E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter a week of calls for tighter gun restrictions, the National Rifle Association called for putting more armed security officers in the nation's schools and expressed concerns about violence portrayed in video games, movies and music. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”
LaPierre made his lengthy statement to the press one week after the shooting that killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Conn.
Protesters twice interrupted LaPierre, who will appear this Sunday exclusively on NBC's "Meet the Press," holding signs reading "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS," and screaming that the gun rights group has "blood on its hands."
He said that elected officials had no authority to deny Americans the right and the ability to protect themselves and their families from harm.
And he noted that there are millions of active and retired police officers, military veterans, and private security guards – “an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens” – who should devise a protection plan for every school.
“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,” he said.
Disbelief in some quarters after NRA urges armed guards in schools
He said that laws that established gun-free school zones have had the effect of telling “every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”
LaPierre said America has left its schoolchildren “utterly defenseless -- and the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.”
He criticized Congress for not creating a national database of the mentally ill and called for increased federal prosecution of those who illegally possess guns.
LaPierre did not indicate that the NRA would support any additional restrictions on the sale or possession of guns. He ridiculed the idea that “one more gun ban or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people will protect us where 20,000 other laws have failed.”
Meet the Press moderator David Gregory says he will ask the NRA's Wayne LaPierre whether or not he's open to having a broader discussion about gun violence with President Obama.
He assailed the news media which he said had “demonized gun owners.”
And he said “the next Adam Lanza” is “waiting in the wings” and argued that copycat killers are encouraged by “a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave.”
He also criticized the video game industry and Hollywood movie studios for films such as “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers.”
Do you agree with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre? Sound off on the MTP Facebook page.
On Wednesday President Barack Obama asked Vice President Joe Biden to lead an effort that includes members of the Cabinet and outside organizations to devise concrete legislative gun restriction proposals by next month, “proposals that I then intend to push without delay,” Obama said.
He said he would “use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies” such as the shootings in Connecticut.
House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday said, “When the vice president's recommendations come forward, we'll certainly take them into consideration.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the author of the 1994 ban on certain types of semiautomatic firearms which expired in 2004, announced this week that she will introduce new legislation early next year.
Semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic weapons sometimes called “assault weapons,” fire one round per pull of the trigger.
Her bill would outlaw the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Feinstein would also outlaw large-capacity ammunition magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Her measure would also “grandfather” weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment and exempt more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes, according to a statement from her office on Monday.
The number of murders committed with guns has declined sharply in the past 20 years.
The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people. In 1993 the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people. The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.
Yet the shootings in Connecticut have raised the possibility that Congress might enact restrictive legislation that would incorporate the 1994 ban as well as measures to increase funding for treatment of mentally ill people.
It is not yet clear what specific legislation, in addition to Feinstein’s bill, will be proposed in Congress and which measures Obama would throw his weight behind.
He did say during the second debate with his Republican opponent Mitt Romney that he wanted to see “if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.”
He added, “What I want is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.”
The outcome of legislative efforts in the Senate may well be determined by Democratic senators from states where there’s strong support for the rights of gun owners.
Following the school shooting tragedy in Newtown, Conn., Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, says "vicious, violent video games" like "Mortal Combat" and "GTA," along with "blood-soaked films" like "Natural Born Killers," "bring criminal cruelty into our homes each and every day."
Sen. Joe Manchin, D- W.W., who was just re-elected in November, has given mixed signals on his readiness to support restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.
Manchin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday that, “I’m a proud NRA member and always have been. But we need to sit down and move this dialogue to a sensible, reasonable approach…. I don`t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don`t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting.”
But two days later in an interview with West Virginia talk radio host Hoppy Kercheval, Manchin seemed to edge away from his statement on Monday. Manchin said he was “not supporting a ban on anything. I'm supporting a conversation on everything."
When Kercheval asked Manchin if he regretted what he’d said on Morning Joe. "I'm saying it more articulate today," Manchin replied.
In addition to Manchin and another centrist Democrat, senator-elect Joe Donnelly of Indiana who has received NRA backing in past elections, there are half dozen Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014 who represent states that are more protective of gun owners’ rights, for example, Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska.
A long-dormant national conversation about guns has reignited: some are calling for an assault weapons ban while other feel guns themselves aren't the root of the problem. So far the shootings have sparked several gun buy-back programs and even an anti-gun video organized by big-city mayors – but the NRA says it's the entertainment industry that is partly to blame. NBC's John Yang reports.
Violence on TV & in movies IS a problem.
Follies in Follywood have profitted from it. And the blame game has started - it's going to be a shoot-out (no pun intended)
dude peeps in other countries see the same movies and tv shows and yet they aren't shooting up their schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters......
WellI guess the NRA's"meaningful contribution" is clear:
"It's anything but us"!!!
there are a number of problems:
- no comprehensive national background check.. right now its fragmented and doesn't include medical records
- no national hotline for concerned citizens to report people who might be dangerous and be taken seriously
- insurance companies limit mental health coverage to very small amounts... people who need mental health care can't get it
- school security is poor
two things he's right about though:
a) weapons bans do not work.... during the last ban gun violence did not go down.... and in the 8 years since it expired gun violence is down by HALF
b) you can make a huge impact by simply placing a uniformed officer in every school when students are there..... my city does it.... every school always has a uniformed officer....
everyone should go to their next city council meeting and demand a officer in every school.... it works....
Canada and Germany residents watch violent movies and music if not worse (death metal) yet they are some of the safest countries.
The NRA guy took the extreme narrow minded view I expected. He does not realize that kids go to shopping malls, parks, skating rinks and thousands of other places. Are we to believe that we need armed guards at all of those places too ? Our are kids really going to feel safe seeing men in uniform at their schools with guns hanging down ?
NRA, you are nothing more then a terrorist organization promoting violence.
It appears that immature gun enthusiasts are getting nervous about losing their pointless, yet deadly, playthings. Good. Their toys are killing America's children. Let the gun lovers weep so long as the parents and families of our nation's children don't have to.
Yes they are....and don't forget the bombing.
How about rounding up all of the right wing nut jobs and putting them in internment camps? They can then use their guns on one another as much as they want.
Only a low intellect think like you do....... What these MONSTERS want is to INSTALL an armed militia in every school much like they already own private commandos working for them abroad..... Of course the NRA will be willing to profit from others disgrace. Pity they can't be at the target of some of these loonies.
_________________________________________________________________________
Well said queenie,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,haven't seen to many issues lately of anyone being beat to death with a CD, mp 3 player, notebook , laptop computer, or flat screen TV.
.
That's is the hardware difference between Hollywood and the NRA.
.
All one really needs to look at are the gun laws in England and the comparative results relative the the U.S.
.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Bull@!$%#.
Let's say I'm 20 feet from you and I make a "gun" with my thumb and
forefinger, point it at your heart and yell BANG BANG, YOU'RE DEAD loud as I can and
sincerely wish with all my being that you die, you would still be totally fine.
But if I stand 20 feet from you with a loaded .45, point it at your heart
and pull the trigger twice, you would be totally dead. (And if there were
ten other people with you and I had a high capacity magazine I could kill
all of them as well.)
With a gun I could do that without any danger to myself, no muss, no fuss,
wouldn't even risk getting my hands bloody. But if I tried it with a knife,
club, axe, machete, cast iron frying pan or any number of other weapons of
passion, I would have to get down and dirty with you to kill you, and with a
20 foot head start you could probably just outrun me. Some of you could
simply overpower me. (Ten of you could take the weapon from me and put it
you know where!)
Guns make it far easier physically and emotionally to kill people, and some
guns make it very easy to kill many people very quickly. Guns DO kill
people.
(Disclaimer - I do own several guns, and guns are here to stay with 300
million of them already out there. But I'm certainly willing to accept
banning the most efficient of these killing weapons if it prevents just one
of these tragedies, while fully recognizing that won't prevent all of them.
Thousands more assault rifles and extended clips and magazines go out the
doors of gun shops every day that we dawdle.)
NRA and their culture of fear-good for the gun manufactures-bad for the rest of us.
And with a policeman in every school-who's gonna pay for that? Is LaPierre willing to-gasp-pay more taxes?
^^ The right wants armed guards posted everywhere. The right says Obama is turning this country into a police state. The right is a bit schizophrenic.
The NRA just put a loaded pistol to their temple and pulled the trigger.
I'll never forget back in the 80's when I heard about all of the turtles being stepped on by mustachioed Italian plumbers, and then throwing them at hapless mushrooms after the violent Super Mario Bros came out.
America might have never recovered without the regulations involving only professional basketball players being allowed to jump higher than a turtle's height.
On another note, if this guy wanted to cite violent movies for example, I think he should've used more recent examples than American Psycho...
“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,” he said.
Which means, we bare absolutely no role or responsibility for what happened. Sorry victims... if you get shot with an assault rifle (firing 100 rounds of amo is so needed), to bad...
Aren't most of the NRA Members republicans too? Those same republicans who do not want to pay for police officers let alone education in our schools too.
News Flash: Four killed, including gunman, in shooting incident in Pennsylvania.
This has been a breaking news update by PNN (Pigotry News Network) - 12/21/2012.
.
“With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”
And I thought Republicans wanted to cut spending. Oops, my bad!
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Not true. A good guy with a hand grenade or an rpg or a bazooka, etc., can also get the job done. So let's give everyone some of those as well. Also, let's send our kids to school wearing kevlar. Better yet,let's all just move to Syria where the NRA's vision of society leads anyhow...
I remember , it was in 1992-1994; a video game came out called kill a cop; the object was to hide and shoot police officers; we shown a copy to our agents at the office; there was stunned silence, when it was found out it was a hot selling item; why on Earth would some idiot produce a game where killing other person is the object to win the game ?
What a sad ignoramus. If video games and movies were the problem, then this would be by far the most violent generation of our times. It's not. It's the safest generation in a half century. Violent-crime rates and homicide rates are going down across the country and the civilized world. The only difference is that it's easier than ever for madmen to have access to highly effective killing machines.
And talk about personal responsibility, right? The GOP always says it's the party of personal responsibility and constantly ridicules Obama because, they say, he's always blaming everyone else. I hope they denounce and condemn this guy for playing the blame game with the same vigor they've been condemning straw-man Obama.
@Roger
You do realize that the police that protect you are trained by NRA programs, right? You do also know that the NRA is the organization that teaches children and adults gun safety courses-- free of charge. No one else does that. You are in denial if you think that the 300,000,000+ firearms are going away anytime soon. To demonize the organization that teaches safety and responsibility to the masses that enjoy firearms legally and safely is not only misguided, it's dishonest.
@Sailcat
Your posts continue to be painfully ludicrous. If you had taken an NRA course, you'd realize that guns aren't playthings or toys. Perhaps if you knew anything about firearms, you wouldn't be so opinionated against them. Instead, you're just another ignorant lemming that uses tragedies like this to knee-jerk some attention your way in an effort to stereotype people you don't agree with. You should be ashamed of yourself.
snake09, yet Canada has more guns (per person) than the US. So, what is the real solution?
"why on Earth would some idiot produce a game where killing other person is the object to win the game ?"
And why on earth would we as a society allow it to be legal to sell weapons to criminals, terrorists, or the mentally unstable?
It's a mental health issue, a culture of violence issue and an EASY ACCESS TO MILITARY WEAPONS ISSUE. Anyone denying that is either blind, stupid, crazy or all three.
Willie,
No that isn't what is being said here. CLEARLY, guns are the PRIMARY instrument of choice when these mass killings occur. However, over the past 30 years the profile of "The Mass Killer" has changed. 30 years ago, it was most commonly a 35 - 55 year old male who had been fired from his job before his retirement pension became eligible. Hence the term "Going Postal" as most often these were Post Office or Government employees. Then came the 80s and 90s where 25 - 40 year olds who wanted to make a political statement or lash out at the world of academia. Oklahoma City and the Uni-Bomber are just a few who come to mind here. More recently, however, we are seeing 17 - 24 year olds over and over again becoming the common profile of such crimes. Columbine, VT, Colorado etc etc... The common thread of all these individuals is they had access to guns and explosives as in the Columbine case. Also, THEY WERE ALL AVID VIOLENT VIDEO GAMERS.
Hell, yes, let's do something about guns (The instrument of choice); however, to disregard what is happening to children's brains being subjected to violence on a recurring basis is obviously a catastrofic concern to responsible people seeking change.
Today, we care more about the brains of multimillion dollar football players than we do 8, 9 and 10 year old kids who "practice" killing hundreds of cyber victims each day on these game platforms.
Why do we need these games? Do they help them become better young people one day? Do they help them become more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of others? Do they help them get a JOB one day?
The answer here is rhetorical... We all know the answer! This isn't healthy entertainment by any stretch of the imagination to a young developing brain which according to the American Medical Association continue to develope until about the age of 25 in males.
Unleash the Zimmermans with AR-15's in schools.
Put them in theaters.
In Malls.
In Universities.
In front of a grocery store.
Wayne's World.... that's his "solution"
I honestly don't understand. Let me get this straight... We're supposed to allow guns everywhere to protect ourselves, ultimately as the gun lovers argument always comes down to, against some sort of a drastic and diabolical government movement, yet according to the NRA we're also supposed to put armed government men and women in every one of our schools to protect our children from madmen with guns? Please, somebody tell me what sense any of this makes?
Chip Clip: "I'll never forget back in the 80's when I heard about all of the turtles being stepped on by mustachioed Italian plumbers, and then throwing them at hapless mushrooms after the violent Super Mario Bros came out."
My computer screen thanks you for the coffee bath it just got. LMAO
NRA blames media, music and more for culture of violence
What an idiotic statement to make...
I support GUN RIGHTS, but there should be strict rules as to who gets them.
Mentally unstable folks should never be allowed to be around GUNS, period.
Texans are armed to the teeth to protect themselves, but it is quite rare to come across a retard with any Gun, let alone a semi-automatic one.
A few deranged folks should not create a picture that all of us responsible Gun owners are deranged....
But I do agree, there's been many shootin for something to be done and quick...something short of stripping every Gun ownership rule in the book
The NRA has a vision for America. It looks a lot like Somalia, Afghanistan, and similar countries where armed thugs roam at will. Can't have enough guns. Guns. Guns. Guns. With open carry, no limits, guns everywhere. We haven't had enough dead children, dead teachers, dead cops, dead moms. We should all live in fear, sitting ducks unless we have guns strapped to our sides. How pathetic. Live in fear gun owners. "cause the real threat to your life is your own insanity, the insanity you promote with your idols, the mighty guns that provide no security at all. Live by the sword, die by the sward. It's practically biblical.
We're living through yet another example of conservative wishful thinking. Ask the Japanese who cheated to avoid the cost of environmental controls, or the Middle East rulers who let their people starve while they piled up excess wealth. The future will only be as bad as you make it by trying to avoid the real costs of progress. A civilized society shouldn't need guns, and certainly shouldn't arm crazies and criminals. But that's what we do. But that's the conservative way, isn't it? Create a disaster and find some way to blame anyone but the guy in the mirror. Cowards? Fools? Greedy? or just stupid? And I don't mean them . . . I mean us . . . for refusing to vote with our brains. It's time to recognize this isn't a vision for America. It's a vision for disaster.
If only Adam Lanz mother had a gun she could have stopped all this before it began.
Ugh.....It takes someone that is f-ing crazy to shoot up a school. Laws for the masses should not be touted on the actions of the few especially when those few are lunatics. The only law that needs to be made is one that holds the person who allowed the mentally ill person to obtain a firearm responsible for their claims civilly. My bet is that a lot more people would secure their guns properly and dealers would take into account something other than the profit of their sale.
"I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don't wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them."
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" it has to do with the right to defend yourself. When it was written it was written to address the British Colonial Monarchy which had a single King ruling over his subjects. It's intent was to acknowledge that individuals not just kings had an already existing right to defend themselves.
The founders wrote the 2nd amendment to secure that right, and to ensure that no king could ever “rule” over subjects in America. That’s made clear by this quote:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Actually that's not true... it's been the bad guy blowing his own brains out after he's killed multiple people.
i wonder how far up his ass did he have to reach for that... maybe that's why the waited so long to say something.
NRA = Sociopathic Terrorists.
Many of the blamers at NRA and elsewhere are older, and with regards to older generations, gun violence indeed might have a bit more to do with Hollywood. But society should be aware that influences change over generations, and these days, it seems the younger breed of recent mass-shooters have usually been of personality types that tend to be addicted to violent video games, either loners by themselves or online with "virtual friends and enemies".
So is all the talk about changes to gun control about protecting the overall population or is it about politics. If we are really concerned about protecting people we would outlaw cell phones. According to the CDC (not sure why they track this) 15 people are killed each day due to use of cell phones in cars talking and or texting and get this 1200 people each day are injured by cell phone use in cars. Yet I haven't heard any outcry against getting rid of cell phones. We have lots of places that have passed laws about using cell phones in school crossings some states have passed laws about texting yet the numbers dying and being injured each year are dramatically increasing. Talk about changes to current gun laws is ok but let's not have a knee jerk reaction.
The Founders also wrote the words, "well regulated."
Regardless, the Second Amendment was an instrumental device to guarantee democracy two-hundred years ago, but it isn't necessary today. We are not in peril of being taken over by an evil king. Neither are the hundreds of millions of Europeans who live in monarchic democracies and enjoy as many freedoms as we do. (If not more, according to international democracy rankings.)
Today's world doesn't need every citizen to be armed.
SERIOUSLY ??? Where is your head Wayne???.....What happened to our CIVILIZATION, our great nation? Must all children then we wearing bullet proofed vests to school? I am waiting to you offer to finance all of this nonsense-- Licensing, Training, Weapons, an endless supply of Munition, & Bullet proof vests for one and all. As a member of WAAR I am oppose to this ridulous comment from the NRA.
"...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other..." -- John Adams
---------------
FALLACY THINKING = The founding fathers could have never predicted...
---------------
1570...221 years before 1791
..the destructive capability of today's dynamite, flintlocks, electricity
..the destructive capability of books & newspapers vs Church doctrines
..the destructive capability of ciphered letters, postal system, optical telegraph
2012...221 years after 1791
..the destructive capability of today's semi-auto pistols & rifles (2nd)
..the destructive capability of today's television opiate of the masses (1st)
..the destructive capability of today's communications with phones, email, and satellites (4th)
---------
THAT JUSTIFIES = Mob appetite to restrict basic Constitutional rights
---------
"......They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety......" -- Benjamin Franklin
The Five Rules of Propaganda:
The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
Example: Never Stop Asking Questions NRA = Sociopathic Terrorists.
Armed guads in schools. First, who's going to pay for them? The NRA? LOL.... Okay, second, this guard has a 9mm on him and he's going to go up against an assault rifle?!? Yeah, guess who's going to win that one.
Here's the big question - who funds the NRA? Contrary to what the average rube believes, it's not its members. Most of its funding come from 22 gun manufacturers, 12 of which manufacture assault weapons. That's all you really need to know. The NRA's memberships are the gun manufacturers pawns.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf
Of course movies and video games are the problem and not firearms. I hear about people killing other people with video games and movies every day!
- this message brought to you by the NRA, a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers
I don't know. It's not legal in the US either.
The NRA is correct. Any new gun ban will be useless. It won't do a damn thing to stop the criminals, terrorists and mentally unstable. It will be nothing be feel good legislation which is what we've come to expect from the left.
These things don't happen just because Americans own guns. They happen because Americans are greedy, selfish, demand satisfaction NOW and expect someone else to give them what they feel is their due.
I wish people would grow up and get a clue. This will not help. If anything it will hurt. Stop being scared of an object that can't move on it's own. Just grow up and learn you have to be able to take care of yourself in every way. (Food, housing, clothing, safety, etc.) If we all can do that we will be fine. If we can't no amount of legislation will protect us.
Right now people are asking the one group that has the worst record for protecting people there is in this country to protect us. That's just nuts.
@ngeotta
It is not dishonest to speak my mind, if you don't like it .... so what.
I am so sorry for your paranoia about losing your gun rights. At least allow me to feel paranoid around you gun owners.
300.000.000 million guns is 300.000.000 guns to many
I own guns which, according to a lot of you, I am now a Gun Nut Whacko right?!
Now, here are some statistics for you "Anti" Gun Nut Whacko's...
Last year there were approximately;
So, what do we have the most and least problems of from the above categories?! Give me, my friends and the NRA a Fk'n break man. (Or not)
You guys continue to compare the USA with other countries. If you don't like what you see here, then go and "Live" that country where you like it but stop complaining about something you don't like here in the US and how much more you like something in another country unless you're saying bye bye....
The problem is some people say "Oh" you popped a hole in him and that must of really hurt just before he died.
It's the process in which they died that people want to ban guns. Lung Cancer is a long drawn out slow death. Extremely painful.
Some of the anti-gun posts above totally crack me up man. Heh heh.......
Haggbingo, & any of you anti-gun people...
Care to ban anything else?! It only makes sense in today's society to ban the highest level of danger right?! RIGHT!!!??
By there statement with everybody else not taking action, makes them just as much at fault or more. They will not accept any responsibility!
Liberals once again prove that they cant accept statistics or facts. Gun bans have never helped us nor any other country. Switzerland has their people carry guns, and they have very low gun deaths. Present one statistic or proof from our country that shows that this ban will do any good in the US. Just one. Its pathetic to always use a tragedy to push your agenda of fear.
don97524,
How ignorant can you be. Libs are ONLY using fear in their argument. We have stats to show what we are saying is right. What you guys have is 20 dead kids you want to exploit.
The NRA acts in the interests of the gun manufacturers and dealers far more than than act in the interests of the average gun owner. There is no doubt that the NRA is a skillful interest group, but there is also no doubt that the NRA's interests are counter to the best interests, safety and security of this country.
The NRA's major weapon is fear. The politicians fear being cut off from NRA contributions and NRA opposition in the election process. Elected officials and those who seek elective office who favor limits on gun ownership are characterized as anti-Constitution and worse. Because of the NRA "participation" in the election process the tendency has been to elect politicians who reflect the NRA leadership view far more than they represent the wishes of the average citizen or the average NRA member.
The NRA also effectively uses fear to induce citizens to buy guns, buy more guns, buy more powerful guns, buy larger capacity ammunition magazines, more damaging bullets, etc., etc. There are two major aspects to these fear tactics, both based on lies and exaggeration: (1) The fear that the government will not allow future purchases of firearms, or at least certain types of firearm, and (2) the fear of "home invasion" and other criminal activities. In order to increase the level of fear the NRA quotes bogus statistics which include virtually any uninvited person onto private property as a "home invasion." Although it is strictly true that when a neighbor kid comes into your garage to steal a bicycle is an invasion of your home, if you believe that that is justification for lethal force you should be denied the right to possess ANY firearm.
Ok we ban the guns...Now the good guys dont have any weapons to protect themselves and their families from the bad guys that has guns and broke into their homes...Now what do they do to protect themselves and their from these thugs...Oh yeah, we ask them if they like a cup of coffee and then let them do whatever their agenda is...Like rob, rape and then kill us...This person (Adam) wanted to buy a gun or two, but was turned down because he refused to let them do a background check on him...He still managed to get his weapons elsewhere...So how is this banning the weapons is going to help...There will always be ways of getting it...Just like with drugs, it always will be there to get...
I have a problem with the National database for the mentally ill statement. I thought we were supposed to have some sort of privacy with our doctors. I can see if someone has violent tenancies and was involuntarily put away then released. What I don't see is putting lets say a woman who had Post par-tum depression after childbirth being put on a list. Or a person with OCD?
Or a kid with ADHD being put on a list. There are many forms of mental illness. Not all are violent. So who gets to make up what information the Government gets to see. How is this supposed to help people overcome the stigma of a mental disorder? So they seek treatment?
I can see it now people not getting the help they need out of fear of being labeled Crazy.
Hearing lots of "problems"...lol.
The real and only problem is stupid parents. Stupid parents raise stupid children. Stupid children grow up to be stupid adults, then have stupid children of their own.
Stupid people are stuck in an infinite loop. There is no escape for them.
A family legacy of stupidity ultimately leads to mass shootings in places that do not allow law abiding citizens to carry their own weapons.
If you disagree, check your family history for stupidity. It is no doubt in there somewhere.
For instance, a mother who has a clearly mentally and psycologically challenged child must be incredibly stupid to load up the home with guns and bullets.
That may sound heartless but that is the fundamental problem, period.
Ok, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler....
This is the bigoted bull@!$%# we see from the gun control crowd. Shove that up your ***.
Finally! Someone who gets it. The NRA is right. We already have an armed presence on our streets, in our airplanes, on armored trucks, around our president, under the counter at convenient stores, in our homes, and around liberal, Hollywood elites. H_ll, we already have armed guards at inner-city high schools. Never heard the liberals complain about that one!
And it would not cost anything. Each town / city takes a cop and puts them in a school during school hours. They are understaffed? So what. Do it anyway. I own a business and I have to make do in bleak times too.
The Root cause of the mass shootings is a break down in proper mental health care in America. If we can not repeal obama care then it should be utilized at the very least to address proper mental health care.
Remove the problem and you solve the problem. There are many ways we can make sure the mentally unstable never have any access to guns. Emotional reaction to gun control is not part of the solution it is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Never having access means they will never even have the opportunity to steal them. There are many ways to make sure they NEVER have access to Guns of any sort !!!!!!
Are you absolutely sure about that.
