In a hushed auditorium, harshly lit for television, the families and neighbors of Sandy Hook’s lost children told visiting legislators Monday night to take a stand against gun violence, not always prescribing how.
“You are our elected officials,” said Nicole Hockley, who last held the hand of her 6-year-old son, Dylan, as he lay in a small casket. “It is your duty to create and enforce the laws that protect and help us, using common sense, morals and a sense of humanity to guide you…”
The bipartisan legislative task force created in response to the shooting deaths of 20 first-graders and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 filled the wide stage of Newtown High School…
The hearing was like none at the State Capitol in Hartford. It couldn’t be, not in a town where a firehouse is newly decorated with 26 copper stars, one for each victim. It is a place where most anything can remind residents of what happened on Dec. 14.
David Wheeler, whose six-year-old son, Benjamin, was killed, said the legislators must find a way for authorties to better match information on the emotionally disturbed against a registry of homes with guns. No authority apparently ever challenged Nancy Lanza for keeping an AR-15 and other firearms in a home with a son who had emotional problems.
“It doesn’t matter to whom these weapons were registered. It doesn’t matter if they were purchased legally,” Wheeler said. “What matters is that it was far too easy for another mentally unbalanced, suicidal person who had a violent obsessions to have easy access to unreasonably powerful weapons.”
To gun owners who ask that their Second Amendment rights not be infringed by asking them to give up certain rifles and high-capacity magazines, Wheeler asked about aother right articulated by the Founding Fathers, the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“The liberty of any person to own a military-style assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine and keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life — his life, to the right to live of all those children and those teachers,” Wheeler said. “Let’s honor the Founding Fathers and get our priorities straight.”
What are your priorities?
It’s your right to not have your life taken from you without due process by the government. That is your right to life. Your right to literally live is actually your right to defend yourself from murderous people who will always exist; guns or no guns.
That murderous little bastard had 20 minutes to do his deed before a good guy (with a gun) showed up. He could have accomplished the same thing with a pistol and a machete.
As soon as the number of innocent people murdered with guns starts to approach the number of innocent people killed by democide; we can have a “common-sense” discussion.
yote,
You are not making a sound argument when you cite another argument that lies outside of the one under consideration. Your mention of “Democide” is not well placed in this discussion. “Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.” Using this definition, you are comparing apples to oranges. A psychotic killing rampage is not the same as a government sanctioned genocide. Genocide would imply policy and planning by more than one deranged individual with ready access to weapon(s) that have more killing power than a single shot firearm or manual weapon such as a machete. How’s that for ‘common sense’?
Now you try it.
This very Government ignored existing gun laws on the books causing slaughter of order of magnitude more children. Yes, Mexican, Guatemalan,… children. Still the same. Number of Fast and Furious victims and the intentional nature of flaunting the law that yielded those results qualifies as Democide. Now that same Government wants to impose stricter regulations on law abiding population against the root of the law in the country: the Constitution. Exactly the opposite will make us safer: restrict Government’s ability to violate the gun control laws for any reason and mandate full transparency on the issue (no executive privileges for our servants).
dunceanimal,
You are doing nothing but re-iterating yote’s argument. Genocide/Democide as an equivalent base of argument with mental illness and the ubiquity of firearms to the mentally ill. Which is really the issue. Enforcing existing laws and plugging the leaks in the weak ones added to improved mental health care would be some solid jumping off points for an argument. Not this far-flung Democide b.s. Now try and focus in. Maybe then we may find our way.
Aye, but there’s the rub, the elephant turd in the living room, the cockroach in the salad: “jumping off points”.
We’re not talking about “common sense solutions” here, we’re talking about “reasonable-sounding jumping off points”, which will satisfy NOBODY, but will get the foot in the door, the slope to slip on, the launchpad for more “jumping off points” intended to lead to a single landing zone, the confiscation of all firearms. Admit it, that’s what you want (or don’t admit it, and be a liar.)
On a slightly different subject, let’s talk about some “reasonable compromises” on abortion. Oh, we don’t want to ELIMINATE abortion, we just can’t see any reason not to rationally discuss some common-sense controls and limitations.
Gawd,
So you’re all for “jumping to conclusions” as opposed to rational discourse?
I guess that comes with being ‘all knowing’ and ‘omnipotent’ and stuff.
ML, was that a “yes” or “no”?
oh i see the question in there: ““jumping off points” intended to lead to a single landing zone, the confiscation of all firearms. Admit it, that’s what you want (or don’t admit it, and be a liar.) ”
No, I do not want guns to be confiscated. And I am not always a liar. And I will not dismiss any sane argument, pro or con, just because i may disagree with it. Much like your chicken shit ass taking any reasonable discourse and translating it into extremes. Confiscating your guns?? Quit your crying and man-up to the discussion.
I don’t see where my position is “chicken shit”, at least on this issue. What I saw in your posts, and in the posts of a lot of other non-pro-gun proponents, is that what you don’t say means a lot more than what you do say. That’s a tactic of liars and scoundrels. It’s usually followed up with a straw argument or outright distraction of some kind. The thing is, you may not think that you are endorsing confiscation, but there is NOTHING in any of your rhetoric that does not also apply to outright confiscation. I’ll admit that calling you a liar wasn’t fair, but it was a reasonable assumption IMO.
Honestly, having heard many different arguments from many different sides, what percentage of gun control advocates do *YOU* see being satisfied in perpetuity with the currently proposed remedies of increased background checks and banning a few scary-looking rifles?
How would this NOT be the dreaded slippery slope? (Not a rhetorical question by the way.)
