Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Moderator]

I'm trying to figure out the logistics of that. The government doesn't know that I own even a single gun. My dad's .357 that he used when he was a cop was left to my mom, but she was afraid of it, so now I have it. I have no intention of telling the government otherwise, simply because it's not their business. In general, I avoid being on the government's lists.

I imagine that's a sentiment shared by millions of others, so--since most gun owners have more than one firearm--that's millions of gun owners and many millions of guns that won't show up on the registry.

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

[Sepia and Dust]

Cutting down on the number of guns doesn't stop violence, but it does reduce the number of murders, simply because guns are more lethal than other weapons.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. IIRC (and I may not), gunshots are one of the most survivable serious injuries, while stabbings and even car wrecks are more often fatal. Guns give a greater range, which offers a larger number of targets, though; there's no denying that.

[Todash]

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

Here is something that I don't understand: why is the idea of a vague, shadowy government offensive that doesn't seem to be impending somehow more frightening than the actual status of the US right now as the killingest rich country in the world?

[Lily Sawyer]

SDK, I'm referencing your very first post on this website.

What I find most perplexing is how you can write about this tragedy when we dont even know what really happened. The media bungled this story so badly that they have no credibilty.

How did the media bungle the story, and what is it that happened that we don't know about, and with what, and by whom, and how, at Sandy Hook Elementary?

Would we be having these discussions over "assault rifles" if a 9mm glock was used?

Yes, especially in light of today's shootings in Chicago and Phoenix, on the very same day that Gabrielle Giffords and Wayne LaPierre both testified on the Hill about restrictions on guns in the U.S. I am certain I'm not alone when I say the irony of today's events is not lost on me.

And those of us who want our media to do their job are marginalized as "conpsiracy theorists" or worse----for asking simple questions..Unbelievable.

Has it occurred to you that with the spate of law enforcement officials, parents of victims, survivors of the attack, and educated journalists working for credible and legitimate news agencies all reporting that no one other than Adam Lanza acted, that they are reporting the truth? When you publicly question what happened after hearing all these reports that all say the same thing, independent of each other, then you question the integrity and honesty of people who worked hard to fit the puzzle pieces together....and you disrespect the victims' family members, coroners, survivors, police officers, mayors, morgue and hospital employees who witnessed the results of the shootings, journalists, sheriffs, firefighters, and emergency responder crews.

No wonder you're marginalized as a conspiracy theorist. You sound like you have one foot inside the mental ward door.

In addition, i find it disingenuous and very hypocritical to express ouotrage over "assault rifles" while we have a Presidetn who drops drone bombs on innocent women and chidlren at will!

Drones, B-25s, B-52s, missile launchers, it doesn't matter - they're all the same: mediums through which we deliver a devastating attack on humanity. President Obama is not the first POTUS to drop bombs on another country. Please stop posturing as if it was somehow less of an ethical issue when atom bombs were dropped on Japan during WWII than it is now. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. Might I also remind you that Congress green-lit this war in which the current administration drops bombs. The A(uthorized)U(se) of M(ilitary)F(orce) came with blessings from all political parties and the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, so don't act like it didn't. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups, and was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Question for *you*: how does the use of American drones relate to Mr. King's essay? Because you think it's hypocritical for Mr. King to want NRA members to be "cleaners" at gun crime sites, if only for a few hours, to drive home the point of how gory and awful gun killings are? I'm bringing you back to the topic, so please don't stray again. It's political, but it's not about bombs or whose bomb is the very worst or a war overseas.

Or how about the myriad other blatant lies and even more blatant hypocrisy from this administration? Ndaa? fast and furious? Wiretapping? Brad Manning? transparency? Whistelbowers (just prosecuted another! after singing their praises four years ago, disgusting) it goes on and on with Obama.

With this you're off topic once again. You're not really upset about Mr. King's opinion regarding gun control and a corresponding responsible and open dialogue; you're upset because Obama was elected twice to the Presidency and you don't like him. You're entitled to your opinion regarding President Obama but it's inappropriate in *this* thread to air it. Please opine about Mr. Obama and his administration in threads designated for such perspectives.

I simply cant agree Stephen. And, whats more, youve lost a reader.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am sorry that you're choosing to henceforth no longer seek out an author who tells outstanding stories.

mainstream media

Please define "mainstream media". Is it Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Conspiracy Theory News of the Western Hemisphere? Local programming streamed from someone's compound in rural Idaho? And how does it relate to Mr. King's take on all this? He owns a radio station, has mentioned watching national news coverage on several different channels throughout his entire professional career, and reads a metric ton of both literary and journalism material a week. I therefore suspect his news sources have been impeccable in both scope and integrity.

One last bit: lively debate is encouraged and welcomed here, but your argument(s) lack both corroboration and legitimate source references. I'm not encouraging you to post bibliographically. I'm merely pointing out that without said references, you would appear to be a fast-sinking ship in credibility.

[Sepia and Dust]

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

Personally, it's for much the same reason that I don't want the companies I do business with selling my information to third parties. More precisely, the government is a gigantic bureaucracy--the system is ineffecient, insecure, and may be changed by fiat of some unelected director's whim.

I do not want them making up a new tax for me. I do not want them checking up on me. I do not want them misplacing, selling, or sharing my private information. I do not want them meddling.

[swampdonkeykid]

SNRT!
Yeah, yeah I just bet you do...hey Homeskillet, if ya unplug all of your electronic devices, I understand they stop talking to you, can't help ya with the house plants though, sorry, but your on your own with those smack talkin' jabbermouths...ya know, I think must be 'cause they're always in the pot is why they're so yacky, butt then that's just my theory, you of course have a full blown world wide house plant conspiracy, and just how drool is that?!

-----------

thoughtful and informed answer. Thanks. Anything to ignore the elephant in the room. Big pharma.

[Sepia and Dust]

Here is something that I don't understand: why is the idea of a vague, shadowy government offensive that doesn't seem to be impending somehow more frightening than the actual status of the US right now as the killingest rich country in the world?

You're not putting the paranoid conspiracy-theorist nutjob lable on me, by any chance, are you?

[Todash]

You're not putting the paranoid conspiracy-theorist nutjob lable on me, by any chance, are you?

I absolutely am not. Was not thinking of you, in particular, at all. Pinky swear.

[hossenpepper]

....could somebody please open a window?...the reek of stale rhetoric is overpowering....and I look to the swamp as I ask that...methinks I've had enough of the histrionics and hissy fits...the rest of ya have made reasoned and sound debate and opinion slinging very enjoyable...I'm proud of this family, and I mean family in the sense of those who have been here for the long haul...not those that have decided to only be "Johnny Come Lately's" and deride and dissemble...

What about us asshats who do this and HAVE been here for awhile? Please hate me for my looks Giant...

[Moderator]

Personally, it's for much the same reason that I don't want the companies I do business with selling my information to third parties. More precisely, the government is a gigantic bureaucracy--the system is ineffecient, insecure, and may be changed by fiat of some unelected director's whim.

I do not want them making up a new tax for me. I do not want them checking up on me. I do not want them misplacing, selling, or sharing my private information. I do not want them meddling.

I don't agree with it, but I can understand that. Not having a registry is one of the things that hampers the ability of law enforcement to do what it needs to do when they don't have resources available to them. People are asking for gun laws to be better enforced but don't want to give them the tools to do it. Sort of the not in my backyard kind of thinking is how it comes across to me.