While the focus of our thoughts currently is the Newtown tragedy, it is the larger problem of gun violence in our country that needs to be addressed. We need stricter gun regulation to reduce the frequency of all gun violence, of which school shootings are part of. Does the NRA propose that we place armed guards at every street corner, in every store, every place of public gathering? Do we essentially succumb to the bad guys with guns, and create a police state just to control gun violence? I prefer that my child attend a school free of heavily armed guards. I'd rather that we seek a solution to the problem, rather than roll over and give up. Look around the world at other democracies that have strict gun control in place. They have a small fraction of the gun violence that we have, and sportsman continue to enjoy the use of their guns for the sporting pursuits they enjoy.
I've said it before, and will continue to say it. The NRA does not represent the gun owning public. They represent the gun manufacturers, and they lobby for them. The NRA receives significant income from gun manufacturers, and uses a portion of that money to lobby congress. As lawmakers begin to walk back their statements on gun control, as Sen. Manchin has, you can be sure that the NRA has influenced (rather threatened) them with withdrawal of contributions and support for opponents that run against them. Does the NRA offer programs for gun education? Sure, but don't be confused as to the NRA goal of all guns being available, to allow gun manufacturers maximum profit, while innocent people die at an alarming rate every day.
@ Creek dog
165000 smoking deaths, all which were caused by people making the choice to smoke.
75000 alcohol deaths, all which caused by people making the choice to drink.
43000 auto deaths caused by people driving to work, school and perhaps to a funeral related to someone dying because of a gun crime.
8580 people dead with no choice... murdered with a gun.
Some of the Pro-gun posts above totally crack me.
Try taking armed guards away from banks, stadiums, lawmakers and the president.... see where that takes you. However, our schools are gun free zones??? Armed guards can't protect our kids???
Strict gun control has sure helped the Mexicans.....NOT!!!!
Honestly....Did anyone expect anything different from the gun manufactures lobbyist. His solution is more and more guns with bigger and bigger mags. Sounds like good news for the manufactures.
NRA Motto:
When all else fails, point the finger elsewhere.
its a shame that the liberals are using such a tragic event to push their political agenda they have tried to push for years... Everything this guy said is true and every person in the world knows it, now if you honestly want to save our people in this country listen and change some of teh things he is talking about and stop with your agenda of trying to take away law abiding citizens guns. It is nothing to do with reality nor what hapened at this school. The fact is everything that kid did that day was against the law and it didnt stop anything, but if those teachers were armed the kid wouldnt have got off his first shot. Its criminals killing people not the gun and you will NEVER keep guns away from criminals I know I was a police office 20 years, and when someone wants to kill they will try it no matter if it with fertilizer like in OK or with a gun or a knife, you have to change our social make up with all th eviolance just as this guy is saying if you want to save our country. You kicked god out of school and out of teh public and made everything about vilolence and now ou wonder why these mass murders are happening.. Look in the mirror folks we have to change. My guns have never run out the door to shoot at someone... but a criminal could steal them and use them it doesnt mean you take them from me so he cant it means you focus on changing his way of thinking which is influenced by our society. come on you people know that is correct stop with the political agenda already you are destoying our nation by not doing what is right.
How can anyone listen to this dude; is F-ing Craaaaaaaaazy?
He almost quoted Homer Simpson, "This is everybody's fault but mine."
When I grew up in the 60s, they blamed the violence then, on reruns of The Three Stooges and TV shows like Mannix.
And let's say one of these gun-toting volunteers has a mental health meltdown........
Remember Carl Rowan?
Rog,
"8580 people dead with no choice... murdered with a gun."
LMFAO!!! What a dumb post! LOL!
So according to you, none of the 40 gangbangers killed in Chicago last weekend had a choice?!?!?! LMFAOI
Liberals are a funny bunch! LOL!
I have felt that why about Obama people the last four years.
Hilary is sneaking out the baclk door before she has to testify about the dead american and they bring in john kerry the Vietam Veteran. What a joke.
Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate because virtually all 20-30 year old males are considered part of the national militia and receive significant gun training. Perhaps you should understand the facts before you start using that country as an example. Far too many of the military-type weapons owned by US citizens are "justified" by the goofy idea that they are protecting themselves FROM the government. Anyone who arms themselves AGAINST the government is a danger to all of us.
Perhaps both sides are using fear as a tactic. The difference is that fear based on 26 dead teachers and 6-7 year old children is a good deal more real than the fake statistics promulgated by the NRA.
Differnet,
Many schools have and have had security guards for years. This isn't a new concept. Regarding your 9mm vs "assault rifle" there is no difference. They are both semi-auto firearms. The better trained person would win. Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to pay for enforcing the bands?
Who cares who donates to the NRA? They are no different then any other organization. The people who believe in what they stand for, in this case the 2nd amendment, donate money to that cause. The NRA being the largest membership organization in the country should tell you something.
I want everyone to know that if every dam federal or goverment office can have an armed officer than the schools should have one also. These kids r our future. They r young and cant protect them selves. Damn america wake up. This really makes me mad. If we dont put an officer in our schools then we r just telling copy cats that its alright, go ahead, theres no cop in school. doors r open. Let not let them win.
When a person can obtain guns illegally, what good are more regulations? I think parenting is also an issue. So many of us have become so busy, that we're not really paying attention to our children. We're present, but not engaging with them. It's ok to play video games & watch movies with them and talk about it. It's not okay to allow these things to raise your children for you.....to keep them out of you hair, so we can work, socialize, etc. And I do think the media plays a huge role in this. If this Adam Lanza kid was as shy and awkward as they described him, the media certainly helped him make a name for himself. Same as the Columbine shootings, Aurora shootings, etc. I can tell you the names of the shooters (or shooter), but not one of the victims. Don't get me wrong, they are responsible for their own actions, but they also know....make it mass and horrific & they'll be infamous.
And for those retired military, law enforcement officers, etc. who have volunteered their time to stand guard at the schools, thank you.
Gun control advocates are circling like vultures over Sandy Hook using the tragic death of these children to further their political objectives. I think I will go outside and puke.
I did not know you spoke for me..... No, I do not know it . . .
That is perhaps the most naïve statement I have ever seen here on the Newsvine. I think you are one of the people the guy was talking about today, to many video games.
Why do you liberals hate little kids? I think they are worth protecting. And we already have armed guards in inner-city high schools. How come I never hear y'all b_tching about that?
If I were the idiot speaking for the NRA, this is what I would have said instead of being a monkey puppet for the Faux News viewers:
To save the country money. We can't afford police in every school. We should start teaching kids at a very early age. All 5 year olds - before they can enter into kindergarten - they must be trained in how to use a firearm - and they must be packing their own heat to defend themselves - or they can not attend public school.
Don't forget to duck & cover. Gots to go. I don't want to miss Benghazi update # 6979 .
Thank You Very Much - God Bless America - Merry Christmas everybody or whatever you do!
Look what was happening in Pennsylvania literally while Lapierre was speaking. An armed man killed 4 people and maimed 3 included armed State Troopers. What makes people think that more people with guns will work?
http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-...
Roger, there are armed guards right now in malls. Saw two police officers carrying huge machine guns patrolling one of the nicest malls in Texas. No one was bothered by it.
There are usually armed guards at jewelry stores in malls. No one seems bothered by it.
The NRA gentleman is correct. Practically every major gathering place has armed security except our schools. These teachers and children are defenseless. And please, if an armed guard is at the school he/she will not be parading around with the weapon out. It will be concealed.
It's funny how certain people complain about guns and yet they themselves have armed bodyguards. Rosie McDonnell is a prefect example. She went on a rant about guns, saying how dangerous they are, no one should carry guns, blah, blah, blah. Days later it was reported she had armed bodyguards at all times protecting her and her family. What?????
Sorry Rosie, if guns are good enough for your bodyguards to protect your family then they are good enough for me to protect my family.
Michigan Elementary School
"Andrew Kehoe" obsessed with "Govt Property Taxes" took his anger out and blew up an elementary school in Bath Michigan in 1927
44 People Died, 38 Elementary Children Died, 6 Adults, 58 Injured --- NO GUN INVOLVED
Oklahoma City Federal Building
"Timothy McViegh" acting out of revenge for govt murders at "Waco & Ruby Ridge" took out his anger and blew up the Alfred P. Murrah FBI building in 1995
168 People Died, 16 Children, 680 Injured ---- NO GUN INVOLVED
World Trade Centers & Pentagon
"19 Saudi Arabian Nationals" hijacks 4 Jumbo Jets and crash them at 500 mph into to these building and destroyed them. in 2001
2,996 People Died, 6,000 Injured --- NO GUN INVOLVED
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEEN THERE DONE THAT - Gun Bans Don't Work --- $10 Violent Tax Per Movie Scene with a Gun
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger:
"
@ Creek dog
165000 smoking deaths, all which were caused by people making the choice to smoke.
75000 alcohol deaths, all which caused by people making the choice to drink.
43000 auto deaths caused by people driving to work, school and perhaps to a funeral related to someone dying because of a gun crime.
8580 people dead with no choice... murdered with a gun.
Some of the Pro-gun posts above totally crack me."
What about the deaths of people who never smoked, and developed disease from second-hand?
What about all the deaths of SOBER people from drunk-driving accidents? What about the amount of domestic abuse stemming from alcohol?
Idk if you are just going after AR's or all guns, but you know what? When a man comes into my apartment, and does whatever to me, I WON'T HAVE A CHOICE WITHOUT MY GUN. Been there, done that, f**k that, I'm keeping my gun. :)
don97524,
You are wrong yet again, which isnt suprising since your side never presents facts or stats, just fear. Banning guns or concealed carry, etc, has always had an increase in gun crimes. Ask Chicago how the mayors ban is doing. Or New York, or LA, etc. The same day the school shooting happened, another shooting was stopped by a carrying person. Banning guns only takes them away from law abiding citizens. You guys have nothing but fear and ignorance on your side. Way to exploit dead children POS.
If there was an armed guard at the school, the only difference in the outcome is that there would be one more dead adult. And the cost of adding an armed guard, of course, will be footed by the NRA?
Fortunately, we don't have to listen to the NRA, because their president is Wayne LaPierre - that's a French name - and according to conservatives all French people are our enemies and sissies (remember, with the Iraq War, if you're not with us you're against us).
Another knee jerk reactionary response to one of many atrocities that have occurred in our country. We don't need more police in our schools, as it only perpetuates and instills in our young that government is a police state! Obey us!!!! We ban teachers from bringing weapons to school with them. How would this atrocity have played out if there was a teacher who was properly trained on their weapon and was able to defend themselves? What would the frame of mind be of the attacker, not knowing, who might be carrying a weapon! The attackers frame of mind is the actual point here, as our government in its infinite wisdom has allowed individuals with mental issues, to be able to make their own decisions under the guise of freedom of choice. They no longer want to take medication, want to live on the street, and no longer want medical treatment! These people are diagnosed or should be if there is a mental issue, and are thereby unable to make sound decisions! In reality a way to save government monies from the hospitalization and treatment of these individuals. Yes, there are numerous classifications under DSM that do not have violence attributed to them. Then there are ones that do have violent tendencies and doesn't the government not have the duty to keep all citizens safe, from others and from themselves?! We have raised our awareness so much that we should be able to rely on Doctors, advocates, family and friends,to be insured that these individuals are receiving the help they need. I currently am not an owner of a weapon, but do believe that we should be able to own one and defend ourselves. I do believe that we should also have backgroud checks of all sales of weapons, and that all people who own weapons should be trained in the proper use of weapons and receive their concealed weapons permit at the end of that training{ the unfortunate part to that is you have a DeFacto registration list of all potential gunholders}! Yes, I am now planning on owning a weapon again and getting my concealed weapons permit to protect myself and others in the event I am involved in one of these atrocities. A former vet that had a secondary mos of 76y30-armorer.
Scott Wendover some schools in my city already have cops in them....what about movie theaters....we gonna put snipers in the balconies with infra-red scopes next????
John:
"If there was an armed guard at the school, the only difference in the outcome is that there would be one more dead adult. And the cost of adding an armed guard, of course, will be footed by the NRA?"
You must be an amazing clairvoyant. It only takes ONE shot to take someone down, whether they're carrying an AR or not.
Tatiana,
You say;
"Only a low intellect think like you do....... What these MONSTERS want is to INSTALL an armed militia in every school much like they already own private commandos working for them abroad..... Of course the NRA will be willing to profit from others disgrace. Pity they can't be at the target of some of these loonies."
We are talking about POS little mental cowards. They wouldn't have the b_lls to try something like that. They would rather kill little children and unarmed people in places where legal gun owners are not allowed to carry. Why don't you come target some NRA boys....bet you don't get past the first one..lmao!
And it is "thinks like you do" you self proclaimed Einstein. Like I tell my boys, if you are going to call other people stupid you need to sound intelligent yourself.
Excuses, excuses, excuses! How out of touch with reality is the NRA and its members?
So if a person is drowning you pour more water on them? Sickos!
The NRA doesn't MAKE ANY LAWS, or create policies. You can't put all of this on them. They also promote and teach gun safety, responsible ownership and restrictions and background checks for gun purchasers. They can't regulate the thugs who buy them off the streets, black market, or steal them, or the weapons coming in through Mexico. The NRA can only follow the laws, not ENFORCE the gun laws that are already on the books. It's NOT the NRA who is pulling the trigges on guns used in crimes or anything else. Find another scapegoat to pin these murders on. Let's start with the "entertainment" industry, lack of mental health facilities, fractured families, no respect for laws or authority or life itself, unemployment, greed....I guess it's just more convenient to point the finger at anything OTHER than the root problems. We've had guns around for centuries without all of these murders and tragedies, so it's not the gun, it's the hands holding the guns and the influences of the times. And I'm not a pistol packin' momma...I don't own a gun and I don't want to own a gun.
You failed to say what you think I am wrong about, but all you have done is spout the same tired bumper-sticker philosophy that the NRA has used for generations. Most citizens are smart enough to understand that we don't become safer by increasing the number of guns, the firepower of those guns and the number of people who carry those guns. You are not one of those smart people.
The simple fact that you choose to ignore that the United States has more weapons and more powerful weapons in the hand of more untrained people than any developed country in the world and we have a gun death rate of about 30,000 a year which we have richly deserved because we follow the gun policies of the NRA. You are a lackey, a dupe, a water-carrier for the NRA and, as such, share in the guilt for that high gun death rate. Congratulations!
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-an-assault-weapons-ban-wont-work-2012-12
Jessicale,
You go girl and have a great Christmas!
Haggbingo,
Why you always
Is there anyone more selfish than a gun enthusiast? It doesn't matter to them how many innocent people...including young children...die each year just as long as they can acquire arsenals of deadly playthings. Gun control in the US is an idea that has taken far too long to become a reality,l but that is going to change soon. The American people are sick and tired of being slaughtered on the alter of the Second Amendment. Gun control. It's the right thing to do, even if gun enthusiasts whine about it.
@Jeesicale
You certainly make a valid point about second hand smoke. There is no denying it is an issue. But, I responded to blanket statements about guns, not specifics statements about smoking. This is not about smoking, it is about guns. I`ll post about smoking in the smokers section.
Thanks for the comment.
Blaming the NRA is just plain stupid, and another excuse. shere is the blame on the individuals who do these crimes? Banning guns will not work although I believe there is no reason for any private citizen in this country to have an assualt rifle. Those do need to be banned. Bad people will always find a way to get the weapons they want. I honestly do not know what the answer is to this type of violence. Playing the blame game certainly isn't it. It's time for this country to come together, dems and repubs, to find some answers.
On the same day of the tragedy in Newtown, a 36 year old villager of village of Chenpeng, Henan Province in China went into a school with a machete and stabbed 23 kids and one adult. The same thing happened four other times in China in 2010. Crazy, determined people will commit mass violence. They don't need a gun to do it.
Guns are not the problem. Guns don't kill people by themselves. People with weapons kill people. A car driven by a drunk driver can become as dangerous as a weapon. We already tried to ban alcohol in this country once, but it didn't work. Maybe we should ban the cars, too. Why stop there? Let's ban hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers and knives. NONE of these objects can kill anyone by themselves. In all the years I've owned a car. It never started up on it's own and tried to run over me. I've never seen the knives in my kitchen jump out of the dishwasher or the drawer to stab me. I've never been chased by any of my hammers.
LaPierre is RIGHT. We should put armed guards in schools. I'm willing to go further. We should arm the school principals. We put armed air marshalls on planes and armed pilots after 9/11 - skilled professionals who have lots of training and education. There haven't been any more hijackings. School principals are people who are skilled professionals who have lots of training and education. If the principal at Sandy Hook had been armed, she may very well have been able to stop and/or minimize this tragedy.
Long live the NRA. I don't own a gun yet, but I will and I'll be joining the NRA today.
@haggis...They all ready tried that tactic, it got shot down in court. All you unpatriotic Americans want to give up your most essential of liberties, go right ahead. But please dont offer up mine, because there is going to be a big problem.
With serving military personnel returning home, without the prospect of employment, they already have the "Rules of Engagement" enstilled in their minds. These are the same persons who fought for our freedoms every single day for past years. I'm sorry, but an armed gunman/woman would think twice before entering a school where there would be armed former military personnel. And it would be at the expense of the FED. These men and women would serve well as they did in the open field of battle.
You CANNOT blame the NRA for the craziness that is caused by people who should not have guns. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO. If you bury a gun in the dirt it will do nothing but rust and become inoperable. It takes physical contact to make that weapon operate. G. Gordon Liddy would agree. As the VP of the NRA stated, 20000 guns laws have done nothing. What will more do? NOTHING. Just like the war on drugs has done. Even inmates get drugs in prison.
One last thought. My farm has a sign on every boundary. 'If you can read this, you're in range".
By the posts of several people on here the problem has been identified, its all the NRA's fault. Wow that was easy. Its not mental health issues, breakdown of family structure, violent video games and movies, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, and the list goes on. None of these play any part in the commission of violent acts. Its all one central cause, give me a break. Several people on here say armed guards are not the answer. Well how do you propose to stop someone in the process of committing a terrible act, yell stop, step in front of them and catch a bullet? The only way to stop deadly force is by the use of deadly force. I'm sorry our world has come to that but its the reality.
don97524,
Wow you're pathetic. Nothing to back up your claims at all. Yes we have some of the highest gun crimes. Im not part of the NRA, nor do I own a gun. I simply have statistics and historic facts that have absolutely proven that gun bans have always seen either an increase in gun crimes, or a smaller decrease in than in areas where there was no ban when crime dropped nationally. Yes we have more shootings in the US, but there are less shootings in places where there are more guns, and more in places with less as well. Ask Mexico or the Russians how their gun ban went. Please present to me just one bit of proof that shows that gun bans, no matter what type of gun, has ever had a positive effect on crime. There are dozens that show the opposite effect. And a majority of them, are not from the NRA, they are simply informed, something you are not. And who are these smart people that know this? What sources do they have? The same ones that use dead kids to force through their ignorant legislation? Again, you're pathetic.
While I don't support gun control, I do not like the NRA. It seems that they have updated their slogan. "Gun's don't kill people, violent movies and video games do." The NRA is a nut-filled organization who isn't doing the gun-owning crowd any favors.
I dumped my NRA membership a year ago because these people are Clowns !!!!!!!!!!!
NRA+GOP=KKK Coffin Outfitters Spitting on our Laws !!!!!!!!!!!!!
NRA Gun shows have no Federal background checks, this is Nuts !!!!!!!!!!!
GOP Supports this Hogwash, these Clowns have blood on their hands !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the WHOLE press conference rather than the snippets your media overlords want you to see that shows the protestors. In case any of you would like to actually get your information about the guy speak....from the guy that was speaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgu9f-qd_Uo
Good grief! ....
After a full week to offer something meaningful to the discussion, the NRA proposes that the solution to too many guns ... is more guns! I suppose the only surprise is that the NRA didn't recommend arming the children, too.
Just think how safe we would all be if EVERYONE is packing. What could go wrong?
Maybe we should have Congress use the recently Supreme Court upheld use of the Commerce Clause to mandate a $10,000 Federal surtax on the purchase of every firearm made and sold in America (a $20,000 Federal surtax on the purchase of every firearm imported from another country and sold in America, which is something like plus or minus 85% of them, I think I read last week).
All the Federal taxes collected would be redistributed revenue sharing funds to local police agencies and to public schools districts to pay for the NRA recommended armed security; and to upgrade schools' physical security, training and to pay for some of the real costs to our society of all these guns.
Better yet, make the surtax retroactive and give gun owners a choice; pay the retro-active surtax, or sell or surrender your firearm. What schools and Law Enforcement agencies do NOT need are more unfunded mandates. A very high monetary cost to purchase and own a firearm would certainly begin to reduce the numbers sold, and have people rethinking their need for small arsenals.
Why shouldn't gun ownership carry the burden?
DON'T BE STUPID PEOPLE! You're blaming guns and the NRA, when you should be holding yourselves accountable.... You use video games and the TV to raise your kids. You don't pay attention to the violence and graphic language and sexual content that is being brainwashed into this generation. Then you scream bloody murder and blame the NRA when one of these kids picks up a gun and copies what he has been taught....
I have no problem with stricter gun laws;as long as the legislation is truly accountable... What we need is stricter punishments for these crimes... Stop worrying more about the convicted criminal's civil rights; than justice for the victims.... Take a leaf out of what works for other countries. When someone is convicted of a mass murder; they are executed in a timely fashion... End of story... I guarantee, when criminals realize they aren't going to live in a jailed hotel for the next couple of decades; while their attorney fights their death as an infringement on their rights; you will see these kind of killings drop drastically.
Guns don't shoot themselves... We need stronger legislation that punishes the convicted with reduced appeal process. We need to re-establish more mental facilities for the emotionally handicapped. But, most of all, parents need to step up to the plate and hold themselves accountable for how they are raising their kids and lack of moral responsibility that is being ignored.
The problem I have with repealing our "Right to Bear Arms" with Assault Rifles; is this... When you give the government an inch on running over Constitutional Rights, they take a mile.. It is naive to believe the government will stop at just Assault Rifles.... So, what you are left with is a nation of honest people who can't defend themselves against the dishonest who aren't about to give up their weapons. The police and military can't be everywhere to protect everyone; our forefathers knew this.. Hence the Constitutional Amendment...
One final food for thought regarding this issue.... We live in a very dangerous world and America has many enemies.. Domestic and Abroad... One of the things that has kept our nation from domestic attack is an armed citizen population... Government can overcome other countries military; however, it is virtually impossible to conquer a nation of armed citizens... What happened at Shady Hook was reprehensible, granted... But, don't be so quick to ban guns when the real issue to the problem runs deeper.......
No but they're fun and that's good enough for me. Screw gun rights if you gun lovers are gong to go after my games next. You feel the pressure on the second amendment so your response is to now go after the first amendments.
Sure let's go ahead and ban assault weapons like they did in '95. Ban the magazines with capacities in excess of five rounds for all rifles and clips for pistols in excess of 10 rounds. Let's call for all guns to be turned in at the local police stations. Just how long do you foolish people think it will take to affect gun violence in this country with those restrictions? 1 year? 5 years? Try maybe a hundred? As long as there are firearms in the world (not just here) there will be criminals and killers that manage to get their hands on them. The facts are against you. The previous ban had no effect a new one will do no better. The NRA happens to be partially right in this case, it is cultural influences not guns that are responsible for mass shootings. Maybe not movies or video games, but certainly media making front page or live on the spot celebrities of these vile people who kill large numbers of other people. As far as comments about other countries, I wish it were only as simple as that. Just pattern our laws after England or Germany and presto no more idiots killing kids! Before anyone entertains that sort of thinking they need to do a bit more research like population size, economic conditions, social norms, laws, police presence and that is just the start! Israel doesn't have school shootings any more, but then teachers there are often armed or they have guards on the buses and at the schools with Uzis. The NRA represents a large block of law abiding gun owners and avid sportsmen. The people who do not commit the crimes. What do you expect them to say? Take our guns? The problems are not with the guns, they are with the people. As long as we have tremendous economic disparity in cities, as long as drugs remain a major uncontrolled source of income for dealers and gangs, as long as our judicial system refuses to adequately enforce existing laws we will have problems of this nature. We do not need new laws or gun bans to do a job that already has tools in place to get done. It is a matter of will that will win this fight not ever increasing restrictions on our rights!
ooooohh! Thanks! Another excellent example:
The Five Rules of Propaganda:
The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
NRA: The only thing to stop killing with guns is to have more people killing with guns.
What a bunch of frigging idiots.
Is it any wonder this country is going to hell in blood smattered caskets.
Sorry Leon, but you shouldn't spout bull@!$%# when it's so easily checked on...
2007 statistics:
US: just under 90 guns per 100 people - # 1 in the world
Canada: just over 30 guns per 100 people - 13th overall
My guess is that there's been very little change in those numbers in the last 5 years.
@snake
yes snake Germany and Canada do have less gun violence then the US. they do watch the same movies, play the same video games, and listen to the same music. their gun laws in reality are no stricter then ours, point of fact they are about par with our current laws. do you know what the most distinct difference between those countries and the US is ? they both have universal health care for everyone to include mental health, they also have an easier time of institutionalizing a possible harmfull person in those countries.
i have lived in both canada and germany i have hunted, fished and bought guns in both those countries. their gun laws are on par with our current laws. the difference is social attitude and the way they take care of the citizens.
Why didn't the NRA jerks just come out and say that the deaths in Conn. were because the parents didn't arm their 6 and 7 year old children?