Aren’t you on the new JournoList, or getting the memos from Obama For America? Harry Reid and ‘red state’ Senators don’t want to lose their seats in 2014 voting on gun control. The new issue is immigration reform. You need to put up posts about the plight of illegal immigrants, and how they should be given their amnesty now, Obama has increased deportations and the size of the border patrol, etc.
This would be even funnier if it weren’t so true.
Sandy Hook hearing reveals sharp divide on gun control
http://tinyurl.com/bc3g5ry
The assertion that gun rights and a child’s right to live are mutually exclusive is short-sighted and narrow-minded.
One man chose to misuse an item for evil purposes.
Blame the man, not the gun.
or blame the pills that freak was probably prescribed.
I recognize that bad things will always happen.
I recognize that sometimes horrible things will happen.
I recognize that sometimes that the most innocent amongst us will suffer, sadly, even die, and there is not a dam thing we will be able to do to stop it.
I do not recognize the statement “Well, bad things always happen. If it wasn’t a gun then it would have been something else. There’s no point in trying to do anything about it.” as a valid response.
Responsible gun owners, please tell me. How can we make our schools safer? Is there any way to keep this incident from happening again? To make it a really rare occurrence?
I know that no answer is absolute and there will always be exceptions. But I feel we mus try.
I have not asked to take your guns away. I have not called for any restrictions on your ownership. I am asking for you, the responsible gun owners who maintain their weapons, who know how they operate, who understand what they are capable of, for some answers. Please give me some definitive, specific, actions that can be taken to try and prevent this from happening again.
Thank you.
As a responsible gun owner the first thing is to follow the Israeli way of protecting children. Armed parents and teachers. Second thing is to allow for mental health reporting so that back ground checks will stop the purchase by certain whackos.
Have all states allow concealed carry laws and have reciprocity between them. Have each state pass preemption so that little shithole mayors like Loonberg and Rombo Manual cannot pass laws making firearms illegal.
Follow these suggestions for 30 years and then we’ll take about what’s next.
This post suggests a different approach to all of the rhetoric being spewed from all sides of the aisle concerning the best solution to prevent another Sandy Hook. I’ve discussed this with a few different people and the responses have been generally good. But before I get into the details of my plan, let’s review a couple of the proposals that have been presented along with some personal commentary.
1) Gun Free zones: They are not as gun free as we’ve been led to believe. If one were to look at the situation objectively, it would appear they only serve to let criminals know where to go if they want to ensure maximum results with little risk. We will never get rid of gun free zones due to political pressure.
2) Armed Guards: On the surface, putting armed guards in the schools may appear to be a good idea but the costs are prohibitive. I don’t think people would mind seeing armed guards in our schools but it is not something I would like to see. It smacks too much of a police state. Eventually, these armed guards would be doing things they were not trained for. I am actually surprised the NRA proposed a solution such as this.
3) Police Officers: If we could mount a police officer in every classroom and it didn’t cost us anything, it would be approved without comment. However, costs again get in the way. And someone in uniform is usually the first person a criminal intent on mayhem is going to target. And these men and women know that each time they put the uniform on in the morning. This is why they train for those types of situations.
4) Let teachers conceal carry: Not knowing who is carrying is scary to those who might point a gun at someone. Politically, this would be impossible to implement on a scale large enough to make a difference.
5) Make it harder for people to get guns. This isn’t outright confiscation but it is close. Nothing divides people more than one group telling another group they can’t have something. The shooter at Sandy Hook didn’t have an “assault” weapon but the media and politicians consistently preach that removing them from the equation is the answer. If he didn’t have an “assault” weapon, how would outlawing them have helped? He had four pistols instead. I would be curious to know how large the magazines were in those pistols — were they the law-mandated 10 round type? I’m not sure about you, but I think it is easier to switch guns then load a new magazine.
6) Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Never happen. And assuming repealing the Second Amendment was the answer, it would start a second American Revolution. At that point, school safety would be the least of our concerns. Overall, people want to feel safe. Ignoring or suppressing the 2nd Amendment may look like the answer to those who don’t know better but history has shown that an unarmed populace is fodder for whatever the government wants — or any other armed group of sufficient size. See Mali in 2012 for the most recent example: 1.1 guns per 100 people in citizen hands. Is it any wonder the coup was successful? You may not agree with that assessment but a non-trivial percentage of the population does, so getting that idea off the ground is nigh-impossible.
So let’s talk about a solution. Of the six suggestions I listed above, the most viable solution appears to be the “mount a policeman in every classroom.” Nobody would mind a policeman in the classroom and they are trained to handle lunatics pointing weapons at them. The only hiccup is the cost. Let’s explore that solution and see if we can figure a way past the costs.
In general, people trust the police. They are trained. They have the equipment. They’ve taken a vow to serve and protect. But the police are many minutes away in almost any crisis situation. Even firemen, who train for many hours each week, are never on the spot when an emergency erupts. Communities have instituted organizations like CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) to handle situations such as this — citizen volunteers who act as emergency personnel until the more thoroughly trained professionals arrive. These volunteers don’t perform these functions for a living. They are lawyers, engineers, secretaries, garbage collectors, taxi drivers, etc. They are ordinary folks who are interested in ensuring their community survives a disaster, whatever it may be.
I am proposing something similar to CERT but for schools instead. We already have a pool of interested volunteers willing to lay down their lives for their students: teachers. Instead of just letting teachers carry guns (which scares some people), we need to train these teachers in police tactics. They would not need to be trained in all aspects of police work (traffic laws and the like). Their training would be geared specifically toward defending the students and deflating an active shooter situation. The teachers would all be volunteers. The most important point, and it is important this point be stressed, is these teachers join the police auxiliary or police reserves. This makes them police officers with all the rights and the responsibilities as such. And as they are police officers, they would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other police officer candidate with respect to mental, physical, and medical requirements.
