I'm wondering if anyone could explain the need for a citizen to own a rapid fire weapon. Wouldn't you assume trouble was brewing if someone you knew bought one?

Sigh......continuing Education;
Rapid fire is not a type of weapon allowed to be purchased today.
Whether rifles or pistols or shot guns.....whether semi automatic, double action or single action.........they shoot one time with each pull of the trigger. And any one can be fired as fast as one can pull the trigger!

Automatics are no longer sold legally.

Rapid fire is not a type of gun!!

[DugCave]

Unfortunately, there have been enough guns of all types sold in the last 10-15 years that even if all gun sales were stoped today there would still be these senseless murders for decades to come. A gun will last 100+ years if cared for. Trying to confiscate guns will never happen in this country. Sadly, thanks to well meaning but ignorant gun rights activists, many more of these masacres will happen. Its too bad that even well meaning congressmen are afraid to go against the NRA. Even people who don't like having a gun are buying them because they are afraid. Wish I had an answer to this problem.

[outlaw]

Sigh......continuing Education;
Rapid fire is not a type of weapon allowed to be purchased today.
Whether rifles or pistols or shot guns.....whether semi automatic, double action or single action.........they shoot one time with each pull of the trigger. And any one can be fired as fast as one can pull the trigger!

Automatics are no longer sold legally.

Rapid fire is not a type of gun!!

I assume you were just keeping this simple, but I think one can buy a machine gun (automatic) legally with an NFA.

[dirtbanker]

Well I guess the people that bought guns decades ago are to blame...Just as the "no rapid fire" education falls on deaf ears here, so does the notion that more gun laws are not going to prevent nutjobs from taking other peoples lives. They will drive through a crowd of people at the mall to get the attention they desire, I guess then we will take everyone's car away to stop the few.

I believe these perpetrators care what others think of them. They have been outcasts or one offs for sometime, they are bitter that others do not accept them, and they want to "show them". The media currently portraits these nutjobs as villains instead of the cowards they really are (attacking unarmed defenseless people is the act of a coward). The media talk about the perpetrator over and over (giving the fame and recognition desired) demonstrating to other nutjobs watching how to "show them".

Be outraged that the media is giving these nutjobs what they want!

They should just announce the act as "another coward attacked unarmed defenseless people", never give the name or any background information on the nutjob, focus on telling us about the good in the people who lost their lives (those wrongfully killed would get recognition, not the nutjob coward that attacked unarmed defenseless people).

[outlaw]

From the proposals to change the gun laws that I saw, they would not keep any good person from purchasing a gun. However, the NRA would make some to believe that. Honestly, I don't know what it will take to get gun laws to change so at the least background checks are taken and elimination of gun shows selling guns without any background check.

Would this eliminate all bad guys from buying a gun on the "street". No, but it likely would save some lives. It would be a start toward perhaps getting assault weapons eliminated from being sold to someone with a documented mental problem.

First of all. ALL licensed gun dealers MUST conduct a background check prior to selling a handgun, even at gun shows. Further, in Florida, the buyer must wait three days before taking possession of his gun. The only handguns sold without a background check at gun shows or through an ad are private sales between two individuals. And AR does not stand for assault weapon. It stands for Armalite, the company that designed the AR15/M16/M4. The AR15 is the non-automatic (civilian) version of the M/4. The AR15 is a one shot one trigger pull black scary rifle like thousands of other non-black rifles. Repeating the lies of the gun control activists does nothing to help resolve these tragedies.

[TVMayor]

If you could push a button and make all guns disappear today, the nuts with the guns would remain behind. It would then be apparent what was needed was a button to make the nuts disappear.

When I was a kid I lived 2 blocks from the Pontiac State Hospital (Nut House). It opened in 1878 with 222 patients, in the 1950s the patient population peaked at 3,100. In 1997 200 patients and the facility closed. It was demolished in 2000.

Closed, no longer needed? Hello!

[outlaw]

ConSource, (http://blog.consource.org/post/44715278749/carl-cecere-second-amendment-and-right-of-insurrection)

Here is a better discussion of the Founding Fathers and their fears put into why they wrote and passed the 2nd Amendment like it read in 1791.

My reference to you completely covers every point in this reference you provided. All you have to do is read it. But never mind.

[Taltarzac725]

If you could push a button and make all guns disappear today, the nuts with the guns would remain behind. It would then be apparent what was needed was a button to make the nuts disappear.

When I was a kid I lived 2 blocks from the Pontiac State Hospital (Nut House). It opened in 1878 with 222 patients, in the 1950s the patient population peaked at 3,100. In 1997 200 patients and the facility closed. It was demolished in 2000.

Closed, no longer needed? Hello!

Most nuts are rather mild and never harm anyone. Very angry lonesome young men radicalized by something they see on the Internet, the movies, and/or TV are another story.

[Miles42]

Laws are defined lines for honest people. They have never deterred a criminal. If it only took laws to stop crime then stands to reason there would not be any and our prisons would be empty.

[Taltarzac725]

My reference to you completely covers every point in this reference you provided. All you have to do is read it. But never mind.

You really should read that 1995 Law Review article again. It is outdated by the Supreme Court cases that came after it. A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html)

[Taltarzac725]

Yes. Let's keep emotion at the forefront of discussing policy. Let's have victims determine their assailants' punishment. I have a feeling there would be a lot more executions of DUI manslaughter.

No two victims are the same in how they respond to what the defendant did to them especially at the sentencing stage . And they have a lot more say than they ever did.

Juries get emotional all the time when hearing witnesses and seeing evidence. The judge is supposed to keep them in line. Attorneys often make arguments meant to elicit many emotions.

I have been fighting since 1991 to get practical information into libraries of all kinds for survivors/victims of crimes so that they make decisions which are based less on emotions rather than on the law, ethics, religion, etc. I have been doing this with the help of many victim/witness assistance centers that I have been contacting since 1992 on-an-off and trying to get them to dialog with the law librarians, librarians, police departments, etc. This is my 224 613 Project based on my own experiences with the Michelle Mitchell murder investigation. This murder was of my then Earl Wooster High School English teacher's daughter on 2-24-1976. 2-24 is also my birthday. Many people were very emotional in this investigation of this murder which was covered very heavily in the Northern Nevada press. Most of the murders connected with the Michelle Mitchell case and the Gypsy Hill slayings were with knives and hammers. The wrong woman was in a mental health ward for around 35 years for a false confession to the murder of Michelle Mitchell. This is Cathy Woods who was released this summer of 2015. They now have a suspect in the 2-24-1976 murder of Michelle Mitchell in Rodney Halbower. Man Accused In Gypsy Hill Killings Has Spent Nearly 50 Years Jailed « CBS Sacramento (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/05/24/man-accused-in-gypsy-hill-killings-has-spent-nearly-50-years-jailed/)

I worked with prisoners at Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners at the University of Minnesota Law School first as a Student then as a Student Director at the Minnesota Correctional Facility--Stillwater from 1987-1989. I kept my cool dealing with probably 40 different cases. I did though think about the victims/survivors of these defendants but tried to help my clients to the best of my ability.

My point is that emotion plays a big part in law courts as well as in policies. Emotion plays a huge part in the gun control debate as well.

[Cedwards38]

Not sure why you felt the need to quote me if you just wanted to talk about yourself...?

Please present your source for "other countries in the world, gun regulation has resulted in the decrease of gun violence".

Love the line "This is not the fault of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, Wall Street, immigrants, rednecks, or any other group". What about Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or just Dramatized Idiots?

What do you want your government to do? Maybe they can find a cure for mental illness (the kind of mentally ill that want to take the lives of others for nothing more than the recognition, and they don't care if they have to shoot them or drive over them to kill)...

I quoted you because you suggested that the media was responsible for making Americans feel outraged at gun violence, and I wanted to make the point that it is the actual killing that outrages me and not the media reporting of the killing. Without the media reporting we wouldn't even know it happened. But thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain myself.

As for sources, here are a few:

New Statistics Indicate Gun Control Works | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/new-statistics-indicate-gun-control-works)

Hard Evidence: does gun control work? (http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work-18374)

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/)

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

I'm glad you love my line that suggests that the fault for gun violence does not lie with any one particular group, and I agree that it is also not the fault of Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or even Dramatized Idiots, though clearly there are plenty of the last group involved in the debate. My point, as you well know, is that it is my fault, and yours, and everyone's for allowing gutless politicians to think that prayers and condolences instead of legislation is enough.

Maybe we can find a cure for mental illness, but in the meantime we need to provide for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that might be a good start. Yep, it requires tax money, but if it saves lives would that expense be worth it? Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?

I'm certainly no expert. These are just off the top of my head, without any opportunity to have an open and honest discussion with others of good will on the solutions to this growing problem. I'm sure there are more, and you probably have some constructive ideas to share too.

[Taltarzac725]

I quoted you because you suggested that the media was responsible for making Americans feel outraged at gun violence, and I wanted to make the point that it is the actual killing that outrages me and not the media reporting of the killing. Without the media reporting we wouldn't even know it happened. But thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain myself.

As for sources, here are a few:

New Statistics Indicate Gun Control Works | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/new-statistics-indicate-gun-control-works)

Hard Evidence: does gun control work? (http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work-18374)

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/)

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

I'm glad you love my line that suggests that the fault for gun violence does not lie with any one particular group, and I agree that it is also not the fault of Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or even Dramatized Idiots, though clearly there are plenty of the last group involved in the debate. My point, as you well know, is that it is my fault, and yours, and everyone's for allowing gutless politicians to think that prayers and condolences instead of legislation is enough.

Maybe we can find a cure for mental illness, but in the meantime we need to provide for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that might be a good start. Yep, it requires tax money, but if it saves lives would that expense be worth it? Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?

I'm certainly no expert. These are just off the top of my head, without any opportunity to have an open and honest discussion with others of good will on the solutions to this growing problem. I'm sure there are more, and you probably have some constructive ideas to share too.

Nice post. :agree:

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

How many of these mass murders have been killed by people who obtained the guns legally? We already have more gun control laws than any other country and more gun laws than we've ever had in our history.

I think that it's safe to say that gun control laws don't work. They really only make it a hassle for good responsible gun owners like yourself to get guns. The criminals and mentally ill are going to procure guns through illegal channels.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. Yet it has the highest homicide rate in the world with 84% of those killings being committed with guns. How is this possible if guns are banned? Should they make more gun control laws? Will that lower the gun death rate?

Back in 1934 the first gun law was passed making it extremely difficult to get fully automatic weapons. The idea was to prevent gangsters from getting these weapons. A hefty fee was instituted for anyone wanting a machine gun making it all but impossible for 90% of Americans to buy one. The exception, of course, was organized crime who had no problem coming up with the money and circumventing the law. Does anyone think that gun control laws would have prevented Al Capone's gang from getting guns.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Some people say that the problem isn't as bad as it's made out to be. One study shows that the incidents of mass killings hasn't changed in 60 years. It's just that we have 24/7 news that reports it better. In other words this has been going on for a long time, it's just recently that we are made aware of it.

Gun control laws are basically political tool, so that members of congress can claim to have done something about the problem. It's all about getting re-elected. The president's words last week were only to get his based riled up and get more votes for democrats. He used the words "common sense" a lot, but never really talked about what is common sense. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns doesn't seem like common sense to me. How is making laws that restrict good, law abiding citizens from carrying weapons in order to defend themselves common sense?

