Isn't it Snopes.com?

m.snopes.com/united-states-third-murders

thank-you
What I like about snopes is that "The research materials [we’ve] used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves."

In many of the killings, the "mentally ill" person used weapons stored in the home by another member of the family. This will happen again and again. How many egomaniacs store these weapons to have them available for the "ill" person to use? I think both are obsessed in some way. Whoops, is that you? Sorry I offended you.

In what way is the legitimate owner of a gun or two, exercising his/her constitutional rights, either "obsessed" or an "egomaniac"? But they should be responsible enough to secure their weapon from "mentally ill" family members

Maybe we should know how many of the countries named above or below (take your pick) are in the same statistical category or how many are countries that enforce the laws of the land (or inour case NOT!).

Really not a valid comparison without knowing all the other parameters that make up comparable comparisons or not.

Real History
 

Compressed air rifles were so effective that Napoleon directed that any member of an opposing army who was found to have one was to be executed on the spot.

Brief history of air guns.

Another deadly fast-shooting firearm that pre-dates the Second Amendment was the Puckle Gun. Gives the lie to the liberal contention that only muzzle loading single shot rifles were around at the time.

Help
 

Instead of obsessing on not having legally owned weapons in a home so that a mentally ill family member might get his/her hands on said weapons, my question is: "WHY are they not getting help for those family members who are ill?" Would they not seek help if that person contracted any other disease like measles, whooping cough, flu, cancer, etc.? Mental illness is a disease, not something to be hidden or denied. It is not a shame to be mentally ill; to not be treated for it is. If anyone knows something is wrong and makes no effort to address the problem, then they are the ones at fault......not the mentally ill person.

Almost impossible in our permissive, anything goes, don't offend anybody, by all means do not get involved society.

Well ponder this....

Here are some more facts....

Subject: Fwd: Guns

Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are 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!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steadydecrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

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....'

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!

The so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this in 2010.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

Apparently, you haven't read the second amendment.

"....., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,..."

commas before and after.

I'm not a gun owner, but.....

It is not a "so-called" second amendment---it IS the second amendment, and as part of our constitution is the highest law of the land

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Back then, the people WERE the militia, we had no standing army
But if you read Jefferson, he also felt that an armed civilian population was the best defense against the tyranny of government. We had just fought the revolution against just such tyranny.

The far left just loves revisionist history, but fortunately this one is pretty much written in stone. Funny how they do not launch an assault on the 4th, 19th or 24th amendments

wrong.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to maintain a "well regulated" Militia.

...and the well-regulated militia IS the National Guard.

I have always found the punctuation to be a bit tortured. The nuns in my elementary school would not have approved. Regardless, the Supreme Court, who is the final interpreter, has reaffirmed that individuals can possess guns.

I think we are being trolled.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."---Thomas Jefferson

That's one purpose. The other purpose is for self defense. You need to read more than just the 2nd to understand the wording and the intention of the authors. In those days, regulated meant equipped, not controlled. Militia meant the individual people acting as a group to defend their state from, among other things, an oppressive government. Commas were commonly used to separate groups so: A well equipped (armed) militia shall not be infringed and the right of the people to keep and bear(carry on their person) arms shall not be infringed.

Is it fair to say the environment of the US today bears very little resemblance to the time the amendment was written? After all the militia was also available to control Indians and slaves.

From a legal point of view, I don't believe that is relevant. We essentially have the right to own guns until such time as a new constitutional amendment is enacted or the Supreme Court chooses to interpret the existing amendment in a different way. The courts have generally reaffirmed the 2nd amendment when local gun laws have been challenged.

Yes, there was probably less violent crime as well.

I disagree.

We today need to bear arms against those individuals or groups that would harm the one or the group of us. In an attempt to remain civil I will use generalities;
>any potential or actual race based event/group that get out of control posing a threat.
>any special interest event/group that poses a threat or attempts to use force or intend to harm
>any political uprising that that poses a threat or attempts to use force or intend harm

A stretch of the imagination? Not really. The riots in the streets this past summer could have easily spilled into neighborhoods.

The above is strictly counterpoint.....no other intentions implied.