This solves quite a few issues:
1) It allows the teachers to carry in a school without violating the gun free zone laws because these teachers are cops.
2) It soothes any paranoia about untrained personnel carrying weapons in a school because these teachers are cops and trained to use their weapons.
3) It reduces the financial burden on school districts and the police departments because the teachers are volunteers. This does not preclude the possibility of a school district awarding a stipend to the volunteers to pay for equipment and training, however.
4) The teachers are, for all intents and purposes, undercover police officers. When you walk into a school, you won’t know who is a cop and who isn’t.
5) It ensures those who do carry a weapon in school are vetted for mental disorders.
I hope I’ve given you something to think about. With all the accusations flying around about this or that, it is hard sometimes to find the truth. Well, the truth is there are crazy people out there. Taking guns away does not make them sane. It only makes those around them less safe (as evidenced by the number of dead in gun free zones vs. non-gun free zones).
If you find this suggestion worthwhile, share it, send it to your congressmen, senators, school board, etc. Maybe we can start looking for solutions instead of finger pointing.
Way too convoluted.
Ban “guns free zones” as by the definition they violate the Constitution. That’s it. Solves everything. No, we do not need Government Nanny certifying that some teachers in schools can have guns and some not. No one should need Government certification for living, free speech, practicing religion or carrying a weapon anywhere. Individual responsibility of those teachers is to have or not a weapon or know how to use or not their weapon of choice.
As for background checks – that also needs to be taken away from the Government completely. Mandate background check for every gun sold legally. By the private, non-Governmental agency. Say, NRA. Ban access without a valid warrant to any info about those checks by the Government. People who care that nutters don’t get guns would be doing the checking, people who have vested interest to obstruct gun ownership would be out of the loop (and control!) but in case of real legal need to know.
I agree with you on all points. However, as mentioned, it will be impossible to do so.
This is a practical solution that addresses all concerns.
Good job libby,
You have some sound reasoning. I do have some exceptions though. Arming up teachers may seem like a sane thing to do but teachers are after all people. And from my experience some are not as grounded as you might expect.
I propose that the ubiquity of firearms be addressed. As has been mentioned, ad naseum, guns don’t kill people etc… Well, I agree with this. But if a person is of the mind to let loose he/she is going to use the tool at hand. If that be rocks, knives, or guns, rest assured the highest form of lethality will be used. I don’t know exactly how to address the issue of ubiquity but only present it here as a starting point for discussion.
More children drown in 5 gallon plastic buckets than are killed by guns. Have you thought about the lives that could be saved by banning 5 gallon plastic buckets? If not, why not? If not ban, then license them and require a large deposit so that the end-users will make sure to dispose of them properly.
Arming up teachers may seem like a sane thing to do but teachers are after all people. And from my experience some are not as grounded as you might expect.
That’s why they get the same scrutiny as police officers. There is a reason most police officer rejects end up as rent-a-cops — they are stable enough to be entrusted with the safety of the public.
If we put the teacher volunteers through the same battery of tests we put our cops through, it should minimize any chance of a teacher going postal with a loaded weapon.
And I’m not suggesting ALL teachers, just the volunteers who pass muster.
Correction:
— There is a reason most police officer rejects end up as rent-a-cops — they are NOT stable enough to be entrusted with the safety of the public.
Too wordy.
The first sign of desperation in defending a foolish thought is to bury a weak or lack of logic in 10,000 words to make it look ‘robust’.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough or are full of shit”. Albert Einstein
What does that say about Obamacare?
Ha, ha. What a dolt.
Does remind me of saying: “We can’t afford healthcare for everyone.” …..>>>>MEANWHILE….>>> ALL OVER EUROPE it is being done at half the cost.
Imagine that? dogma bites your ass!
So–no answer to violence by guns except have more guns? BWHAHAHAHAHA. Can’t be more stupid, head up your ass, paid by the gun manufacturers, dogmatic, self centered stupid than that.
….>>>>MEANWHILE….>>> ALL OVER EUROPE, CANADA, ASIA it is being done. Lots of violence and gun porn there too.
Imagine that? dogma bites your ass!
Sorry to pop your bubble. Its the only thing you had going for yourselves.
Booger, I didn’t know you were in town! I hope you’re just passing through.
Enforce the laws that exist to start with.
Let states determine how to decide if someone has a mental issue that renders them a threat and therefore should be in a national database as not able to get guns. I suggest a court hearing before an impartial judge.
Let the states establish a program where in order to obtain a license in that state for carry purposes you have to attend a class or show that you can operate a gun safely.
If you are going to arm teachers let it be their choice. Any teacher/school official who wants to carry should be trained so that they are prepared if that time comes and be able to keep kids safe from accidents.
These are some suggestions from a responsible person who does not own a gun any longer, but has in the past.
I watched the senate committee listen to testimony on gun violence yesterday on C-SPAN.
Then I listened to reports of the hearing on CNN and finally Piers Morgan with Debbie Wasserman and some cop from Baltimore discussed it.
It is amazing how MSM distorts the facts. You would not believe they were discussing the same hearing.
So I don’t trust “agenda” pieces like the video above. They can be slanted, taken out of context, etc. too easily. Their main purpose is to influence people with emotional appeals.
And still no one remembers that the biggest mass murder of children in a US school was not accomplished with a gun. It was a neat freak nutjob complaining about school taxes.