Sorry, I don't have a solution. But doing what we've been doing, making more and more gun control laws, is not working.

[AJ32162]

I assume you were just keeping this simple, but I think one can buy a machine gun (automatic) legally with an NFA.

While this is technically true, it is a very restrictive, time consuming and expensive process. You could buy a new luxury car or two for far less than the price of a machine gun.

And no, contrary to what some would have you believe, you cannot buy a machine gun over the internet.

[Taltarzac725]

19 Years After Passing Strict Gun Control Laws, Here's What Happened in Australia - Mic (http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia)

This article was quite interesting.

Personally, I do not think you can ever have too much gun control because as soon as a law is up that challenges the NRA, their lawyers as well as others will look for loopholes in these laws. And gun manufacturers will create guns that slip through the wordings of the laws based upon how they operate.

[MDLNB]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

Very good post. Good common sense seems in short supply in D.C. today.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?


I don't know that the primary function of government is to protect us. It's function is to protect our rights. Maybe that's just a matter of semantics but the government should be protecting our right to bear arms.

1) I agree that something should be done about gun show sales. But most gun crimes are committed with guns that have been obtained illegally. Also how is it possible to prevent the secondary sales of guns. There are laws that say that if I own gun that I'm not allowed to sell it to someone without proper paperwork. But what if I break the law? I sell the gun and report it stolen. Another example of how laws do not protect us. They only provide a way to punish people that break them.

2) I agree. But congress will never allow it because it takes power away from them. They create anti gun laws that do nothing and then take credit for trying to fix the problem. It's all about getting re-elected.

3) The latest mass murder and several others were committed with a handguns. Some of the shooters had multiple handguns and it only take a few seconds to reload most handguns. Only about 300 of the 33,000 guns deaths in this country in 2013 were from rifles. Banning "assault weapons" is simply silly since there is no definition of what an "assault rifle" is. The laws have been passed have banned "scary looking" guns. They have banned things like attachments that keep the barrel cool and grips that make the gun more comfortable to hold and shoot. Besides, high capacity magazines and "assault weapons have already been banned and the mass murders continue.

4) Absolutely yes. I couldn't agree more. Stop wasting money by passing laws trying to control gun ownership by responsible, law abiding people and put it toward mental health research and treatment. But I see this as highly unlikely because there is nothing for politicians to take credit for here. This wouldn't help them get re-election votes. And observing our government in operation for 60 years, I don't recall them transferring money from a program that doesn't work to try one that does. They simply want more money.

5) Again, the criminals are not going to turn in their guns. In states where they have instituted these buy back programs, most of the returned guns were from old soldiers and kids of soldiers that had guns laying around for years. Gun buy back programs by states have been ineffective. In fact it has been found that many people turned in old non-working firearms only to purchase better ones.

[AJ32162]

19 Years After Passing Strict Gun Control Laws, Here's What Happened in Australia - Mic (http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia)

This article was quite interesting.

Personally, I do not think you can ever have too much gun control because as soon as a law is up that challenges the NRA, their lawyers as well as others will look for loopholes in these laws. And gun manufacturers will create guns that slip through the wordings of the laws based upon how they operate.

Lawyers never think that there are too many laws. We already have laws that make homicide and manslaughter illegal, with stiff punishment for both -- how's that working out?

[FosterMomma]

If the emotional element on this subject was removed, it seems to make sense that we would at least want guns out of the hands of the wrong people. And possibly go the next step and want certain types of guns that make killing several people at one time to be impossible to get.

In my opinion, a large percentage of the political and practical problem centers around the fact that it's socially acceptable to be armed.

In countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden etc. you would be hard pressed to find a neighbour who owns a gun and most definitely not teenagers who do. If you knew of a teenager with guns, you would be worried and talking to their parents. It goes without saying that mental health is an issue in these mass killings and that's a problem no country has absolutely solved but at least it's not the "norm".

It may take decades but society can change its attitude given enough time and education... think about the difference in how people see smoking; environmental responsibility; health screenings... these are all things that have gradually changed because of education and a universal will to better a community. I choose to be hopeful that people and government will put common sense ahead of politically expedient ideas.

[MDLNB]

There are twice as many knife related assaults in the UK as gun related in America (per capita or ratio by population). UK has a very strict gun law. There is violence everywhere in the world.

Interesting point: There are far more death by doctors than by guns.

Liberals insist that deporting a few million illegal aliens is impossible so they wish to legalize them. Liberals believe that they can control a billion legally owned guns in America.

If a conservative doesn't believe in guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't believe in guns, he wants to ban them.

If we don't enforce laws and punish the violators, then we have no deterrent to gun violence. Instead of making guns harder for the honest, good citizen to own why not punish anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime. Novel idea, huh? Stop putting the animals back on the street that abuse the law, especially when they commit a crime using a weapon.

There is no way that you are going to keep the mentally unstable person from committing a crime of violence until it happens. In America, you are innocent and not charged until you commit an unlawful act. Trying to put someone away before they do wrong is unconstitutional. Besides, who is going to make the decision that someone is acting dangerously or INTENDS to act dangerously? Sorry but we don't have the gov. run Minority Report working yet.

There are over a billion guns owned in this country. Instead of the gov trying to control the good citizens that own them, why not punish the ones that abuse the right? There are a lot less of those(latter) than the former.

[justjim]

Very good post. Good common sense seems in short supply in D.C. today.

Nobody is trying to take guns from good law abiding citizens. To think there is a "conspiracy" to take our guns from us defies common sense. I have owned a gun sense i was 12 or 13 years old. (Well, my Dad actually owned and bought it) I would be the first to defend the right for good law abiding citizens to have a gun for hunting and personal defense. Every attempt to pass common sense gun legislation in D.C. Is stopped in its tracks by the gun lobby.

Did you know money matters in this country? Over 90% of elections are won by the person having the most money to spend on his/her campaign.

As long as the gun lobby has the most money to block any reasonable legislation, we are just kidding ourselves that common sense will prevail on this issue of reasonable gun laws. Fore! :icon_hungry:

[AJ32162]

Nobody is trying to take guns from good law abiding citizens. To think there is a "conspiracy" to take our guns from us defies common sense. I have owned a gun sense i was 12 or 13 years old. (Well, my Dad actually owned and bought it) I would be the first to defend the right for good law abiding citizens to have a gun for hunting and personal defense. Every attempt to pass common sense gun legislation in D.C. Is stopped in its tracks by the gun lobby.

Did you know money matters in this country? Over 90% of elections are won by the person having the most money to spend on his/her campaign.

As long as the gun lobby has the most money to block any reasonable legislation, we are just kidding ourselves that common sense will prevail on this issue of reasonable gun laws. Fore! :icon_hungry:

The problem as I see it is that "reasonable legislation" means different things to different people.

[MDLNB]

Nobody is trying to take guns from good law abiding citizens. To think there is a "conspiracy" to take our guns from us defies common sense. I have owned a gun sense i was 12 or 13 years old. (Well, my Dad actually owned and bought it) I would be the first to defend the right for good law abiding citizens to have a gun for hunting and personal defense. Every attempt to pass common sense gun legislation in D.C. Is stopped in its tracks by the gun lobby.

Did you know money matters in this country? Over 90% of elections are won by the person having the most money to spend on his/her campaign.

As long as the gun lobby has the most money to block any reasonable legislation, we are just kidding ourselves that common sense will prevail on this issue of reasonable gun laws. Fore! :icon_hungry:

What kind of common sense or reasonable gun laws are you advocating that aren't already existing?

"Reasonable" is defined differently by every individual.

In the state, where I purchased my firearms, every gun show I attended required you to fill out paperwork for a background investigation, and wait a mandatory time period.
In that state, when I sold a gun to another, I had to fill out paperwork and bill of sale to do it legally.
To get a CCW you had to attend a certified two day course in gun law and safety, and pass a test. You also had a practical gun handling and shooting portion.
I can not verify how many other states have the same requirements, but I do know that FL has similar requirements for CCW certification.

Even with all these rules and laws, I would defy anyone to show me a viable test to determine whether a person is mentally sound enough to handle a firearm. Whether a person purchases a firearm through legal means, illegally or stealing it, that same gun can kill. There is no test for the illegally obtained firearm.

I said it before, we need stricter adherence to penalties when one violates the law to work as a deterrent. As far as mentally unstable perpetrators are concerned, no amount of rules, laws or deterrents will suffice to avoid all tragedies. By the time you realize that a subject is that far gone, he will have already perpetrated his destruction.

As with the nuclear weapon race, the country with the largest threat has the power over the other countries. We have been able to keep the world stable because we have had the bully power, thus maintaining world peace. Thinking of terrorists as a mentally unstable criminal, if they obtain a weapon they use it regardless of what is good, right or moral (or power). You can use the same comparison with gun crimes. There are no rules/laws when it comes to the mentally unbalanced. Rules and laws are just there to keep the honest man honest.

[Cedwards38]

I don't know that the primary function of government is to protect us. It's function is to protect our rights. Maybe that's just a matter of semantics but the government should be protecting our right to bear arms.

1) I agree that something should be done about gun show sales. But most gun crimes are committed with guns that have been obtained illegally. Also how is it possible to prevent the secondary sales of guns. There are laws that say that if I own gun that I'm not allowed to sell it to someone without proper paperwork. But what if I break the law? I sell the gun and report it stolen. Another example of how laws do not protect us. They only provide a way to punish people that break them.

2) I agree. But congress will never allow it because it takes power away from them. They create anti gun laws that do nothing and then take credit for trying to fix the problem. It's all about getting re-elected.

3) The latest mass murder and several others were committed with a handguns. Some of the shooters had multiple handguns and it only take a few seconds to reload most handguns. Only about 300 of the 33,000 guns deaths in this country in 2013 were from rifles. Banning "assault weapons" is simply silly since there is no definition of what an "assault rifle" is. The laws have been passed have banned "scary looking" guns. They have banned things like attachments that keep the barrel cool and grips that make the gun more comfortable to hold and shoot. Besides, high capacity magazines and "assault weapons have already been banned and the mass murders continue.

4) Absolutely yes. I couldn't agree more. Stop wasting money by passing laws trying to control gun ownership by responsible, law abiding people and put it toward mental health research and treatment. But I see this as highly unlikely because there is nothing for politicians to take credit for here. This wouldn't help them get re-election votes. And observing our government in operation for 60 years, I don't recall them transferring money from a program that doesn't work to try one that does. They simply want more money.

5) Again, the criminals are not going to turn in their guns. In states where they have instituted these buy back programs, most of the returned guns were from old soldiers and kids of soldiers that had guns laying around for years. Gun buy back programs by states have been ineffective. In fact it has been found that many people turned in old non-working firearms only to purchase better ones.

Thank you for your post. I have great respect for a person who can express their ideas and opinions in a calm, articulate, and respectful discourse, as you did.

Clearly we have some different thoughts on this often contentious issue, but you analyzed my ideas, and I analyzed yours, and we shared that without any animosity.

The really good news is that we did, in fact agree on three of the five issues. That's the making for a compromise, and a start at addressing the problem. Why can't our Congress do that?:shrug:

Thanks again Doc!

[outlaw]

I quoted you because you suggested that the media was responsible for making Americans feel outraged at gun violence, and I wanted to make the point that it is the actual killing that outrages me and not the media reporting of the killing. Without the media reporting we wouldn't even know it happened. But thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain myself.