This is the kind of rhetoric that hurts reasonable discussions on topics like this. I wish you far left and righties would just keep your pieholes shut. You rarely bring anything reasonable to the table in solving problems of this nature.
clwyd,
You say;
"So if a person is drowning you pour more water on them? Sickos!"
...depends on the person I say.
Your right the only thing that will work is to blame the NRA, that will stop all this. By the way I am a gun owner but not an NRA member.
Haggis, isn't that sheep parts stuffed in its a$$? Because thats what you seem to be talking out of.
He forgot about armed policemen at every movie theatre, temple, mall entrance, etc.. And who's going to pay for this, the NRA?
Ronzwyf wrote:
So tell us, Einstein. How do you propose to punish the man who murdered 20 children and seven adults with a gun in Newtown, Connecticut last week?
How do you propose to punish the man who murdered two adults and grievously wounded a young girl with a gun at an Oregon shopping Mall last week?
Wow, brilliant.
Lets say you have 500 kids per school. It would only take 10-15.00 per child per month to put a full time policemen in that school. You mean to tell me that parents wouldnt pay an extra 10 bucks per month to make sure their kid is safe?
Listen to the ridiculous arguments the Liberal/Communists are making. Then decide.
h8libtards
There's over 100,000 schools in this country, if you only put one guard at each that comes to over $40 billion. And what about shopping malls and other 'gun-free' zones? Who is going to pay for all this?
Let's do a little math; I know that's challenging for conservatives (particularly if they don't like the results) but let's try it anyway. The total US population is about 315 million, so that works out to about $125 per year for every single man, woman, and child using the probably-low $40 billion figure. But wait; not all are gun owners, should non-owners pay those costs? Pay for 'protection' from a single group of our own citizens? I thought that was illegal. Let gun owners pay the costs of their 'hobby/sport'; there's roughly 75 million gun owners, that works out to about $530 each (and every year). But about 20% of gun owners have 60% of the guns, so maybe a per-gun tax would be better? Now you're back to about a 300 million number (yes, there's nearly one gun per citizen!) and per-gun cost of $130. Owning a dozen guns would cost you about $1560 per year. Of course, these owners would have to admit to just how many guns they own, and given the paranoia of many of them, that's unlikely. Maybe a 'security tax' on new guns is the answer. US civilian gun production is about 6 million per year, so a tax of $6700 per gun would cover the costs.
Of course, there would be some bureaucratic overhead so these numbers are no doubt low, but this gets you in the ballpark. So what say you gun owners? Ready to step up and pay at least some of the costs of your obsession? Or do you plan to become 'takers' of other peoples money, those you so loudly despise when you don't approve of how the money is spent?
Let the howling begin.....
And therein lays the problem. Limiting freedoms of any kind, more than they already are, is a very slippery slope. Pretty soon someone is going to come after something you hold dear. Bank on it.
@ HAGGIS... Did you just crawl out from under a rock!!! The true definition of gun control is... Wait for it... "Hitting your Target"!!! It only take 1 bullet to stop someone.
Wow...Liberals like Queenie are so dumb....Look up "school shooting" on wikipedia and it lists lots of shootings in schools in Canada, Europe. In fact, Germany had 16 killed in a school shooting in 2009 and 11 in 2008. Another 17 killed in 2002. Oh yeah liberals, keep using Europe as an example.
Liberals spouting off their mouths with absolutely no facts. Before your open your pie hole on how Europe is so superior to the US, at least take 2 moments to google it.
This is why America is failing. People have no idea what they're talking about.
Lets blame the NRA, lets blame all the OTHER gun owners, lets blame the government. When a drunk driver kills someone out on the road, do we blame the other drivers on the road? More people are killed every year by drunk drivers so, so wake up and get a clue people. According to the national FBI statistics, more than half of all firearm related deaths are from suicide!!!! get some facts instead of believing all the "chicken little's" out there screaming the sky is falling. If you already own the guns they may try to ban, your in the clear. so whats this really do? The criminals will always get guns, They'll just import them from mexico or anywhere else. Are people really this stupid? If you adore the EU for its lack of violence, get the hell out of here and move there, good riddance.
In a recent poll 74% of NRA members support a ban on assault rifles and large clips. Does Mr. LaPierre represent his members or the gun manufacturers?
At it's founding, the NRA promoted gun safety and gun control laws. Hence those training courses they mention. But over the years the NRA has been transformed into an organization that opposes any sane gun restrictions, completely at the behest of the gun industry and not it's members.
Maybe it's time for those NRA members to fire Mr. LaPierre and get back to their roots.
People have no problem with armed guards watching over their sacks of cash in an armored car but they seem to have problems with armed guards watching over their own kids? WTF?
I am for a ban on assult rifles, but what good is it really going to do? If someone really wants one there will still be ways to get one. The best way to make sure that this doesn't happen again, or at least happens less frequently, is to arm more sane, trained people. Hand out more concealed weapon permits to upstanding, sane, good people so that the next time some crazy person opens fire in a crowded movie theatre or a school there is someone there to take him down before it reaches catastrophic levels. If someone is crazy enough to do something like this then having no guns available to the general, good part of the population just makes it easier for the nuts to kill massive amounts of people.
If you think the NRA is extremist (and it is), don't forget that it had members who broke away and founded the Gun Owners of America (GOA) because they considered the NRA too passive, too "liberal," too anti-gun and not aggressive enough. Just when you think people can't get kooky enough, they end up surprising you.
What you have done here is lie the same way the NRA lies. Whenever we discuss gun control you rubes that follow the NRA line of "reasoning" use countries like Russia and Mexico in an attempt to show that gun control does not work. Why not use countries that are more like us, like England, Japan and Germany where the gun deaths average less than 100 per year while we manage to kill 30,000. England, Japan and Germany are basically as free as we are, and maybe you could say that they are even freer because they have a level of safety that we do not enjoy.
When you criticize anyone for using those 26 deaths in Newtown as a reason to talk about banning certain weapons and other changes in gun laws, keep in mind that 26 is about the average number of gun deaths in most of the developed countries in the world FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR!
Found info that over 76% of homicides with guns are committed by friends/family/close acquaintances of the victim, with half of homicides related to domestic disputes. 4% by strangers, around 17% never determined. Gang-related homicides run around 2000 per year--don't know if that includes gang-related homicides of strangers, such as in armed robberies, but likely. No, to follow the NRA logic, we need to have someone armed in every household--oh, but someone armed in the household is what causes most gun deaths, so, well, I guess every person needs to be armed and ready to fire. It would be interesting to see if the recent surge in gun purchases results in a comparable surge in homicides (including killings of, say, your niece you forgot was coming to visit for Christmas tonight instead of tomorrow afternoon) occurring in the home at the hands of a family member or close acquaintance.
Mass shootings seem to be committed by people who do not have significant (if any) criminal history, sparked by mental illness (using the term broadly to include schizophrenia enabled by easy access to the kinds of weapons with which such shootings can be committed, especially if the more paranoid amongst us are buying these guns. Wonder if anyone will count and publish the Christmas shooting toll this year.
Do defensive shootings of cops count as resistance against "government tyranny"? Well, maybe a few (Gordon Kahl, Randy Weaver, Philadelphia Move, the Congressman and reporter killed by the People's Temple in Jonestown). Explosives have been used by people with political motivations, and these days it is very hard to get dynamite to blow up those tree stumps on the north 40. Come to think, why doesn't the Second Amendment protect my right to get dynamite and blasting caps?
I think I'd prefer to see the mass murder attempt stopped before the guy gets to the school rather than at the school.
The 2.5 million "defensive uses" of guns apparently include a lot of defensive use by folks breaking the law--according to the researcher who came up with that stat (who claimed underreporting by people with unlawful possession of guns as the reason his stats are different than other people's stats)
I'm with Jack.
If you want to spark off our next civil war, try and take the guns. More of us who support than you who don't. And the military would give the Pres a nice one finger wave if he tried to sick it on the population so guess it's just ya'll against us so.....we got the guns. You grow your fingernails out or at least get a knife so you don't go down defenseless....lol.
Also, haggis, you are like an annoying parrot trying to get a damn cracker from its owner.
Blame the NRA, blame Obama, blame whomever. It's not the law that needs to change (how many are on the books now). It's people that need to change.
Two armed off duty Jefferson County sheriffs were at Columbine when it was attacked. They wound up outside, behind the first patrol car that arrived. Every principle of every school in this country should send letters to every parent seeking unarmed security volunteers. Plan well with modern communication equipment and coordinate with local law enforcement. Eyes and ears properly guarding the schools perimeter will give administrators and law enforcement time to effectively react against these attacks. It's cost efficient (requiring only the cost of communication equipment) and keeps guns out of schools.
As far as gun bans, anyone that has even the simplest understanding of markets already recognizes the futility of the moving any product from a regulated market to a black market. You completely forfeit the ability to control these weapons (see Chicago among others). The real solution is in exerting some control over behavior. Simply ban the PRIVATE sale or transfer of guns (by anyone without an FFL) and their possession by anyone other than the registered owner. Now ANYONE purchasing ANY firearm can be held accountable for the history of that weapon after purchase (properly reported thefts excluded). Will this end gun violence? No. It will give pause to any future gun buyers knowing that they can not resell the gun privately and will be held criminally liable for ANY future illegal use of that weapon.
As far as the absolute gratuitous violence Hollywood spews out in the name of "free speech" (big profits), if the message glorifies violence (can be demonstrated as having even an indirect influence on violent behavior) then it's time to take on the messenger. They act like Pontius Pilate when it comes to behaving responsibly in a (semi)free society. They can wash their hands again and again over their actions but in the end we all know they share guilt.
This is just a small start. Parents stop looking for the most convenient baby sitter and spend more time with your kids. Schools avoid the temptation to become prisons of education and use your intellect and resourcefulness to protect your students. Hollywood PHUQUE. And politicians, it's long over due that we start holding you accountable to the highest standard of all.
Yeah and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his a$$ when he hops. Society is at no risk from the law abiding citizen. As long as that citizen gets some training in how to use that weapon, how to store that weapon, and all safety issues about gun ownership. All the training is to prevent accidents. Also get training on how to retrieve that weapon and make it deadly to use against anyone threatening you or your family.
Yeah and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his a$$ when he hops. Society is at no risk from the law abiding citizen. As long as that citizen gets some training in how to use that weapon, how to store that weapon, and all safety issues about gun ownership. All the training is to prevent accidents. Also get training on how to retrieve that weapon and make it deadly to use against anyone threatening you or your family.
What a spectacle. The NRA appears to be a card short of a full deck, and yet still has one too many jokers!
The NRA is correct in sharing what is to blame. It has not been the guns' fault from the beginning.
Don't you wonder why schools, (which was considered a "safe place" when I was a child) are a place where people would want to shoot someone?
This is one question in a long list of questions that keep coming back to the same answer.
The moral/ethical values of America have changed, and not for the good. Words like respect, personal responsibility, and law abiding are no longer values to strive for. (Let alone too many believe the "magic of TV" also exists in real life....)
It is wrong to respond to this problem in a defensive manner. It is absolutely true that those incidents where someone nearby was armed kept the situation from becoming a Sandy Hook. (And the Media, with their selective wand, keep the coverage of these successes to a minimum.) Arming Teachers or putting Police officers in every school are defensive measures. Nothing is being done to bring back those values and beliefs that made these actions unnecessary. We shouldn't have to have anyone armed in a school if we had the appropriate values. It is time to take a hard look at what we have become in the US. Granted, there are areas of the country who do not have these sort of problems. Don't you wonder why? Maybe you should find out and try to create that social atmosphere in the problem communities.
I think I'd prefer to see the mass murder attempt stopped before the guy gets to the school rather than at the school.
Absolutely, but whats do you do after it starts? You need the capacity to stop the intruder
Willow, I agree, if people had appropriate values we wouldn't need defensive measures, but thats not the world we live in , sadly.
@ MrBurns.
I would actually welcome Swiss gun laws as they are MUCH more stringent than the ones here in the US. They register all firearms and limit the sale of ammunition, even though all males between the age of 20 -30 are required to have their firearms kept at home. They don't even issue ammunition with those firearms they are required to keep.
They require background, which includes mental health, checks for all gun sales, from stores and private individuals, there are no "Gun Show Loopholes".
And limit gun ownership to 3 total guns per license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
haggisdingo you are an idiot nobody used or owns automatic weapons unless you have a federal license he used a semi automatic gun but if you had any real knowledge you would know that you moron
A pound of Chicken Sh^t in every pot. An armed Cop in every school. A dozen or so assault guns in every household. This bizarre Man has to be a republican.
CD,
According to
Mortality
All injury deaths
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
All poisoning deaths
All firearm deaths
Now, if you look at all the categories up there, we have adopted LAWS and REGULATIONS to attempt to curb those numbers for each area, yet you and other "gun nut whackos" (you called them that, not I) seem to be opposed to gun regulation... Gun regulation is NOT solely "taking away your guns", its also about putting restrictions and systems in place to help stop unnecessary deaths.
Now, many of you are quick to erroneously quote the second amendment as a reason to "keep your guns" or "protect your right to have them"... So I wanted to post the ENTIRE 2nd amendment so we can be clear about it...
Now, 2 things to point out.
1. It said WELL REGULATED... im sure you're an educated man, you know what that means...
2. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS... where exactly does it state you have a right to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons? A better question is why do you need them?
So, the government can not take away all your guns.. but they sure as h3ll can say which types aren't allowed in civilian hands and they have the right to regulate the sell and purchase of them.
Two points. The first relates to Dianne Feinstein and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was created to give citizens the means to prevent the imposition of the kind of bastard regime Feinstein wishes to impose. Under Feinstein, basically any gun or magazine with more than a 10 round capacity will be banned. If you want to render America and Americans incapable of defending themselves, this is the way to do it. A bullet to Feinstein's head would be quite comparable to hemmorhoid surgery.
LaPierre's call for an armed officer in every school falls far short of what needs to be done when you talk about comprehensive school security. One officer is probably fine if you're talking about dealing with one violent mental case. But it won't get the job done once you start talking trained and/or multiple shooters storming a school. I still prefer having multiple staffers trained in tactical shooting for one reason: maintaining the element of surprise. Anytime you can force a gunman to keep his head on a swivel, you have the advantage. The other drawback to a lone uniformed officer is the potential for hostage situations and human shields. The gunman already knows who could take him out, and the easiest way to take the gun out of the officer's hand is to take a hostage or human shield.
You need to put reality-based intruder drills in place and redesign the school layouts. Drills need to be done a minimum of twice a month, all day. People need to know the quickest way out of the building, depending on their location; they also need to know the quickest way to the service, maintainance, and locker room doors because these doors are the ones least likely to come under attack. Knowing how to move is critical. You need to break off into small, organized packs, then stay low, keep your eyes up, and move quickly.
The single entrance/exit at the front of the room has to go. You need to add a door in the back corner on the same wall. You need to add doors on each corner of the back wall which open into the next room; you create multiple ways out and put walls between bullets and people. The first floor windows need to be redesigned so they can be knocked down quickly from the inside. The only way you get everyone the hands-on experience they need is if you have all day drills.
LaPierre does not have an answer to the obvious: lockdown procedures do not work because of the length of response time and result in a school becoming "fish in a barrel".
The only solution is to ease the gun laws. Any handgun and/or magazine with a 20 round capacity or less should be this simple: take and pass the safety course, and you should be allowed to buy immediately, with no limits on the number of magazines or rounds you can purchase. Same should be true for hunting rifles, because they're no different than a man going into a grocery store to buy groceries.
BS!
I have watched violence on TV for a very long time , from Gun Smoke to the violent shows today. Never once did they make me want to put a gun in my hand and go out and kill a bunch of kids and their teachers. This young man and his mom are the ones that were effed up in the head. Guns don't kill people, people with a gun kills people.
When a gun sitting on a table or in a gun rack, etc, etc goes off on it's own accord without any other force acting upon it, then I will believe that guns kill people and not people kill people.! Get real!
tax the ammo for these guns. like $50 a bullet. perhaps these guns will loose some of their appeal. and the $50 goes into a fund to help the victims of assault rifles.
and a $1000 tax on each assault rife sold. with another $500 tax a year to have a license for them.
you need to pay a fee/tax to register your car and boat each year or two, why not on assault rifles?
machine guns are highly taxed, and so are silencers. not illegal, just not very affordable.
if caught with an unlicensed gun, another tax/fine of $5,000. and you loose the gun!
PAUL in chicago-1569139
Oh boy. To be fair, can we let the NRA advocates pick some unreasonable fines for you too? Maybe tax something you do for a hobby for $50 per 1/100th of the time you spend doing it? With sound and realistic suggestions like this, we're SURE to come to some real agreement.
So the gun control advocates are saying "It's the fault of guns, therefore let's follow this unreasonable solution". Many of those who feel additional gun control legislation will do no good are now pointing the finger to movies (often rated R) and video games (often rated M) and suggesting they need to keep it out of the hands of children in some cases, and in even more extreme cases, suggesting sin taxes on them?
I was hoping we might actually see real suggestions for change, rather than double down on "not my problem" and "oh, the actual problem is this red herring over here!".
Shows what I get for being optimistic.
Kevin:
Yep, a Chinese guy went crazy and stabbed 23 kids with a machete. Yep, he was crazy, and didn't need a gun to attempt to kill kids.
Oh, what's this? Not a single kid died of their wounds?
Ooooops. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Last night on fox news Sean Hannity said we should arm all our Teachers !!!!!!!!!!
The anti-gun liberals are quick to ridicule this idea, but they haven't payed attention to the facts. This WORKS, and it's been proven IN THE US several times. Not all attempted mass shootings were in gun-free zones, but notice I said attempted. The ones in non-gun-free zones typically shoot 2-4 people before someone with a gun stops them, often without actually needing to shoot the attacker (contrary to the leftists' view of any gun owner as a trigger-happy madman).
If you don't believe me, look up the Appalachian Law School shooting. The two men who stopped the shooter did so by pointing pistols at him (and then one of them tacked him after he put his gun down).
In this case it is undeniably the liberals that are ignoring facts and, as close as treating our world as a huge laboratory gets, science. We've tried both options. Gun bans don't do squat to stop things like this. Putting guns in schools, though, does.
No gun man has attacked a school in Israel since the 70's, all teachers and aids are trained and armed there.
Hagg-ass, civilans cannot not buy military grade weapons, if you want full auto you have to buy them illegally! Get it? So tell me how banning weapons, magazines is going to prevent those who buy on the black market. Your a flippin genius.
Actually, they do write them, then send them over to the republican controlled houses of different states to get them passed. The republican party mostly passes them unmodified, and often times, don't even understand what they are passing. THe NRA is a very active member of ALEC, who specializes in this kind of game.
Snakebone - And you think these kids will be normal, inside and out after the wounds heal? I think not. If it weren't knives, it could be any number of other ways to harm another, some even worse than a gun. You argument doesn't wash. I saw a show with a woman who had been shot in the face. Even 5 years later, and multiple surgeries, she still didn't look "normal." (But considering everything, they did a good job....oh and she is still in pain even now.) So in China, where they don't usually do heroic fixes in the medicine, the kids will be more noticed for their scars.
Why did this turn into something about "assault rifles"? Lanza killed those people with a pair of handguns, handguns that have a magazine capacity of 12-14. So they limit the magazine size down to 10 and the next crazy gunman is just going to bring more magazines.
@Comparing US gun violence vs UK
Folks, they aren't allowed to have guns, of course the would have less gun violence. Look at violent crimes (armed robbery, assault, rape) in general, the UK has a much higher number per capita than we do. I believe the UK had something like double the rape compared to the US. Not to mention most gun violence statistics also include suicide.
@Tatiana
How did wanting a police officer at every school turn into an armed militia? You trust the cops do deal with criminals but not a school? When I went to high school ( in Bellevue, Washington, rated one of the top 25 safest cities in 2006), we had an armed, full-time police officer. He had his own office and was responsible security. Most of his day involved watching for delinquency and truancy. I probably would have ditched classes a lot more if it wasn't for him.
snake09
Canada and Germany residents watch violent movies and music
They have better health care too.
A through study of Adam's life and brain needs to be done before any thing else is decided
I find it ironic that all these liberals so upset over an insane gunman attacking a school, but have no problems with Obama allowing an ambassador to be butchered over 7 hours in Benghazi.
Apparently, all life does not have equal value to a liberal.
Unless guns can walk around talk and take a piss they don't do @!$%# without you the person pulling the trigger. Guns can not and will never do anything on their own. People kill people. Guns make it easier but you're still the one killing them.
To all the people who say guns "don't belong in modern society" are just ignorant. Maybe for you your food is down the street wrapped in nice neat little packages and labeled real nice. For some people our food is walking around in a field. Now I agree with everyone who says we should ban high capacity clips and assault rifles that just makes sense (I don't understand why someone would need that. You can protect your family fine with a 12 gauge and a revolver), but there are some of us who have to have firearms to survive and yes to protect us and our livelihood from threats (more from the kind with teeth and claws than other humans). Just because you live less than a mile from your nearest food source that has been prepared for you, you shouldn't assume everyone does. I'm all for getting rid of assault weapons and high capacity clips though. Only the Army needs those kind of weapons.
1.The CEO wants a place at the table to "Stand His Ground" and acknowledge EVERYBODY ELSE'S "PIECE" OF ACCOUNTABILITY but the NRA's. He has way-way too broad of a flim-flamsy argument., ie, to what level could a gun show be compared to a movie?, Define "The Right" that you're so pumped-up to protect for all, etc....
2.Diane Feinstein has been in typical backroom "arbitrary" deal-determinations that the problem only begins to exist after 10 rounds and 900 EXEMPTIONS!
3.The Monday Senator has had his sense "spun" out of him after and because of speaking from his own mind.
4.It's NOT a Crime to have a Mental Illness. You ARE NOT a Crminal if you have a Mental Illness and the idea is SUPPOSE TO BE to "isolate" the problem/issue of Mental Illness (WITHOUT STIGMATIZING and ALIENATING People), but I have yet to see or hear how MI is being or going to be represented at the table.
5. I've heard NOTHING about "online" sales being addressed (and that is how the Aurora Shooter "stock"piled his)
The NRA is in the gun business so their solution to every problem is more guns.
If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I've always had an armed cop in my schools. Ever since kindergarden, i remember because i use to check out the gun when i'd see the dude in hallways. But of course, i live in Texas so, that explains it, but i thought that was done all around the country. Forgive me if that sounds stupid of me, but i'm a young guy. And i really don't see the harm in it. I grew up in a rather harsh area of dallas and i remember dudes who would bring handguns to school in high school. Its just a damn shame we need guns at all. And i don't believe you can even talk about gun control if you don't mean it on a global scale. And not only citizens, but military too, cut some of that spending on defense. Take away some of this power from the corrupt leaders of the world, so they can stop playing their war games and get back to helping the people the represent.
Here's the deal...nobody is going to change anybody's mind.
Emotions are too high and people would rather "feel good" about an ideology than examine and solve difficult problems.
Once emotion has died down, and facts are examined, this ridiculous witch hunt will end and we can begin meaningful discussion and implement effective policy.
@Mystery Rhee
What about online sales? You can't buy a gun online and have it delivered to your house. It must go to an FFL holder, and then you must fill out the normal paperworks and wait on the background check when you go get it. The only thing that you can buy and have it be directly shipped to your house are parts and ammunition. Like most things, ammunition have different qualities and brands, and sometimes you can't find the one you want in a store. And, like why many people buy online, it's usually cheaper as well.
So what's to stop a "concerned citizen" to report his neighbor because said neighbor's dog took a dump in his yard? Or took his parking spot? Or he doesn't like the color of his house? I'd like to report our neighbor -- literally -- because they let their yappy little dog outside to bark at 7AM. Are they nuts, and a threat to the neighborhood's safety? Probably not...but what's to stop me or someone else in the area to report them, making up B.S. to get them in trouble? Who's going to pay for this "national hotline"? The GOP doesn't want to do anything that would increase spending, so that idea is out, unless the NRA has such a stranglehold on them that they can change a fundamental GOP principle. People are pretty good at hiding things...what's to stop a nutbag from convincing the hotline people that he's not dangerous, then reporting the neighbor who won't turn down his loud music?
This idea is full of holes. There is no way anyone can create any sort of "database" of deranged people and have it be anywhere near accurate. Besides people reporting neighbors they don't like, what about the "lone wolf" type, who keeps to himself without raising any red flags, all the while stockpiling weapons and ammo because he's, say, mad at someone who works at the mall and has every intention of shooting the place up just to get his one target. The survivorist who's convinced someone or something, real or imaginary, is out to get him, and he's armed to the teeth to prevent it.
There is a history of just this type of thing happening. People were free -- in fact encouraged -- to report any unseemly behavior to the authorities. Many totally innocent people were brought into the system and investigated and often detained by this authority. The authority was called...the Gestapo.
This is insanity...and I nominate Wayne Lapierre as the most insane person in the country.
I think you are wrong. Several members of Congress with "A" ratings from the NRA have promised to support an assault weapons ban. An example is Republican Senator Casey of PA.
What you call a "witch hunt" is what I call trying to have a rational discussion about guns in our culture.
Gibsonlespaul:
Halleluja, someone who actually refers to what is actually being proposed!