Guns, knives, explosives, cars, motorcycles and vibrators are all just tools to make our lives better.
The National Wacko Association wants to save the white children by creating an armed nation. Kinda of like Gunsmoke but in color and with cooler guns.
Sadly, they don’t see the similarities with automobiles whereby speed limits, seatbelts and drivers license was a good idea and no black man ever called for a ban on cars.
That’s because the largest massacre of minorities was by the government, ordered by Janet Reno.
Note to self: do not enclose your comment inside left and right angle brackets.
What question are you answering again? It’s hard enough to follow what you say, much less figuring out what point you’re responding to.
The leading cause of death of children between the ages of 4 and 14 is automobile accidents.
I don’t see anyone getting hysterical about the proliferation of automobiles.
During 2004, 2,343 children between the ages of 0 and 14 were killed in traffic accidents. Of that number, 20 percent were involved in alcohol-related accidents.
We need to ban automobiles and easy access to alcohol.
If we’re on the topic of creating laws to tell people how to live their lives, like the gun ban people want, then I have a few laws I’d love to see created as well.
First of all, let’s ban motorcycles. They have no legitimate use in our society considering the number of different economy vehicles that are available, and 4,550 people lost their lives last year in motorcycle accidents.
Our kids shouldn’t be exposed to these death machines and the culture that encompasses them. They are tied to outlaws, rebellion, and other illegal activities and low-life individuals. We shouldn’t be making these things appealing in any way to irresponsible individuals or glorifying them in a way where our children have access to ride or purchase them.
Ban motorcyles.
Ban riding lawn mowers.
During 2007, 169 landscape workers were killed by riding lawn mowers.
Yes, they need to be squeezed out of our society hard, much like the attacks on smokers. First you couldn’t smoke in offices, then you couldn’t smoke in restaurants, now you can’t even smoke outside next to some buildings. Soon they’ll make it illegal to smoke around a non-smoker, and then they’ll take away the right to smoke altogether.
Which is fine. They should ban cigarettes too.
But 10,000 would have been killed if not for the liberal law that required a cover over the blade.
The outrage during that debate was that they were going to outlaw lawns.
It’s really unbelievable that you Liberals are using these poor people to trample the peoples right to defend themselves.
Hang YOUR head in shame.
During 2010, 618 people were killed riding bicycles.
Ban bicycles.
Nobody banned cars after sensible limits were applied:
– drivers license
– speed limits
– seatbelts
– car seats.
No nigga took yo pickup truck
One out of every 33 homicides in the United States is the killing of a child under 18 by their parent, or between 250 and 300 of the country’s killings each year.
In a 2005 study, homicide of children by parents turned out to be the third-leading cause of death of American children ages 5 to 14.
Ban parents.
Putting the blame on an individual and not an inanimate object would go against the Liberal modus operandi. In short, this would never fly.
There must be something causing these parents to kill their children. I still say it’s motorcycles and we need to ban them.
when was the last time you heard of some idiot picking of a semi-automatic high capacity motorcycle and mowing down elementry school children. asshole.
How many times have you heard of anyone with a semi-automatic high capacity firearm mow down elementary school children?
Think real hard. Say in the last ten years.
Now maybe you wanna go back and actually list the guns used where “mass” people were killed and cite how that differentiates between “mass” killings with a handgun.
Stupid asshole.
What can I say. I’m an over achiever.
Jeeez Monster. Are you competing with Bobbo?
Who the hell reads all that shit?
What is the difference between one psycho killing 10 people and 100 alcoholics killing 1 person each?
Answer: the first appeals to idiots because it’s dramatic.
now if all the alcoholics did it on the same day in the same place you might have a point. Other than that you are trying to defuse the argument through spectral dispersion of argument. Now, for your sake, try and stay focused lest ye come off sounding scattered. Much like the mentally ill.
Hey since we’re going to drop to the level of namecalling, asshole, let’s take a step back and examine the real difference between what you said and what I said.
I cited distinct, hard fact that follows the logic of the “ban the guns” bleeding hearts. Motorcycles have no legitimate use in our society, they kill thousands per year, they attract outliers of society to their usage, they’re the least safe transportation of choice, they can kill simply by falling over (on a child, for instance) and there are other legitimate, safer methods of transportation available and are economically viable.
The difference is you think your opinion.. YES, IT IS *YOUR* OPINION, ASSHOLE, and it is different than mine.
now if all the alcoholics did it on the same day in the same place you might have a point.
Yes, I already saw that you felt that way. I was asking WHY. Or trying to ask why, or wanting to read my mind and answer the question or something. I know that for a lot of the anti-gun demographic, they would still oppose guns even if it were proved that they’re better for you than vitamin-C. They don’t like guns, they don’t want you to have them, and that will never change.
Liberals are LYING about this issue. If you think this will end at “Assault Rifles” or High Capacity magazines…you are one of 2 things.
An absolute and total lying dirtbag, or, you are as dumb as dirt.
See the progression of the anti-smoking campaign in this country. Firearms will soon follow this progression if it’s not stopped now.
You’re only comeback and fear appears to be the slippery slope . You apply it to everything.
– Women’s Rights? NO! They’ll next take away my penis.
– Gay Marriage? NO! Marriage of farm animals is next and God will send in a hurricane or something.
– No smoking? NO! Bananas would be next
– Speed limits? No. They’ll go after my truck
– Seatbelt? No ! Bondage and S&M are next
Nice try ML but I said ten years and use your parameters for the search, not every gang banger wannabe shooting.
Find the ones that use a military “looking” weapon with a high capacity magazine. VA Tech won’t count since he used a pistol with the limited ten round mags.