As for sources, here are a few:

New Statistics Indicate Gun Control Works | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/new-statistics-indicate-gun-control-works)

Hard Evidence: does gun control work? (http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work-18374)

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/)

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

I'm glad you love my line that suggests that the fault for gun violence does not lie with any one particular group, and I agree that it is also not the fault of Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or even Dramatized Idiots, though clearly there are plenty of the last group involved in the debate. My point, as you well know, is that it is my fault, and yours, and everyone's for allowing gutless politicians to think that prayers and condolences instead of legislation is enough.

Maybe we can find a cure for mental illness, but in the meantime we need to provide for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and that might be a good start. Yep, it requires tax money, but if it saves lives would that expense be worth it? Isn't protecting us a primary function of our government?

What do I want my government to do? How about:

(1) Stop the indiscriminate sale of guns at gun shows to anyone with money, without even conducting a criminal background check?

(2) Unshackle the CDC to allow them to study gun violence and make recommendations? The CDC, the nation's public health agency, is now restricted from making recommendations on sensible ways to reduce gun violence.

(3) Ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons?

(4) Provide adequate funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness?

(5) Conduct a nationwide gun buyback to reduce the number of weapons?

I'm certainly no expert. These are just off the top of my head, without any opportunity to have an open and honest discussion with others of good will on the solutions to this growing problem. I'm sure there are more, and you probably have some constructive ideas to share too.

1. False premise that dealers at gun shows don't have to conduct a background check.
2. Guns are not a disease. CDC has no expertise in guns, period.
3. Most mass killings are with handguns. None were with assault weapons as far as I know.
4. It not about money. The left will not allow mentally ill people to be institutionalized, nor will they allow personal medical records be shared with ATF.
5. Waste of taxpayers money. Detroit, Chicago, and other cities do this repeatedly, and still there is uncontrolled gun violence.

Please list all the media articles you have read regarding a woman or old person defending themselves with a gun. There are literally hundreds of thousands a year. Some studies estimate over 1 million. But you rarely read about them or see them on TV. Those incidents don't fit the left media narrative.

[Walter123]

1. False premise that dealers at gun shows don't have to conduct a background check.
2. Guns are not a disease. CDC has no expertise in guns, period.
3. Most mass killings are with handguns. None were with assault weapons as far as I know.
4. It not about money. The left will not allow mentally ill people to be institutionalized, nor will they allow personal medical records be shared with ATF.
5. Waste of taxpayers money. Detroit, Chicago, and other cities do this repeatedly, and still there is uncontrolled gun violence.

Please list all the media articles you have read regarding a woman or old person defending themselves with a gun. There are literally hundreds of thousands a year. Some studies estimate over 1 million. But you rarely read about them or see them on TV. Those incidents don't fit the left media narrative.

There are also private sales at gun shows which, depending on the state, may or may not be required to do background checks.

[MDLNB]

1. False premise that dealers at gun shows don't have to conduct a background check.
2. Guns are not a disease. CDC has no expertise in guns, period.
3. Most mass killings are with handguns. None were with assault weapons as far as I know.
4. It not about money. The left will not allow mentally ill people to be institutionalized, nor will they allow personal medical records be shared with ATF.
5. Waste of taxpayers money. Detroit, Chicago, and other cities do this repeatedly, and still there is uncontrolled gun violence.

Please list all the media articles you have read regarding a woman or old person defending themselves with a gun. There are literally hundreds of thousands a year. Some studies estimate over 1 million. But you rarely read about them or see them on TV. Those incidents don't fit the left media narrative.

:thumbup:

[Taltarzac725]

The Rise of Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/07/the-rise-of-gun-violence-as-a-public-health-issue)

Doctors and nurses deal with the immediate and long term effects of gun and other types of violence every day and probably would be some of the most practical people to voice solutions to these problems.

I would want to hear their opinions long before hearing what some blowhard looking for votes is going to say to get the best sound bite or photo op.

[MDLNB]

There are also private sales at gun shows which, depending on the state, may or may not be required to do background checks.

Perhaps. I also know of moonshine that is illegally sold without a tax stamp. There are some folks who drive on revoked or suspended drivers licenses. Some medical marijuana is sold to non-prescription customers.

How do you suggest that we keep people from breaking the law?

[MDLNB]

First of all. ALL licensed gun dealers MUST conduct a background check prior to selling a handgun, even at gun shows. Further, in Florida, the buyer must wait three days before taking possession of his gun. The only handguns sold without a background check at gun shows or through an ad are private sales between two individuals. And AR does not stand for assault weapon. It stands for Armalite, the company that designed the AR15/M16/M4. The AR15 is the non-automatic (civilian) version of the M/4. The AR15 is a one shot one trigger pull black scary rifle like thousands of other non-black rifles. Repeating the lies of the gun control activists does nothing to help resolve these tragedies.

:agree:

[MDLNB]

I went to the hardware and feed store to purchase some fertilizer but was turned down. I was told that I had to have a special permit to purchase fertilizer because someone had used a fertilizer bomb in OK to blow up a building. If I was to go to a special school on the proper use of fertilizer and get my certification of completion, I could come back and buy my fertilizer. In order to enroll in the state run school, I was first required to get a certifying letter from my doctor stating that I was mentally stable enough to handle fertilizer safely so as not to harm anyone else.
After completing all the requirements, I was able to obtain a 40lb bag of manure, but was instructed that I must keep it concealed so that my neighbors wouldn't get excited. I timed my arrival at home to coincide with dusk, but one of my neighbors observed me unloading the sack of manure from the trunk of my car and called the police. After being jacked up by the arriving police, they slit open my sack of manure and searched through it for anything that might be used to ignite it. Finding nothing, they excused themselves, after lecturing me thoroughly about manure safety and departed. My manure was scattered about my property.

So I am not sure whether I should say this was a case of shooting the bull, bull shooting, or flinging manure about. But, I am BSing you.

[Walter123]

Perhaps. I also know of moonshine that is illegally sold without a tax stamp. There are some folks who drive on revoked or suspended drivers licenses. Some medical marijuana is sold to non-prescription customers.

How do you suggest that we keep people from breaking the law?

Don't know what you mean? Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was correcting someone else.

But, to answer your question, you can't keep people from breaking the law.

[justjim]

According to a recent report (2013) only seven (7) States required background checks at gun shows. However, we can quote and "spin" statistics all we want to make a point but perhaps we can all agree that there is way too much gun violence in the U.S.

In 2013 there were 33,169 deaths related to guns. In addition, there were just north of 84,000 injuries. I would think any reasonable person would say that is not okay.

Like I said, you can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that this is the facts. You see---the first thing in solving a problem ----you have to recognize you have a problem to start with. We can't even do that!

[justjim]

The Rise of Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/07/the-rise-of-gun-violence-as-a-public-health-issue)

Doctors and nurses deal with the immediate and long term effects of gun and other types of violence every day and probably would be some of the most practical people to voice solutions to these problems.

I would want to hear their opinions long before hearing what some blowhard looking for votes is going to say to get the best sound bite or photo op.

:beer3: You are spot on.

[tomwed]

Has anyone read a post or went to a cited link and changed their position?
If so, I'd like to read it too.

[justjim]

Has anyone read a post or went to a cited link and changed their position?
If so, I'd like to read it too.

Tom: very good question---only a very wise person. I have a late Tee time so will leave with one of my original thoughts. "Do you know the difference between a smart person and a wise person? A wise person is smart but he/she also has the ability to change their mind". :gc:

[MDLNB]

According to a recent report (2013) only seven (7) States required background checks at gun shows. However, we can quote and "spin" statistics all we want to make a point but perhaps we can all agree that there is way too much gun violence in the U.S.

In 2013 there were 33,169 deaths related to guns. In addition, there were just north of 84,000 injuries. I would think any reasonable person would say that is not okay.

Like I said, you can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that this is the facts. You see---the first thing in solving a problem ----you have to recognize you have a problem to start with. We can't even do that!

Half of the gun deaths in America are suicides, which means if they didn't have a gun then it would be razor, pills, bridge, etc.

Maryland has one of the strictest gun laws in America and has one of the highest gun related death rates. Laws are not the answer.

Out of 218 countries USA is not even in the top 100 countries for murders by population ratio. And the USA has the highest gun ownership in the world.

Murder is not a gun problem. Murder is a world problem, not specific to the USA. Guns are a convenient tool of murder/suicide but not necessary to achieve the goal of death. As a matter of fact, the Americas has the lowest murder conviction rate in the world, with less than 25%. We have a problem, but it's not guns. America has a mental health problem that is not isolated to just the USA.

You are not going to eliminate murder any more than you can eliminate air pollution. You can do a few things to act as a band aid, but you will never eliminate it. You have seen how much gun control does as far as stopping murder. Cities with the strictest gun control have the highest murder rates.

[Cedwards38]

1. False premise that dealers at gun shows don't have to conduct a background check.
2. Guns are not a disease. CDC has no expertise in guns, period.
3. Most mass killings are with handguns. None were with assault weapons as far as I know.
4. It not about money. The left will not allow mentally ill people to be institutionalized, nor will they allow personal medical records be shared with ATF.
5. Waste of taxpayers money. Detroit, Chicago, and other cities do this repeatedly, and still there is uncontrolled gun violence.

Please list all the media articles you have read regarding a woman or old person defending themselves with a gun. There are literally hundreds of thousands a year. Some studies estimate over 1 million. But you rarely read about them or see them on TV. Those incidents don't fit the left media narrative.

I'm no expert, but:

(1) It's not a false premise.
Gun Show Background Checks State Laws (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html)
(2) The CDC is the nation's agency for public health. Some would argue that getting shot is a threat to one's health. Certainly mental illness is a public health issue.
Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence | Public Radio International (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence)
(3) Maybe handguns are a bigger threat and Congress should focus on controlling those but this report states that more than half of all of the mass shootings use assault weapons.
More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein)
(4) Not sure why "the left" gets blamed for impeding institutionalization. Regardless, placing a person in a mental institution or an institution for the criminally insane is not an easy task, and shouldn't be, to protect us all. Regardless, every state in America has a set of standards for involuntary commitment.
Involuntary Treatment Civil Commitment Standards (http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html)
(5) You're right. Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted. - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback)

If a woman or an old person needs to defend themselves with the use of a gun then good for them. I don't think you'll find many examples, however, of a woman or old person defending themselves using an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine, but I'd be happy to read about that if you share.

[tuccillo]

The number of gun deaths due to suicide is actually worse - it is almost two-thirds. You are absolutely correct - we have a mental health problem.

Half of the gun deaths in America are suicides, which means if they didn't have a gun then it would be razor, pills, bridge, etc.

Maryland has one of the strictest gun laws in America and has one of the highest gun related death rates. Laws are not the answer.

Out of 218 countries USA is not even in the top 100 countries for murders by population ratio. And the USA has the highest gun ownership in the world.

Murder is not a gun problem. Murder is a world problem, not specific to the USA. Guns are a convenient tool of murder/suicide but not necessary to achieve the goal of death. As a matter of fact, the Americas has the lowest murder conviction rate in the world, with less than 25%. We have a problem, but it's not guns. America has a mental health problem that is not isolated to just the USA.