I have read a zillion posts here, and not a single person on the pro-gun side has dealt with reality. Under consideration is a ban on certain military-grade assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yet every argument against that is from someone who assumes that what is really under consideration is a total ban on all guns! What the hell is wrong in your minds? When someone suggests that car owners should be registered and demonstrate a knowledge of how to operate the car, do you think the goal is to confiscate all cars? Are your brains capable of dealing with anything outside of paranoia?
I have a 12-guage Mossberg in my closet for home protection. If someone comes in, and they don't run as fast as they can when I rack that thing, then they deserve what they get when I pull the trigger. I have a .44 magnum in my safe for sport. I can have a great time blowing watermelons and water-filled bottles to smithereens anytime I want. It doesn't bother me that I have to reload after 6 shots.
Jered Loughner killed 6 people with his 30-round clip. He was taken down as he tried to reload. Had he a 10-round clip (the proposed limit), he might have killed 2 people before he was taken down. James Holmes sprayed the theater audience with a 100-round drum before he had to stop and fiddle with his guns. That's the point: to take the 'mass' out of 'mass shootings' - NOT to ban gun and leave the populous defenseless. The point is: it will not stop senseless violence, but it may help with the magnitude of the destruction. As long as you folk don't talk about that, you aren't talking about anything.
When someone proposes a total gun ban, then we can all stand up together and say 'no'. In the meanwhile, I'm with you GibsonLesPaul, our citizens do not need these mass killing machines for any reason short of a violent attempt to overthrow the government.
So if you are sick and have the flu the solution is to put more flu germs in you? Da! Excuses and stupidity fill the NRA and many gun owners if they think that that is a solution. They need to be stopped!
@Four Points Shy Of Genius
Excellet, you just described every Pro-Gun argument as well while engaging in have the stuff you were accusing the other side of doing by pretending it was just them doing it this stuff and not both sides. Good job!
And on the topic of blaming video games (from the Video game controversies entry in Wikipedia)...
According to media scholar Henry Jenkins:
The entire thing about blaming video games for violence is a red herring and prejudicial notion in an attempt to find a convenient scapegoat to blame for the problem without actually addressing the issue. Same as they used to do with heavy metal music decades ago.
And what's more, in pursuing this twisted line of reasoning, people are actually exacerbating the problem, since they're just piling on the amount of crap kids that "already feel cut off from the system" have to deal with from adults, which is exactly the type of thing that makes them loose their nut and commit these sort of violent acts in the first place.
But good luck trying to "fix" the problem by placing kids already about to loose their heads under more pressure while simultaneously cutting off their (and our) means of stress relief and entertainment.
I don't think it is unpatriotic to give up assault rifles, extended clips, and armor piercing rounds. Like Creek Dog, I know they're fun and can be safely handled - but getting rid of them would keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible and insane. Do I need a Bushmaster? No. Are we in danger of being overrun if we ban this weaponry? No. The right to possesss firearms for sport and defense is not being infringed in any meaningful way by admitting that these weapons represent more danger than benefit to society.
Would it totally melt your brain to use a little common sense?
People have owned guns since this country was founded.
Movies? There are no more guns in movies than there was when almost half of them were either war movies or westerns. TV? The same shoot 'em ups were the mainstay until gunsmoke played out.
I won't attempt to judge the media since I am biased against it. The same goes for rap.
Nope, there is a problem and it does not seem so obvious. Mind you, it may be but, we are not seeing the elephant. In my life time, I am 73, it has always seemed that this type of crazies crawl out of the cracks during peace time. I am not going to try to make it political but it could be a result of government policies that do not seem to be related.
By the way, the second amendment is to foster the last resort to control a runaway government. To do that we will need the best weapons available.
I think we should hire some people that works with crazies as a profession, psychologists, sociologists and zoologists. They might could give us the answer, if we would ask, without demanding a politically correct answer. I included zoologists because we are just another type of animal. I excluded psychiatrists because the first thing they would do is put us all on pills.
http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress
Again the KNOW Nothings:
Who within most Nations Enforces the Ratings And Restrictions of Underaged, hint in almost all Nations except the US it is their Government and or Law Enforcement including (Felony) Criminal Penalties.
At the US the Ratings and Restrictions are VOLUNTARY and "Self Regulating".
Also if you consider that at Germany they have MANDATORY COMPULSORY Military Service at age 18 with minimal exemptions. You can say "Gun Laws" all you want about Germany; however, the majority of German Citizens after Mandatory Compulsory Military Service also become Reserve Deutsche Bundeswehr and or Reserve Deutsche Polizei; translation the majority of Germans own a Firearm (usually a handgun); this is how Germany got around the terms of the Unconditional Surrender since WWII pertaining to the size of Germany's Standing Army. I lived at Germany for many years before (also our Home Station of US Military Installations at Germany after we return from Islamic Nations).
Now let's look at Canada's Anti Gun Laws, NOTHING like the US.
NRA LaPierre is being a President Obama Arse Puppet. This is the same thing Senator Obama said since 2000, and as President Obama the same thing since 2008-2009.
Anyone ever heard of the Pavlov's Dog Study. Ding, ding, ding, rewards,instant gratification, and bragging rights for Murders in Murder Simulators (Video Games).
Also the John B. Calhoun Rat Population Study.
The Psychologists that came up with the Movie Ratings, and later on the Video Game Ratings, said what the Results would be (psychological conditioning).
Which you apparently did not even do. As after the "Chunnel" (Tunnel between England and France) the only ones that actually have guns is the British Organized Crime. This has become so much of a problem, that the "unarmed" Bobbies are backed up with Teams of British SAS Armed to the teeth, just as bad if not worse than during the "Troubles" between Ireland and England.
Population Ratio between the US and England in relation to the numbers of Firearms related murders. Basic Mathematics, thumbs down to your example.
Now let's look at other Nations with Gun Laws and attacks of "Soft Targets":
School attacked at Beslan, Russia; and massacre of over 380 people (186 children). What did the US learn, ZERO; what did the Russian Federation learn, lots to prevent this from happening again.
What were the ages of the Columbine Murders versus Legal Ownership Ages.
Just a little ballistics information: The .223 caliber (5.56mm) was originally created as a "varmit" and "small game" (rabbits, ground hogs, etc.) cartridge fired from bolt action rifles. Previously, during WWII the Japanese had used small caliber sniper rifles to wound US Military, so that it would take two other US Military to evacuate one wounded US Military to safety, taking a total of three off the Battlefield. During WWII it was determined that the smallest caliber to kill was the 7.62mm X 49 which later became the NATO Standard. During Vietnam the USAF (not US Army nor USMC) was appointed to decide the next Standard Individual US Military Rifle, which was chosen based on ease of training, not lethality nor reliablity; as compared to the M-14 (7.62mm x 49mm) and AK-47 (7.62mm x 39mm); the USAF chose the M-16 (they thought it was cool that it had a carrying handle, the rear sight located in the carrying handle made the M-16 even more inaccurate). Many of the Peace Demonstrators (aka Hippies) that knew, protested that this (.223 caliber to wound and not kill) was against the Geneva Conventions. Before anyone says something stup!d body size of children (lethal) versus adults (wound, as to why so many shots fired to kill). Many later attempts were made to make the .223 caliber (5.56mm) lethal, like increasing the bullet mass (weight, grains) and increasing the amount of propellant (increased velocity) that only made the M-16 less reliable, increased wear, fractured the cartridge chamber, jams and malfunctions. These attempts being Failures, as to why many US Military Units readopted the 7.62mm x 49mm again in the form of the M-21, M-25, M-110, etc..
There is also the other problem called "Outsourcing" and this does also pertain to Firearms. "Assembled" at the US does NOT mean Made In the US. example: To arm their Military the Mexican Government bought the Firearms Manufacturing Licenses to manufacturer M-16s, M-4s, M-9s, etc. at Mexico; as well as Firearms Manufacturing Licenses from other Nations. These are NOT the "Semi Automatics" sold to US Civilians; but are the Military Selective Fire including Full Automatic or Burst Mode.
The other problem is that the Drug Cartels and Organized Crime (lots of money) prefer the more accurate, lethal, and reliable Russian Firearms. With these being shipped by the container load to South America (Hamas Foreign Fighters, Hezbollah), then to Central Americas (Guatamala's Organized Gangs of MS-13 and MS-14, etc.), smuggled into Mexico (Drug Cartels, Drug Lords), the Illegal Aliens used as Mules to carry these and Drugs into the US (Illegal Aliens Gangs as the Drug Cartels Distributors and Enforcers).
Just want to let you know that there are people out there like me who do want to take all your guns away. I hope there are others?
Snakebone:
You missed the point. It doesn't matter that none of them were killed or not, it was just as frightening and just as violent as a gun assault - and this was just one incident in China. Other incidents in that country, a country that does not permit its citizens to possess guns, still occurred in the last three years and they were committed by knives, box cutters and hammers and in many cases, there were several children and adults killed. Three of these attacks happened within a month of the first and even after the perpetrator was executed a month after his crime. Even execution is not a deterrent in China where their justice system seems to move faster than ours. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of communist China, by any means, but that's a completely different topic.
I've heard it said many times and even psychologists will say this: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can keep doing the same thing, more gun control, more gun control, more gun control, but where is that getting us. Maybe it's time to do something different.
As for better luck next time, I don't think so. I stand by my first statement and by this one.
Oh yeah, anybody noticed seeing the end of world, yet?
iWonder
People certainly have owned guns since this country was founded, but for how long have people had access to military weapons that can kill dozens of people in a couple of minutes?
To all of you stating that they watch the same movies and play the same games in other countries. This simply is not true few countries allow the same freedoms of speech and expression that the US does. Just yesterday was an article about people in China just now being allowed to watch V For Vendetta and their horrified reaction to it. Many countries restrict sexual content and nudity, graphic violence etc. I'm not saying that we should have the same restrictions, but Parents should do the censoring for their kids. My kids were never allowed violent video games, nor were they allowed to watch certain programs and movies until I felt they were mature enough for them.
clwyd-2621393
That's a fabulous idea. Would you consent to people who are against additional gun legislation taking one of your rights away?
Simply suggesting that you take the guns away won't solve the problem. How do you plan to take their guns away? Would it be doing away with the 4th amendment to ensure we can do away with the 2nd? Who would you propose taking the guns away? Don't you think that we've had enough gun violence already? Actually "taking the guns away" would likely do much more to create gun violence than it would to stop it.
Something does indeed have to change, but to simply take all guns away from their owners isn't going to be the sensible and logical way to do it, unless you would like to see a large spike in gun violence.
Actually don, semi-automatic weapons and revolvers have been around for over a hundred years and available to the public. You could check it out and when you discover that I am correct, what will you say then? Most all of these incidents have happened in about the last 25 years.
I do not consider owning a gun my right regardless of the 2nd amendment. I'm not part of a Militia nor never would I consider it!
Wayne LaPierre blames Hollywood and the players of Grand Thief Auto for the culture of violence we now enjoy. May I suggests that the vast majority of gamers who are addicted to this fantasy land have a greater grip on reality than the president of the NRA. It was only fitting that this @!$%# spoke on the last day of the Mayan calendar. My healthy fantasy life includes the Mayans and this tool.
I sincerely hope the majority of you commenting on here are not representative of the majority of our entire society because you are nothing but a bunch of reactionary fools willing to let a few isolated incidences of alleged madmen allegedly possessing semi-automatic sporting rifles dictate to you what you should think, feel and believe. What of the 2nd man in camouflage apprehended in the woods behind Sandy Hook? And what of the reports of the neighbors around the school of possibly a 3rd man, similarly attired who also disappeared into the woods? And what of the report that 4 pistols were found inside the school and no semi-automatic, high capacity magazined weapons were found inside the school? Do you people even care about the truth anymore or do you just want to witch hunt?!?
http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-hook-man-in-the-woods-video-2012-12
http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/12/19/does-lanzas-alleged-bushmaster-ar-15-assault-weapon-really-exist/
http://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/sandy-hook-aurora-referenced-in-batman/
YOU PEOPLE BETTER GROW UP AND WAKE UP BEFORE THE BANK BACKED GOVERNMENT TAKES AWAY ALL YOUR FREEDOMS!!!
clwyd-2621393
The constitution of the United States of America grants you that right, whether you use it or not. Because you do not exercise it doesn't mean you should wish for the rights of others to be infringed upon.
At least, that is my interpretation.
If someone waives their right to trial by jury because they mostly get parking and speeding tickets through the course of their life, does it mean that they should want everyone to waive their right to trial by jury?
Assuming we have the money to place a police officer at every school, what about playgrounds, movie theaters, basically anywhere people congregate?. Are we putting police their too?. Is that really the kind of society we want to live in??.
Kevin:
Don't mean to pick on you, and you're certainly not the most loony poster on this thread, but I've gotta ask: what do you mean by MORE gun control? Do we have ANY gun control right now? Do you live in America?
I live in California, considered one of the most 'restrictive' states in the union. Right now I can walk down to the local gun shop and buy any military-grade weapon I want, along with all the armor-piercing rounds I can stuff into my new 100-round drum. True, I am not a felon, never been judged mentally ill, and I'd have to wait 10 days for a background check, but if I were an insane criminal, I could just wait for one of the many gun shows to visit the area every year and get it all anyway, with same-day service to boot.
The assault-weapon ban expired 8 years ago, and was not renewed. That's LESS gun control. Obama signed a law a couple years ago expanding the right of people to carry guns in federal parks and on national train routes. That's LESS gun control. Somehow, in an era of LESS and LESS gun control, you look out there and see MORE and MORE gun control. That, indeed, might be a definition of insanity.
I'm a responsible gun owner but it sickens me to hear right wing scumbags like LaPierre blaming everyone but themselves for gun violence in America.
The NRA has so much blood on it's hands I'm surprised anybody still supports them. LaPierre is a lobbist, plain and simple; his job is to protect gun manufacturers profits not actual people from being slaughtered by guns, so of course he's going to blame anybody but the people that pay his salary.......... The man is a worthless dirt bag and should be ignored.
Do you ask the mayor to fix your car, when it wont start? Do you turn to your congressman, when your roof leaks. Do you call the president when you can't get internet connection? Somehow, I would not be surprised if you did.
I, the other hand, try someone who's profession deals with my current problem.
Why do you think that politicians can solve mental problems?
By the way eraser, of course you are right. I was going to renew my NRA membership today but after what he said, nope.
snake09...(#1.4)....."Canada and Germany residents watch violent movies and music if not worse (death metal) yet they are some of the safest countries."........
"The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S."
" In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.....
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Did ya see that ???....U.S.---466 Canada ---- 935
Go look at the chart on the link......
At least 10 countries in the EU have higher violent crime rates than the good ol' USA.....And they have very restrictive Gun Laws....
For Germany, I haven't been able to find numbers newer than 2002, but they put the rate of violent crime (assault, robbery, rape, murder; in order of most to least common) at 236.9 per 100,000 inhabitants.( Germany also has the strongest economy in the EU) There are indications the crime rate is on the rise in Germany too.
______________________________________________
U.S vs. Mexico
________________
"FBI data show that in the United States, “There were 5.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009, an 8.1 percent decrease from the 2008 rate.”
That means that in 2009 there was 1 murder per 20,000 U.S. inhabitants. When compared to Mexico’s current rate of 1 murder per 8,300 Mexican residents, an individual runs a greater risk of being violently murdered in Mexico than in the United States."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mexico-s-violent-murder-rate-more-twice-usa
Mexico has very strict Gun Control on its Citizens....they are defenceless
don97524, Ignorant yet again I see. You give me the example of England. Ill bite. After they put in place their strict gun laws, gun laws went up drastically. Ours have been going down since letting the ban end. (And going down before too). Canada has about the same rights as us, yet they dont worry about gun deaths like us. It is a cultural thing, but it is not a gun thing. Again, stats are on my side. This dumb ban that you and your scared ignorant sheep want will do NOTHING to curb gun violence because it did NOTHING before and NOTHING after it was allowed to lapse. You can be scared of guns all you want, but you shouldnt take rights away from people because of your own ignorance. Still using dead kids. Do you love violent stories or something? It allows you to spread your propaganda.
Don, it's called politics. It is popular to be for an assault weapons ban (just as it was popular to do so in 1994, I see a pattern of "been there, done that"). Politicians who want to get re-elected do what is popular, not what is rational. There is nothing rational about the ban discussion, it is not supported by evidence. Recall the definition of "insane" is repeating the same action yet expecting a different outcome...revive a 2-decade old ban and expect it to work this time is nothing short of irrational. Especially when all evidence shows that gun violence has dropped significantly in this country in the decade after the 1994 ban was lifted.
Nearly the entirety of post 2 is filled with evidence showing that our current gun control rules and regs are effective at stopping 310million weapons of all styles from harming anyone each year. The fact that politicians (regardless of party affiliation) are clinging to tired ban rhetoric while brushing mental health and media glorification of violence to the back of the line tells us all exactly what this is - a witch hunt.
If we are to have meaningful, rational discussion, we must use evidence-based reasoning and that is just simply not happening.
What I would say is that during the past 25 years the NRA has put up a valiant and, unfortunately, successful effort to promote greater ownership of military-style weapons.
I have posted this problem on previous occasions and have yet to get a reply. It’s a scenario directed at those of you who, like LaPierre, believe that the more the citizenry is armed, the safer we are.
Picture this:
You are part of a sizeable crowd gathered at an outdoor mall (let’s say, in Phoenix) to hear an address from your Congresswoman, and you are near the stage, the better to hear her. You, like most of those in the crowd, are armed with your trusty 9mm-22-44 or whatever because you and your fellow heat-packers believe that “…the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Of course, you’re not anticipating any trouble because it’s broad daylight and there are no “bad guys” or “crazy guys” in the crowd; you’d be able to spot them immediately, right?
Suddenly, from somewhere behind you in the crowd, a shot rings out. It’s difficult to know from where exactly – it’s a parking lot surrounded by buildings and there is a lot of echo. The Congresswoman crumples to the stage and those who surround her are pointing in several directions. You pull your sidearm and wheel around to discover that most of those in the crowd have done the same. Some are looking at you with alarm, just as you are looking at them – the sense of panic is pervasive. Guns everywhere are leveled at someone nearby, and some of them at you. What’s your next move?
Quick now – you only have a couple of seconds to decide. What do you do?
Don’t dodge the question. The NRA tells us that their members receive free training in the safe and proper handling of guns so they must have trained you for exactly this kind of scenario. This nightmare is precisely one that the NRA and you have been wishing for – lots of good guys with guns and only one bad guy.
What was your training – what do you do?
Ok, this has devolved into the usual battle of dueling statistics, off-topic blame games, name-calling, deflection of opposing opinions and loud talking about 'rights'. But two basic issues are at the root of this, besides the mayhem and slaughter of innocents.
The major one that all but a few here are ignoring is the societal financial costs. The NRA called for increased security in schools, but somebody has to pay for it. I threw up some rough numbers in post 1.131, but none of the 'big players' in congress on either side have said a word about this and few here. Seeing how the only 25% of the population who own guns are wanting the 75% of us who don't eat the costs of their 'hobby/sport/right', that hardly seems fair. And that makes the 25% into 'takers' as defined by conservatives.
The other (and most contentious) is regulation of firearms. Here's where you hear the 'enforce the laws we have' mantra from the gun lobby. Lost is the fact that most gun laws only punish after the fact, which is little solace to the dead or their families. We regulate for prevention lots of activities; driving, medical care, construction, food, drugs, the list can go on. That doesn't make these 100% safe, but we still try. Until there's some rational discourse, not the screaming of 'Ban them!!' and 'Don't touch my guns!!' from the two 'sides', nothing will be accomplished.
The NRA vision of an armed America where my only protection from a gun owner (sane, insane, legal or not) is to be a gun owner scares the hell out of me.
Burns
We have a thousand times as many gun deaths as England. It makes no sense for you to blame their increased gun death rate on gun control when they are not even in our universe. What was their increase ..... from 25 to 30. What was our decrease .... from 30,001 to 30,000. Try to make a rational argument.
If you think that gun deaths "going down" to 30,000 is good enough you are not bright enough to be part of the conversation.
The greater the number of guns we have in our society, the greater the risk that the wrong people have those guns. Is that logical to you? It works for me.
RTSOB
Shoot you in the dąmned foot for proposing such a ridiculous scenario of mass hysteria. How about those closest to the initial shooter draw their weapons and neutralize him since they witnessed him shooting and the rest of us cover the perimeters. How's that for an answer to your childish and moronic hypothetical?
@don
so don do you even know what Germany's gun laws are? well i do, i was station there for over 10 years. there gun laws are basically the same as ours. guns are registered at the time you buy them ( same as here). background checks are done at time of sale ( same as here). you cannot buy a firearm if a felon or mentally unstable ( same as here).
do you want to know what the real difference between germany and the US is? universal govt provided health care for everyone to include mental health care. in germany it is also much easier to institutionalize a mentally unstable person and keep them in care. the moms also get payed to stay home and watch the kids by the german govt, while the dads go to work. the divorce rate is also much lower in germany. abortion is illegal in germany unless for rape, or a danger for the mother to carry to term. they push safe sex and birth control at an early age. free college or trade school for everyone. parents are much better at keeping their kids away from violent video games and violent movies. i could keep going on, but as you can see the big difference is in their society.
The shooter was a conservative republican and his mother was a republican gun fanatic, the TV he watched was Fox News, so is LaPierre (sounds awfully French to me) suggesting that Fox News causes people to commit acts of violence?
its all about money people, money, money, money. we might could pass a law that bans military grade weapons in America, but that won't stop the companies that makes these weapons from selling more weapons to fund both sides of wars and other heinous acts in the far corners of the world. And yes America is a gun ridden place, but look across the world, The middle east, Africa, all war torn areas that use American guns to kill third world people, So as Americans lets get down off our high horse for the first time and open our eyes and realise its not about us, or the crazy people around us, or foreign threats, the real enemy is the companies that makes these weapons and hand them over, just to willingly, to emotional beings with major egos. If companies didn't make guns then troubled souls wouldn't have access to them which equals no dead civilians, no dead soldiers, and no dead children.
eric
You are misinformed about Germany's gun laws and now you attempt to misinform the rest of us. Germany's gun laws, according to Wikipedia, are among the strictest in the world. Here is an excerpt from the article.
MrBurns:
Look, most of the pro-gun folk here seem to be extremists, and they don't care about statistics anyway. No amount of mass shootings is going to make them think that their second amendment rights should be limited in any way, since they've (astoundingly) decided that our founders intended to provide a constitutional right to commit treason against the US government. Many of them seem to be positively salivating at the possibility that one day, they will feel morally justified to gun down a government official.
But since you've brought up statistics, then you should be aware that since the expiration of the assault weapon ban in 2004, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years in our history have occurred since the expiration. 1999, which includes the Columbine massacre, is the exception.
You may be thinking of the crime rate, which has been dropping since long before the weapons ban, continued to drop through those years, and continues to drop to this day.
A lot of good it did......
Mr Burns
Once again you demonstrate that either you are misinformed or that you are willing to lie in order to make a point. Here is some truth about Canadian gun laws courtesy of Wikipedia
If you believe that Canadian gun laws are basically like ours you are delusional.
dude lots of the articles that the founding fathers wrote are full of double meaning, just like a good Doors song. Especially jefferson and Paine, though Paine didn't have much to do with the consitution, were leery about the possibility of corruption, basically because they were there for the first hand accounts of british oppression. I'm no gun nut, but the founding fathers were very aware that the American people needed protection from the American Government.
repojan
my hobby is more along the lines of nuclear, and fissionable, materials. am i allowed to be let loose on that? can i collect to my hearts content? nothing will happen with these 'collections' unless you use them for the wrong reason. you have an evil mind if you think i would do anything unwise with them!! that would never happen.
and so what if i like to collect plant seeds! any problem with that???
are caster bean seeds ok with you? what if i wanted to collect a ton of apricot pits, is that ok with you?
what if i wanted to collect plutonium, the element named after poland. i want to collect a sample from each reactor? perfectly understandable, huh? so i should be free to collect, as, it is just a little hobby???
perhaps you want to collect 50 cal rifles. (and larger.) but only working models. is that ok?
kim jong il shouldn't collect rockets to launch into space????? why not??? can i????
wayne from the nra seems more like a button collector to me. perhaps he should stick to buttons.
meanwhile i will collect my plutonium samples. it is just a hobby. what can it hurt???? they are very small and don't take up much room.
i also collect stamps and coins. and autographs of famous writers. and old post cards.
so what!!! none of this is any of your business. none at all. why both with my hobbies. you have yours. and i have mine. where do you live? i might just want to show you some of my collections one day.
Guns don't kill people, music does.
@don97524
Stop bring up gun violence in the UK vs the US. They've banned guns so of course they'll have less gun violence than us. It's a horrible argument and people keep bringing it up. It's just like the argument about car related deaths from the pro-gun side.
Ya think we can sue rock and roll bands and record companies for all the drug deaths we've had in this country?
Yeah, now thats irresponsible behavior !!!
For less than 50 cents per day per student we could have well trained armed policemen in every school in America. LA Schools spend 7000.00 per student per year. Your going to tell me that 135.00 per student is too much to pay???
You liberals/Communists are the problem. Each of these shooters came from Liberal families. Maybe we should sue every liberal in this country for these murders.
Desert
If you were actually following the conversation you would know that I only brought up England to counter some gun advocate's example of gun bans in Russia and Mexico. What I said is that if he wanted to compare us to another country he should refer to a country that we are more similar to, such as England.