Try again.
guns is guns. Maybe we should be talking all guns?
Maybe we should be talking motorcycles. So what you’re saying is that one child killed by a motorcycle is less significant than a child killed with a firearm.
Wow, you’ve got some awesome standards.
Geez, your a crappy lawyer.
Your fired.
I don’t believe i was working for you Jonesy boy. But i can be retained for the correct amount.
Great, I could really use someone like yourself…are you good with a shovel?
I mean besides shoveling shit, I got a roof full of snow.
You can snap your fingers and every firearm of all types are gone from the US tomorrow, from everyone including police (I get reports almost every day that cops guns are stolen).
Day after tomorrow Rombo Manual declares Obobbo King and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.
Also, the day after tomorrow people will be killed by clubs, knives, cars, bicycles and fists.
You are never going to win an argument by banning anything BUT you can certainly lose your right to live in a free society by banning guns.
guns is guns. Maybe we should be talking all guns?
Attaboy, your honesty is refreshing, if surprising.
Or was that just a Freudian (fraud-ian) slip?
I like how, in order to make the argument seem more dramatically explosive, he lists incidents that didn’t even happen in the United States.
Utter failure.
Drama queens.
Don’t you know it.
Those pro-gun nuts acting all diva.
When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to
produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995,
which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban,
the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a
Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them:
thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Nice laws for all you dumbasses that think banning an inanimate will help.
Ban psychopaths that want to kill people.
I think you may be on to something here. Now let’s talk about doctor patient confidentiality and privacy issues. Maybe there is a way to achieve this too.
If a mental health professional believes a patient may be a danger to themselves or others, they are required to report their concerns.
Confidentiality and privacy are not sacrosanct in all circumstances.
Do you feel like killing someone today? Talk to me.
Touche’
Douche
“Douche”–ML==you gotta learn HML (?) to add that accent a grave (sic?–or whatever) to score 100% on the comedy scale.
Having to visualize the accent mark takes away from the moment.
i would if i could find my f*kng AK.
Damn, i guess i have to settle for posting nonsense on this blog. You use what you got at hand.
“You use what you got at hand.”
Be careful pulling on that thing, you could put your eye out, kid.
ha ha ha :0) Thanks Jonesy.
The devil’s in the details. You might make a good pope or something that doesn’t solve problems but rather pontificates.
Define psychopath, how to diagnose one, how to fund it, how to enforce it. Then the hard part….. define when he wants and would kill people.
What do the two have to do with each other? If children have a right to grow and prosper, and we know that government is a far bigger killer of children than any individual with a gun, bomb, or other weapon has ever been, how can you countenance any sort of government control?
Wow. 75 comments! It’s not Gays or God so ….
Eidard needs a greatest hits folder : GGG (God, Guns & Gay’s)
Why would sexuality make any difference in any discussion? My wife is on her way to our friends house cook dinner. He happens to be gay. What does gays have to do with anything?
Because my point is that what generates alot of comments in this forum is God, Guns and Gays.
This one happened to be about Guns. That was my point. It had nothing directly to do with Gays.
Glad you know someone that knows a gay. I have a good friend whose baptist wacko wife prefers to wait in the car than go into a gay home. Means nothing.
God and Guns maybe, but please, no one gives a fuck about gays anymore. You are just mildly amusing. But mostly just annoying.
So how do you like your newfound irrelevance?
That’s funny Dallas. I feel bad, I only know about 40 or 50 gay guys and some of my best friends are gay.
I do not like Baptist whacko women though.
Baptist women are whacko because they had premarital sex once and now they have a guilt complex that haunts them.
I’m impressed because I don’t know 50 people to say ‘I know them’, much less gay ones!
The only people that know that many gays are usually drag queens. Not implying anything , just say’n .
Most people with guns are scared.
I’m more afraid of teenage girls texting and driving. I ll spend my money on something I use everyday. A nice rig with good safety features.
A high safety feature car protects your family better than a gun.
A 5 Star impact rated car is a better investment than any weapon that goes day after day unused for a majority of owners.
Anyone collecting guns and letting their kids run around in beater cars is a fool. Spend the money on the Real Risk (Auto Accidents) not the media made up one.
Most homicides nationwide are confined to small geographical areas. People outside these zip codes are facing a more real risk of death by auto accident. Not one minute of Television News time is devoted to this topic. Ditto:Heart Disease
Yup, most counties in America have one or zero murders in a year. Yet these counties have lots of guns. If we are to believe the gun banners, the presence of guns should have turned these places into war zones.
Last time I looked there had been over 400 shooting deaths since Newtown. That was a month ago. It seems to have triggered (unintended pun) an explosion in gun homicides in the USA.
The shooting didn’t cause it. The coverage and politicizing did. Now every psycho in the country can get their name broadcast to every TV across the country!
USA murders by gun is around10-11K per year is it not?
400 Murders is 4800 per year.
Seems at best to be a decrease.
Should we check the first day openings of violent movies or first person shooter video games?
Maybe we can imagine causation from that?
Check your facts there Bobo.
Here are some FACTS I bet you didn’t CARE to LEARN:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services
Now, let’s look at some FACTS about guns (which I would call firearms):
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are aproximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.”
So would you care to look at traffic fatalities or drug abuse?! Or how about them hospitals?!
I poop more than that in a year.
No, no, no having a gun means you are more likely to be killed, didn’t you get the memo?
Next on liberals’ agenda, shut down hospitals, as going to the hospital makes you much more likely to die.