You are not going to eliminate murder any more than you can eliminate air pollution. You can do a few things to act as a band aid, but you will never eliminate it. You have seen how much gun control does as far as stopping murder. Cities with the strictest gun control have the highest murder rates.

[Sandtrap328]

Did you know that a veteran of the US armed forces just have to show a DD 214, get fingerprinted, and pay about $115 for a CCL. They can buy a handgun with no waiting period.

Does not matter when they were in military. Could be 50 or 70 years ago. No proficiency test required.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

According to a recent report (2013) only seven (7) States required background checks at gun shows. However, we can quote and "spin" statistics all we want to make a point but perhaps we can all agree that there is way too much gun violence in the U.S.

In 2013 there were 33,169 deaths related to guns. In addition, there were just north of 84,000 injuries. I would think any reasonable person would say that is not okay.

Like I said, you can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that this is the facts. You see---the first thing in solving a problem ----you have to recognize you have a problem to start with. We can't even do that!

Somewhere around 21,000 of those deaths were suicides. Do you think that if those people didn't have guns that they wouldn't have found some other way to kill themselves?

Also, a percentage of those deaths were justifiable homicide. People were killed either by law enforcement personnel or by citizens defending themselves and a small number were accidents.

So the total number of non suicide, or unjustified homicides is somewhere around 10,000. Is that a lot for a country of 330,000,000 people? It's 0.00003030303 percent of our population.

I'm not sure that we do have a problem.

[AJ32162]

...

[billethkid]

Why is gun control not considered a political debate? Why is it on this side of the ledger when there is another? Why can't there be an innocuous part of TOTV like before? How is this debate healthy?

I don't know you so I do not know if you are jesting or not!?

[MDLNB]

Did you know that a veteran of the US armed forces just have to show a DD 214, get fingerprinted, and pay about $115 for a CCL. They can buy a handgun with no waiting period.

Does not matter when they were in military. Could be 50 or 70 years ago. No proficiency test required.

IN FLORIDA. Other states handle CCW applications differently. The reason for the use of the DD214 is to show that the applicant has had firearms training. You are still fingerprinted for a background check. Members of the military have a lot more training than they give in these short state run classes.

You can have or not have training for new CCW applicants, and it will have no effect on killings. The killings are not about gun safety or knowing the laws. Gun killings are caused by mental illness in the majority of cases. Half of the gun related killings in America are suicides. Do you have a means to stop suicides? Is taking a gun away going to stop someone from killing themselves?

[MDLNB]

Somewhere around 21,000 of those deaths were suicides. Do you think that if those people didn't have guns that they wouldn't have found some other way to kill themselves?

Also, a percentage of those deaths were justifiable homicide. People were killed either by law enforcement personnel or by citizens defending themselves and a small number were accidents.

So the total number of non suicide, or unjustified homicides is somewhere around 10,000. Is that a lot for a country of 330,000,000 people? It's 0.00003030303 percent of our population.

I'm not sure that we do have a problem.

:agree: It's all uninformed, ignorant political posturing. If I don't like a gun, I won't buy one. If they don't like a gun, they want to ban guns for everyone.

[MDLNB]

I'm no expert, but:

(1) It's not a false premise.
Gun Show Background Checks State Laws (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html)
(2) The CDC is the nation's agency for public health. Some would argue that getting shot is a threat to one's health. Certainly mental illness is a public health issue.
Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence | Public Radio International (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence)
(3) Maybe handguns are a bigger threat and Congress should focus on controlling those but this report states that more than half of all of the mass shootings use assault weapons.
More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein)
(4) Not sure why "the left" gets blamed for impeding institutionalization. Regardless, placing a person in a mental institution or an institution for the criminally insane is not an easy task, and shouldn't be, to protect us all. Regardless, every state in America has a set of standards for involuntary commitment.
Involuntary Treatment Civil Commitment Standards (http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html)
(5) You're right. Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted. - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback)

If a woman or an old person needs to defend themselves with the use of a gun then good for them. I don't think you'll find many examples, however, of a woman or old person defending themselves using an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine, but I'd be happy to read about that if you share.

Background checks are nice to have, but probably wouldn't stop anyone from committing suicide.
If you think that Australia has such a great idea, then by all means move to Australia. They also have socialism and high taxes. This is America.
The reason you don't find many examples of persons defending themselves is because you are not looking for it. Statistics have proven that those states with gun carry laws have reduced the amount of gun related crimes against individuals. But, it is convenient to overlook that information, right?

Like I said earlier, out of 218 countries listed, America is not even in the top 100 for gun violence and deaths. So, this is merely a liberal ploy to make the citizen more dependent on the government for their protection and security. More nanny state pushing.

"* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]"

[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,"
[2] According to the National Safety Council
[3] Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime,"

Admittedly, this information is outdated, but I doubt that you can fault research vs speculation.
[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime

:spoken:

[outlaw]

Why is gun control not considered a political debate? Why is it on this side of the ledger when there is another? Why can't there be an innocuous part of TOTV like before? How is this debate healthy?

Why not just quit reading it if it makes you ill?

[outlaw]

Somewhere around 21,000 of those deaths were suicides. Do you think that if those people didn't have guns that they wouldn't have found some other way to kill themselves?

Also, a percentage of those deaths were justifiable homicide. People were killed either by law enforcement personnel or by citizens defending themselves and a small number were accidents.

So the total number of non suicide, or unjustified homicides is somewhere around 10,000. Is that a lot for a country of 330,000,000 people? It's 0.00003030303 percent of our population.

I'm not sure that we do have a problem.

Your objective analysis does not fit the emotionally driven narrative. This type of objective thinking will only result in common sense legislation, and will not do what gun control advocates and the elitist class really want, which is to disarm every American citizen.

[outlaw]

I went to the hardware and feed store to purchase some fertilizer but was turned down. I was told that I had to have a special permit to purchase fertilizer because someone had used a fertilizer bomb in OK to blow up a building. If I was to go to a special school on the proper use of fertilizer and get my certification of completion, I could come back and buy my fertilizer. In order to enroll in the state run school, I was first required to get a certifying letter from my doctor stating that I was mentally stable enough to handle fertilizer safely so as not to harm anyone else.
After completing all the requirements, I was able to obtain a 40lb bag of manure, but was instructed that I must keep it concealed so that my neighbors wouldn't get excited. I timed my arrival at home to coincide with dusk, but one of my neighbors observed me unloading the sack of manure from the trunk of my car and called the police. After being jacked up by the arriving police, they slit open my sack of manure and searched through it for anything that might be used to ignite it. Finding nothing, they excused themselves, after lecturing me thoroughly about manure safety and departed. My manure was scattered about my property.

So I am not sure whether I should say this was a case of shooting the bull, bull shooting, or flinging manure about. But, I am BSing you.

That's pretty good. You got the police to spread the manure for you...

[MDLNB]

Your objective analysis does not fit the emotionally driven narrative. This type of objective thinking will only result in common sense legislation, and will not do what gun control advocates and the elitist class really want, which is to disarm every American citizen.

:agree:

[outlaw]

According to a recent report (2013) only seven (7) States required background checks at gun shows. However, we can quote and "spin" statistics all we want to make a point but perhaps we can all agree that there is way too much gun violence in the U.S.

In 2013 there were 33,169 deaths related to guns. In addition, there were just north of 84,000 injuries. I would think any reasonable person would say that is not okay.

Like I said, you can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that this is the facts. You see---the first thing in solving a problem ----you have to recognize you have a problem to start with. We can't even do that!

That's interesting, since an FDL is a federal license, and the background check requirement is a federal law. Again, I think you confuse the private to private individual sale to the dealer sales. there are some individuals that sell their own gun to another private individual. That can happen at a gun show or at your house, or in a parking lot somewhere. Dealers MUST conduct a background check, period. You keep missing the point that the vast majority of handguns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers, and background checks are conducted for every one of them.

[David73]

Concealed Carry Permit holders are exempt from background checks. But then, they also do not do mass shootings. They are law abiding citizens that you hope are near you when the next nut case starts shooting. GUN FREE Zones get innocent people killed without any chance to take out the shooter. WAKE UP AMERICA.

[Taltarzac725]

Your objective analysis does not fit the emotionally driven narrative. This type of objective thinking will only result in common sense legislation, and will not do what gun control advocates and the elitist class really want, which is to disarm every American citizen.

Who actually wants to disarm every US citizen? I have never heard anyone make such an unrealistic proposal.

[Cedwards38]

Who actually wants to disarm every US citizen? I have never heard anyone make such an unrealistic proposal.

I'd like to hear that answer to that question also. All I actually hear are people who want these tragic incidents to stop, and to have a rational discussion about how we might do that.

[MDLNB]

I'd like to hear that answer to that question also. All I actually hear are people who want these tragic incidents to stop, and to have a rational discussion about how we might do that.

Try Google. Better yet, listen to Obama.

What does it sound like to you when guns are the claimed reason for deaths in America instead of people? What does it sound like to you when the gov attempts to stop the production of ammunition for guns? What does it seem like to you when the media and liberals attempt to pervert actual statistics on gun related deaths in comparison with other countries. Obviously, any time one of us mentions a fact, all we get back is "let me see proof of that" or where did you get that?" Facts don't support the media and gov led hysteria regarding guns, but some folks gladly jump on the liberal band wagon.

[eubanks]

gun control isn't the answer to social & cultural problems. First we need to go back to the institutions and more effective mental illness treatment. We need Mental Illness Control. We have a violent social structure, we have a lack of personal responsibility and lawlessness from the very top down. The city and states with the most strict gun laws are the worst. Gun control is all about getting around the bill of rights. The Second amendment is protection against the government - not hunting and fishing - don't support losing it. A gun didn't kill all those people a nut did - don't ever for get that.

[OhioBuckeye]

People that don't like guns & I do understand that the ones that had someone they knew that were shot don't like guns but just my opinion, the laws will never ever take guns away from the criminals. Guns are the tools of their trade just like a carpenters tool. Personally I'll never give mine up just because some mentally imbalanced person wants to start killing because they can or they're mad at someone or they're unstable. I did nothing wrong & I won't turn mine over for that reason, besides most of my guns are not registered!

[Cedwards38]

Background checks are nice to have, but probably wouldn't stop anyone from committing suicide.
If you think that Australia has such a great idea, then by all means move to Australia. They also have socialism and high taxes. This is America.
The reason you don't find many examples of persons defending themselves is because you are not looking for it. Statistics have proven that those states with gun carry laws have reduced the amount of gun related crimes against individuals. But, it is convenient to overlook that information, right?

Like I said earlier, out of 218 countries listed, America is not even in the top 100 for gun violence and deaths. So, this is merely a liberal ploy to make the citizen more dependent on the government for their protection and security. More nanny state pushing.

"* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]"

[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,"
[2] According to the National Safety Council
[3] Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime,"

Admittedly, this information is outdated, but I doubt that you can fault research vs speculation.
[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime

:spoken:

Seriously? Are you really suggesting the old desperation ploy of "if you don't like it why don't you leave" argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can get out? I'm an American, every bit as much as you are an American. I've always been an American. I'll always be an American. That doesn't mean I have to think the same way as you. And if I see something that I think is wrong about America, then I'll try to change it, and I won't ever leave. Tell me, if gun laws did change, and you didn't like it, would you leave? No. I won't either, and that suggestion is not only insulting, but contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion. Australia dealt with this issue, and that's why I mentioned them, and I think we can and should deal with it too.