If you want to criticize me, do me the honor of using my complete context. I understand that that takes some effort, but it also required some effort for you to criticize my statement.
@Haggis your mommy called your dinner is ready...maybe you can sit a the grow up table.
I-Am-The-Fox:
The question wasn't "What does a clear-thinking fully-armed crowd do in this scenario" The question was, as a single member of the crowd in no position to know who fired the shot, what would YOU do in that instance? You didn't witness it and, for all you know, one of those people pointing a gun at you is the shooter. The question was, "What's your next move?" Your answer apparently is, wait and see what happens. If you think there is going to be a calm and reasonable resolution in this scenario, you have greater faith in crowd behavior than I do.
I completely agree with protecting our school children by having a TRAINED, ARMED POLICE OFFICER in every school in America.
Most communities have plenty of police officers driving around giving traffic violations. I would much prefer knowing our children are safe. Some have suggested allowing people with a CCW to carry in schools, and allowing some staff member(s) to be armed, as a deterrent to anyone attempting to carry out a school shooting. I believe this is a bad idea...we do not need more guns in schools...we need the presence of a trained and armed officer, not only as a deterrent to anyone else bringing a weapon into a school, but to be skilled in professionally managing the situation and protecting the staff and children, should someone try bringing a weapon in. It is common sense, and an affordable solution to help deter and prevent these tragic situations, such as occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Although I have not been a fan of the NRA stance on some issues, I believe there is much truth to what they are saying here. Violent movies and video games are a part of the problem. Those who blame the media for reporting must realize the alternative would be a censored society if we move to dictate what they are allowed to report. I do believe there should be some restrictions on purchasing semi automatic assault types of weapons, also. They are not used for hunting...they are designed to cause multiple casualties, and need some restrictions.
RobertHernandez:
Dude, our founders were indeed leery of corruption. Nowhere, in our constitution or elsewhere, is there found a right to commit treason against our government. Nowhere is there found the need for a well-armed minority to overthrow a government they believe is corrupt. And if there is a majority who finds the government corrupt, there is a very well-established means proscribed for the citizenry to revolt against it - the Vote!
Our government is not a monarchy, it is not a tyranny, it is not somehow disassociated from our public. Our government is ourselves. That is the protection against corruption. To call the government anything else is to deny the revolutionary aspect of what our founders put in place: a constitutional democracy.
Madison, who wrote our constitution, was well aware of the democratic tyranny of the majority. His solution was not to arm the citizens, but to negate that need for revolution by adding a constitution which guarantees 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. That is his protection against revolution. To think he added the second amendment to the bill of rights (which he also wrote) as another means to check the government, as an endorsement of treason against this revolutionary form of government (in case, I suppose, it doesn't work?), is just ludicrous.
Why would a public need to revolt against itself?
the real enemy is the companies that make these weapons and hand them over, just to willingly, to emotional beings with fragile egos. If companies didn't make guns then troubled souls wouldn't have access to them which equals no dead civilians, no dead soldiers, and no dead children. [at least killed by gun fire]
Is this fool for real? Armed cops in every single school? Hey idiot, will you your kind allow them to be unionized?
Does he have any idea the number of middle/junior/senior high schooler's who would be shot by the police, or, is that what he's advocating?
This man is a joke! And yea, I like my guns ever since my Military days, but, I have never, ever seen a reason to belong to this racist NRA.
Get the facts straight on how many mass killings in schools there have been in the US versus other countries. Only 5 in the US versus 10 in other countries (#School_massacres). The worst in the US was in 1927 with 44 killed in MI. And did not involve any assault weapons. If you research each incident, it is a mental health issue with people. For the US, only 2 of the 5 did not involve persons who used/played violent video games (they were in 1927 and 1966 before PC's). Same with workplace shootings, it is a mental imbalance that leads these people to their acts. Congress needs to be addressing mental health in America and keeping guns out of the mentally ill/unstable hands. Sane Americans should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to bear firearms if they choose. It is then their responsibility to keep their firearms locked in the homes of children and teens which is part of responsible gun ownership.
To my fellow Progressives. Please shut up a bit and use your heads. You are sounding just as bad as the right wing nut jobs. Spouting all sorts of anti-gun rhetoric, the vast majority of which has no basis in fact, but only in some ideological truism that isn't true. I have always been proud of my fellow Progressives because we almost always tend to use logic and statistic and scientific fact. But bring up gun issues and many of you become as illogical and possessed as a rabid dog.
I have virtually no use for the NRA because they have evolved from what was once a good, non-partisan organization, into a Political Action Committee supporting Republican candidates. I was a member years ago, but quit when all they did was attempt to destroy good and often moderate Democrats in favor of far right Republicans. However, what Mr. LaPierre said today was for the most part true. A large part of what he said today about getting police officers and/or specifically trained armed security personnel in schools could very well have been lifted from a post I made a few days ago. If you want to immediately stop kids being killed in schools, spend the money to put an effective security force in place. We'd be creaing jobs too.
Our politicians, both Democrat and Republican go to work enjoying the security provided by armed guards. You don't hear Democrats complaining that they should be removed so that their workplace isn't a fortress. Why? Simple, because it keeps them safe! We provide armed guards for our money, for our businesses, for many public venues and for virtually every celebrity of some status. But our kids aren't worthy of the protection we provide to the elite in our society?
LaPierre talked today too about the problem of mental illness. Every single one of these mass shootings perpetrators has been deemed to have been suffering from some form of mental illness. We Progressives have been strongly supportive of making health care available to every citizen. Mental health should be no different. This needs to be addressed too. Cure the mental illness and there are no more of these incidents, period.
I am fine with making sure military weapons are not available to the general public without very special permits. But what we are talking about when we call for an assault weapons ban, is not military weapons. These are guns that look like military weapons. They are no more lethal than many modern hunting firearms. The distinction between them is cosmetic. Read the previous assault weapons ban, it is about cosmetic parts, not functional parts. Military assault weapons use automatic fire. Civilian "assault weapons" do not. This is the key functional difference. That is what makes the military weapon more lethal than typical hunting or sporting weapons. I hear many of the Progressive pundits carelessly throwing around terms, statistics and comparison which are absolutely not true. Over the last week for example, MSNBC political talk show hosts have spewed so much misinformation, that they're looking like Fox news. This bothers me because we are better than that!
Now I think many anti-gun folks, simply don't know any better. They buy into the rhetoric and misleading information. I am frankly embarassed that we are doing this. We should be above "winning one for our team" by what ever means necessary. We discuss many topics here on the vine everyday and we beg the right to reject the crazies on the extremes of the far right. We appeal to the sensible ones to sit down and examine what they are really supporting. But today I am asking my fellow Progressives to do the same thing. Do not get caught up into an extreme left agenda item. You are buying into something you don't really know about.
I hear and read comments that this is an American problem that doesn't occur elsewhere. Really? Take the time to research it a bit. Look at statistical evidence. Maybe we don't always hear so much about these things in foreign countries, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Let me remind you of one such instance and the do some research on your own. About a year and a half ago in Norway, a country which has very strict gun regulations, some of the toughest in the world and less than 5 million people. In Norway they have about 3 guns for every ten people. Guns are very much a part of their society though and for the most part they are not frequently involved in homicides to any significant extent. They are a pretty safe country with pretty good criminal statistics. But they suffered a major mass shooting in and around a youth camp for Christian fundamentalists. Over 80 people, mostly kids, ended up dead. Very strict gun regulations didn't prevent that. But you have to put all these things in perspective. Norway has very good "universal" healthcare by law. Norway has had pretty high suicide rates connected to mental illness, but made a concerted effort to improve it through improved mental health care. Over a relatively short period, they improved suicide rates by better than 25% through improved availability of mental health care services.
Japan has virtually no guns. But mass killings do take place. usually using poisons or gas. Remember the Sarin gas attacks by the cult fanatics? Europe overall is not really much better than the US in the way of mass killings. Less in number but as a statistical percentage, only slightly better. But Europe has a lot of countries and it varies. Their gun laws vary considerably too. When you look country by country tougher gun regulations are not tied to less incidents of mass killings.
The point is, do the research, don't just accept someones agenda based spin. Havard law did an interesting study on gun laws and murder and suicides internationally. They conclude that you can't link tough gun regulations to reduce rates.
www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I've heard some other false statements made recently. "You can buy guns on the Internet without a background check." "40% of all gun sale are made on the Internet"
The only people who can buy guns via the Internet are FFL licensed dealers, Period. An individual can find a deal via the Internet, however, to purchase that gun he has to get a licensed dealer to buy it, ship it to his place of business and then sell it to you, after you pass a background check. Now I suppose that 40% of purchases made by licensed dealars probably involve some use of the Internet in the process, but that isn't what the claim was trying to indicate.
Here's a similar one, "40% of all gun sales are made at guns shows through private sales transactions without background checks." Explain to me how you collect the data to support that when such private sales are not reported anywhere? The fact is you can't determine this. There is no data to support it. It is a made up statistic that was someone's guess. But our pundits are spewing this BS like it is a fact. Use your head, it can't be a fact without factual data to support it. We get all over the right wing when they make such outlandish unsubstantiated claims!
Let's look at high capacity magazines. Think they are a big advantage? Well, no, not really. 100 round drum magazines are a gimmick. They don't work. OK for out at the range when you don't feel like stuffing smaller magazines, but these almost always create jams and failures to feed. The Aurora theater shooter used one. It got jammed within firing a couple dozen rounds and made the gun inoperable. God forbid that I should ever be caught in one of these incidents, but frankly if I did, I'd hope the shooter was using 100 round drums. It will fail and provide an opportunity to take action against him. The higher the capacity magazine, the more likely a jam or fail to feed occurs. That is going to be a malfunction that takes considerable time to clear. But a practiced shooter can swap a magazine out and be firing again in under 3 seconds for most semi-auto rifles, less than that for most semi-auto pistols. A lot of cheap aftermarket magazines aren't very good. They tend to be sensitive to ammo brand and often require a lot of "tuning" to make the reliable. Rifles with "bottle neck" cartridges, (so called assault rifles) tend to be more prone to problems than straight wall pistol cartridges. Make ten rounds the maximum and these shooters will just carry more 10 round magazines. Changing them quickly is not an issue.
But a lot of conversation recently has been about the "assault rifle", which is cosmetic in nature and high capacity magazines who superiority is mythical. These would be useless laws, just like they were useless the first time.
If you want to completely eliminate gun violence you need to completely eliminate guns. That isn't going to happen. Besides the fact it won't pass Constitutional muster, explain just how you confiscate well over 300 million guns. If everybody somehow miraculously decide to cooperate, it's a monumental logistical task, plus you would have to provide for some fair compensation. The cost would be extraordinary. But even then, just eliminating guns won't stop mass killings. There's plenty of effective alternatives.
Making new laws doesn't protect anyone, it takes enforcement. Personally I see guns as being one of those personal rights to protect one's self. I don't see it as being much different than a woman's right to choose or a gay's right to marry whoever they want to. This really ought to be a liberal issue.
We are focusing on the wrong thing. Lets instead make strides in better more available mental health care. That is how you prevent these incidents. And provide security to schools. LaPierre's basic idea is sound. Just ask your kid if he/she would feel more safe knowing a police officer was guarding them. I can guarantee what the vast majority will say. And maybe that's because they will use simple logic and won't consider the political implications. It would be effective and could happen virtually instantly.
I am all for replacing far right thinking with progressive thinking, but "winning" this one is stupid. The majority may want to ban "assault weapons" but the majority of that majority think these are military weapons. They're not. When you have an opinion about something you don't really understand, you look a like a RWNJ. We need to stay sensible. The fact is that we can create laws but laws really only tend to impact the law abiding public. Crazy people and criminals really don't care too much about what laws allow or don't. It is pretty hard to see a law constructed that would have prevented this incident. Why create laws that really make no positive contribution to the problem? Frankly, I think some in our group are seeing this as an opportunity to take advantage of. That's just wrong. We shouldn't be operating this way and it is hypocritical to complain when the other side does it and then we play the same game.
Robert:
Yeah, not to pick on you, and I agree philosophically with your assessment, but you don't take into account the millions of guns out there already. Reasonable people know that if they are to be confronted with force, it will likely take the form of a gun, so a gun will be necessary to protect themselves. And, of course, there is the 2nd amendment, which does indeed grant the right to bear arms.
We have gotten ourselves into a pickle, and there is no way out. There are a few things we can do to try to mitigate the carnage of mass shootings and the like, like banning military-grade weapons, restricting clips to fewer rounds, and making sure that people who buy guns are not criminals or mentally ill, but notice that when even these slight steps are proposed, the most narcissistic and violent among us begin to foam at the mouth.
Our country has screwed itself badly. But with well-armed criminals and right-wing lunatics out there (and I really couldn't say which is worse), I'll be holding on to my guns, thanks.
Snakebone,
I will give you the fact that no where does it state we have the right to treason. We don't. And you really can't put that in there, its to brazen. But to bring up the vote, i'll have to bring up the bush-gore election. I mean i was a child and understood something was wrong there. How VP Wallace under Roosevelt was f*#ked over and the job given to Truman in Roosevelts thrid election. And our government was bought and sold the minute the banks came in under Wilson. And if this is the country where everyone is equal, why'd it take so long for a black man to vote, or go to a white school, women to be treated fairly at the work place? We say were a moral people but we committed genocide the best we could to build this country and still native reservations are some of the poorest places in this country.
And no were not a monarchy, we could argue the tyranny, but the government is most def disaccosiated from the public. And consitiutional government, how about the patirot act?
were not free man. Free to be comfortable maybe. As long as we buy, buy, buy. But still gay rights are an issue today like its different from civil rights. We had this battle already. State and religion are suppose to be seperate, but thats all the issue is.
And jefferson wrote the cons. I'll give you Madison on the bill of rights though.
True, man. I'll give you that. and i'm more a realist then i let on sometimes and i'll be holding on to my gun as well because i'm leery of our society. but dude the world needs drastic change on a global level and short of an alien race coming through taking all our nukes and guns and saying 'look you build more, we'll come back and f*#k you all up'. its up to the people, this is a great nation, founded on the purest of beliefs, but along the way we lost our path and its going to take us, the people, Americans, to stand up and say 'we will not be led into spoiled submission, we will take to the streets and protest and give instead of buy, we will walk right out of your factories and business centers and return to the communes of peace, instead of the complex of capitalism'
Again, before you jump to some wacko political solution, how about checking with some experts about the psychological impact on school children from having armed guards at their schools!
Think twice, act once.
Desertmo, #1.73- Thank you for the reply. That is pretty much what I had in mind, BUT, was unsure 1)because I'm not One who's "in the market" for a gun and 2)there is so much "absurdity" and anything goes "free-for-all" these days that One can't TRUST that what would seem logical would actually be so! (ie, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS at a Gun Show?????) What's the "loophole" on that one? It was named in the article: RECKLESSNESS (purposeful and actually NOT enough focus on Congressional Connection, as a whole, in that regard, too!)
clwyd-2621393, #1.189- EXCELLENT!!!!! That is actually "exactly" what the CEO is saying, (the good guy with the gun vs the bad guy with the gun), but he wants to and has skewed it to mean something else.
RTSOB, #1.201- EXCELLENT!!!!
I don't get? Can someone explain to me what is wrong with asking someone who might possibly know the answer?
Double post, sorry. :)
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.."
If the bad guys with guns think they're actually the good guys, and the good guys with guns believe the good guys without guns next door aren't that good, makes for busy funeral parlors.
"Give all the teachers a gun."
I knew a few schoolteachers that were two steps away from becoming impulsive nutcases.
"Put armed security guards in ALL the schools."
A police state comes to mind.
"We don't need more gun laws."
...because it would reduce the sky-high profits of our gun manufacturers.
Only in America would a group asking to protect our children get demonized.
Only in America would a person who is on his way to a psychic ward make other people lose there rights.
Pass laws in this country based on the majority who's actions dictate our behavior, not on the less than 1% who's behavior is wrong on both sides of the Aile.
THE TERM "ASSAULT GUN" IS A POLITICAL TERM.
I do not believe the ratio of pro gun vs. anti gun ppl is anywhere close to reality.
What is it about the Constitution and the 2nd amendment you do not get on this site.
Just the rumor of an armed guard at schools would deter most of the offenders. What are you afraid of? That it would actually work? I get it. If we took the NRA idea and utilized it, the instances of this type of crime would drop, and you would all be proven wrong, and that would destroy you.
Just for once, liberals, set aside your EMOTIONAL FEELINGS and work with LOGIC just on this one simple, low cost idea.
One of Hitlers first moves was to disarm the Germans. Now that your dear leader is in his second term (I still can't believe the uninformed voters out there) he is trying to disarm our nation. A pathetic reaction to an unspeakable crime. Rather than try posting or even have it be known that there possible armed guards at school as a policy, ala marshals in planes, you would rather disarm the public and allow my kids be bulldozed by a tyrant some day is absurd and anti American.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING. IT IS ALL ABOUT TYRANNY AND SELF PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY. I FEAR MY GOVERNMENT MORE THAN I FEAR A ROBBER.
The NRA response is totally disgusting and ridiculous as a solution to our problems, but I'm not surprised, given it is run by a bunch of egotistical, narcissistic control freaks who have been enjoying getting off on the pressure they can apply to the gonads of a certain spineles but ideological faction in our government.
Now most elementary and middle/junior high schools are small, but a lot of high schools are large, and would probably require 3, 4 or 5 armed officers at least. Now what about shopping malls, movie theaters, churches/temples, sports arenas, etc., if the schools are now a "hard" target, won't these other venues be seen as much easier to assault? Do we leave leave them unprotected, or place armed guards there also, can you imagine how many that would take. So tell me Mr. LaPierre, are you going to get your friends in the GOP/TP to support higher taxes to pay for that?
By the way, I, like at least one other poster above me, own firearms (3 rifles), and my wife and I are researching a good handgun to buy for home protection only, not conceal and carry. I support the 2nd amendment and gun ownership, I just don't support the abject stupidity displayed by the power mad element in our society today.
If brains and/or common sense were morals, LaPierre would be a slimy slut!
@IWonder...
First, let me say, I live in a generally safe, suburban community that does not have high violent crime statistics. Our school system had a program in which each Elementary School in the district had an assigned police officer who spent time with the fifth graders every week, helping them in drug awareness education...just say no, etc. (Called the "DARE program") These officers always had their police officer issued weapons on them during these school sessions, and I can say as a parent of four children who participated in this program, an armed officer at school was never found to be a negative psychological issue for anyone in the school, including the younger children who got to know this school officer. The officer was looked at as a friend, by both students, staff and parents, and it actually helped facilitate good relations between the kids and law enforcement, at a time when they were young and impressionable...and soon to be entering their teens, when you want these kids to have a healthy respect for law enforcement. I was very sad when, due to budget constraints, this program was discontinued in our district.
I believe anything that helps a child to feel safe from danger, and even protected from any possible violence between kids that could arise, is a good thing psychologically, and helps create a safe environment where they can learn better. Our high school near where I live has security guards present everyday, and very often there is also a police officer at the school. It has never been seen as something that would be psychologically damaging to any of the kids in our district, and actually offers an opportunity to promote good relations between young people and law enforcement. I hope that helps to answer your question and concerns.
KJR, I hope things are, as they appear to be at your school. My daughter, the psychologist, says that they often are not, She says that it may take many years for the ramifications to become apparent.
I am not saying that you are wrong, only that if you are, it's the children that suffer.
All these type of interventions should be vetted by qualified people before being implemented. There are no guarantees even then.
@IWonder-932455...
After last Friday's horrific school shooting...and the others that have sadly preceded that tragedy, I think many kids are currently more at risk for psychological ramifications due to feeling "unprotected and vulnerable" at school and other public places.
As a person who has suffered from PTSD, I know the damage resulting from feeling unprotected, vulnerable and afraid...and I would UNQUESTIONINGLY take the alternative of a trained and armed officer present, to help keep schools and their students feeling safe. He/she doesn't have to be looked at as a big, scary Rambo kind of guy...why would he/she be? These officers become a welcome friend to the students.
KJR, all I am telling you is that the only true test is time.
Most parents raise their kids the best they can, I did. I'm sure that you are as well. That does not guarantee anything. My kids are 35 and 30 and live within 2 miles of me. They are not dope heads or alcoholics but I am wise enough to know that I would be stupid to think that they turned out to be great kids because of me.
Until it's over, don't brag.
@IWonder...
I wasn't aware I was "bragging"? I was speaking of our school district, and a program we had while my kids were growing up that had police officers in the Elementary Schools on a weekly basis, who seemed to be a positive presence for students, teachers and parents. My children are also grown...my oldest will be 30 years old in a couple months and I have three in their twenties. So far, none has shown any negative "psychological ramifications" from their time spent with a police officer in their Elementary School...or from the presence of High School Security Guards. They all have many friends and to my knowledge, I am not aware of any resulting problems that any of their school friends have later developed either. My oldest daughter and her classroom friends were in Elementary School twenty-five years ago...that is quite a test of time, I think. That doesn't mean there couldn't be individual cases where someone did not think the law enforcement presence was helpful to them, but I am quite sure the big picture for most was a positive and helpful experience in having the contact with a police officer in their school. I just think maybe your daughter is too focused on looking for a potential problem with this idea, rather than looking at the real benefits it offers in various ways.
Focusing on guns misses the problem. That young man didn't shoot people because he had a gun; he did it because he's mentally unstable. Simply putting a gun in someones hand doesn't make them go on a rampage.
Someone made great points earlier that seem to have been relatively ignored, so I'm re-posting them, in the hopes that people think about them:
Some people have stressful lives and use "violent" media as a form of stress relief. But everyone is different, and while most (read: the majority of) people will not become more violent because of this, people 'on the edge' might. However, that's because they already have a pre-existing mental condition and/or they're reacting to outside events that are unrelated to media.
There isn't any one thing to pin blame on when these things happen. Fighting over media and gun issues solves nothing, because media and weapons aren't really the problem. More attention needs to be paid to mental health and why people actually commit these acts, not what they commit them with. Until we can help these people and find a way to get them on the right track, we will have to deal with these sorts of unfortunate events.
Turning every school into an armed camp is the NRA's DREAM. It is OBSCENE that they would dishonor these innocent dead children to advance their intellectually dishonest, GROSS agenda to promote their corporate gun manufacturing sponsors' profits by turning the entire country into an armed camp.
Dear Santa,
I have decided it is time to take my second amendment rights seriously. Therefore, I am requesting the following things this Christmas:
1. Patriot Missiles - Not all enemies are on the next block
2. Nuclear warheads - There are wide areas of gun crazies to wipe out.
3. Chemical weapons - Sometimes you just want to kill off an NRA convention and not the whole town
As the word arms refers to the whole of available weapons, I am entitled by the second amendment to own these items just as all those killers are entitled to their guns. Since the missiles won't fit under the tree, could you just install them in the yard? I have been very good this year. I think I deserve them all.
Thanks in advance Santa,
Witty
Columbine High School actually had an armed sheriff's deputy on duty during the 1999 shooting spree when two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before committing suicide. The armed deputy was unable to stop the shooting.
Nah kjr, I was not telling you what my daughter says, I was telling you that any unproven change can have unexpected results.
As a parent I would not have had my children exposed to any pilot program. I am not trying to tell you that I made no mistakes as a parent, far from it. My children's mother died, so I may have been over-parenting. It may be that the program is a good thing, as you believe, as I said time will tell.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is, rather than bandaids, we should be trying to discover the cause or causes of these people losing it and, perhaps, people could become saner rather than crazier. I can almost guarantee that cops in schools, is not the answer. Can't you see that it is getting worse? Worldwide? I have an opinion but you know what an opinion from a non-professional is worth.
Why would it be such a stretch to ask professionals?
RobertHernandez:
All right, I agree with a lot of what you said, and our differences on the rest are maybe a bit too complicated to be resolved here. One little point of fact, though: Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Madison wrote both the constitution and the bill of rights. As a bit of historical trivia, Madison thought the bill of rights was redundant; he believed all of what is spelled out in that document could have easily been inferred in the constitution itself! Hard to believe...
Merry Christmas!
Had the liberals not gone so OVERBOARD on the civil liberty laws for Committing the crazies, this wouldn't have happened. Mom could have had him locked before he went on his Rampage. News as Yahoo said Ms. Lanza “was petitioning the court for conservatorship and ..." How long does that take?
Why aren't you people screaming about that?
So, why is this so outrageous? All the police are armed. All the FBI agents are armed. the military is Armed. between 50 and 80 million Americans are armed. What makes teachers so special? is it because so many of them are women? Are you sexist Pat? don't think women can handle a gun? Or do you think Hannity it saying "here is a gun", and not giving them the training to use it properly. Or do you think he implied they be trained, like they do police? I am all for it, why pay an extra cop, to stand around and do nothing most of the day.(although that does sound like a union job, makes me wonder why the union types are against this, it is job creation after all)
If we train and arm those teachers who want it, I would think we would have several armed individuals in each school instead of one Security Guard. Also, the bad guy would not know which teacher is armed, whereas he could easily target the Security Guard. Sounds like a reasonable, inexpensive solution, the only problem is your squeamishness about having a gun around kids all day. You would still have that with the security guard. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
et. al
I have noticed something else, I have been on these vines for days now, following the discussions. I have noticed something. On the vines that start getting dominated by conservatives, the liberals leave. I have noticed that the majority of comments here are from liberals and there are 248 posts to this one comment.