Gwad in what looked like a promising dialectic right at the start (with kudos to Monster) concluded with the slippery slope argument, IE==we should not outlaw gun clips and assault weapons, nor require registration for ALL gun transfers because this is only a lie for the real goal of banning all guns.
Sadly==every position on any subject you can name is a slippery slope argument, uphill or downhill or even sideways, to some other proposition.
Why not argue each point on the slope on its own merits? Is it because you have a slippery slope to wanting no gun control at all?
Regardless, it is amusing that “the goal” of gun control is an interesting logical argument. Which is the better slipping landing point? Seems to me the gun control position would be “no guns” with whatever few exceptions would always be found, and the counter is “everyone with guns” with whatever few exceptions would always be found.
Which slippery slope resting spot strikes you as the better position?
As a side note, it struck me a few days ago the talk of gun murders hides another troubling issue–gun injuries. Over 100K injuries, non-lethal assaults by gun. Outrageous. Would there be more or less of these on the way to the final solution?
What final solution could actually work if we hypothesize it could even be reached? IOW—looking for remedies that at least logically and experience in other countries shows can work, versus remedies that on the pathway to achieving reveal more violence, death, and injuries than any other country?
Got two brain cells to rub together?
I think the laws we have now are both reasonable and sufficient.
Well–most people, including those with NRA membership disagree with you.
Why no background checks/verification on all sales?
Why no restriction on magazine size?
Why allow semi-automatic weapons?
You know–reasonable restrictions not prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?
You got any rationale, or just your opinion?
I have mixed feelings on background checks, but I’ll mention that the statistics regarding how many guns are sold without background checks are COMPLETELY bogus, based on unscientific surveys done during the Clinton administration (only a few hundred people were sampled, and they were asked for their OPINIONS, not provable facts.) Back in those days it was easy to get a Federal Firearm License, and there WERE a lot of disreputable dealers who caused most of the problems. That particular problem was taken care of years ago without much complaint from the pro-gun segment. But I’ll move on, because in the end, this is Yet Another Strawman that will only affect law abiding citizens and have no effect whatsoever on criminals or the crimes they commit.
WRT magazine size, (YAS), nothing is accomplished. Which is more dangerous, 20 bullets in two magazines or 20 bullets in one magazine? Be careful, your answer may reveal how little you actually know about the subject.
And… you don’t actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is, do you?
>Why allow semi-automatic weapons?
Because that is roughly every gun made in the last hundred years, other than the fully automatic weapons.
I think David Wheeler makes a huge leap in logic when he tries to connect the death of his son to the AR debate. His son and the rest of the victims at that school were murdered with a handgun.
I would suggest he is either mistaken or more likely has been compromised by some group with an anti-gun agenda.
I am unclear if this group of legislators were local,state or federal representatives. If they are federal the second amendment makes it quite clear that they have no power in this debate.
Except it is clear that reasonable gun restrictions as currently proposed are completely constitutional.
Truth hurts –whether delivered by an AR or a hand gun, or a logical argument.
GUNS KILL PEOPLE.
Idiots like guns.
Idiots kill people.
Simple. Too bad the injuries can’t be restricted to the self. That would show some justice in this universe.
Yea, verily.
“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.”
I would argue that most if not all currently proposed federal gun restrictions strongly infringe on this right
I don’t understand your “truth hurts” comment
Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming cars for traffic accidents or pencils for spelling errors.
Idiots also like bubble gum and long walks on the beach.
I have never known an idiot to kill anyone, moreover most of the gun debate seems to be surrounding mentally disturbed people. I would agree that murderous mentally ill people should not have access to guns but this would be much better handled on a more local basis then federal.
I would agree that one finger pointed at you leaves 3 pointed back at me is a great sentiment,however, when I left grade school I kinda left this thinking behind as well.
The comma(s) aren’t being interpreted right.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
People kill. Guns, autos,missles,bombs ect. are used in the act of killing. Take away the afore mentioned devices from responsible people and only the irresponsible criminal will possess and then use said weapons in acts of criminal behavior. An AR-15 sold to the common folk is much less powerful than a deer rifle. It may only hold 7 rounds but the damage done is greater. Hell a Ruger 10-22 fires a .22 caliber shell and if fired into the head, the bullet will ricochet in the skull.
In comparison a bullet from an .223 NATO round fired from a AR will likely pass right thru.
@jpfitz said:
“In comparison a bullet from an .223 NATO round fired from a AR will likely pass right thru.”
Not true.
The .223 is a small caliber round. The bullets are typically designed to deform and shatter on impact and stay within a human body.
That is why .223 is commonly used for military, you only wound the soldier vs kill requiring additional soldiers to take care of their wounded. 1 kill vs 3 or 4 to tend to the wounded.
The .223 is also common for police/swat style teams since the projectile does not typically penetrate most common wall structures. There are fewer casualties and less chance of injuring or killing another team member who is clearing an adjacent room.
For hunting, the .223 is little more than a varmint round often used for fox and coyotes. Hunting anything larger like deer and bigger should always be done with a proper larger hunting round.
From wikipedia .223 NATO round
Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. .
Considering this is DU I will say these families need to die so gun owners can return to their normal lives. Someone please end their miserable life so we can stop all this gun control madness. I need my automatic 10k round weapon. That roach deserves to die so I must have my gun. In fact, I’m making a high power concentrated laser gun as well.
It is this simple. Lets not do a single thing about gun or anything! It’s not going to help and it hasn’t help. Why bother when we can just let it be, that’s much easier. And yes, it takes a good guy with a gun to take out a bad guy with a gun….unless of course there’s no gun to begin with.
Or all criminals are born without arms.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ
I wonder why the committees don’t let people like this speak anymore.