You make the claim that gun carry laws reduce crime. Here are a few examples of statistics that demonstrate exactly the opposite is true.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html)

Do concealed weapon laws result in less crime? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html)

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

No, Concealed Carry Permits Do Not Result in a Lower Murder Rate - Mic (http://mic.com/articles/93331/no-concealed-carry-permits-do-not-result-in-a-lower-murder-rate)

There are many charts that compare how our country stacks up against others in gun violence. Ours is high. But even if it weren't, are you suggesting that it is insignificant? Should we not consider it an issue worthy of our discussion?

Kleck and Gertz is interesting in it's sharing statistics on Americans using firearms to defend themselves. It does not suggest that the best way to do that is with assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes, I still speculate that women defending themselves do not do that with an AK 47.

[Cedwards38]

Try Google. Better yet, listen to Obama.

What does it sound like to you when guns are the claimed reason for deaths in America instead of people? What does it sound like to you when the gov attempts to stop the production of ammunition for guns? What does it seem like to you when the media and liberals attempt to pervert actual statistics on gun related deaths in comparison with other countries. Obviously, any time one of us mentions a fact, all we get back is "let me see proof of that" or where did you get that?" Facts don't support the media and gov led hysteria regarding guns, but some folks gladly jump on the liberal band wagon.

What is sounds like is a leader who is saying, "I think we have a problem, and can we have a discussion about that?"

[outlaw]

Concealed Carry Permit holders are exempt from background checks. But then, they also do not do mass shootings. They are law abiding citizens that you hope are near you when the next nut case starts shooting. GUN FREE Zones get innocent people killed without any chance to take out the shooter. WAKE UP AMERICA.

Not in Florida...as far as I know. CCP holders must still undergo a background check for every handgun purchase. They are exempt from the 3 day waiting period, though.

[OhioBuckeye]

They might get 90% percent of the guns from the law abiding people but forget it if they really think they'll take them away from the mentally unstable people. Guns are these peoples tools of their trade. I have to many guns that I bought yrs. ago that I didn't have to register, so I'm not letting new laws take them away from me because I didn't do anything wrong. It's the wacko gun activist that think they're gun experts & want them. If it comes to that, that they pass a law to take guns away & they think it's that easy, then it ought to be just as easy to find the mentally unstable people. How many times have we heard about someone killing someone or groups of people or their whole families & then find out these people were or are under a Dr. care for being mentally unstable, wouldn't you say 80 to 90%? Just my opinion but if they take our guns, like the Chinese said, we can take them over!

[tuccillo]

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.


Seriously? Are you really suggesting the old desperation ploy of "if you don't like it why don't you leave" argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can get out? I'm an American, every bit as much as you are an American. I've always been an American. I'll always be an American. That doesn't mean I have to think the same way as you. And if I see something that I think is wrong about America, then I'll try to change it, and I won't ever leave. Tell me, if gun laws did change, and you didn't like it, would you leave? No. I won't either, and that suggestion is not only insulting, but contributes absolutely nothing to this discussion. Australia dealt with this issue, and that's why I mentioned them, and I think we can and should deal with it too.

You make the claim that gun carry laws reduce crime. Here are a few examples of statistics that demonstrate exactly the opposite is true.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html)

Do concealed weapon laws result in less crime? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html)

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

No, Concealed Carry Permits Do Not Result in a Lower Murder Rate - Mic (http://mic.com/articles/93331/no-concealed-carry-permits-do-not-result-in-a-lower-murder-rate)

There are many charts that compare how our country stacks up against others in gun violence. Ours is high. But even if it weren't, are you suggesting that it is insignificant? Should we not consider it an issue worthy of our discussion?

Kleck and Gertz is interesting in it's sharing statistics on Americans using firearms to defend themselves. It does not suggest that the best way to do that is with assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes, I still speculate that women defending themselves do not do that with an AK 47.

[jeraldinemarie]

Thank you Donald Trump for stating the obvious it's a mental health issue! I think that the German airline pilot took more lives than all of our massacres in the last 20 years.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

There are many charts that compare how our country stacks up against others in gun violence. Ours is high. But even if it weren't, are you suggesting that it is insignificant? Should we not consider it an issue worthy of our discussion?

In 2013, (the latest statistics available) there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun. Approximately 21,000 of them were suicides. A small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicides. That leaves about 10,000 violent gun deaths.

That is approximately, .0003% of our population. Maybe it's not as big an issue as we think.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. They have the highest murder rate in the world with 83% of those murders being committed by gun.

On the other hand in that same year there were 88,000 alcohol related deaths. Why aren't we hearing cries to regulate or ban alcohol?

[MDLNB]

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.

You forget that to the ignorant (no slight meant) all guns appear to be assault weapons. They are just frustrated because they know that they can't get rid of guns in America and they can't get rid of mentally unstable people. There is no law against being unstable until you in fact break a law. You can't be locked up for being a mental case. America is still a free country. There will always be conflict when any two people don't agree. They don't seem to understand that the only remedy for life's conflicts is located six feet under the ground.

[BradnKathy]

Most of these shootings are due to mental instability and most of those were know well in advance. But we as a nation have decided to let these instable people run free in our society. Look at China with the most sever gun controls in the world. They have mass stabbing attacks on a regular basis.
Stop "mainstreaming" treat or institutionalize mentally ill people and mass attacks will drop.

[MDLNB]

What is sounds like is a leader who is saying, "I think we have a problem, and can we have a discussion about that?"

A discussion with Obama is non-existent. He just enjoys hearing himself expound and babble like a lunatic. He lectures, and never hears anyone else's part of the conversation.

Obama advocates the ban of hand guns. It's easy enough to prove if YOU want to read his comments. He said he would like to have Australia's system of gun control. Australia banned hand guns. In order to do that in America, he knows he would have a revolutionary war on his hands. Americans are not going to willingly give up their guns, and rely on the Constitution to back them up. A war against the government is not outrageous when you are positive that you are right and the gov is wrong.

The UK banned hand guns and have more than twice the violent crime we have. If you want specifics that are up to date, I bet you will find that their violent crime rate is three times or more times ours per capita.

You mention talk. Talk is cheap and does little to remedy the problem if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Gun control has nothing to do with violence in America. Guns are protecting millions from being victims of violence. We should encourage more guns, instead of discouraging gun ownership.

[billethkid]

In 2013, (the latest statistics available) there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun. Approximately 21,000 of them were suicides. A small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicides. That leaves about 10,000 violent gun deaths.

That is approximately, .0003% of our population. Maybe it's not as big an issue as we think.

Honduras bans it's citizens from owning guns. They have the highest murder rate in the world with 83% of those murders being committed by gun.

On the other hand in that same year there were 88,000 alcohol related deaths. Why aren't we hearing cries to regulate or ban alcohol?

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

[MDLNB]

Seriously? Are you really suggesting the old desperation ploy of "if you don't like it why don't you leave" argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can get out?

Didn't you say:

"Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them."

My comment was not meant to be a personal attack on you, but rather a suggestion that you think about it before comparing a totally different scenario to our system.

Australia banned hand guns. If America did so, there would be a revolution because our constitution prevents the gov from such action. It was put in place for just such an occurrence of the gov tyranny. Picture soldiers or police coming to your door and demanding that you give up your hand guns. Do you really think that Americans would willingly give them up, full well knowing that the criminal would still have theirs? I don't think so. SO, before folks suggest trying someone else's idea, they might want to do a bit more thinking about the possible negative side effects.

[MDLNB]

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

:agree: Good point.

[Cedwards38]

Enough with the references to assault weapons. You cannot buy them.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/lives-and-liberty-banning-assault-weapons-america)

[Cedwards38]

Didn't you say:

"Gun buybacks in cities in America have not worked that well, but they worked like a charm in Australia, so maybe we have something to learn from them."

My comment was not meant to be a personal attack on you, but rather a suggestion that you think about it before comparing a totally different scenario to our system.

Australia banned hand guns. If America did so, there would be a revolution because our constitution prevents the gov from such action. It was put in place for just such an occurrence of the gov tyranny. Picture soldiers or police coming to your door and demanding that you give up your hand guns. Do you really think that Americans would willingly give them up, full well knowing that the criminal would still have theirs? I don't think so. SO, before folks suggest trying someone else's idea, they might want to do a bit more thinking about the possible negative side effects.

My statement that you quote says not one word about moving to Australia, as you well know. I'd like to "think about it" as to what Australians do there and how it might apply well here, but some seem to be completely against even thinking about it.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that your statement:

"If you think that Australia has such a great idea, then by all means move to Australia."

...was not intended as a personal attack.

[ragtag22]

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.
Background checks might help somewhat if there was mandatory reporting of mental health issues (or other impairments) to the agencies used for checking, however, our current privacy laws would actually not permit this. I agree with many law enforcement leaders who don't want shooters names published. Removing the shooters public exposure removes their opportunity to try and seek fame. Let's also get more serious about enforcing the laws that currently exist.

[AJ32162]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/lives-and-liberty-banning-assault-weapons-america)

Actually, I think the correct name for this legislation is, "The Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as "assault weapons," as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Source: Wikapedia

[Elklake2]

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!
But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.

[billethkid]

Actually, I think the correct name for this legislation is, "The Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as "assault weapons," as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Source: Wikapedia

I think too many folks continue to confuse the terminology. It is the AUTOMATIC capable firearms that have been banned.

AUTOMATIC = hold the trigger and the weapon continues to fire AUTOMATICALLY until the magazine is emptied or the trigger released.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC = the triger has to be pulled and released to fire EACH AND EVERY ROUND.....hence NOT AUTOMATIC.

I know this will only add to the confusion, all non revolvers are either single action or double action semi automatics that are legal to manufacture and own here in the USA.

[Don Wilson]

http://rense.com/1.imagesG/newlog_o.gif
A Little Gun History Lesson
3-7-8 * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns...........We Are "Citizens". Without Them........We Are "Subjects". During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns. If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

[MDLNB]

http://rense.com/1.imagesG/newlog_o.gif
A Little Gun History Lesson
3-7-8 * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns...........We Are "Citizens". Without Them........We Are "Subjects". During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns. If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>


Very good post. Even though I knew a lot of the information you provided, the detail and time line was excellent. Thank you.

For those that still fail to understand the law pertaining to machine guns, in 1986, a provision was added to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act to bar any newly produced fully automatic weapon from possession by civilians. That's the law. Anyone wishing to purchase second hand, a machine gun has to obtain a federal permit to purchase one by transfer of ownership. It's pretty expensive, but you must have a federal permit. I am not sure if the federal permits are still available for the average citizen.

[Taltarzac725]

Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/)

Here's a different take on Australia and the gun control measures taken after their Tasmanian 1996 mass shooting.

And a different perspective on Nazi gun control. GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html)

Gun control in China-- Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: China | Law Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/china.php)

[tuccillo]

What you are missing is the implicit assumption, on the part of many people, that semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s, are military assault rifles. They are not. Military assault rifles, such as the M-16 and AK-47, are fully automatic and cannot be bought (with the exception of some collectors, I believe). Many guns are semi-automatic including many pistols and shotguns. Any meaningful discussion regarding firearms should start with an accurate and honest description of what is available. Trying to flame the discussions with misleading terminology is pointless as it detracts from the real issue of mental health.


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/lives-and-liberty-banning-assault-weapons-america)

[MDLNB]

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!
But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.

