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?

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.

James Alan Fox: Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend

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

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?

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 Quite a lot of important events in the gun debate from then to now.

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

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.

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......

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

Debate, and Confusion, Over Oregon'''s Gun Rules After Deadly Shooting - NBC News

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

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.

splitting hairs
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke | American Lung Association

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

just want common sense
 

I just want common sense brought to this divisive issue.

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

I did find this which is very interesting about why James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment as he did. VPC - Second Amendment History It is just a theory though IMHO.

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

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!

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.

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!!

[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.

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?

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.

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


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

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.

ConSource,

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.

N/A

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

Law Library of Congress and the 2nd Amendment.
 

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

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

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.

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.

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.

Call it what you want
 

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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)...