Where ya been? Hard to watch tv and not have gun nuts declaring and detailing their paranoia. What the frick alternate universe are you trying to pretend exists?
Dolt.
You know–if you are being attacked by 300 people, what you really need is a 600 bullet magazine.
You know===create/report any special fact circumstance you need to in order to support gun fetish.
How about this fact pattern: 11,000 Murdered by guns in the USA where they are legal. 35-50 Murdered by guns in England or Australia where guns were legal but made illegal.
You know—-reality?
Booger! You still here? Move on, please.
Bobbo, of the murders you mentioned, how many were hand gun related?
How many were killed in the act of a crime, be it drugs, gangs, drive bys, or robberys?
These nuts of late are a minuscule portion compared to the bigger picture. Not that they aren’t horrendous. It’s just that the alphabet news outlets are using blinders. The real story oughta include the shootings in the poor hoods where most of deaths occur.
@bobb said:
“Murdered by guns in England or Australia where guns were legal but made illegal.”
Deflecting from the whole truth much?
England has the highest crime rate in the EU, and a high rate in the world.
Of course you just pick and choose your stats and choose “murder by gun” to make your post look good.
In England now they want to ban pocket knives and large kitchen knives because that has become the weapon of choice for criminals and killers.
Maybe you would be happy once they finally ban everything that could be used in a criminal act including sticks and stones.
New Rule : Please keep your examples to those earlier than two decades ago.
BTW, did you see angry white man John McCain grill Senator Hagel? Now THAT was interruption, disrespectful and occurred about 48 hrs ago.
I think you were watching Piers “Pea Mouth” Morgan.
I would but finding examples of people allowed to speak logic in front of politicians is becoming as rare as hen’s teeth.
What is an “unreasonably powerful” weapon? All firearms are designed to kill.
This guy needs to take a class in logic. How does a right of ordinary citizens to own semi-automatic rifles “come second” to the right of his son’s life? The one doesn’t have anything to do with the other.
RODEDOG in what is always a temporary tanget with reality says:
1/31/2013 at 7:32 pm
“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.”
I would argue that most if not all currently proposed federal gun restrictions strongly infringe on this right /// Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What counts regarding the wording and what it means of the 2nd Amendment is “what the Sup Ct” says it means. The Heller case said the 2nd Amend is not absolute==like all other rights, its balanced off against other rights. The Sup Ct said the 2nd Amend is subject to reasonable restraints. That is exactly why there are no Thompson Machine Guns for sale at KMart. Or bazookas, etc.
So–ask yourself: “What is reasonable?” Sad you have to ask yourself though. Reasonable people by definition know what is reasonable.
I don’t understand your “truth hurts” comment /// The truth is that guns kill people. That hurts the argument that guns don’t kill people.
Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming cars for traffic accidents or pencils for spelling errors. /// Its is “like that” for certain purposes and not like that for others. The defining different regarding deaths from autos is that cars provide significant societal benefits that 99% of people support. See the difference?
Idiots also like bubble gum and long walks on the beach. /// HEY!!! I like both those things. I admit its hard to do both at the same time, but at least I’m clear on gun control.
I have never known an idiot to kill anyone, /// hah, hah. A most subtle humorous point. I disagree, but the effort is worthy.
moreover most of the gun debate seems to be surrounding mentally disturbed people. /// No–just the most senseless. Still have gang violence and accidental to deal with. No strawman arguments/framing allowed.
I would agree that murderous mentally ill people should not have access to guns but this would be much better handled on a more local basis then federal. /// So, there is daylight between you and Wayne La Pierre? Keep walking.
I would agree that one finger pointed at you leaves 3 pointed back at me is a great sentiment,however, when I left grade school I kinda left this thinking behind as well. /// Hopefully, you didn’t leaving thinking at all behind?
so–answer those questions posed.
You agree to background checks.
Tell us—why should anyone be allowed to legally buy a 100 bullet magazine drum to go with any gun?
Why should anyone have access to a semi automatic?=====> Go ahead, tell us.
“Why should anyone have access to a semi automatic?=====> Go ahead, tell us.”
Well, since the default position is that citizens have a right to own them, what is the overly compelling reason why they should not? They look too scary? The onus is on you bud.
Gee SL–I said it 4-5 times now, its pretty clear that the Sup Ct thinks that reasonable restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights includes congressional/state ban of private ownership of Assault Rifles. Wasn’t that done after Regan got shot…then it was allowed to lapse?
Don’t confuse/conflate what our gutless Congresscreeps have been paid not to do with what the people want by clear majority with what the Sup Ct has already ruled.
that would not be prudent.
No, the Brady Bill was just a requirement for background checks. Clinton brought us the “assault” weapon ban.
Ok–I take your correction. But there is an admission in the gap?
Hah, hah.
SL–you’ll never win an argument favoring gun ownership as long as you restrict yourself to the facts and being honest.
Poor SL. Another victim of the truth.
I believe your position that “assault” weapons, really any rifle where a new round is automatically chambered, is from page 55 of the opinion. Scalia’s flow of reasoning is predicated on them being unusual within general society. So if evidence showed that semi-automatic rifles were not in fact unusual, then I’m guessing that you would need some other rationale to claim the power to ban them.
Just to be clear, as far as the feds are concerned you can own a fully automatic machine gun.
Just fill out ATF Form 4 (5320.4).
Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms. Yet they are arrested every day for possessing firearms.
People who want to have guns will have guns, even those who cannot pass a background check or an I.Q. test.
If the government bans certain kinds of firearms, there will be a black market for them. There already is.
Look at how well drug prohibition works. Alcohol prohibition was a total failure.