It would help the debate greatly if some of you knew the difference between an assault weapon and any other weapon. If you are referring to an automatic, machine gun type weapon, then there is an existing law banning civilians from purchasing them. If you are talking about a semi-automatic weapon such as a pistol that loads a round into the chamber, one for every pull of the trigger, then you are barking up the wrong tree. You will never/NEVER remove semi-automatic weapons from Americans. I have a russian made bolt action rifle that comes with a bayonet. It fires one bullet at a time, is over a hundred years old and has a wooden stock that I can replace with a modern plastic stock if I so desire. Some would call it an assault weapon. It is a Russian military surplus weapon. I have never fired it, but originally was going to use it for deer hunting.
Liberals consider ANY weapon that is used against another to be an assault weapon. Therefore, an old fashioned revolver/six shooter would be considered an assault weapon.
In California, you can not purchase semi-automatic pistols with magazines of over 10 round capacity. Anywhere else you can purchase the standard 16 round capacity magazine. Apparently, marksman in CA are worst shots than anywhere else so mass shootings are non-existent due to restrictions on magazine capacity. What a wacko world we live in.

[dbussone]

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!

But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.


As has been noted previously, assault weapons are not generally available to the public. An assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, i.e. a "machine gun."

What you are calling an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle. There is a huge and important difference between the two. It would really be nice if you had your facts correct. You might also want to do some actual research on the NRA and weapons before you restate "stuff" that others also incorrectly state.

[dbussone]

It would help the debate greatly if some of you knew the difference between an assault weapon and any other weapon. If you are referring to an automatic, machine gun type weapon, then there is an existing law banning civilians from purchasing them. If you are talking about a semi-automatic weapon such as a pistol that loads a round into the chamber, one for every pull of the trigger, then you are barking up the wrong tree. You will never/NEVER remove semi-automatic weapons from Americans. I have a russian made bolt action rifle that comes with a bayonet. It fires one bullet at a time, is over a hundred years old and has a wooden stock that I can replace with a modern plastic stock if I so desire. Some would call it an assault weapon. It is a Russian military surplus weapon. I have never fired it, but originally was going to use it for deer hunting.

Liberals consider ANY weapon that is used against another to be an assault weapon. Therefore, an old fashioned revolver/six shooter would be considered an assault weapon.

In California, you can not purchase semi-automatic pistols with magazines of over 10 round capacity. Anywhere else you can purchase the standard 16 round capacity magazine. Apparently, marksman in CA are worst shots than anywhere else so mass shootings are non-existent due to restrictions on magazine capacity. What a wacko world we live in.


I did not see this before I also responded. You did a nice job.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

The number of deaths due to driving while on a cell phone is equal to the number of alcohol related deaths in this country? I'd like to see where that statistic comes from.

Everyone seems OK with the idea that alcohol has too many political and business backers but the same people want to fight the NRA who seems to be the sole voice for gun ownership. And, the NRA is not against all gun regulations. They have supported many reasonable restrictions as would the vast majority of gun owners.

[MDLNB]

What you are missing is the implicit assumption, on the part of many people, that semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s, are military assault rifles. They are not. Military assault rifles, such as the M-16 and AK-47, are fully automatic and cannot be bought (with the exception of some collectors, I believe). Many guns are semi-automatic including many pistols and shotguns. Any meaningful discussion regarding firearms should start with an accurate and honest description of what is available. Trying to flame the discussions with misleading terminology is pointless as it detracts from the real issue of mental health.

:thumbup:

[MDLNB]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, "what if gun control laws were changed" I would like to submit this question. What if any change to the existing laws would you make that would actually make a difference in violence in America? I am really interested but will not consider banning guns as a safe alternative.

Point: The UK banned all handguns and they have more than twice the violence we have per capita. Statistics also seem to indicate that there is less crime in areas that have concealed carry laws. SO, the question still remains what would you change that would have a positive effect?

Are you going to give the gov nanny more charge over deeming who and who's not mentally stable?

How about we just quit jumping the shark every time there is an incident?

[JoMar]

At this rate this thread could exceed the thread on striping mmps :)

[billethkid]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, "what if gun control laws were changed" I would like to submit this question. What if any change to the existing laws would you make that would actually make a difference in violence in America? I am really interested but will not consider banning guns as a safe alternative.

Point: The UK banned all handguns and they have more than twice the violence we have per capita. Statistics also seem to indicate that there is less crime in areas that have concealed carry laws. SO, the question still remains what would you change that would have a positive effect?

Are you going to give the gov nanny more charge over deeming who and who's not mentally stable?

How about we just quit jumping the shark every time there is an incident?

I cannot adress the changes that could affect gun violence until it is acknowledged that we have a societal problem that results in and or contributes to violence that incorporates a gun.

Without adressing the permissives we have in our society there will be no impact on the violence. Using the hypothesis no more guns in the USA with no availabilty, with no changes to the so called entertainment business that portrays rampant rape, murder, disemboweling, dismembering and general chaos regularly there will be no impact on the violence except it will be done with other than guns!

There will have to be a major change in the rules of enforcement and rules of engagement for law officers and the courts.

[MDLNB]

I cannot adress the changes that could affect gun violence until it is acknowledged that we have a societal problem that results in and or contributes to violence that incorporates a gun.

Without adressing the permissives we have in our society there will be no impact on the violence. Using the hypothesis no more guns in the USA with no availabilty, with no changes to the so called entertainment business that portrays rampant rape, murder, disemboweling, dismembering and general chaos regularly there will be no impact on the violence except it will be done with other than guns!

There will have to be a major change in the rules of enforcement and rules of engagement for law officers and the courts.

:agree: .... That's exactly the way I see it. The subject also seems to be the defining line between conservatives and liberals. So, it makes good politics for some, especially the liberals that can use guns as defining the big bad ultra right wing conservatives. It helps them prove that we are hate mongers, and at war with everyone from blacks to women to old folks, etc.

[xcaligirl]

I wish when a crime is reported, it would also be reported if the gun was purchased legally, if the person has a license to carry.

[manaboutown]

It seems to me that whatever the laws bad guys and looney tunes will be able to find guns with which to kill people. Frankly, I am far more concerned about certain countries run by looney tunes which now have or are gaining access to nukes. They will will be able to kill millions at a pop.

[MDLNB]

I wish when a crime is reported, it would also be reported if the gun was purchased legally, if the person has a license to carry.

The recent murders were using guns legally purchased according to the news. I don't know if that is going to make any difference to the dead. I doubt if it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. The kid had some serious mental issues and probably would have used a pressure cooker bomb if the guns weren't available. After the Oklahoma bombing, there were strict laws put into effect governing the purchase of fertilizer. Seriously. The only viable solution is to detect the deficient gene in the fetus and abort it. Being facetious again.

[Incoblack1]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

[AJ32162]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

I'm sure that convicted felons and other criminals will be the first in line to register their stolen or black market weapons.

[billethkid]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. These are the law abiding and safest of gun owners....not where one is likely to find or prevent a wacko!


Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? You do know you are talking about the same thing right? Gun dealers are who sells at the gun shows. Buying a gun at the gun show one must go through a back ground check....you know that right? The same as buying from the dealer across the street!


All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Once again you are missing a point. The only registered guns will be the ones owned by the good guys. Do you really think the bad guys are going to register their guns?


Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

And in answer to the last question, no they will not. Now if some would like to have a discussion about how to produce laws and regulations that in fact PROFILE the bad guys, let's have at it. When ever there is a shooting some folks who do not like or do not understand gun ownership by the good guys are always inspired to do something and it is usually aimed at the good guys.

Today's permissive attitude, not hurting anubody's feelings, invasion of privacy attitudes and not wanting to get involved or implicated are all working against coming up with any meaningful changes that will adress the bad guys and those who should not have a weapon. Until that changes there will be little more than just talk as there has been for many, many MANY years on the same subject.

[MDLNB]

And in answer to the last question, no they will not. Now if some would like to have a discussion about how to produce laws and regulations that in fact PROFILE the bad guys, let's have at it. When ever there is a shooting some folks who do not like or do not understand gun ownership by the good guys are always inspired to do something and it is usually aimed at the good guys.

Today's permissive attitude, not hurting anubody's feelings, invasion of privacy attitudes and not wanting to get involved or implicated are all working against coming up with any meaningful changes that will adress the bad guys and those who should not have a weapon. Until that changes there will be little more than just talk as there has been for many, many MANY years on the same subject.

:agree:

[MDLNB]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

You are throwing numbers about like they are getting out of control, when in fact they are less in proportion than many other countries. You compared them with other countries, so don't blame me for correcting you. Numbers can be manipulated to suit the view you want it to project. In an earlier post, I showed how out of 218 countries, the USA didn't even place in the top 100 in violent crimes per capita.

My question to you is, what would you do to prevent these from happening. Because none of what you suggested would have mattered to the recent mass shooting. The perpetrator apparently purchased his weapons legally. Most of you have never been to a gun show, so you do not even understand how they work. All the dealers at the gun shows are required to fill out paperwork for a background check of the customer and there IS a wait time before taking possession of the weapon. Contrary to the lies passed about by those that do not know.

Once again, I will ask you the question that cannot be answered. What would you change to prevent these killings?

Let me give you my answer that has proven to help a little. More concealed carry permits and less gun free zones. WHAT!! Yes, gun carrying citizens that are trained and qualified in handling guns safely and knowing the state laws, are a decent deterrent. It won't stop all of the crime, but it has proven to lower the crime rate. It will deter crimes of opportunity, but it won't stop crimes perpetrated by the mentally unstable. You are not going to prevent the actions of the unstable unless you can diagnose the mental illness and treat it early. Almost an impossible task.

You can't get rid of the guns
Registration identifies the gun but won't stop it from being used
Limiting the amount of guns one can purchase won't stop killings
Gun free zones won't stop killings. In fact, it makes it easier.

Taking guns away from good people just makes it easier for bad people with guns to commit crime. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Your only protection against bad people with guns are good people with guns.

And remember, diagnosing mental illness might stop mass killings but it won't eliminate drive by shootings, shooting in conjunction with robberies, and gang related shootings.

So, instead of using guns as a political argument, liberals need to find some other RIGHT to control. The first amendment seems to work well for them. Attacking free speech and the war on the church seems to go well for the left.

[MDLNB]

Interesting point revealed by a study:

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/)

There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

AND, when compared with 128 countries, America is below average in homicides per capita.

Just suggesting that we don't need to rush out to pass more laws every time we have an incident.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

Actually, statistics from 2013 are that there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun in that year. Of those approximately 21,000 were suicides and a small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicide. That leaves about 10,000 homicides. I don't know how many of those were murders but that's irrelevant.
Ten thousand people is .00003% of our population. Is that a lot?

You state that our murder rate is 10 time higher than Japan. Even if that's true, you're not stating the murder by gun rate. The definition of murder in both countries also needs to be considered.

Only about 3% of criminals who use guns in their crimes obtained them legally.I agree that sales at gun shows need to be regulated, but that's still not going to stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. More laws are not going to stop crazies and criminals from getting guns.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Interesting point revealed by a study:

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/)

There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

AND, when compared with 128 countries, America is below average in homicides per capita.

Just suggesting that we don't need to rush out to pass more laws every time we have an incident.

Also interesting is that Honduras where the citizens are prohibited from owning guns has the highest murder rate in the world. 83% of those murders are committed by gun. It seems that banning guns is ineffective.