Mostly about how cowardly the conservatives are. well if we are so cowardly, why is it you who seems to give up and go spew on another vine. If we are so wrong, why can't you convince us? most conservatives I know are pretty open to a reasonable argument.
To prove my point I will offer this challenge, I will start promoting Gun Control if you can prove to me that it will work in America. You can not use European countries, Japan or Korea as examples as these are relatively small monolithic populations. I can easily select regions of this country of similar populations that have a lower gun violence rate, yet have more guns.
If someone can answer this:
As far back as the Whiskey Rebellion, the government has used Federal Militia, later the National Guard to "restore" order. And as recently as the '70's, there have been several clashes between the National Guard and civilians, especially during labor disputes, but other protests as well, witness Kent State and Mississippi. It is definitely not unheard of for the Government to use military forces to impose its will upon the populace. Thus far, it has been, relatively supported by the majority, but what about the day it isn't?
The liberals always seem to be claiming the "Rich Elite" and "Corporate America" are manipulating the government. Well, who is going to oppose them when they take over? You?
No, you liberals are just like Pavlov's Dog, The MSM starts saying something, and you just pick it up and start yipping too, until the politicians do something stupid (e.g. the Community Restoration Act of 1994)
I did talk to a professional about the insanity and what the professional told me was not comforting. "It is going to get progressively worse in almost all the advanced countries and the steps the governments will take is going to hasten the developments."
At least the world didn't end. Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
@IWonder...
This is part of your comment in #1.240 I understood you to be saying your daughter is a psychologist and says that having an armed police officer in elementary schools may have negative ramifications for the children years later, to which I was responding to with positive experience in relation to armed police officers in a school setting.
I also believe we need to look at our mental health system and available treatment, as well as attempt to understand what environmental factors/conditions lead to the sociopathic behavior that would bring someone to slaughter innocent people in these mass shootings. Obviously, with better understanding, we can hopefully find ways to prevent these attacks, including the prevention/effective treatment for potential perpetrators, as well as have better methods to protect those vulnerable to the the ones who will act to destroy other innocents, even with our best efforts to identify and help them. We are never going to prevent every potential killer from attempting to carry out a mass killing. We know schools are a full of vulnerable children/people that can not adequately defend themselves at this time, and thus too often become a target of these sociopathic killers. Putting an armed police officer in schools would certainly be a deterrent, as well as offer protection in the event that a killer does target a school.
RTSOB,
You can fling all the HYPOTHETICAL Situations in the World out there. From Training and Experience, I would holster my firearm put my hands in front of me, then say excuse me, and make my way to the stage to assist the Congresswoman with immediate life saving procedures (done too many times, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.).
IWonder-932455,
Most of those under the age of 5x, do not know what it was like before. So they do not even know just how much they have been "Conditioned" (brainwashed a la MK Ultra) just like this guy (believing he was born to be a prisoner):
http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-504803_162-57556660-10391709/north-korean-prison-escapee-describes-a-life-of-hunger/
example: The 2010 Movie, The Final, as a How To Instructional Movie.
Seems to me that the Doctor Spock (not StarTrek) Behavioral Psychologist Method of raising Children turned out to be a dismal failed Social Experiment.
Go one further, since the NRA trains the US Law Enforcement on Firearms Safety, Marksmanship, etc.
NRA Training Only for US Law Enforcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MOiEQaRoBQ
Have them also do the NRA "Eddy Eagle" thing also for more of the Schools even if the Schools are opposed (means for children to learn to report unsafe or unsecure Firearms).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSpIAXIrLG4
AND have all Teachers, School Administrators armed with projectile type Tasers.
Just because someone was trained and pinned on a badge does not make one experienced or willing to risk their lives. I have seen so many people after years of training "freeze up"; piss or defecate themselves; make the wrong decisions based on fear, emotions, etc.; panic; etc. since the 1980s; this reaction is normal and not the exception as part of the Flight or Fight (last resort) Response. It is only decades of experience that changes the natural instinct to flee or hide first and if cornered fight as the last desperate resort (and even then the majority will not even fight and attempt to negotiate, beg, plead, etc..).
@ 1newday 1.227
Well said even for a liberal, you sure you're a libber? (all slander aside ;-) well said.)
I have been trying to explain to other here that this is all just window dressing, cosmetic, feel good do nothing but create problems legislation. Perhaps you should write a letter to Ms. Pelosi and explain the situation to her.
Guns aren't the problem, it is the attitude in this country towards life and guns.
You do realize the 2nd Amendment does not release you from your obligation to be tried for murder if you use those weapons on anyone who is not posing an immediate and credible threat to you. don't you? Because every gun owner I know, knows this.
You do have a secure place to contain those weapons, because if some the nut job liberals get their way, you will be held accountable if those weapons are stolen and used in a crime.
Hey Liberals....Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?
Your kids are getting dumber and dumber with the failed Dept of Ed. Your parents are getting fatter and lazier letting tv raise them and obesity skyrocketing. Your parents are letting them swear while they let them watch HoneyBooBoo. Your kids have no manners or even the ability to write in cursive any longer. Your kids are failures in this world and sinking quickly while the parents only countermeasure is ridilin.
I guess that's the NRA's fault as well.
" ... 3,000 children killed every day of the year in medical facilities around the country. ... "
This is typical of the Right. It's called "false equivalency" and it is used when they/you have nothing else. No facts. No evidence. Nothing with which to make an argument. So you say ... " Yea, but .... ". And nothing but BS.
Now are you really trying to tell, convince us that aprox. 3000 healthy children a day, or aprox. 1,095,000 a year, are "killed" every year in U.S. "medical facilities"? And I mean "killed" as in shot up to 11 times? Not counting now any "deaths" you might count abortions as. Really? Without citing ANY sources? Really? I mean REALLY?
" ... but other protests as well, witness Kent State and Mississippi. ... "
Oh you mean where 4, unarmed students were shot and killed by the National Guard? Murdered by ignorant arses with guns? While partaking in their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble? You mean THAT type of protest?
So you advocate the killing of this countries civilian population by it's Armed Forces?
Huh. Imagine that.
Yes, there should be armed police officers, standing guard at every school, mall, movie theater, public building and yes even Walmart. The funds to cover this expense can be covered by taxing those who own guns. Charge them a fee to register their weapons and renew their registry annually the same way vehicles have to renew their registration annually for a fee. Put a heavy tax on all ammunition. Put the heaviest tax on ammunition for automatic weapons which disperse hundreds of rounds in moments. Require weapon owners to show proof of insurance. That way when their weapon is used by anyone to harm others, the insurance can cover medical and funeral costs of victims. Before being allowed to purchase a weapon these people should have to attend safety classes and pass a test which would include a mental health review. Before weapon owners are allowed to take their guns home they should have to own a trigger lock for each weapon and a gun safe. If at any time a weapon falls into the wrong hands due to lack of gun security on the owner's part, that owner should be held liable for any damages carried out by their weapon.
Excerpt taken from POST #1.251
Evidently you have a reading comprehension problem, indicative of a public education. If you read the post correctly, you should (as difficult as it is for dope smoke addled brain to comprehend) understand that is exactly the opposite of what I was arguing. To the contrary, I was advocating the citizens defense against the Armed Forces.
I stated that the Government has no problem using its armed forces against civilians. (to enforce its will) And I gave the examples of Kent State, and in Mississippi, but one could also show similar results from Waco or Ruby Ridge. And don't let the media propaganda fool you, do a little research on it. (Waco, Seventy-six men, women and children died because the Government hadn't collected a $200 tax on the guns. It is legal to make a semi-auto full auto if you pay the Government enough money in taxes, fees and licenses. Which David did not.)
At the time, even though the shooting at Kent State, was condemned, the majority of the country still supported the overall actions of the Government. Unless of course, you don't think the integration of public schools was a good thing (as I mentioned Mississippi)
My point being, at some point the majority of the people are not going to support the overall actions of the government. And if the majority can not vote them out. The only alternative is to force them out.
The 2nd Amendment is the last bargaining chip the People have. It is the last check in the system of Checks and Balances. If the Government (i.e. the people running the Government) does not fear the People, then they fear nothing.
What kind of sick twisted perverted mind would think for one second that I or anyone; conservative or otherwise, would advocate this country killing its civilian population with the Armed Forces? It is now wonder we can not come to an understanding, agreement and compromise. REALLY, you thought that...You are a sick, sick puppy. And you people are shouting at us that we need therapy? wow.
Tell you what, do the rest of us grown ups a favor, keep quiet, listen to the grown ups talk, pay attention. In a couple years maybe you can say something worthwhile and intelligent.
Oh and, do us a favor, if you are going to reply to a post, include the name and number of the post, so others can see what you are talking about. it is a little thing called courtesy.
Also, out of that big long post, this is all you could reply to? and you even got IT wrong.
@ George from Wa. State
Your comment did get me to thinking, the examples I gave are typically the government going after "those EVIL guns and gun owners" which you like right? the government should kill those evil NRA types right? (I am being a bit facetious here George, pay attention)
I am sure that if we look deep enough, that we can find instances where the Government i.e the DEA went after some innocent marijuana users, right. (I am serious now George) I mean to say we share some common ground in that we each have an interest (I chose Marijuana, because you are from Wa. and I guess a liberal, but you may never have done drugs, It what we call an example) in something the Government may want to control at some point in the future. And if at that point in the future we can no longer vote them out, what do we do?
But you voted to Ban and or confiscate all those "Assault Weapons", then when that didn't work you voted to ban/confiscate all the hand guns, etc. Until we were only left with a ballot box
Tell me George, do you think that ballot box will ALWAYS work? History is on my side on that one, here's hoping the future is on your side, (My dad always said "that hoping is like wishing, only hard work gets it done". He also said "Wish in one hand and s**t in the other and see which one gets full first, now get back to work")
The creep, Wayne LaPeer, said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If that is so, why did a trained law enforcement person get gunned down by the shooter at the incident at Fort Hood in 2009? The shooter saw the person out of the corner of his eye, whirled around and let loose with shots from his assault rifle. Got the trained person in the leg, the knee-- and I don't know where all else. He was so busy with that one person he didn't see the second one who shot him. Shame the shooter didn't get killed. No, he's a paraplegic and us taxpayers are paying to keep him happy, paying for his nursemaids, paying for his lawyers-- and since he is still on active duty paying his Major's pay. Oh, the Major wasn't a law enforcement person-- he was a shrink. Shrinks are dangerous!
Dumbfarmboy,
Am I liberal? You betcha! Although I tend to think Progressive is a bit better description. Just go back and look at my history of posts on other topics. I'm sure we probably disagree about a lot of other things, but when you use logic and real knowledge vs. spin, we can sometimes find common ground. We don't do enough of that today and there seems to be an inherent distrust for the other side. I know I am "cautious" about just accepting what I hear from someone on the right, just as you are about those of us on the left. But I try to listen anyway.
I have a lot of right leaning friends and there's quite a bit that we don't completely agree on, but we respect each other's positions. But I can't say that I have any good relationships with either those on the far right or the far left. I get along better with people who are accepting of finding middle ground.
The thing is that the vast majority of anti-gunners really have little true knowledge about the topic because they really aren't familiar with it. It is a pretty common human trait that we tend to fear things that we don't understand.
Too much. Calling the NRA nuts for blaming violence in the games and movies kids watch, and at the same time blaming the gun for the violence but never the way these kids were raised.
People are saying that the NRA is saying "it's not us", and at the same time saying "it's not us" in regards to how their kids are being raised.
The whole world is friggin' nuts.
Ban handguns and assault weapons.
Snakehead,
Yes, I do live in America - in North Carolina - born here over 43 years ago. There are already lots of gun control laws in place in this country. You are correct, the assault weapons ban ended 8 years ago and Obama allowed guns in parks, etc., but the "focus" on violence seems to always lead to the rhetoric of "more gun control."
I could have been more clear about what I meant by "more gun control." To clarify, "more gun control" seems to be the only or by far biggest issue that everyone is focusing on. And it sadly is not the only thing to focus on. Obviously, mental health should be an area of focus, but so should a stronger defensive posture. People have the right to defend themselves and we should also make sure that the people who we entrust our children to have the right and ability to defend them as well.
As I have pointed out, it doesn't take a gun to kill people. It takes a deranged, determined person - someone who had no respect for the life and liberty of their fellow man. I know dozens of law abiding people who own guns. I've never been afraid of any of these individuals. I have no doubt that in my travels I have passed by someone who is not stable and who may even have been armed with a deadly weapon. I am concerned about these types of individuals getting their hands on any type of weapon.
There are other countries that utilize radically different approaches to guns than in the US. Israel and Thailand arm their teachers. I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far yet, but I don't want to take that option off the table and I do believe there should be armed guards in addition to a handful of trained school personnel who are armed in our schools. The Swiss expect their males to have a gun at home between the ages of 20 and 30. They also provide training. The Swiss seem to be remarkably peaceful and neutral on the international stage, they have one of the highest gun ownership rates per capita, yet an extremely low homicide rate by firearms.
Bad people don't care one bit about the laws. Laws to them are worth no more than the paper they are written on and they will do whatever they want regardless of the law. Chicago is an example of this - their homicide rate is rising in spite of one of the toughest handgun ordinances in the country. People commit crimes because they are emboldened by the idea they can get away with it and no one will have the ability to stop them because everyone by the criminals have been effectively disarmed.
I don't have an issue with regulating the sale of guns, registration, requiring background checks and closing loopholes. I do take issue with prohibiting the sale of guns.
It would have been sweet irony if the father of one of those dead kids had put a bullet in that ass hole's head while making that speech.
I'm not against owning guns but there has to be a system that prevents so much of this senseless violence. That NRA jerk is a shill for gun manufacturing companies and dealers.
Dodge City is history we don't need to repeat.
repojam,
If you read the Constitution correctly, 2nd amendment, it says that a Militia has the right to keep and bear Arms. Most of us are not part of any militia!
Just check gun registrations and have people turn in the darn things and the heck with the 2nd amendment. The UK's murders by any weapons and including a few gunshots is about 100th the rate of ours!
"but when you use logic and real knowledge vs. spin, we can sometimes find common ground"
Again well said, and I am sure you are correct that we would disagree on a great many things, but then again, that is what freedom is about. (the trick is finding a way to live together with those disagreements)
I have repeatedly asked some of the opposition to either explain there position,(other than to just ban guns), what they mean by "banning" guns, explain the differences in the guns they want banned versus "hunting" rifles, etc, and get no response. The one I did get, said "he didn't need to know, to have an opinion on the matter". WOW.
So it is nice to have someone to have a rational discussion on the matter with.
Of course the other side has its, because "Its my right, and that's all I need to know" too.
I doubt this country will ever have another civil war, it will slowly slip into the oblivion of social justice and corruption at the top as the populace is lolled into apathy. At least that seems to be the trend, so I guess at some point the 2nd amendment debate will become academic.
Here's to looking forward to a discussion we disagree upon, and a good verbal bout. ;-) and Merry Christmas
Dodge City is Hollywood myth, The fact is there were in fact very few "shoot outs" in Dodge. At least from the resources I have been able to find on the subject as it seems that fires consumed most of the records. Maybe you have a better source. But I get your gist.
Funny(strange, irrational) how someone who seems to be against violence would advocate the homicide of a fellow human being. But then again, most of what I hear coming out the left's mouths is irrational, unsubstantiated and ignorant.
A few thoughts on your insulting rant against "liberals":
It doesn't make sense to blame the NRA for all of those failures that you mention, but bear in mind that teen pregnancies are highest in conservative states, the school dropout rate is highest in conservative states and, yes, Honey Boo Boo lives in a conservative state.
The highest obesity rates .... bingo - red states. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama lead the list.
Bad manners is a problem, but it is not the NRA's fault and it is not the fault of liberals either. However, your lack of manners was undoubtedly an influence on your children. Ya think?
Nice rant, though. Come back again sometime when you will hopefully know what you are talking about.
willowbrook wrote:
The fallacy of your argument begins with your first sentence. LaPierre's voicing of the NRA's official position did not "share" any blame. The NRA deflected any blame, and redirected all of the blame at other industries, and at other societal facors.
I find it hard to believe from your comment that you are aware of the actual content of the NRA's statement; did you watch the recorded video of the statement? Have you read the transcript of the statement? If so, how do you discern that the NRA is "sharing" ANY blame whatsoever for gun violence in America?
The NRA suggested clearly and explicity in their statement that the only problem with guns in the hands of Americans is that there are currently not enough guns in the hands of enough Americans to make us safe.
The statement went further in calling for Congress to correct the current gun deficit immediately by mandating gun-wielding Police in every single one of the hundreds of thousands of schools in America; a proposal which would add many billions of dollars in yearly costs to America's school districts
(and the NRA, of course, was silent about assisting with any of that expense, from the 10's of millions of dollars it collects each year from members, and mostly from gun manufacturers, and redistributes to members of Congress and Political PACs to protect the gun manufacturers from regulation and promote more guns!)
If the NRA is "sharing anything", it is the merely "sharing" the absurd argument that we need many, many more guns.
If it had offered any "sharing" of responsibility at all, most Americans would not feel such pure, total outrage over their statement.
Blame anything but the guns. That's the NRA I know!
For anyone who uses Netflix, check out the excellent streaming 2010 documentary:
"Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To see a list of 2012 Presidential and Congressional candidates who paid contributions TO the NRA (rather than the other way around!) go to:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-list-of-us-politicians-donating-to-national-rifle-association/310570-2.html
The NRA is a Protection Racket!
The NRA has it wrong. The media, music and more that Wayne LaPierre blames is not the imposing influence on society he thinks it is. It is actually the reverse in which the media, music, movies, etc. are merely reflections of a society in decay.
Violence in any form is an issue. But the NRA is full of %$#^ if they think it would not help to have some sensible gun control.
They already propose the idea of back ground checks, limiting clips, limiting those with mental issues of owing guns, etc. What do you want them to do, propose banning guns?
Jeanne-880695
Some sensible gun control? We have that already. What other gun controls would you propose? Banning the sale of all semi-automatics? What about the ones already in circulation? Ban possession of and confiscate all semi-automatics? I'd like to see them try that.
What do you consider to be "sensible" gun control?
So people from Hollywood should be allowed to glorify violence while advocating gun control in the midst of their armed security? Hmmm.... That makes total sense.
The fact of the matter is that weapons much worse than this have been available for a long time and this issue has only gotten worse the more big government tries to control it. It seems to me that we have a social problem that people aren't willing to address.
We already have sensible gun control. Most people on these sites have no idea about the existing gun laws or guns and ammo. It starts with education, not emotional knee-jerk reactions.
Please explain sensible control
I want them to ban military style assault weapons as well. I want them to ban military grade ammunition. I don't think the majority of people are calling for an outright ban to guns. I own a registered gun. I bought it for self protection and I figure that if I can't hit my target with the 7 rounds the clip holds I probably shouldn't have a gun.
what about military style semi automatics like the AK or Bushmaster. Why would someone need either of these weapons.
drano-2462756
"Military style" weapons are already illegal for most people to own. Military uses automatics.
They've had mental health background checks in my state for 30 years. I thought it was a federal law.
And I thought they already had some type of video game age limit. I've been playing violent games for 15 years and don't even own a gun. The NRA is full of sh!t.
drano-2462756
Because someone elses idea of what another person needs isn't sufficient reason to deny someone the right to own it. We don't need most of the items we do own. Does that give me the right to tell someone they don't need and shouldn't own their 60" flat screen?
Jeanne-880695, please explain what sensible gun control you advocate. Connecticut has an in force assault weapon ban. Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a gun in the days before the shooting. He was turned down due to Connecticut's gun control laws. The Norway shooter passed a 9 hour gun course, a written exam and a criminal background check. Please enlighten us.
If there was "sensible" gun control then there would be far fewer mass killings using guns. Too many guns already in existence to ban them. So here's the deal. If a gun is used in the commission of ANY crime, it is confiscated and destroyed. The registered owner, if there is one, faces the same penalty as the criminal plus a five figure fine that increases depending on the severity of the fine. If, as in the case of Newtown, the owner of the gun is deceased, then the fine is paid out of the estate.
I keep hearing about "responsible" gun owners and ownership. OK, the take responsibility for your gun.
We already have bans on military grade weapons and ammo. Next.
Oneiron.....So you are suggesting breaking up families and putting innocent people in prison for years and years because someone robbed their home? Should we do the same thing if someone steals someone car and gets into a wreck with it?
When was the last time anyone saw a 60" flat screen being used as a weapon to (directly) kill anyone? Consider design before making a false equivalency, makes you look less like a fool. Maybe.
BTW, a "clip" in the context of legal guns for non military citizens is what you put in a little girl's hair. A "magazine" is what holds ammunition for those weapons. Military assault weapons are illegal to own in the US by non military citizens. So are automatic weapons. And that is why i don't want people who know nothing about guns legislating my gun ownership rights.
There were/are sensible gun laws. That evil person violated all of them. Do you know what a military style assault weapon looks like? You see a cool stock or pistol grip and you scream ban. The legal AR 15 is far less powerful then many many hunting rifles. It is a degraded version of the lowest end rifle the military has in its arsenal. All other weapons are totally illegal. Those are the type that Obama and Holder sold to Mexican Cartel. They killed thousands of innocent people. Where were you at screaming about that?
Drano,
The fact that you use the term "military grade ammunition" proves that you don't know what you are talking about and I highly doubt you one even one gun.
Do they have some special explosive rifle ammo that I am not aware of that is also being sold to the public? No.
@Dingle
Needing and wanting are two different things. You nor any of the other gun happy morons can articulate a reason why they need a military style weapon or armor piercing ammunition or clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Here's an idea, if you want to freaking play GI Joe, join the service instead of dressing up and acting out your wannabe thoughts....because that is the ONLY reason I can think of why you would want weapons capable of killing so many people with so little effort.
Did I claim that they were equivalent, fool? No the analogy only works as a response to "why do you need it" when used as a reason to ban something.
Yes there is gun control to a point. There are a few MAJOR loopholes in the system like the gun show, or private sales. As far as I am concerned there should only be 1 way.... And that is a licensed dealer like gander mountain or Dicks sporting goods. for the Background check 48 hours, include mental health records and REGISTER EVERY GUN SOLD. The Original buyer is ressponsible!!! No selling it or giving it to you kids. If you wish to get rid of it bring it to the police for destruction or make the stores take them back and destroy them.
anybody who thinks that gun violence won't go down with less guns on the street is crazy. I don't care if there are background checks, lawful purchases etc. Bottom line is if they are out in the public they're going to be stolen, found and perhaps used by criminals.if we cannot ban guns altogether, which we could do by amending the Constitution, then at least ban armor piercing ammunition, high-capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons. The only people that buy that crap anyway are a bunch of small membered morons who sit around compensating for other shortcomings by buying big guns. The average American understands that in a civilized society there is no social benefit to these weapons. The US government isn't kept in check because Billy Bob has an AK-47 in his pickup truck. Remember we have nukes. Second thing we would need to do is make the penalties so severe for an illegal gun possession, say two years in a tent prison like an Arizona, that criminals would be afraid to be caught with a gun. Granted, we have a violent culture in the United States Violent television, violent video games violent sports. A small percentage of people will be motivated by this to engage in violent behavior. This we cannot change. But we can change is how easily they can obtain the tools to commit the act.
DingleB - I need a fully automatic weapon and some RPG's. Should I be allowed to have them? If not why not?
oneiron,Yes I agree that we need harsher laws and sentencing for crimes used in the commission of a crime.But if your weapons are secured and a person sticks a gun to your head in a home invasion robbery,confiscates your valuables and your guns then your type of law would be unjust in those circumstances.Otherwise it sounds good to me.
drano-2462756
The discussion isn't about whether people need them. The discussion is about people like you supporting a ban on them. It is incumbent upon you to make a compelling argument that justifies that. I have yet to hear one.
We often called magazines "clips" and used the term interchangeably for the item that held those little bullet projectile thingies.
mag, magazine, clip...
Bullet, round, ammo, shell...
who cares what YOU call them
Theo-3270314
No, because those weapons are significantly more dangerous in the wrong hands. All legal guns shoot one bullet per trigger pull. Any distinction between various types of semi-automatics is ridiculous.
@John Laz
.223 ball ammunition was designed to tumble when in transit to the target and upon hitting the target the the combination of the tumbling action and the force create forces not found in normal ammunition. In addition to that, .223, think about it, caliber wise is only slightly bigger than a 22, yet the military uses the SPECIFICALLY designed .223 ball ammunition for battle. I'm certainly not an expert on ammunition, but I am not as ignorant as you suggest.
and just where would you find a RPG that is automatic?
drano-2462756
What? Is that an actual question?
They type of firearm, ammunition and magazine capacity do not matter in any shooting. If there are no guns then poeple will use knives, tools, explosives, etc. There will always be a few unstable/ill people that will do awful thing to innocent people. Key words "few". It is the acts of the few that are making it difficult for the majority and make us look like the bad people. People need to do a little research on firearms, how they work and their history. Lastly, please stop calling it a clip. a clip refers to a metal "clip" that was used in the military to load ammunition into a rifle. It is a magazine.
Did we need to make a compelling reason why people shouldn't possess certain deadly chemicals, or nuclear weapons. or hand grenades, or pipe bombs?
drano-2462756
Is that your way of saying you can't make a compelling argument?
Maybe we should outlaw cars while we are at it drain cleaner.
lib's trying to protect themselves from themselves once again.