I feel real sorry for the parents that must deal with the grief of losing a small child to the acts of a sick mind, but there are a lot of sick minds out there, and this crime will be copied by others who have an axe to grind or seek five minutes of fame.
There will be another school shooting and another movie theater shooting and another mall shooting and another workplace shooting.
My brother-in-law shot himself in the mouth with a gun he kept in the glove box of the car because his wife was talking about divorce. He did it in front of his teenage kids. It was a selfish revenge tactic that left a family devastated.
There are deranged minds in the world. Guns did not create them.
Sorry to hear about your brother in law, and may your sister and family have the strength to heal.
That gun didn’t jump into that suffering and confused mans mouth. He made a choice and pulled the trigger. No law can change what a lot of people choose to do with their firearm. All this merry go round talk will not bring him back, or any of the Newtown kids. All this chatter does is make some who are suffering the loss of a loved one harder to heal and grieve.
jpfitz seemingly rationally challenging says:
1/31/2013 at 10:06 pm
Bobbo, of the murders you mentioned, how many were hand gun related? /// Don’t know….don’t care as it is irrelevant to most discussions. You do what you can….measure…. do more. Yes, there is no such thing as any position that is not slippery to some other position. All “universal” complaints are irrelevant. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!
How many were killed in the act of a crime, be it drugs, gangs, drive bys, or robberies? /// Again….don’t know. AND don’t know how such a percentage affects the issues at play. All such activities, as well as…. what?….mass murders for no personal gain other than massaging a psychiatric itch ALL REQUIRE a gun.
These nuts of late are a minuscule portion compared to the bigger picture. Not that they aren’t horrendous. It’s just that the alphabet news outlets are using blinders. The real story oughta include the shootings in the poor hoods where most of deaths occur. /// Yes, I see that argument cropping up. Is it meant to satisfy urge for a response to the 20 children killed at Newtown?…or what is the consequence of the point you are making?>>>that poor brown people don’t matter in the statistics? Why not?
GUNS KILL PEOPLE. You don’t even have to draw or connect dots. THERE is the dot==and it kills! You want to quibble and say there are two dots?……Ok. Two dots. 3-4-5-6-7 dots? Ok. GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Sport and Hunting don’t offset the harm. Most people agree. Hurst don’t it?
Ha, ha. Why not shit in the public water supply and counter that its a “freedom” issue? Hence the success of the propaganda campaign. Shit in the public water kills people and such activity is OUTLAWED. Should be the same with selling and owning guns. GUNS KILL PEOPLE. But you’ve been “mezmorized” into thinking is is a freedom issue. Of course…. it is. Same freedom issue as shitting in the public water—which is what gun ownership is.
Yea, verily.
Bobbo you see only part of the picture.
An ax is a deadly weapon.
An ax is a life saving tool when needed to cut wood to create warmth to fend off hypothermia.
A hammer is a deadly weapon.
A hammer is used in the construction of dwellings to keep people warm.
Bobbo I can go on and on.
Military fighter jets have one purpose, to kill or destroy an enemy, along with the effect of killing innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Bobbo, it’s the intended action or premeditation that makes almost any object deadly.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. A plastic keyboard could be a deadly weapon.
Yes, I’ll agree handguns are only good for killing humans, I reiterate that a person has to have intent, aim and then pull a trigger. If all the guns are taken away from law abiding citizens in this country, then only criminals will have the guns. And of course the military and law enforcement will have guns to serve and protect.
Civilian rifles are used for plinking at targets or killing game for food.
If your in the woods and stranded, without food and without technology most likely you can build a shelter and find water. Now say you had a .22, you could kill some rabbits and have a meal. If you had a deer rifle you’d have food for as long as the meat stays fresh. Heck, you could even make a blanket with the deer skin. See where this is going. Lead speeding at supersonic speeds may save your life.
Or one day in a movie theater some deranged nut-job may take you out. The odds of either scenario happening to you are very large numbers.
When it happens again (not if but when), watch how the media will find people pointing fingers. They will probably even put more bereaved relatives in the limelight who may sound intelligent but still not know a damn thing about the rule of law. You can be sure that these groups will AGAIN look at that same old scapegoat since it’s a whole lot easier than possibly admitting that they themselves might partly be to blame. Frankly, anyone who values violence and patronizes anyone else selling violence can take partial blame. (And don’t be so quick to disagree if you’ve EVER paid to watch an R rated movie.)
You can be sure that NO ONE will seriously look at any of the real causes such as the entertainment industry which glorifies violence or the immature/imbalanced minds violent media possibly affects. That may have something to do with the fact that the news agencies themselves are part of the very same entertainment monster. And anytime that monster can use sex or violence to gather an audience it will do it.
You can also be sure that NO ONE will take a good hard look at western society either. A society which has historically been very violent. Even now with 2 wars and a divided bickering government. A society that has never really been able to collectively find it’s HUMANITY!
I just love how Raymond Joseph Teller of “Penn and Teller” once put it (paraphrasing here), ” we are a society bent on spending money we don’t have, killing people we don’t know, and for principles we have no clue about. ” So is it any wonder there aren’t MORE mass killings when we accept violent behavior as part of every day life?! (Pun unintended.)
Be sure you are vilifying the right entity here. ONE mentally disturbed PERSON did this horrific act. And he was partly guided by, and certainly affected by a CULTURE and a SOCIETY of PEOPLE!
And if you still say guns kill people then you might as well finish that thought and say knives, cars, trucks, buses and even planes kill people. Hell! STD’s (sexually transmitted diseases) kill people too! And you can control THAT just the same as an AK47!