[dirtbanker]

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all!

If we are going to prevent deaths with more laws, why focus on small numbers?

There are roughly 23,607 deaths associated with influenza a year. The spread of the disease can be reduced through vaccination. Do you think there should be a law requiring everyone get a influenza vaccine? Have you done anything about the 23,607 deaths a year?

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. Do you think there should be a law forbidding anyone from smoking? Have you done anything about the 480,000 deaths a year?

I am guessing you have done nothing about those issues and your interest in 14,000 deaths a year is purely related to dramatization by the media.

More gun laws are not going to stop nutjobs from killing, taking guns away from everyone will not stop nutjobs from killing.
You are wasting your energy, go get a flu shot and save somebody's life!

[Bay Kid]

Hitler thought it was a great idea to take everyone's guns. How did that work out?

[MDLNB]

If we are going to prevent deaths with more laws, why focus on small numbers?

There are roughly 23,607 deaths associated with influenza a year. The spread of the disease can be reduced through vaccination. Do you think there should be a law requiring everyone get a influenza vaccine? Have you done anything about the 23,607 deaths a year?

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. Do you think there should be a law forbidding anyone from smoking? Have you done anything about the 480,000 deaths a year?

I am guessing you have done nothing about those issues and your interest in 14,000 deaths a year is purely related to dramatization by the media.

More gun laws are not going to stop nutjobs from killing, taking guns away from everyone will not stop nutjobs from killing.
You are wasting your energy, go get a flu shot and save somebody's life!

:thumbup:

[Taltarzac725]

Hitler thought it was a great idea to take everyone's guns. How did that work out?

GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html)

Check your history. More historical research does need to be done in this area though.

[Cedwards38]

The following is not intended to cast aspersions on any of the good people of Talk of The Villages, but rather is a characterization of the gun debate in America. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm smarter than you are. Are not! Are too! Are not! Are too! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Democrits (Hypocritical Democrats) and Republican'ts (Nothing can be done). Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Not an assault rifle. Not an automatic weapon. Let's just call it "The Thing That Goes Bang A Lot and Lot's of People Are Dead After It Does, and Is Designed Not For Sportsmen, But Purely For The Taking of Human Life." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

LIBERAL, LEFT WING, SOCIALIST! CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT WING, FASCIST! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's your fault. No, it's your fault. Is not! Is too! Is not! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I don't know the answer. Neither do I. Maybe if we do everything it will change. No, maybe if we do nothing it will change. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. :shrug:

God, we know with absolute certainty that this is going to happen again........and again, and again, and again. Please bless the innocent whose lives have been taken, and the families who grieve for them. Please forgive those of us on both sides of this debate for not finding a solution. And please God, most of all, do not let my family be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Amen. :pray:

[Jimturner]

The following is not intended to cast aspersions on any of the good people of Talk of The Villages, but rather is a characterization of the gun debate in America. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm smarter than you are. Are not! Are too! Are not! Are too! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Democrits (Hypocritical Democrats) and Republican'ts (Nothing can be done). Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Not an assault rifle. Not an automatic weapon. Let's just call it "The Thing That Goes Bang A Lot and Lot's of People Are Dead After It Does, and Is Designed Not For Sportsmen, But Purely For The Taking of Human Life." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

LIBERAL, LEFT WING, SOCIALIST! CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT WING, FASCIST! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's your fault. No, it's your fault. Is not! Is too! Is not! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I don't know the answer. Neither do I. Maybe if we do everything it will change. No, maybe if we do nothing it will change. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. :shrug:

God, we know with absolute certainty that this is going to happen again........and again, and again, and again. Please bless the innocent whose lives have been taken, and the families who grieve for them. Please forgive those of us on both sides of this debate for not finding a solution. And please God, most of all, do not let my family be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Amen. :pray:
Start by enforcing the laws we have making it more difficult and admit that no one is after the gun of a sane law abiding citizen.!! No one!!! Doing nothing shows irresponsibility!

[MDLNB]

Start by enforcing the laws we have making it more difficult and admit that no one is after the gun of a sane law abiding citizen.!! No one!!! Doing nothing shows irresponsibility!


And doing something/anything just to be proactive, does not always work out well either. I am not one that believes that a bad deal is better than NO deal.

This part not in reply to your comment:
The best way to resolve this issue is to allow good people to be armed to protect us from bad people. There are not enough cops to go around so that everyone can have their own personal security. Protect yourself. If others are scared of you because you are able to protect yourself, that is their problem. Actually, it makes it less likely that you will ever have to resort to using your protection. You are not going to eliminate crime in the U.S. or the world but you can lessen/limit the damage. If a nut job starts shooting up the place, and a person with CCW intervenes, then the damage is limited.

Would you take guns away from COPS? Away from the military? Where do you think they get their members? They don't clone them. They get their members from the population. Just regular people doing their best to protect us. Some of you are scared of your neighbor carrying concealed. How do you know that he isn't former military or former law enforcement or both? How many CCWs have you seen or heard of that injured someone by accident? How many do you think are living in the villages? If you knew, you would probably hide in your home and never leave.

Do some research before making false claims about gun ownership and crime. How many crimes are committed using a car? Perhaps if we got rid of the cars, it would lessen the amount of robberies, drive by shootings, mass murders?

[MDLNB]

GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html)

Check your history. More historical research does need to be done in this area though.

That doesn't refute the claim of gun control in Germany though. And it still made it easier for the Nazis to maintain control of the masses. So, it's a moot point.

[outlaw]

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!
But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.

What a coincidence! I traveled to three town centers in The Villages recently, and "walked the streets at night enjoying the pubs, entertainers, lots of people young? and old. Safe environment, no guns (that could be seen), breath of fresh air!" Actually, I am pretty sure there were many guns in those town centers.

[MDLNB]

All the suggestions I have seen so far, only benefit the criminal. Funny how sometimes being proactive can be detrimental to the overall objective.

Kind of like having a bad deal not being better than no deal.

[justjim]

The following is not intended to cast aspersions on any of the good people of Talk of The Villages, but rather is a characterization of the gun debate in America. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm smarter than you are. Are not! Are too! Are not! Are too! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Democrits (Hypocritical Democrats) and Republican'ts (Nothing can be done). Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Not an assault rifle. Not an automatic weapon. Let's just call it "The Thing That Goes Bang A Lot and Lot's of People Are Dead After It Does, and Is Designed Not For Sportsmen, But Purely For The Taking of Human Life." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

LIBERAL, LEFT WING, SOCIALIST! CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT WING, FASCIST! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's your fault. No, it's your fault. Is not! Is too! Is not! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I don't know the answer. Neither do I. Maybe if we do everything it will change. No, maybe if we do nothing it will change. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. :shrug:

God, we know with absolute certainty that this is going to happen again........and again, and again, and again. Please bless the innocent whose lives have been taken, and the families who grieve for them. Please forgive those of us on both sides of this debate for not finding a solution. And please God, most of all, do not let my family be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Amen. :pray:
:ho: Amen and Amen

[tomwed]

"Is there a way to reconcile these divisions? It's hard to tell. I keep coming back to this quote, from the Economist earlier this year in response to the Charleston massacre."

"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing."

There are now more guns than people in the United States - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/)

[outlaw]

Start by enforcing the laws we have making it more difficult and admit that no one is after the gun of a sane law abiding citizen.!! No one!!! Doing nothing shows irresponsibility!
And you know this how? There are soooo many people that would love to ban firearms in this country. If gun control fanatics had their way, police wouldn't even carry firearms.

[Sandtrap328]

And you know this how? There are soooo many people that would love to ban firearms in this country. If gun control fanatics had their way, police wouldn't even carry firearms.

As long as the NRA is pouring millions of dollars into campaign coffers, there is not going to be any ban on firearms.

The USA is too large of a country to make guns outlawed. In smaller countries such as Singapore, it works very well. Get caught with a gun while committing a crime - automatic life in prison. If a shot was fired - automatic execution.

There are most likely a very few fanatics who would not want police armed but not many gun control advocates feel that way.

To me, I do not see a reason to own a gun. However, if someone wants one, go right ahead and get one. Know how to use it safely and follow the laws.

[billethkid]

As long as the NRA is pouring millions of dollars into campaign coffers, there is not going to be any ban on firearms.

The USA is too large of a country to make guns outlawed. In smaller countries such as Singapore, it works very well. Get caught with a gun while committing a crime - automatic life in prison. If a shot was fired - automatic execution.

There are most likely a very few fanatics who would not want police armed but not many gun control advocates feel that way.

To me, I do not see a reason to own a gun. However, if someone wants one, go right ahead and get one. Know how to use it safely and follow the laws.

Of the millions of us tha own mutli milions of guns that is exactly what 99% of us do. But that is not what the special interest, political and anti gun fanatics want to be center stage.

And I do not think the NRA influence or not, what ever it is or isn't.....is not as big of a problem as those who do not not right to privacy invaded (wackos, mentally ill, criminals, etc.), the special interest groups do not want anybody singled out or profiled, the permissive crowd does not want to pick on anybody that is doing their thing, and we certainly cannot profile by color, religion or what ever even if that made a big difference in the problem.

The permissive don't upset anybody society is the major impediment and the politicians and the media make it even worse.

It ain't the guns or the 99% who own them responsibly!

[Jima64]

Start by enforcing the laws we have making it more difficult and admit that no one is after the gun of a sane law abiding citizen.!! No one!!! Doing nothing shows irresponsibility!

The Oregon killer was able to buy his guns legally. Several other previous mass killers too. Even the more strict laws trying to be put in lace would not have prevented these tragedies. People folks people.

[MDLNB]

As far as I am concerned, anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime intends to use it. Therefore, anyone caught doing so should get life in prison or execution if anyone was hurt in the commission of the crime. I bet there would be fewer crimes committed.
However, you will not affect the mentally ill person with threats of punishment. They are more than likely prepared to die anyway, and often take their own lives when caught.

So, allow anyone a gun unless it is obvious that they aren't fit to own one, and dispose of anyone that misuses the gun. Simple.

You are not going to EVER be able to sort through those that are or aren't mentally ill so you might as well not hurt yourself thinking about it.

Being involved in a gun related incident is less of a chance than being in the path of a tornado. And if more folks carried concealed and there were not so many gun free zones, there would be less people killed by guns. Although, half the gun related deaths or more in the U.S.A. are suicides.

So, mourn those that are killed and get on with life. Thank God that it wasn't you that was involved and do something nice for someone else.

[evelyn218]

I am from Newtown. I believe one handgun is ok. But tell me why you or anyone else needs to have or store multi military weapons in their home? You are to blame and you are the murderer when the "crazy" person gets their hands on these weapons and uses them. Stop blaming the mentally ill. It's your fault. It will take a long time but we have to do something to control this. By the way, what is your mental status to need to have all these weapons handy.

[dbussone]

The Oregon killer was able to buy his guns legally. Several other previous mass killers too. Even the more strict laws trying to be put in lace would not have prevented these tragedies. People folks people.


Much of what this thread revolves around is the issue of mental health. Until the Feds require that states report the names of those adjudicated as having a mental illness, background checks are missing a major piece of information. The form one fills out asks the individual wishing to purchase a gun if they have a history of mental illness - self reporting doesn't work if someone wishes to ignore and falsely report that response.