I don't want my kids to be "imprisoned" in schools. We didn't need cops in schools when I was a kid. You know the difference between then and now....MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS proliferating throughout our society, most coming from gun shows that the NRA has protected for years and large capacity magazines. That's the difference between then and now. The only other thing that has changed is that idiots that are too much of a pussy to actually serve their country (like the motor city motormouth Ted Nugent) and would rather prance around in their cammies and AK or Bushmaster and wax poetic about how their "right" to bear arms.
I am not Arming teachers...That spells a fire fight around my kids. I do not know what the answer is but everybody shooting at everybody is not the answer.
No, that's my way of saying your original question was stupid and pathetic, much like the rest of your argument.
DingleB - So what you're saying then is it's all a matter of degree. You choose to define "significantly more dangerous" one way, others would suggest that a weapon that kills 28 people in a school in a few minutes is pretty dangerous. I own guns and recognize banning all firearms is unrealistic at this point, but we don't "need" assault rifles and huge clips/magazines and if banning them prevents just one of these tragedies it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make as a gun owner.
Which is why all of the children that were attacked by the nut with the knife last week in China survived....right?
Theo-3270314
It is dangerous, but then so are other guns. It makes no more sense to ban a certain type of gun because it was used in a specific crime than it would to ban Nike shoes if the shooter happened to be wearing them during the shooting.
You know what? NO YOU ARE NOT TO GET TO BUY NEW SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS NOR HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS!!!!
Got it? Good!!! Sick to death of this. My husband and I own two handguns and several rifles. He uses the rifles for hunting and the handguns are for personal protection. Do either of us need an assault style weapon? NO and HELL NO!!!! And neither does the public at large, and please don't drag out the "We have to arm ourselves against a Government that is tyrannical", because if they wanted our damn guns, they would come and get them and there wouldn't be a danged thing that you could do about it. So that little phrase of "out of my cold dead hand" would be apropos. Think about what they have and then think about what you have and unless you have a nuclear arsenal then it is NO CONTEST!!
They are not talking about taking your guns, they are talking about a many pronged solution to a many pronged problem. Violence in general, Mental Health issues in particular and the weapons that make killing large groups of people easy in specific. We need to have this discussion and yes we need to have it NOW, because if you look at past events, our attention span really does not have a very good track record.
Theo-3270314
I appreciate that, but there is no evidence to support that it would have any effect at all on gun crime. In fact, history has shown that it won't.
TiredVoter-951582
Ahem, your handguns are more than likely semi-automatics.
Exactly, Drano. This debate is not about guns, not really, it's about the money. Arms sales in the U.S. alone must represent billions of dollars in profit, and I'm sure that the NRA and its cohort are heavily invested in the proliferation of weapons. It doesn't matter what the objection, they will always insist the answer is more guns. Oh, and greed. Don't forget greed.
Just because YOU don't see the point in having them does not mean your viewpoint should apply to ALL.
Keep your opinions to yourself.
My point is this. If someone is concerned about reducing gun violence and believes that gun bans will reduce gun violence, then the logical argument is to ban and confiscate all guns. Anything less is hypocritical and merely gives the illusion that something is being done to reduce gun crime. If that is indeed the intent, then let's be up front about it and debate that. Arbitrarily banning a certain type of gun is illogical.
Yesterday 30 million gun owners DIDN'T shoot anyone. If you give up even one of your rights, you're destined to lose them all.
Theo-3270314,
Sorry if your an ignorant coward, but the rest of us arent. Gun bans have always had the opposite affect of what they were trying to do. If banning guns or any variety ever showed to be positive, more people would be for it. Until then, all you guys have is fear and the exploitation of 20 dead kids. Im sure you feel great about that.
While the shooting of these children was a horrific act by a madman we must not lose sight of other realities in our country. Many many more children are murdered by their own parents in the country than were killed in every one of these school shootings. Let's be reailistic, we will never do away with guns in this country, it's a physical impossibility. Efforts at gun control have failed and will continue to fail because our lawmakers don't have a clue where the problem actually lies. One of those examples is when I attempted to buy a duty weapon at a gun show. I am a police officer and found to my amazement under the Brady Bill I could not by a gun without a three day waiting period even though I had my badge, department ID, and my state commission card simple because the weapon held more than 10 rounds. At the same time the salesman was reading me the law, another was selling a gun and box of ammunition to a Mexican male standing right next to me bearing a state ID and copy of a water bill showing proof of residence for 90 days. The difference, his gun held six rounds not ten. As long as we pass stupid laws we will have stupid results.
I haven't noticed anyone in here blaming the lunatic who shot these children, not his fault HUH, it was the guns fault. Most of these shooters are cowards and want to be remembered or make a name for themselves. I think their names should never be released. Instead assign them a number and the media could only refer to them by number. These idiots names would never be heard by anyone. There goes their method of going down as martyrs
Well, drano you got one thing right-- you're certainly not an expert on ammunition. If a firearm's projectile "tumbled" during its trajectory the chances of it hitting the target would be next to impossible. The .223 caliber(5.56 MM) round tumbles AFTER striking the target creating "hyrostatic" shock. The .22 round does the same thing. What separates the two is the much larger powder charge in the .223. By the way the term "ball" refers to the type of powder used in ammunition. NOW you're less ignorent.
Drano the .223 does not tumble in "transit" to the target. It spins quite nicely and that is why it is so accurate up to 300 meters.
So here is one irresponsible person looking to all are problems. Are a lawyer or one those people looking to get rich by suing someone. I think your a Communist.
And liberals should be sued for entitlements, illegals, etc. You guys pay for that, we'll pay for guns. Sound fair?
drano-2462756
Yeah, I came up with with after reading your moronic reply in post 2.28.
NRA is like the Plague to our Kids, Lock'n Load !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually you are quite wrong. And it is quite accurate beyond 300 meters.
Drano, you must be sampling your own stuff.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT:
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
NRA are Lining their Pockets with blood money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually Steve, the tumbling effect has more to do with the twist rate on the rifling of the barrel. Is it a slow twist rate or high twist rate. My original point, and I clearly stated I wasn't an expert, as a matter of fact we were told this in boot camp in the early 70's. Actually you prove my original point that assault weapons and the ammunition belongs in the hands of the military or law enforcement, not in the hands of the average citizen. Finally, before you call someone ignorant, learn how to spell it. Now I guess you are a little less ignorant.
and so while you are expressing your opinion you tell me to keep mine to myself. You sound just like a Rethuglican.
Why aren't you advocating that we be allowed to have a chain gun then. The way YOU are interpreting these words dictates that if someone has a revolver, then you are entitled to a semi automatic handgun, because after all you have to "defend" yourself. If that isn't what you are saying then all anyone is entitled to is a musket. Idiots like you have taken these words out of context for years to justify your "right" to weapons that were not even conceived when Washington wrote these words.
DAVID GREGORY, Ask this clown Sunday why he made the NRA the victim of this tragedy in the first few minutes of his speech.
Before the speech was finished he outlined how the NRA would make a profit off this tragedy.
The NRA is so used to spewing the same lies over and over to brainwash their membership that they believe their own bs.
NRA = SCUM
drano,
Once again your compelling argument is wrong! Mass killings still make up about the same number of violence each year. In a recent study based on information compiled between 2005 and 2010, it showed no rise in mass killings (defined as 4 or more people being killed) during that period of time. It also showed that "Assault Weapons" were used in less than 1% of those mass killings. Handguns and fire are the most often used weapons in these cases the study showed. We already have all kinds of restrictions on the purchase and sale of handguns, far more so than on assault weapons, yet they make up the a much larger portion of the crime! Ammunition is another area where you are totally misinformed. The 223 caliber used in many of the Bushmaster type rifles is used for varmint hunting and is no different except in size than the more common 30-06 and 308 used for hunting larger animals. Armor piercing and incendiary (tracer) rounds are already banned from sale to the general public and purchase or possession require a federal firearms license which is quite difficult to obtain. So the ammo being used is no different and the guns themselves are no different from a normal semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun. The magazine capacity is larger and could probably be reduced to a limit of 5 rounds like the average hunting rifle, but on my magazine fed Remington I can change magazines fairly quickly so maybe I lose one shot or two a minute. The problem with people like you is that you are seriously uninformed. At last count, there were over 2600 laws on the books concerning firearm ownership, use, and purchase, what will one more law mean to someone who is willing to break the other 2600? If you want something to make a difference than concentrate on the people not the guns. Require mandatory firearms training as a prerequisite for purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, or hunting license. Have the courts follow truth in sentencing laws and make anyone who uses a gun for a crime, violent or not, serve their full sentence. (Using a gun in a crime is supposed to add a number of years on top of the sentence for the original crime, however that is usually overlooked by the courts when sentences are handed down or paroles are granted.) Screen for mental illness and drug abuse (both illegal drugs and prescription drugs). Finally look into your own home at your own children and see what they are watching, ask them how they feel about the violence they see. Talk to them instead of ignoring them or putting them off because your too busy or lazy to raise them. Then let's see how long it takes to curb the violence.
are banning machine guns and other automatic weapons like a gatling gun or electric chain gun illogical?
DingleB - no one has been killed with a Nike shoe - bad analogy.
Mr. Burns - So I'm an "ignorant coward" simply because I disagree with you? How American of you. I'm trying to carry on a civil discussion here of a serious matter. Go stand in a corner until you grow up.
You make an excellent case for society to get over the second amendment and just ban guns outright. I can easily circumvent a good number of these laws simply by going to a gun show. Riddle me this, if you have a 5 round magazine, why on earth do you need a magazine with more capacity? Loughner in Arizona was stopped, but only as he was changing his magazine and it gave bystanders an opportunity to stop him. Here is the thing....I don't disagree with ANYTHING that you've said, but I do disagree with the number of mass shootings that have occurred. Personally I would rather give up my little 9mm S&W and right to own it, than see another 5 year old killed. No sane person can argue that the gun itself killed anyone, that someone had to pull the trigger. But a nuclear bomb in and of itself doesn't kill people either, someone has to push the button, but we'll go to war and kill people to stop others from having it. That is what is so difficult about this argument, the actual cure will probably involve a restriction of the rights we currently enjoy, but if we don't value a child's life more than the right to carry weapons clearly designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible with as little effort as possible, our problems clearly extend beyond the second amendment.
Some of couldn't find a fact in a teacup with a searchlight.
"Everything this guy said is true and every person in the world knows it." This kind of babble would get you an "F" in a day school debate class.
". The fact is everything that kid did that day was against the law and it didnt stop anything, but if those teachers were armed the kid wouldnt have got off his first shot.
And you know this.....how?
Some of us are trying to have an intelligent, adult discussion here. This sort of delirium certainly does bring into focus the mental health issue with respect to reality, honesty, credibility, and diaper rash. If you fantasize something, it simply becomes true? Good grief.
@ drano
you do realize that armor piercing bullets are not sold commercially and are banned from public use right? i really hate that people are screaming out things that are currently illegal. how can we have a decent discussion on what needs to be done, when idiots are not giving out true facts.
@drano
no drano the 5.56 round does not tumble on its way to the target. otherwise it would not keep its accuracy. what does happen you ask? its a light 50-65 grain round moving at a high speed, when it hits its target that is when the so called tumble aspect happens, its actually more of a ricochet effect from bone contact. 20 years, retired military, arms instructer.
drano,
You are confused. Rounds typically don't tumble in flight. It is very counterproductive to accuracy. They can however tumble when they hit a target. I'm sure thats what your DI's told you but 40 year old memories can be foggy at best.
@ steve
ball does not refer to the type of powder, ball refers to the type of bullet used. when you say ball ammo its talking about a copper jacketed bullet of the round nosed variety. by the way this doesn't mean it is an armor penetrating bullet ( those are Teflon coated and are illegal for sale), it just means its not an all lead style projectile. in germany they have lead restrictions on their ammo, ball ammo is the most commonly sold ammo in germany. i know when i was stationed in germany you could not use lead ammo at their shooting ranges, its had to be ball style copper jacketed.
Look up a "Mark 19" automatic grenade launcher. They do exist. Not quite a automatic RPG but close enough.
Anyone here that isn't the result of congress between two first cousins or a brother and sister, please stand up.
Just as I suspected. You two guys in the back of the room can stay. The rest of you go play in the road with your guns.
@Eric 1964
Yes I am aware that that armor piercing ammo is outlawed. My point was that if it were up to the NRA they wouldn't be illegal, after all, they did defend the coated ammo referred to as cop killers.
The round tumbling - I am incorrect about the round tumbling in flight, but it does tumble when it hits a target. Again, the point was that this ammo is designed to kill people and doesn't have a valid use that couldn't be met by different ammo.
The reality is that for whatever reason, there are a number of people who feel that they have to have an assault weapon, and do bother responding with the subterfuge about the definition of an assault rifle being one that is automatic only. When I was in the service I had a selector switch on my m16, it allowed me to switch from auto to semi-auto. It didn't become an assault rifle on when that switch was on auto. As a matter of fact, short of close in combat, semi automatic rifle fire is more accurate when it is fired one shot at a time, which of you geniuses wants to dispute that?
The point I was and am trying to make is that we simply do NOT NEED to have these types of weapons available, not because the weapon it self kills too many people, because the weapon makes it too easy to kill a mass number of people.
After reading the comments supporting the NRA makes me realize there are a lot with mental issues and they shouldn't own a gun, It's no wonder they support the NRA. Those who stated the NRA gives free training on the use of guns. So they want they will train you to kill others in a more safe and efficient manor and not indiscriminate manor. Those who want armed personnel at all schools, that would be putting a bandage on the problem. We need to make our schools safe for our kids and not turn them into a prison with armed guards. We all know one thing will not solve the issue but we have to start somewhere and it's not having every American become an armed vigilante. Get sensible those NRA members and gun owners, instead of coming up with ideas to protect your gun tooting rights, try coming up with ideas to protect our kids that doesn't include more guns.
I misspoke, it tumbles when it hits the target. SAME END RESULT.
eric1964, it is ball powder and stick powder. I use stick powder in reloading, it burns cleaner. You need to learn more.
Despite the ravings of the lunatic anti-gunners, much of what was the NRA said was absolute truth and nothing Obama and his cronies propose is going to change anything but render the law-abiding more helpless against the criminal element.
One point he made regarding blaming the media, music, video games, etc. is probably inaccurate. Consider that tens' if not hundreds of millions of people view violent movies and play violent video games and listen to raw and violent music and do not express tendencies to commit slaughter. There are a very few, and that's all it takes, that are mentally unstable and\or completely unhinged walking around among us like ticking time bombs with no way to predict exactly what might set one of them off.
It could be a particular scene in a movie or something in a violent video game or perhaps some lyrics in a song or a passage in a book, or they could just go off for no discernable reason. The point is that there isn't currently any way to detect such people until afterwards, so placing the blame on various media is as foolish as blaming a particular firearm. Neither will have any effect.
For those foolish enough to think such bans would keep people from acquiring these firearms… how's that war on drugs working out for you?
to drano-2462756
Do your research, mass murders with guns (in general) are down 42%.... highest level of mass murder was in 1929.
fyi... if and when our "hope and change" president (or any other) decides to direct our own military against it's people, i for one want to be able to defend myself with a similar type of weapon that gives me the best chance.... just look into recent history (last 100 years) it has happened... governments have enslaved their people and killed them as well...
by the way, don't expect me to feel sorry for you or go out of my way to help you because you are defense less...
lord help us that that never happens!
i simply choose to be able to have a fighting chance, you will be a sheep to the slaughter...
I have a question. Just supose someone was by the school where this tragity happened last week and just supose this person had one of these evil guns and he shot this freak dead before he could commit all these murders. Would this person be a hero or a criminal? After all he had one of these evil guns in a gun free zone, but he would have just saved the lives of more than 20+ people.
Several places to direct one's attention. Knives... Read about the Osaka School Massacre in JAPAN. 8 children killed, 13 wounded. Knife attack in a school in Nanping CHINA, 8 children killed. Cleaver attack in a school in Hanzhong CHINA, 7 children and 2 adults killed 11 others injured.
Read about Charles Whitman. He used a knife, a shotgun and a 6mm bolt action hunting rifle to do his dirty deeds. 16 people killed.
9/11 hijackers- Boxcutters...
Oklahoma City Bombing- 168 dead including 19 children
Bath Michigan school bombing-38 children dead.
Happy Land arson- 87 people killed.
... just seems to me that when someone wants to visit evil upon others, they will.
Bicker and fight about who is right or wrong. It truly doesn't matter. Taking away weapons will not guarantee safety from harm just as having weapons will not guarantee safety from harm.
@ bipolar
lol trust me its not ball powder, ball ammo refers to the bullet. i do hand loading as well, you might want to stop if you cant tell the difference between bullet types and powder types. now maybe you are talking about the difference between black powder and smokeless powder, those would be the closest to your wording. there are also many different smokeless powder ,some burn faster or slower in the chamber, but there is no ball powder!
since 'sensible' gun laws aren't working (in that more and more people are getting slaughtered everyday. even today in pennsylvania 4 more people were shot dead! and a little kid shot himself in the face, with his dad's pistol. guess it wasn't locked up!; there was a shootout outside of a store where 2 cops were killed; so on and on and on it goes. and this is just since last friday!!!!) but this is ''freedom'' for some people.
since the 'sensible' gun laws just aren't working, we will need to try 'insensible' gun legislation. and keep going until we hit on something that does work. anything! anything at all!! sensible or insensible!!! most of us don't care anymore.we want it to stop.
or are we in a war zone here???? if so then who is the enemy?? our neighbors??? our own family???? come on already.this is nuts. and most of you know it. those who don't are part of the problem.
all of this 'freedom' is a ruse.
we are not a free nation if none of us is brave enough to walk out the door and sit on the front porch for fear of being shot. and killed.
we are not a free nation if our kids go to school and then we have to then pick them up from the coroner's office.
we are not a free nation when a toddler is shot watching tv, in her own house!! a toddler watching tv!!!
so you call this is freedom???? only if you define it as being free to be shot, at anytime of the day or night, in your own house, minding your own business.
as we have 'larger fish to fry', let me get some oil and a much larger pan. it is time to start cooking!!!!
Lets see... one armed cop per school, 98,817 schools, $50,000 per school minimum. That's about $5 billion/yr. Is the NRA going to pay for this?
Knowing this, all the shooter has to do is kill the cop first, then proceed with the planned slaughter. Not a solution.
The NRA will blame anything but their beloved guns.
The second ammendment is the only one with a preface. The militia of the 18th century needed their muskets at hand, they were the military and had to be ready. The ammendment has been perverted by gun manufacturers, the NRA and their activist judges.
Wasn't JFK killed by an outdated assault rifle?
Repeal the second ammendment. Give a reasonable time for Hand guns and Assault weapons to be turned in, say 2 years. All other long barrel weapons must be have a permit. After that, if you have a hand gun you will be shot by police. Law abiding citizens will turn them in. The rest will be criminals.
From you cold dead hands, if necessary.
Why take responsiablity for our own actions when we can just blame guns.
Ed is right appeal the second amendment, and the first so no one can complian.
Appeal the others as well so we can just call them criminals.
All hail the new world order !!!
wet willy, 'how is that war on drugs working out?' well, since you asked: let's see.
you can't grow an assault weapon in your back yard garden, now can you?
no? sorry, but it is a rather silly comparison to make!
mary jane has never killed anyone. so, again, a wrong comparison!! (you want to compare something that kills with something that doesn't?? yes, i know there are other drugs that kill. but you used the word 'drugs'! are they any restricted guns that do not or have killed someone? seems that is why they are restricted---they kill people.)
just because something is difficult, or seems impossible, doesn't mean it can not be worked out. and it does not mean we shouldn't try to find a solution to the issue.
cancer was and/or seemed impossible to defeat earlier in my lifetime. but we are now on the very BRINK of doing just that!!!! of defeating the death sentence that cancer once was, earlier in my life time.
it took 60 years+ and we are now almost there!! was it difficult?--yes! expensive?--of course! frustrating?--naturally! do we have an exact idea of how it will turn out in the end?? ---of course not!!!
but we will not shrink from the task. and we will not be deterred from reaching the goal!!! and certainly not by nay stayers, of which there are many!
perhaps the nra could or even should help to find a solution to this problem. it would be in their best interests to do just that. to hold their breath until they turn blue is just not a stratagy in this day and age.
after the cancer issue is solved, guns are just a walk in the park, really! just a walk in the park.
but what about the constitution that ''guarantees'' the ownership of guns?
well, it can be fixed!! and/or amended!! or just torn up------------------- and re-written!!
as in every 300 years or so, maybe we need to write a NEW constitution!!! it seems reasonable, doesn't it?
if you can, envision the year 3218. are they still working off the constitution, as written, in 1791??? how silly would that be?
almost like if we were using Hammurabi's code, as written, for present day america. would it work? no! would it be useful in helping to write a new constitution? of course!
we can lick cancer and we can lick this addiction to gun violence! even with the idiots in the road blocking the way we can find a good solution to this issue.
the days of assault weapons being in the hands of ordinary citizens are not ones i want to bet my money on.
at some time in the future most people will see the validity in doing away with the idea that ordinary citizens should or can own and use assault weapons in their everyday lives. just like people can't own flame throwers that shoot napalm and abrams tanks that shoot that big gun on top. or be allowed to play with hand grenades in their back yard!
there are always some people who have NO common sense. that is why they are not left to just do as they please. limits can be a good thing, ESPECIALLY if there is a good rational.
and with weapons, less is almost always more.
bummer, i know. but it is for your safety!!
AND OURS!!
life without an assault rife on the coffee is still worth living! i promise!!
@ Michael
I don't expect anything from you or the NRA except the same lame excuses and lunacy we hear from you and your rambo wannabe buddies. I think it is sad that the only time people seem to get over their "second amendment right to own a weapon of mass destruction" is when one of the victims are related to them. I can find dozens of examples of surviving victims and families of mass shootings that have changed their opinion on gun control to wanting to outlaw these senseless weapons, but I don't recall anyone advocating that we arm everyone and declare all places gun friendly zones except the assclowns from the NRA and their members.
Kim:: Re #2.12, you said that Adam Lanza tried to purchase a gun just a few days prior to this. Why would he-- his MOTHER was a gun nut and had guns in the house (bet not under lock and key). I do believe he tried to get ammunition and was turned down.
Obama:: Re #2.85 He might have gotten some but not 20 children and 6 adults. Ever tried chasing down 20 kids running all over the place? The kids could run like hell in 20 different directions. Even out the door of the room.
And the entertainment or video game industry isn't?
Let's see....the NRA advocates safety and education in regards to firearms, the entertainment and video game industries promote violence, sex and gore. But the NRA are the bad guys and your kids will be getting the latest "shooter", "hack-em-up" or "crime pays" games in a couple days and watching movies where all the bad guys are shot up by the good guys. And let's not forget to get them a couple hip-hop CDs with the "N" word thrown in every sentence and how good it is to be a gangsta-pimp.
No hypocrisy there, right? <sarc>
There's "no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines." Regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire without reloading "might be able to take the `mass' out of `mass shooting.'"
I'M a life long shooter, and gun owner. I have read the bizarre uninformed comments of many on this site who know NOTHING about differences between single shot, revolvers, semi auto and full autos, assault or hunting type and the difference if any. I know three people who have died from drunk drivers. ZERO from murder by random/ or mentally ill people. Ive been threatened at gunpoint by three different thugs in my 54 years.all criminals. Do you people think if all law abiding people gave up their guns, that every one of the 300,000,000 weapons in the US would disappear? Get real. We need to keep weapons out of the people hand who are not fit to have them. Enforce the thousands on laws on the books. Put criminals in prison and keep them there,same for the ill, they need more options. Knee-jerk reactions like the last assault weapon ban did not do anything nor would it have this time for the sandyhook victims. I decided to rejoin the NRA after several years time. Now at the rate of 8000 a day, new members. You can thank yourselves for that
You must live in one hell of a rough neighborhood. I'd suggest moving to the other side of the tracks.
I've managed to survie all these years without packing heat, I suspect you could as well.
Smartest post yet!
and it's been proven time and time again that we are unable to go that, this time 5 and 6 year old children proved that. What more proof do you need, one of your own falling victim? If anyone is uneducated about this sir, it is you. I happen to be 56 and an ex-marine. I've owned a gun for the majority of my adult life. Look at what you posted 300,000,000 million guns in this country, more guns than shooting age people, and yet you say gun control isn't the problem and call others uneducated. Get a clue.
We have laws against drunk drivers. We have restrictions on alcohol. We need better restrictions on items designed to kill people. I know it's horrible that you might not be able to get all the toys you want.
I feel like nobody listens. NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY! Just the ones that have no use outside of killing people. Period.
I would think a marine would want the ability to protect the innocent children like that instead of giving criminals the upper hand.
Absolutely, 100 percent agree with you!! Sadly, these people are so far down the intellectual ladder when it comes to common sense that they don't even recognize it when it is staring them in the face.
Interesting you bring up drunk drivers with guns. Since we already have laws that place liability on bars and bartenders for selling drinks to obvious drunks, then we should have similar laws in place for asssult rifles and armor piercing ammo. Those that choose to manufacture and sell these weapons to the public that has no need for them in hunting, sport, target shooting, etc. should be held liable and compensate all victims who are wrongfully hurt by them. I guess a granny who buys a semi automatic rifle for protection will not be liable for protecting herself and property--unless of course she gave the rifle to a grandson who then goes on a rampage.