[dbussone]

I am from Newtown. I believe one handgun is ok. But tell me why you or anyone else needs to have or store multi military weapons in their home? You are to blame and you are the murderer when the "crazy" person gets their hands on these weapons and uses them. Stop blaming the mentally ill. It's your fault. It will take a long time but we have to do something to control this. By the way, what is your mental status to need to have all these weapons handy.


Your initial premise is in error. The general public cannot purchase military weapons. If you re-read the thread you will learn that there are numerous posters who correctly report this fact.

The Newtown shooter had a mental defect which should not be overlooked. Background checks almost always fail to reveal this information because your federal government fails to make the states report this important personal information. Instead, the Feds depend on self reporting by the individual. This is a huge and problematic defect in the background check system.

[billethkid]

I am from Newtown. I believe one handgun is ok. But tell me why you or anyone else needs to have or store multi military weapons in their home? You are to blame and you are the murderer when the "crazy" person gets their hands on these weapons and uses them. Stop blaming the mentally ill. It's your fault. It will take a long time but we have to do something to control this. By the way, what is your mental status to need to have all these weapons handy.

You are entitled to your opinion. However in expressing it, it is very obvious you do not know very much about what and why LEGITIMATE gun enthusisats do what they do and why they have "so many guns".

I thought I was done posting on this thread however I cannot let an incorrect comment (which may or may not be intended) pass.

So for the poster I will give one very small example. There is a sport in the USA and in many foeeign countris call Cowboy Action Shooting. It involves play actiong of the wild west days. We dress in period cowboy attire. We shoot what are called stages. Each stage is different and has targets that require the use of a long rifle, a sotgun and two "6 shooters". And yes we use real bullets. Diferent meets call for different guns. So this one example shows that one needs a minimum of four guns to participate. Most of us have two or three times that just for this sport. More than 100,000 members world wide. SShooting once per month at most clubs but enough clubs that one could shoot every weekend. Zero gun involved or related accidents.

That is just one sport. Many of us are involved in several other shooting sports which means even more guns.

Why do fisherman have more than one pole?
Why do tennis players have more than one raquet?
Why do golfers have way more clubs than are required to play the game?
And so on.
And on.
And on.

Millions of good people with millions of weapons enjoying the sports they enjoy.

And I will be :censored: if I will sit idly by and let people, too many of which have absolutely no idea what they are talking about....bad mouth what we do because of some 1% wacko and other reasons kill somebody.

IT IS NOT THE GUNS!!!!

My commentary above is not aimed at the poster. My example is in the hopes of educating.

[Steve9930]

I've read through most of these posts and it the same arguments. Reminds me of a Merry-Go-Round. A round and round we go. Look at the facts:

1) All these shootings occurred in a gun free zone by a mentally ill person. In all the cases the guns were legally obtained. Yep in a lot of cases they passed a background check.

2) Had the people had a chance to defend themselves or proper security was provided the out comes would have been different.

3) Its not the responsibility of the Government to make sure you are safe, its your responsibility.

4) There is not one suggestion made by those that promote gun legislation that would have prevented any of these tragedies.

5) The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. There is nothing in there that says I can only have one weapon. Driving and other activities are not rights, but privileges. No mention in the constitution.

6) Switzerland issues a gun to every household. There are no mass shootings in Switzerland.

7)The most shootings are in places where there are very strict guns laws.

8) Criminals do not follow laws that is why they are criminals.

9) The weapons used are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles that are based on the frame of an assault weapon. They do not have the fire power of an assault weapon.

10) The current law does not allow you to make a living by selling guns at gun shows. This is a current law, its not enforced.


I could go on forever. This I know for a fact, it will happen again. It will happen again because the leadership of this country; first response; was to politicize the incident even before all the facts were known. I can understand the distrust because even though there is talk of no confiscation, the politicians are quick to bring up countries that have tried to solve their problem by confiscation. The current leadership is not interested in solving the problem, their interested in playing politics.

[MDLNB]

I've read through most of these posts and it the same arguments. Reminds me of a Merry-Go-Round. A round and round we go. Look at the facts:

1) All these shootings occurred in a gun free zone by a mentally ill person. In all the cases the guns were legally obtained. Yep in a lot of cases they passed a background check.

2) Had the people had a chance to defend themselves or proper security was provided the out comes would have been different.

3) Its not the responsibility of the Government to make sure you are safe, its your responsibility.

4) There is not one suggestion made by those that promote gun legislation that would have prevented any of these tragedies.

5) The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. There is nothing in there that says I can only have one weapon. Driving and other activities are not rights, but privileges. No mention in the constitution.

6) Switzerland issues a gun to every household. There are no mass shootings in Switzerland.

7)The most shootings are in places where there are very strict guns laws.

8) Criminals do not follow laws that is why they are criminals.

9) The weapons used are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles that are based on the frame of an assault weapon. They do not have the fire power of an assault weapon.

10) The current law does not allow you to make a living by selling guns at gun shows. This is a current law, its not enforced.


I could go on forever. This I know for a fact, it will happen again. It will happen again because the leadership of this country; first response; was to politicize the incident even before all the facts were known. I can understand the distrust because even though there is talk of no confiscation, the politicians are quick to bring up countries that have tried to solve their problem by confiscation. The current leadership is not interested in solving the problem, their interested in playing politics.

:agree: ... you summed it up perfectly. And yet, there will be those that want to do something, anything so that they can soothe the guilt of their failure to make more restrictive laws that they think could have kept these things from happening. And there are those that will use this to promote their agenda of more restrictive oversight, and more control for the nanny state. They will attempt to make laws that will punish the decent/honest gun owners and will do nothing to stop the criminal or the mentally ill.

[Sandtrap328]

I've read through most of these posts and it the same arguments. Reminds me of a Merry-Go-Round. A round and round we go. Look at the facts:

1) All these shootings occurred in a gun free zone by a mentally ill person. In all the cases the guns were legally obtained. Yep in a lot of cases they passed a background check.

2) Had the people had a chance to defend themselves or proper security was provided the out comes would have been different.

3) Its not the responsibility of the Government to make sure you are safe, its your responsibility.

4) There is not one suggestion made by those that promote gun legislation that would have prevented any of these tragedies.
Yy
5) The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. There is nothing in there that says I can only have one weapon. Driving and other activities are not rights, but privileges. No mention in the constitution.

6) Switzerland issues a gun to every household. There are no mass shootings in Switzerland.

7)The most shootings are in places where there are very strict guns laws.

8) Criminals do not follow laws that is why they are criminals.

9) The weapons used are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles that are based on the frame of an assault weapon. They do not have the fire power of an assault weapon.

10) The current law does not allow you to make a living by selling guns at gun shows. This is a current law, its not enforced.


I could go on forever. This I know for a fact, it will happen again. It will happen again because the leadership of this country; first response; was to politicize the incident even before all the facts were known. I can understand the distrust because even though there is talk of no confiscation, the politicians are quick to bring up countries that have tried to solve their problem by confiscation. The current leadership is not interested in solving the problem, their interested in playing politics.

Well done but two obvious mistakes.

Point 5 - "bare arms" would mean roling up your sleeves so your arms are not covered.

Point 6 - Switzerland does not issue guns to every household. Go to snopes.com and check it out. Good comparison between Honduras and Switzerland there, too.

[Taltarzac725]

Combat Vets Destroy the NRA (http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/)


I do worry about idiots with guns.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

:agree: ... you summed it up perfectly. And yet, there will be those that want to do something, anything so that they can soothe the guilt of their failure to make more restrictive laws that they think could have kept these things from happening. And there are those that will use this to promote their agenda of more restrictive oversight, and more control for the nanny state. They will attempt to make laws that will punish the decent/honest gun owners and will do nothing to stop the criminal or the mentally ill.

I've read through most of these posts and it the same arguments. Reminds me of a Merry-Go-Round. A round and round we go. Look at the facts:

1) All these shootings occurred in a gun free zone by a mentally ill person. In all the cases the guns were legally obtained. Yep in a lot of cases they passed a background check.

2) Had the people had a chance to defend themselves or proper security was provided the out comes would have been different.

3) Its not the responsibility of the Government to make sure you are safe, its your responsibility.

4) There is not one suggestion made by those that promote gun legislation that would have prevented any of these tragedies.

5) The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. There is nothing in there that says I can only have one weapon. Driving and other activities are not rights, but privileges. No mention in the constitution.

6) Switzerland issues a gun to every household. There are no mass shootings in Switzerland.

7)The most shootings are in places where there are very strict guns laws.

8) Criminals do not follow laws that is why they are criminals.

9) The weapons used are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles that are based on the frame of an assault weapon. They do not have the fire power of an assault weapon.

10) The current law does not allow you to make a living by selling guns at gun shows. This is a current law, its not enforced.


I could go on forever. This I know for a fact, it will happen again. It will happen again because the leadership of this country; first response; was to politicize the incident even before all the facts were known. I can understand the distrust because even though there is talk of no confiscation, the politicians are quick to bring up countries that have tried to solve their problem by confiscation. The current leadership is not interested in solving the problem, their interested in playing politics.
T

You are right on the money here!

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Combat Vets Destroy the NRA (http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/)


I do worry about idiots with guns.

Really? Your source is an incredibly biased story in an ultra liberal publication?

So they were able to find two combat veterans that support their position. Do you think that they could have found any with different opinions?

[Taltarzac725]

Really? Your source is an incredibly biased story in an ultra liberal publication?

So they were able to find two combat veterans that support their position. Do you think that they could have found any with different opinions?

From the linked The Nation article:

Dabid Chipman says the Secret Service’s history is instructive. “Here’s an agency that has all the weaponry that they could ever need, all the training that they could ever need, and they’ve never fired a weapon in defense of a president during an assassination attempt. You’re trained to throw your body in front of the protectee, not to open fire. Just look at the picture taken immediately after Reagan was shot and count the guns in that photograph. They’re all being held by highly-trained experts and not one of them fired. They didn’t shoot [would-be assassin John] Hinckley. And that’s because you’re likely to do more harm than good in that situation.”

[dillywho]

Banning guns is not the answer. Creating more laws is not the answer. There are plenty of laws on the books now, most of which are enforced. Those only work for the responsible gun owners. Key word: Responsible.

I do not believe that these killings are totally a mental health issue. Like so many other crimes (purse snatchings, etc.), many are crimes of opportunity. Anyone who takes another's life, other than in self defense, has a mental problem whether diagnosed or not.

We rave about the illegals, the drug trafficking, prostitution, drunk driving, and the list goes on. There are laws there that are not obeyed, either. How did prohibition work out back in the 20's? It simply lead to the criminal element getting stronger and more crime against law-abiding citizens, law enforcement, and the other criminals in the same business of illegal booze. Ban guns and the criminal element will flourish. They would love nothing better.

People who want to kill will find a way. Gang members have no shortage of guns. How many of those were obtained legally? How many illegal knives (yes, there are laws governing knives) do they have? A kid back home was intentionally killed when another one used his dad's Cadillac to drive into some others and he didn't get away in time, but was then targeted even after he was down and hit again. The killer was from an affluent family and he and his buddies didn't agree with the "punk" look. Other examples from McVeigh on abound.

Ban the guns, crime will increase by whatever means a person choses. Take the guns and watch the bombings start cropping up for those intent on mass killing. They will find a way. Count on it.

Guns, knives, bombs, or whatever don't kill. People do.