Shelly...We already have laws controlling ammo and guns.
Ozzie your an idiot. You don't have to live in a bad neighborhood to encounter a problem where you wish you had a gun to defend yourself. I wish we all had your money where we lived in a perfect neighborhood or could move when it became less than desirable.
ozzie. who said i packed heat ,you make the assumption, you also assume i need to move, you know nothing about me or where i live, or what i do . just trying to talk sensibly to all who might want to talk like adults its not about getting smart asss jabs.
This marine thinks that removing the threat rather than mitigating the threat by having a cop in the building is the better way to protect kids.
Why is it that when a drunk gets in his car and plows into a carload of kids no one blames Budweiser? Alcohol is far more destructive to our society than any gun could ever be, yet no one points the blame at the Alcohol companies that are making record profits on other people misery. Meanwhile, any time some nutcase uses a gun everyone in the media immediately begins blaming it on the manufacturers. There is an obvious agenda at work here, and I for one am disgusted to see the way these vultures try to exploit tragedies for their own ends.
@ tim
guy really, armor piercing ammo, tell me what brand ammo is sold to the public that is armor piercing? what is it made from? how is it designed? i will tell you none. let me repeat once again, you cannot buy armor piercing ammo commercially, it is a banned and an illegal round. armor piercing ammo has been illegal to buy for a long time commercially ( since the 70s). please get your facts straight, if you want us to listen to you about why certain guns should be banned.
Do you actually think you can remove ALL firearms from society? If you do, then you are more of a moron than I already think you are. If you think you cant like any sane, rational person would think, then this same thing can and unfortunately will happen agian. By placing a guard or even training teachers in firearm safety and self defense would make criminals think twice if they are going to get shot back at. There are schools in Texas where teachers carry. You dont and wont here of this down there. Laws are for law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow laws, that is why they are criminals dumbass. You cannot remove all firearms from this huge and vast country. That is the bottom line. Find a better way that will actually work.
obogottago - 8K new NRA members a day? Care to guess how many new advocates of controlling assault rifles and high capacity clips/magazines per day? I'm betting 100K's
And Obama didn't go so you might consider changing your outdated moniker. It labels you a loser right from the git go.
If you are stating that you did not have your guns but survived the three armed thug encounters, then you are making the point that the fire arms you have do not actually serve to protect you because in fact, you did not have them. Then why even have them? You survived without them. More likely had you pulled one you'd be dead now.
Guns do not protect people.
ozzie BOY... some of us that have lives actually travel outside of our neighborhood. Funny how narrow minded some people are.
The killer in Connecticut was addicted to video games and killed like it was a video.
there is no evidence of that anywhere....sheesh....peeps in other countries play the SAME video games and yet they aren't shooting up their schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters......
I've watched "the exorcist" about 20 times, and I've never been possessed
Then what possessed you to post such an asinine comparison?
ask your NRA God. If you swallow that all hollywoods fault, you'll swallow anything
The queenie - I agree with you; don't blame violent media but don't blame guns as well. We're not even sure if the CT shooter actually used a semi-auto rifle. If it's proven that a semi-auto rifle is not used will the politicians go after the types of guns that cause the most murders - hand guns? Of course not and I hope not but one thing is for sure, the teacher that died in Sandy Hook, if she had a gun her chance of survival would have gone from Zero chance to a Fighting chance, along with the rest of the kids.
Odd how video games can facilitate murders, yet somehow guns can not.
If these shootings are the fault of video games and not the fault of guns, then why aren't there multiple massacres in countries with strict gun laws and lax video game regulation?
Most people handle violent games, movies and guns just fine, but it only takes a few to be a problem. We can't keep ignoring the obvious motivation behind using a gun just because we like our violent movies and games and don't like guns.
Maybe the Second A gives people the right to shoot guns - but the rest of us (80% of the US population) have the right to be free from gun violence. We have rights, too.
Scary statistic: The USA has 5% of the world's population, but 50% of the world's guns. . . . 50%. of all the guns in the world.
Maybe THAT's why we have so many murders with guns.
Enough is enough.
Insane.
Wizza, do you understand the concept of "motive"? Correlation is not the same as causation.
I've played violent video games for 25 years. I can't tell you how many times I've been in line at a game store and watched parents purchase games for their children without even glancing at the big fat MA (Mature Audiences) on the case. Games have been rated for content since Mortal Kombat first came to the Sega Genesis console in the early 1990's.
When the first XBox came out, you could tell just by the size of the controller who the system was being marketed to. It was parents who complained and Microsoft released the smaller "S" controller.
The versions of the games released in the US have already been toned down. People in other countries play the same games with MORE sex, nudity and violence and still don't go around shooting people.
You must have been one of the pollsters that claimed right up until the end that the data showed that Romney was going to win.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports what you are claiming and therefore are talking out of your ass.
If violent video games, music, and tv are to blame, then so is the media. They glorify every act of destruction and repeat it over and over and over again.
To be honest, I do not see the use of 100 round magazines or clips. I do not see the use to bitch, moan or complain about someone else using the title they are used to. I do see a problem with the fact that so many people on here have gotten up on their soapboxes and started spouting gibberish, demanding things be removed without understanding what their demands are.
Revolver, a single bullet fires when you pull the trigger, a revolver can hold approximately 6 rounds.
Semi-automatic pistol, a single bullet fires when you pull the trigger. This can hold up to 15 rounds.
Semi-automatic rifle, a single bullet fires when you pull the trigger. This can hold any where from 1 bullet to 100 bullets. Depending on the set up.
Bolt-action rifle, a single bullet fires when you pull the trigger. The bullet is manually loaded from the top or from an automatic feed inside the rifle. This can hold from 1 bullet to 100.
Burst Capable weapons, this weapon can be changed from a single round to a three round burst of bullets.
Fully Automatic weapons, illegal, can fire any number of bullets in the clip/magazine as long as the trigger is held.
after i watch the three stooges i make sure i always hit someone over the head with a hammer........da
Guns in schools aren't the problem, not having enough guns in schools is the problem. Go NRA. If every first grader is packin this couldn't happen.
The media is just as much to blame as Hollywood , its a shame that they have no consideration for the families that lost someone in a tragedy.
The NRA Has the most intelligent quote,then the children posting here! Is anyone sick of the bloodthirst in the media and hollywood. We are very close to the gladiatiors,the lions and the public executions.Face it this is a SICK SOCIETY. THE MORE GUNS THE BETTER FROM HERE IN OUT! Go after your sick infactuation with rape and murder on T.V. What a bunch of IDIOTS!
Guys,
The NRA claims to be patriots holding the line against the fascists that would take away your second amendment rights. This speech was something else, blaming others' protected speech in the form of the shows they make, the video games they produce, and the news they report on. They are advocating for the destruction of the first amendment to protect the second amendment. These guys are not patriots. They're the same breed of fascist that would come and take your gun away. Video games don't kill people, people kill people. And here's the thing: you can vote with your wallet. You can make the change.
Stop watching TV that you find offensive. Don't buy video games that you find offensive. And tear up that membership card to the fascist organization called the NRA who would have your voice silenced if they disagreed with it or if it were "politically convenient" to do so. Tell your friends to do the same. You can make a difference. You can change America for the better.
There was an armed guard at Columbine. How did that work out for the kids?
seriously??? I had no idea.....wow!!!
Where did you get that information? It seems odd that Columbine had an armed guard when that was the very first situation on record that would deem something like that necessary.
COMPLETE LIE TUSCARORA! My wife is a graduate, and was there at the time of the shooting. NEVER was there an armed guard. In fact, after each one of these shootings that we have, she always asks the same question: "how different would my senior year have been if there was 1 teacher with a concealed gun?" In fact, she is now a concealed gun carrier of a S&W .38 special. She loves her gun and carries it everywhere. You sir, are part of the problem by spreading blatant lies. I challenge you to state where you got your facts.
That was not the "first situation on record".... The first school shooting on record happened in 1947.
The only armed people at Columbine were the kids. You know what else? They had a couple of shotguns and 9mm's. Gasp! No assault rifles! No extended mags! No body armor! It's liars like you that have blocked any kind of sensible discussion about regulation. Like mandatory registration and background checks for every firearm sold-- including gun shows. No, instead, it's jokers like you that spread lies and polarize the arguments to try to grab at ever further-reaching firearm restrictions-- above and beyond the stuff that actually works.
Take armed guards away from banks, stadiums, lawmakers and the president... see where that takes you... However, we can't used armed guards to protect our children?
banks & stadiums pay for their own security. The police at events are paid for by the additional revenue produced. How are we going to pay for these armed guards in schools. How many will each school need, 1-20?
Meac,
You need to talk with your wide. Or else you are the liar. There are many sources that note Columbine had an armed guard and that he exchanged fire with the two shooters. These are but two of many sources available.
http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/21/Columbine-had-armed-guards/4111356112309/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
They had an armed guard but he was off-campus at the time of the shooting:
"Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner soon would complete his second year as the uniformed community resource officer assigned to Columbine High School. Gardner, a 15-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office, normally ate his lunch with the students in the cafeteria during first lunch period. His car would have been parked in his "normal spot" in front of the cafeteria doors - between the junior and senior parking lots.
On April 20, however, Deputy Gardner and campus supervisor Andy Marton, an unarmed school security officer employed by the school district, were eating lunch in Gardner's patrol car. They were monitoring students in the "Smokers' Pit," a spot just to the northwest of campus in Clement Park where the students congregated to smoke cigarettes."
I would say he didn't do his job. Maybe we should put a Marine there instead. I would bet the result would be different.
The NRA can no longer say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" if they're blaming violence on Hollywood and video games. Because that's saying "Guns don't kill people, Hollywood and video games kill people" which is ridiculous. Hollywood and video games may inspire bloody deeds, but they still have to get the guns to do the killing.
he is a complete tool. and a fool. and he is the face of the nra!!! so i guess it figures. (why are the nra spokesmen always so silly looking???)
as for charleston hoston, is his hand cold enough? and is he dead enough? to take that rifle out of his hand? because i am coming for it. another tool.
but wayne has the bright idea of turning our schools into shooting galleries/ranges. of course, why wouldn't you want your kids to go to an armed camp everyday waiting for the enemy to open fire!!!
sounds like a plan, doesn't it??
we are under attack but from our own citizens!!! and from the nra.
guns don't solve a thing. and assault rifles solve even less it would appear, as per syria, georgia, isreal, iraq, etc. etc.
having state mental health camps where the mentally ill could live apart from the rest of us is certainly an idea that has merit. but more guns and more people with guns is just crazy.
and for police to be in all schools is about as nutty as it can get.
you are going to hire armed people to defend against other armed people. the police are so poorly respected in this country, it just can't get past the smell test. with some of the large schools it could take 4-5 minutes to get to ''the problem'' if/when there is one. with assault rifles, this idea of arm police in schools just doesn't seem to work very well. and after the rent a cop gets shot, what then? we are back to where we are now. armed guards are a false sense of security. or are we hire one gun/cop per classroom? just so assault rifles can be permitted??? we should pay for this nonsense just so wayne can fantasize about his abilities with a gun in hand: thinking he is rambo! indeed!! what a laugh.
let's get rid of the problem and that is these assault rifles, and the coresponding ammo. and lock up the --mentally ill who do not, will not take their meds. they are just to dangerous to have out and about.
---------------------------------------------------------
(and sex criminals, lock them up too. they don't.won't.can't change. and they will be dangerous until the day they die. but that is another kettle of fish to deal with.)
Yeah, and then the crazy kid subdues the teacher and takes her gun and starts shooting. The answer is execute the shooters, without a trial and perhaps some of these crazies will think twice before they kill. I'm glad the punk who murdered these children is dead. It's a shame he didn't kill himself first. And perhaps Daddies can take a lesson of the killer's mom and allow the kid to become a man without teaching him how to kill something to do it. Guns were made for killing...plain and simple! And the NRA has blood of their hands many times over. It's time for Congress to put them in their place and tell them NO MORE!
@ lori
i live in a small town, we have 7 police officers in it. i have noticed most of the time they have 2-3 cars along the speed trap section of the road leading into town. many times they are just hanging out at the police station as well ( easy for me to notice this , since im just a few houses down from the station). so let me ask you this, we have plenty of police in existence already so how hard would it be to just have one of them at each school? with the amount of cops that we currently have employed in the US, on top of the plan to higher more in the future with stimulus money. lets put them at the schools, instead of sitting on their butt at the station or the speed trap, at least at the school they will be making a real difference!
NO EXTRA COST REQUIRED!
I wish the NRA would start a new polticial party
Why? They are already have the idiot repugs in their pockets. Those "public servants" are terrified to go against the gun manufacturers. I would say it was sad if it wasn't so terrifying.
we have given both dems and reps and they have failed us
Your right the NRA has become nothign more than another extremest part of the GOP, like the tea party/KKK and the so called Christian/Taliban. For that reason the republicans will never win another national election unless the democrats screw it up by embracing their extremists, like most of the people on this site. Do you listen to yourselves, the names you call anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep agreement with you. You are no different than the tea party or that christian taliban. You make up "facts" to support what ever you say. One lady said 80% think like she does, no that is not the case it is pretty much 50/50 and nothing is going to change. States are passing and courts are upholding concealed carry laws. There are less restrictiions on guns now than probably in our history. Obama can beat his head against the lwall on this and he will accomplish nothing these next 4 y ears. Clinton brought the democrats in from the wilderness by putting gun control off the table and Rahm Emanuel recruited moderate middle of the road democrats that did not support gun control. It doesn't happen because the people don't want it to happen. Sorry.
How about irresponsible gun owners shouldering about 80% of the blame the Wayne? No? Anybody and everybody and everything except NRA and gun owners. Guns don't even enter into it.
Why is it that when a drunk gets in his car and plows into a carload of kids no one blames Budweiser? Alcohol is far more destructive to our society than any gun could ever be, yet no one points the blame at the Alcohol companies that are making record profits on other people misery. Meanwhile, any time some nutcase uses a gun everyone immediately begins blaming it on the manufacturers.
Well yes the individual chose to become impaired and get behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle. That dangerous vehicle and its owner already have more restrictions than gun owners do. In order to own a car it must be licensed and registered with the state. Also I am required to pass both a written and practical test on the use of the vehicle and the laws surrounding its safety to be a licensed driver. I must also get retested every few years. In my state, I am also required to have insurance to mitigate the cost of damage or death I could cause in an accident. These laws seem sensible. I would ask the same of any gun owner.
Perhaps Anagram but what about people who can't own a gun because of mental ills or violent histories who are allowed to go around in 1+ ton vehicles at insane speeds that aren't even legal on our roads? Why stop at guns?
20 6 and 7 year old children dead in Newton THAT"S WHY!
We have16 year old children kill themselves or others with a car,but no one does anything to stop that ,WHY????
They do things to stop it. Cars are tons safer now than they were 30 years ago. And the number of fatalities from car accidents has been falling ever since.
So what the 'gun enthusiasts' are telling us is really simple: "MY 2nd amendment right to bear arms is SO much more important than the right of the victims (including 20 innocents) to "LIFE, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"!!! Imagine for just a second the terror those poor kids endured in their last minutes, the incredible pain of their parents, and God help heal the trauma of any of the other kids who survived who might have peeked at the carnage as they were being led out of the school (though being told to keep their eyes tightly shut). Justify in your own mind why your gun is just oh so very important. What a SELFISH mindset.
Remember these were very young CHILDREN, teachers and school staff, FAMILIES and FRIENDS, along with the TRAUMATIZED SURVIVORS of ALL the other mass murders in recent years at the hands of semi automatic assault weapons. How incredibly selfish.
Now go explain to the children in your lives why you NEED a weapon that has no real practical use in the real world for hunting or personal defense. So you need to shoot off hundreds of rounds? Really. How about in FINLAND, where people can own these hunks of junk but can only play with them at the shooting range... I'd go for that. Selfish much?
OR... we could just stop the manufacturing and distribution of the AMMO for these weapons except for military uses (NO, cops don't need the ability to shoot off that many rounds at one time!). Win/win.... the gun nuts get to keep their TOYS but we render them useless. Selfish a$$wipes.
YOUR guns do NOT make ME feel SAFE!!! Our family has 3 teachers (hubby's classroom has NO doors, thank you... and my niece teaches at a school for children with behavioral problems and mental issues), my grandson is in 1st grade, I grew up in a rural area and was raised on venison and other game, and I have a sibling with a serious mental disorder. Yeah, this one hits way too close to home. We need serious gun regulation.
My turnWi
"We have16 year old children kill themselves or others with a car, but no one does anything to stop that ,WHY????"
Why you ask? its because you cant put a car in your pocket or under you jacket and kill 26 people inside a school in 3 minutes, that's why, guns are designed to kill, car's are not.
NRA calls for armed guards in every school. OK, who is going to pay for that? How about a nice big fat tax on guns and ammo.
Right after we get a nice fat tax on violent movies and music.
J. Willard Marriott: Good suggestion I am for that. They want armed guards let them pay for it.
How about letting teachers carry weapons.. they are educated and you already trust them with your kids. I am sure there are a few patriots in every school that would volunteer to go to a class. Better yet have them attend police academy during summer break and then we have both a trained teacher and a police officer
They could also work in the summer as a police officer. A few years years back we had a VETS TO TEACHERS program... They are already trained
Why don't you try asking teachers if they want to carry weapons. I don't think they consider that part of their work requirement. I don't think they want to go to work ready for a shootout every day.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is on board with Wayne. "Senator Boxer’s bill – the Save Our Students (SOS) Act – would allow the federal government to reimburse Governors who want to use National Guard troops to help ensure that our nation’s schools are safe."
The NRA said they'd pay for it-- whatever budget is needed. Did you even watch the press conference?
from reuters-sounds to be like he wants the government to pay
@ the real chris
i am currently going to school to be a teacher, under the troops to teacher act. i am a retired veteran, i am willing to carry a weapon again as a teacher if it will keep kids safe. i know of 4 teachers in my home town school that are ex- military and used the troops to teachers program, they are willing to carry a weapon as well. you should go to your school and ask, i bet you would be surprised at how many of the teachers there are ex military. i also dont really see some little teen kid beating us up and taking the gun from us.
I don't know what the proportion of ex-vet teachers to teachers who have never been in the military are, but I have a feeling there are more teachers who haven't then teachers who have.
How about the NRA looking at the real problem: THE NRA!
So the real problem isn't the insane lunatics out on the streets that are killing people????????????
No, it's the people who are arming them.
The real problem is any lunatic being able to arm himself to the teeth. Thanks, NRA!
@TheRealChris
The NRA doesn't arm anyone. The lunatics and street thugs can't buy firearms legally so they get them... wait for it...: illegally. That's why "assault weapon" bans don't work-- even though real assault weapons have been banned since 1986. Now, they want to ban firearms that "look" like assault weapons, even though they are just standard civilian firearms.
It's people like you that misuse one of our constitutional amendments to try to limit another constitutional amendment. And, like most people that do that, you cannot be taken seriously.
You know zero about firearms and thus, you have nothing relevant to offer to this discussion other than your opinion, misguided as it is.
Every single firearm started life LEGAL an irresponsible owner let it fall into the hands of the perpetrator. No guns in the hands of irresponsible owners no illegal firearms.
Why is it that when a drunk gets in his car and plows into a carload of kids no one blames Budweiser? Alcohol is far more destructive to our society than any gun could ever be, yet no one points the blame at the Alcohol companies that are making record profits on other people misery. Meanwhile, any time some nutcase uses a gun everyone immediately begins blaming it on the NRA.
Hilarious. Blaming the NRA for gun violence and thinking their balming media and video games is assinine. O man. These comments are classic reading today.
PS: the NRA isnt the first and wont be the last to envoke music, movies and games. The Clinton Administration had no problem making that comparison after Columbine.
1. You're a rude little prick.
2. The constitution, which you righties like to quote as though you wrote it, says "as part of a well regulated militia."
The founders were talking about muskets that took 30 seconds to reload, not 100-clip assault rifles. And some idiot with a gun isn't "regulated" by anyone. So try understanding the constitution, as well as quoting those parts that you like.
"The founders were talking about muskets..." yet never specified 'fire'arms but they wanted state-of-the -art weapons to be in private hands to supply to a common cause. There was no effort to limit citizens to inferior arms as could have been done.
Try regulated as 'outfitted' and it'll flow better, at least to the point of not having to call somebody a prick for having a different point of view. Then, some of you don't really want discussion.
Fun fact, the constitution says nothing about guns. It says arms. This was written in a time when private citizens had gunships and cannons. Nowadays you can't buy a cannon. Why not? Why are guns allowed and cannons not?!
OMG! Now even the Dems have lost their courage!
The NRA must have some really good dirt on Washington politicians.
Outlaw large capacity magazines. Problem solved.
How to piss off 10s of millions of Americans in one easy lessons!!! Gun regulation does NOT mean gun bans, gun confiscation because THAT is illegal. and the NRA and all of it's synchophants know it! "Gun regulation" is perfectly constitutional!
We've witnessed more right wing propaganda! Good thing fewer people are buying it.
Well said Tom!!
I am a gun owner. I own shotguns, rifles and handguns. According to liberal Feinstein, I would have to get rid of ALL of my handguns because they hold more than 10 rounds in the clip. We are talking 9mm handguns. The same ones police use. I am an avid target shooter and I go to the range at least once a month. I live in great suburb, little to no crime. I own guns because my countries BILL OF RIGHTS says I can ( GOD BLESS AMERICA!) you can't have it both ways, it's either ALL or nothing. Who is Feinstein to say what weapon I can or can't have? Or for that matter who gave her or anyone else the right to decide how many rounds should be allowed?! How can the government take away certain guns from the American people but ALLOW the secret service or the CIA, FBI, DEA have them? Are they better than the rest of us? Is the government going to say those companies NEED them? Why would they need them if NO ONE else has them? Taking away our LEGAL right to bear arms, either in whole or part, is against OUR BILL OF RIGHTS~!. Do better background checks, have better cooperation and communication between states for gun sales and permits. Banning weapons is not the answer.
You mis-understand the bill of rights and you "right" to bear arms. However there are those of us that would prefer to find ways to prevent 20 6 year old children from being slaughtered at the behest of an irresponsible firearm owner. No offense to you or your perceived "right" , but your recreational activities or elimination thereof need to be a part of that discussion.
It is so funny how people in this country love to blame things on inadament objects. Oh I didn't do that, the knife did it. Or the devel made me do it. Or a movie made me kill someone and the video game I played made me do it. We as Americans have to stop blaming others or things for our crimes. The gun didn't kill those kids. A crazed man killed those children and nothing else. You show me a gun that kills someone without someone pulling the trigger or someone droping it or better yet show me a gun that kills with noone around it and then I will blame the gun. But until then you can scream all you want. The real funny thing is that criminals aren't buying guns legally. They get then on the streets and the law isn't going to stop that. What you left wing radicals need to be screaming about is that law enforcement needs to crack down on illegal arms deals not restricting law abiding citizens the right to protect them selves. I wait for the day that one of these left wing radicals gets saved by a CWP carrier and they own their lives to the people that they hate.
The reason for the 2nd amendment is for the people to be able to protect ourselves from the tyranny of big government. That means are rights to firearms are already stepped on because civilians cannot own automatic rifles, calibers over .50, military grade aircraft with armament and missiles, artillery, tanks etc. Therefore, the only way we can protect ourselves is through civilians active in owning the firearms we do have such as semi automatic firearms and being active in politics to stop the legislation on firearms. When our right to bear arms is official taken away the government will have the ability to pass legislation as it pleases, rape us of all of our civil rights and be able to dictate the country however the dictator sees fit. This is what our country is coming to and it is very possible in the future that legislation will be passed to ban firearms. Then it will be just as easy for the government to recall every firearm in civilian possession by serial number and registration. Once the power is taken from the peoples hands then we will live in a controlled socialist state which is goal of the people ruling the world. This issue can be resolved by placing more security in schools by designing future schools with locked doors, security checkpoints and panic rooms, enlisting security forces of the people inside schools, monitoring and diagnosing mental illnesses at a young age and putting a federal licensing procedure in place for the sale of firearms, dealers and owners so mentally ill and criminal people cannot obtain firearms at all. Instead we have a government that exploits such random incidents to impose fear into the people so they feel compelled to give up their rights or the rights of others. The truth is nothing is going to change as a result of this issue other than the limits that will be imposed on the people to be able to buy semi automatic rifles and high volume magazines. Next it will be the ability to own a firearm, then our freedom of speech. Its only a matter of time, years, decades, a century until systematically we will be enslaved by a communist regime. Buy a rifle, ammunition and handguns to protect your family. Teach your children to use and properly fire weapons, the differences between right and wrong and to respect your neighbors so they will teach their children the same. The people that are not armed at the time of our government taking total control over us will be the first victims. If you need references to this read into the history of Russia, Finland, Germany, Vietnam, China etc. because before these countries became socialist, communist regimes their people had their firearms taken away or did not have them at all.
Jason, better add bleach and fertilizer to the list of things that should be banned. These two ingredients are an easy way to make a bomb that can do significantly more damage than any 10 clip automatic weapon. Prepare yourself for brown lawns and dingy whites thereafter.
Im totally with you, people with mental illness or illegal actions on their brain will commit the crime no matter the weapon. No gun, how about a car or knife? No knife, how about a homemade bomb packed with screws and nails? Are we gonna start banning building supplies if some crazy sets off a bomb in a crowded mall?